Volume 1

MacKay River Commercial Project
· Overview · Public Consultation

· Application for Approval · Conservation and Reclamation Plan
1
· Geology and Reservoir · Enviromental Impact Assessment
You Are · Well Descriptions Summary
Here · Facilities Description · References/Literature Cited
Volume · Enviromental Management and
Controls
· Introduction and Assessment Methodology

· Air
2
· Noise
· Health
Volume
· Hydrogeology
· Hydrology
3
· Surface Water Quality
· Aquatic Ecology
Volume
· Terrain and Soils

· Vegetation
4
· Wildlife
· Biodiversity and Fragmentation
Volume
· Land Use
· Socio-Economic Impact Assessment
5
· Historical Resources
· Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Use
Volume
Submitted by: Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

Submitted to: AENV and ERCB December 2009
December 10, 2009
Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board

640 – 5 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3G4
Attention: Mr. Ken Schuldhaus

Section Leader, In Situ Oil Sands Resource
Applications
Alberta Environment Alberta Environment

Northeast Boreal Region Northeast Boreal Region
Environmental Service Environmental Service
111, 4999 – 98 Avenue 111, 4999 – 98 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3
Attention: Mr. Pat Marriott Attention: Mr. Chris Powter

Acting Regional Approvals Manager Team Leader, Environmental
Assessment
Dear Sirs:
Re: Application for Approval of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. MacKay River
Commercial Project
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) is seeking scheme approval to development a bitumen recovery
project identified as the MacKay River Commercial Project (the Project or MRCP), located
approximately 30 km northwest of Fort McMurray in northeast Alberta. The Project will use steam
assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology and will be constructed in phases to reach an
ultimate design capacity of approximately 23,847 m3/d (approximately 150,000 barrels per day
(bpd)) of bitumen production.
AOSC is seeking approval from:
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for:
• scheme approval to construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen
recovery scheme with a first phase of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd), under Section 10 of
the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA); and
Alberta Environment (AENV) to:
• construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen recovery scheme,
under Division 2 of Part 2 and Section 66 of the Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act (EPEA);
• reclaim the Project, under Division 2 of Part 2 and Part 6 of the EPEA;
• divert groundwater from non-saline water aquifers for oil field injection purposes
under Section 50(1) of the Water Act;
• divert runoff surface water and a portion of a minor watercourse under
Section 50(1) of the Water Act.
In support of these approval requests, Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. submits the attached document
titled Application for Approval of the MacKay River Commercial Project. Please contact the
undersigned at (403) 532-7718 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
Jerry Demchuk
Manager, Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
Attachment: Application for Approval of the MacKay River Commercial Project
th
Suite 2000, 250-6 Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H7 Phone: 403.237.8227 Fax: 403.264.4640 Email: info@aosc.com
_________________
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF
THE MACKAY RIVER COMMERCIAL
PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO:
ALBERTA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD
AND
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT
SUBMITTED BY
ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.
December 2009

MacKay River Commercial Project i Project Application
December 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP. .............................................................................1-1
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW...............................................................................................1-2
1.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE ..............................................................................................1-7
1.4 PROJECT DESIGN ....................................................................................................1-9
1.4.1 Geology and Reservoir.................................................................................1-9
1.4.2 Surface Facilities ..........................................................................................1-9
1.5 REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION......................................1-10
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................1-11
1.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................1-11
1.7.1 Technology Alternatives .............................................................................1-11
2 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL ........................................................................................2-1

2.1 EXISTING APPROVALS ............................................................................................2-1
2.2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL .....................................................................................2-1
2.3 ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS .................................................................................2-2
2.4 GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION .................................................................................2-2
3 GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR ............................................................................................3-1

3.1 LEASE AREA .............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 GEOLOGICAL DATA AND CONTROL ......................................................................3-5
3.2.1 Winter Delineation Drilling and Seismic Program.........................................3-5
3.3 METHODS AND ANALYSIS.......................................................................................3-9
3.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................3-9
3.4.1 Devonian Strata..........................................................................................3-10
3.4.2 Cretaceous Strata.......................................................................................3-11
3.4.3 Quaternary Sediments................................................................................3-13
3.5 SEISMIC CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................................3-36
3.5.1 Regional Data Acquisition History ..............................................................3-36
3.5.2 Acquisition, Processing and Mapping.........................................................3-36
3.5.3 Future Work................................................................................................3-37
3.6 RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................3-42
3.7 RESERVOIR PARAMETERS...................................................................................3-44
3.8 BITUMEN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT .......................................................3-55
3.9 CAPROCK ................................................................................................................3-71
3.9.1 Caprock Geology........................................................................................3-71
3.9.2 Caprock Integrity ........................................................................................3-71
3.10 RESERVOIR RECOVERY PROCESS.....................................................................3-76
3.10.1 Recovery Process Selection.......................................................................3-76
3.10.2 Recovery Process Description ...................................................................3-76
3.11 RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................3-81
3.11.1 Phase 1 Initial Development Area ..............................................................3-81
3.11.2 Full Development........................................................................................3-82
3.12 PRODUCTION FORECASTS...................................................................................3-90
3.12.1 Simulation Model ........................................................................................3-90
3.12.2 SAGD Forecasts.........................................................................................3-90

MacKay River Commercial Project ii Project Application
December 2009
3.13 RESERVOIR MONITORING ....................................................................................3-96

3.14 POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................3-96
3.14.1 Non-Condensable Gas Injection.................................................................3-96
3.14.2 Lateral Drainage Well .................................................................................3-97
3.14.3 Well Completions........................................................................................3-97
3.14.4 Other Future Improvements .......................................................................3-97
4 WELL DESCRIPTIONS .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1 SAGD WELL PAD LAYOUT AND DESIGN................................................................4-1
4.2 SAGD WELL PAIR DRILLING AND COMPLETIONS ................................................4-1
4.2.1 Drilling...........................................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Completions..................................................................................................4-2
4.3 OBSERVATION WELLS.............................................................................................4-4
4.4 WATER SOURCE AND DISPOSAL WELLS..............................................................4-7
4.5 SAGD WELLHEADS ................................................................................................4-10
4.6 CASING FAILURE MONITORING PROGRAM........................................................4-13
5 FACILITIES DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................5-1

5.1 MACKAY RIVER CENTRAL PLANT (MCP)...............................................................5-1
5.1.1 Water Treatment...........................................................................................5-2
5.1.2 Steam Generation ........................................................................................5-3
5.1.3 Bitumen Treatment .......................................................................................5-3
5.1.4 Produced Water De-Oiling............................................................................5-4
5.1.5 Produced Gas Recovery and Fuel Supply ...................................................5-4
5.1.6 Tankage........................................................................................................5-5
5.1.7 Flare System ................................................................................................5-6
5.1.8 Utilities ..........................................................................................................5-7
5.1.9 Chemical Consumption ................................................................................5-7
5.1.10 Material and Energy Balance .......................................................................5-8
5.2 MACKAY RIVER NORTH PLANT (MNP).................................................................5-21
5.2.1 MNP Tankage.............................................................................................5-21
5.3 FIELD FACILITIES ...................................................................................................5-24
5.3.1 SAGD Well Pads ........................................................................................5-24
5.3.2 Source and Disposal Wells.........................................................................5-24
5.3.3 Salt Cavern Well.........................................................................................5-24
5.3.4 MRCP Camp ..............................................................................................5-25
5.3.5 Drilling Sumps and Camps .........................................................................5-25
5.3.6 Borrow Areas..............................................................................................5-25
5.3.7 Access Roads, Pipelines, and Utility Corridors ..........................................5-26
5.4 PROJECT WATER REQUIREMENTS .....................................................................5-34
5.4.1 Introduction and Water Use........................................................................5-34
5.4.2 Project Water Source and Disposal Options ..............................................5-34
5.4.3 Water Supply Forecasts .............................................................................5-36
5.4.4 Non-Saline Water Use Limit Relaxation .....................................................5-39
5.4.5 Wastewater Disposal..................................................................................5-41
5.5 PRODUCTION ACCOUNTING AND MEASUREMENT...........................................5-50
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS......................................................6-1

6.1 EMERGENCY PLANNING .........................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 Facility Emergency Response Plan..............................................................6-1
6.1.2 Fire Management and Control......................................................................6-2

MacKay River Commercial Project iii Project Application
December 2009
6.2 WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................6-3

6.2.1 Surface Water...............................................................................................6-3
6.2.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................6-4
6.3 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................6-4
6.3.1 Sulphur Management ...................................................................................6-4
6.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management...................................................6-6
6.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................6-7
6.4.1 Waste Management Objectives....................................................................6-8
6.4.2 Drilling Waste ...............................................................................................6-9
6.4.3 Construction Waste ....................................................................................6-10
6.4.4 Operations Waste.......................................................................................6-10
6.4.5 Waste Summary .........................................................................................6-10
6.5 TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................6-13
6.5.1 Access Management ..................................................................................6-14
6.6 CLIMATE CHANGE..................................................................................................6-14
6.6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................6-14
6.6.2 Background ................................................................................................6-14
6.6.3 Analysis ......................................................................................................6-15
6.6.4 Summary ....................................................................................................6-17
7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................7-1

7.1 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT APPROACH ...............................................7-1
7.2 PLAN COMPONENTS................................................................................................7-1
7.3 REGULATORY EXPECTATIONS ..............................................................................7-2
7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY AND INTERESTED GROUPS .........................7-2
7.4.1 Consultation and Engagement Information Tracking ...................................7-3
7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS .........................7-3
7.5.1 Commitments ...............................................................................................7-3
7.5.2 Key Concerns ...............................................................................................7-4
7.6 CONSULTATION METHODS.....................................................................................7-5
7.7 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES................................................7-5
7.7.1 Other Consultation and Engagement Activities ............................................7-8
7.8 ISSUES AND MITIGATION ........................................................................................7-8
7.8.1 Socio-Economic Issues and Concerns.........................................................7-8
7.8.2 Environmental Issues and Concerns............................................................7-9
7.8.3 Mitigation Summary....................................................................................7-10
7.9 REGULATORS .........................................................................................................7-12
7.10 FUTURE CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT...................................................7-13
8 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN ..................................................................8-1

8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................8-1
8.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW...............................................................................................8-1
8.2.1 Facilities and Project Area (Footprint) ..........................................................8-1
8.2.2 Development and Reclamation ....................................................................8-3
8.3 RECLAMATION PLANNING CONCEPTS .................................................................8-5
8.3.1 General Conservation and Reclamation Plan Objectives.............................8-5
8.3.2 Reclamation Guidelines................................................................................8-6
8.3.3 Regional Initiatives .......................................................................................8-7
8.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................8-7
8.4.1 Biophysical Setting .......................................................................................8-7
8.4.2 Terrain and Soils ..........................................................................................8-8

MacKay River Commercial Project iv Project Application
December 2009
8.4.3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................8-11

8.4.4 Baseline Land Capability ............................................................................8-11
8.5 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN .......................................................8-13
8.5.1 Reclamation, Closure and End Land Use Objectives.................................8-13
8.5.2 Facility Siting ..............................................................................................8-14
8.5.3 Timber Salvage and Vegetation Clearing...................................................8-15
8.5.4 Facility Construction and Soil Handling ......................................................8-16
8.5.5 Surface Water Management.......................................................................8-22
8.5.6 Weed Management ....................................................................................8-23
8.5.7 Wildlife and Biodiversity..............................................................................8-24
8.5.8 Erosion Mitigation .......................................................................................8-25
8.5.9 Final Decommissioning ..............................................................................8-26
8.5.10 Final Reclamation.......................................................................................8-26
8.5.11 Revegetation ..............................................................................................8-29
8.5.12 Closure Scenario ........................................................................................8-31
8.5.13 Reclamation Monitoring..............................................................................8-33
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY...................................................9-1

9.1 OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................9-1
9.2 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................9-2
9.3 NOISE.........................................................................................................................9-2
9.4 HUMAN HEALTH .......................................................................................................9-3
9.5 HYDROGEOLOGY.....................................................................................................9-3
9.6 HYDROLOGY.............................................................................................................9-4
9.7 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................9-4
9.8 AQUATIC ECOLOGY .................................................................................................9-4
9.9 TERRAIN AND SOILS................................................................................................9-5
9.10 VEGETATION.............................................................................................................9-5
9.11 WILDLIFE ...................................................................................................................9-5
9.12 BIODIVERSITY AND FRAGMENTATION..................................................................9-6
9.13 LAND USE..................................................................................................................9-7
9.14 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...........................................................9-7
9.15 HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................9-8
9.16 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) AND TRADITIONAL USE
(TU).............................................................................................................................9-8
10 REFERENCES/LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................10-1

MacKay River Commercial Project v Project Application
December 2009
FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1 Project Location...................................................................................................1-4
Figure 1.2-2 Project Footprint ..................................................................................................1-5
Figure 1.2-3 Project Footprint - Satellite Image .......................................................................1-6
Figure 3.1-1 AOSC MacKay River Lease ................................................................................3-2
Figure 3.1-2 Geological Study Area .........................................................................................3-3
Figure 3.1-3 Oil Sands Lease Agreements in the GSA ...........................................................3-4
Figure 3.2-1 AOSC 2007-2008 Drilled Wells and Specialty Logs ............................................3-7
Figure 3.2-2 AOSC 2008-2009 Drilled Wells and Specialty Logs ............................................3-8
Figure 3.4-1 Stratigraphy Chart Precambrian to Clearwater..................................................3-14
Figure 3.4-2 Specific Cretaceous Stratigraphy ......................................................................3-15
Figure 3.4-3 Palaeozoic Top Structure ..................................................................................3-16
Figure 3.4-4 Mannville Group Isopach...................................................................................3-17
Figure 3.4-5 Type Well...........................................................................................................3-18
Figure 3.4-6 Mannville Group Top Structure..........................................................................3-19
Figure 3.4-7 McMurray Formation Isopach............................................................................3-20
Figure 3.4-8 McMurray Formation Top Structure...................................................................3-21
Figure 3.4-9 Middle McMurray Formation Isopach ................................................................3-22
Figure 3.4-10 Middle McMurray Formation Structure ..............................................................3-23
Figure 3.4-11 Upper McMurray Formation Isopach .................................................................3-24
Figure 3.4-12 Upper McMurray Formation Sand Isopach........................................................3-25
Figure 3.4-13 Clearwater Formation Top Structure .................................................................3-26
Figure 3.4-14 Clearwater Isopach............................................................................................3-27
Figure 3.4-15 Wabiskaw Member Top Structure .....................................................................3-28
Figure 3.4-16 Wabiskaw Member Isopach ..............................................................................3-29
Figure 3.4-17 Wabiskaw Member Shale Isopach ....................................................................3-30
Figure 3.4-18 Wabiskaw Member Sand Isopach .....................................................................3-31
Figure 3.4-19 Clearwater Formation Excluding Wabiskaw Member Isopach ..........................3-32
Figure 3.4-20 Grand Rapids Formation Isopach......................................................................3-33
Figure 3.4-21 Grand Rapids 5 Package Isopach .....................................................................3-34
Figure 3.4-22 Grand Rapids 4 Package Isopach .....................................................................3-35
Figure 3.5-1 Devonian Time Structure ...................................................................................3-38
Figure 3.5-2 Seismic Cross-Section A-A'...............................................................................3-39
Figure 3.5-3 Geological Cross-Section A-A' ..........................................................................3-40
Figure 3.5-4 Seismic Cross-Section B-B'...............................................................................3-41
Figure 3.7-1 Comparison of Core Analysis to Interpreted Log Data ......................................3-46
Figure 3.7-2 Net Pay Isopach ................................................................................................3-47
Figure 3.7-3 Regional Cross-Section C-C'.............................................................................3-48
Figure 3.7-4 Regional Cross-Section D-D’.............................................................................3-49
Figure 3.7-5 Regional Cross-Section E-E’ .............................................................................3-50
Figure 3.7-6 Regional Cross-Section F-F’ .............................................................................3-51
Figure 3.7-7 Top of Pay Structure..........................................................................................3-52
Figure 3.7-8 Base of Pay Structure........................................................................................3-53
Figure 3.7-9 Top of Pay Measured Depth..............................................................................3-54
Figure 3.8-1 Initial Drainage Patterns and Well Pair Placement ............................................3-57
Figure 3.8-2 Structural Cross-Section AA1-AA1' ...................................................................3-58
Figure 3.8-3 Structural Cross-Section AA2-AA2’ ...................................................................3-59
Figure 3.8-4 Structural Cross-Section AB-AB’ .......................................................................3-60
Figure 3.8-5 Structural Cross-Section AC-AC’.......................................................................3-61

MacKay River Commercial Project vi Project Application
December 2009
Figure 3.8-6 Structural Cross-Section AD-AD’ .......................................................................3-62

Figure 3.8-7 Structural Cross-Section AE-AE’ .......................................................................3-63
Figure 3.8-8 Structural Cross-Section AF-AF’ .......................................................................3-64
Figure 3.8-9 Structural Cross-Section AG-AG’ ......................................................................3-65
Figure 3.8-10 Structural Cross-Section AH-AH’.......................................................................3-66
Figure 3.8-11 Structural Cross-Section AI-AI’ ..........................................................................3-67
Figure 3.8-12 Structural Cross-Section AJ-AJ’ ........................................................................3-68
Figure 3.8-13 Initial and Sustaining Drainage Patterns ...........................................................3-69
Figure 3.8-14 Full Development Net Pay Map .........................................................................3-70
Figure 3.9-1 Clearwater Total Caprock Isopach ....................................................................3-73
Figure 3.9-2 Clearwater Argillaceous Caprock Isopach.........................................................3-74
Figure 3.9-3 MacKay River Caprock Characterization...........................................................3-75
Figure 3.10-1 SAGD Process Schematic.................................................................................3-78
Figure 3.10-2 Wellbore Schematic for Circulation Mode .........................................................3-79
Figure 3.10-3 Wellbore Schematic for SAGD Mode ................................................................3-80
Figure 3.11-1 Initial Well Pairs and Patterns (Relative to Pay Thickness) ...............................3-83
Figure 3.11-2 Six Well Pair Pad...............................................................................................3-84
Figure 3.11-3 Pad Azimuth Shifts (Relative to Pay Thickness)................................................3-85
Figure 3.11-4 Pad Azimuth Shifts (Relative to Base of Pay)....................................................3-86
Figure 3.11-5 Well Pair Offset Distances .................................................................................3-87
Figure 3.11-6 Infill Wells (Relative to Pay Thickness)..............................................................3-88
Figure 3.11-7 Conceptual Well Layout for Full Development...................................................3-89
Figure 3.12-1 Single SAGD Well Pair Forecast .......................................................................3-93
Figure 3.12-2 Phase 1 Production Profile ................................................................................3-94
Figure 3.12-3 Full Development Scheme Production Profile ...................................................3-95
Figure 4.2-1 Typical SAGD Well Pair Schematic .....................................................................4-3
Figure 4.3-1 Typical Cased Observation Well Schematic........................................................4-5
Figure 4.3-2 Typical Cemented in Place Observation Well Schematic....................................4-6
Figure 4.4-1 Typical Quaternary Water Source Well Schematic..............................................4-8
Figure 4.4-2 Typical Water Disposal Well Schematic ..............................................................4-9
Figure 4.5-1 Typical Injection Wellhead Schematic ...............................................................4-11
Figure 4.5-2 Typical Production Wellhead Schematic ...........................................................4-12
Figure 5.1-1 Phase 1 MCP Plot Plan .....................................................................................5-10
Figure 5.1-2 Full Development MCP Plot Plan ......................................................................5-11
Figure 5.1-3 General Block Flow Diagram .............................................................................5-12
Figure 5.1-4 Water Treatment................................................................................................5-13
Figure 5.1-5 Steam Generation .............................................................................................5-14
Figure 5.1-6 Bitumen Treatment ............................................................................................5-15
Figure 5.1-7 De- Oiling...........................................................................................................5-16
Figure 5.1-8 Produced Gas Recovery ...................................................................................5-17
Figure 5.1-9 Vapour Recovery Unit and Fuel Gas System ....................................................5-18
Figure 5.1-10 Phase 1 Material Balance..................................................................................5-19
Figure 5.1-11 Full Scheme Development Material Balance.....................................................5-20
Figure 5.2-1 MNP Plot Plan ...................................................................................................5-22
Figure 5.2-2 MNP Integration Block Flow Diagram................................................................5-23
Figure 5.3-1 SAGD Well Pad Schematic ...............................................................................5-28
Figure 5.3-2 Typical SAGD Well Pad Plot Plan .....................................................................5-29
Figure 5.3-3 Typical Above Ground Pipeline ROW Cross-Section ........................................5-30
Figure 5.3-4 Typical Buried Pipeline ROW Cross-Section – Source Water and Salt
Cavern Wells .....................................................................................................5-31

MacKay River Commercial Project vii Project Application
December 2009
Figure 5.3-5 Typical Buried Pipeline ROW Cross-Section – Disposal Wells .........................5-32
Figure 5.3-6 MNP Access and Utility Corridor ROW Cross-Section ......................................5-33
Figure 5.4-1 Hydrogeology Exploration .................................................................................5-43
Figure 5.4-2 Phase 1 Water Profile........................................................................................5-44
Figure 5.4-3 Full Development Water Profile .........................................................................5-45
Figure 5.4-4 Prairie Evaporite Isopach ..................................................................................5-46
Figure 5.4-5 Devonian Top to Keg River Isopach ..................................................................5-47
Figure 5.4-6 Devonian Structure............................................................................................5-48
Figure 5.4-7 Salt Dissolution Area .........................................................................................5-49
Figure 5.5-1 Conceptual Metering Schematic........................................................................5-51
Figure 8.2-1 Footprint and Terrestrial Local Study Area ..........................................................8-4
Figure 8.4-1 Baseline Land Capability for Forest Ecosystems – Terrestrial Local Study
Area ...................................................................................................................8-12
Figure 8.5-1 Plan View of Typical SAGD well pad .................................................................8-35
Figure 8.5-2 Conceptual Access, Pipeline and Powerline Common ROW on Upland...........8-36
Figure 8.5-3 Conceptual Construction & Reclamation of Well Pad on Peatland ...................8-37
Figure 8.5-4 Post-Reclamation Ecological Land Classification – Terrestrial Local Study
Area ...................................................................................................................8-38
Figure 8.5-5 Post Reclamation Land Capability for Forest Ecosystems – Terrestrial
Local Study Area ...............................................................................................8-39
TABLES
Table 1.3-1 Proposed Project Schedule .................................................................................1-8
Table 1.4-1 Full Development Production and Process Rates .............................................1-10
Table 3.1-1 Oil Sands Lease Agreements Within the GSA ....................................................3-1
Table 3.5-1 3D Seismic Acquisition Parameters ..................................................................3-36
Table 3.6-1 MacKay River Asset Facies Summary ..............................................................3-43
Table 3.7-1 Upper McMurray Member Net Pay Cut-Offs......................................................3-45
Table 3.7-2 Pay Interval Reservoir Parameter Characteristics within the IDA......................3-45
Table 3.8-1 Initial Drainage Patterns ....................................................................................3-56
Table 3.12-1 Single SAGD Well Pair Forecast .......................................................................3-91
Table 5.1-1 MCP Process and Storage Tanks .......................................................................5-6
Table 5.1-2 Chemical Consumption Estimates.......................................................................5-8
Table 5.1-3 Project Energy Balance .......................................................................................5-9
Table 5.2-1 MNP Process and Storage Tanks .....................................................................5-21
Table 5.4-1 Phase 1 Water Use Profile ................................................................................5-38
Table 5.4-2 Full Development Water Use Profile .................................................................5-40
Table 6.3-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary ...............................................................6-6
Table 6.3-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity Comparison to Other Similar Projects .......6-7
Table 6.3-3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparison to Provincial and National Totals.........6-7
Table 6.4-1 Waste Types and Quantities .............................................................................6-11
Table 6.4-2 Chemical Products ............................................................................................6-13
Table 6.6-1 Emission Scenarios Selected for Alberta ..........................................................6-15
Table 7.7-1 Consultation and Engagement Summary ............................................................7-5
Table 7.8-1 Mitigation Summary ...........................................................................................7-10
Table 8.2-1 Areal Extent of Project Facilities ..........................................................................8-2
Table 8.3-1 Applicable Reclamation Guideline Documents....................................................8-6
Table 8.4-1 Main Soil Series Mapped within the Project Footprint .........................................8-9

MacKay River Commercial Project viii Project Application
December 2009
Table 8.4-2 Areas of Main Soil Series Mapped within the Footprint by Project
Component (ha).................................................................................................8-10
Table 8.5-1 Mineral Soil Characteristics Related to Upland Soil Salvage ............................8-17
Table 8.5-2 Upland (Mineral Soil) Topsoil Salvage Guidelines.............................................8-17
Table 8.5-3 Peat Thickness on Organic Soil Series .............................................................8-18
Table 8.5-4 Topsoil Salvage Volumes for the Project...........................................................8-20
Table 8.5-5 Subsoil Salvage Volumes for the Project ..........................................................8-21
Table 8.5-7 Planting Prescriptions for Upland Target Ecosite Types ...................................8-29
Table 8.5-8 Summary of Changes to Land Capability Classification for Forest
Ecosystems in the Terrestrial LSA ....................................................................8-32
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CONCORDANCE TABLES
APPENDIX B GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS
APPENDIX C CORPORATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX D CONSULTATION SUMMARY

MacKay River Commercial Project 1-1 Overview
December 2009
1 OVERVIEW
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) is a Canadian company operating in northeastern
Alberta. AOSC is proposing the development of a bitumen recovery project identified as
the MacKay River Commercial Project (the Project or MRCP), located approximately 30
km northwest of Fort McMurray in northeast Alberta. The Project will use steam assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD) technology and will be constructed in phases to reach an
ultimate design capacity of approximately 23,847 m3/d (approximately 150,000 barrels
per day (bpd)) of bitumen production.
Construction of Phase 1 of the Project is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2012,
with initial steam injection in the third quarter of 2014. The Project will recover an
estimated 270 million m3 (1.7 billion barrels) of bitumen over its projected 45 year life. It
is anticipated that reclamation of the Project will be complete by 2064.
 scheme approval to construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen
recovery scheme with a first phase of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd), under Section 10
of the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA); and
 construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen recovery scheme,
 reclaim the Project, under Division 2 of Part 2 and Part 6 of the EPEA;
 divert groundwater from non-saline water aquifers for oil field injection purposes
 divert runoff surface water and a portion of a minor watercourse under Section
50(1) of the Water Act.
This document (Application for Approval of the MacKay River Commercial Project)
serves to meet requirements under the OSCA and EPEA and follows the Guide to
Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (the EIA Guide) (AENV,
2009a). The Application is provided as part of the Integrated Application to the ERCB
and AENV as outlined in the ERCB/AENV Memorandum of Understanding on the
Regulation of Oil Sands Developments (IL 96-07; ERCB 1996c).
1.1 ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.
AOSC is a Canadian company which was incorporated in 2006 and is focused on in-situ
oil sands development. AOSC holds a number of oil sands leases in northeastern
Alberta, and will maximize the value of its energy resources while becoming a valued
partner in the communities in which it operates.

December 2009
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is located within the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) in
northeast Alberta, approximately 30 km northwest of Fort McMurray (Figure 1.2-1). The
Project oil sands leases (the MacKay River lease) are located within Townships 87 to
93, Ranges 11 to 16, W4M. The Project will use steam assisted gravity drainage
(SAGD) technology.
SAGD is a thermal production method for heavy oil and bitumen that pairs a horizontal
injection well with a horizontal production well drilled along a parallel trajectory. Multiple
well pairs are drilled from individual SAGD well pads to minimize surface disturbance.
The Project will be developed with a phased construction strategy with an ultimate
design capacity of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) of bitumen production. Over the operating
life of the Project, one central processing facility (the MacKay River Central Plant (MCP))
and an additional remote steam generation facility (the MacKay River North Plant
(MNP)) will be required.
The MCP will be constructed in multiple phases. Phase 1 of the MCP will include
clearing, site preparation, and construction of the required Project infrastructure to
support a bitumen production rate of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd).
Over time, production rates from initial wells will decline. In order to maintain production
volumes, additional SAGD wells will be drilled. As development proceeds to the north
portion of the MacKay River lease, a remote steam generation facility (MNP) will be
constructed to serve the wells in the area. The MNP will generate sufficient steam to
produce 9,539 m3/d (60,000 bpd) of bitumen. All of the bitumen and water produced at
the MNP will be sent to the MCP for treatment. Treated boiler feedwater (BFW) from the
MCP will be sent to the MNP through an interconnecting pipeline. When the MNP is
operational, the MCP will continue to process up to 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd). It is
anticipated that the MNP will be constructed approximately 5 years after startup of
Phase 4.
The MCP and associated facilities including soil stockpiles and electrical substations will
occupy approximately 76 ha in 90-14 W4M. The main components of the MCP will
include makeup water treatment, steam generation, cogeneration, vapour recovery,
bitumen treating, produced gas recovery, produced water recycling, tankage and utilities.
The MNP will occupy approximately 15 ha in 91-15 W4M. The main components of the
MNP will include steam generation and produced gas recovery. The MNP will also
include a booster pump station.
Field facilities for the Project include SAGD well pads, source water, disposal and salt
cavern wells, drilling sumps and camps, borrow areas, access roads, pipelines and utility
corridors. Access to the Project will be via a short addition from the proposed AOSC
MacKay River Pilot Road (Figure 1.2-1).
The proposed surface components of the Project infrastructure are defined as the
Project Area (the footprint; Figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3). Engineering, operations and
environmental teams collaborated on the design of the Project to maximize energy
efficiency and minimize environmental effects. The Project Area was superimposed on
mapping systems that incorporate environmental information. An analysis was then

December 2009
undertaken and surface facilities located to mitigate potential environmental effects,

maximize use of existing land disturbances, reduce aquatic and terrestrial fragmentation,
and avoid potentially sensitive ecosystems. The areal extent of the Project footprint is
approximately 2,149 ha (less than 3% of the total MacKay River lease area), which
includes approximately 55 ha of existing disturbance. The Project footprint is located
entirely within Crown land. AOSC will obtain the required land dispositions from Alberta
Sustainable Resources Development (ASRD) when required.

420000 440000 460000 480000
Twp.96
Fort McKay No. 174C
V
U 63
Twp.95
6340000
Fort McKay
Fort McKay No. 174
Twp.94
er
Riv
ver
Do
Twp.93
6320000
Twp.92
ver
Athabasca
y Ri
Ka LOC 830746 (Petro-Can Road)
M ac
AD
RO
LO C
PI O S
R
T
iver
R A
V E ED
Twp.91
RI S
Y PO
KA RO
AC P
M
6300000
Twp.90
TOWER ROAD
Twp.89
Fort McMurray
6280000
ive
r V
U
69
aR
Twp.88
asc
ab
At h
Twp.87
I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\001_FIGURE_1_2_1_PR OJE CT_LOCATION.mxd
V
U
881
Twp.86
Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13 Rg. 12 Rg. 11 Rg. 10 Rg. 9 Rg. 8
LEGEND
MACKAY RIVER LEASE
1:450,000
PROJECT AREA (Footprint) 5 0 5
INDIAN RESERVE Peace River

_
^ ! Kilometres
NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
Fort McMurr ay
COMMUNITY
!
Project Code: Technical: Date:

WATERBODY 7349-514 BF 09/11/13
Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
WATERCOURSE
Ed mon ton
! RS 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
ROAD Reference:
1:50,000 Base Features obtained from Geobase PROJECT LOCATION
HIGHWAY Calgary
RAILWAY !
Disclaimer:
EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR Prepared solely for the use of AOSC. as specified in the accompanying
report. No representation of any kind is made to other parties with which
POWERLINE
FIGURE 1.2-1
AOSC has not entered into contract.
_
^ Project Location
410000 420000 430000 440000
Twp.93
Do
ver Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
SUMP
SUMP
DRILL CAMP
6310000
MACKAY RIVER NORTH PLANT

MacK ay Rive
r
DRILL CAMP
SUMP MRCP ROW
Twp.91
SUMP
6300000
DISPOSAL WELL
DISPOSAL WELL
DRILL CAMP
Twp.90
WATER SOURCE WELL
SUMP
WATER SOURCE ROW

WATER SOURCE WELL
SALT CAVERN WELL
MACKAY RIVER CENTRAL PLANT
SUMP
6290000
AP
AO
SUMP
AF WATER SOURCE ROW
AN
Twp.89
AG
WATER SOURCE WELL
AC
AM WATER SOURCE ROW
WATER SOURCE WELL

SEPTIC FIELD
DRILL CAMP
BORROW PIT 1 MRCP CAMP

AK
DRILL CAMP
CAMP NATURAL GAS
AA
AL PIPELINE ROW
AD AJ BORROW PIT 2
6280000
AB
BORROW PIT 3
STOCK PILE 1 MCP 34 kV ROW

Twp.88
AQ
LEASE AUTOMATED
CUSTODY TRANSFER
AE
STOCK PILE 2 AI
MCP NG ROW
AH PIPELINE ALLOWANCE
STOCK PILE 3
240 kV ROW
MCP UTILITY ROAD
I:\7349_514\MAPS\FIGURES\EIA\001_FIGURE_1_2_2_PROJECT_FOOTPRINT.mxd
BORROW PIT 4 River

asca
MCP SUBSTATIONS At hab
Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:150,000
MACKAY RIVER LEASE STOCKPILE 240kV POWERLINE ROW 2 0 2
MCP SEPTIC FIELD 34kV POWERLINE ROW

Kilometres
MNP DISPOSAL WELL MRCP CAMP NG PIPELINE ROW

Pea ce Riv er
! _
^ !
Fort McMurray NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
WELL PAD SALT CAVERN WELL MRCP CAMP Project Code: Technical: Date:
WATER SOURCE WELL 7349-514 BF 09/11/25

LACT PIPELINE ALLOWANCE Edm onton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
SUBSTATION MRCP ROW SALES AND DILUENT PIPELINE !
RS 09/11/25 RC 09/11/25
DRILLING ROW
PROJECT FOOTPRINT
Reference:
UTILITY ROAD MRCP APPLICATION BORROW PIT 1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used for License
DRILL CAMP DISPOSAL WELL ROW PROPOSED MACKAY RIVER PILOT ROAD
Calgary
WATER SOURCE ROW

!
SUMP WATERBODY Disclaimer:
NG PIPELINE ROW WATERCOURSE Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as
specified in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind
is made to other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
_
^ Project Location has not entered into contract. FIGURE 1.2-2
410000 420000 430000 440000
Twp.93
Do
v er Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
SUMP
SUMP
DRILL CAMP
6310000
MACKAY RIVER NORTH PLANT

Ma cK ay R ive
r
DRILL CAMP
SUMP MRCP ROW
Twp.91
SUMP
6300000
DISPOSAL WELL
DISPOSAL WELL
DRILL CAMP
Twp.90
WATER SOURCE WELL
SUMP
WATER SOURCE ROW

WATER SOURCE WELL
SALT CAVERN WELL
MACKAY RIVER CENTRAL PLANT
SUMP
AO
AF
6290000
AN
AG
AC
AM
SUMP
WATER SOURCE ROW
SEPTIC FIELD WATER SOURCE WELL Twp.89
DRILL CAMP
WATER SOURCE ROW
BORROW PIT 1 MRCP CAMP
AK
WATER SOURCE WELL
CAMP NATURAL GAS
AA
AL PIPELINE ROW
AD AJ BORROW PIT 2
DRILL CAMP
AB
BORROW PIT 3
STOCK PILE 1 MCP 34 kV ROW

6280000
LEASE AUTOMATED
CUSTODY TRANSFER
AE
STOCK PILE 2
MCP NG ROW
Twp.88
AH PIPELINE ALLOWANCE
STOCK PILE 3
240 kV ROW
I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\001_FIGURE_1_2_3_PR OJE CT_FOOTP RIN T_SATELLITE_IMAGE .mxd
MCP UTILITY ROAD

BORROW PIT 4
MCP SUBSTATIONS
River
as ca
At h ab
Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:150,000
MACKAY RIVER LEASE STOCKPILE 240kV POWERLINE ROW 2 0 2
MCP SEPTIC FIELD 34kV POWERLINE ROW

Kilometres
MNP DISPOSAL WELL MRCP CAMP NG PIPELINE ROW

Peace River
! _
^ !
Fort McMurr ay NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
WELL PAD SALT CAVERN WELL MRCP CAMP
WATER SOURCE WELL 7349-514 BF 09/11/13

LACT PIPELINE ALLOWANCE Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
PROJECT FOOTPRINT
Ed mon ton
SUBSTATION MRCP ROW SALES AND DILUENT PIPELINE !

RS 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
DRILLING ROW
SATELLITE IMAGE
Reference:
UTILITY ROAD MRCP APPLICATION BORROW PIT 1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used for License
DRILL CAMP DISPOSAL WELL ROW PROPOSED MACKAY RIVER PILOT ROAD
Calgary
WATER SOURCE ROW

!
SUMP WATERBODY Disclaimer:
NG PIPELINE ROW WATERCOURSE Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as
specified in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind
is made to other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
_
^ Project Location has not entered into contract. FIGURE 1.2-3
December 2009
1.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The Project will be developed in four phases (Table 1.3-1). The anticipated timeline for
the full development is as follows:
 Phase 1: 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd), with first oil in 2014;

 Phase 3: 6,359 m3/d (40,000 bpd), with first oil in 2019; and
 Phase 4: 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd), with first oil in 2021.
Construction of Phase 1 of the Project is scheduled to begin in Q1 2012. It is anticipated

that the MNP will be constructed approximately 5 years after startup of Phase 4. The
operational life of the Project is anticipated to be approximately 45 years. The Project
will include progressive reclamation where practicable, in order to minimize the disturbed
footprint over the life of the Project. It is anticipated that reclamation of the Project will
be complete by 2064.

December 2009
Table 1.3-1 Proposed Project Schedule
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Task
Regulatory Approval
Phase 1 Construction
Phase 1 Operations
Phase 2 Operations
Phase 3 Operations
Phase 4 Operations
MNP Construction
MNP Operations
Sustaining Pad Development
Public Consultation

December 2009
1.4 PROJECT DESIGN
1.4.1 Geology and Reservoir
AOSC has conducted extensive subsurface exploration activities throughout its MacKay
River lease. The Project will use SAGD technology to produce bitumen from the upper
member of the McMurray Formation Phase 1 will initially include the drilling of 46 well
pairs from 10 surface pads to produce bitumen up to a rate of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd).
Over the life of the Project, development will include approximately 1,000 well pairs from
approximately 200 surface pads to support and sustain the bitumen production design
capacity of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd). The Project will recover an estimated 270 million
m3 (1.7 billion barrels) of bitumen over its projected 45 year life.
Additional details regarding geology and reservoir are presented in Section 3.
1.4.2 Surface Facilities
1.4.2.1 MacKay River Central Plant (MCP)

The MCP will be equipped with all the necessary facilities to process the produced
emulsion and annulus gases and to generate the steam required for the Project. The
following process areas/systems will be installed at the MCP:
 Water treatment;
 Steam generation;
 Bitumen treatment;
 Produced water de-oiling;
 Produced gas recovery;
 Cogeneration;
 Tankage;
 Glycol system;
 Flare system; and
 Utilities.
Additional details regarding the MCP are presented in Section 5.1.
The anticipated production and process for the Project on a calendar day basis and a
stream day basis are presented in Table 1.4-1. Unless otherwise indicated all
production and process rates presented throughout this document are presented on a
calendar day basis.

December 2009
Table 1.4-1 Full Development Production and Process Rates
Calendar Day Basis Stream Day Basis

Stream
(m3/d) (bpd) (m3/d) (bpd)
Produced bitumen 23,847 150,000 25,437 160,000
Injected steam 67,965 427,500 72,496 456,000
Saline makeup water 11,147 70,115 11,890 74,788
Non-saline water 3,087 19,417 3,293 20,713
1.4.2.2 MacKay River North Plant (MNP)

The MNP will be equipped with all the necessary facilities to generate the steam
required for well pads in the northern portion of the MacKay River lease. The following
process areas/systems will be installed at the MNP:

 Flare system;
 Booster pump station;
 Glycol system; and
 Utilities.
Additional details regarding the MNP are presented in Section 5.2.
1.4.2.3 Field Facilities

Field facilities for the Project include SAGD well pads, source water, disposal and salt
cavern wells, drilling sumps and camps, borrow areas, access roads, pipelines and utility
corridors. Siting of field facilities will make use of existing disturbances wherever
practicable to minimize new disturbance. Additional details regarding field facilities are
presented in Section 5.3.
1.5 REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
AOSC’s consultation and engagement approach is to conduct ongoing engagement and

consultation with the communities, Aboriginal groups, local residents and other key
stakeholder groups in areas in which it operates. AOSC recognizes that consultation
and engagement will continue throughout the life of the Project.
AOSC also recognizes the value of the various multi-stakeholder groups in place to
ensure sustainable growth within the oil sands. Based on this, AOSC is currently a
member of the Oil Sands Development Group (OSDG) and will be joining Cumulative
Environmental Management Association (CEMA) in 2010. AOSC is also evaluating its
potential participation level in the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA).
Additional details regarding AOSC’s public consultation activities are presented in

Section 7.

December 2009
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Under Alberta Regulation 276/2003, Activities Designation Regulation, the scope of the
Project meets the criteria set out in Schedule 1 and is, therefore, designated as an
activity for which an approval is required under the EPEA. Under Alberta Regulation
111/93, Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation,
the scope of the Project meets the criteria of a mandatory activity for which an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required to obtain an approval under the
EPEA.
AOSC has prepared an EIA that follows the AENV Guide to Preparing Environmental
Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (AENV 2009a) and addresses the Terms of
Reference (TOR) established for the Project EIA by AENV (Volume 2, Appendix 1A). A
summary of the EIA is presented in Section 9.
1.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Within the MacKay River lease, the overburden thickness to the base of the bitumen
bearing resource varies from 160 to 220 m (measured depth) with net pay thicknesses
up to 32 m. Due to the depth of the resource, surface mining at this location is not an
alternative for the resource recovery. This resource is currently only recoverable using
in-situ recovery methods.
AOSC has evaluated other in-situ recovery methods and believes that SAGD is the
appropriate technology since it has been proven to be commercially viable.
Proceeding with the Project will contribute to the Canadian hydrocarbon supply and
provide economic and social benefits to local communities and to municipal, provincial
and federal government. The timing of the Project is consistent with AOSC’s corporate
development strategy for its oil sands leases and necessary to meet seasonal and
environmental construction windows.
1.7.1 Technology Alternatives
In the design of SAGD facilities, alternatives were evaluated with consideration of

environmental, technical and economic issues. AOSC understands the key issues
associated with development of the Project. Decisions and technology choices have
considered the balance between water use, air emissions (including greenhouse gases),
energy requirements, land disturbance, stakeholder interests, and costs.
During development of the Project design, AOSC conducted studies to evaluate the
following alternatives.
1.7.1.1 Steam Generator Technologies

Once through steam generators (OTSGs) are traditionally used to generate steam at
in-situ thermal recovery operations. Forced circulation steam generators or power
boilers which allow for more efficient process designs were also reviewed as
alternatives. AOSC has opted to install power boilers which will result in decreased fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

December 2009
1.7.1.2 Water Treating Technology

AOSC has selected an evaporative water treatment process to produce a high purity
boiler feedwater suitable for a drum style boiler. The combination of a drum style boiler
and an evaporator with a concentrator will result in the generation of a smaller disposal
stream compared to lime softening with once through steam generators.
Disposal water rates and makeup water demand are typically evaluated by comparing
Project capital and operating costs for the various alternatives. Traditional lime softening
technology commonly used with OTSGs typically generates a blowdown stream from the
steam separators of approximately 25% of the input stream and also generates lime
sludge waste. Most, or all, of the steam separator blowdown is typically sent to a
disposal well. Lime sludge is typically separated and sent to a landfill.
The use of an evaporator eliminates lime sludge ponds associated with lime softening
technology. The Project design also results in less disposal, higher water utilization
efficiency, and reduced makeup water demand.
1.7.1.3 Water Conservation

AOSC’s water conservation components include:
 Evaporators as the primary water treatment technology which results in very high
recycle rates; and
 Crystallizers to concentrate the evaporator blowdown and recover most of the

remaining water.
AOSC has chosen not to incorporate driers, which are costly, energy intensive, have a
poor operating reliability and do not result in additional water conservation.

MacKay River Commercial Project 2-1 Application for Approval
December 2009
2 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
2.1 EXISTING APPROVALS
To date, no existing scheme approvals have been obtained within the AOSC MacKay
River lease. AOSC has submitted regulatory applications for two pilot-scale oil sands
recovery projects in the Fort McMurray area. The Dover Central Pilot Project is
designed to recover bitumen at a rate of up to 318 m3/d (2,000 bpd) from a facility
located in 94-17 W4M. The MacKay River Pilot Project is designed to recover bitumen
at a rate of up to 350 m3/d (2,200 bpd) from a facility located in 90-14 W4M. Regulatory
approval of these projects is anticipated in Q4 2009.
AOSC has been conducting oil sands exploration (OSE) activities yearly since 2006. All
appropriate approvals have been obtained from Alberta Environment (AENV), the
Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Sustainable Resources
Development (ASRD).
2.2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
 scheme approval to construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen
recovery scheme with a first phase of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd), under Section 10
of the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA); and
 construct and operate a 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) bitumen recovery scheme,
 reclaim the Project, under Division 2 of Part 2 and Part 6 of the EPEA;
 divert groundwater from non-saline water aquifers for oil field injection purposes
 divert runoff surface water and a portion of a minor watercourse under Section
50(1) of the Water Act.
This application was prepared to satisfy the requirements for joint ERCB and AENV
approval as described in ERCB Directive 023 - Guidelines Respecting an Application for
a Commercial Crude Bitumen Recovery and Upgrading Project (ERCB 1991), A Guide
to Content for Industrial Approval Applications (AENV 1999), and the Final TOR for the
Project EIA, issued by AENV on July 30, 2009. A copy of the final TOR is presented in
Volume 2, Appendix 1A. Concordance tables for these three documents are presented
in Appendix A.

December 2009
Questions and comments on this application can be submitted to:
Jerry Demchuk
Manager, Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
Suite 2000, 250 - 6 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H7
www.aosc.com
Phone: [403] 237-8227

Fax: [403] 264-4640
2.3 ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS
AOSC will also file applications for different aspects of the Project under various other
statutes. The approval requirements applicable to the Project that will be submitted
under separate cover include, but are not limited to:
 Public Lands Act, for surface rights;

 Historical Resources Act, for clearance to construct the facilities;
 Pipeline Act and EPEA, for the construction and operation of buried pipelines;
 Oil and Gas Conservation Act, for well licenses and facility approvals;
 Electrical Utilities Act, for the electrical power connection;
 Federal Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act, for watercourse
crossings;
 Hydro and Electric Energy Act, for the future cogeneration unit and industrial
systems designation (ISD); and
 Municipal Government Act, Part 17, for a development permit from the RMWB for
the construction and operation of the Project and related infrastructure.
In February 2009, the ERCB and AENV jointly issued Draft Directive - Requirements for
Water Measurement, Reporting and Use for Thermal Insitu Oil Sands Schemes (2009).
Section 7 of the draft directive prescribes certain limits for non-saline make-up water on
a calendar year basis. At the time of filing this Application, the draft directive has not
been finalized and is not in force. However, based on the Project water requirements,
and assuming the draft directive becomes applicable to the Project, AOSC would require
a relaxation on the maximum limit of non-saline makeup water (10%) on a calendar year
basis for Phase 1. Section 5.4 of this Application provides AOSC’s justification for such
relaxation based upon the requirements set out in the draft directive.
2.4 GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION
The applications for approval to ERCB and AENV have been integrated in accordance
with the ERCB and AENV Memorandum of Understanding on the Regulation of Oil
Sands Developments (IL 96-07) to facilitate an efficient review of the application by
regulators and the public. This integrated application is presented in five volumes:

December 2009
 Volume 1: Application;
 Volume 2: EIA Methodology and Air Quality, Noise and Health;
 Volume 3: Aquatic Resources;
 Volume 4: Terrestrial Resources; and
 Volume 5: Human Environment.
To assist in the understanding of the material presented in this application, a list of

commonly used acronyms is provided in Appendix B. The list of commonly used
acronyms does not include every acronym used throughout the integrated application;
however every acronym is defined in the document and is fully searchable on the
electronic version of this document. Also provided in Appendix B is a glossary of terms.
The glossary is not intended to replace standard dictionary definitions but rather to
provide definitions of specific terms that are used in the integrated application.

MacKay River Commercial Project 3-1 Geology and Reservoir
December 2009
3 GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR

3.1 LEASE AREA
The MacKay River lease covers Townships 87 to 93 and Ranges 11 to 16 W4M
(Figure 3.1-1). The leases cover a combined surface area of 297 sections (76,920 ha).
Individual oil sands leases that comprise the MacKay River lease are presented in
Table 3.1-1.
Phase 1 of the Project is located within the geological study area (GSA), which includes
57 sections in Townships 89, 90 and 91 and Ranges 13 and 14 W4M, covering a
combined area of 14,763 ha or 147.63 km2 (Figure 3.1-2). This also includes the initial
development area (IDA) in which the initial 46 well pairs will be placed for Phase 1. The
IDA spans six oil sands leases (Figure 3.1-3). The oil sands leases cover a stratigraphic
interval spanning the top Cretaceous Viking Formation to the base Devonian Woodbend
Group. The target oil sands reservoir is the Lower Cretaceous McMurray Formation.
Table 3.1-1 Oil Sands Lease Agreements Within the GSA

Agreement Type Term Expiry Area Rights Legal Description
Number Date (ha)
7407070283 Oilsands 15 2022-07-12 512 top of VIKING to base 089-13W4: Sec *(28),29
Lease years of WOODBEND.
7407090423 Oilsands 15 2022-09-20 256 top of VIKING to base 089-13W4: Sec 32
7407080536 Oilsands 15 2022-08-23 768 top of VIKING to base 090-13W4: Sec 5,7,8
7407070286 Oilsands 15 2022-07-12 768 top of VIKING to base 090-13W4: Sec 19,20,30
7407010565 Oilsands 15 2022-01-11 1280 top of VIKING to base 089-13W4: Sec *(19),30;
Lease years of WOODBEND. 089-14W4: Sec *(23,24),25
7407080539 Oilsands 15 2022-08-23 512 top of VIKING to base 090-14W4: Sec 12,13
7407080540 Oilsands 15 2022-08-23 1024 top of VIKING to base 090-14W4: Sec 25,26,35,36
7407010566 Oilsands 15 2022-01-11 2304 top of VIKING to base 089-13W4: Sec 31, 089-14W4:
Lease years of WOODBEND. Sec 26,34,35,36
090-13W4: Sec 6, 090-14W4:
Sec 1,2,3
7407070553 Oilsands 15 2022-07-26 768 top of VIKING to base 091-14W4: Sec 1,2,*(11)
7407080538 Oilsands 15 2022-08-23 1792 top of VIKING to base 090-14W4: Sec
Lease years of WOODBEND. 4,5,8,9,15,16,17
7407010567 Oilsands 15 2022-01-11 2048 top of VIKING to base 089-14W4: Sec *(20,21,22),
Lease years of WOODBEND. 27,28,29,32,33
7406080068 Oilsands 15 2021-08-10 3072 top of VIKING to base 090-14W4: Sec 20,21,22,27,
Lease years of WOODBEND. 28,29,32,33,34
091-14W4: Sec 3,4,*(5)

T93
T92
T91
T90
T89
T88
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\MacKAY RIVER EIA\7349-EIA-GSA-09.cdr
T87
R16 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11W4
LEGEND
AOSC MACKAY ASSET BOUNDARY
1:300,000
AOSC GSA AREA BOUNDARY 5 0 5
AOSC PHASE 1 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA Peace River

l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12 O I L S A N D S C O R P.
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
A Location C Suspended Reference:
D Service or Drain F Gas
Calgary
AOSC MACKAY RIVER
G Dry & Abandoned H Heavy Oil l LEASE
K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service Disclaimer:
Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
S Injection
in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind is made to
other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
Project Location into contract. FIGURE 3.1-1
G G G G G T91
G
G
G G G G G
G G
G G G G G
G
G G
G G
G
G G G
G G
G
G G
G
G G
G G G G G
C GG G
GG S G T90
G G
G G G G G
G
G G
G G G
G
G G G G
G G G G G
G
G
G
C G G G
G
G G
G G G
G
G G
G
G G G
G
T89
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
1:80,000

l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
S
TYPE WELL 1AA/14-14-090-14 W3/00 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
GEOLOGICAL STUDY
A Location C Suspended
Calgary
l AREA
G Dry & Abandoned H Heavy Oil Disclaimer:
K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind is made to
S Injection other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
G G G G G T91
G
G
G G G G G
G G
7407070553
G G G G G
G
G G
G G
7406080068 G 7407080540
G G G
G G
G
G G
G
G G
G
7407070289 7407070286
G G G G
C GG G
GG G T90
G G
7407080537 7407090344
7407070288
7407080539
G G G G G
G
G G
G G G
G
G G
7407080538 7408050715 G G
G G G G G
G 7407080536
G
G
C G G G
7407010566
G
G G
G G G
7407090423
G
G
G 7407010567 G
G 7407070283
G G
7407010565
G
T89
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
AOSC GSA AREA BOUNDARY 1:80,000
1 0 1
AOSC PHASE 1 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
740####### OIL SANDS LEASE AGREEMENT NUMBER Project Code: Technical: Date:
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
OIL SANDS LEASE AGREEMENT BOUNDARY Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
WELL LEGEND OIL SANDS LEASE
Calgary
l AGREEMENTS IN THE GSA

D Service or Drain F Gas Disclaimer:
G Dry & Abandoned H Heavy Oil Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
S Injection «
December 2009
3.2 GEOLOGICAL DATA AND CONTROL
The GSA contains 71 stratigraphic delineation wells that penetrate the McMurray
Formation, 41 of which were cored. AOSC drilled 66 of the 71 delineation wells. The
oldest strata penetrated by the delineation wells is the Devonian Beaverhill Lake Group.
In addition to the delineation wells, a total of seven water wells were drilled by AOSC in
the winter of 2008/2009.
3.2.1 Winter Delineation Drilling and Seismic Program
Prior to 2007 Suncor Energy (formerly Petro-Canada) and Imperial Oil drilled within the
GSA:
 5 historical delineation wells:

o 4 of these wells partially to completely cored all or sections of the
McMurray Formation.
2007/2008 AOSC winter program within the GSA (Figure 3.2-1) comprised:
 35 oil sands delineation wells including:

o 16 cored wells;
o 8 resistivity image logs; and
o 1 dipole sonic log.
2008/2009 AOSC winter program within the GSA (Figure 3.2-2) comprised:
 31 oil sands delineation wells including:

o 21 cored wells;
o 8 resistivity image logs;
o 7 dipole sonic logs;
o 5 pressure test logs;
 5.1 km2 of 3D three component seismic acquired;
 1 disposal water exploration well penetrating the McMurray interval; and
 3 shallow water source and 3 shallow water observation exploration wells.
All delineation wells drilled by AOSC have a full suite of standard petrophysical logs
including:
 induction (shallow, medium and deep);

 gamma-ray;
 spontaneous potential;
 bulk density (and photoelectric log);
 neutron porosity;
 caliper; and
 sonic.
The 2007/2008 drilling campaign of 35 wells resulted in an increased well density to 0.7
wells per section within the GSA. The 2008/2009 drilling campaign added an additional
31 wells within the GSA resulting in a further increase of well density to 1.2 wells per

December 2009
section. The total number of specialty logs acquired within the GSA included 16
resistivity image logs, eight dipole sonic logs and five pressure tests.
Within the Phase 1 IDA, there are 18 delineation wells. The IDA is equivalent to
approximately 2 sections (approximately 5.2 km2), amounting to a well density of 9 wells
per section. 3-D three-component seismic data were acquired in 2009 (Figure 3.2-2).

T91
T90
T89
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
1:80,000

l
« l
Kilometers
E
Fort McMurray
AOSC 2007-2008 LOGGED WELLS(19)
E AOSC 2007-2008 LOGGED AND CORED WELLS(16)
Senior:
7349-514
Date:
BF
Drawn by:
09/10/15
Date:
H AOSC 2007-2008 RESISTIVITY IMAGE LOG(8) Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
H AOSC 2007-2008 DIPOLE SONIC LOG(1) Reference: AOSC 2007-2008 DRILLED
G 2008-2009 DRILLED WELLS Calgary WELLS AND SPECIALTY
G 2007-2008 AND PRIOR WELLS l
Disclaimer: LOGS
«
T91
T90
T89
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
1:80,000

l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
AOSC 2008-2009 3D SEISMIC
E AOSC 2008-2009 LOGGED WELLS(10) 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
E AOSC 2008-2009 LOGGED AND CORED WELLS(21) Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
AOSC 2008-2009 RESISTIVITY IMAGE LOG(8)
H Reference: AOSC 2008-2009 DRILLED
H AOSC 2008-2009 DIPOLE SONIC LOG(1) Calgary
l
WELLS AND SPECIALTY
H 2008-2009 PRESSURE TEST LOG(5)
Disclaimer: LOGS
E 2007-2008 WATER TEST WELLS(7) Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
G ALL WELLS other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
December 2009
3.3 METHODS AND ANALYSIS
As discussed in Section 3.2, a suite of high-resolution wire-line logs and cores over the
reservoir interval was acquired in the GSA in order to evaluate reservoir quality and
associated degree of lateral and vertical reservoir homogeneity. Cores were obtained to
provide detailed information on reservoir facies, determine environments of deposition
and establish vertical reservoir characterization details. Core analyses were conducted
to evaluate reservoir porosity, bitumen saturation and grain density, as well as vertical
and horizontal permeability of the McMurray interval. Bitumen saturations calculated
from the well-log data were reconciled with the core-derived Dean Stark bitumen
saturations. The reconciliation of the core-derived bitumen saturations with the well-log
derived bitumen saturations facilitated the computation of well-log bitumen saturations in
non-cored wells. The same approach was carried out for the porosity data. Pairs of
overburden plugs were cut to determine horizontal and vertical permeabilities within
various reservoir lithofacies.
Shale volume was estimated from the combined evaluation of the gamma ray,
compensated neutron and bulk density well-log traces. Effective porosity was calculated
by adjusting the neutron-density cross-plot porosity for the effects of shale.
The well-log, core analysis and facies information was integrated into a Petrel reservoir
model. The reservoir model was used for volumetric determination, future well planning
and development purposes as well as for reservoir characterization within the Phase 1
IDA. The results of this model are presented in detail in Section 3.12.
3.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The stratigraphic framework of the GSA covers Precambrian to Quaternary strata. The
general stratigraphy of the GSA is depicted on Figure 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-2. Within the
GSA, no well data exists for formations deeper than the top few metres of strata beneath
the Pre-Cretaceous unconformity. Consequently, geological details of the Pre-
Cretaceous section are inferred from regional well information.
The stratigraphy can be broadly divided into four systems: Precambrian, Devonian,
Cretaceous and Quaternary. The Precambrian forms a crystalline basement which is
located between 210 and 260 m below sea level (mbsl) and dips to the west-southwest.
It is erosionally overlain by arkosic sediments of the La Loche Formation. Above the La
Loche Formation are Middle and Upper Devonian strata which are dominated by
carbonates, evaporites and shale. These strata comprise the Elk Point, Beaverhill Lake
and the Woodbend groups and range in thickness from 490 m to the east of the GSA to
over 550 m in the west. The Mannville Group unconformably overlies the Palaeozoic
strata. The Pre-Cretaceous unconformity surface varies from 270 to 295 m above sea
level (masl) across the GSA (Figure 3.4-3).
The Lower Cretaceous aged Mannville Group is composed primarily of semi-

consolidated clastic sediments that are divided into three formations. From oldest to
youngest these formations are the McMurray Formation, the Clearwater Formation and
the Grand Rapids Formation. The McMurray Formation forms the basal unit of the
Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group and is the target reservoir host for the oil sands
deposits in this area. The Mannville Group strata are unconformably overlain by

December 2009
Quaternary sands, gravels and clays. The strata of the Mannville Group dip towards the
west-southwest. The preserved Mannville Group thickness varies from 128 to 178 m
(Figure 3.4.4). The top of the Mannville Group is difficult to pick with certainty on well
logs as it is most often behind casing. For this reason, minimum thicknesses and
structural elevations are given for the top of the Mannville Group and top of the Grand
Rapids 4 sand package. Each stratigraphic interval is described in more detail below.
3.4.1 Devonian Strata
3.4.1.1 La Loche Formation

The La Loche Formation is a thin argillaceous mudstone to a fine-grained to coarse-
grained arkosic sandstone that developed as a result of the erosion of the underlying
Precambrian basement. It ranges in thickness from approximately 3 to 8 m in the GSA.
3.4.1.2 Elk Point Group

In the GSA, the Elk Point Group overlies the La Loche Formation. It is composed of a
series of argillaceous dolostones, carbonate reefs, clastics, carbonates and evaporates
that make up the Contact Rapids, Keg River, Prairie Evaporite and Watt Mountain
formations in ascending stratigraphic order. The overall inferred thickness of the Elk
Point Group over the GSA varies from 325 to 380 m.
The Contact Rapids Formation consists of argillaceous dolostone and shale. It ranges
from 95 to 110 m in thickness, varies from 245 mbsl to 185 mbsl, and dips to the west.
This interval is overlain by the Keg River Formation which consists of dolostone. It
varies from 160 to 100 mbsl, and dips to the west. Thickness varies from 65 m just west
of the GSA to 77 m to the east. The Keg River interval will be explored for potential as a
disposal water zone during the winter 2009/2010 drilling program (Section 5.4.5). The
Prairie Evaporite Formation overlies the Keg River Formation and consists of a series of
interbedded anhydrites and halites. It dips generally to the southwest, and varies from 65
mbsl to 135 mbsl. It reaches a thickness of 245 m to the northwest of the GSA,
decreasing to 220 m to the southeast. The Watt Mountain Formation is a thin, dolomitic
shale that varies from 45 masl to 125 masl and dips to the southwest. It varies in
thickness from 7.5 m to approximately 10 m.
3.4.1.3 Beaverhill Lake Group

The overlying Beaverhill Lake Group consists of carbonates of the Fort Vermillion, Slave
Point and Waterways formations, in ascending stratigraphic order. The Fort Vermillion
Formation is a thin dolostone approximately 12 to 14 m thick over the GSA. The top of
this formation varies structurally from 60 masl to 135 masl. It is overlain by a very thin
limestone (less than 6 m) of the Slave Point Formation, the top of which varies from
65 masl to 140 masl, and dips to the southwest. The overlying Waterways Formation
can be subdivided into the Firebag, Calumet, Christina, Moberly and Mildred Lake
members. It consists of alternating calcareous mudstones and carbonates. The top of
the formation varies from 275 masl to 295 masl and dips to the southwest. Thickness
increases to the southwest from 130 m to 175 m.

December 2009
3.4.1.4 Woodbend Group

The Woodbend Group consists of the Cooking Lake, Ireton, Leduc and Grosmont
formations. Much of this stratigraphic interval has been removed by erosion associated
with the angular unconformity that separates the Devonian strata from the Cretaceous
deposits. The Woodbend Group is eroded throughout much of the GSA and is only
present in the extreme southwest corner where it is present at a thickness of
approximately 0 to 10 m. In this corner, the Cooking Lake Formation of the Woodbend
Group has been preserved.
3.4.2 Cretaceous Strata
The Cretaceous sedimentary package is composed of the Mannville Group in the GSA
(Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2) and is illustrated by the type well presented on Figure 3.4-5.
3.4.2.1 Mannville Group

Units of the Mannville Group exhibit a regional structural dip to the west-southwest,
ranging as a minimum from 408 masl to 463 masl (Figure 3.4-6). The Mannville Group
comprises the McMurray, Clearwater and Grand Rapids formations in ascending
stratigraphic order.
McMurray Formation
In the GSA, the McMurray Formation is composed of middle and upper members. The
lower member of the McMurray Formation is absent in the GSA. The McMurray
Formation ranges in thickness from 21 to 33 m, averaging 25 m (Figure 3.4-7). The
McMurray Formation thickness trend is predominately controlled by the underlying Pre-
Cretaceous unconformity surface. A thicker McMurray succession is attributed to
deposition within structural lows on the Pre-Cretaceous surface. The top of the
McMurray Formation varies in structure from 303 masl to 317 masl across the GSA
(Figure 3.4-8). The top McMurray structural trend exhibits a northwest-southeast
elongated high located above the main reservoir fairway. The structural high may be a
result of compactional drape effects between the main reservoir and surrounding more
argillaceous sediments.
Lithology of the middle McMurray member consists of interbedded to interlaminated

light-grey shale and sand exhibiting rare to moderate bioturbation including very small
Cylindrichnus, Gyrolithes and Teichichnus trace fossils. These sediments form fining-
upward cycles which were deposited as point bars in tidally-influenced, laterally
migrating tidal channels and mixed tidal flats across the GSA. This stratigraphic interval
displays limited preservation potential and also is considered to have limited reservoir
potential. The middle member is present towards the edges of the IDA but completely
eroded towards the centre (Figure 3.4-9 and Figure 3.4-10).
The upper McMurray member contains the main reservoir sands, and erosively overlies
the middle McMurray heterolithic deposits. The upper McMurray member deposits are
very clean and continuous sands over the Phase 1 IDA. The gross thickness ranges
between 22 and 27 m (Figure 3.4-11). This interval forms a northwest-southeast
trending sand package with a mean gross sand thickness of 25 m (Figure 3.4-12). The

December 2009
similarity in thicknesses in the upper McMurray member isopach map and the gross
sand map highlight the dominance of sand.
The upper McMurray member deposits were likely formed in a mixed tide-wave
dominated delta and form long, linear sand bars. Preservation resulted in vertically
stacked compound bar features with individual bars forming coarsening-upward and
cleaning-upward cycles. The reservoir homogeneity also has a preferred northwest-
southeast trend. Additional details regarding reservoir sedimentology and reservoir
characterization are presented in Section 3.6 and Section 3.7.
The erosional surface between the upper to middle McMurray members may be the
result of an incision or tidal ravinement event leading to the removal of much of the
middle McMurray member and the deposition of the cleaner upper McMurray member
fill, preferentially deposited along the axis of deepest erosion.
Clearwater Formation
The McMurray Formation is disconformably overlain by an argillaceous interval of silts,
muds and occasional thin sands that comprise the Clearwater Formation. The
Clearwater Formation is conformably overlain by the Grand Rapids Formation.
The top of the Clearwater Formation varies from 380 masl to 390 masl in the GSA
(Figure 3.4-13). Although subtle, the top Clearwater Formation structure map exhibits a
northwest-southeast high trend over the upper McMurray member reservoir sands. The
Clearwater Formation is quite uniform in thickness varying from 70 m to 77 m
(Figure 3.4-14). Some carbonate nodules are also apparent in this argillaceous interval.
A thin sandy, muddy and glauconite-rich interval at the base of the Clearwater Formation
is referred to as the Wabiskaw Member. The Wabiskaw Member represents initial
sedimentation in response to the regional southward transgression of the Boreal Sea.
The top of the Wabiskaw Member varies from 314 masl to 328 masl (Figure 3.4-15) and
ranges from 6 to 16 m in thickness, averaging 10 m (Figure 3.4-16). This interval
thickens to the northwest. The Wabiskaw Member comprises both basal shales and
overlying sands that are regionally correlatable. A basal shale of approximately 3 to 8 m
in thickness (Figure 3.4-17) directly overlies the McMurray Formation in the GSA. This
basal shale interval consists of laminated, dark-grey, silty clayshale with zones of
moderate to abundant small-sized trace fossils including Chondrites, Planolites,
Teichichnus, Phycosiphon and Cosmorhaphe. There are also rare laminae of light-grey
bioturbated silt. Some silt beds and laminae are sharp-based and normally-graded. The
shales are widespread, exhibit no evidence of having been deposited above fair-weather
wave-base, and based on the trace fossil suite and glauconite, are believed to have
been deposited in an offshore marine to distal prodelta palaeodepositional environment.
The Wabiskaw marine shales are sharply and erosively overlain by Glossifungites-
based, intensely bioturbated, muddy sand of the Wabiskaw Member that forms a
cleaning-upward cycle. This sand may be bitumen-bearing with bitumen saturations of
up to 58% and thickens from less than 1 m in the southeast of the GSA to 10 m in the
northwest (Figure 3.4-18). The sands exhibit moderate reservoir quality in the thickest
areas, but become thinner and are of poorer reservoir quality towards the southeast.
The sand is lower-very-fine grained, contains a moderate amount of mud and exhibits
dominantly Diplocraterion, Rosselia and Asterosoma trace fossils. This interval is
interpreted as a forced regressive shoreface or distal delta-front lobe succession.

December 2009
As marine transgression ensued, the shoreface/distal delta-front of the Wabiskaw

Member was transgressed by offshore marine, bioturbated claystones displaying
Chondrites, Planolites, Teichichnus, Phycosiphon and Cosmorhaphe trace fossils,
typical of the marine Clearwater mudrocks. The overlying Clearwater Formation
consists of a shaley to silty-shale interval ranging in thickness from 56 to 67 m
(Figure 3.4-19).
Grand Rapids Formation

The Grand Rapids Formation conformably overlies the argillaceous Clearwater marine
deposits and is unconformably overlain by Quaternary sand, gravel and mud sediments.
The Grand Rapids was deposited in a shallow marine environment during the regional
regression of the Boreal Sea. The Grand Rapids is composed of cleaning-upward
packages that are separated by shales and silty beds. The Grand Rapids is present
throughout the GSA.
The structural top of the Grand Rapids Formation varies from 408 masl to 463 masl,
dipping mostly to the west-northwest (Figure 3.4-6). The total thickness of the formation
within the GSA shows a general thinning trend toward the north from 76 m in the south
to 25 m in the north (Figure 3.4-20). Regionally, the Grand Rapids Formation is
composed of four coarsening-upwards cycles. The four regressive sand cycles are
referred to as sand packages 5,4,3 and 2 in ascending stratigraphic order. Within the
GSA, the formation comprises only two cleaning-upward regressive cycles; the older
Grand Rapids 5 package and the younger Grand Rapids 4 package. The Grand
Rapids 5 package thickens from 12 m to 42 m toward the southeast, whereas the Grand
Rapids 4 package thickens from approximately 12 m in the north-northwest to 36 m in
the south-southeast portion of the GSA (Figures 3.4-21 and Figure 3.4-22). The
stratigraphic definition of Grand Rapids 4 sand package presents some difficulties in
mapping as the unit is often present behind casing resulting in uncertainty in picking the
top on well logs.
3.4.3 Quaternary Sediments
The Quaternary sediments are described in more detail in the Hydrogeology section of
the EIA (Volume 3, Section 5). They consist of a mixture of unconsolidated sands, muds
and conglomerates that were formed in glaciofluvial environments.

LEGEND
SAND
CARBONATE
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray O I L S A N D S C O R P.
ANHYDRITE
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
MUDSTONE Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
SHALE & CALCAREOUS SHALE

Reference: STRATIGRAPHY CHART
Calgary PRECAMBRIAN TO
l
SALT Disclaimer: CLEARWATER
GRANITE other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
LEGEND
SAND
UNDIFFERENTIATED
Peace River
l
«
l
MUDSTONE
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
CARBONATE Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
SILT SPECIFIC CRETACEOUS
Calgary
l STRATIGRAPHY
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-STR-09.cdr
LEGEND
2 0 2
SUBJECT WELL LOCATION Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
278 CONTOUR INTERVAL 4.0 m (masl)
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: PALAEOZOIC TOP
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary STRUCTURE
l
K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
S Injection
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-ISO-09.cdr
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: MANNVILLE GROUP
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary TYPE WELL

l
Disclaimer:
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: MANNVILLE GROUP
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary TOP STRUCTURE
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: McMURRAY FORMATION
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: McMURRAY FORMATION
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
M.MCMR MIDDLE McMURRAY 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: MIDDLE McMURRAY
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary FORMATION ISOPACH
l
S Injection
« Project Location into contract. FIGURE 3.4-9
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
M.MCMR MIDDLE McMURRAY 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: MIDDLE McMURRAY
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary FORMATION STRUCTURE
l
S Injection
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
M.MCMR MIDDLE McMURRY 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: UPPER McMURRAY
l
S Injection
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
M.MCMR MIDDLE McMURRY 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15 UPPER McMURRAY
Reference:
Calgary
FORMATION SAND
G Dry & Abandoned H Heavy Oil
l ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
S Injection
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: CLEARWATER FORMATION
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: CLEARWATER
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: WABISKAW MEMBER
l
S Injection
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\MacKay River EIA\7349-EIA_3.4-15_3.4-16_09.cdr
LEGEND
AOSC MacKAY ASSET BOUNDARY
«l
AOSC PHASE 1 INITIAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS
Kilometers
76 CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2.0m Peace River
l NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12 O I L S A N D S C O R P.
Fort McMurray

7349-514 SP 09/10/06
Edmonton
l SR 09/10/06 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used under WABISKAW MEMBER
license
Calgary
l
ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
«
_ MRCP into contract. FIGURE 3.4-16
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary SHALE ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary SAND ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15 CLEARWATER FORMATION
Reference:
A Location C Suspended EXCLUDING WABISKAW
D F
Calgary
Service or Drain Gas
l MEMBER ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: GRAND RAPIDS
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: GRAND RAPIDS 5
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary PACKAGE ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: GRAND RAPIDS 4
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary PACKAGE ISOPACH
l
S Injection
«
December 2009
3.5 SEISMIC CHARACTERIZATION
3.5.1 Regional Data Acquisition History
The GSA has no available trade seismic data coverage. In 2009 AOSC undertook a 3D
seismic program in order to assist in well placement and to provide a baseline for
potential future 4D seismic monitoring. This 5.1 km2 seismic program was acquired
during March 2009, once the core hole drilling program had terminated. An in-field 2D
seismic line was acquired concurrently in order to compare certain source parameters.
The parameters used in the acquisition of the 3D seismic are presented in Table 3.5-1.
Table 3.5-1 3D Seismic Acquisition Parameters
Parameter Value
Program 2009 MacKay River 3D
Area/Length 5.1 km2
Source Mini Vibe
Source Parameters 8-180 hz non-linear
Source Interval 15 m
Source Line Width 3.0 m low impact seismic, mulched
Receiver Spacing 15 m
Receiver Line Interval 45 m
Receiver Line Width 1.75 m low impact seismic, mulched
Source Line Interval 45 m
3.5.2 Acquisition, Processing and Mapping
The 3D seismic was acquired using low impact seismic (LIS) techniques which
minimized cutting and footprint. The core hole access roads were aligned with and used
as 3D source lines wherever possible within the 3D seismic program (and vice versa) to
avoid any unnecessary cutting or duplication of access. Due to the target depth, a fine
source and receiver line spacing was required in order to adequately image the reservoir
and 45 m was utilized for both source and receivers. Mulching of source lines was kept
to 3.0 m width and the mini vibe source was fitted with narrow tires in order not to over
step the lines. Narrow 1.75 m mulchers and handcutting were used for the receiver lines
to minimize impact and maintain safety. As a result, the total footprint for the 3D seismic
program was limited to 52 ha.
Three component (3C) converted wave data were acquired, however, only the
compressional wave (P-wave) data have been processed to date, using conventional
processing flow through to pre-stack migration. Interpretation was carried out on the
pre-stack migration and post-stack migration volumes. The Palaeozoic unconformity,
McMurray Formation top, and Wabiskaw Member top were picked, depth converted and
integrated into the geological maps and used for reservoir modelling. A Palaeozoic time
structure map showing a predominately northwest-southeast structural high trend with
smaller scale structural and erosional features is presented on Figure 3.5-1. Due to the
consistency and homogeneity of the reservoir in the 3D seismic area, geophysical

December 2009
mapping effort to date has been focused on structural control and thickness mapping of
the above mentioned markers. Examples of the picks with the relevant well ties are
illustrated in northwest-southeast seismic cross-section and corresponding geological
cross-section following the trend of the reservoir (Figure 3.5-2 and Figure 3.5-3). A
second seismic cross-section perpendicular to the reservoir trend is presented on
Figure 3.5-4. Amplitude anomalies in the McMurray Formation and Wabiskaw Member
were also mapped and integrated into the geological gas mapping.
3.5.3 Future Work
Currently work is being carried out on the seismic volume to evaluate the utility of
inversion as well as the processing of the 3C converted wave data.

T90
R14W4
LEGEND
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
1:20,000
250 0 250
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
DEVONIAN TIME
Calgary
l STRUCTURE
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-XS-09
LEGEND
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l SR 09/10/16 RC 09/10/15
Reference:
SEISMIC CROSS
Calgary
l SECTION A-A’
KEYMAP Disclaimer:
NTS in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind is made to
«
LEGEND
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l SR 09/10/16 RC 09/10/15
Reference:
GEOLOGICAL CROSS
Calgary
l
SECTION A-A’
KEYMAP Disclaimer:
«
B B'
LEGEND
AOSC 3D SEISMIC
B'
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
B Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
T.90 l SR 09/10/16 RC 09/10/15
Reference:
SEISMIC
Calgary
l CROSS - SECTION B - B’
KEYMAP Disclaimer:
R.14W4 R.13
«
December 2009
3.6 RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
The upper member of the McMurray Formation contains the main reservoir sands in the
GSA. The reservoir interval erosionally overlies the middle McMurray member deposits.
The upper McMurray member was deposited as a tidal sand bar complex in a tide
dominated deltaic environment.
The upper McMurray member consists of six reservoir lithofacies (Table 3.6-1) in the
IDA:
 cross-bedded sands;
 parallel-laminated sands;
 bioturbated sands;
 flaser-bedded sands;
 wavy-bedded sands; and
 interbedded sands and clay.
These lithofacies have been described in core, mapped and integrated into a 3D Petrel
reservoir model which describes the distribution of facies and reservoir properties.
The cross-bedded sand facies is the cleanest reservoir in the IDA. This facies occurs
mainly towards the base and top of the McMurray reservoir. Grain-size ranges from
medium to coarse, gamma ray response is typically below 25 API. Sand grains are
moderately-rounded and moderately-sorted. This facies typically displays medium-scale
trough cross-bedding. Beds most commonly have a sharp basal contact and high
bitumen saturation.
Parallel-laminated ripple sand is a clean reservoir facies. These sands are fine to
medium-grained, well-rounded and well-sorted. Thin layers of comminuted coaly debris
are observed in this facies. Gamma ray response is generally less than 30 API.
Bioturbated sands form the next reservoir facies. The bioturbated sands are
fine-grained, moderately-rounded and moderately-sorted. Mud layers are rare, and have
been disturbed by burrowing activity of organisms.
The flaser-bedded sand facies can exhibit double mud drapes over asymmetrical ripple
forms. Wavy-bedded sands are rare and mainly occur to the northeast side of IDA.
These sands have been intensively or completely bioturbated causing disruption of mud
layers. Sand is very-fine to fine-grained.
The interbedded sand and clay facies only occurs in the southeast part of the IDA.
Fine-grained sands are interbedded with thin shale layers (less than 1 cm thick). Sand
grains are moderately-rounded and sorted and bioturbation is limited but dominated by
Thalassinoides.
An overview of the facies types is presented in Table 3.6-1.

December 2009
Table 3.6-1 MacKay River Asset Facies Summary
Bitumen Saturation (%)

Physical Sedimentary
Density Porosity (%)

Gamma Ray (API)
Deep Resistivity
Bioturbation
Structures
Bedding
(ohm-m)
Texture
Facies
Cross-bedded Medium
sands -coarse >50 cm Cross-bedding rare <25 >500 >33 71-94
Parallel
Parallel- lamination &
laminated Fine- ripple
ripple sands medium >1 m lamination rare <30 300-500 33-35 61-94
Bioturbated Biomottled,
sands Fine - massive abundant 30-35 100-200 30-33 70-91
Ripples,
Flaser-bedded double mud
sands Fine >10 cm drapes rare 20-30 80-120 31-33 67-83
Fine- Asymmetric
Wavy- bedded very ripple, wavy-
sands fine - bedding abundant 35-45 50-100 30-32 69-88
Interbedded
sands and
muds Fine <10 cm Interbeds rare 20-30 <50 31-33 68-80
The upper McMurray member was deposited as a tidal sand bar complex in a tide-
dominated deltaic environment. Well bore image data shows the paleocurrent flow is
toward the north.
Cross-bedded sands were mainly deposited in the southern portion of the IDA, towards
the top of the reservoir. These cross-bedded sands were interpreted as proximal tidal
sand bar deposits. Bioturbated sands and parallel-laminated sands dominate the west
and southern part of the IDA. Flaser-bedded sands were mainly deposited in the east;
wavy-bedded sands appear in the northeast corner of the IDA.
The basal portion of McMurray reservoir consists of bioturbated sand or

parallel-laminated sands; sedimentary structures in bioturbated sands are inconspicuous
either because of the high bitumen saturation or due to abundant bioturbation which is
dominated by Thalassinodes, Asterosoma and Rosselia fossils. Flaser-bedded sands
occur in the middle of McMurray reservoir and grade up to cross-bedded sands or
parallel-laminated sands. The very top of the McMurray reservoir exhibits a fining-
upward trend with a slight increase in clay content and bioturbation upward; trace fossils
are dominated by Asterosoma and Rosselia. This thin interval marks the onset of initial
marine transgression prior to Wabiskaw deposition.

December 2009
3.7 RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
The bitumen pay zone located within the upper member of the McMurray Formation is
characterized by fine to medium-grained, black, bituminous, clean sands. Top and base
of the pay zone are determined from well-log, core description, resistivity image log and
core analysis information. The McMurray pay zone in type well 1AA/14-14-090-14W4
(Figure 3.4-5) is characterized by elevated deep resistivity values of up to 550 ohm-m,
high bitumen saturations of up to 91%, a low gamma-ray response typically ranging
between 20 API and 30 API and persistently high porosities typically ranging between
30% to 35%. Clay is low, averaging 0.1%. Average horizontal and vertical
permeabilities are just over 4 D.
Net pay cut-offs were determined from examining various wire-line logs, core analysis
parameters, core photos and core descriptions. Core analysis samples were taken
throughout the McMurray Formation to determine grain density, porosity, bitumen
saturation and permeability. A good agreement exists between core analysis and wire-
line log analysis for both porosity and bitumen saturations (Figure 3.7-1). These close
comparisons provide confidence in applying the petrophysically-derived reservoir
parameters to uncored wells. The deep resistivity, gamma-ray and density porosity and
bitumen saturation curves were used as a guide to define reservoir parameters and pay
intervals. Both total porosity (PORT) and effective porosity (POR) were calculated
(Figure 3.7-1). There is very close agreement between these values. The same close
association exists between the Archie and Simandoux water saturations. Bitumen
saturations were derived from 1-Archie water saturations for SoT and 1-Simandoux for
So (Figure 3.7-1). These results imply that the reservoir interval is very clean.
The following cutoffs were used to generate the net bitumen pay map (Table 3.7-1):
gamma ray response less than 75 API, total porosity greater than 27%, bitumen
saturation greater than 50% and continuous bitumen pay thickness greater 10 m where
shale thickness did not exceed 0.5 m. The average reservoir properties for the
McMurray net pay zone in the IDA are presented in Table 3.7-2. Bitumen saturation
varies from 75% to 85%, averaging 80% across the main fairway and porosity varies
from 33% to 35%, averaging 34%. Net pay ranges from 19 m to 24 m in thickness with
an average net pay in the IDA of 21 m (Figure 3.7-2). A representative cross-section
has been prepared illustrating the lithological continuity and high reservoir quality of the
McMurray interval along the fairway trend (Figure 3.7-3). Three cross-sections
perpendicular to trend have also been prepared (Figure 3.7-4, 3.7-5 and 3.7-6) that
demonstrate good reservoir continuity.

December 2009
Table 3.7-1 Upper McMurray Member Net Pay Cut-Offs
Parameter Value
Porosity (%) >27
Bitumen Saturation (%) >50
Deep Resistivity (ohm-m) >20
Net Pay Thickness (m) >10
Gamma-Ray (API) <75
Shale Thickness (m) <0.5
Table 3.7-2 Pay Interval Reservoir Parameter Characteristics within the IDA
Parameter Units Range Average

Top Reservoir Depth m TVD 169-189 176
Top Reservoir Depth TVD masl 314-311 313
Base Reservoir Depth m TVD 190-209 197
Base Reservoir Depth TVD masl 290-293 292
Net Pay m 19-24 21
Net to Gross in SAGD % 97-100 100
Total Porosity % 33-35 34
Bitumen Saturation % 75-85 80
Shale Volume % 0-6 1
Horizontal Permeability D 2.2-7.7 5.0
Vertical Permeability D 2.2-6.4 4.4
Initial Reservoir Temperature °C n/a 10
Initial Bitumen Viscosity cP n/a 1.25 x 106
Structural maps on the top and base of the pay zone are presented on Figures 3.7-7 and
3.7-8, respectively. The top of the pay zone displays a structural high over the
northwest-southeast pay trend. The top of the pay zone is highly uniform throughout the
IDA with a range of 3.2 m (from 311 masl to 314 masl). Measured depth to the top of
the pay zone within the IDA ranges from 170 m to 189 m (Figure 3.7-9).
The base of pay zone shows a similar degree of variation as the top of the pay zone.
Within the IDA the base of reservoir is very consistent with a minimum elevation of
290 masl and a maximum of 294 masl showing a variation of less than 4 m.
These reservoir sands differ from typical McMurray reservoirs in that they are more
laterally homogenous, do not contain the laterally extensive and thick interbedded sands
and muds (referred to as inclined heterolithic stratification) deposited by lateral accretion
of point bars in a tidally-influenced channel environment, and do not contain mud plugs
which reflect channel avulsion. Reservoir architecture appears simpler in these deltaic
environments, facies bands are more laterally continuous and clay content is much
lower.

1:20,000
250 0 250
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: COMPARISON OF CORE
Calgary ANALYSIS TO
l
Disclaimer: INTERPRETED LOG DATA
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference:
A Location C Suspended NET PAY ISOPACH
D F
Calgary
l
S Injection
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\MacKAY River EIA\7349-EIA_3.7-3_XS_C-C-09.cdr
LEGEND
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: REGIONAL
Calgary
CROSS-SECTION
KEYMAP l
Disclaimer: C - C'
N.T.S. Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
«
D 0.6km 0.9km D'
134
1AA102209014W400 [TVD] 1AA162209014W400 [TVD] 133
1AA052609014W400 [TVD]
0 GR 150 TVD 60 CNSS 0 0.2 AI10 2000.0 0 GR 150 60 CNSS 0 0.2 SFL 2000.0 0 GR 150 TVD 60 CNSS 0 0.2 SFL 2000.0
60 DPSS 0 0.2 AI60 2000.0 60 DPSS 0 0.2 ILM 2000.0 135 60 DPSS 0 0.2 ILM 2000.0
0.2 AI90 2000.0 0.2 ILD 2000.0 0.2 ILD 2000.0
140
140
145
145
150
150
155
155
Wabiskaw
Wabiskaw
160
160
165
165
McMurray
Top of Pay 170 McMurray
170 Top of Pay
175
175
180
180
185
185
190
Base of Pay 190
Base of Pay
Palaeozoic Palaeozoic
196 195
LEGEND
D' AOSC MACKAY ASSET BOUNDARY

AOSC GSA AREA BOUNDARY
D SUBJECT WELL LOCATION Peace River

l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
T.90 Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l SR 09/10/16 RC 09/10/15
Reference:
REGIONAL
Calgary
l CROSS - SECTION D - D’
KEYMAP Disclaimer:
R.14 R.13W4 «
E 0.5km 0.4km E'
137
1AA101409014W400 [TVD] 136
1AA161409014W400 [TVD] 135
1AA012309014W400 [TVD]
0 GR 150 TVD 60 CNSS 0 0.2 AI10 2000.0 0 GR 150 TVD 60 CNSS 0 0.2 AI10 2000.0 0 GR 150 TVD 60 CNSS 0 0.2 AI10 2000.0
60 DPSS 0 0.2 AI60 2000.0 60 DPSS 0 0.2 AI60 2000.0 60 DPSS 0 0.2 AI60 2000.0
140 0.2 AI90 2000.0 0.2 AI90 2000.0 0.2 AI90 2000.0
140
140
145
145
145
150
150
150
155
155
155
160
Wabiskaw 160
160 Wabiskaw
165
165
165
McMurray
170 McMurray
170
Top of Pay 170 Top of Pay
175
175
175
180
180
180
185
185
185
190
190
190
Base of Pay
195 Palaeozoic
Base of Pay 195
Palaeozoic 195
199 198 197
LEGEND
E' SUBJECT WELL LOCATION Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
T.90
E Edmonton
l
Senior:
SR
Date:
09/10/16
Drawn by:
RC
Date:
09/10/15
Reference:
REGIONAL
Calgary
l CROSS - SECTION E - E’
KEYMAP Disclaimer:
R.14 R.13W4 other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
LEGEND
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l SR 09/10/16 RC 09/10/15
Reference:
REGIONAL
Calgary
l CROSS - SECTION F-F’

KEYMAP Disclaimer:
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference:
A Location C Suspended TOP OF PAY STRUCTURE
D F
Calgary
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference:
A Location C Suspended BASE OF PAY STRUCTURE
D F
Calgary
l
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Reference: TOP OF PAY
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary MEASURED DEPTH
l
S Injection
«
December 2009
3.8 BITUMEN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT
Ten initial subsurface drainage patterns (AA-AJ) have been identified for Phase 1.
Subsurface drainage patterns and horizontal well pairs have been optimally located
based on a combination of net pay thickness, base net pay structure, top net pay
structure and lithofacies distribution (Figure 3.8-1). Additional information on well
placement is presented in Section 3.11.1. Average bitumen pay thickness per drainage
pattern ranges from 19 to 23 m. Structural cross-sections have been created through
each subsurface pattern and illustrate the conceptual horizontal well locations
(Figures 3.8-2 through 3.8-12). The top and the base net pay are shown as well as the
preferred elevations of the proposed horizontal wells. To optimize bitumen recovery,
AOSC has targeted as close to base of pay as possible typically using a stand-off of 1
m. Injection wells will be placed 5 m above the production wells. Both wells will be
horizontal and parallel to one another. The base of pay structure is relatively flat within
each pattern.
The original bitumen in-place (OBIP) volumes were calculated within the upper
McMurray member for each initial drainage pattern (AA-AJ) (Figure 3.8-13). Drainage
patterns are discussed in further detail in Section 3.11.1. Average reservoir parameters
calculated from the geostatistical model were used on a pattern by pattern basis to
calculate OBIP volumes (Table 3.8-1). Exploitable OBIP within the IDA is 29 million m3
(184.4 million barrels). Recoverable bitumen, based on a 50% recovery factor, is
14.7 million m3 (92.2 million barrels).
The MacKay River lease will support bitumen development of up to a rate of 23,847 m3/d
(150,000 bpd) over the Project life. Future development areas will be determined by the
distribution of continuous net pay suitable for SAGD development. A map showing the
regional net pay distribution and thickness across the MacKay River lease is shown on
Figure 3.8-14.
There is no historic gas production within the MacKay River lease. The gas
accumulations that exist are small and exhibit considerable bitumen saturation. The
petroleum and natural gas rights are not available for disposition from the Crown. The
gas is anticipated to have no impact in the development of the bitumen resource. Gas
accumulations have limited areal extent, are thin (from 0 to 3.1 m) and are structurally
controlled. Wabiskaw Member gas is also present within the GSA and reaches a
maximum thickness of 3.7 m. Gas distribution is structurally controlled. Wabiskaw
Member gas is not in lithological communication with the McMurray pay interval.
Thin and isolated bitumen transition zones are found above and below the bitumen pay
zone. These zones exhibit less than 50% bitumen saturation. The upper bitumen
transition zone is: sporadic in occurrence and shows an average bitumen saturation of
30%; most often present directly between the thin gas saturated intervals and the top of
pay; and thin and ranges from 0 to 1.9 m thick (average 0.5 m) within the GSA.
The basal bitumen transition zone is also sporadic in occurrence and shows average
bitumen saturations of 22% where present, it occurs directly below the base of the pay
zone. The basal bitumen transition zone is thin and ranges from 0 to 2.6 m thick with an
average of 0.6 m.

TABLE 3.8-1 INITIAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS
Well Pair Well Average Average Bitumen Pay Pattern Pattern RBIP/
# Well Pattern Area Kh Kv RF OBIP / well OBIP / well RBIP / well
Pattern Length Spacing So φ Thickness OBIP OBIP well
pairs (m2) (D) (D) (%) (106m3) (106bbls) (106bbls)
(m) (m) (frac) (frac) (m) (106m3) (106bbls) 6 3
(10 m )
AA 6 850 125 698,200 0.82 0.34 4.5 4.0 50% 21 4.2 26.6 0.7 4.4 0.4 2.2
AB 5 850 125 562,600 0.80 0.34 4.7 4.3 50% 22 3.5 21.9 0.7 4.4 0.3 2.2
AC 4 850 125 418,700 0.83 0.34 4.2 3.9 50% 22 2.6 16.3 0.6 4.1 0.3 2.0
AD 5 850 125 560,100 0.82 0.34 4.9 4.1 50% 21 3.3 20.5 0.7 4.1 0.3 2.1
AE 6 850 125 674,700 0.80 0.34 5.2 4.4 50% 20 3.5 22.2 0.6 3.7 0.3 1.9
AF 3 850 125 338,100 0.81 0.34 4.6 3.9 50% 23 2.1 13.4 0.7 4.5 0.4 2.2
AG 3 850 125 337,300 0.81 0.35 4.4 3.7 50% 19 1.8 11.3 0.6 3.8 0.3 1.9
AH 5 850 125 594,300 0.78 0.34 5.1 4.4 50% 19 3.0 18.9 0.6 3.8 0.3 1.9
AI 4 850 125 459,800 0.80 0.34 5.4 4.5 50% 19 2.4 14.9 0.6 3.7 0.3 1.9
AJ 5 850 125 562,300 0.78 0.34 3.9 3.8 50% 20 2.9 18.5 0.6 3.7 0.3 1.8
Average 4.6 850 125 520,610 0.80 0.34 4.7 4.1 50% 21 2.9 18.4 0.6 4.0 0.3 2.0
Total 46 - - 5,206,100 - - - - - - 29.3 184.4 6.4 40.1 3.2 20.1
Pattern (Drainage) Area = (# of Wells) * (900m) * (125m) So = Bitumen Saturation (frac) RF = Recovery Factor (%)
Some Patterns have variable Well Spacing φ = Porosity (frac) OBIP = Original Bitumen in Place (derived from Petrel geomodel)
Kh = Horizontal Permeability (D) RBIP = Recoverable Bitumen in Place
Kv = Vertical Permeability (D)
G
G
G G
G G
G M
C
F- AF0 3P
M
AF
C
F-
G
M
G
01
C
P
F-
M
C
AF
2P
F- AG 3P
M
0
C -A
AG 02
M
F-
C
F
1P
MC
F
G
A
MC
G
G
F-A
P
0
MC
F-A
C01
G
MC
F-A
C02
P
A
F-A
C03
P
G
C04
G G
P
G
P
AC
C GG G
A
M
C
F-
M
A
C
AA 05
AJ
M
F-
06 P
C
AA 04
F-
M
T90
G
M
AA
C
G G
CF -AJ
F-
M
M
AA
C
-A
CF -AJ
P
F-
M
M
03
J0
C
AA
CF -AJ
F-
5P
M
02
AA
AB 04 P
CF -AJ
P
M
01
P
03 P
CF -AB
P
G
M
G
02
CF -AB
M
01 P
CF AB0 2P
M
P
CF -AB 01P
05 P
M
-
CF -AB
04
M
G
CF
G G
CF
3P
M -A
0
CF D0
M -A 1P
CF D0
G
M -A 2P
CF D0
M -A 3P
CF
G
D0
-A
G
D0 4P
5P
AD
G G
M
E
C
F-
M
C
AE
A
F-
M
06
AE
C
G
F-
M
G
05
C
AE
F-
P
M
04
C
AE
F-
M
P
03
AE
C
F-
P
02
AE
G
H
01
G
P
G
M
C
A
G
F- AH
M
AH 04
C
F-
M
05 P MC F-AI
C
M
P M
F-
C
AH 02
F-
M
G
03 P MC
AH 01
C
CF
F-
P M
AH
-A
F-A
I01 P
C
P
G
P
I02 P
F-A
03
I04
AI
P
G
C G G
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
1:40,000
AOSC GSA AREA BOUNDARY 0.5 0 0.5

l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
INITIAL PATTERNS OUTLINE
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: INITIAL DRAINAGE
D Service or Drain F Gas Calgary PATTERNS AND WELL
l
Disclaimer: PAIR PLACEMENT
S Injection in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind is made to
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Makay River EIA\7349-EIA-SXS-09.cdr
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: STRUCTURAL
Calgary CROSS-SECTION
l
Disclaimer: AA1-AA1’
«
_Project Location into contract. FIGURE 3.8-2
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AA2-AA2’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AB-AB’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AC-AC’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AD-AD’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AE-AE’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AF-AF’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AG-AG’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AH-AH’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AI-AI’
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
l
Disclaimer: AJ-AJ’
«
G G G G G T91
G
G
G G G G G
G G
G G G G G
G
G G
G G
G
G G G
G G
G
P
GA G
O
A
G
F
A
G
G GAN
A
G G AC G G G
K
A
AM C GG G
A
A
GG G AJ T90
G B G
A
AL
G G G G G
G
AD
G G
Q
G
A
G G
G
G
E
G
A
G G
G G G G G
H
A
G
G
AI
G
C G G G
G
G G
G G G
G
G G
G
G G G
G
T89
R14W4 R13W4
LEGEND
1:80,000
1 0 1
INITIAL PATTERNS OUTLINE
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
SUSTAINING PATTERN OUTLINES
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
INITIAL AND SUSTAINING
Calgary
l DRAINAGE PATTERNS
K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service in the accompanying report. No representation of any kind is made to
S Injection other parties with which Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered
«
T93
T92
T91
T90
T89
T88
T87
R16 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11W4
LEGEND
1:300,000

l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
10 CONTOUR INTERVAL 5.0 m
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND Edmonton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
A Location C Suspended Reference:
FULL DEVELOPMENT
Calgary
l NET PAY MAP

K Suspended Gas M Abandoned Service Disclaimer:
S Injection
December 2009
3.9 CAPROCK
3.9.1 Caprock Geology
A thick Clearwater caprock is present above the thin Wabiskaw sands. The main seal
occurs between the top of the Clearwater Formation and base of the argillaceous
interval, just above the Wabiskaw Member sands (Figure 3.9-1). This unit ranges in
thickness from 55 to 65 m within the GSA, is regionally extensive and forms the main
Clearwater caprock. Within this unit the most argillaceous zone has been mapped
(Figure 3.9-2) and is referred to as the Clearwater argillaceous caprock interval.
The Clearwater argillaceous caprock interval exhibits the most clay-rich lithology of the
Clearwater Formation and occurs in the lower half of the Clearwater Formation above
the Wabiskaw Member sand. The Clearwater argillaceous caprock thickness varies
from 22 to 29 m across the GSA and ranges from 24 to 28 m within the IDA
(Figure 3.9-2). The uniform thickness, dominantly mud lithology and lateral extent of the
Clearwater argillaceous interval exhibited from well-to-well indicates that this
stratigraphic interval is ideal as a caprock (Figure 3.9-2).
A caprock core was drilled in the winter of 2008/2009 at 1AA/06-07-090-13 W4M

(Figure 3.9-16) covering the Clearwater argillaceous caprock. The cored interval
extends from 154.55 m to 184.25 m MD. A detailed core description, core photographs,
wireline logs and resistivity image through the caprock are presented on Figure 3.9-3.
The majority of the cored interval is composed of medium- to dark-grey clayshale. The
clayshale is massive to laminated, and appears bioturbated in specific zones. Trace
fossils are very small, but abundant, and consist of Phycosiphon, Chondrites and
Planolites.
The Clearwater argillaceous caprock interval occurs from 154.55 to 178.50 m. This
caprock cored interval consists of medium- to dark-grey, laminated clayshale. Towards
the top of the cored interval, the clay-rich interval becomes light- to medium-grey
clayshale with zones of very small but abundant trace fossils. There is no evidence of
bitumen staining within the cored interval. The well-log signatures across the
argillaceous caprock interval and the entire Clearwater Formation are similar to all other
wells across the GSA. Thus, the vertical lithological continuity of the interval from this
core is considered to be particularly representative of the area.
AOSC evaluated the occurrence of natural fractures in the caprock through examination
of cores, resistivity image logs within the GSA and triaxial test programs described in
Section 3.9.2 (Figure 3.9-3). There was no evidence of the occurrence of fracturing of
the caprock in any of these image logs or from the cored interval.
The geological evidence of continuity, thickness and lack of fracturing indicates that this
is an excellent caprock for SAGD operations.
3.9.2 Caprock Integrity
AOSC conducted a mini-fracture program in the GSA in the winter of 2009 to determine
the in-situ stress state of the McMurray Formation pay zone and the Clearwater

December 2009
Formation caprock. The program consisted of four injectivity tests; two in the McMurray
Formation pay zone and two in the caprock.
These tests are similar to mini-hydraulic fracturing tests that are run in conventional hard
rock reservoirs, recognizing the unconsolidated nature of the oil sands. Tests of this
nature (via controlled injection) are considered the most reliable method for measuring
in-situ stresses. The tests performed were specifically designed and executed for
geomechanical analysis. A small volume of water was injected directly down the casing
of the well in multiple injection and shut in cycles. The bottomhole pressures were
monitored on-site via surface and downhole pressure sensors. The pressure and
injection rate data were then analyzed to determine the in-situ minimum stress.
The results of the tests indicated that the Clearwater caprock will act as a highly
competent caprock for in-situ thermal operations in the Project area. The maximum
steam chamber pressure proposed for the Project is 2,300 kPaa. At 156 m TVD (base
of Clearwater caprock), this corresponds to a pressure gradient of 14.7 kPa/m, which is
well below the average pressure gradient measured in the oil sands facies
(16.75 kPa/m) and the caprock facies (21.5 kPa/m). These operating pressures will
provide no risk to caprock integrity.
Additionally, tri-axial tests were performed on caprock core samples to measure their
strength and other properties under reservoir conditions. X-ray diffraction analysis of
caprock shales demonstrate that the mineralogy is similar to other competent caprock in
in-situ operations, further demonstrating the strength and integrity of the caprock in the
MacKay River asset. Geomechanical simulations using the lab measured strength,
deformation properties and thermal expansion coefficient show that the caprock is safe
from general matrix plastic failure. Using the mini-fracture and tri-axial test data in
tandem provides additional certainty that the caprock is safe from both vertical fracture
propagation and plastic failure mechanisms.
All of the data above indicate that the Clearwater is a laterally extensive and effective
seal to SAGD operations.
AOSC’s reservoir operating parameters have been chosen to maintain caprock integrity.
AOSC’s reservoir monitoring plans are discussed in more detail in Section 3.13, and
includes plans to monitor steam chamber growth and downhole pressures and
temperatures.

LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15 CLEARWATER
Reference:
A Location C Suspended TOTAL CAPROCK
D F
Calgary
l ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
S Injection
«
LEGEND
2 0 2
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
WELL LEGEND l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15 CLEARWATER
Reference:
A Location C Suspended ARGILLACEOUS
D F
Calgary
l CAPROCK ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
S Injection
«
LEGEND
GREY CLAY WITH SILT
BIOTURBATED SAND
P P
ORGANIC RICH CLAY WITH PYRITE CRYSTALS
Peace River
l
«
l
LAMINATED SHALE 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
LIGHT GREEN GLAUCONITIC SILT WITH CLAY l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
S S SIDERITE NODULE
Reference: MACKAY RIVER
Calgary CAPROCK
BIOTURBATED GREY CLAY WITH SILT l
Disclaimer: CHARACTERIZATION
MUDDY SAND Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as specified
DARK GREY CLAY «
December 2009
3.10 RESERVOIR RECOVERY PROCESS
AOSC has selected SAGD technology for implementation at the Project to recover the
significant bitumen resource in the area.
3.10.1 Recovery Process Selection
Average reservoir parameters for the IDA are provided in Table 3.7-2. Based on the
reservoir depth, bitumen saturation, permeability and virgin oil viscosity, SAGD is the
best option for development of the McMurray reservoir for the Project.
There are currently more than 10 commercial SAGD operations in the Athabasca oil
sands deposit, the closest to the Project being Suncor Energy’s (formerly
Petro-Canada’s) MacKay River project. All of these projects have demonstrated the
commercial viability of SAGD for in-situ recovery of bitumen from the Athabasca oil
sands deposit.
3.10.2 Recovery Process Description
SAGD is a thermal production method for heavy oil and bitumen that pairs a horizontal
injection well with a horizontal production well drilled along a parallel trajectory. The
wells are drilled with a vertical separation of approximately 5 m with the injection well
above the production well, and with both wells positioned low in the reservoir. Saturated
steam is injected into the reservoir via the injection well where the steam rises and
expands throughout the reservoir.
Upon contact with the cold bitumen in the reservoir the steam condenses, thereby
heating the bitumen and reducing its viscosity. The goal is to reduce the bitumen
viscosity so that it will flow under gravity, along with the condensed steam, to the
production well. The production well in turn extracts the bitumen to the surface
production facilities.
The conceptual SAGD process proposed is shown on Figure 3.10-1. SAGD wells will
have a target horizontal length of 850 m. The injection well will be located approximately
5 m above the production well. Steam will be injected into the injection well at a steam
chamber pressure ranging from 1,500 kPaa to a maximum of 2,300 kPaa. This
maximum pressure is discussed in Section 3.9.2.
3.10.2.1 SAGD Startup

The SAGD process begins with a circulation phase in order to mobilize the bitumen
between the injection well and the production well and establish fluid and pressure
communication between the wells. In this phase of operation, steam is injected to the
toe of the well via the tubing string of both injection and production wells. The steam
condenses, giving off its heat to the reservoir by conduction, and liquid phase fluid is
allowed to return to surface via the heel strings (Figure 3.10-2). This phase typically
lasts two to four months depending on spacing between the wells and local geology.
During circulation, the downhole reservoir pressure will be maintained at or below the
maximum reservoir operating pressure of 2,300 kPaa.

December 2009
3.10.2.2 SAGD Operations

During SAGD operations steam is continuously injected in the injection well and bitumen
and condensed steam are continually produced from the production well as shown on
Figure 3.10-3. Once converted into SAGD operations, the process undergoes three
main phases; ramp up, plateau, and depletion. During SAGD ramp up, the steam
chamber is growing vertically and laterally, but has not reached the top of the pay zone.
During this period, production rates are generally increasing. When the chamber
reaches the top of the formation, it will start to spread laterally and production rates tend
to plateau. The chamber will continue to spread laterally, until it coalesces with the
off-setting SAGD pattern. At this stage, the well pair enters the depletion phase where
recovery factors are usually high, production rates are decreasing, and steam:oil ratios
(SOR) are increasing.
Steam injection rate will be on pressure control, to maintain constant pressure in the
steam chamber. As discussed in Section 3.9.2, AOSC will maintain SAGD reservoir
pressure below a maximum pressure of 2,300 kPaa. It is anticipated that this pressure
will be maintained through the ramp up and plateau phases of production. Later in life of
the wells, pressure may be reduced to as low as 1,500 kPaa. Initial operation at higher
pressures has been shown to promote steam conformance along the wells, and more
effectively heat the region between wellbores. This assists in effective delivery of heat to
the reservoir, which assists in improved recovery. Once sufficient vertical and lateral
steam chamber growth has occurred, operating pressures can be reduced. The timing
of this reduction will vary on a well and pad basis and will take into account pressure
variation of adjacent wells and pads.
3.10.2.3 SAGD Wind Down

Current SAGD operating plans involve continued steam injection at rates that will
maintain steam chamber pressure until such time as either steam injection rates or
bitumen production rates become uneconomic. It is expected that the recovery factor
achieved at this time will exceed 50% of the OBIP for each well pair.
AOSC has been evaluating the implementation of a wind down strategy late in life of the
wells, via numerical simulation. Late in life of the SAGD process when adjacent steam
chambers have coalesced and heat losses are increasing to the overburden, production
rates will decline and SORs will increase. At this stage of operation, a wind down
strategy can be a beneficial alternative to promote additional recovery. A possible
scenario involves maintenance of the steam chamber pressure by injection of a
non-condensable gas (NCG). This results in a reduction in SOR, and utilizes the
remaining reservoir energy to prolong bitumen production and maximize recovery. It is
anticipated that such a process would not be implemented until the well pair had
reached 50% recovery of the original bitumen in place. AOSC will continue to evaluate
the appropriate wind down strategy for the Project.

Injection Well
Production
Well
Bitumen Pay Zone

(up to 30 m)
Steam Injected Continuously

Through Injection Well
Bitumen and Water Drain Via

F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-SAGD-SCH-09.cdr
Gravity to Production Well
Peace River
l
«l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference:
SAGD PROCESS
Calgary
l
SCHEMATIC
Disclaimer:
Blanket Gas
Circulation
CirculationMode
Mode
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\MacKAY River EIA\7349-EIA-WL-09.cdr
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
O I L S A N D S C O R P.
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC
Calgary
l FOR CIRCULATION MODE

Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC
Calgary
l FOR SAGD MODE

Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
3.11 RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT
3.11.1 Phase 1 Initial Development Area
The initial well pairs required for Phase 1 are presented on Figure 3.11-1. Ten initial
surface pads, totaling 46 initial well pairs, were placed based on reservoir properties to
optimize recovery potential.
3.11.1.1 Well Pair Placement and Pattern Layout

The initial SAGD well pairs will have a horizontal length of 850 m and lateral spacing
between pairs of 125 m. The initial SAGD production wells will be drilled to a true
vertical depth between 190 m to 210 m, placed approximately 1 m above the base of
sand or as local geology indicates to optimize recovery. The horizontal injection well will
be drilled approximately 5 m vertically above the production well. This can be seen in a
structural cross-section created for each subsurface pattern AA to AJ on Figures 3.9-2
through 3.9-12, which provide the top and base of net pay, as well as the proposed
elevations of the planned horizontal wells.
As shown on Figure 3.11-1, between three and six well pairs will be drilled on each pad.
This is based on surface considerations, and drilling azimuth changes that are required
to follow the contours of the reservoir. For illustrative purposes, a six well pair pad is
shown on Figure 3.11-2.
The number of well pairs per pad is a function of the total measured depth and lateral
reach that is achievable with drilling given the vertical depth of the reservoir at the
MRCP. Six well pair pads are optimal when the horizontal wells run parallel to the main
reservoir trend (zero degrees of azimuth change). In order to follow the base of pay
trend and optimize resource recovery potential, the azimuth of certain pads were shifted.
Directional planning determined that five well pair pads were optimal when the azimuth
change was between 0 and 10 degrees. Greater than a 10 degree azimuth shift meant
that only four well pairs per pad should be drilled. These azimuth shifts are presented
on Figure 3.11-3. Patterns AA and AE contain six well pairs, pattern AH contains five
well pairs due to reservoir quality considerations. Patterns AB, AD, and AJ contain five
well pairs, and patterns AC and AI contain four well pairs. Due to the presence of a
watercourse, patterns AF and AG were split into two pads of three wells each. To
further optimize resource recovery relative to base of pay, patterns AA and AC are
slightly fanned out; whereby the inter-well lateral spacing at the heels may be reduced to
as low as 110 m while at the toe the inter-well lateral spacing may increase to as much
as 140 m.
Well pattern placement has been further optimized to eliminate any possibility of drilling
collision between adjacent pads in the north-south orientation. As shown on
Figure 3.11-4, adjacent pads in a north-south orientation will be offset by a distance of
62.5 m, representing half the planned lateral spacing between SAGD pairs (125 m). On
Figure 3.11-5, the distance between the heels of one pad and toes of the next pad will
be 50 m.
Beyond the initial ten patterns discussed (Patterns AA to AJ), the conceptual layout of
seven subsequent infill patterns has been developed (Figure 3.11-6). These additional

December 2009
patterns will serve as infill locations for Phase 1, or some of the initial locations required
for Phase 2. Exact well locations will change with future delineation drilling and
geological analysis. Phase 1 of the MRCP will require approximately 230 well pairs over
its operating life. Full development up to a maximum bitumen production design
capacity of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) is discussed in Section 3.11.2.
3.11.1.2 Well Pattern Properties

Average reservoir properties for patterns AA to AJ have been provided in Table 3.8-1.
As shown, the SAGD recovery factor for each pattern is estimated to be 50%. This is
consistent with numerical simulation results, and field experience of many SAGD
operators. Bitumen recovery from the 46 initial well pairs is expected to support
14.7 million m3 (92.2 million barrels).
3.11.2 Full Development
A conceptual subsurface well pattern layout for the full development to a maximum
bitumen production rate of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) is presented on Figure 3.11-7.
Areas on this map with pay greater than 10 m but no conceptual well locations reflect
geological uncertainty and require further well delineation. This layout contains
approximately 1,000 well pairs, and is expected to support production of 23,847 m3/d
(150,000 bpd) of bitumen for the full Project life. Further delineation and advances in
drilling technology and resource recovery will ultimately determine the exact number and
location of surface pads and well pairs. In the conceptual layout shown, the well pads in
the main portion of the MacKay River lease closest to the MacKay River Central Plant
(MCP) will be accessed with first steam from the MCP. Well pads in the southern
portion of the lease are expected to require steam from the MCP approximately seven
years after the start of Phase 1. Well pads in the northern portion of the lease will be
accessed approximately 5 years after startup of Phase 4, with steam supplied from the
MacKay River North Plant (MNP). Bitumen recovery is anticipated to exceed 270 million
m3 (1.7 billion barrels) over the life of the Project.

F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\McKAY River EIA\7349-EIA-WP-09.cdr
1:80,000
1 0 1
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15 INITIAL WELL PAIRS AND
Reference:
PATTERNS (RELATIVE TO
Calgary
l PAY THICKNESS)
Disclaimer:
«
125m
850m
Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13 Rg. 12 Rg. 11 Rg. 10
Peace River
«
l
l Fort McMurray O I L S A N D S C O R P.
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
SIX WELL PAIR PAD
Calgary
l
Disclaimer:
«
1:45,000
500 0 500
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15 PAD AZIMUTH SHIFTS
Reference:
(RELATIVE TO
Calgary
l PAY THICKNESS)
Disclaimer:
«
Pad AF = 0o shift from trend
Pad AC = 25o shift from trend

Pad AG = 0o shift from trend
Pad AJ = 8o shift from trend
Pad AA = 0o shift from trend

Pad AD = 8o shift from trend
Pad AB = 8o shift from trend
Pad AH = 0o shift from trend
Pad AE = 0o shift from trend
Pad AI = 15o shift from trend

1:45,000
500 0 500
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15 PAD AZIMUTH SHIFTS
Reference:
(RELATIVE TO
Calgary
l BASE OF PAY)
Disclaimer:
«
125m
850m
Offset Spacing 62.5m
Pad Spacing 50m

Peace River
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
WELL PAIR OFFSET
Calgary
l
DISTANCES
Disclaimer:
«
1:80,000
1 0 1
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15 INFILL WELLS
Reference:
(RELATIVE TO PAY
Calgary
l THICKNESS)
Disclaimer:
«
1:250,000
5 0 5
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15 CONCEPTUAL
Reference:
WELL LAYOUT FOR
Calgary
l FULL DEVELOPMENT
Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
3.12 PRODUCTION FORECASTS
3.12.1 Simulation Model
AOSC used Steam, Thermal and Advanced Processes Reservoir Simulator (STARS)
software to evaluate the performance of the SAGD process for the Project. STARS is a
three phase, multi-component model that has the ability to simulate advanced thermal
recovery processes in oil sands reservoirs.
The reservoir properties in the model were characterized by a geo-statistical approach in

Petrel software. This approach incorporates a stochastic methodology that allows the
generation of multiple geological realizations, which maximizes the use of existing
geological data for performance forecasting. The McMurray reservoir within the GSA is
very homogeneous and is composed of clean sands. The base model consists of
reservoir properties as shown in Table 3.7-2.
The simulations were run at a SAGD bottom hole pressure of 2,000 kPaa to represent
an average operating pressure between the expected range of 1,500 kPaa to
2,300 kPaa. The simulation model is 900 m long and 125 m wide to represent the
drainage area of a single SAGD well pair with a well length of 850 m, centred in the
middle of the model. The SAGD injection and production wells are vertically spaced at a
distance of 5 m.
A number of three dimensional simulation models containing a single SAGD well pair
were used to evaluate the SAGD performance of the 46 initial well pairs in patterns
AA-AJ, as shown on Figure 3.11-1. These simulations were evaluated and used in the
development of a representative type curve to represent a typical well pair for the IDA.
3.12.2 SAGD Forecasts
3.12.2.1 Type Well Forecasts

AOSC developed a type curve using numerical simulation as described in Section 3.12.1
to represent the performance of patterns AA-AJ within the IDA. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 3.12-1 and Figure 3.12-1, which provides a production
profile for a single SAGD well pair in the IDA. The type curve shown does not include
circulation volumes. Bitumen production peaks at over 175 m3/d (1,100 bpd) with a
cumulative steam:oil ratio (cSOR) of approximately 2.85. The overall recovery factor for
the well pair exceeds 50% with a well life of approximately 10 to 12 years.

December 2009
Table 3.12-1 Single SAGD Well Pair Forecast
Steam Steam
Bitumen Rate Bitumen Rate
Year Injection Injection
(m3/d) (bpd)
Rate (m3/d) Rate (bpd)
1 37 233 84 528
2 175 1,101 397 2,497
3 173 1,088 424 2,667
4 169 1,063 419 2,635
5 134 843 350 2,201
6 102 642 276 1,736
7 82 516 231 1,453
8 66 415 211 1,327
9 55 346 190 1,195
10 46 289 177 1,113
11 40 252 166 1,044
12 35 220 151 950
The results shown are consistent with those expected from SAGD operations in the area
with similar reservoir quality. The geographically closest commercial SAGD project,
Suncor Energy (formerly Petro-Canada) MacKay River, has been operating for more
than six years. In their 2008 Performance Update to the ERCB, Suncor Energy
(formerly Petro-Canada) reported production rates for their MacKay River Project
ranging from approximately 111 to 191 m3/d (700 to 1,200 bpd) per well pair.
The type well presented provides a peak design rate of 175 m3/d (1,100 bpd), however,
it is expected that actual production rates will vary between 111 m3/d and 175 m3/d (700
bpd and 1,100 bpd). Therefore, AOSC is planning to drill 46 initial well pairs for
Phase 1. This number of wells was selected to ensure that the production design
capacity of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd) can be met with the initial phase of drilling.
3.12.2.2 Phase 1 Forecasts

The MRCP Phase 1 production profile, including bitumen production, steam injection,
and water production profiles, is presented on Figure 3.12-2 and Table 5.4-1. The
profile includes the circulation time for the initial 46 well pairs, and ramps to full design
capacity approximately 24 months after first oil. Approximately 400 million barrels of
bitumen are anticipated to be recovered from Phase 1.
Reservoir Water Retention

Reservoir water retention in SAGD is largely dependent on two key factors: the amount
of water mobility in the reservoir and reservoir pressure. Water mobility is a function of
the difference between water saturation in the reservoir and the irreducible water
saturation. High initial water saturation coupled with low irreducible water saturation
results in a higher degree of water mobility. This, combined with a difference between
operating pressure and initial reservoir pressure, will result in reservoir water retention.

December 2009
AOSC has assumed an overall reservoir water retention over the life of the Project of
15%. This value is considered to be conservative, and accounts for water retention
during normal SAGD operations, and higher water losses encountered for short periods
of time as new wells are started.
AOSC evaluated the possible extent of water retention at the MRCP via numerical
simulation and evaluation of the results of other commercial SAGD projects. The results
of both bounded and infinite acting reservoir models indicated the potential for reservoir
water retention in the range of 10 to 12% during normal SAGD operations, with a
maximum operating pressure of 2,300 kPaa. This is consistent with the experience of
other SAGD operators in the region which indicate water retention of approximately 10%
on a cumulative basis; however individual wells have indicated water retention as high
as 20 to 40% early in the life of wells or during various periods of operation. In addition,
Suncor Energy (formerly Petro-Canada) indicated an expected reservoir water retention
of up to 12% in their MacKay River Expansion application (Petro-Canada, 2005).
In order for the SAGD process to operate effectively, some difference between injection
and initial reservoir pressure is necessary. This is particularly true during start up and
ramp up of the SAGD process, when slightly higher temperatures and pressures assist
with effective delivery of heat to the reservoir. However, most SAGD operators attempt
to minimize pressure difference, and therefore water retention, over time. AOSC’s
modelling of circulation and ramp up indicate that during early time start up of SAGD
wells, the reservoir water retention could be as high as 40 to 50% for short periods of
time. This assumes a circulation start up at a maximum pressure of 2,300 kPaa, as
described in Section 3.10.2.1. To account for higher start up losses as new wells are
drilled to maintain bitumen production design capacity, AOSC has calculated an overall
water retention of 15% over the life of the Project. This value is considered to be
conservative, and will be confirmed via operation of the initial 46 well pairs. It is AOSC’s
intent to operate the SAGD process in an effective and energy efficient manner to
optimize production rates and SOR and minimize reservoir water retention.
3.12.2.3 Full Development Forecast

The production forecast for the MRCP development up to a maximum bitumen rate of
23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) is presented on Figure 3.12-3 and Table 5.4-2 for the full
Project life. This profile assumes development of the Project in four phases as follows;

A similar ramp up from first oil to full phase design capacity of 24 months for each phase
was assumed, as discussed in Section 3.12.2.2.

450
2750
400 2500
2250
350
2000
300
1750
Rates (m3/d)
Rates (bpd)
250
1500
200 1250
1000
150
750
100
500
50
250
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Years
LEGEND
BITUMEN
STEAM
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
SINGLE SAGD
Calgary
l WELL PAIR FORECAST

Disclaimer:
«
18,000
110,000
16,000 100,000
90,000
14,000
80,000
12,000
70,000
Rates (m3/d)
Rates (bpd)
10,000
60,000
8,000 50,000
40,000
6,000
30,000
4,000
20,000
2,000
10,000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Years
LEGEND
BITUMEN
STEAM
WATER
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
PHASE 1
Calgary
l PRODUCTION PROFILE
Disclaimer:
«
80,000 500,000
450,000
70,000
400,000
60,000
350,000
50,000
300,000
Rates (m3/d)
Rates (bpd)
40,000 250,000
200,000
30,000
150,000
20,000
100,000
10,000
50,000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Years
LEGEND
BITUMEN
STEAM
WATER
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
FULL DEVELOPMENT
Calgary
l PRODUCTION PROFILE
Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
3.13 RESERVOIR MONITORING
Reservoir performance will be monitored through measurement of individual well pair

fluid volumes, downhole and wellhead pressure and temperature readings. All pressure
and temperature data from the horizontal injection and production wells will be integrated
into the main control and data acquisition system at the MCP, and monitored
continuously.
AOSC plans to measure and monitor downhole steam chamber pressure via horizontal
well instrumentation and observation wells. AOSC plans to equip the initial 46 SAGD
production wells with pressure measurement and/or thermocouples. All data collected
from these devices will be used to monitor and control the downhole reservoir pressure.
These data will be collected on a real time basis and integrated into the control and
monitoring system at the MCP.
Vertical observation wells equipped with temperature or pressure measurement will be

used to monitor the growth of the steam chamber. These wells will typically be cased
and cemented in place. It is anticipated that up to 30 observation wells will be drilled for
Phase 1. The placement of these wells is subject to reservoir and surface variability and
will be finalized closer to Project execution.
With the SAGD process, some surface heave is possible due to heating and pressure
change in the bitumen reservoir. The surface deformation will occur gradually over the
lifetime of a well group (greater than 10 years). With small expected magnitudes and
slow deformation rates, no impact to surface water bodies or flow is expected. Natural
drainage patterns will adapt to changes and no substantial alterations in sub-basin
boundaries are expected. AOSC intends to implement a surface deformation monitoring
program. The specific technology for measuring the surface heave is yet to be
determined.
3.14 POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
AOSC continues to investigate improvements to in-situ technology through internal

technical evaluation and participation in joint industry project initiatives. Several areas of
investigation have been outlined below that may be considered for implementation at the
MRCP. AOSC will update the ERCB as appropriate when these technologies develop to
the point of field testing and evaluation.
3.14.1 Non-Condensable Gas Injection
AOSC has evaluated the use of non-condensable gas (NCG) and steam co-injection as
a possible enhancement to SAGD. NCG, when injected at appropriate and controlled
volumes with steam, has several potential beneficial effects in the SAGD process
including lowering the SOR and improving the thermal efficiency of the process.
Additionally, NCG co-injection can be used as a means for pressure maintenance in
mature SAGD patterns to optimize economic recovery of bitumen. AOSC will continue
to study this process enhancement and monitor industry progress.

December 2009
3.14.2 Lateral Drainage Well
A lateral drainage well is a single horizontal well placed between two SAGD pairs, at the
base of pay, and is used to recover heated bitumen that may not otherwise be recovered
by the SAGD wells due to drainage geometries. The lateral drainage well would typically
be drilled after a period of normal SAGD operation. The well is operated initially on
steam injection and production intervals either at or below the pressures of the off-
setting steam chambers. The well is eventually placed into production mode only.
AOSC numerical simulation of this operating method has been shown to accelerate and
possibly increase bitumen recovery in an energy efficient manner. AOSC will continue
to evaluate this technology via numerical simulation, and monitoring of field results of
other operators using similar well configurations.
3.14.3 Well Completions
In an effort to improve steam chamber conformance and steam placement accuracy

within the wellbore, additional research is being conducted by AOSC to further optimize
tubular dimensions of the injection wells and possible use of injection control devices.
3.14.4 Other Future Improvements
In addition to the evaluation of NCG as a steam additive for improved bitumen recovery
in SAGD, AOSC is also evaluating the use of solvents with steam. Bitumen viscosity
can be reduced substantially by either heating it or diluting it with solvents. There are
several joint industry projects and field pilots of various solvent and steam based
technologies. AOSC will continue to monitor this technology and evaluate for potential
future implementation.
AOSC will continue to explore emerging technologies for potential future application in
its commercial SAGD developments.

MacKay River Commercial Project 4-1 Wells
December 2009
4 WELL DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 SAGD WELL PAD LAYOUT AND DESIGN
SAGD well pads will be designed to accommodate between three and six well pairs.
Well pads will be constructed such that emulsion from individual production wells will be
grouped together at the well pad. Emulsion will be pumped to the surface by downhole
pumps in each production well.
Further details on pad facilities are discussed in Section 5.3.1.
4.2 SAGD WELL PAIR DRILLING AND COMPLETIONS
4.2.1 Drilling
The proposed SAGD horizontal wells will consist of a surface, intermediate, and
horizontal section. All of these wells will be spudded at an approximate angle ranging
from 35° to 45° from vertical and drilled to the McMurray Formation target using a build
rate of approximately 8° per 30 m. Current directional plans for the initial wells have an
average true vertical depth of 200 m and a horizontal completed length of 850 m. The
total measured depth of the wells will be approximately 1,300 m, depending on the well
trajectory. A typical schematic of both injection and production wells is presented on
Figure 4.2-1.
AOSC plans to follow a “batch” drilling process in which the surface section of all wells
on the pad will be drilled first. The surface section is required for well control purposes
while drilling and to case off any unstable zones in the glacial till. These surface holes
will be drilled and completed to comply with all applicable ERCB directives and
regulations.
Several or possibly all of the intermediate sections on a pad will be drilled next. The
intermediate section will remain at approximately 35 to 45° from vertical until the kickoff
depth is reached. At this point, directional drilling will begin using a mud motor and a
measurement while drilling (MWD) system. Intermediate casing will be run and set at
approximately 90° from vertical in the pay zone. For both injection wells and production
wells, this 298.5 mm casing has been engineered to withstand AOSC’s SAGD operating
conditions, will utilize high strength connections and will be cemented in place with a
thermal cement blend. These connections will incorporate a premium metal to metal
seal that will be monitored upon make-up. To further ensure hydraulic isolation, industry
recommended practices will be followed while drilling and cementing. AOSC will comply
with ERCB Directive 051 - Injection and Disposal Wells (1994). Due to the depth of the
McMurray reservoir, the base of groundwater protection will be covered by the
intermediate casing string with thermal cement from intermediate casing point to surface.
The final step in the “batch” drilling process will be the drilling of the horizontal sections.
The horizontal production wells will be landed first, using a similar directional drilling
assembly as used in the intermediate section. In addition, a gamma ray logging tool will
be used to identify reservoir quality, and a resistivity tool may also be run to gather
saturation information. The horizontal injection wells will be placed approximately 5 m

December 2009
directly above the horizontal production wells using proven active ranging techniques.
Finally, the horizontal length for both injection and production wells will be completed
using a 219.1 mm slotted liner for sand control that is attached to a thermal debris seal
barrier inside the intermediate casing. The use of wire wrap or mesh screens and flow
control devices are among the possible alternatives that are being investigated for future
use.
All of the SAGD well sections will be drilled using a non-saline water, light polymer-
based drilling fluid. This system will be augmented with bentonite, polymers and lost
circulation material as hole conditions dictate.
4.2.1.1 Drilling Waste Disposal

Management and disposal of all drilling fluid wastes will be in accordance with ERCB
Directive 050 - Drilling Waste Management (1996a). Additional details regarding drilling
waste disposal are presented in Section 6.4.2.
4.2.2 Completions
4.2.2.1 SAGD Injection Well Completion

The injection wells will be completed using dual tubing strings which consist of a long
string landed at the toe and a short string landed at the heel. High quality steam will be
injected down both strings, and enter the reservoir through a slotted liner. The typical
injection well schematic is presented on Figure 4.2-1. A select number of initial injection
wells may have an instrumentation string to help optimize the startup process.
All steam injection wells will be licensed according to requirements in ERCB

Directive 051 (1994).
4.2.2.2 SAGD Production Well Completion

The production wells will use a single production string landed at the heel and completed
with a progressive cavity pump (PCP) or electrical submersible pump (ESP).
Instrumentation will be deployed into the horizontal sections of the initial 46 wells via the
utility string. This may include single or multiple temperature points along the horizontal
section and will likely include at least one pressure point near the heel of the well for
monitoring pump performance. The typical production well schematic is presented on
Figure 4.2-1.
To account for steam injection during the circulation phase, all production wells will be
licensed according to requirements in ERCB Directive 051 (1994).

Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
TYPICAL SAGD
Calgary
l WELL PAIR SCHEMATIC

Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
4.3 OBSERVATION WELLS
As discussed in Section 3.13, vertical observation wells that will be used to monitor
temperature, pressure, or both will be drilled to the base of the McMurray Formation.
These wells may be drilled and cased, or cemented in place. All of these wells will be
drilled with a water based mud system. Observation well wellheads will be designed for
SAGD operating conditions.
Cased observation wells may have instrumentation attached to the outside of a casing
string that is thermally cemented in place. The external instrumentation will be capable
of measuring temperature or pressure. These cased observation wells allow for the
retrieval of internal temperature monitoring equipment and provide the ability to run
cased hole logging tools. Both the casing and cement will be designed to meet all
thermal and operating requirements. The completion of a typical cased observation well
is presented on Figure 4.3-1.
Observation wells that are cemented in place may have a tubing string with
instrumentation externally attached. After the instrumentation is run, the entire wellbore
will be filled with thermal cement as shown on Figure 4.3-2.

Surface Casing
177.8mm OD
Transition to soft cable and aircraft line
Thermal Cement to Surface
Push Springs Open Hole

158.8mm
Bundle of MI Cables
(Thermocouples) Zone
Piezometers of Interest
Internal Tubing
114.3mm OD
Premium connection casing landed just above the Devonian
Peace River
«l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference: TYPICAL CASED
Calgary
OBSERVATION WELL
l
Disclaimer: SCHEMATIC
Surface Casing
177.8mm OD
Open Hole
158.8mm
Thermal Cement to Surface
Coil Tubing
31.8mm
Bundle of MI Cables
(Thermocouples) Zone
of
Interest
Centralizer
Peace River
«l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS
Reference:
09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
TYPICAL CEMENTED IN
PLACE OBSERVATION
Calgary
l
Disclaimer:
WELL SCHEMATIC
December 2009
4.4 WATER SOURCE AND DISPOSAL WELLS
Water source wells will be drilled and completed into the Empress Formation for
Phase 1.
The base case design for water source wells is a vertical well with a sand control screen.
Screens may be of a pre-pack, natural pack, or gravel pack completion. Other shallow
wells (less than 150 m) that are not penetrating the oil sands will be cased with standard
API casing, and may either be cemented, grouted, or held in place with bentonite chips
in the annulus. Schematic diagrams which represent Quaternary water source wells are
shown on Figure 4.4-1.
Water disposal wells penetrating any oil-bearing formations will also be cased with a
thermally compliant design that has premium connections and thermal cement from total
depth or intermediate casing point to surface. These wells may be completed with
screens, perforations, gravel packs, or open-hole completion. All disposal wells will be
drilled, completed, and tested in accordance with ERCB Directive 051 (1994), as shown
on Figure 4.4-2.
Water source and disposal well wellheads that penetrate the oil sands will be designed
to a minimum pressure rating of 11.8 MPa at 265°C.

Peace River
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS
Reference:
09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
TYPICAL QUATERNARY
WATER SOURCE WELL
SCHEMATIC
Calgary
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference: TYPICAL WATER
Calgary
DISPOSAL WELL
l
Disclaimer: SCHEMATIC
«
December 2009
4.5 SAGD WELLHEADS
The SAGD steam injection and production wellheads will be rated to 11.8 MPa at 265°C.
This will facilitate steam, production, and gas flow to enter or exit the wells in a safe and
controlled manner. Schematics of the injection and production wellheads are presented
on Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, respectively.
The production wellheads will be designed to handle production from both long and short
tubing strings. The wellhead will also have valves to support the use of bubble gas and
casing gas, as well as ports to accommodate instrumentation.
The injection wellheads will be designed to handle injection down both the long and
short tubing strings. Ports in the wellhead will support the use of instrumentation as
required. The wellhead will be able to handle production of fluids up the heel string
during the SAGD startup phase.

Peace River
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
TYPICAL INJECTION
Calgary
l
WELLHEAD SCHEMATIC
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
TYPICAL PRODUCTION
Calgary
l
WELLHEAD SCHEMATIC
Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
4.6 CASING FAILURE MONITORING PROGRAM
AOSC will strive to prevent casing failures by following industry recommended practices
with regards to casing and cementing to ensure hydraulic isolation between the wellbore
and surrounding formations. AOSC will also continue to investigate new materials and
procedures used to construct the wellbores.
Process operating parameters, such as injection well blanket gas pressure and steam
injection rate, will be continuously monitored and any unexpected conditions will be
investigated. Casing failures are not anticipated as the SAGD operation is a continuous
process that is operated below the formation fracture pressure. As a result, the
downhole tubulars are not subjected to the same stress variations that occur from the
high temperature and pressure fluctuations as seen in cyclic steam processes.

MacKay River Commercial Project 5-1 Facilities Description
December 2009
5 FACILITIES DESCRIPTION
The Project will be developed with a phased construction strategy with an ultimate
bitumen production design capacity of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd). Over the operating
life of the Project, one central processing facility (the MacKay River Central Plant (MCP))
and an additional remote steam generation facility (the MacKay River North Plant
(MNP)) will be required.
The MCP will be constructed in multiple phases. Phase 1 of the MCP will include
clearing, site preparation, and construction of the required Project infrastructure to
support a bitumen production rate of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd). Facilities required for
subsequent phases of the Project will also be developed at the MCP. The anticipated
development timeline for the four phases is as follows:

Over time, the production rates will decline from the pads surrounding the MCP. In order
to sustain the MCP at bitumen treating capacity, AOSC will construct the MNP in the
north portion of the MacKay River lease. The MNP will generate sufficient steam to
produce 9,539 m3/d (60,000 bpd) of bitumen. All of the bitumen and produced water
produced at MNP will be sent to the MCP for treatment. Treated boiler feedwater (BFW)
from the MCP will be sent to the MNP through an interconnecting pipeline. When the
MNP is operational, the MCP will continue to process up to 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd).
It is anticipated that the MNP will be constructed approximately 5 years startup of
Phase 4.
Field facilities for the Project include SAGD well pads, source water, disposal well and
salt cavern wells, drilling sumps and camps, borrow areas, access roads, pipelines and
utility corridors.
AOSC will follow all applicable codes, regulations and directives in the design,
construction and operation of the facilities.
5.1 MACKAY RIVER CENTRAL PLANT (MCP)
The MCP and associated facilities including soil stockpiles and substations will occupy
approximately 76 ha in 90-14 W4M. Separate MCP plot plans have been provided for
Phase 1 and the full development, as presented on Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2,
respectively. The main components of the MCP will include makeup water treatment,
steam generation, cogeneration, vapour recovery, bitumen treating, produced gas
recovery, produced water recycling and tankage. Access to the MCP will be via a short
addition from the proposed AOSC MacKay River Pilot Road.
The layout of the MCP has been designed with consideration given to the following:
 Phased development plan and the integration of the future phases;

 Equipment spacing requirements for safety and maintenance access;

December 2009
 Minimizing footprint;
 Maximizing the use of existing disturbed areas;
 Optimized logical process flow to enhance plant operability;
 Allowances for construction laydown and soil stockpile areas;
 ASRD FireSmart Wildfire Assessment System; and
 Minimizing pre-build for future phases.
The MCP will be equipped with all the necessary facilities to process the produced
emulsion and annulus gases and to generate the steam required for the Project. The
following process areas/systems will be installed at the MCP:
 Water treatment;
 Bitumen treatment;
 Produced water de-oiling;
 Cogeneration;
 Tankage;
 Flare system;
 Utilities.
The integration of the various systems at the MCP is presented on a block flow diagram
(Figure 5.1-3).
5.1.1 Water Treatment
Water required to generate steam will be preferentially sourced from treated produced
water. To account for water losses to the reservoir and from the plant, additional
makeup water will be sourced from groundwater wells. A detailed description of the
Project makeup water strategy is presented in Section 5.4
To minimize the makeup water and disposal requirements for the Project, AOSC will use
evaporators and concentrators to treat de-oiled water for use as BFW. The evaporator
distillate water will have a very low concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) that will
be suitable for use in high pressure drum type boilers.
Inlet water from de-oiling will be pre-heated by cross-exchange with the hot BFW leaving
the evaporator in order to increase the efficiency of the evaporator process. De-aerated
water will then enter the evaporator sump where it will be continually recycled as brine to
the inlet of a bank of heat exchanger tubes. The brine will absorb the heat from steam
and be partially vapourized in this process. The brine liquid will fall back to the
evaporator sump having been concentrated in dissolved solids.
Water vapour will be separated in the evaporator sump before being compressed by a
mechanical vapour compressor. The steam will then move to the heat exchanger to
transfer heat to the colder liquid brine. The steam will condense as it moves through the
exchanger generating high quality BFW. The BFW will be cross-exchanged with the
incoming de-oiled water before being transferred to the BFW tank.

December 2009
An evaporator blowdown stream will be transferred to a concentrator unit for further TDS
concentration. The concentrator process is similar to the evaporator except there is no
inlet/distillate heat exchanger or de-aerator. The blowdown from the concentrator will be
sent to the salt cavern well (Section 5.3.3). Acid will be used to reduce the pH of the
concentrator blowdown causing the silica to precipitate out and settle at the base of the
salt cavern. The return water from the salt cavern will be pumped to the disposal water
tank prior to disposal into a Class 1b disposal well.
The water treatment process is shown on Figure 5.1-4.
5.1.2 Steam Generation
Prior to being sent to the steam generators, BFW will be cross-exchanged with hot
process fluids to attain the maximum possible BFW temperature, which in turn will
minimize fuel gas consumption. Four steam generators each with a 156 MW output
power rating will be used to generate the required steam for Phase 1 development (up to
a bitumen production rate of 5,564 m3/d (35,000 bpd)). The installation of a power and
steam cogeneration unit is planned for Phase 2 of the Project development. The
cogeneration unit will comprise a gas turbine generator (GTG) with an electrical output of
85 MW (nominal) followed by a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). AOSC is
currently working on the cogeneration design but will reserve full commitment to
cogeneration until detailed engineering studies are completed. However, the installation
of the cogeneration facilities is assumed for this application.
To support the maximum bitumen production rate of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd), a total
of 13 steam generators and one HRSG will be used to generate the required steam. A
spare steam generator (bringing the total to 14) will also be installed. A steam
distribution pipeline network will deliver the steam from the MCP to the SAGD well pads
for injection into the reservoir.
Intermittent blowdown from the steam generators will be cooled before being recycled to
the produced water tank for treatment. Some of the intermittent blowdown stream will
flash and be vented to the atmosphere.
Details regarding the stack parameters and emission rates for each of the steam
generators and the cogeneration unit are presented in the Air Quality section of the EIA
(Volume 2, Section 2).
The steam generation process is presented on Figure 5.1-5.
5.1.3 Bitumen Treatment
At the bitumen treating area, produced emulsion from the SAGD well pads will be
separated into bitumen, produced water and produced gases. Produced solids will also
be flushed on an intermittent basis to the desand system. After the produced gases are
separated in the inlet degasser, the emulsion will be cooled. Separation of the bitumen
and produced water streams will take place in the separator and treater vessels where
diluent will be added to aid gravity separation. The product will then be cooled again
before being transferred to the sales oil tanks for storage.

December 2009
Sales oil must have a basic sediment and water (BS&W) content of less than 0.5% (by
volume) to meet pipeline specifications. Trim diluent will be added as required to ensure
that viscosity and density specifications are met. The sales oil will then be pumped to a
Lease Automated Custody Transfer (LACT) unit where it will be transferred in a pipeline
to market.
At the time of the Application, AOSC anticipates that synthetic crude oil (SCO) will be
used as diluent. AOSC will continue to evaluate market conditions and product
availability regarding diluent selection. The decision regarding choice of diluent will be
finalized during detailed engineering.
Produced water from the separator and treater vessels will be cooled and sent to the
de-oiling area for treatment. Produced gases from the inlet degasser will be sent to the
produced gas area for treatment prior to being burned in the steam generators.
The bitumen treatment process is presented on Figure 5.1-6.
5.1.4 Produced Water De-Oiling
The de-oiling system will be used to remove most of the oil from the produced water
before water treatment. The skim tank and induced static floatation (ISF) units will
separate oil by gravity.
The slop tanks will collect various sources of oily water, many of which will contain
water, oil, and solids. The bitumen separated from the slop oil treating package will be
sent to the sales oil tanks. The water and solids separated from the slop oil treating
package will be sent to the desand system for treatment.
The desand system will collect various sources of oily water streams with solids. The
solids will be separated by gravity and periodically trucked to the salt cavern or to an
approved third party waste handling facility. The water from the desand system will be
recycled to the skim tank for oil removal.
The produced water de-oiling process is presented on Figure 5.1-7.
5.1.5 Produced Gas Recovery and Fuel Supply
Annulus casing gas from the production wells will be gathered and transported to the
MCP in an above ground pipeline. Additional produced gas (that was entrained in the
emulsion) will be recovered from the produced gas separator. A vessel will separate
water from the well pad annulus gases and produced gas from the produced gas
separator before these streams are sent to the fuel gas system. Vapours recovered
from the separator and treater vessels containing diluent will be cooled and separated to
recover the produced gas, hydrocarbon liquids and produced water.
The produced gas recovery process is presented on Figure 5.1-8.
The primary fuel supply for the Project will be purchased natural gas from a third party
that will enter the MCP from a pipeline. Produced gas will be preferentially burned in the
steam generators and HRSG. The cogeneration GTG will burn only purchased natural
gas. The Project fuel gas distribution system will include pressure let-down stations to

December 2009
ensure that all users at the MCP and at the SAGD well pads receive fuel gas at the
correct pressure.
5.1.6 Tankage
All storage tanks on site will be built pursuant to ERCB Directive 055 – Storage
Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (2001a). Tank dikes will be
constructed to provide secondary containment as required.
All hydrocarbon tanks (Table 5.1-1) will be connected to a vapour recovery unit (VRU) to
minimize fugitive emissions and increase energy efficiency (Figure 5.1-9). The VRU will
collect various sources of low pressure off-gas, particularly tank blanketing gas, to
mitigate fugitive emissions. The gases will be cooled to condense the water and
hydrocarbon liquids. The compressed gas will be sent to the diluent recovery area first
and ultimately burned in the steam generators as mixed fuel gas. A spare VRU
compressor will provide redundancy in the event of a compressor outage.
Any water storage tank that meets the “Criteria for the Surface Discharge of Collected
Surface Run-on/Run-off Waters,” specified in Section 11 of ERCB Directive 055 (2001a),
may not have a dike around the tank. These storage tanks will utilize the site drainage
and ditches to direct any leaks to the site runoff pond for collection. The number of
tanks and storage volumes may change during detailed design.

December 2009
Table 5.1-1 MCP Process and Storage Tanks

Tank Purpose Quantity Nominal Vapour
Phase 1 Full Volume Collection
3
Development m
(each tank)
Removes oil from
Skim Tank 1 4 5,150 Yes
produced water
De-oiled water storage
Produced Water Tank 1 2 11,500 Yes
before water treatment
Storage of slop oil prior to
Slop Oil Tank 2 4 500 Yes
treatment or recycle
Gravity settling tank to
Desand Tank remove solids from 1 2 500 Yes
produced water
Collection tank for oil water
Decant Tank 1 2 500 Yes
sources prior to recycle
De-Oiling Polymer Tote
Chemical storage 1 4 1.5 No
Tank
Demulsifier Tank Chemical storage 1 4 40 No
Reverse Demulsifier Tank Chemical storage 1 4 40 No
Methanol Tank Chemical storage 1 1 10 No
Mixer tank for de-oiled
Evaporator Feed Tank 1 2 300 Yes
water and caustic
Storage of disposal water
Disposal Tank 1 2 850 Yes
prior to deep well injection
Acid Tank Hydrochloric acid storage 1 2 240 No
Caustic Tank Sodium hydroxide storage 1 2 130 No
Magox Silo Magox storage 1 4 100 No
Storage of evaporator
BFW Tank 1 2 11,500 No
distillate
Storage of saline and non-
Source Water Tank 1 2 2,070 Yes
saline water
Storage of treated utility
Utility Water Tank 1 2 70 No
water
Storage of treated
Domestic Water Tank 1 2 70 No
Domestic water
Diluent Tank Storage of diluent 1 2 11,500 Yes
Storage of product prior to
Sales Oil Tank 3 6 11,500 Yes
transfer to LACT unit
Glycol Tank Storage of glycol 1 2 70 No
5.1.7 Flare System
The MCP will be equipped with a flare system to handle foreseeable process upsets,
emergency conditions, and maintenance scenarios. The flare systems will be designed
in accordance with ERCB Directive 060 – Upstream Petroleum Industry Flaring,
Incinerating and Venting (2006a). Under normal operating conditions, there will be no
flaring of process vapours. The flare stacks will each be equipped with a continuous
pilot and wind shroud and will be continuously purged with natural gas to prevent air
ingress. The flare knock-out drum will remove and recycle liquids present in the flare
gas streams. The flare stacks will be sized and located to meet heat radiation limits for
personnel and equipment. Details regarding the stack parameters and emissions from
the flare stacks are presented in the Air Quality section of the EIA (Volume 2, Section 2).

December 2009
5.1.8 Utilities
5.1.8.1 Glycol System

The primary cooling medium for the incoming emulsion and produced water is the BFW;
the secondary cooling medium is glycol. Direct heat exchange of BFW is the most
efficient means of recovering energy into the BFW system.
The glycol heat integration circuit will improve the energy efficiency of the MCP by
recovering lower grade heat and transferring it to various cold users throughout the
facility. Process users requiring heat such as combustion air pre-heaters, fuel gas
heaters, building heat, some heat tracing, and tank heating will be supplied by the glycol.
Once the process heat requirements are satisfied, the unusable low grade heat will be
rejected to the atmosphere in the aerial coolers. A natural gas fired glycol heater will be
installed to provide heat during winter shutdowns.
5.1.8.2 Utility Water

Non-saline groundwater will be used as utility water. The treatment system used to
meet utility water standards may include filtration. Utility water will be used for dust
control, construction, turnaround activities, and other small services.
A portion of the utility water will be treated further by disinfection to use as domestic
water. Domestic water will be used for sinks, toilets, safety showers and eye-wash
stations.
All drinking water for the Project will be purchased from an appropriate third party
supplier.
5.1.8.3 Instrument & Utility Air

Redundant air compressors upstream of air driers will supply air receivers with
instrument air. The two distribution networks will supply the MCP with utility and
instrument air. Staggered pressure set-points on the instrument and utility air header
pressure control valves will ensure that the instrument air header has highest priority for
air. The distributed control system will have safety controls, alarms and shutdowns to
mitigate air loss to the facility.
5.1.8.4 Emergency Power

An emergency power generator will provide power to all critical users in the event of a
main power supply outage.
5.1.9 Chemical Consumption
Chemicals will be required for various Project processes (Table 5.1-2).

December 2009
Table 5.1-2 Chemical Consumption Estimates
Chemical Normal Consumption Rate (t/d)

Phase 1 Full Development
Well Pads
Demulsifier 1.9 8.1
Bitumen Treatment
Demulsifier 1.9 8.1
Reverse Demulsifier 1.8 7.9
De-Oiling
De-Oiling Polymer 0.2 0.7
Water Treatment
Sodium Hydroxide 56 243
Dispersant 0.7 2.8
Anti-Foam 0.2 0.6
Anti-Scalant 0.5 2.3
MagOx 1.7 7.3
Disposal Water
Hydrochloric Acid 10 83
Steam Generation
Polymer Chelant 0.6 2.7
Oxygen Scavenger 0.6 2.7
Filming Amine <0.1 <0.1
Fuel Gas System
Methanol 2.1 8.0
Utility Water System
Coagulant <0.1 <0.1
Sodium Hypochlorite 0.9 2.0
Glycol
Glycol <0.1 <0.1
5.1.10 Material and Energy Balance
Material balances have been prepared for Phase 1 of the Project development
(Figure 5.1-10) and for the full development (Figure 5.1-11).
Energy balances have also been prepared for Phase 1 of the Project development and
for the full development (Table 5.1-3). The energy balances were prepared based on an
evaluation of the lower heating values (LHV) of all energy-containing streams entering or
exiting the facility. The energy efficiency of the Project was calculated on the following
formula:
Energy Efficiency % = Diluted Bitumen + Electrical Export x 100

Diluent + Bitumen + PG + FG + Electrical Import

December 2009
Table 5.1-3 Project Energy Balance
Energy Stream LHV Energy Rate (GJ/d)

(1)
Phase 1 Full Development
IN
Bitumen from wells 40.0 GJ/m³ 222,576 953,924
Diluent feed from pipeline 38.9 GJ/m³ 196,062 840,920
Purchased fuel gas from pipeline 33.7 GJ/m³ 34,608 160,983
Produced gas from wells 18.9 GJ/m³ 750 3,215
Electrical import n/a 2,032 1,823
OUT
Sales oil to LACT 39.5 GJ/m³ 418,638 1,794,214
(2)
Electrical export from cogeneration n/a 0 0
Energy Efficiency 91.8% 91.5%
Notes:
3
(1) Based on the MCP producing 23,847 m /d bitumen and include a nominal 10,000 t/d steam cogeneration unit.
(2) Electrical import/export rates for the cogeneration case assumes all power generated is used on site.

F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\MacKAY RIVER EIA\7349-EIA-FAC-09.cdr
LEGEND
PLANT BOUNDARY
U/G PIPES OR LINES 1:5,000
75 0 75
EDGE OF DITCH
O/H POWER LINE
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
FENCE
UNIT BOUNDARY 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
TRANSFORMER Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l
RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: PHASE 1
Calgary
l
MCP PLOT PLAN
Disclaimer:
«
LEGEND
PLANT BOUNDARY
PHASE 1 BUILDINGS 1:5,000
75 0 75
PHASE 2 (FUTURE)
PHASE 3 (FUTURE)
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
PHASE 4 (FUTURE)
U/G PIPES OR LINES 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
EDGE OF DITCH Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
l
RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
O/H POWER LINE
FENCE
Reference: FULL DEVELOPMENT
UNIT BOUNDARY
Calgary
l
MCP PLOT PLAN
TRANSFORMER Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
GENERAL BLOCK FLOW
Calgary
l DIAGRAM
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-SCH-09.cdr
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary
WATER TREATMENT
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary
STEAM GENERATION
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary
BITUMEN TREATMENT
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary
DE-OILING
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: PRODUCED GAS
Calgary RECOVERY
l
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: VAPOUR RECOVERY AND
Calgary FUEL GAS SYSTEM
l
Disclaimer:
«
Produced Gas 22,256 sm3/cd
23,740 sm3/sd
Diluent
5,044 m3/cd (SCO)
5,380 m3/sd (SCO)
Bitumen 5,564 sm3/cd 2,086 m3/cd (Gas Condensate)
5,935 sm3/sd 2,225 m3/sd (Gas Condensate)

23,740 sm3/sd Sales Oil (Note 1)
RESERVOIR BITUMEN TREATING 10,662 m3/cd (SCO)
11,371 m3/sd (SCO)
Produced Water 13,480 m3/cd 7,704 m3/cd (Gas Condensate)
14,378 m3/sd 8,216 m3/sd (Gas Condensate)
Reservoir Retention 2,378 m3/cd

2,538 m3/sd
Produced Water 13,426 m3/cd

(Note 2) 14,322 m3/sd
HP Steam 15,858 m3/cd
(Note 4) 16,916 m3/sd
Vent 135 m3/cd

145 m3/sd
Natural Gas
1,026,933 sm3/cd Boiler Feed Water 15,858 m3/cd
1,095,395 sm3/sd 16,916 m3/sd
STEAM GENERATION WATER TREATING
Utility & Pad Fuel Gas Non-Recoverable 400 m3/cd Recoverable 433 m3/cd Disposal Water 231 m3/cd
52,460 sm3/cd Utility Water 427 m3/sd Utility Water 462 m3/sd 246 m3/sd
55,957 sm3/sd
Source Water 3198 m3/cd Make-up Water 2365 m3/cd

(Non-Saline) 3412 m3/sd 2523 m3/sd
NOTES:
1) Sales Oil Rates include 0.5% BS&W (54 m3/cd water based on SCO diluent).
2) Produced Water Rate taken from SCO case
3) Calendar day rates (cd) are 93.75% of the stream day rates (sd) based on plant availability. Peace River
l
«l
Fort McMurray
4) Volumetric rates for steam are based on cold water equivalent (CWE). Project Code: Technical: Date:
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: PHASE 1 MATERIAL
Calgary BALANCE
l
Disclaimer:
101,747 sm3/sd
Diluent
21,617 m3/cd (SCO)
23,058 m3/sd (SCO)
Bitumen 23,847 sm3/cd 8,941 m3/cd (Gas Condensate)
25,437 sm3/sd 9,538 m3/sd (Gas Condensate)

101,747 sm3/sd Sales Oil (Note 1)
RESERVOIR BITUMEN TREATING 45,692 m3/cd (SCO)
48,739 m3/sd (SCO)
Produced Water 57,770 m 3/cd 33,016 m3/cd (Gas Condensate)
61,621 m3/sd 35,219 m3/sd (Gas Condensate)
Reservoir Retention 10,195 m 3/cd

10,875 m3/sd
Produced Water 57,542 m 3/cd

(Note 2) 61.377 m3/sd
HP Steam 67,965 m3/cd
(Note 4) 72,496 m3/sd
Vent 481 m 3/cd

513 m3/sd
Natural Gas
4,932,838 sm3/cd Boiler Feed Water 67,965 m 3/cd
5,261,693 sm3/sd 72,496 m3/sd
STEAM GENERATION WATER TREATING
Utility & Pad Fuel Gas Non-Recoverable 1,300 m 3/cd Recoverable 1,787 m3/cd Disposal Water 2030 m 3/cd
251,411 sm 3/cd Utility Water 1,387 m 3/sd Utility Water 1,906 m 3/sd 2165 m3/sd
268,172 sm3/sd
Source Water 3,087 m 3/cd Make-up Water 11,147 m 3/cd

(Non-Saline) 3,293 m 3/sd (Saline) 11,980 m 3/sd
NOTES:
1) Sales Oil Rates include 0.5% BS&W (228 m 3/cd water based on SCO diluent).
2) Produced Water Rate taken from SCO case.
3) Calendar day rates (cd) are 93.75% of the stream day rates (sd) based on plant availability. Peace River
l
«l O I L S A N D S C O R P.
4) Volumetric rates for steam are based on cold water equivalent (CWE). Fort McMurray

7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: FULL DEVELOPMENT
Calgary MATERIAL BALANCE
l
Disclaimer:
December 2009
5.2 MACKAY RIVER NORTH PLANT (MNP)
Over time, production rates from initial wells will decline. In order to maintain production
volumes, additional SAGD wells will be drilled. As development proceeds to the north
portion of the MacKay River lease, a remote steam generation facility (MNP) will be
constructed to serve the wells in the area. The MNP will generate sufficient steam to
produce 9,539 m3/d (60,000 bpd) of bitumen. All of the bitumen and water produced at
the MNP will be sent to the MCP for treatment. Treated BFW from the MCP will be sent
to the MNP through an interconnecting pipeline. When the MNP is operational, the MCP
will continue to process up to 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd). It is anticipated that the MNP
will be constructed approximately 5 years after startup of Phase 4.
The MNP will occupy approximately 15 ha in 91-15 W4M (Figure 5.2-1). The following
process areas/systems will be installed at the MNP:

 Flare system;
 Booster station;
 Utilities.
The MNP will produce sufficient steam to produce 9,539 m3/d (60,000 bpd) of bitumen.
Emulsion produced from SAGD well pads serviced by the MNP will be cross-exchanged
with BFW at the MNP before being transported to the MCP bitumen treating area.
Produced gas from SAGD well pads serviced by the MNP will be recovered at the MNP
where it will be burned in the MNP steam generators. All of the bitumen treatment,
produced water de-oiling and water treatment will continue to occur at the MCP. Treated
BFW will be supplied to the MNP from the MCP through an interconnecting pipeline.
Once the MNP is operational, the overall Project material and energy balances, and
chemical consumption rates will not change. A block flow diagram has been prepared to
illustrate how the MNP will be integrated with the MCP (Figure 5.2-2).
5.2.1 MNP Tankage
Additional storage tanks will be required to support development of the MNP

(Table 5.2-1).
Table 5.2-1 MNP Process and Storage Tanks

Tank Purpose Quantity Nominal Vapour
Volume Collection
3
m
(each tank)
Demulsifier Tank Chemical storage 1 40 No
Reverse Demulsifier Tank Chemical storage 1 40 No
BFW Tank Storage of evaporator distillate 1 8,400 No
Utility Water Tank Storage of treated utility water 1 70 No
Glycol Tank Storage of glycol 1 70 No

LEGEND
PLANT BOUNDARY
U/G PIPES OR LINES 1:2,500
50 0 50
EDGE OF DITCH
O/H POWER LINE
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
FENCE
TRANSFORMER 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l
RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
Calgary
MNP PLOT PLAN
l
Disclaimer:
«
NOTES:
1) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, QUANTITY OF EACH MAJOR PIECE OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT IS ONE.
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: MNP INTEGRATION
Calgary BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM
l
Disclaimer:
«
December 2009
5.3 FIELD FACILITIES
Field facilities for the Project include SAGD well pads, source water and disposal wells,
a salt cavern well, drilling sumps and camps, borrow areas, access roads, pipelines and
utility corridors.
5.3.1 SAGD Well Pads
Ten SAGD well pads will be required for the initial development of Phase 1, and
approximately 200 SAGD well pads with an average of about five well pairs per pad will
be constructed for the full development over the life of the Project. Emulsion will be
pumped to the surface by downhole pumps in each production well.
High pressure steam will be distributed to each SAGD well pad from the MCP or MNP.
A header on each SAGD well pad will distribute steam to each injection well. Emulsion
from each production well will be grouped into a header before combining with the
production from other SAGD well pads in a pipeline network that leads to the MCP.
Produced gas will be gathered at the well pads and then used as fuel for the steam
generators. Fuel gas will be sent to each SAGD well pad in a pipeline to be used for
bubbler and casing gas. Each SAGD pad will have test apparatus to allow testing of
bitumen and produced water rates from each well.
To reduce the well head pressures during startup circulation, temporary skids may be
added at the SAGD well pads. The temporary skids would include a separator and
pumps capable of handling the startup volumes from multiple well pairs. The vapour
from the temporary skid would flow into the annulus gas pipeline and the liquids from the
separator would be pumped into the emulsion pipeline. A well pad schematic is
presented on Figure 5.3-1.
A typical well pad plot plan is presented on Figure 5.3-2.
5.3.2 Source and Disposal Wells
Non-saline water source wells will be completed within the MacKay Channel of the
Empress Formation. Additional non-saline water source wells may be completed in the
Thickwood Valley Channel of the Empress Formation. Saline or alternative water source
wells will be completed within a suitable aquifer to be determined based on the results of
the winter 2010 water source exploration program (Section 5.4). A typical water source
well pad will occupy an area of 1 ha.
The Project will also require a Class 1b disposal well that will be operated in conjunction
with the salt cavern well (Section 5.3.3). Brine returns from the salt cavern will be
injected into the Project disposal well. A typical disposal well pad will occupy an area of
1 ha.
5.3.3 Salt Cavern Well
The concentrated blowdown waste stream from the evaporator will be injected into a salt
cavern with a simultaneous acid stream via separate tubing strings, to enable mixing in

December 2009
the open cavern space. The salt cavern well is located adjacent to the MCP
(Figure 1.2-3). The simultaneous acid injection provides pH buffering to force the
precipitation of silica which will settle and remain in the cavern bottom. The brine return,
primarily sodium chloride (NaCl) dissolved in water, from the salt cavern will be injected
into a Class 1b disposal well.
A separate application will be submitted to allow for disposal into the salt cavern. In
order to create the void space in the salt cavern prior to disposal, the cavern approvals
and licensing must be completed to provide 10 to 12 months of cavern washing prior to
the startup of the MCP. This means the source and disposal wells, pads, roads, power,
pipelines, and the salt cavern washing facilities need to be constructed and
commissioned prior to commencement of cavern washing.
The initial cavern wash water will come from the Empress Formation with the salt cavern
brine return stream being sent for disposal into the Keg River Formation. The anticipated
cavern wash water rate will average approximately 1,635 m³/d for the 10 to 12 month
washing period. Once SAGD operations commence, the cavern washing will continue
using the concentrator blowdown. Indications are the Keg River Formation water has a
very high salinity (TDS > 250,000 ppm) which is similar to the TDS of the salt cavern
brine returns. The salt cavern brine returns are expected to be compatible with the
water in the Keg River Formation.
5.3.4 MRCP Camp
The Project will include a camp (MRCP camp) with capacity to accommodate up to 600
people (Figure 1.2-3). This camp will house both construction and operations personnel.
The camp will be located on a site that is currently proposed to be used as a borrow
area for construction of the AOSC MacKay River Pilot Road.
5.3.5 Drilling Sumps and Camps
Drilling camps and sumps will be required to support ongoing drilling of the SAGD well
pairs as replacement patterns are required (Figure 1.2-3). Drilling camps will be set up
to accommodate the required drilling rigs, service rigs, well site services and support
personnel. Drilling camp placement will be adjusted to accommodate pad locations to
minimize travel distance for the workers on the rigs.
5.3.6 Borrow Areas
Fill material will be required during development of the Project. AOSC has reviewed
available published data and information collected during the terrestrial studies
conducted as part of the Project EIA to identify potential borrow areas (Figure 1.2-3).
AOSC anticipates that the borrow areas identified to date will provide suitable fill material
for construction of all Phase 1 facilities. Additional investigation work will be ongoing
throughout the MacKay River lease to evaluate additional potential borrow areas to
support future development.
Where possible, borrow areas will be sited as close as practical to the areas where the
material is needed in road and pad construction work, which reduces the linear
disturbance.

December 2009
5.3.7 Access Roads, Pipelines, and Utility Corridors
Development of the Project will require infrastructure to connect the field facilities to the
MCP, the MNP and the existing regional infrastructure. Where required, authorizations
for watercourse crossings will be obtained from AENV, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) and Transport Canada. The types of watercourse crossings proposed for the
Project are evaluated in the Hydrology section of the EIA (Volume 3, Section 6).
5.3.7.1 MCP Access Road

Access to the MCP will be via a 1.8 km section of road that will connect to the AOSC
MacKay River Pilot Road. It will be a permanent 10 m wide road located within a 40 m
wide ROW.
The Pilot road is currently pending regulatory approval by ASRD. The MacKay River
Pilot Road is a 26 km long road that will connect to Highway 63 via the existing LOC
830746 (Petro-Can Road) (Figure 1.2-2).
5.3.7.2 Above Ground Pipeline Corridors

Above ground pipeline corridors will be required to connect the SAGD well pads to either
the MCP or the MNP. These corridors will include either an 8 m or 10 m wide road,
above ground electrical power and fibre optic lines, an above ground piperack containing
steam, emulsion, annulus gas and fuel gas and areas for soil salvage (Figure 5.3-3).
The required ROW for these utility corridors will have a maximum width of either 57 m or
59 m (for either an 8 m wide or a 10 m wide road, respectively) to accommodate
expansion loops needed for insulated above ground piping. For the purposes of the EIA,
the disturbance associated with these utility corridors was considered to be an average
width of 50 m for the entire length of the ROW.
AOSC has evaluated the potential effects of above ground pipelines on wildlife
(Volume 4, Section 11) and will implement appropriate mitigation measures to enable
wildlife to cross these pipelines.
5.3.7.3 Buried Pipeline Corridors

Buried pipeline corridors will be required to connect the source water, disposal and salt
cavern wells to the MCP. Corridors between the MCP and the source water and salt
cavern wells will include an 8 m wide road, above ground electrical power lines, a buried
pipeline trench and areas for soil salvage (Figure 5.3-4). The required ROW for these
utility corridors will have a maximum width of 48 m.
Corridors between the MCP and the disposal wells will include an 8 m wide road, a
buried pipeline trench and areas for soil salvage (Figure 5.3-5). The required ROW for
these utility corridors will have a maximum width of 39 m.
5.3.7.4 MNP Access and Utility Corridor

The main access corridor connecting the MCP to the MNP will be approximately 24 km
long and will include a 10 m wide road, above ground electrical power lines, an above
ground emulsion pipeline, buried fuel gas and BFW pipelines and areas for soil salvage

December 2009
(Figure 5.3-6). The required ROW for this utility corridor will have a maximum width of
48 m. The proposed crossing of the MacKay River will be via a clear-span bridge.
5.3.7.5 Regional Infrastructure Corridors

The Project will also require connections to the existing regional infrastructure for sales
oil, diluent and electrical power. The MCP is located in close proximity to the existing
parallel TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. (TCPL) ROW and ATCO Electric (ATCO) 240 kV
transmission line ROW (Figure 1.2-3).
An undisturbed allowance for a future third party ROW has been allocated between the
MCP and the existing utility ROW that may be used for both a diluent supply pipeline
and a sales oil pipeline. AOSC will continue to evaluate options for diluent and sales oil
pipelines based on consultation with third party providers.
AOSC has held discussions with ATCO and the Alberta Electrical System Operator
(AESO) regarding power supply infrastructure for the Project. Based on these
discussions ATCO has issued a 101 Waiver to AOSC and in turn AOSC has
successfully filed a Preliminary Access Application (PAA) with the AESO for permission
to construct a tie-in to the ATCO facility and a 240 kV/ 144 kV substation to serve the
Project needs. The close proximity of the ATCO 240 kV transmission line will minimize
the linear disturbance needed to bring power to the site. Once the cogeneration unit is
constructed in Phase 2, excess power will be exported to the provincial power grid using
the same facilities.

Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GDE 09/10/15
Reference: SAGD WELL PAD
Calgary SCHEMATIC
l
Disclaimer:
«
PACKAGE
SKID
LEGEND
PRODUCER WELLHEAD
1:2,000
INJECTOR WELLHEAD
30 0 30
POWER LINE (O/H) (BY OTHERS)
POWER LINE (U/G)
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
UTILITY TRANSFORMER Project Code: Technical: Date:
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
NOTES Edmonton
l
1. PAD 100 DATUM N000.000, E000.000 GEODETIC EQUIVALENT IS TBD. RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
2. PAD BENCHMARK ELEVATION 100.000 = TBD AMSL Reference: TYPICAL SAGD
Calgary
l
WELL PAD PLOT PLAN
Disclaimer:
«
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: TYPICAL ABOVEGROUND
Calgary PIPELINE ROW
l
Disclaimer: CROSS-SECTION
«
1:300
5 0 5
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l
RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15 TYPICAL BURIED PIPELINE
Reference: ROW CROSS-SECTION -
Calgary
l
SOURCE WATER AND SALT
Disclaimer:
CAVERN WELLS
«
1:300
5 0 5
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l
RS
Reference:
09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
TYPICAL BURIED PIPELINE
Calgary
ROW CROSS-SECTION
l
Disclaimer:
- DISPOSAL WELLS
«
1:300
5 0 5
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
Meters
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l
RS
Reference:
09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
MNP ACCESS AND UTILITY
Calgary
CORRIDOR ROW
l
Disclaimer:
CROSS-SECTION
«
December 2009
5.4 PROJECT WATER REQUIREMENTS
5.4.1 Introduction and Water Use
Water is a key component in the SAGD process and is used primarily for steam
generation, but also for other plant and domestic functions. Water use at the Project
results in the vast majority of water being recycled, some water being used by plant
processes resulting in disposal, and some water being consumed by reservoir retention.
The selected water treatment technology for the MCP is expected to return a minimum
of 95% of the produced water to the reservoir as steam. Because some of the water is
consumed by plant and reservoir processes, a makeup water supply is required. AOSC
is working to minimize water losses at the MCP by:
 concentrating evaporator blowdown, which is a purge stream of high total

dissolved solids (TDS) water that must be disposed of. AOSC has added a
concentrator to the process which reduces the blowdown disposal volume by
approximately 50%, thereby reducing the makeup water volume required; and
 working with evaporator vendors to reduce the water vent rate from the
evaporator de-aerator.
The proposed water use strategy is targeted to meet the following objectives and criteria:
 meet long term Project water needs;

 minimize surface water impacts; and
 be technically and economically viable.
5.4.2 Project Water Source and Disposal Options
5.4.2.1 Hydrogeology Baseline Assessment

AOSC has completed a hydrogeology study to identify both saline and non-saline water
source and disposal aquifer candidates within the hydrogeology local study area (LSA).
The methodology used for the hydrogeology assessment and candidate water supply
and disposal aquifer selection is detailed in Volume 3, Section 5 of the EIA.
The hydrogeology LSA is bounded by the Athabasca River in the south and east,
extends up to 68 km to the northwest from the MCP and covers an area of
approximately 50 contiguous townships (approximately 466,000 ha) (Figure 5.4-1).
Petrophysical logs from over 1,000 wells were evaluated to describe the hydrogeology
baseline for the LSA. AOSC’s exploration program has included the drilling and testing
of two wells with saline aquifer targets, plus nine non-saline wells and associated
observation wells (Figure 5.4-1). These wells were drilled into various strata based on
mapping from logs, seismic interpretation and electromagnetic (EM) survey data
collected by AOSC.

December 2009
5.4.2.2 Saline Water Source and Disposal Options

The hydrogeology assessment evaluated the following geological units that have the
potential to bear saline water: the Basal McMurray Aquifer and the Devonian aged
strata. To date, neither unit has proven to be a viable saline supply.
Basal McMurray Aquifer

The Basal McMurray Aquifer exists in portions (less than 10%) of the hydrogeology LSA
and is thin and discontinuous. It contains up to 30% residual bitumen saturation which
decreases the hydraulic conductivity of the unit. The extent of the Basal McMurray
Aquifer with interpreted 100% water saturation is limited.
In the winter of 2008/2009, AOSC drilled and tested two Basal McMurray Aquifer wells
located within 14 km of the MCP: 10-1-90-14 W4M and 11-29-89-12 W4M. Neither
location proved to be a feasible industrial water source candidate based on limited
formation pressure, low hydraulic conductivity (in part due to residual bitumen
saturation), poor deliverability and lack of areal extent.
Devonian
Within the Devonian-aged strata in the hydrogeology LSA, only the Keg River Formation
has the potential for suitable hydraulic conductivity. The Keg River Formation is not a
suitable water supply for steam generation due to very high TDS (approximately 250,000
ppm). The Keg River Formation is proposed as the Project disposal zone as described
in Section 5.4.5.
5.4.2.3 Non-Saline Water Sources

Within the hydrogeology LSA, AOSC has identified and tested several locations that
have capacity to supply non-saline water for the Project. Non-saline water is defined by
AENV as groundwater that has a TDS concentration less than or equal to 4,000 mg/L.
The potential non-saline horizons in the hydrogeology LSA include:
Empress Formation (Quaternary)

The Empress Formation is present in the hydrogeology LSA as non-saline channel
aquifers. Three primary channels are identified within the hydrogeology LSA, namely:
the MacKay Channel, the Thickwood Valley and the Birch Channel.
In the winter of 2008/2009 AOSC drilled wells in all three channel aquifers. Test results
showed that they are suitable water supply candidates. Based on tested aquifer
deliverability, water quality and mapped extent, the MacKay Channel is the best
candidate groundwater source for non-saline Project water requirements. The
Thickwood Valley is considered a contingent groundwater source for the Project based
on testing results and mapped extent. The Birch Channel is also considered a
contingent groundwater supply for the Project.

December 2009
Viking Formation (Cretaceous)

The Viking Formation, which can be regionally considered for its aquifer qualities in
some areas, but does not exist in the LSA.
Grand Rapids Formation (Cretaceous)

The Grand Rapids Formation sands have some regional continuity, thickness, and
limited flow capacity, but are not capable of supplying all the water required for the
Project. Therefore, the Grand Rapids Formation is not a suitable primary source aquifer
for the Project. AOSC has applied to use the Grand Rapids Formation as the water
source for its MacKay River Pilot Project. AOSC is only planning to further develop the
Grand Rapids as a contingent water supply, if the primary sources cannot meet the
Project requirements.
5.4.2.4 Winter 2009/2010 Water Exploration

AOSC is planning a winter 2009/2010 water drilling and testing program. The objective
of the program is to further delineate the Empress Channel Aquifer within the MacKay
Channel and Thickwood Valley and to complete pumping tests required for licensing
under the Water Act. The pumping tests will comply with AENV’s Groundwater
Evaluation Guideline (AENV 2003b).
The proposed winter exploration program also extends beyond the hydrogeology LSA
into the hydrogeology regional study area (RSA) in search of a suitable saline water
supply. Upon completion of the 2009/10 drilling and testing program, AOSC will
evaluate the technical merits of a saline water supply option and determine its suitability
for the Project. Part of this determination will address the criteria outlined in the Water
Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (AENV 2006). If, based upon
this evaluation, a saline water supply is identified and determined to be a suitable option
for the Project, AOSC will amend its makeup water strategy for the Project to maximize
use of saline water.
5.4.3 Water Supply Forecasts
The Project will have a design production capacity of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd) of
bitumen when fully developed. Current plans see the Project developed in four phases:

In order to meet the Project’s water demands, AOSC plans to utilize the following
groundwater sources:
1. Phase 1 - 5,564 m³/d (35,000 bpd): AOSC will source water to support Phase 1
from the Empress Channel Aquifer within the MacKay Channel. This channel
can supply a steady-state non-saline volume of at least 3,198 m3/d that will
satisfy all water needs including makeup water, utility water and domestic water.

December 2009
2. Full development - 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd): AOSC will source water to
support the full development by continuing to utilize the Empress Channel
Aquifer within the MacKay Channel to provide 3,087 m3/d of utility water. An
additional 11,147 m3/d makeup water will be sourced from a saline or alternative
supply.
The hydrogeology assessment (Volume 3, Section 5) has evaluated a water use

scenario that withdraws a nominal 3,500 m3/d from the MacKay Channel for the life of
the Project. The non-saline water withdrawal rate used in the hydrogeology assessment
exceeds the withdrawal rate for both Phase 1 and the full development outlined above.
Therefore, the groundwater modelling for the MacKay Channel conservatively
represents the demand impacts for the life of the Project.
5.4.3.1 Phase 1: Water Requirements and Rationale

For Phase 1, makeup water will be sourced from:
 Produced water (steady state rate of 13,480 m3/d) separated from the emulsion;
and
 Non-saline makeup water and recoverable utility water sourced from the
Empress Formation (steady state rate of 2,798 m3/d, excluding the non-
recoverable utility water of 400 m3/d).
The anticipated produced water volumes, make-up and utility water requirements for
Phase 1 are presented on Figure 5.4-2 and Table 5.4-1 on an annual average basis.
The Phase 1 water balance is presented on Figure 5.1-10.

TABLE 5.4-1 PHASE 1 WATER USE PROFILE
Produced Make-up Water Use

Bitumen Steam Water (1) Non-Saline Utility Water Make-Up Water (2) Losses (8, 9)
Annual Annual Annual Unrecoverable(3 Saline Non-Saline Reservoir Plant Disposal Non-
Time Average Average Average ) Recoverable (4) Water Water Total (5) Retention (6) (7) Total Saline Saline
(Years) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) 3
(m /cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd)
2012 - - - 320 - - - 320 - 320 - 320 - -
2013 - - - 320 - - - 320 - 320 - 320 - -
2014 24 4,607 2,902 400 430 0 1,513 1,943 1,705 104 134 1,943 0.0% 41.0%
2015 1,350 12,703 10,664 400 431 0 1,929 2,360 2,039 136 185 2,360 0.0% 18.3%
2016 4,654 15,511 13,184 400 433 0 2,302 2,735 2,327 182 226 2,735 0.0% 17.4%
2017 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2018 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2019 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2020 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2021 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2022 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2023 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2024 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2025 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2026 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2027 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2028 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2029 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2030 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2031 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2032 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2033 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2034 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2035 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2036 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2037 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2038 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2039 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2040 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2041 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2042 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2043 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2044 5,564 15,858 13,480 400 433 0 2,365 2,798 2,378 189 231 2,798 0.0% 17.4%
2045 5,448 15,529 13,200 400 433 0 2,313 2,746 2,329 191 226 2,746 0.0% 17.4%
2046 4,736 13,500 11,475 400 432 0 1,962 2,394 2,025 172 197 2,394 0.0% 17.5%
2047 3,941 11,234 9,549 400 431 0 1,571 2,002 1,685 153 164 2,002 0.0% 17.6%
2048 3,146 8,968 7,623 400 430 0 1,179 1,609 1,345 133 131 1,609 0.0% 17.7%
2049 2,350 6,702 5,697 400 428 0 788 1,216 1,005 113 98 1,216 0.0% 17.9%
2050 1,555 4,436 3,771 400 427 0 395 822 665 92 65 822 0.0% 18.3%
2051 760 2,170 1,845 400 426 0 2 428 325 71 32 428 0.0% 19.4%
2052 82 236 200 400 101 0 0 101 36 57 8 101 0.0% 41.4%
Notes:
1. Produced water and make-up water volumes are based on annual average flow rates.
2. The make-up water volumes represent the water required to make steam it excludes the unrecoverable utility water.
3. Unrecoverable non-saline water does not return to process i.e. Domestic Water, drilling & completions, construction activities, silt flush, dust control, etc.
4. Recoverable non-saline water is required for seal flush, chemical dilution, and utility stations (for example floor washes), etc.
Recoverable non-saline water will eventually be used as boiler feed water.
5. Total make-up water is the sum of recoverable utility water + saline make-up water + non-saline make-up water.
6. Plant losses include water loss to product sales oil (54 m3/cd), de-aerator evaporator vent, BFW tank vent & steam generator intermittent blow down vent.
7. Disposal volumes may vary due to operating upsets, system reliability, and produced water fluctuations.
8. Saline Water Use (%) = Saline Water Use x 100
(Steam Inj + Disposal)
9. Non-Saline Water Use (%) = Non-Saline Water Use x 100
10. Year 2012 and 2013 are the construction years for Phase 1. The water volumes represent average values for construction, drilling and completions.
December 2009
5.4.3.2 Full Development: Water Requirements and Rationale

For the full development makeup water will be:
 Produced water (steady state rate of 57,770 m³/d) separated from the emulsion;
 The additional 11,147 m3/d will be sourced from a saline or alternative supply;
and
 Non-saline recoverable utility water sourced from the Empress Formation (steady
state rate of 1,787 m³/d, excludes non-recoverable utility water).
The anticipated produced water volumes, make-up and utility water requirements for full
development are presented (Figure 5.4-3 and Table 5.4-2) on an annual average basis.
An assumed TDS concentration of 10,000 mg/L was used for the purpose of generating
a material balance. AOSC recognizes that an increase in the TDS concentration of the
saline water source will increase the disposal rate from the evaporator concentrator
which will increase the makeup water demand.
The full development water balance is presented on Figure 5.1-11. Based on the water
rates presented in the water balance, the percentage of non-saline water use and saline
water use can be calculated as follows:
% Non-Saline Water Use = Non-Saline Water In x 100%

(Steam Injection + Disposal)
= (1,787) m³/cd x 100% = 2.6%

(67,965 + 2,030) m³/cd
% Saline Water Use = Saline Water In x 100%

(Steam Injection + Disposal)
= (11,147) m³/cd x 100% = 15.9%

(67,965 + 2,030) m³/cd
(The above calculation is based in the joint ERCB/AENV Draft Directive Requirements for Water
Measurement, Reporting, and Use for Thermal In Situ Oil Sands Schemes.)
5.4.4 Non-Saline Water Use Limit Relaxation
In February 2009, the ERCB and AENV jointly issued Draft Directive - Requirements for
Water Measurement, Reporting and Use for Thermal Insitu Oil Sands Schemes (2009a).
Section 7 of the draft directive prescribes certain limits for non-saline make-up water on
a calendar year basis. At the time of filing this Application, the draft directive has not
been finalized and is not in force. However, based on the Project water requirements,
and assuming the draft directive becomes applicable to the Project, AOSC would require
a relaxation on the maximum limit of non-saline makeup water (10%) on a calendar year
basis for Phase 1. It is anticipated that no relaxation of the water use draft directive will
be required beyond Phase 2 steady state operations.
AOSC is committed to conducting operations with due diligence in minimizing makeup

water demand, maximizing produced water recycle, minimizing water disposal, and
maximizing resource recovery.

TABLE 5.4-2 FULL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME WATER USE PROFILE
Produced Make-up Water Use

Bitumen Steam Water (1) Non-Saline Utility Water Make-Up Water (2) Losses (8, 9)
Annual Annual Annual Unrecoverable Recoverable Saline Non-Saline Reservoir Plant Disposal Non-
Time Average Average Average (3) (4) Water Water Total (5) Retention (6) (7) Total Saline Saline
(Years) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) 3
(m /cd) 3
(m /cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd) (m3/cd)
2012 - - - 320 - - - 320 - 320 - 320 - -
2013 - - - 320 - - - 320 - 320 - 320 - -
2014 24 4,607 2,902 400 430 0 1,513 1,943 1,705 104 134 1,943 0.0% 41.0%
2015 1,350 12,703 10,664 400 431 0 1,929 2,360 2,039 136 185 2,360 0.0% 18.3%
2016 4,654 15,511 13,184 400 433 0 2,302 2,735 2,327 182 226 2,735 0.0% 17.4%
2017 5,598 21,123 16,797 700 864 4,240 0 5,104 4,326 221 557 5,104 19.6% 4.0%
2018 7,493 30,377 25,667 700 873 4,911 0 5,784 4,710 289 785 5,784 15.8% 2.8%
2019 11,272 38,850 31,864 1,000 1,310 7,185 0 8,495 6,986 424 1,085 8,495 18.0% 3.3%
2020 13,852 48,501 41,072 1,000 1,324 7,961 0 9,285 7,429 502 1,354 9,285 16.0% 2.7%
2021 17,627 56,316 46,855 1,300 1,763 9,928 0 11,691 9,461 584 1,646 11,691 17.1% 3.0%
2022 19,971 64,810 54,954 1,300 1,780 10,624 0 12,404 9,856 654 1,894 12,404 15.9% 2.7%
2023 23,248 67,617 57,475 1,300 1,786 11,077 0 12,863 10,142 701 2,020 12,863 15.9% 2.6%
2024 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2025 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2026 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2027 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2028 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2029 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2030 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2031 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2032 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2033 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2034 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2035 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2036 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2037 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2038 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2039 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2040 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2041 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2042 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2043 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2044 23,847 67,965 57,770 1,300 1,787 11,147 0 12,934 10,195 709 2,030 12,934 15.9% 2.6%
2045 23,731 67,636 57,490 1,300 1,786 11,085 0 12,871 10,146 705 2,020 12,871 15.9% 2.6%
2046 23,019 65,607 55,766 1,300 1,781 10,707 0 12,488 9,841 687 1,960 12,488 15.8% 2.6%
2047 22,224 63,341 53,840 1,300 1,777 10,264 0 12,041 9,501 668 1,872 12,041 15.7% 2.7%
2048 21,296 60,698 51,594 1,300 1,771 9,722 0 11,493 9,104 642 1,747 11,493 15.6% 2.8%
2049 19,687 56,114 47,697 1,300 1,762 8,854 0 10,616 8,417 600 1,599 10,616 15.3% 3.1%
2050 17,850 50,882 43,249 1,300 1,753 7,824 0 9,577 7,633 554 1,390 9,577 15.0% 3.4%
2051 15,332 43,707 37,151 1,300 1,741 6,445 0 8,186 6,556 489 1,141 8,186 14.4% 3.9%
2052 12,720 36,264 30,824 1,000 1,305 5,494 0 6,799 5,440 421 938 6,799 14.8% 3.5%
2053 10,108 28,820 24,497 1,000 1,296 4,083 0 5,379 4,323 356 700 5,379 13.8% 4.4%
2054 7,496 21,375 18,168 1,000 1,288 2,684 0 3,972 3,207 288 477 3,972 12.3% 5.9%
2055 5,017 14,308 12,162 700 858 1,774 0 2,632 2,146 177 309 2,632 12.1% 5.9%
2056 3,219 9,183 7,805 700 854 826 0 1,680 1,378 130 172 1,680 8.8% 9.1%
2057 1,649 4,706 4,000 400 427 458 0 885 706 91 88 885 9.6% 8.9%
2058 760 2,170 1,845 400 426 2 0 428 325 71 32 428 0.1% 19.3%
2059 82 236 200 400 101 0 0 101 36 57 8 101 0.0% 41.4%
Notes:
1. Produced water and make-up water volumes are based on annual average flow rates.
2. The make-up water volumes represent the water required to make steam it excludes the unrecoverable utility water.
3. Unrecoverable non-saline water does not return to process i.e., domestic water, drilling & completions, construction activities, silt flush, dust control, etc.
4. Recoverable non-saline water is required for seal flush, chemical dilution, and utility stations (for example floor washes), etc.
Recoverable non-saline water will eventually be used as boiler feed water.
5. Total make-up water is the sum of recoverable utility water + saline make-up water + non-saline make-up water.
6. Plant losses include water loss to product sales oil (228 m3/cd), de-aerator evaporator vent, BFW tank vent & boiler intermittent blow down vent.
7. Disposal volumes may vary due to operating upsets, system reliability, and produced water fluctuations.
8. Saline Water Use (%) = Saline Water Use x 100
9. Non-Saline Water Use (%) = Non-Saline Water Use x 100
10. Year 2012 and 2013 are the construction years for Phase 1. The water volumes represent average values for construction, drilling and completions.
December 2009
5.4.5 Wastewater Disposal
The expected annual average disposal volumes for Phase 1 and the full development
are presented in Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2. Peak instantaneous disposal rates will be
higher than these values for short periods.
5.4.5.1 Disposal Formation

The targeted disposal formation will be the Devonian Keg River Formation, which is
regionally located below the thick Prairie Evaporite Formation. In the GSA, the Keg
River Formation varies from 65 to 80 m in thickness at an approximate depth of 600 to
700 m below ground surface. However, since there is no deep well control within the
GSA, reservoir quality such as porosity and permeability in the Keg River Formation are
unknown. From regional geophysical and geological information, the Keg River
Formation is interpreted as a regionally extensive platform carbonate with localized
carbonate build-ups (e.g., reefs). Reefs within the Keg River Formation should have
better reservoir quality and hence better injectivity than the regional platform carbonate
facies.
Although the Keg River Formation porosity was found to be “partly to completely
occluded with halite” (Suncor Energy, 2005) at the Suncor Energy MacKay River Project,
some wells have been tested by other operators to have encouraging DST (drill stem
test) results (e.g., 00/06-02-097-12W4/0, DST1) or water injection tests (e.g., 100/02-32-
089-12W4). Therefore, during the winter 2009/2010 water drill and test program, AOSC
is planning to evaluate the Keg River Formation at 7-23-90-14 W4M to confirm
wastewater disposal capability.
5.4.5.2 Disposal Caprock Integrity

At proposed test location (7-23-90-14 W4M), the wastewater will be contained within the
Keg River Formation as the overlying Prairie Evaporite Formation (salt and anhydrite) is
an excellent top seal or aquiclude and the underlying Contact Rapids (anhydritic and
argillaceous dolostone) is a bottom seal or aquitard (Bachu and Underschultz, 1993).
The thickness of the Prairie Evaporite at the proposed test location (7-23-90-14 W4M) is
estimated to be 275 m (Figure 5.4-4). The underlying aquitard, Contact Rapids
Formation, is estimated to be 25 to 30 m thick. The overlying Cretaceous hydrocarbon
oil sands deposits at these locations will be protected and unaffected by deep disposal
into the Keg River Formation because of the significant thickness of the intervening
Prairie Evaporite acquiclude and additional argillaceous sediments in the Devonian
Beaverhill Lake Group overlying the Prairie Evaporite Formation. For example, the
interval or isopach from the top of the Devonian to the top of the Keg River Formation is
estimated to be 470 m at 7-23-90-14 W4M (Figure 5.4-5).
In northeastern Alberta, one concern with deep well disposal into the Keg River
Formation is the removal of the overlying aquiclude (salt within the Prairie Evaporite
Formation) by dissolution. The complete removal of salt or dissolution edge is
approximately 40 km east of 7-23-90-14 W4M. It is difficult to map the onset of salt
dissolution because the salt scarp edge is not smooth but digitate (Hein et al, 2008) and
there is limited deep well control. However, the edge can be inferred by the structure of
the Devonian surface (Figure 5.4-6) and the presence of circular features that are

December 2009
interpreted to be sinkholes. This inferred edge is approximately 16 km east of the

proposed 7-23-90-14 W4M test location. The salt dissolution area is indicated
(Figure 5.4-7) showing the transition area from full salt thickness to zero edge.
AOSC concludes that the Prairie Evaporite thickness and integrity plus disposal well
distance from the salt dissolution area, ensures strong isolation between the Keg River
Formation and younger strata.
5.4.5.3 Waste Water Disposal Alternatives

AOSC continues to explore alternate disposal methods to minimize disposal volumes,
minimize makeup water requirements, reduce energy consumption, and improve the
facilities efficiency and reliability.
Driers
There are few examples of commercial scale driers being installed in a SAGD facility.
Based on anecdotal evidence and experience from AOSC personnel on previous jobs,
industrial driers installed to treat evaporator/concentrator blowdown have been plagued
with operational problems. More development work would be needed to prove reliability
before AOSC would consider using them for the Project.
Filter Presses
Filter presses could be used to dewater the evaporator/concentrator pH adjusted
blowdown to a cake, however, the water from the filter press must be sent to a disposal
well. The salt cavern essentially takes the place of the filter press. Filter presses have
been found to foul and plug with organics present in the evaporator blowdown.
Trucking
Another disposal handling option under evaluation is trucking the
evaporator/concentrator waste stream to an approved facility. The Phase 1 disposal
volumes are small enough that this could be a short term option; however, trucking
waste during the full development would be uneconomic.
Direct Injection
If the concentrator blowdown fluid is compatible with connate water in the disposal
formation, direct injection of the concentrator fluids into the formation may be possible.
The two main concerns being evaluated are solids deposition in the disposal pipeline
and scale formation in the disposal reservoir as the blowdown fluid mixes with the
connate water.
Waste Stabilization
Certain commercial technologies are utilized in the waste remediation industry to solidify
and stabilize wastes. AOSC is reviewing several of these technologies for their possible
application to the evaporator/concentrator waste. The resulting product from these
technologies varies from a concentrated waste suitable for disposal in a landfill to a
solidified non-leachable solid. Investigation and testing of these technologies is ongoing.

380000 400000 420000 440000 460000
Twp.97
Legend Namur
Lake Lake
6360000
Twp.96
abasc a Ri ver
reek
Joslyn C
Ath
Twp.95
6340000
Fort McKay
Twp.94
r
ive r
Ell s R ive
er R
Dov
Twp.93
Mildred
Lake
6320000
Twp.92
iv e
r
ay R
M ac K
Twp.91
6300000
Du
n ki
Twp.90
rk
Riv
er
Twp.89
Fort McMurray
6280000
er
R iv
Twp.88
ca
as
ab
h
At
Buffalo Creek
Twp.87
6260000
Twp.86
Twp.85
Twp.84
6240000
Rg. 20 Rg. 19 Rg. 18 Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13 Rg. 12 Rg. 11 Rg. 10 Rg. 9
LEGEND
1:600,000
HYDROGEOLOGY REGIONAL STUDY AREA (RSA) 10 0 10
HYDROGEOLOGY LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA)
MACKAY RIVER LEASE Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
COMMUNITY
BASAL McMURRAY EXPLORATION WELLS 7349-514 BF 09/10/15
NON-SALINE WATER WELLS Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
Edmonton
WELL CONTROL POINT l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
HYDROGEOLOGY
Calgary
l EXPLORATION
Disclaimer:
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-PRO-09.cdr
LEGEND
UTILITY WATER
NON-SALINE MAKE-UP WATER
PRODUCED WATER
Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
PHASE 1 WATER
Calgary
l PROFILE
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-PRO-09.cdr
LEGEND
UTILITY WATER
NON-SALINE MAKE-UP WATER
SALINE MAKE-UP WATER
PRODUCED WATER Peace River
l
«
l
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference:
FULL DEVELOPMENT
Calgary
l WATER PROFILE
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\Mackay River EIA\7349-EIA-5.4-4_5.4-7_09.cdr
1:300,000
5 0 5
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
PRAIRIE EVAPORATE
Calgary
l ISOPACH
Disclaimer:
«
1:300,000
5 0 5
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
DEVONIAN TOP TO
Calgary
l KEG RIVER ISOPACH

Disclaimer:
«
1:300,000
5 0 5
Peace River
l
« l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference:
DEVONIAN TOP
Calgary
l STRUCTURE
Disclaimer:
«
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\EIA Template\EIA_L_09.cdr
10 0 10
Peace River
l
«l
Fort McMurray
Kilometers
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
l RS 09/10/16 TN 09/10/15
Reference: SALT DISSOLUTION
Calgary AREA
l
Disclaimer:
« MRCP into contract. FIGURE 5.4-7
December 2009
5.5 PRODUCTION ACCOUNTING AND MEASUREMENT
AOSC commits to meeting the requirements of ERCB Directive 042 - Measurement,

Accounting, and Reporting Plan (MARP) Requirement for Thermal Bitumen Schemes
(2006b). Production reporting data will be submitted to the Petroleum Registry of
Alberta in accordance with the ERCB Directive 007 - Volumetric and Infrastructure
Requirements (2007a).
A simplified drawing showing the major streams and the measurement points that will
comprise the conceptual measurement, accounting and reporting plan (MARP) has been
prepared (Figure 5.5-1). AOSC will work with the ERCB to develop the final MARP for
the Project during detailed engineering.
AOSC recognizes secondary measurement requirements proposed in the ERCB / AENV

Draft Directive - Requirements for Water Measurement, Reporting and Use for Thermal
Insitu Oil Sands Schemes (2009). Secondary measurement will be included for the
produced water measurement entering the injection facility and the steam leaving the
injection facility. The secondary measurement will have the same single point
measurement uncertainly as the primary measurement.

LEGEND
EMULSION / HEAVY OIL
WATER SYSTEM
FUEL GAS / MIXED GAS
DILUENT
Peace River
l
«
l
Fort McMurray
STEAM
7349-514 BF 09/10/15
Edmonton
l
RS 09/10/16 GS 09/10/15
Reference: CONCEPTUAL METERING
Calgary
l
SCHEMATIC
Disclaimer:
«
MacKay River Commercial Project 6-1 Environmental Management and Controls
December 2009
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS

AOSC will implement its corporate Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Management
System as part of the development of the Project. The HSE Management System
reflects AOSC’s high priority to minimize the impact of the Project, to ensure the health
and safety of all affected individuals and communities.
The HSE Management System is applied equally to employees, and all affiliates,
contractors and agents, and will cover construction, operations, decommissioning and
reclamation of the Project.
Programs that have been developed within the HSE Management System ensure
continued compliance with regulations by identifying the regulatory requirements,
ensuring required approvals are in place prior to commencement of work, and providing
appropriate training and equipment for employees and contractors.
6.1 EMERGENCY PLANNING
AOSC has developed a corporate approach to emergency planning based on

operations-specific hazard and risk analysis. In conjunction with the existing HSE
Management System, contingency planning will include the implementation of standard
operating procedures and the implementation of a facility emergency response plan
(ERP). All contingency planning materials will be in place prior to the commencement of
operations at the Project. Full compliance with all applicable regulations will be required
at all times.
Prior to initiating construction, AOSC’s existing corporate ERP will be updated to

address potential site-specific emergencies. Contingency planning efforts that will be
implemented include the establishment of communications with protective and
emergency service providers, the presence of additional medical and security personnel
for the camps and the processing facilities, and the implementation of measures to
mitigate the impact of increased traffic on area roads.
6.1.1 Facility Emergency Response Plan
AOSC’s existing ERP will be updated and used to facilitate an effective response by
AOSC’s operations, management and support personnel to an emergency occurrence at
the Project. To ensure a state of emergency preparedness throughout the company,
AOSC has developed emergency procedures to protect the public, employees,
contractors, property and the environment.
Implementation of the ERP will provide solutions to:
 promote the safety of workers, responders, and the public;

 promote the protection of the environment and reduce the magnitude of
environmental impacts;
 reduce the potential for the destruction of goods and other property;
 help responders quickly determine and initiate proper remedial actions;

December 2009
 reduce recovery times and costs; and

 make responders, industry and the public more confident that emergencies will
be properly managed.
A copy of the table of contents from AOSC’s corporate ERP is presented in Appendix B.
6.1.2 Fire Management and Control
Response procedures for handling potential minor and major fire risks are detailed in the
AOSC corporate ERP. AOSC will develop a fire response strategy that is consistent
with the “FireSmart” Wildfire Assessment System developed by ASRD.
AOSC has identified two major fire risks associated with the Project: the Project as a
source of fire (based on the operation of electrical and natural gas fired equipment and
presence of diluent, natural gas and sales oil) and impact on the Project from a wildfire.
AOSC will incorporate fire reduction strategies into the Project design, including the
following:
 use of combustible gas and smoke detection equipment throughout the Project;
 removal of identified combustible ground cover, and regular housekeeping to
prevent buildup of combustible vegetation;
 setback of all facilities from any natural combustible materials; and
 design measures including tank farm placement, and combustible equipment
setbacks.
The power line ROW widths have been developed based on industry standards
appropriate for the size and number of lines installed. Clearing buffers on the outside
edges of the ROW are based on maximum expected tree heights.
Fire, explosive gas and H2S detection will be installed where required throughout the
MCP, MNP and SAGD well pad locations. The distributed control system will monitor all
installed sensors. Wall mounted fire extinguishers and fire blankets will be located
throughout the facility where required. Operator vehicles will be equipped with portable
fire extinguishers.
The AOSC facility ERP will include a shutdown and evacuation plan to be implemented
in the event of a forest fire, as well as housekeeping measures to prevent a forest fire
from entering the facilities.
The design of the flare systems at the MCP and MNP incorporates features to reduce
the potential for starting wildfires. The flare systems will incorporate a flare knockout to
ensure hydrocarbon liquids are not carried through to the flare tip. The flare stacks will
have a continuous burning pilot flame to ensure combustion of all hydrocarbons sent to
the flare system. Flare ignition will be by an electrical igniter located at the flare tip.
These strategies address the risk of fire in the plant process, and minimize the chances
of the Project causing a forest fire in the surrounding areas.

December 2009
6.2 WATER MANAGEMENT
AOSC recognizes water management as an important part of the Project operations.

AOSC’s water management plan focuses on maximizing produced water reuse, water
supply management and groundwater and surface water protection.
6.2.1 Surface Water
The Project will be designed to minimize impacts to surface water by maintaining the
natural surface runoff. Culverts will be installed along roadways where needed to
ensure that natural drainage is maintained. The MCP, MNP and SAGD well pads will be
constructed with perimeter ditches to direct natural drainage around the facility and
prevent surface water run-on.
The MCP and the MNP have each been developed to include an industrial runoff pond
to collect surface runoff that falls within the graded portion of either processing facility
site that will fully retain the 1 in 25 year, 24-hour storm event. Plant drainage systems
typically include berms, drainage ditches and culverts that will contain, collect and divert
storm water runoff to the runoff pond. Water collected in the industrial runoff pond at the
MCP will be pumped to the water treatment system for use in the process. Water
collected in the industrial runoff pond at the MNP will be sent to the MCP for use in the
process. AOSC will apply to AENV for a diversion license under the Water Act to use
collected surface runoff as part of the process.
During the initial stages of the Project, before steam generation has begun, any water
collected in the industrial runoff ponds will be discharged to the surrounding watershed
once water quality testing confirms that the collected runoff meets conditions specified in
the anticipated EPEA Approval.
The SAGD well pads will each incorporate interior perimeter ditches to contain industrial
runoff. Water collected at the SAGD well pads will be discharged to the surrounding
watershed once water quality testing confirms that the collected runoff meets conditions
specified in the anticipated EPEA Approval. If testing indicates that the collected water
is not suitable for discharge, the collected water will be sent to the MCP for process use.
Flooding potential for the Project facilities is naturally minimized due to the presence of
surrounding peatland vegetation and its ability to absorb peak storm flows. Any stream
crossings required in the interconnecting utility corridors will be sized to accommodate a
1-in-25 year precipitation event. The proposed bridge crossing of the MacKay River to
access the MNP will be sized to accommodate a 1-in-100 year precipitation event.
Detailed site-specific assessments of each proposed watercourse crossing will be
conducted by AOSC prior to construction.
Additional details regarding management and potential effects on surface water

resources are discussed in the Hydrology, Surface Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology
sections of the EIA (Volume 3, Sections 6, 7 and 8).

December 2009
6.2.2 Groundwater
AOSC recognizes that identification of a suitable water supply is critical to the successful
development of the Project. The Project water requirements are described in
Section 5.4. Additional details regarding management and potential effects on
groundwater resources are discussed in the Hydrogeology section of the EIA (Volume 3,
Section 5).
6.2.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring

A network of groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to determine the direction
and average groundwater flow velocity and quality of the groundwater. This will ensure
an understanding of the hydrogeology of the area and, in the unlikely event of a spill or
plant upset, help to effectively conduct remediation efforts. The locations of the
monitoring wells will be finalized in consultation with AENV during detailed engineering.
6.3 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT
The largest air emissions source for the Project will be the steam generation equipment.
As part of detailed engineering, AOSC will select a steam generator manufacturer who
can supply an energy efficient unit which minimizes NOx emissions. AOSC will comply
with AENV’s Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) for New Boilers,
Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands Region in the Regional
Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray Based on a Review of Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) (AENV, 2007).
Vapours from storage tanks containing hydrocarbons will be controlled with a natural gas
pressure blanket in conjunction with a vapour recovery system. The vapour recovery
system will allow for collection of any liberated gas to supplement the fuel gas supply to
the steam generation equipment.
6.3.1 Sulphur Management
The inlet gas sulphur rate at the Project is calculated to be below 1.0 t/d at the maximum
bitumen production rate of 23,847 m3/d (150,000 bpd). If the results of Phase 1
operations confirm AOSC’s calculations, sulphur recovery facilities will not need to be
incorporated as part of the Project design for later phases, in accordance with ERCB
Interim Directive (ID) 2001-3 – Sulphur Recovery Guidelines for the Province of Alberta
(2001b). AOSC has evaluated the anticipated sulphur content of the produced gas from
the Project based on other operating SAGD projects and on published data.
6.3.1.1 Design Basis for Sulphur Estimates

To estimate sulphur production rates for the Project, AOSC first reviewed available data
from other SAGD projects. Where possible, company project reviews filed with the
ERCB in 2008 (based on 2007 operating data) were used to determine unit sulphur
production rates (kg sulphur/ m3 bitumen produced). Data from these reviews were
compared with an average of published estimating curves by Dr. H.F. Thimm of Thimm
Engineering Inc. (2008). Dr. Thimm’s curves are used to estimate sulphur production

December 2009
rates based on reservoir operating temperature. Actual sulphur production rates for
several of the other SAGD projects reviewed were comparable to those predicted by Dr.
Thimm’s curve. The 2008, Suncor Energy’s (formerly Petro-Canada’s) ERCB
submission for its MacKay River Project did not include sulphur emission data; however,
in conversation with Suncor Energy staff, AOSC was informed that the actual sulphur
production rates from the project were very close to the rates predicted by Dr. Thimm’s
curves (personal communication, 2009). As the Suncor Energy MacKay River project is
the closest SAGD operation to the Project, the use of Dr. Thimm’s curves was
considered to be appropriate.
AOSC used Dr. Thimm’s simplified thermal sulphur production estimate methodology to
calculate the sulphur production rate for the Project. At maximum design capacity,
bitumen production rates over the life of the Project are not expected to exceed 23,847
m3/d (150,000 bpd) on an annual average basis. AOSC’s proposed operating pressure
and temperature are forecast to be 2,300 kPa and 220°C, respectively. Using Dr.
Thimm’s hydrogen sulphide production curve results in an estimate of 29.8 L hydrogen
sulphide/m3 bitumen or 0.0406 kg sulphur/m3 bitumen. The following parameters were
used to convert to kg sulphur/m3 bitumen: 32 kg sulphur/34 kg hydrogen sulphide; 1.45 g
hydrogen sulphide/L hydrogen sulphide (15°C). This results in inlet sulphur rates during
Project operations of:
 23,847 m3 (150,000 bpd) → 969 kg sulphur/d
It should be noted that two different modelling scenarios for the steam generation and
produced gas treating facilities will be used over the life of the Project. Modelling
Scenario 1 is the initial case in which all steam generation and produced gas separation
facilities are located at the MCP, which will occur from the start of the Project until
approximately 5 years after startup of Phase 4. Modelling Scenario 2 is the secondary
case in which steam generation and produced gas separation facilities for 14,308 m3/d
(90,000 bpd) of bitumen are retained at the MCP and steam generation and produced
gas separation facilities for the remaining 9,539 m3/d (60,000 bpd) of bitumen are moved
to the MNP. Sulphur emissions are not anticipated to exceed 1.0 t/d for either of the
modelling scenarios.
At full bitumen production design capacity, the estimated inlet sulphur rate is below the
threshold of 1.0 t/d established in ERCB ID 2001-3. Estimated sulphur production rates
for Phase 1 only are as follows:
 5,564 m3 (35,000 bpd) (calendar) → 226 kg sulphur/d
These rates are substantially lower than the 1.0 t/d threshold established in ERCB
ID 2001-3, and even if the use of Dr. Thimm’s curves proves to underestimate the
sulphur production rate, sulphur recovery facilities are still not anticipated to be required
during Phase 1.
AOSC will monitor inlet gas sulphur rates throughout the life of the Project to ensure
continued compliance with ID 2001-3. If there are indications during development of the
initial phases of the Project that the inlet gas sulphur rate will exceed 1.0 t/d once the full
bitumen production design capacity is reached, sulphur recovery facilities will be
designed and installed. Plot plan space has been allocated at both the MCP and MNP if
sulphur recovery facilities are required. Suitable sulphur recovery technology (if

December 2009
required) would be selected based on operating successes observed by other SAGD

operators.
AOSC has calculated sulphur emissions to be 0.969 t/d, and as such, AOSC is
requesting a license to emit up to 1.0 t/d of sulphur for the full development.
6.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
On an ongoing basis AOSC is considering opportunities for GHG reductions. AOSC’s

principles for managing GHG emissions are to:
 address direct emissions from facilities under its operational control;

 periodically review these goals and targets for GHG reductions; and
 improve our understanding of technology, policies and other factors.
Measures to reduce GHG emissions in the Project include:

 optimizing and continuously improving energy efficiency in the design and
operation of processes and facilities;
 using natural gas to produce steam, which is the most economical energy source
with the lowest GHG emissions;
 using a VRU to reduce the loss of hydrocarbon vapours to the atmosphere; and
 continuing to improve the efficiency of the thermal recovery process in the
reservoir, thereby reducing the SOR and fuel consumption;
 evaluating the use of cogeneration of steam and electricity at the MCP; and
 minimizing fugitive emissions.
Other measures may include optimizing piping systems to reduce pumping energy
requirements, optimizing motor sizes and insulating piping to conserve energy.
In addition to the GHG reduction measures noted above, AOSC has and will continue to
participate in industry research and development projects which AOSC believes will
have a positive environmental impact on its projects. As an example, AOSC participated
in the first phase of the Alberta Saline Aquifer Project. The first phase of this project was
recently completed by the study’s primary sponsor, Enbridge.
A summary of the anticipated GHG emissions during all stages of the Project is
presented in Table 6.3-1. A comparison of the Project’s GHG emission intensity with
other similar projects is presented in Table 6.3-2. The Project’s contribution (at full
development) to provincial and national GHG emissions on an annual basis is presented
in Table 6.3-3.
Table 6.3-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary
Project Stage Estimated GHG Emissions (Mt CO2E/y)

Construction 0.05
Operations (at full development) 4.3
Decommissioning 0.05
Total GHG Emission over Project Life 194 Mt

December 2009
Table 6.3-2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity Comparison to Other Similar

Projects
Project Estimated GHG Emission Intensity

(t CO2E/bbl bitumen)
AOSC MacKay River Commercial Project 0.077 to 0.079
ConocoPhillips Surmont Project 0.070 to 0.110
Devon Jackfish Project 0.065 to 0.070
Devon Jackfish 2 Project 0.059
EnCana Christina Lake Thermal Project 0.085 to 0.095
JACOS Hangingstone Project Not presented in Application
MEG Energy Christina Lake Regional Project 0.083
Suncor Energy (formerly Petro-Canada) MacKay 0.034 (1)
River Project
StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh Project (proposed) 0.053
Southern Pacific McKay Project (proposed) Not presented in Application
Suncor Firebag Project 0.128
Notes:
(1) GHG emissions from the Suncor Energy MacKay River Project do not include emissions from the associated
cogeneration facility operated by TransCanada which supplies the majority of the required steam for the
Project. As such, GHG emissions for this project cannot be compared directly to the Project.
Table 6.3-3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparison to Provincial and National

Totals
Source Estimated GHG Emissions

(Mt CO2E/y)
Alberta’s GHG Emissions (2006) (1) 234
Canada’s GHG Emissions (2006) (1) 718
Estimated Project GHG Emissions (Full Development) 4.3
Notes:
(1) Source: Environment Canada (2008)
As presented in Table 6.3-2, GHG emission intensity from the Project is comparable to
other similar projects in the area. AOSC will continue to evaluate developments in GHG
reduction technology implemented by other operators. As presented in Table 6.3-3,
estimated annual GHG emissions from the Project represent 1.8% of Alberta’s total
annual GHG emissions and 0.6% of Canada’s total annual GHG emissions.
6.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT
AOSC will comply with all federal, provincial and regional regulations and recommended
industry practices pertaining to waste management. The waste hierarchy (i.e. reduce,
reuse and recycle) will be adopted to avoid or minimize waste disposal.
A Waste Management Plan will be implemented prior to the start of field construction.
This plan will be updated as the Project progresses from construction to operations to
reclamation and decommissioning. The handling, storage and transportation of field
construction and operations generated wastes will be covered by the Plan.
AOSC’s Waste Management Plan will be developed in detail to include:

December 2009
 waste description;
 storage location;
 contact personnel;
 manifest and type required;
 ERCB waste code and Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) information
where applicable;
 waste management options; and
 AOSC’s approved vendors for management of the waste streams.
AOSC will determine (with full consideration to the appropriate regulations and
guidelines) the appropriate waste management practices for a particular waste stream.
6.4.1 Waste Management Objectives
Waste management is an integral part of AOSC’s environmental compliance. The

objectives of waste management are to minimize the volume of waste produced through
reduction, recycling and reuse, and to manage waste to prevent soil and groundwater
contamination. AOSC will conduct periodic reviews to reduce the volumes of waste
produced and improve waste management plans at the Project.
ERCB publications related to waste management that will be reviewed during

development of the AOSC Waste Management Plan are as follows:
 Directive 019 - ERCB Compliance Assurance-Enforcement (in conjunction with

Bulletin 2007-03);
 Directive 050 - Drilling Waste Management;
 Directive 051 - Injection and Disposal Wells - Well Classifications, Completions,
Logging, and Testing Requirements and Informational Letter (IL) 94-2;
 Directive 055 - Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry;
 Directive 058 - Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the Upstream
Petroleum Industry and Interim Directive (ID) 96-3;
 Directive 063 - Requirements and Procedures for Oilfield Waste Management
Facilities;
 Directive 064 - Requirements and Procedures for Facilities;
 Directive 065 – Resources Applications for Conventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs;
 ID 99-4 - Deposition of Oilfield Waste into Landfills;
 ID 2000-3 - Harmonization of Waste Management;
 ID 2000-4 - An Update to the Requirements for the Appropriate Management of
Oilfield Wastes;
 Oil and Gas Conservation Act Regulations; Part 16.6 (Security);
 IL 98-1 - A Memorandum of Understanding between Alberta Environmental
Protection and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Regarding Coordination of
Release Notification Requirements and Subsequent Regulatory Response; and
 Bulletin 2004-02 Streamlining EUB Documents on Regulatory Requirements.
AOSC will monitor waste management activities to:
 ensure compliance with relevant environmental regulations, industry guidelines

and best practices;

December 2009
 minimize the quantity of waste generated by practicing the efficient use of

resources and through reduce, reuse, and recycle, where practical;
 accurately characterize, classify, and quantify when possible, all reportable
wastes; and
 practice proper storage, handling, tracking, transporting and disposal of wastes.
The storage and handling of products for the Project will be conducted in accordance
with good management practices. All hazardous and/or dangerous goods will be stored
and transported in compliance with CCME guidelines as well as the Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act, and other applicable environmental legislation, regulations,
standards and codes.
Solid waste disposal management at the site will comply with procedures and guidelines
including the EPEA Waste Control Regulation (Alberta Regulation 192/96), ERCB
Directive 58 (1996b) and ERCB Directive 50 (1996a). Directive 58 requires the
preparation of an Annual Oilfield Waste Disposition Report summarizing the types and
quantities of disposed oilfield wastes, the points of generation, and the disposal methods
utilized. Practices will include:
 Classifying, measuring and controlling waste generation;

 Handling, storage, treatment and disposal;
 Tracking and reporting;
 Off-site disposal of dangerous oilfield waste (DOW) and non-DOW wastes as
required by applicable regulations; and
 Recycling.
All wastes will be disposed of in compliance with all appropriate regulations and
guidelines and in accordance with waste handling requirements contained in the
anticipated EPEA Approval for the Project. Detailed waste disposal practices and
procedures will be developed prior to the start of construction and operations. No on-
site landfills are proposed as part of the Project.
Wastes will be generated during the drilling, construction and operation stages of the
Project development. Details regarding waste generation during each stage are
presented below. Summaries of the wastes generated for each stage are presented in
Table 6.4-1.
6.4.2 Drilling Waste
All drilling fluid waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with the ERCB
Directive 050. The drilling fluid will be stored and disposed of at remote sump locations
(Figure 1.2-3). Each sump will be situated and constructed in a way that minimizes the
potential for groundwater or surface water contamination. Sumps will be excavated only
on sites that have appropriate deposits of impermeable, clayey soils that are free of
hydraulic defects. AOSC will ensure that these soil properties extend for a minimum of
1 m beyond the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the sump to provide a barrier
between the sump and groundwater. Site contouring and berms will be used to ensure
that the sump will not collect natural surface waters and to prevent the migration of
contaminants outwards beyond the walls of the sump. All sumps will be fenced and
properly marked with signage.

December 2009
It is AOSC’s intention to reuse drilling fluids to reduce waste volumes where practical.
The non-oily drilling waste will be stored separately from oily, contaminated drilling waste
to maximize the potential for fluid recycling and minimizing the volume of contaminated
waste. Non-oily drilling waste will be disposed of by mix-bury-cover (MBC) or land
spreading in accordance with Directive 50. Oily, contaminated drilling waste will be
disposed of at approved third party disposal facilities. The stabilized drill cuttings and
solids will be hauled to an approved Class II landfill, while contaminated fluid will be
hauled to an approved cavern or disposal well facility.
6.4.3 Construction Waste
Typical wastes associated with the construction activities consist of items such as spent
welding rods, leftover steel pipe, structural steel and debris. These materials will be kept
in storage bins and periodically sent to an approved third party recycling or disposal
facility. Camp domestic waste will be stored in garbage bins that include wildlife
protection features and will be periodically hauled out by truck for disposal at an
approved third party facility.
AOSC has evaluated the options of either hauling the domestic wastewater from the
MRCP camp to an approved waste treatment facility or treating it on site using a grit
removal and septic field system. Current plans are to use the septic field method.
Geotechnical investigations are planned for winter 2009/2010 to provide site specific
information that will allow a more detailed assessment of the septic field option.
If the septic field treatment method is selected, the solid wastes remaining in the grit
tanks would be periodically hauled out by truck to an approved third party facility. Any
septic field system installed will meet the Alberta Private Sewage System Standards of
Practice Handbook (Safety Codes Council 1999).
Domestic wastewater and sewage generated during operations at the MCP site by
administrative offices and control room staff (up to 118 people) will be stored in holding
tanks and then disposed of by an authorized third party or disposed of in the septic field.
6.4.4 Operations Waste
Typical operations wastes consist of spent filters, old batteries, oily rags, etc. will be kept
in storage bins and periodically sent to an approved third party waste handling facility.
Operation of the Project will also generate waste by-products such as produced sand,
evaporator blowdown fluid, salt cavern brine return and tank bottom sludge.
The MCP will include an area for temporary storage of waste, prior to appropriate
disposal.
6.4.5 Waste Summary
The anticipated waste streams complete with volumes and disposal methods for the
construction, drilling and operations activities are presented in Table 6.4-1.

December 2009
Table 6.4-1 Waste Types and Quantities

Waste ERCB Storage Disposal Proposed Estimated Annual Quantity
Description Waste Location Responsibility Disposal Method Phase 1 Full
Code Development
Construction
Packing DOMWST Bins Contractor Approved Waste
3 3
Materials Handling Facility/ 1m 4m
Recycle
3 3
Cardboard DOMWST Bins Contractor Recycle 13 m 50 m
Pallets CONMAT Bins Contractor Recycle 200 750
3 3
Wood CONMAT Bins Contractor Recycle 90 m 340 m
Scrap Metal SMETAL Bins Contractor Recycle 31 t 120 t
3 3
Glass CONMAT Bins Contractor Recycle 4m 15 m
3 3
Paint WPAINT Bins Contractor Recycle 1m 4m
Insulation CONMAT Bins Contractor Class II Landfill 3 3
13 m 50 m
(Non-Hazardous)
Welding Rods CONMAT Bins Contractor Class II Landfill 3 3
1m 4m
(Non-Hazardous)
3 3
Lubricants LUBOIL Drums Contractor Recycle 4m 15 m
3 3
Oil Filters FILLUB Drums Contractor Recycle 2m 8m
3 3
Cable Cutoffs SMETAL Bins Contractor Landfill/Recycle 1m 4m

December 2009
Table 6.4-1 (continued) Waste Types and Quantities

Waste ERCB Storage Disposal Proposed Estimated Annual Quantity
Description Waste Location Responsibility Disposal Phase 1 Full
Code Method Development
Operations - Drilling
Drilling Various Tanks Contractor Recycle or mix-
Mud/ bury-cover 47,840 m³ 1,040,000 m³
Cuttings
Lubricants LUBOIL Drums Contractor Recycle 7,360 L 160,000 L
Scrap Metal SMETAL Bins Contractor Recycle 9t 35 t
Cement CEMENT Bins Contractor Class II Landfill
(Non- 5,704 m³ 124,000 m³
Hazardous)
Operations - Plant
Filter: FILGY Bins Contractor Landfill/Recycle 3 3
1m 4m
Glycol
Septic WSTMIS Septic Owner Septic
Fluids Tank Field/Approved
Waste Handling
Facility
Batteries BATT Bins Owner Recycle 13 50
Containers: PSTCON Bins Owner Return or
Herbicide/ Recycle 4 15
Pesticide
Filters: Lube LUBOIL Bins Contractor Landfill/Recycle 3 3
1m 4m
Oil
Domestic DOMWST Bins Owner Landfill/Recycle 3 3
9m 35 m
Waste
Packing DOMWST Bins Contractor Landfill/Recycle 3 3
1m 4m
Materials
Lab. INOCHM Drums Owner On/Off-site
Chemicals disposal
3 3
(Spent) depending on 4m 15 m
MSDS
req'ments
Rags: Oily OILRAG Bins Owner Class II Landfill
3 3
(Non- 9m 35 m
Hazardous)
Produced SAND Tanks Contractor Approved
3 3
Sand Waste Handling 450 m 1700 m
Facility
Sludge: SLGPRO Tanks Owner Recover/
Process Approved 3 3
320 m 1200 m
Waste Handling
Facility
Evaporator WSTMIS Tanks Owner Salt cavern
Blow down class 1b or
250m³/d 2000m³/d
approved waste
handling facility
Camp
Kitchen DOMWST Bins Contractor Landfill 3 3
28 m 110 m
Waste
3 3
Cardboard DOMWST Bins Contractor Recycle 20 m 75 m
3 3
Containers EMTCON Bins Contractor Landfill/Recycle 3m 12 m
Septic WSTMIS Septic Contractor Septic
Fluids Tank Field/Approved 3 3
66,430 m 66,430 m
Waste Handling
Facility
The chemicals to be used as part of the Project have been classified in accordance with
the following regulations:

December 2009
 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999 toxics;

 National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI); and
 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDG).
A summary of the chemical products is presented in Table 6.4-2.
Table 6.4-2 Chemical Products

Containment
Chemical Storage CEPA TDG NPRI
Facility
Well Pads
Demulsifier Tank Lined Berm - Yes Yes
Bitumen Treatment
Demulsifier Tank Lined Berm - Yes Yes
Reverse Demulsifier Tank In Building - Yes Yes
De-Oiling
De-Oiling Polymer Tank In Building - Yes Yes
Water Treatment
Sodium Hydroxide Tank Lined Berm - Yes -
Dispersant Tank In Building - Yes -
Anti-Foam Tank In Building - Yes -
Anti-Scalant Tank In Building - Yes -
MagOx Tank In Building - Yes -
Disposal Water
Hydrochloric Acid Tank Lined Berm - Yes Yes
Steam Generation
Polymer Chelant Tank In Building - Yes -
Oxygen Scavenger Tank In Building - Yes -
Filming Amine Tank In Building - Yes -
Fuel Gas
Methanol Tank In Building - Yes -
Utility Water
Coagulant Tank In Building - Yes -
Sodium Hypochlorite Tank In Building - - Yes
Heating and Cooling System
Glycol Tank Lined Berm - - Yes
Notes:
 Regulation not applicable
6.5 TRAFFIC
AOSC has been working with the RMWB, ASRD, the local forest management tenure
holders and Alberta Transportation (AT) since 2008 regarding access to its lease areas.
Currently, the two existing roads that extend west of Fort McMurray include LOC 830746
(Petro-Can Road) that is used to access the existing Suncor Energy (formerly
Petro-Canada) MacKay River project facility and the Tower Road that is located on the
west side of the existing Thickwood subdivision (Figure 1.2-2). ASRD has encouraged
AOSC and other oil sands operators with lease areas west of Fort McMurray to
collaborate on access planning. Discussions are being held with the appropriate levels
of government to evaluate possible alternative routes.
ASRD has expressed support for the proposed MacKay River Pilot Road that utilizes the
existing LOC 830746 (Petro-Can Road) to connect to Highway 63. To date, Southern
Pacific Resources Corp. (Southern Pacific) has expressed interest in sharing access
along the first 9 km of the proposed MacKay River Pilot Road in order to access its
proposed McKay SAGD Project in 07-91-014 W4M.

December 2009
AOSC has collaborated with other area operators on a traffic impact assessment (TIA) to
evaluate the current demands on the intersection of Highway 63 and LOC 830746
(Petro-Can Road). The results of this TIA indicated that the intersection is currently
overloaded, without considering the additional traffic requirements of future development
by AOSC, Southern Pacific and other proposed users of the MacKay River Pilot Road.
AOSC will continue to work with the other affected operators and AT towards
development of an appropriate solution to the traffic problems at this intersection. In the
interim, AOSC will employ the following mitigations to minimize further traffic impacts:
 Wherever possible, timing loads to not coincide with peak traffic periods; and
 Utilizing bussing as much as possible to minimize traffic counts.
6.5.1 Access Management
Gates at the MRCP camp will be installed for security and safety reasons. Vegetation
roll-backs and re-growth will be used as barriers to limit access across seismic lines,
cutlines or discontinued winter use roads.
6.6 CLIMATE CHANGE
6.6.1 Introduction
The climate change component of the EIA TOR (Section 3.2.2 [B]) requested that
AOSC: “Identify stages or elements of the Project that are sensitive to changes or
variability in climate parameters, including frequency and severity of extreme weather
events. Discuss what impacts the change to climate parameters may have on elements
of the Project that are sensitive to climate parameters.”
The impact of changes in both temperature and precipitation have been considered with
respect to potential seasonal changes. Extreme weather events are also addressed.
AOSC has concluded that there is a low perceived risk to the Project from changes in
climate parameters.
6.6.2 Background
Historical climate data for the years 1971 to 2000 at the Fort McMurray A climate station
were taken directly from Environment Canada (2009). The Fort McMurray A climate
station #3062693 is operated by the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), a division
of Environment Canada and is the closest (approximately 60 km) year-round station to
the Project.
Summer temperatures frequently exceed 30 C and winter temperatures are often below
-40 C. Projects in the Fort McMurray area have been designed to deal with the
significant variability in temperature, and most projects operate on a year round basis,
although some activities have preferential seasons (e.g. winter core holes and seismic,
summer plant turnarounds).

December 2009
Monthly average precipitation shows a high level of variability ranging from 15 mm to

over 80 mm. The extreme daily snow fall is 29.7 cm and the extreme daily rainfall is
94.5 mm.
Predicted changes in climate vary and make it difficult to forecast future temperatures
and precipitation. Barrow and Yu (2005) tested several Global Climate Models (GCMs)
and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and selected five GCMs and scenarios for
Alberta (Table 6.6-1) that reflect projections of major world growth driving variables that
can affect climate change. The five scenarios represented the following future
conditions: cooler and wetter (NCAR-PCM A1B), cooler and drier (CGCM2 B2), warmer
and wetter (HadCM3 A2 [a]), warmer and drier (CCSRNIES A1F1), and median
conditions (HadCM3 B2 [b]). As can be seen from this list, a number of outcomes are
possible and, perhaps, in any given year any one of these outcomes will occur.
As a result, AOSC does not make any quantitative predictions regarding potential
impacts of climate change to the Project. Rather, AOSC has considered the potential
impact of qualitative changes.
Table 6.6-1 Emission Scenarios Selected for Alberta
GCM and Model and Scenario Description

Emission
Scenario
NCAR-PCM National Centre for Atmospheric Research (USA).
A1B Balanced across energy sources: not relying too heavily on one energy source
CCSRNIES Centre for Climate Research Studies/National Institute for Environmental Studies
A1F1 (Japan)
Fossil intensive
HadCM3 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (UK)
A2 Heterogeneous world with underlying theme of self-reliance and preservation of
local identities
CGCM2 Canadian centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (Canada)
B2 Local solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability
Reference: Barrow and Yu (2005)
6.6.3 Analysis
The analysis provided below considers only the prospect of relatively marginal changes
in annual temperatures and precipitation. Although some temperature and/or
precipitation changes may occur and the frequency of severe weather events may
increase (or even decrease), we would not expect the severity of the individual events to
change substantially. Fort McMurray is known for hot summer temperatures, cold winter
temperatures, forest fires, severe summer thunder storms and harsh winter blizzards.
Fort McMurray is located in a region of the boreal forest that is not close to mountains or
oceans which could result in extreme events outside the norm.
6.6.3.1 Temperature Increase

Should the mean winter air temperature increase, there will be the potential for a
reduced period of frozen ground, earlier melting of ice bridges, and, possibly, increased
road maintenance. These effects can alter construction timing and disrupt

December 2009
transportation. With adaptive management and monitoring by AOSC there is a low

effect to the Project’s construction from increased temperatures. AOSC is aware of
other operators who are already extending their winter drilling and construction season
with the use of rig mats. AOSC expects this trend to continue regardless of possible
temperature changes.
Should the mean summer temperature increase, there will be the potential for more
forest fires. These events rarely result in the shutdown of a facility, however they may
justify more consideration to thinning of the forest around plants and SAGD well pads to
reduce the fuel available during a fire.
An increase in the mean summer temperature may result in drier soils and a lowered
summer water table, although if increased temperatures are accompanied by increased
precipitation, this may not be the case. The impact at the reclamation stage of the
Project is potentially more soil moisture stress. This is considered a low risk to the
Project and can be managed by selecting reclamation plant species adapted to lower
soil moisture.
Facility design may eventually need to be adapted if warmer temperatures persist. For
example, process cooling loads (aerial coolers) may require increased sizing and
therefore increased plot space.
AOSC’s facilities will be designed for year round access, therefore increased
temperatures are not expected to affect day to day operations.
6.6.3.2 Temperature Decrease

A decrease in temperature would result in a longer winter drilling and construction
season. This would be a positive outcome, although, winter labour productivity may be
reduced causing an increase in Project costs.
AOSC’s facilities will be designed for year round access, therefore lower temperatures
are not expected to affect day to day operations.
With monitoring and adaptive management, a potential decrease in temperatures is

therefore considered a low risk to the Project.
6.6.3.3 Precipitation Increase

Annual precipitation at the Fort McMurray A climate station has averaged 455.5 mm for
the 1971-2000 period. Should precipitation amounts increase, runoff can also be
expected to increase, if there are no corresponding change in temperatures. The net
effect of increased precipitation on stream flow is uncertain because there may be an
increase in air temperatures affecting evaporation and also because of the potential for
change in the timing and distribution of flows. Although there could be a modest
increase in annual runoff (yield), increased air temperatures may result in a decrease in
snow accumulation, increase in rain, and lead to an earlier melt and reduced spring
freshet. Engineering design criteria to the 100 year flow are considered adequate at
bridges to convey an increase in water yield or decrease (or no change) to peak flows.

December 2009
The Project is designed to handle the 1 in 25 year, 24 hour precipitation event. During
the operational life of the Project, the frequency of these events may increase. AOSC
expects that these will be managed within the design tolerance of the Project.
Increased runoff is predicted at Project facilities with compacted surfaces such as roads,
well pads, the MCP, the MNP and industrial runoff ponds. This may require additional
monitoring at culverts to confirm flow capacity and to ensure erosion and sediment
control measures are effective. At the industrial runoff ponds, runoff will be managed by
regular monitoring to ensure adequate available storage capacity and prevent
uncontrolled releases to the environment. This may require construction of higher
freeboard. Runoff will also be offset somewhat by increased evaporation. With
monitoring and adaptive management, a potential increase in precipitation is therefore
considered a low risk to the Project.
6.6.3.4 Precipitation Decrease

Reduced surface water flows from lower precipitation levels or increased evaporation
and evapotranspiration can affect surface water availability during summer months.
However, AOSC will be sourcing water from underground aquifers, therefore lower
precipitation would not affect the Project, with the possible exception of the Quaternary
aquifer recharge. Due to the extended (slow) response time, AOSC will be able to react
if any negative impact is observed.
A reduction in summer rain could result in drier soils and a lowered summer water table.
The impact at the reclamation stage of the Project is potentially that there will be more
soil moisture stress. This is considered a low risk to the Project and can be managed by
selecting reclamation plant species adapted to lower soil moisture regimes.
6.6.4 Summary
During the operational life of the Project, there are no identified temperature, water or
severe weather management related elements of the Project that are specifically
dependent on the changing climate parameters, outside the range of historic norms.
Any changes attributed to temperature, precipitation or severe weather events are
addressed within the design parameters of the Project or can be managed as part of
adaptive management programs and proposed monitoring (Volume 3, Section 6)

MacKay River Commercial Project 7-1 Public Consultation
December 2009
7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
7.1 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT APPROACH
AOSC’s Consultation and Engagement approach is to conduct ongoing engagement and

consultation with the communities, Aboriginal groups, local residents and other key
stakeholder groups in areas in which it operates. AOSC recognizes that consultation
and engagement will continue throughout the life of the Project. Note that Aboriginal
groups are comprised of Métis and First Nation peoples.
AOSC’s Community Consultation and Engagement approach is made up of the following

key items:
 AOSC is committed to conducting the Project’s business activities with

openness, honesty and integrity while respecting community and individual
concerns.
 AOSC believes that the relationships it is building with the communities and local
residents represent a positive investment in the Project’s future role in the region.
For this reason, AOSC’s consultation approach is built around principles that
reinforce respect, understanding, trust and mutual benefit. The program is
designed to meet five objectives:
1. provide communities and individual stakeholders with clear and timely
information about the Project;
2. identify community and individual stakeholder Project-specific issues and
concerns;
3. provide communities and individual with opportunities and venues to
provide comments on the Project;
4. build long term mutually beneficial partnerships within the communities
and with stakeholders who are potentially affected by the Project; and
5. identify and participate in long term, meaningful and sustainable
programs and agreements that benefit the quality of life for people living
and working in the region.
AOSC will work to establish long term relationships with all key communities and
communities by:
 Recognizing and respecting cultural differences within the communities;

 Engaging in meaningful dialogue about AOSC’s activities; and
 Dealing with groups and individuals in a fair and equitable manner.
7.2 PLAN COMPONENTS
AOSC recognizes that Consultation and Engagement will continue throughout the life of
the Project. Key consultation activities initiated or that will be initiated include:
 introduction of the Project and the initiation of dialogue with communities and key
stakeholders;
 identification of initial community and stakeholder issues and concerns;

December 2009
 identification of options and processes for addressing issues, concerns and

expectations going forward; and
 development of community and stakeholder relationships that provide the basis
for ongoing dialogue and communication over the life of the Project.
7.3 REGULATORY EXPECTATIONS
Informational Letter (IL) 96-07 (ERCB/AENV 1996c) sets out the expectations of both
the ERCB and AENV in the approval and regulation of oil sands developments in
Alberta. As specified in IL 96-07, all oil sands applications require consultation between
the applicant and affected communities and stakeholders. AOSC has designed its
Community Consultation and Engagement Program with IL 96-07 in mind.
IL 96-07 specifies that consultation is the responsibility of the applicant and may include
meetings with local groups and organizations as well as conducting public events.
AOSC recognizes, however, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada
also have consultation responsibilities regarding the Project, in particular as they relate
to First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal peoples.
AOSC understands that ERCB Directive 023 (1991) is intended as a directive for
applicants for the type and detail of information required in an application pursuant to the
Oil Sands Conservation Act. Directive 023 applies to all commercial oil sands projects.
It stipulates that all applicants are encouraged to plan and carry out a suitable program
to make the public aware of a proposed oil sands development; to obtain and
incorporate, where feasible, the reaction of interested or affected parties; and to provide
documentation to the ERCB and AENV as to the nature and extent of the
communication and any resolutions achieved.
AOSC understands that oil sands developments are subject to the environmental
assessment process pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
administered by AENV. The environmental assessment process provides the means of
reviewing oil sands developments to assess their potential effect on the environment.
This process allows for full public participation and ensures that economic development
occurs in an environmentally responsible manner. AOSC recognizes that, in part, the
purpose of the environmental assessment process is to involve the public in the review
of proposed oil sands developments.
AOSC has designed its Consultation and Engagement Approach to meet or exceed the
requirements of IL 96-07 (ERCB/AENV 1996c) and Directive 023 (ERCB 1991).
7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY AND INTERESTED

GROUPS
A variety of local and regional interested groups have been identified as being potentially
affected by developments within the AOSC MacKay River lease. They included First
Nations, Métis Locals, local residents, trappers, landowners, businesses and industry,
and municipal, First Nation, provincial and federal governments.
A listing of communities, organizations and individuals AOSC is engaging and consulting

with are:

December 2009
 The community of Fort McKay as defined by the Fort McKay First Nation and
Fort McKay Métis Local # 63;
 The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN);
 The Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN);
 The Fort McMurray #468 First Nation (FMFN);
 Métis Local #125;
 Métis Local #1935;
 Wood Buffalo Métis Corporation (WBMC);
 Potentially impacted trappers;
 The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) Council and Administration;
 Local businesses and business organizations;
 Developers adjacent to AOSC MacKay River lease;
 Regulators;
 Oil Sands Developers Group (OSDG);
 Senior trapline holder of Registered Fur Management Area (RFMA) #2894;
 Senior trapline holder of RFMA #587;
 Senior trapline holder of RFMA #1387; and
 Senior trapline holder of RMA # 1364.
7.4.1 Consultation and Engagement Information Tracking
AOSC will continue to utilize Consultation Manager™ (CM) as the system to identify,
document and track issues or commitments which develop through the consultation and
community engagement activities. Accountability focal points will be determined so that
appropriate management strategies are developed and implemented to ensure accurate
record keeping and timely feedback on concerns. Where appropriate, potential
mitigation strategies will be developed with communities and stakeholders. In support of
this:
 consultation activities will be catalogued into CM and discussed with the Project
development teams for consideration in their decision-making;
 where practical and feasible, the Project design will be adjusted to accommodate
community and stakeholder issues and concerns.
7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

CONSIDERATIONS
7.5.1 Commitments
AOSC is committed to being a responsible corporate citizen, and will meet or exceed all
regulatory requirements, respect community concerns and promote the health and
safety of the environment, AOSC’s workplace and employees.

December 2009
7.5.2 Key Concerns
To date, the following environmental concerns have been identified to AOSC through
consultation and engagement with the communities and individual stakeholders. Any
additional concerns raised during future consultation will be recorded and responded to.
Environmental Concerns:
 potential impacts to regional air quality;

 use of groundwater and surface water for the Project and potential impact on the
quality of both;
 potential impacts to regional fisheries resources;
 habitat fragmentation;
 impacts such as ground collapsing when bitumen is removed;
 both the positive and negative aspects of access to traplines by hunters and
recreational vehicle users; and
 loss of wildlife due to the Project and influx of people.
Socio-Economic Concerns:
 potential impact on First Nation traditional territories;

 potential impact on Aboriginal traditional sites;
 potential impact on traditional activities;
 potential for fly-in work program to and from Fort Chipewyan;
 local contract opportunities; and
 increased traffic in area of the Project.
Some communities and stakeholders have expressed a general concern about the rate
of development in the region and the potential cumulative socio-economic effects
associated with additional development. General concerns consist of:
 Increase in traffic on Highway 63 as it moves through Fort McMurray;

 Ability of the RMWB to adequately plan for future population change. The RMWB
ideally would like 5 to 10 years of planning lead-time and a rolling cumulative
development framework;
 The pace of development leading to high rate of population growth makes it
difficult for RMWB and service providers to keep up;
 The number of mobile workers resident in the RMWB utilizing services but not
being accounted for in any provincial funding formulas for health care, policing,
social services, etc.;
 Evacuation of camp workers in the event of an extreme forest fire threat;
 The high cost of living in the Fort McMurray area makes it difficult to attract
workers to non-oil sands jobs;
 The cost of housing is still high and limited land is available for residential
development and growing population;
 Regional demands on the medical facilities, especially in light of funding
limitations and increased demand on regional services.

December 2009
 Medical services and institutions require more consolidated information and

longer term projections of work force requirement from industry to plan
effectively;
 Training and work related opportunities for local people and businesses;
 Rural communities feel overwhelmed by the number of non-residents living in
camps around them;
 The pace of life has changed for rural residents; and
 Increase in social problems (e.g., alcoholism, drug use) due to the general
population increase and transient nature of the population.
7.6 CONSULTATION METHODS
AOSC is utilizing various consultation methods during its consultation and engagement
program including:
 Providing copies of the Project Summary Table and draft TOR to Aboriginal
groups being consulted and engaged;
 Holding formal and informal face-to-face meetings to introduce and to discuss the
Project and to design consultation processes in concert with Aboriginal groups;
 Negotiating consultation/relationship and traditional use agreements;
 Identifying issues;
 Presenting information on the Project and AOSC’s future plans;
 When requested, sharing technical information on the design of the Project;
 Holding open houses and presentations so AOSC can fully discuss the Project
with all interested and impacted groups and individuals;
 Providing newsletters and other information on the AOSC web site to offer
information to a wider audience; and
 Participating in regional multi-stakeholder groups.
7.7 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Key consultation and engagement activities carried out in support of this Application are
presented in Table 7.7-1. A complete list of consultation and engagement activities is
presented in Appendix D.
Table 7.7-1 Consultation and Engagement Summary
Group/Individual Consultation and Engagement Activities

The community of Fort McKay  A consultation funding agreement between AOSC and
Fort McKay is in place. This agreement outlines
consultation and engagement protocols and identifies
AOSC as a member and funder of the Fort McKay
Industry Relations Corporation (IRC).
 Both parties are consulting in good faith. Consultation
activities to date include:
o AOSC and Fort McKay have agreed to hold an
Elders meeting and open house in Fort McKay on
January 20, 2010. These meetings will be held
according to the IRC’s prescribed consultation
process.

December 2009

o On September 28, 2009, AOSC and the Fort McKay
First Nation Chief and Council met to discuss various
matters of interest to both parties, including this
Project. Subsequent meetings in October 2009 with
the Chief, First Nation CEO and Assistant
Administrator have been held to advance the talks.
o In August 2009, AOSC met with traditional land users
identified by the Fort McKay IRC to identify important
traditional sites on the MacKay River lease and
surrounding area. This meeting was followed up with
a fly-over of the trapline currently held by the trapline
holder of RFMA #2894. Input from this trapper is
included in the TEK/TU section of the EIA (Volume 5,
Section 16).
o AOSC and the Fort McKay IRC are holding
bi-monthly meetings to discuss various matters of
interest to both parties.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First  A Draft Interim Consultation Agreement between the
Nation (ACFN) parties is being reviewed by ACFN. AOSC is a member
and funder of the ACFN IRC.
 AOSC and ACFN have agreed to hold an open house in
Fort Chipewyan after the Project Application is filed and
after ACFN has conducted its third-party review of the
Application.
 ACFN wishes to participate in a traditional land use
assessment of the Project sometime in 2010. AOSC has
agreed in principle to this approach. The parties’ intent is
to complete the assessment prior to Project approval.
The Mikisew Cree First Nation  An interim agreement is being negotiated with MCFN.
(MCFN) This agreement will be finalized in the first half of 2010.
AOSC is a member and funder of the MCFN Government
and Industry Relations (GIR) Department.
 AOSC and GIR have established a work plan to ensure
consultation is carried out to the end of 2009. AOSC
anticipates a 2010 work plan will be developed early in
2010.
 The parties have agreed to hold an open house in Fort
Chipewyan after the Project Application is filed and after
MCFN has conducted its third-party review of the
Application.
 MCFN wishes to participate in a traditional land use
assessment involving the Project sometime in 2010.
AOSC has agreed in principle to this approach. MCFN
GIR has committed to provide AOSC with a scope of
work and budget. The intent is to have the assessment
completed prior to Project approval.
 AOSC has provided GIR with requested information
about the Corporation. GIR will use this information in
communication with its members.
The Fort McMurray #468 First  The First Nation and AOSC met on October 29 and
Nation reached an agreement on AOSC’s membership fees in
the First Nation’s IRC and preliminary discussions how
advancing the consultation process as it relates to this

December 2009

Project.
Métis Local # 125  AOSC has met with the President of the Local on several
occasions to discuss matters of interest to both parties.
Matters discussed included:
o Funding of the Local’s administrative office;
o Providing human resource expertise for proposal
writing; and
o Funding of the Local’s Traditional Land Use Project.
 AOSC is a funder the Local’s Administration Office, which
is designed, in part, to consult with the oil sands industry.
 The President of the Local has provided information
about the Métis historical use of the MacKay River lease
area. His input is included in the TEK/TU section of the
EIA (Volume 5, Section 16).
 The parties have agreed to hold an open house in Fort
Chipewyan after the Project Application is filed.
 AOSC is supporting the Local’s community events.
Métis Local # 1935  The parties met on October 8 and October 28, 2009.
AOSC provided an overview of the Project and its 2009-
2010 Winter Work Exploration Programs. The parties
have developed a joint work plan that includes capacity
funding to consult with AOSC on matters related to the
Project. The work plan will guide the relationship.
Wood Buffalo Métis Corporation  AOSC has provided funding for the WBMC office which,
(WBMC) in part, enables the office to engage AOSC in matters
related to its activities.
 The parties met on October 9, 2009. AOSC provided an
overview of the Project and its 2009-2010 Winter Work
Exploration Programs. The Vice President of the Willow
Lake Métis Local committed to report on the Project to
the Local’s President. AOSC offered to hold an open
house for the Willow Lake Métis Local in the spring.
Potentially impacted trappers  AOSC provided the trapline holder of RFMA #2894 with a
fly-over of his trap line at his request and interviewed him
for the TEK/TU section of the EIA (Volume 5, Section 16).
 AOSC interviewed the trapline holders of RFMA #587
and #875 for the TEK/TU section of the EIA (Volume 5,
Section 16). Neither trap line is impacted by this Project.
Both RFMA holders are Fort McKay First Nation trappers.
 AOSC met with the trapline holder of RFMA #2676 on
October 9, 2009 to discuss the Project. AOSC also
interviewed this trapper.for the TEK/TU section of the EIA
(Volume 5, Section 16).
 AOSC interviewed the trapline holders of RFMA #2753
and #1364 for the TEK/TU section of the EIA (Volume 5,
Section 16).
The Regional Municipality of  Meetings (September 10, 2009; October 8, 2009) and
Wood Buffalo (RMWB) Council phone conversations to discuss the Project have been
& Administration held with the Mayor, General Manager, Planning and
Development and with Manager and staff, Long Range
Planning and Policy.
 Discussions between the RMWB and AOSC are ongoing.

December 2009

Local businesses and business  AOSC is a member of the Northeastern Alberta
organizations Aboriginal Business Association (NAABA).
 AOSC continues to hire regional contractors for its winter
work programs. AOSC will continue to work with NAABA
and the communities to identify work opportunities.
Developers adjacent to AOSC  AOSC has met with Petro-Canada, Sunshine Oilsands,
MacKay River lease Southern Pacific, Chevron and Paramount to discuss
matters of interest and to coordinate its activities in the
area of AOSC’s MacKay River Lease (e.g., road use
arrangements).
Oil Sands Developers Group  AOSC is a member of OSDG and an active participant on
(OSDG) its Aboriginal Affairs, Environmental and Transportation
Committees.
Cumulative Environmental  AOSC intends to become a member of CEMA in 2010.
Management Association
(CEMA)
7.7.1 Other Consultation and Engagement Activities
AOSC is using formal media such as newsletters, news releases, letters and brochures
to provide information about the Project. Information about the Project, the MacKay
River lease area and AOSC’s approach to consultation and engagement is also located
on the Company’s web site: www.aosc.com.
7.8 ISSUES AND MITIGATION
Following is a list of Project-specific issues raised by various groups to date. Each issue
is followed by a description of how AOSC has, or will address the issue. AOSC will
record and respond to additional issues as they arise through future consultation and
engagement activities (e.g., open houses, technical reviews of the Application, etc.).
7.8.1 Socio-Economic Issues and Concerns
The need to establish relationship/consultation agreements
AOSC is working with ACFN and MCFN to develop relationship/consultation

agreements. AOSC and ACFN are developing a Traditional Environmental Knowledge
Agreement. AOSC and Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 have developed a joint
2009/2010 work plan.
AOSC also developed a Corporate Giving Guideline to inform interested parties of

AOSC corporate giving approach.
Support for Consultation and Engagement
AOSC is a funder of the MCFN GIR, the ACFN IRC and Fort McMurray #468 First
Nation IRCs and the community of Fort McKay IRC.

December 2009
AOSC has also provided funding to the Wood Buffalo Métis Corporation and Fort
Chipewyan Métis Local 125 administration offices. The mandate of these offices, in part,
is to engage with industry in matters related to development.
Local Business Opportunities
AOSC is a member of NAABA. To date AOSC has contracted the following local
companies for its activities in the Fort McMurray area:
 Bouchier Contracting;
 First Nation Welding;
 Vortex;
 Dreamline Promotions;
 Wapoose Medical Services;
 Nipi Contracting; and
 Clearwater Contracting.
AOSC has established a database of local contractors that allows it to quickly identify
services offered by those companies which reside in the region including their
qualifications and experience. AOSC will continue to update this database as
development progresses.
It is AOSC’S intention to continue to hire qualified local contractors.
AOSC plans to become a member of the RMWB Chamber of Commerce and the Fort
McMurray Construction Association and also to continue its involvement in NAABA.
Access Management
AOSC will continue to work with trappers, Aboriginal groups and others to understand
issues related to access and to mitigate those issues where it is AOSC’s responsibility to
do so.
AOSC will continue to ensure that local trappers affected by the Project operations will
continue to have access to their trap lines on non-active parts of AOSC’s MacKay River
lease area as required.
AOSC will continue to be an active participant in the Access Management Plan being
developed for the region by ASRD.
Trappers Communications and Compensation
AOSC consults directly with trappers affected by its resource development activities.
AOSC adheres to the Fort McKay Trappers’ Guidelines, to ensure trappers were aware
of its activities and impacts on their traplines and has provided compensation to all
impacted trappers as per these Guidelines.
7.8.2 Environmental Issues and Concerns
As stated previously the environmental issues identified to date are:
 potential impacts to regional air quality;

December 2009
 use of groundwater and surface water for the Project and potential impact on the
quality of both;
 potential impacts to regional fisheries resources;
 habitat fragmentation;
 impacts such as ground collapsing when bitumen is removed;
 both the positive and negative aspects of access to traplines by hunters and
recreational vehicle users; and
 loss of wildlife due to the Project and influx of people.
AOSC has attempted to address these concerns in the appropriate sections of this
Application and will continue to address them through further dialogue at open houses
and through responses to issues and questions raised in third-party technical reviews.
7.8.3 Mitigation Summary
A summary of the key concerns and AOSC’s proposed mitigation is presented in

Table 7.8-1.
Table 7.8-1 Mitigation Summary
Key Concern Proposed Mitigation

Socio-Economic
Potential impact on First Nation  Creation of a relationship memorandum of understanding
traditional territories  Engage First Nations identified in the TEK/TU section of
the EIA (Volume 5, Section 16) as agreed to.
 Continue to engage trappers, Elders and consultation
arms of the First Nations.
Potential impact on Aboriginal  Identification of TLU, use of Advisory Committees
traditional sites comprised of both Elders and youth representatives from
community.
Potential for fly-in work program  Identify with community what type of program will work.
to and from Fort Chipewyan Impacts of time away from home will affect the success of
this program.
Local contract opportunities  Ensure local contractors have opportunity in bidding
process.
 Continue to build and maintain database of local
contractors.
 Engage regional business groups to ensure they are
aware of AOSC’s development plans in a timely manner.
 Help local contractors understand AOSC’s business
needs.
Increased traffic in area of the  Provide communities and other interested parties with
Project information on AOSC’s contribution to traffic flows.
 Provide public announcements about heavy haul dates
and times.
Environmental
Ground collapsing when  Address this matter through open houses and meetings.
bitumen is removed
Ground water use and quality  AOSC has designed the Project to maximize the amount
of recycled water, consequently minimizing the amount of
makeup water required and potential impacts to both
surface and groundwater in the region.

December 2009

Regional air quality  AOSC has designed the Project to meet the Alberta
Ambient Air Quality Objectives.
Access to traplines by hunters  AOSC to provide information to ensure hunters are
aware of when and how access will be impacted
Habitat fragmentation  AOSC has designed the Project to minimize land
disturbance. This includes minimizing well pads, facility
areas and roads required to limit potential habitat
fragmentation.
Loss of wildlife due to the  Wildlife monitoring during Project development and
Project and influx of people operations; sharing this information with communities on
an ongoing basis
General Socio-Economic
Increase in traffic on  Participate in OSDG Transportation Committee to work
Highway 63 as it moves through with other industry operators toward mitigation.
Fort McMurray
Ability of the RMWB to  Research OSDG’s proposed secondment of resources to
adequately plan for future RMWB.
population change. The RMWB  Provide statistics to OSDG’s annual surveys.
ideally would like 5 to 10 years
of planning lead-time and a
rolling cumulative development
framework. This is not
compatible with corporate
information strategies around
forward looking information
The pace of development  Provide statistics to OSDG’s annual surveys.
leading to high rate of
population growth makes it
difficult for RMWB and service
providers to keep up
The number of mobile workers  Provide security and medical services on-site for workers
resident in the RMWB, utilizing to help alleviate pressure on municipal services.
services, but not accounted for
in any provincial funding
formulas for health care,
policing, social services, etc.
Evacuation of camp workers in  AOSC will develop a site-specific evacuation plan and
the event of an extreme forest will work with other oil sands developers, governments
fire threat. There are limited and groups to ensure evacuations are coordinated and
evacuation options mutual support is provided.
The high cost of living in the  AOSC understands this is an issue within the region and
Fort McMurray area makes it will examine options when developing its workforce
difficult to attract workers to plans.
non-oil sands jobs
The cost of housing is high,  In June 2008 the Government of Alberta announced the
limited land for residential release of land for two new communities in Fort
development and growing McMurray. These communities are expected to house
population 40,000 people on 1,600 hectares of land. The
Government of Alberta announced that 20% of the units
for the first phases of developments will be allocated to
affordable housing.

December 2009

Regional demands on the  AOSC will encourage its employees and contractors to
medical facilities, especially in utilize medical services in regions where they have their
light of funding costs and principle residence.
increased demand on regional  AOSC will have medical first aid facilities at the Project
services for the construction workforce.
Medical services and  Support OSDG by providing projections which are then
institutions require more collated and provided to local and regional medical
consolidated information and services etc.
longer term projections of work  Identify community investment opportunities to support
force requirement from industry regional health programs and facilities.
to plan effectively
Training and work related  Engage regional training and human resource
opportunities for local people organizations and Aboriginal groups to understand
and businesses emerging and current needs. Identify ways and means to
address these needs proportional to AOSC’s resources
and impacts.
Rural communities feel  The MRCP camp will have security, recreation and
overwhelmed by the number of leisure facilities. AOSC is developing drug and alcohol
non-residents living in camps abuse policies and a firearms policy.
around them
7.9 REGULATORS
AOSC has met with the ERCB, AENV, ASRD, and various federal agencies, including
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency to review the various aspects of this Project and its Application.
AOSC submitted a project description to the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency in March 2009. The project description provides details regarding the, activities
associated with the Project and outlines possible interactions with the environment. The
project description is used to determine if a federal environmental assessment is
required. Submitting the project description is the first step in the federal review
process, which is managed by the Canada’s Major Projects Management Office. The
MPMO works collaboratively with federal departments and agencies, serving as a single
window into the federal regulatory process.
AOSC received a response to the project description from the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency in April 2009, stating that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is a
Responsible Authority and will be conducting a federal environmental assessment.
Transport Canada is also a Responsible Authority and may conduct a federal
environmental assessment pending receipt of additional information. AOSC will work
with the Responsibility Authorities and MPMO throughout the Application review
process.
AOSC continues to have regular communication and provide updates to all Provincial
and Federal regulatory agencies that have an interest in the Project.

December 2009
7.10 FUTURE CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
AOSC understands that consultation on the Project does not end with the filing of the
Project application. Therefore, AOSC plans to carry out the following ongoing
consultation and engagement activities:
 evaluate appropriate levels of membership in the Wood Buffalo Environmental

Association;
 continue to fund community-supported consultation organizations (e.g., GIR,
IRCs, etc.) at appropriate levels;
 continue to consult and engage with First Nations and Métis Locals over the life
of the Project;
 continue to work with identified communities and individuals to address, where
possible, concerns associated with the Project;
 continue to seek to understand and, where possible and feasible, adhere to
community consultation and engagement processes;
 continue to identify emerging issues related to the Project and seek ways to
address these issues where appropriate;
 continue to track the Company’s consultation activities and commitments.
Since its inception, AOSC has used its resources to identify, discuss and address
community and individual issues and to build trusting relationships. AOSC will continue
to provide timely information, participate in meaningful consultation processes and work
with identified groups and individuals who may have a stake in its activities to address
issues associated with such activities.

MacKay River Commercial Project 8-1 Conservation and Reclamation Plan
December 2009
8 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan describes the Project specific
conservation, mitigation and reclamation measures to be implemented throughout the
development of the Project to minimize potential environmental impacts, and to achieve
equivalent land capability after reclamation.
The C&R Plan focuses on land and soil conservation, surface disturbance, and
reclamation concepts, as well as reclamation options (ALCRC 1991) throughout the life
of the Project. Detailed design will address site-specific characteristics (including
existing disturbances on the site), and include the preparation of detailed C&R Plans for
finalized facility locations.
Information sources consulted and considered in the C&R Plan include:
 Project TOR;
 Project design;
 AOSC policies/programs;
 Regulatory requirements including reclamation guidelines (Section 8.3.2);
 Regional initiatives (Section 8.3.3);
 Pre-existing biophysical information for the area;
 Biophysical information (including terrain and soils, ecological land classification,
vegetation, and wildlife) collected for the Project, interpretations for potential
effects, and mitigative measures;
 Other SAGD EIAs and their respective C&R Plans;
 Oil and gas facilities reclamation experience; and
 Existing AENV approvals for other SAGD projects.
8.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
8.2.1 Facilities and Project Area (Footprint)
The Project is located within Townships 87 to 93, Ranges 11 to 16 W4M. The surface
components of the Project infrastructure are defined as the Project Area (footprint). The
footprint (Figure 8.2-1) covers approximately 2,149 ha (less than 3% of the MacKay
River leases) of which 55 ha has existing vegetation or vegetation and soil disturbance.
The Project will be constructed in a phased approach from 2012 to approximately 2029.
The footprint includes the following surface disturbances:
 MCP with the following adjacent associated facilities;

o two power substations on the south boundary;
o LACT unit on the north boundary;
o three soil salvage stockpile areas north and west;
 MNP;
 MRCP camp and septic field;
 Approximately 200 SAGD well pads;

MacKay River Commercial Project 8-2 Conservation and Reclamation
December 2009
 four drilling camps;

 five source water well pads, two disposal well pads, one salt cavern well pad;
 four borrow areas for initial development;
 seven drilling sumps;
 various rights-of-way (ROW) containing one or more of pipelines, roads,
powerlines including:
o ROWs to the MCP including pipelines, powerline and a main access road
that will be a short addition (approximately 1.8 km) to the proposed AOSC
MacKay River Pilot road,
o 57 to 59 m wide ROWs with above ground pipelines /road/powerlines,
o 48 m wide ROWs to source water wells with road/powerlines/ below ground
pipeline,
o 39 m wide ROWs to disposal and salt cavern disposal well pads with
road/below ground water pipelines.
Aggregate will be sourced through exploration in the vicinity of the commercial

operations and/or purchased from commercial gravel pits on Highway 63. Pipelines for
supply of natural gas, diluent, and sales oil will be through third parties, and will be
applied for separately. Table 8.2-1 indicates the areal extent of different facility types in
the footprint. A detailed description of the Project facilities is presented in Section 5.
Table 8.2-1 Areal Extent of Project Facilities
Existing Soil New

Disturbance2 on Disturbance Total Area
Facility Type
Footprint on Footprint (ha)1
(ha)1 (ha)1
MacKay River Central Plant (MCP) 0 52 52
Soil salvage storage sites adjacent
0 23 23
to MCP
Associated adjacent MCP facilities
0 1 1
(LACT unit, substations)
MacKay River North Plant (MNP) 0 15 15
SAGD Well Pads 1 946 947
ROWs (containing road, power,
2 893 895
pipelines)
Initial Development Borrow Areas 0 165 165
Water Source, Disposal, and
0 7 7
Disposal Salt Cavern Well Pads
Remote Drilling Sumps 0 21 21
MRCP Camp and Septic Field 0 12 12
Drilling Camps 0 12 12
Total Project Area (footprint) 3 2,146 2,149
1. Rounded to whole ha.
2. There are approximately 55 ha of existing vegetation disturbance within the footprint (approximately 3 ha of the
vegetation disturbance is also soil disturbance).

December 2009
8.2.2 Development and Reclamation
Where practicable, progressive reclamation will be undertaken on facilities as they are

decommissioned and abandoned throughout the life of the Project. Reclamation
monitoring will commence after reclamation of a site. Additional remedial reclamation
measures will be ongoing as needed until the pertinent reclamation criteria are met and
a reclamation certificate is obtained. Information gathered during the initial reclamation
and subsequent reclamation monitoring will be used in adaptive management to improve
future reclamation design, procedures, and monitoring, where required. Adaptive
management will also take advantage of knowledge gained from reclamation on other
SAGD projects and research initiatives as it becomes available.
Partial or interim reclamation for facilities will be undertaken during the Project life as
practicable including, but not limited to: soil replacement as the final step in pipeline
construction, soil replacement and revegetation at facility edge areas not needed for
operations, and revegetation for erosion control of cut slopes and salvaged soil
stockpiles.
Final reclamation of all remaining unreclaimed facilities will be undertaken after the
Project is decommissioned.

410000 420000 430000 440000
Twp.93
Do
v er Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
6310000
M acK ay R ive
r
Twp.91
6300000
Twp.90
6290000
Twp.89
6280000
Twp.88
PROJECT AREAS
I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\017_FIGURE_8_2_1_FOOTPRINT_AND _TERRES TRIAL_LOCAL_STUDY_AREA .mxd
MACKAY CENTRAL PLANT (MCP)

SOIL SALVAGE STORAGE SITE ADJACENT TO MCP
ASSOCIATED ADJACENT MCP FACILITIES (LACT UNIT, SUBSTATION)
MACKAY NORTH PLANT (MNP)
PRODUCTION WELL SITE
ROW (CONTAINING ROAD, POWER, PIPELINE) Grand Rapids Wildland
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT BORROW AREA
WATER SOURCE, DISPOSAL AND DISPOSAL SALT CAVERN WELL SITES R iver
as ca
REMOTE DRILLING SUMP At h ab
Twp.87
MRCP CAMP, DRILLING CAMP AND SEPTIC FIELD

Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:150,000
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) BASELINE DISTURBANCES 2 0 2
MACKAY RIVER LEASE SOILS DISTURBANCE

WILDLAND PARK VEGETATION DISTURBANCE
Pea ce Riv er
! _
^ !
Fort McMurra y
Kilometres
NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
WATERBODY
7349-514 SC 09/11/13
WATERCOURSE
FOOTPRINT
WINTER ROAD LP 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13

AND TERRESTRIAL
!
Reference:
PIPELINE
LOCAL STUDY AREA
1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used for License
POWERLINE
Ca lga ry
!
Disclaimer:
Prepared solely for the use of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. as
specified in the accompanying report. No representation of
any kind is made to other parties with which
_
^ Project Location Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered into contract. FIGURE 8.2-1
December 2009
8.3 RECLAMATION PLANNING CONCEPTS
8.3.1 General Conservation and Reclamation Plan Objectives
The objective of reclamation defined by the EPEA Conservation and Reclamation

Regulation (AR 115/93) is to return areas disturbed for industrial development to
equivalent land capability. This means that the ability of the land to support various land
uses after conservation and reclamation should be similar to the ability that existed prior
to disturbance. However, the end land use for a specific site will not necessarily be
identical to what previously existed.
In general, objectives of C&R planning include:
 Conserving existing resources as much as practicable;

 Adopting measures to mitigate, minimize or prevent environmental impact; and
 Undertaking appropriate reclamation or other ameliorative measures.
Reclamation objectives for the Project include:
 The Project will be reclaimed to provide equivalent to pre-disturbance land

capability and to meet the reclamation criteria of the day.
 Reclaimed areas will be compatible with the surrounding area (e.g. vegetation
surface land form, drainage).
 Reclaimed lands will provide for maintenance-free, self-sustaining ecosystems
with a similar range of potential end uses compared to pre-disturbance conditions
(including forestry, wildlife habitat and traditional use).
The C&R Plan provides a general guideline for reclamation throughout the Project life.
Adjustments to the general guideline will be made on a site-specific basis to account for
differences in topography, soils, vegetation, drainage, and other site-specific factors.
AOSC is committed to following the Conservation and Reclamation Guidelines for
Alberta (AENV 1997a).
Some basic conservation and reclamation principles include:
 Remediate or dispose of contaminants to meet AENV requirements;

 Re-contour the site to be compatible with the end land use, provide adequate
drainage and stability, and control erosion;
 Avoid using topsoil for grading purposes;
 Correct soil compaction when necessary;
 Replace salvaged soils in the same sequence as found in undisturbed areas,
unless otherwise directed by the Conservation and Reclamation Inspector;
 Use approved revegetation seed mixtures or seedlings that are compatible with
the intended land use;
 Control noxious weeds; and
 Where appropriate, use native species or mixtures that will allow the
establishment of native species.

December 2009
8.3.2 Reclamation Guidelines
AOSC intends to follow applicable regulatory reclamation guidelines (as amended) for
the Project which may include, but not be limited to, those listed in Table 8.3-1.
Table 8.3-1 Applicable Reclamation Guideline Documents
A Guide to the Preparation of Applications and Reports for Coal and Oil
ALCRC 1991
Sands Operations
Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (Directive 055) ERCB 2001a
Drilling Waste Management (Directive 050) ERCB 1996a
Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum
ERCB 1996b
Industry (Directive 058)
Well Abandonment Guide (Directive 020) ERCB 2007b
Guide for Pipelines Pursuant to the Environmental Protection and
AENV 1994a
Enhancement Act and Regulations
Guide for Oil Production Sites: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection and
AENV 1994b
Enhancement Act and Regulations
Environmental Protection Guidelines for Electric Transmission Lines
AENV 1995a
(C&R/IL/95-2)
Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities – 1995 Update
AENV 1995b
(C&R/IL/95-3)
A Guide To: Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities –
ASRD 2007a
2007 – Forested Lands in the Green Area Update
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Conservation and
AENV 2008
Reclamation Regulation (AR 115/93, as amended)
Soil Monitoring Directive AENV 2009b
Reclamation Certificates for Overlapping Activities (C&R/IL/97-6) AENV 1997
Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings AENV 2000a
Environmental Protection Guidelines for Roadways AENV 2000b
Environmental Protection Guidelines for Oil Production Sites (C&R/IL/02-1) AENV 2002
Sites Reclaimed Using Natural Recovery Methods AENV 2003c
Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a
AENV 2000c
Water Body
Code of Practice For Pits AENV 2004
Weed Management in Forestry Operations (Directive 2001-06) ASRD 2001
Alberta Operational Statement, Habitat Management Program DFO 2006
Land Capability Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands
CEMA 2006
Region, 3rd Edition
Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands
OSVRC 1998
Region
Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases OSWWG 2000
The 1995 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities (AENV 1995b) is
currently under review. The recently published document, A Guide To: Reclamation
Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities – 2007 – Forested Lands in the Green
Area Update (ASRD 2007a) (‘the 2007 Criteria’) will be in effect until revisions to the
1995 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities have been completed
and implemented. The 2007 Criteria document states that “equivalent capability is
assumed to have been achieved where no limitations to normal ecosystem functioning
are found”. These criteria are for forested land; separate criteria for peatlands (within

December 2009
forested lands) and reclamation techniques for well pads on peatlands are planned to
be developed by the Reclamation Criteria Advisory Group.
8.3.3 Regional Initiatives
AOSC recognizes the value of the various multi-stakeholder groups in contributing to

sustainable growth within the oil sands. AOSC is currently a member of the OSDG and
is planning to join CEMA. AOSC is also evaluating its potential participation level in
WBEA.
Additional information on participation in regional initiatives and stakeholder consultation

is presented in Volume 1, Section 7 of the Application.
8.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
8.4.1 Biophysical Setting
Project effects on the terrestrial biophysical resources at a local scale were assessed
within the terrestrial local study area (LSA). The Project is situated within the Central
Mixedwood Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions
Committee 2006). Overall topography is muted with very gentle to nearly level slope
gradients and extensive, low-lying wetland areas. The dominant landform in the
terrestrial LSA is low-lying, flat, organic deposits developed on bog and fen peat. The
landforms on the mineral uplands in the LSA include undulating to hummocky surface
expressions most commonly developed on medium-textured till, with coarse-textured
glaciofluvial parent materials also present, and a small area of coarse textured eolian
parent material occurring in the south part of the LSA. A summary of the landforms
identified in the LSA and their geographical extent is provided in the Terrain and Soils
section of the EIA (Volume 4, Section 9).
The hydrology LSA is stratified into three main watersheds, which are identified as the
Dover, MacKay, and South watersheds (Volume 3, Section 6). The MacKay River flows
approximately northeast between the northern and southern portion of the AOSC
MacKay River lease to the Athabasca River. North of the MNP, the Dover River flows
approximately west to east to the MacKay River before it discharges into the Athabasca
River. The South watershed consists of many small individual streams that drain
approximately south directly to the Athabasca River. From the east border of the South
watershed, the Athabasca River flows about 15 km northeast to the confluence with the
Clearwater River.
The uppermost Cretaceous Period bedrock unit throughout the majority of the Project
lease is the Grand Rapids Formation. Within the Birch and MacKay buried bedrock
channels, the Clearwater Formation is the uppermost Cretaceous bedrock unit. The drift
thickness is up to approximately 120 m within the Project lease with the thickest areas
identified within Birch and MacKay buried bedrock channels.
Land uses in the area include oil and gas production, forestry, traditional land use,
trapping and recreation (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Portions of the area have
undergone previous disturbance including oil and gas production (oil and gas well pads,
exploration coreholes, pipelines, seismic lines and access roads), forest fires, and

December 2009
forestry. Much of the existing disturbance in the area consists of oil sands exploration
coreholes, winter access, and seismic lines, which are generally vegetation disturbance
with little significant surface soil disturbance.
8.4.2 Terrain and Soils
A detailed description of soil resources (including areal extent of soil series in the
terrestrial LSA) is provided in the Terrain and Soils section of the EIA (Volume 4,
Section 9).
The surficial materials in the terrestrial LSA dominantly consist of morainal (till) and
glaciofluvial deposits of Quaternary age, recent deposits of organic (peat) materials, and
a relatively small area of eolian deposits in the south portion of the lease.
Organic soils, which have peat thickness greater than 40 cm, are the predominant soil
type on the footprint though mineral, upland soils are also found (Table 8.4-1).
McLelland and Muskeg Organic soils were classified and mapped as having thicker
(greater than 160 cm) peat, while Hartley and Mariana Organic soils were classified and
mapped as having thinner peat (40 -160 cm). Within the Project footprint, Hartley soils
were the most commonly occurring Organic soil (29% of the footprint). The Hartley and
Mariana Organic soils occupy approximately 37% of the footprint, while the McLelland
and Muskeg Organic soils cover approximately 30%. The largest continuous area of
deeper peat (McLelland and Muskeg) Organic soils on the Project footprint are found in
the north portion of the AOSC MacKay River lease.
Mineral (non-Organic) soils were classified and mapped as having shallow peat (greater
than 40 cm) at the surface. Horse River till soils are the most common mineral soil
mapped on the footprint, and were mapped on approximately 20% of the Project
footprint. Coarser textured Marguerite and Bitumount soils are the dominant mineral
soils mapped in the southern tip of the footprint, with the Gleysolic Bitumount soils
occurring in the lower, wetter areas. Margeurite soils are dominant on three of the
proposed well pads in this area. Overall, coarser textured soils occupy a relatively small
area on the Project footprint.
Horse River till soils are found on the central portion of the MCP with Steepbank and
shallow Organic soils (mainly Hartley and Mariana) found around the outer portions of
the MCP. The MNP is located on deeper peat Muskeg Organic soils. Horse River and
Steepbank till soils are the dominant soils in the initial development borrow areas, with
Organic soils also present in the designated borrow area. Drilling camps, sumps, and
the septic field will be located on mineral soils.
Mikkwa soils were mapped in the terrestrial LSA in a small area within organic soil map
units; these soils were classified as Cryosolic soils with frozen layers found at the time of
the soil survey. Mikkwa soils have minimal occurrence on the footprint.
The areal extent of the soil series mapped within the footprint are listed in Table 8.4-,
while the soils by facility type are listed in Table 8.423.

December 2009
Table 8.4-1 Main Soil Series Mapped within the Project Footprint
Project
Land Capability Class % of Project
Soil Series Code Footprint
for Forest Ecosytems Footprint
(ha)1
Organic Soils 1,455 67.7
Hartley HLY 5 628 29.2
Mariana MRN 5 174 8.1
McLelland MLD 5 382 17.8
Muskeg MUS 5 271 12.6
Luvisolic Soils 429 20.0
Horse River HRR 3 426 19.8
Winefred WNF 3 3 0.1
Brunisolic Soils 26 1.2
Marguerite MAR 4 25 1.2
Mildred MIL 3 1 0.0
Gleysolic Soils 218 10.1
Bitumount BMT 4 20 0.9
Steepbank STP 4 198 9.2
Cryosolic Soils 13 0.6
Mikkwa MKW 5 13 0.6
Other 8 0.4
Stream Channel SC Unclassified 5 0.2%
Disturbed DISTURBED Unclassified 3 0.1
Water WATER Unclassified <1 0.0
Total 2,149 100.0
1. Rounded to whole ha.

December 2009
Table 8.4-2 Areas of Main Soil Series Mapped within the Footprint by Project Component (ha)
Associated Water
Soil MCP Source, Borrow MRCP
Storage adjacent Production Disposal, Areas for Drilling Camp Drilling
Soil Series MCP MNP ROW MRCP Camp Total
Adjacent Facilities Pads & Salt Initial Sumps Septic Camps
to MCP (LACT unit, Cavern Development Field
substations) Well Pads
Bitumount 9.0 8.5 2.3 19.8
Hartley 2.6 18.7 0.4 286.5 1.9 269.2 27.9 0.7 628.0
Horse River 16.8 2.4 157.4 2.0 156.2 64.9 13.6 3.4 3.5 5.4 425.6
Marguerite 18.3 6.5 24.8
Marianna 8.3 0.7 1.0 63.2 1.1 81.9 17.5 173.8
McLelland 2.1 178.9 2.0 180.6 18.8 382.4
Mikkwa 6.4 6.8 13.2
Mildred 0.8 0.8
Muskeg 1.0 14.6 140.1 109.5 5.1 1.1 271.2
Steepbank 1.8 0.6 86.0 66.8 35.6 4.4 2.5 197.7
Winefred 0.2 3.0 3.2
Stream
Channel 5.4 5.4
Disturbed 0.9 2.0 2.8
Water 0.2 0.1 0.3
Total 51.6 23.4 1.4 14.6 946.7 7.0 894.5 164.8 21.0 8.5 3.5 12.0 2149.0
1. Rounded to tenths of ha.

December 2009
8.4.3 Vegetation
A detailed description of vegetation resources is provided in the Vegetation section of

the EIA (Volume 4, Section 10).
The most abundant ecosite phases in the terrestrial LSA and on the footprint are i1 (bog)
followed by j1 (poor fen). Fen community structure is characterized by Carex and fen
bryophytes. The main floristic difference between bogs and fens is that fens are typically
sedge-dominated, while bogs generally lack Carex (Graf 2008). Bogs and poor fens are
dominated by Sphagnum mosses, while moderate and rich fens are dominated by
‘brown mosses’. Fens, unlike bogs exhibit a spectrum of pH values and several distinct
vegetation communities, depending on the amount of groundwater flow (Graf 2008).
The “Shultz’s Bog Diversity Area, Athabasca River – Rapids Reach” contains the
Thickwood Hills patterned fens, and is a provincial Environmentally Significant Area
(ESA) that extends into the Project footprint (ANHIC 2009). The Thickwood Fen is a
patterned fen in the ESA, and extends across the MacKay lease area boundary into the
Terrestrial LSA in Township 89 Range 13 W4M (Volume 4, Section 10).
There are several small areas in the terrestrial LSA previously burned from forest fires
(Volume 4, Section 10). A large burned area is located to the northeast of the footprint
and the terrestrial LSA.
8.4.4 Baseline Land Capability
Baseline land capability for forest ecosystems was rated using the system outlined in the
Land Capability Classification System for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands (CEMA
2006). Details of the rating system and its application are presented in detail in
Volume 4, Section 9 (Terrain and Soils); land capability classes are summarized in
Table 8.4-1.
Land Capability Class 5 is the dominant class in the terrestrial LSA due to the
prevalence of Organic soils, and to a much lesser extent mineral Gleysolic soils. Class 3
is the dominant class for upland, mineral soils in the terrestrial LSA due to the
prevalence of Horse River in the upland soils. Approximately 72% of the Project footprint
is covered by soils with a rating of Class 5, while Class 3 soils occur on approximately
17% of the Project footprint. A map of baseline land capability for forest ecosystems in
the terrestrial LSA is presented on Figure 8.4-1, while land capability class areas are
summarized in Table 8.4-1.

410000 420000 430000 440000
Twp.93
Do
v er Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
6310000
Ma cK ay R ive
r
Twp.91
6300000
Twp.90
6290000
Twp.89
I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\017_FIGURE_8_4_1_BA SELINE_LAND_CAPAB ILITY_FOR_FORES T_ECOSYS TEMS_IN_THE_TERRESTRIAL_LOCAL_STUD Y_AREA.mxd
6280000
Twp.88
Grand Rapids Wildland
River
as ca
At h ab
Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:150,000
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) BASELINE SOILS DISTURBANCE 2 0 2
MACKAY RIVER LEASE BASELINE LAND CAPABILITY CLASS Kilometres
PROJECT AREA (Footprint) 3 (LOW CAPABILITY) _

^ NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
Peace River
!
! Fort McMurr ay
WILDLAND PARK 4 (CONDITIONAL CAPABILITY) Project Code: Technical: Date:
5 (NON-PRODUCTIVE) 7349-514 SC 09/11/13

WATERBODY
UNCLASSIFIED (DISTURBANCE, STREAM CHANNEL)
Ed mon ton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
BASELINE LAND CAPABILITY
WATERCOURSE LP 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
FOR FOREST ECOSYSTEMS -
!
Reference:
WINTER ROAD
TERRESTRIAL
Calgary
PIPELINE
LOCAL STUDY AREA
!
POWERLINE Disclaimer:
any kind is made to other parties with which Athabasca Oil
_
^ Project Location Sands Corp. has not entered into contract. FIGURE 8.4-1
December 2009
8.5 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN
The C&R Plan provides measures to mitigate potential Project effects. Mitigative
measures are also presented in other sections in the EIA. Development and
implementation of this C&R Plan is a part of the pre-construction planning, which
ensures consideration of conservation and reclamation procedures in all stages of the
Project including siting and design, construction, operations, decommissioning and
closure.
8.5.1 Reclamation, Closure and End Land Use Objectives
AOSC will consult with AENV and ASRD regarding closure reclamation objectives and
the target end land uses for disturbed sites. In addition, AOSC will engage with its
stakeholders to ensure their input is considered regarding reclamation objectives.
Following is an overview of the reclamation objectives for facilities on upland mineral
soils, Organic soils, and borrow excavation areas.
8.5.1.1 Upland Mineral Soil Areas

The reclamation plan aims to reclaim facilities on pre-disturbance forested upland areas
to reclaimed upland areas with end ecosite phases and equivalent land capability
(dominantly timber production, habitat, biodiversity, traditional uses and
hunting/trapping) consistent with pre-disturbance conditions.
8.5.1.2 Wetland Organic Soil Areas

Due to the prevalence of Organic soils in the footprint, proposed facility sites (e.g. roads,
well pads, MCP, MNP) are commonly located partly or wholly on Organic soils
(peatland) and will require pads constructed with borrow fill.
Padded sites on Organic soils will be reclaimed by removing pad fill to return the site to a
wetland area. The goal is for the reclaimed area to be able to support some wetland
species and natural/conservation area land uses (e.g., habitat, biodiversity, traditional
uses, hunting/trapping).
An alternative method currently under research trials in the northern boreal forest region
of Alberta involves partial removal of pad surfaces to slightly (e.g., 5 to 15 cm) above
water table depth to create the appropriate hydrological conditions for establishment of
some wetlands species with the goal of eventually establishing a peat accumulating
wetland (Vitt and Wieder 2007). AOSC will consider using this method as an alternative
on a site specific basis, pending future research results and future industry experience
with the method.
Should wetland pad reclamation research and experience over the years result in a
specific methodology becoming the accepted industry standard, AOSC will, where
possible, incorporate the methodology into the C&R plan.
Some facility types on Organic soils do not require building pads and have little surface
disturbance (e.g., power line and above ground pipeline ROWs, seismic lines,
exploration coreholes). These areas will be reclaimed to peatland ecosite phases and

December 2009
land use that will be the same as or similar to the pre-disturbance conditions.
Re vegetation through natural regeneration is anticipated for these areas. Natural
regeneration refers to the establishment of plants through the germination of existing
seeds or those brought to the site by wind, water or wildlife from nearby sources (e.g.
adjacent undisturbed peatland). Similar reclamation is anticipated for underground
pipelines, as a relatively small proportion of the ROW is disturbed during the anticipated
winter construction, the peat is replaced at the end of construction, and natural
regeneration is anticipated on the narrow disturbance area.
Areas of existing disturbances within the footprint will be further assessed during
detailed design to determine site-specific baseline conditions, and conservation and
reclamation procedures.
8.5.1.3 Borrow Areas

Borrow areas will only be disturbed to the extent that the material is required for the
Project. Borrow will be taken from the areas of Horse River and Steepbank mineral soil
within the designated initial development borrow areas. Initial plans for obtaining borrow
involves removing borrow from the higher elevation mineral soil areas (‘contour’
method). Future borrow will also be resourced dominantly from mineral soil areas.
Much of the fill used to build pads on deep (> 40 cm) peat is planned to be removed as
part of reclamation and re-used if practicable. When the fill is no longer required for
operations, it will be returned to borrow areas as a part of the progressive reclamation
plan. At the end of Project life, the borrow areas will generally be reclaimed to upland
areas compatible with the adjacent land.
8.5.2 Facility Siting
Design of the footprint layout involved environmental considerations, available historical

and cultural considerations, and bitumen subsurface drainage patterns. Facilities were
sited to minimize interference with watercourses and surface disturbance. Examples of
environmental considerations in the Project design are presented below.
Siting of the facilities was done with consideration of:
 Topography - preference given to higher, drier, stable ground. Additional

adjustments to locations may be made to avoid wet areas during detailed design;
 Soils and Vegetation - preference was given to siting on mineral upland soils,
and avoidance of peatland. Drilling camps, sumps, septic field, and some well
pads are dominantly located on mineral soils, as is the central portion of the
MCP. The high proportion of peatland in the Project footprint necessitates the
location of some facilities on peatland;
 Surface Water and Wetlands – identification of a 100 m buffer around lakes and
defined watercourse channels (i.e., having defined bed and bank material).
These buffers were observed where practicable. Avoidance of wetland areas
was also taken into consideration, however, based on the location of the bitumen
resource and the large extent of wetlands in the area, some well pads and
infrastructure will need to be constructed in wetland areas. AOSC is committed
to berming pads and will meet the requirements of Directive 055 (ERCB 2001a)

December 2009
with regard to acceptable measures for onsite containment to prevent release of

contaminants; and
 Site-specific Biophysical Conditions - generally will be used to adjust locations
where feasible to reduce impact for individual sites.
AOSC will minimize surface disturbance to increase conservation of the biophysical

resources by:
 Using existing disturbances where practicable. The main access to the MCP will
mostly consist of a proposed road to be constructed for the AOSC Mackay River
Pilot Project;
 Using common access roads (in-field collector roads) for several well pads;
 Combining access and utilities (pipelines, powerlines) into a common ROW;
 Minimizing the number of SAGD well pads by locating multiple well pairs on each
pad;
 Minimizing SAGD well pad size to the extent allowed by surface infrastructure
and salvaged soil storage;
 Restricting traffic and other activities outside of facility areas; and
 Undertaking progressive reclamation during the Project.
8.5.3 Timber Salvage and Vegetation Clearing
AOSC will actively engage with the forest management tenure holders to identify
opportunities for integrated land management, and removal of merchantable timber for
site development. Timber salvage, land clearing, debris management and fire control
management will be carried out in accordance with applicable Alberta legislation and
guidelines such as the Forest and Prairie Protection Act, the Timber Management
Regulation (AR 205/2009), and Debris Management Standards for Timber Harvest
Operations (ASRD 2007b). Applicable federal legislation such as the Migratory Birds
Convention Act will also be followed. Authorization from ASRD will be obtained for any
surface disturbance requiring disposition authorization.
Merchantable timber present in the footprint will be salvaged as required. Guidelines for
salvage activities include:
 Timber decks will be located on Project site locations or approved additional

temporary workspace, and will be developed (in order of preference) on existing
cleared areas, in non-merchantable timber stands, and lastly in merchantable
timber stands. Log decks will be oriented to facilitate loading on trucks.
 Reforested cutovers will not be used for decking sites.
 Salvaged logs will be limbed flush with the stems and topped to specifications,
and logs will be decked with the butt ends facing in the same direction.
 Salvage will be removed from the ROWs and sites prior to reclamation.
 Contractors will cooperate with the timber salvage operators to ensure that all
decked timber can be removed and transported to designated all-weather access
points or mills in a timely manner. Contracts with mills are planned to be in place
prior to salvage operations.
Non-merchantable timber will be cleared using a bulldozer, possibly equipped with a

cutter blade or similar equipment to maintain ground surface integrity in areas where

December 2009
grading is not required. Stumps will be mulched or grubbed. Woody debris will be used
as rollback, chipped or mulched for use as erosion control with surface cover that is not
to exceed a thickness of 10 cm, burned (with required regulatory permissions), or
disposed of as directed by ASRD/AENV. A thin layer of non-merchantable coarse woody
debris resulting from clearing of a site may be used as a base for pads on peatland, on a
site-specific basis.
Vegetation clearing will be minimized to the extent practical, and buffer zones around
sensitive areas (e.g., watercourses) will be maintained where practical. Where
practicable, to protect rare plant species that are Species at Risk Act listed or Alberta
Natural Heritage Information Centre ranked S1 and S2, or provincially ranked “at risk” or
“may be at risk”, Project locations may be adjusted, rare species may be transplanted
and/or seeds may be collected for use in reclamation strategies. These mitigation
strategies will be implemented according to the species’ life history characteristics,
distribution, response to disturbance, and threats to the species.
Wildlife protection measures are presented in Volume 4, Section 11.
8.5.4 Facility Construction and Soil Handling
Surface disturbance will occur mainly at the following locations: MCP and associated
adjacent facilities and soil storage areas, MNP, well pads (including SAGD, source
water, disposal, and salt cavern), access roads, borrow excavations, underground
pipelines, and camps. Construction will include general Project conservation and
mitigation measures and measures that are specific to a biophysical area and type of
facility. Construction methods will be dependent on site-specific surface conditions.
A conceptual plan view of a typical six well pair SAGD well pad is presented on
Figure 8.5-1.
Topsoil will be salvaged separately from subsoil using two-lift stripping as described in
the following sections. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by a Conservation and
Reclamation Inspector, topsoil and subsoil salvage will be suspended where wet or
frozen conditions will result in degradation of topsoil or subsoil quality, or high wind
velocities will result in significant erosion of salvaged soil.
As surface soils are important determinants of land capability, appropriately trained

personnel will supervise soil salvage to ensure that soil salvage minimizes admixture of
the LFH/peat/topsoil with the subsoil and preserves salvaged soil quality. LFH horizons
are surface organic horizons developed from an accumulation of leaves and woody
materials, and are not saturated with water for prolonged periods. Site-specific soil
handling guidelines based on detailed soil surveys will be determined prior to
construction.
8.5.4.1 Upland Sites

Construction of sites on upland areas generally involves clearing/timber salvage,
disposal/salvage of woody debris, soil salvage, grading (including cut and fill at some
locations) and gravelling. Where fill is required, the subgrade is packed and the fill laid
down in layers that are also packed. Figure 8.5-2 illustrates a conceptual common
access/utility ROW on upland.

December 2009
Soil salvage plans take into account the distribution and characteristics of the mapped
soils to optimally retain surface soil quality and quantity. Upland surface soils generally
consist of surface duff (LFH) or shallow (< 40 cm thick) peat, overlying mineral A and B
horizons. Where present, the surface shallow peat layers are thinner (generally < 10 cm)
on the drier mineral soils and thicker on the wetter Gleysolic mineral soils. Most of the
Gleysolic soils do not have an A horizon present. A summary of soil characteristics for
soil series in the Terrestrial LSA, which are related to soil salvage recommendations, is
presented in Table 8.5-1.
Table 8.5-1 Mineral Soil Characteristics Related to Upland Soil Salvage
Soil Series Comments

Gleysolic glaciofluvial soils; generally shallow peat horizons are present. LFH
Bitumount and A horizons generally absent. Subsoils are generally sandy loam to loamy
sand Bg horizons.
Gleysolic till soils; generally shallow peat horizons are present. A horizons are
more commonly absent than present (where present, textures are dominantly silt
Steepbank
loam, ranging to clay loam). Subsoil is dominantly clay loam, ranging to silty clay
loam Bg horizons.
Brunisolic eolian soils. LFH or thin, shallow peat and loamy sand to sand Ae
Marguerite horizon generally present. Underlying Bm textures are generally loamy sand to
sand.
Luvisolic till soil. Thin, shallow peat or (less commonly) LFH present with
Horse
dominantly silt loam Ae horizons. The underlying Bt horizons are dominantly clay
River
loam texture.
Luvisolic glaciofluvial over till soil. Thin shallow peat or (less commonly) LFH
Winefred present with dominantly sandy loam Ae horizons. The underlying B horizons are
generally sandy loam to sandy clay loam in texture.
Brunisolic glaciofluvial soil. Generally thin, shallow peat though LFH may occur.
Mildred Dominantly loamy sand Ae horizons. Dominantly loamy sand to sand Bm horizon
present.
Note: A horizons are most commonly eluviated A (Ae) horizons with gleyed variants occurring. Shallow peat is < 40 cm
thick.
General upland topsoil soil salvage guidelines are provided in Table 8.5-2. Site-specific
detailed C&R Plans will be developed prior to construction.
Table 8.5-2 Upland (Mineral Soil) Topsoil Salvage Guidelines
Soil Series Topsoil Salvage Comments

Colour change from greyish Ae to brownish Bt or
Horse River Bm can often be used as an additional onsite guide
All topsoil (LFH and/or
Winefred to topsoil depth.
shallow peat plus all A
Mildred The finer textured till and glaciolacustrine subsoils
horizon soil).
Marguerite will be susceptible to compaction, especially when
moist.
All surface peat, and Steepbank soils will be susceptible to compaction
Bitumount
where present the and rutting.
Steepbank
underlying A horizon. Water table may be < 50 cm from surface.

December 2009
Approximately 30 cm of suitable subsoil as defined in the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to

Disturbance and Reclamation (AAFRD 1987) will also be salvaged from mineral sites,
except as indicated below. The salvaged soil for most sites (e.g., well pads, MCP,
borrow excavations) will preferentially be stored at or near the location of origin.
Subsoil will be salvaged from Gleysols where subsoil conditions are not excessively wet
at the time of construction; excessively wet conditions are most likely to occur in
Gleysols with thicker surface peat. The C&R Plan assumes that only surface
duff/shallow peat and surface mineral soil (topsoil) will be salvaged from access roads
on upland mineral soils, as salvaging subsoil on access roads would likely require
additional clearing and surface disturbance (in salvaging and for storage).
8.5.4.2 Peatland Sites
Peatland areas have Organic soils with peat thickness greater than 40 cm. Construction
of well pads on peatland will depend on site-specific conditions. Generally, in these
areas, a pad will be constructed with borrow fill on the peat without peat salvage.
However, in some peatland areas, peat depths greater than 40 cm may be stripped on
facility sites and roads to reach more stable mineral soil; this decision will be made on a
site-specific basis during pre-construction planning.
At these sites, geotextile will be laid on the peat surface followed by fill material laid
down in layers and packed. The surface will then be graded and gravel laid down over
geotextile (used to facilitate recovery of gravel at reclamation). Conceptual construction
and reclamation of a typical well pad on peatland is illustrated on Figure 8.5-3.
Reclamation of pads in peatland is discussed in Sections 8.5.13 to 8.5.15. All-weather
access roads on peatland will be constructed on top of the peat with geotextile and
borrow fill, culverts installed where needed, and the access gravelled.
A thin layer of non-merchantable coarse woody debris may be placed on the peat
surface before placing the geotextile and fill, in order to potentially reduce the amount of
fill, pad weight and peat compression.
A summary of peat thickness for the various soil series in the terrestrial LSA is presented
in Table 8.5-3.
Table 8.5-3 Peat Thickness on Organic Soil Series
Soil Series Comments1

Most commonly Terric Fibrisols with Terric Mesisols common. Peat thickness
Hartley
averaging approximately 86 cm.
Most commonly Terric Fibrisols with Terric Mesisols common. Peat thickness
Mariana
averaging approximately 92 cm.
McLelland Generally Typic Fibrisols. Peat thickness most commonly 220 cm or more.
Muskeg Generally Typic Fibrisols. Peat thickness most commonly 220 cm or more.
Most commonly Fibric Organic Cryosols. Peat thickness indeterminate due to
Mikkwa
auger refusal at frozen soil.
1. A horizons generally are absent under peat.

December 2009
No subsoil will be salvaged from Organic soils due to a high water table and/or
excessively wet conditions.
8.5.4.3 Sites Partly on Upland and Partly on Peatland Sites

Some sites, such as the MCP, the MCP soil storage area southwest of the MCP, and
many well pads are partially on upland mineral soils and partially on Organic peat soils.
For these sites, after topsoil and subsoil salvage on the upland part of the site, the
Organic soil part of the site will generally be padded using geotextile and fill from the
upland part of the site, and supplemented with fill from the borrow areas if needed.
8.5.4.4 Pipelines
The AENV Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000a), Code of Practice
for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2000c),
applicable DFO Operational Statements, and other applicable guidelines will be
followed.
For underground pipelines, the ROW will be cleared with timber salvage where required.
For winter construction, topsoil will be salvaged on the trench width or slightly wider, and
replaced at the end of construction; for non-frozen soil conditions topsoil will be salvaged
from the trench, subsoil storage area, and work area. Any residual slash and rollback
will be replaced along the ROW. Revegetation will occur by natural regeneration. If
natural ingress is slow or the area is prone to erosion, selected areas will be planted with
native species and/or revegetated with an ASRD-approved seed mix.
Aboveground pipeline ROWs will require clearing and timber salvage. Little surface
disturbance occurs over most of the ROW, and is limited to where the support rack piles
are driven into the ground, or where grading of small higher spots may be required (with
soil salvage and replacement occurring at these areas). Wildlife crossings will be
constructed for aboveground pipelines where required.
8.5.4.5 Borrow Areas

Borrow areas will be chosen to minimize the overall impact and maximize the use of
borrow material at a given location. Borrow area construction will generally involve
clearing/timber salvage, disposal/salvage of woody debris, soil salvage, and borrow
removal. Borrow activities will follow the Code of Practice for Pits (AENV 2004). Borrow
material that has been used and is no longer needed (e.g., padded well pads and
roadways as they are reclaimed) will be re-used at other locations where practicable to
reduce borrow area required.
8.5.4.6 Reclamation Material Balance

Volumes of surface soil and subsoil (dominantly B horizon) available from salvaging, and
required for replacement, are estimated in Tables 8.5-4 and 8.5-5, respectively. All
salvaged soil will be replaced at the time of reclamation.
Average soil series horizon thicknesses in the terrestrial LSA are used to estimate
reclamation volumes; however, actual site-specific soil salvage depths will be
determined in detailed design. Also, adjustments for salvage depths will be made in the

December 2009
field by appropriately trained personnel. Surface soil salvage depths used in the
estimation of reclamation volumes are listed below:
 28 cm peat – Bitumount;
 28 cm peat – Steepbank;
 20 cm LFH/shallow peat and topsoil – Horse River; and
 15 cm LFH/shallow peat and topsoil – Mildred, Winefred and Marguerite.
Surface peat will not generally be salvaged on Organic soils (McLelland, Muskeg,
Mariana, Hartley and Mikkwa), except as described in Section 8.5.4.2.
A horizons are generally absent in Bitumount soils and dominantly absent in Steepbank
soils; however, A horizons will be salvaged with surface peat on these soils when they
are present.
No subsoil salvage was assumed for the Organic soil series; 30 cm of subsoil
(dominantly B horizon, but may include some BC horizon) salvage was assumed for the
mineral soils.
Table 8.5-4 Topsoil Salvage Volumes for the Project

Surface Reclamation
Surface Salvage
1 Facility Material to be
Project Component Reclamation
Area (ha) Replaced, by Facility
Material (m3)2
Type (m3)
MCP 51.6 38,658 38,658
Soil Storage Adjacent to MCP 23.4 6,433 6,433
Associated MCP Facilities (LACT
1.4 0 0
unit, substations)
MNP 14.6 0 0
SAGD well pads 946.7 608,322 608,322
Source Water, Disposal & Salt
7 4,000 4,000
Cavern Disposal Well Pads
Roads on ROWs3 479.3 290,514 290,514
Pipeline/Powerline Areas on ROWs3 415.2 0 0
Initial Development Borrow Areas 164.8 229,335 229,335
Drilling Sumps 21 43,984 43,984
MRCP Camp 8.5 6,808 6,808
MRCP Camp Septic Field 3.5 0 0
Drilling Camps 12 24,329 24,329
Total 2,149 1,252,383 1,252,383
1. No soil salvage is assumed for existing soil disturbance areas and stream channels; these areas will be assessed on
a site-specific basis. Soil salvage volumes are for mineral soils as Organic soils (>40 cm peat) will be padded and
the pad fill removed at reclamation, however, peat thicker than 40 cm may be salvaged on a site-specific basis to
reach mineral soil. No soli salvage shown for associated MCP facilities and MNP as these sites have Organic soils
only. The septic field will not require long term storage of salvaged soil.
2. Includes LFH/shallow peat (< 40 cm) plus A horizons from mineral soil areas.
3. Pipeline/powerline soil salvage is not included since there is minimal soil disturbance on powerlines and above
ground pipeline ROW areas, and for below ground pipelines, salvaged soil is replaced at the end of construction so
there is no long term soil storage. Soil salvage volumes are for road disturbance areas.
All surface soil material salvaged will be replaced in reclamation. Average replacement
depths are anticipated to be similar to average pre-disturbance depths.

December 2009
Table 8.5-5 Subsoil Salvage Volumes for the Project

Subsoil Material to be
Facility Subsoil Material
Project Component1 Replaced, by Facility
Area (ha) (m3)2
Type (m3)
MCP 51.6 55,793 55,793
Soil Storage Adjacent to MCP 23.4 8.938 8.938
Associated MCP Facilities (LACT
1.4 0 0
unit, substations)
MNP 14.6 0 0
SAGD Well Pads 946.7 812,169 812,169
Source Water, Disposal & Salt
7 6,000 6,000
Cavern Disposal Well Pads
Roads on ROWs2 479.3 0 0
Pipeline/Powerline Areas on ROWs2 415.2 0 0
Initial Development Borrow Areas 164.8 301,330 301,330
Drilling Sumps 21 63,000 63,000
MRCP Camp 8.5 10,213 10,213
MRCP Camp Septic Field 3.5 0 0
Drilling Camps 12 30,691 30,691
Total 2,149 1,288,133 1,288,133
1. No subsoil salvage is assumed for existing soil disturbed areas and Stream Channels; these areas will be assessed
on a site-specific basis. No subsoil salvage is assumed for Associated MCP Facilities and MNP (both on Organic
soils) or the septic field.
2. ROWs don’t include subsoil salvage as (a) subsoil will not generally be salvaged on roads, and (b) pipeline/powerline
soil salvage is not included since there is minimal soil disturbance on powerlines and above ground pipeline ROW
areas, and for below ground pipelines, salvaged soil is replaced at the end of construction so there is no long term
soil storage.
All salvaged subsoil will be replaced in reclamation. Average replacement depths are
anticipated to be similar to average pre-disturbance depths.
8.5.4.7 Soil Stockpiles

For most sites, the soil stockpiles will generally be located at or near the site from which
it was salvaged. The MCP has three separate soil stockpile areas; these areas have
Organic soils that will require padding to store the salvaged soils on.
The soil storage area for a conceptual typical pad is illustrated on Figure 8.5-1. Soil
salvaged from the initial development borrow excavation areas will be stored on the
designated borrow footprint or the soil storage areas adjacent to the MCP. Actual site-
specific salvaged soil storage locations will be revised for each site during detailed
design and will take into consideration the distribution of soil types on the site.
Soil salvaged for roads will be stored in a windrow along the access road (Figure 8.5-2);
salvaged topsoil may also be placed on the road backslopes and ditches (where
present) and seeded to an ASRD approved seed mix. The exact locations of salvaged
soil storage will be determined during detailed design.
The following conservation measures will be used to preserve salvaged soil:
 Volumes and locations of stored salvaged soil will be recorded for future
reference and reported to AENV in the Annual Conservation and Reclamation
report.

December 2009
 Topsoil and subsoil will also be stockpiled separately, with a minimum 1 m

separation between stockpiles, and between stockpiles and berms.
 Salvaged soil will be stored on a stable surface out of the way of surface water
flow, operational activities, and other potential disturbance so that they are not
impacted, and do not interfere with onsite activities.
 Stockpiles will be located outside treed areas, and will be accessible and
retrievable for reclamation.
 To minimize erosion, the stockpiles will be contoured to a stable slope gradient
and erosion mitigation measures undertaken as needed. Examples of such
measures include: seeding with a certified weed-free ASRD-approved seed mix,
use of a tackifier or erosion matting, and/or silt fence. A typical seed mix is
presented in Table 8.5-6. This mix may also be applied to exposed soil along
roads to control erosion and weed infestation. In general, the application rate will
be aimed at being low enough to control erosion but also allow for natural
regeneration. Weed control measures will be undertaken as required for the soil
stockpiles.
Table 8.5-6 Typical Native Seed Mix for Soil Stockpiles
Common Name Scientific Name Percentage

Awned wheat grass Agropyron unilateral 20
Rocky mountain fescue Bromus anomalus 15
Nodding brome Festuca saximontana 15
Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis 15
Tufted hair grass Deschampsia caespitosa 15
June grass Koelaria macrantha 5
Tickle grass Agrostis scabra 5
Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 10
Note: Application rate of seed mix at approximately 5-10 kg/ha, or as determined for a specific site in consultation with
ASRD.
8.5.5 Surface Water Management
AOSC’s surface water management plan focuses on produced water reuse, water
supply management and surface water protection. Measures will be undertaken to
maintain natural surface drainage patterns to the extent practicable, install surface water
management features, control site runoff from surface facilities, and maintain adequate
surface water flow that is compatible with the surrounding upland areas and wetland
areas. Examples of mitigation measures include:
 Where practicable, facilities will be located to minimize watercourse crossings

and interference with natural drainage. Well pads have been sited to avoid local
streams.
 Culverts and ditches will be placed as topography dictates to maintain the
pre disturbance drainage system and minimize effects on surface water. These
measures will prevent blockage of surface water flow, formation of unwanted wet
areas (ponded water), as well as to prevent flow onto disturbed areas. Selective
re-routing of local streams around facilities will also be considered, where
appropriate, in order to maintain the pre-disturbance drainage system.

December 2009
 Culverts will be removed as part of reclamation unless otherwise agreed upon by

ASRD. In-stream disturbances resulting from removal of culverts will be
stabilized and re-vegetated; re-contouring to restore topography and natural
drainage patterns will be carried out where needed.
 Watercourse crossings will meet applicable provincial and federal legislative
requirements for minimal impact engineering (e.g., Alberta Water Act, Code of
Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body
(AENV 2000c), and Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000a);
federal Fisheries Act). In general, pipelines will be routed to minimize stream
disturbances. Erosion protection will be installed to prevent sedimentation and
erosion during and after construction of crossings.
 Reuse of industrial runoff at the MCP and MNP facilities.
 Use of water recycling (e.g., treatment and reuse of produced water).
 SAGD well pads will have a perimeter berm system, and rainfall will be collected
and stored by grading and internal pad ditches. The water will be tested, and if it
meets the regulatory (e.g., AENV Approval) guidelines, will be discharged to the
surface off-site in a manner preventing erosion or drainage impacts. Unsuitable
water for release will be sent to the MCP for process use. External ditches will be
constructed where needed to prevent blockage of off-site surface drainage.
 To contain industrial runoff, the MCP design will include grading, berms, ditching
and a lined industrial runoff pond. Industrial runoff on the MNP will also be
contained; all industrial runoff captured on the MNP will be re-used in the
process.
 Culverts will be used where needed on padded access on peatland areas (e.g.,
fens) to maintain water flow. AOSC will monitor conditions around roads and
pads to evaluate any additional measures (e.g., clear blocked culverts) needed to
maintain water flow and the ecological integrity of the wetland.
 Maintain natural drainage.
 Progressive reclamation will be carried out where practicable to limit potential
impacts to surface water quality during project operations. Learnings from initial
wetland reclamation will be used to adapt reclamation methodology throughout
the Project.
 AOSC will participate in regional initiatives such as CEMA’s Oil Sands Wetlands
Working Group, which is investigating appropriate strategies and methods for
reclaiming bogs and fens.
Detailed mitigation measures for potential hydrological impacts are provided in the
Hydrology (Volume 3, Section 6), and Aquatic Ecology (Volume 3, Section 8) sections of
the EIA.
8.5.6 Weed Management
Weeds will be managed as per regulatory requirements and industry best practices.
AOSC’s approach to vegetation management is based upon prevention, low impact
mitigation (hand picking and low toxicity herbicides) and monitoring. Examples of weed
management to be undertaken include;
 Soil disturbance will be minimized where practicable. Disturbed areas will be

re-vegetated with desirable species to prevent weed establishment.

December 2009
 Facility areas will be routinely monitored for weeds during all stages of the
Project. Pre-disturbance information on weeds in the Project will be used to
monitor for known weeds. Weed control will be undertaken in a timely manner
and records of weed control activities will be kept.
 A Certificate of Seed Analysis for native seed lots used in reclamation will be
inspected to ensure the seed mixes are free of problem weeds and invasive
agronomic species.
 Restricted and noxious weeds as identified in the Alberta Weed Control Act will
be eliminated or controlled, respectively. Other regulatory documents also
addressing weed management (e.g. Weed Management in Forestry Operations –
Directive 2001-06 [ASRD 2001]) will be followed as appropriate.
 Non-chemical control of weeds (mowing, cultivating, hand-picking) is preferred,
particularly near wetlands and riparian areas; chemical weed control will be used
only when necessary, with required regulatory permissions.
 Herbicides applied will be appropriate for site conditions and weed type; a
licensed industrial pesticide applicator will be contracted to select and apply
herbicides. Only pesticides approved by Agriculture Canada and AENV will be
applied. All federal and provincial regulations regarding use, transportation and
storage of herbicides will be followed. Soil sterilants will not be used.
 Herbicides will not be applied under windy or wet conditions that could cause off-
site effects from herbicide movement off the intended treatment area. Areas
treated with non-selective herbicide will be monitored to assess any movement
offsite. Herbicides will not be used where desired species would be harmed; this
may require spot spraying or mechanical control.
 Straw or erosion control products containing straw will be evaluated for potential
weed content before being brought on-site.
 Use of invasive/persistent agronomic forage species will be avoided.
 Only using cereal cover crops (e.g., barley) to control erosion where it is
determined that this is more appropriate than other methods for a specific site,
and seeding at less than a full agronomic rate.
 Annual fertilizer applications will not be conducted in order to prevent excessive
growth of an overly competitive herbaceous cover that could out-compete tree
and shrub species. Where vegetation growth is poor, or indications of nutrient
deficiency appear, the need for additional fertilization will be determined by soil
analytical fertility tests and the nutrient status of the offsite control soils.
8.5.7 Wildlife and Biodiversity
Landscape and ecosite phase diversity are important factors required to support a
sustainable forest and wildlife community (OSVRC 1998). For most wildlife species,
habitat suitability is governed by broader biological and physical characteristics such as
shrub or tree canopy cover, slope and topographic characteristics (OSVRC 1998). Plant
community biodiversity characteristics include structural diversity (number of vegetation
layers: e.g., herbaceous, shrubs, trees) and plant diversity (e.g., number of species).
Structural layering of vegetation compatible with the control forest is also addressed in
the reclamation regulation update: Guide To: Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and
Associated Facilities 2007 – Forested Lands in the Green Area Update (ASRD 2007a).
An objective of reclamation is to establish a variety of soil and terrain types with plant
species making up a diverse forest community with site-specific consideration of

December 2009
surrounding ecosite phases. Reclamation will aim to re-establish soil and terrain with
equivalent land capability for forest ecosystems with a variety of ecosite phases and
species, including a mixture of both woody and herbaceous species in order to support
an eventual return to similar biodiversity and habitat relative to pre-disturbance
conditions. Reclamation will be undertaken on a progressive basis for areas no longer
required as part of ongoing operations.
An important aspect of the C&R plan is to maintain the integrity of peatlands by:
 siting on uplands where practicable,

 avoiding effects on undisturbed, adjacent peatlands to the extent practicable
using surface water management mitigation measures such as culverts in roads
to avoid blocking drainage,
 minimizing disturbance of pipeline construction on wetlands to maximize natural
regeneration of wetland species, and
 reclaiming peatland pads by removal of pad fill in order to create wetland
hydrological conditions.
Assessments of wildlife and biodiversity (including mitigation measures) are presented in

Volume 4, Section 11 and Volume 4, Section 12, respectively.
8.5.8 Erosion Mitigation
Wind erosion is predominantly a concern on the sandy textured soils, and salvaged peat
from mineral Gleysolic soils that has dried out.
Water erosion can occur on mineral soils on slopes with sufficient gradient, particularly
on long slopes. The dominant soil map unit slope class for mineral soils is class 3 (very
gentle slopes); slope class 2 (nearly level slopes) is also common on the mineral soils.
The Marguerite soils have steeper slopes, but the high infiltration rate on these coarse
textured soils, will lessen surface runoff.
The key to erosion prevention in the more sensitive disturbed areas will be timely
implementation of erosion control measures after disturbance, and particularly after
salvaged soil replacement in reclamation.
Erosion control measures will be implemented as needed. Potential measures include:
 Implementing erosion protection measures (e.g., revegetation, erosion matting,

mulch) on a timely basis when soils are exposed to potential erosion.
 Using silt fencing or settling ponds during construction where needed to contain
sediment in surface runoff.
 Preventing erosion and sedimentation from pads in wetlands by using silt fence
to capture eroded material from pad sides.
 Using surface water flow impediments (e.g., rip rap) where needed in ditches to
slow water velocity.
 Contouring salvaged soil stockpiles and other exposed soil areas to avoid
excessive slopes and will be re-vegetated or otherwise protected to provide long
term soil stability.
 Protecting ditch banks from erosion by vegetation with an appropriate weed- free
seed mix, and/or placement of physical erosion protection as required.

December 2009
 Avoiding excessive slope gradients in ditches and graded surfaces where

practicable.
 Using ditches and culverts to control water flow.
 Minimizing surface disturbance and exposed soil.
 Limiting soil disturbance under conditions where significant erosion may occur.
 Addressing observed erosion as a result of Project activities in a timely manner.
8.5.9 Final Decommissioning
Individual facilities for the Project will be decommissioned and reclaimed when it is
determined that a particular facility will no longer be required. At the end of the Project,
all remaining Project facilities will be decommissioned and reclaimed. Six months prior
to ceasing operation, AOSC will submit a decommissioning and final land reclamation
plan to AENV. This plan will contain details as specified by the EPEA Approval, and will
be prepared using the regulatory guidelines of the day, with input from stakeholders and
provincial regulators.
Prior to the removal of any facilities, existing information from environmental reports
completed during facility operation will be reviewed, and additional site assessments will
be conducted as required to determine the presence and extent of any contamination.
Removal of facilities will occur in a manner that prevents release of contaminants. If
required, remediation will be conducted during or after operations. After
decommissioning and abandonment have been completed, any remaining contamination
will be addressed. Confirmatory sampling will be done in compliance with the
remediation objectives of the day.
Production and monitoring wells will be abandoned according to ERCB and AENV
standards. On-site ponds will be decommissioned (including assessment for potential
presence of contaminants), and surface reclamation completed. Watercourse crossings,
culverts and berms will be removed and reclaimed pending consultation with
stakeholders and government regulatory agencies.
8.5.10 Final Reclamation
Closure reclamation of sites not reclaimed during operations will commence after final
decommissioning. Reclamation of the disturbed sites aims to return the sites to
equivalent land capability for forest ecosystems for the Project as a whole. The
reclamation plan also aims to attain self-sustaining ecosystems able to support a similar
range of end land uses as compared to baseline conditions, and obtain reclamation
certification.
8.5.10.1 Reclamation for Upland Forested Sites

The C&R Plan aims to reclaim sites in upland forested areas to ecosite phases and land
uses that will be similar to the pre-disturbance conditions. Planting prescriptions for
upland sites are presented in Table 8.5-7.
The general approach to reclamation of upland access, well pads (SAGD, source water,
disposal) and other upland surface disturbances includes:

December 2009
 Consultation with ASRD/AENV to discuss the target land use and reclamation
objectives;
 Removal and reuse of surface gravel as practicable;
 Re-contouring of subsoil for compatibility with surrounding land and drainage
(including removal of berms and ditches) and leaving a stable surface;
 Alleviation of compaction on operational surfaces, as needed;
 Replacement of salvaged soil. Subsoil, where salvaged, will be replaced and
prepared (e.g., disced) as necessary for the replacement of salvaged surface
soil. Salvaged topsoil will then be replaced and prepared for revegetation.
Variation in micro-topography created during soil replacement will be left to
promote diverse microsites and moisture retention. Replacement of salvaged soil
will enhance revegetation on these areas due to native seeds and root fragments
in the salvaged surface soil.
 Addition of amendments if required;
 Revegetation in consultation with stakeholders; and
 Following revegetation, monitoring to assess reclamation success and
implementation of remedial measures (e.g., weed control, amelioration of
drainage or erosion problems) as required.
8.5.10.2 Reclamation for Peatland Sites

Sites on pads constructed with geotextile and fill on peatland Organic soils (peat
thickness > 40 cm) will be reclaimed by recovery of surface gravel for re-use, and
removing the pad fill, which will result in a poor to very poorly drained (Agriculture
Canada 1983) wetland area. The goal is to establish a wetland area compatible with the
adjacent undisturbed wetland (Section 8.5.12).
8.5.10.3 Reclamation for Sites Partly on Upland and Partly on Peatland

Some facility sites occur partially on upland and partially on peatland, such as the MCP
and many of the well pads. If fill is used from the upland part of the site to pad the
Organic soils, the pad fill that will be removed as part of reclamation will generally be
replaced on the upland part of the site and re-contoured before replacing salvaged soils.
For these types of sites, the general upland reclamation measures described above
would apply to the upland part of the site that is to be reclaimed to upland, and the
peatland reclamation procedures will apply to the part of the site located on pre-
disturbance peatland.
8.5.10.4 Reclamation of Borrow Areas

The fill removed during reclamation from pads will be re-used for facilities being
constructed at the time, or returned to borrow areas, and the borrow areas will be
reclaimed to upland terrain compatible with the adjacent land. The fill will be replaced on
the area excavation and packed in layers (if required), after which it will be recontoured
to be compatible with the adjacent undisturbed terrain. Subsequently, the subsoil and
topsoil salvaged and stored at the site will be replaced and the area revegetated to
species compatible with the ecosite phase of the adjacent undisturbed land.
Due to the shallow ground water table present in much of the area, if borrow areas are
excavated to form a pit, reclamation to a shallow water body is an option, pending the

December 2009
site specific hydrologic conditions, and depth of replaced fill in the excavation. If this
reclamation option is chosen for a borrow area, excavation edges will be contoured to
avoid trapping wildlife and to achieve edge water depths of about 2 m or less to promote
the growth of emergent vegetation, if practicable. Establishment of emergent wetland
vegetation by seeding sedges and grasses will help stabilize top slopes of reclaimed
borrow areas and provide marsh-like habitat along the water margins.
Salvaged soil will also be replaced on any area immediately surrounding the excavation
area that has been disturbed, and that area will be revegetated to the surrounding
ecosite phase.
8.5.10.5 Reclamation of Pipelines and Powerlines

Powerline and above ground pipeline ROWs have minimal surface disturbance.
Reclamation of aboveground pipeline and powerline ROWs will consist of removing pipe
racks, power supply lines and poles, and implementation of any reclamation procedures
required for revegetation; natural regeneration is planned for revegetation of these small
areas.
For underground pipelines, salvaged surface soil will have been replaced at the
completion of pipeline construction, subsequent to alleviation of compaction. Areas with
erosion potential will be protected with measures such as seeding ASRD-approved seed
mix, or placing erosion matting, mulch or silt fencing. Revegetation will be done in
consultation with ASRD. Natural regeneration is preferred for revegetation of these
narrow disturbances. Underground pipelines will generally be abandoned in place, in
accordance with ERCB, ASRD and AENV regulatory requirements.
To reduce line of sight along pipeline and powerline ROWs for caribou protection,
rollback and/or line blocking will be utilized on the ROWs; shrubs/trees may also be
planted at final reclamation as needed.
Underground pipeline ROWs on peatland have a relatively small proportion of the ROW
disturbed during winter construction, and salvaged peat is replaced after placement of
the pipe. The reclamation goal for powerline and pipeline ROWs on peatland is for a
return to peatland with similar vegetation to the adjacent, undisturbed peatland areas
through natural regeneration.
8.5.10.6 Reclamation of Seismic Lines and Exploration Core Holes

The majority of seismic lines in the area are less than 5 m wide. Seismic lines are
expected to re-vegetate naturally over time due to their narrow width, and the fact that
seismic activity does not generally disturb surface soils to a significant depth. AOSC will
undertake active revegetation where erosion is a concern.
Exploration core holes are small disturbances (e.g., 80 m by 100 m) and are generally
cleared of vegetation and drilled without stripping soil or padding with borrow material.
Reclamation of these sites will also utilize natural regeneration for revegetation. If natural
ingress is slow or the area is prone to erosion, selected areas will be planted with native
species and/or re-vegetated with an ASRD-approved seed mix.

December 2009
8.5.10.7 Access Road Reclamation

All roads that are not required for ongoing activities will be closed to vehicular traffic,
reclaimed, and re-vegetated to native species. General upland reclamation procedures
will occur on roads built in uplands. To reduce human access for wildlife protection,
rollback, available timber or rocks will be placed on ROWs and pipelines, excluding
traditional access routes. Additional areas may also be replanted as needed to reduce
access.
Access roads in peatland areas will largely be reclaimed by removal of culverts, recovery
and re-use of the surface gravel, and removal of the road fill material for re-use or return
to the borrow area.
8.5.11 Revegetation
Revegetation plans will be specific for each development site based on pre-disturbance
vegetation, surrounding vegetation, target landform and ecosite phase, and consultation
with regulators and stakeholders. Planting prescriptions (including density) will be
developed on a site-specific basis prior to reclamation.
8.5.11.1 Upland Revegetation

Revegetation to appropriate forest species will be undertaken for upland areas. For
facilities developed on upland areas, the target ecosite phases will generally be similar
to the pre-disturbance/control ecosite phase(s) for each site. General planting
prescriptions for upland areas are listed in Table 8.5-7. The list consists of the prime
species considered for each ecosite phase, though the species (and planting density)
will be dependent on the specific site and its surrounding conditions; it is anticipated that
natural regeneration will also occur. The Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest
Vegetation in the Alberta Oil Sands Region (OSVRC 1998) will be consulted.
Table 8.5-7 Planting Prescriptions for Upland Target Ecosite Types
Reclamation Target Tree Species Shrub Species

Ecosite Phase
a1 Lichen Jack Pine Jack Pine Blueberry, Bearberry, Green Alder
b1 Blueberry, Jack Pine- Jack Pine, Aspen Blueberry, Bearberry, Labrador Tea
Aspen
b2 Blueberry, Aspen Aspen, White Birch, Blueberry, Bearberry, Labrador Tea,
(White Birch) White Spruce Green Alder
b3 Blueberry, Aspen- Aspen, White Spruce, Blueberry, Bearberry, Labrador Tea,
White Spruce White Birch Green Alder
b4 Blueberry, White White Spruce, Jack Pine Blueberry, Bearberry, Labrador Tea,
Spruce-Jack Pine Green Alder
c1 Labrador Tea Jack Pine, Black Spruce Labrador Tea, Green Alder, Bog
(Mesic), Jack Pine-Black Cranberry, Blueberry
Spruce
d1 Low-Bush Cranberry, Aspen, White Spruce, Low-Bush Cranberry, Canada Buffalo-
Aspen Balsam Poplar, White Berry, Saskatoon, Green Alder, Rose,
Birch Raspberry

December 2009
Reclamation Target Tree Species Shrub Species

Ecosite Phase
d2 Low-Bush Cranberry, Aspen, White Spruce, Low-Bush Cranberry, Canada Buffalo-
Aspen-White Spruce Balsam Poplar, White Berry, Saskatoon, Green Alder, Rose,
Birch Raspberry
d3 Low-Bush Cranberry, White Spruce, Aspen, Low-Bush Cranberry, Canada Buffalo-
White Spruce Balsam Poplar, White Berry, Saskatoon, Green Alder, Rose,
Birch Raspberry
e1 Dogwood, Balsam- Aspen, Balsam Poplar, Dogwood, Low-Bush Cranberry,
Aspen White Spruce, White Raspberry, Green Alder, Rose
Birch
e2 Dogwood, Balsam- White Spruce, Aspen, Dogwood, Low-Bush Cranberry,
White Spruce Balsam Poplar, White Raspberry, Green Alder, Rose
Birch
e3 Dogwood, White White Spruce, Aspen, Dogwood, Low-Bush Cranberry,
Spruce Balsam Poplar, White Raspberry, Green Alder, Rose
Birch
f1 Horsetail, Balsam- Balsam Poplar, Aspen, Rose, Green Alder, Dogwood,
Aspen Birch, White Spruce Raspberry, Low-Bush Cranberry
f2 Horsetail, Balsam- White Spruce, Aspen, Rose, Dogwood, Low-Bush Cranberry
White Spruce Balsam Poplar, Birch
f3 Horsetail, White White Spruce Rose, Low-Bush Cranberry
Spruce
g1 Labrador Tea, Black Black Spruce, Jack Pine Labrador Tea, Bog Cranberry,
Spruce-Jack Pine Blueberry
h1 Labrador Black Spruce, White Labrador Tea, Bog Cranberry, Willow
Tea/Horsetail, White Birch, White Spruce
Spruce-Black Spruce
Shrubland n/a Site-specific
Natural regeneration will be preferred for revegetation on small and/or narrow sites (e.g.
utility/access corridors, seismic lines, coreholes), and will be considered as an
alternative to seeding/planting where conditions are appropriate (e.g., lower potential for
erosion). If natural revegetation establishment is slow or the area is prone to erosion,
selected areas will be planted with native species and/or revegetated with an
ASRD-approved seed mix. The use of plants that out-compete trees will be avoided
where practicable. Burn areas from forest fires occur within the Terrestrial LSA and on a
small portion of the footprint. These burn areas on the footprint will be revegetated to be
compatible with the successional vegetation community on burned areas adjacent to the
footprint on a site-specific basis; natural regeneration alone may be used for smaller
areas, in conjunction with monitoring.
8.5.11.2 Peatland Revegetation
Unpadded Sites on Peatland

For peatland areas where no padding was required (e.g., pipeline, powerline ROWs,
seismic lines, coreholes), natural regeneration will be the prime revegetation method,
with a target ecosite phase the same as, or similar to, the pre-disturbance ecosite phase.
If natural revegetation establishment is slow or the area is prone to erosion, selected
areas will be planted with native species and/or re-vegetated with an ASRD-approved
seed mix.

December 2009
Padded Sites on Peatland

Natural regeneration will also be the main method for revegetation for peatland sites
where pad fill is removed. Removal of the pad will likely leave the underlying
compressed peat slightly depressed relative to the adjacent, undisturbed peatland
surface. The elevation of the reclaimed peat surface in relation to the water table will be
dependent on site-specific factors. For example, the amount of peat depression may
depend on peat depth, hydrological conditions, and weight of pad material/equipment.
The water table is generally higher in fens compared to bogs, and may vary from site to
site (spatially) as well as yearly and seasonally (temporally). As water levels influence
establishment of plant species, species establishment will likely be variable from site to
site.
In areas where the water table is higher relative to the reclaimed peat surface, a more
open wetland with marsh vegetation will be more likely to develop naturally. Natural
vegetation development on the reclaimed area will be primarily dependent on the
species of the adjacent undisturbed wetland (colonizing species) and hydrology of the
reclaimed site. Natural regeneration will be assisted by the proximity of the colonizing
species pool (i.e., immediately adjacent undisturbed wetland). The disturbed area may
develop into a similar wetland type as the adjacent undisturbed wetland (initially at the
edges of the disturbed area). A peat accumulating wetland may evolve over the long
term depending on site-specific conditions.
Plant establishment in the reclaimed areas may be improved by additional reclamation

procedures (Graf 2008). Microsites may be created by mounding of the peat to create
varying depths of water in order to promote vegetation establishment of different
species. Natural regeneration may be supplemented with planting, as appropriate for
specific site conditions. The target species for an individual site will be addressed on a
site-specific basis and potentially revised onsite at the time of reclamation depending on
the site conditions and adjacent undisturbed vegetation.
Long term monitoring is recommended to start in the year after pad removal to verify that
the area is revegetating with desirable species, and eventually, to verify reclamation
success.
8.5.12 Closure Scenario
8.5.12.1 Landforms
For facilities in upland areas, overall landforms will generally not change significantly
from pre-disturbance landforms. Surface expression (Agriculture Canada 1983) and
drainage patterns on reclaimed areas may vary from pre-disturbance conditions, but will
be compatible with the surrounding landscape. Some areas (e.g. borrow, well pads on
Marguerite soils) may be re-contoured with lesser slope gradients than pre-disturbance
conditions, but will integrate with the adjacent undisturbed slope, surface expression and
surface drainage, and are not anticipated to result in significant changes to overall land
use or land capability for forestry.
The reclamation objective for peatland sites is for reclamation to poorly to very poorly
drained wetland sites. Baseline wetland ecosite phases (mainly bogs and fens) will

December 2009
decrease, but those areas will be replaced by the wetland reclamation as described in
Section 8.5.12.
8.5.12.2 Closure Vegetation

The target vegetation for reclaimed sites was described in Section 8.5.12; the post
reclamation Ecological Land Classification for the Terrestrial LSA is illustrated on
Figure 8.5-4. The vegetation assessment at closure is presented in the Vegetation
section of the EIA (Volume 4, Section 10).
8.5.12.3 Closure Land Capability for Forestry

The impact assessment for the estimated changes to land capability for forestry is
presented in the Terrain and Soils section of the EIA (Volume 4, Section 9); the
assessment is based on the estimated changes in area of land capability classes for
forestry in the Terrestrial LSA from baseline to closure (Table 8.5-8). Baseline and post
reclamation land capability for forestry is illustrated on Figures 8.4-1 and 8.5-5,
respectively.
Upland Areas
With the conservation and reclamation measures outlined in the C&R Plan, it is
anticipated that post reclamation soil quality/quantity and terrain on upland mineral soils
will be similar to pre-disturbance conditions. Reclaimed mineral soils will have a mixed
LFH or shallow peat/Ae layer underlain by the salvaged subsoil. A return to the same
land capability class for forest ecosystems, as well as similar forest productivity and
potential commercial forest use is anticipated. For example, the Horse River soils which
are rated Class 3 at pre-disturbance conditions will be returned to a Class 3
post-reclamation capability.
Reclaimed Sites in Peatland Areas

Reclaimed portions of the Project footprint in peatland areas that do not require padding,
such as pipelines and powerlines, are anticipated to return to the same Land Capability
Class (Class 5) as the pre-disturbance peatlands.
Reclaimed portions of the footprint in peatland areas that require padding, such as well
pads and roads, are also anticipated to return to the same Land Capability Class (Class
5) as the pre-disturbance peatlands. This is anticipated to result from the removal of the
pad fill, and the subsequent equilibration with the adjacent undisturbed wetland to similar
wet hydrological conditions. Based on the distribution of Organic soils mapped on the
footprint, approximately 1,102 ha of Organic soils may require padding; this will be
determined on a site-specific basis.
Table 8.5-8 Summary of Changes to Land Capability Classification for Forest

Ecosystems in the Terrestrial LSA
Baseline Post-Reclamation
Forest Land Capability Class1 Area in LSA Area in LSA % of LSA
% of LSA
(ha) (ha)
Class 3 (Low Capability) 3,554 17.4 3,554 17.4

December 2009
Baseline Post-Reclamation
Forest Land Capability Class1 Area in LSA Area in LSA % of LSA
% of LSA
(ha) (ha)
Class 4 (Conditionally
2,056 10.1 2,057 10.1
Productive)
Class 5 (Non-Productive) 14,636 71.7 14,638 71.7
Unclassified (Water, Stream
172 0.8 169 0.8
Channel, Disturbed)
Total 20,418 100 20,418 100
1. Classes 1 and 2 were not found in the terrestrial LSA.
Forest Resource Use

As upland sites will be reclaimed to ecosite phases similar to pre-disturbance conditions
with equivalent land capability, and wetland sites will be returned to land capability
class 5, the potential for commercial forestry after reclamation is expected to be similar
to baseline conditions.
Information on pre-disturbance and post-reclamation distribution of forested communities

can be found in the Vegetation section of the EIA (Volume 4, Section 10).
8.5.12.4 Traditional Use

The C&R Plan contains measures to conserve biophysical resources (Section 8.5.2) for
current land uses, including traditional use. It also aims to reclaim disturbances
associated with the Project to equivalent land capability for forest ecosystems in order to
support self-sustaining ecosite phases with similar wildlife habitat and vegetation species
to pre-disturbance conditions and support similar traditional use. AOSC will consider
traditional use concerns as part of reclamation planning.
8.5.13 Reclamation Monitoring
A number of environmental monitoring programs will be undertaken, including

reclamation monitoring. The nature of the Project allows for sequential development and
ongoing reclamation of well pads and other sites as they are abandoned. Reclamation
monitoring will be carried out to determine the progress and success of reclamation.
The objectives of reclamation monitoring include assessing:
 Soil and terrain, to ensure that equivalent land capability is achieved for
reclamation certification;
 Vegetation (including reclaimed wetlands), to ensure that it is re-established for
the target vegetation and meets reclamation requirements; and
 Reclamation issues such as erosion, weed infestation, drainage problems, or
industrial debris that need remedial measures will be addressed.
Information gained on the reclamation of the initial upland sites and peatland pads will
contribute to adaptive management and potential improvements in construction and
reclamation techniques throughout the Project life. Ongoing reclamation activities and
procedures will be documented. Documentation will include a description of the type of
development which was present, and the timing of type of reclamation activity carried out
for a specific site.

December 2009
The reclamation monitoring program will evaluate the success of reclamation over time
to ensure reclamation is addressing the following:
 Acceptable landscape characteristics (drainage, erosion, slope stability, gravel

and rocks, and debris).
 Soil quality (e.g., texture, structure/compaction) and quantity (e.g., depth of
surface replacement soil). Soils will be sampled and analyzed where needed to
confirm any potential soil quality issues. Soil analytical parameters may include
texture, structure, compaction, pH, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio
and macronutrient levels.
 Adequate revegetation of disturbed areas and weed control. Vegetation will be
assessed with consideration of the revegetation objectives, species present
(woody and herbaceous), woody and tree growth, ground cover, and health.
 Reclamation is progressing in a manner that is adequate for meeting the
reclamation criteria of the day. The current reclamation criteria include the
Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities – 1995 Update
(AENV 1995b), Guide To: Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated
Facilities 2007 – Forested Lands in the Green Area Update (ASRD 2007a), as
well as any conditions to be contained in the anticipated EPEA Approval for the
Project. Reclamation assessments will follow sampling procedures outlined in
the regulatory documents, and will have sufficient inspection locations to be
representative of the reclaimed site.
Reclaimed areas will be inspected after the first growing season following reclamation.
Initial establishment of the vegetation will be assessed. Any reclamation problems will
be assessed and remedial measures undertaken as needed. Once vegetation is
established, progress toward reestablishing the target vegetation will be monitored over
time. The pre-development biophysical information collected will provide a reference with
which to assess reclamation success.
A final post-reclamation assessment will be conducted at completion of reclamation to

document soil, terrain and vegetation conditions and will be included in the application
for a reclamation certificate.

EXTERNAL DIVERSION DITCH WHERE REQUIRED
BERM
INTERNAL PAD DITCH
ACCESS
MOTOR VENT
CONTROL
CENTRE
TEST PACKAGE
START-UP
SKID
Well site width 166 m
DRIVABLE WORKING SURFACE
WORKING PAD BOUNDARY
SALVAGED SOIL STOCKPILES STORAGE AREA
WELL SITE LENGTH 307 m
Not to Scale
Legend:
Producer Wellhead
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\7349-RW-09.cdr
Peace River
Injector Wellhead Fort McMurray

7349-514 SC 17/08/09
- - EWR 17/08/09
Notes: Reference: CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW
Calgary
OF TYPICAL SAGD
1. Pads will have grading of pad surface and internal ditches to collect runoff for testing to Disclaimer: WELL PAD
assess for release, re-use or disposal. Prepared solely for the use of AOSC as specified in the
accompanying report. No representation of any kind is
2. Topsoil and upper subsoil stockpiles separated from each other and berm by 1 m minimum. made to other parties with which AOSC has not entered
Edge of Clearing
Powerline
All-weather Road
57 m Access/Pipeline/
Powerline ROW
Above-ground Pipelines on Racks
Plan View Edge of Clearing

Not to Scale
Limit of clearing
Limit of clearing
57 to 59 m Access/Pipeline/Powerline ROW
Power Pole
8 to 10 m
Pipe rack for steam,
emulsion and vent
gas pipelines Salvaged Salvaged
topsoil All-weather road topsoil
Ditch where required Ditch where required
Cross-section View Mineral topsoil

Not to Scale salvage area
Legend:
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\7349-RW-09.cdr
Peace River
Power Pole Fort McMurray

7349-514 SC 17/08/09
Notes: Edmonton Senior:
-
Date:
-
Drawn by:
EWR
Date:
17/08/09
1. Some roads will have 10 m top (e.g., MCP main access, in-field collector roads, access to Reference: CONCEPTUAL ACCESS,
MacKay North Plant).
Calgary
PIPELINE, AND POWERLINE
2. Topsoil may be placed on ditches and backslopes and seeded to SRD approved seed mix. Disclaimer: COMMON ROW ON UPLAND
3. Culverts placed where required to maintain surface drainage. Prepared solely for the use of AOSC as specified in the
4. 3:1 backslopes on road. made to other parties with which AOSC has not entered
EXISTING WETLAND VEGETATION
LEASE BOUNDARY
ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE
CROSS-SECTION EXISTING WETLAND
Original
VEGETATION
Ground
Surface
Organic
Material
(Peat)
Parent Material (C Horizon)
Proposed Pad ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE
PLAN VIEW
EXISTING EXISTING
WETLAND WETLAND
VEGETATION WELLPAD VEGETATION EXISTING WETLAND VEGETATION
Berm and Ditch Berm and Ditch

Geotextile Borrow
CONSTRUCTED PAD over Peat Material
CROSS-SECTION
1. Clear vegetation.
2. Install geotextile and potentially Anticipated Peat
coarse woody debris over peat. Compression
3. Construct wellpad with imported
borrow material. Parent Material (C Horizon) Berm and ditch
4. Spread gravel on surface.
CONSTRUCTED PAD
EXISTING EXISTING PLAN VIEW
WETLAND WETLAND
VEGETATION RECLAIMED WETLAND AREA VEGETATION
RECLAIMED PAD Former Constructed Pad

CROSS-SECTION
Water RECLAIMED
1. Remove gravel and reuse if WETLAND AREA
practicable.
2. Abandon wells.
3. Remove pad materials, reuse pad
material where practicable.
4. Enhance substrate as Parent Material (C Horizon) EXISTING WETLAND VEGETATION
appropriate.
(See C+R section 5.5.14) RECLAIMED PAD
PLAN VIEW
LEGEND:
F:\7349 AOSC\Drafting\2009\7349-PAD-09.cdr
Tamarack Peace River

Fort McMurray

Black Spruce 7349-514 SC 17/08/09
Edmonton Senior:
-
Date:
-
Drawn by:
EWR
Date:
17/08/09
CONCEPTUAL
Shrubs
Reference: CONSTRUCTION AND
Calgary
RECLAMATION OF WELL
NOTES:
Disclaimer:
Prepared solely for the use of AOSC as specified in the
PAD ON PEATLAND
1. Not to scale. made to other parties with which AOSC has not entered
2. Drawings are conceptual for basepads and actual construction will be conducted according to engineering drawings. Project Location into contract. FIGURE 8.5-3
420000 430000
Twp.91
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
6300000
Overlap with North Figure
Twp.90
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
6290000
Twp.89
I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\005_FIGURE_8_5-4a_POST-RECLAMATION_ECOLOGICAL_LA ND_CLAS SIFICATION _TERRES TRIAL_LOCAL_STUDY_AREA -SOUTH.mxd
Twp.88
6280000
Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:80,000

PROJECT AREA (Footprint) VEGETATION DISTURBANCE
Pea ce Riv er
! _
^ !
Fort McMurra y
Kilometres
NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
WILDLAND PARK CLOSURE ECOSITE PHASES
WATERBODY a1 d2 f3 k1
Senior:
7349-514
Date:
SC
Drawn by:
09/11/13
Date:
POST-RECLAMATION
b1 d3 g1 k2 ECOLOGICAL LAND
Edmonton
WATERCOURSE
!
LP 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
b2 e1 h1 k3 Reference:
CLASSIFICATION -
! ! ! ! ! !
RAILWAY
! ! ! ! ! !
b3 e2 i1 l1 1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used for License

! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
WINTER ROAD b4 e3 i2 FLOODED

Ca lga ry
TERRESTRIAL
LOCAL STUDY AREA
!
PIPELINE c1 f1 j1 SHRUBLAND Disclaimer:
SOUTH
POWERLINE d1 f2 j2 WETLAND specified in the accompanying report. No representation of
RECLAMATION _
^ Project Location
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered into contract. FIGURE 8.5-4a
410000 420000
Twp.93
Do
v er Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
6310000
Twp.91
Overlap with South Figure

I:\7349_514\MA PS\FIGURES \EIA\005_FIGURE_8_5-4a_POST-RECLAMATION_ECOLOGICAL_LA ND_CLAS SIFICATION _TERRES TRIAL_LOCAL_STUDY_AREA -NORTH.mxd
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
Twp.90
6300000
Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14
LEGEND
1:80,000

PROJECT AREA (Footprint) VEGETATION DISTURBANCE
Pea ce Riv er
! _
^ !
Fort McMurra y
Kilometres
NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
WILDLAND PARK CLOSURE ECOSITE PHASES
WATERBODY a1 d2 f3 k1
Senior:
7349-514
Date:
SC
Drawn by:
09/11/13
Date:
POST-RECLAMATION
b1 d3 g1 k2 ECOLOGICAL LAND
Edmonton
WATERCOURSE
!
LP 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
b2 e1 h1 k3 Reference:
CLASSIFICATION -
! ! ! ! ! !
RAILWAY
! ! ! ! ! !
b3 e2 i1 l1 1:20,000 Base Features obtained from Altalis used for License

! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
WINTER ROAD b4 e3 i2 FLOODED

Ca lga ry
TERRESTRIAL
LOCAL STUDY AREA
!
PIPELINE c1 f1 j1 SHRUBLAND Disclaimer:
NORTH
POWERLINE d1 f2 j2 WETLAND specified in the accompanying report. No representation of
RECLAMATION _
^ Project Location
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. has not entered into contract. FIGURE 8.5-4b
410000 420000 430000 440000
Twp.93
Do
v er Riv er
6320000
Twp.92
6310000
Ma cK ay R ive
r
Twp.91
6300000
Twp.90
6290000
Twp.89
017_FIGURE_8_5_5_POST-RECLAMATION_LA ND_CA PABILITY _FOR_FOREST_E COSYSTEMS_IN_THE_TE RRESTRIA L_LOCAL_S TUDY _A REA.mxd
6280000
Twp.88
Grand Rapids Wildland
River
as ca
At h ab
Rg. 17 Rg. 16 Rg. 15 Rg. 14 Rg. 13
LEGEND
1:150,000
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA (LSA) BASELINE SOILS DISTURBANCE 2 0 2
MACKAY RIVER LEASE LAND CAPABILITY CLASS Kilometres
WILDLAND PARK 3 (LOW CAPABILITY) _

^ NAD 83 UTM ZONE 12
Peace River
!
! Fort McMurr ay
WATERBODY 4 (CONDITIONAL CAPABILITY) Project Code: Technical: Date:
5 (NON-PRODUCTIVE) 7349-514 SC 09/11/13

WATERCOURSE
UNCLASSIFIED (DISTURBANCE, STREAM CHANNEL)
Ed mon ton Senior: Date: Drawn by: Date:
POST-RECLAMATION LAND
LP 09/11/13 WR 09/11/13
WINTER ROAD
CAPABILITY FOR FOREST
!
Reference:
PIPELINE Calgary
ECOSYSTEMS - TERRESTRIAL
POWERLINE
LOCAL STUDY AREA
!
Disclaimer:
any kind is made to other parties with which Athabasca Oil
_
^ Project Location Sands Corp. has not entered into contract. FIGURE 8.5-5
MacKay River Commercial Project 9-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Summary
December 2009
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

The purpose of the Project EIA is to assess the environmental and socio-economic
effects of the Project individually as well as in combination with other existing, approved
and planned projects in the area, as described in Volume 2, Section 1.
The EIA and the Project application (Volume 1) form AOSC’s Integrated Application to
the ERCB and AENV. The EIA has been prepared using accepted techniques and in
compliance with the requirements prescribed under the:
 Final TOR for the Project (Volume 2, Appendix 1A);

 Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (AENV
2009); and
 Cumulative Effects Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports
under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (AENV, ERCB
and NRCB 2000).
Preliminary work for the Project was initiated in 2008 to evaluate Project alternatives,
identify pertinent data sources and define required data collection programs. Initial
discussions were held with government departments to scope out the Project
requirements, application procedures and regulatory processes. Consultation was
conducted with local residents, government representatives, First Nations, Métis
Associations and other public representatives during this period to identify biophysical
and socio-economic issues and to confirm study requirements (Volume 1, Section 7).
Field work was undertaken from 2008 through 2009 to enhance the baseline water,
fisheries, soil, vegetation, wildlife and historical information. Wildlife surveys were
initiated in spring 2008 and were completed in early summer 2009. Vegetation surveys,
including rare plant surveys, were undertaken in early and late summer 2008 and 2009.
Data on hydrology, water quality, aquatic ecology and terrain and soils were collected in
2008 and 2009. Benthic samples were collected in summer 2008.
9.1 OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
Potential environmental and socio-economic effects for the Application and Planned
Development Cases were identified and assessed using the following steps:
 issues of greatest concern to stakeholders and regulators were identified in each

discipline to help focus the assessment;
 Local Study Areas (LSAs) and Regional Study Areas (RSAs) were delineated for
each discipline based on the degree of spatial and temporal overlap of the
parameters as well as to define temporal boundaries for the assessment;
 consideration was given to management principles to prevent, minimize or
mitigate adverse effects through the construction, design and scheduling of the
Project;
 quantitative and qualitative assessments were made by comparing the predicted
environmental and socio-economic effects remaining after the application of
management methods. A final impact rating was defined based on established
objectives or scientific criteria; and

December 2009
 identification of monitoring or follow up programs, if required.
9.2 AIR QUALITY
The air quality assessment provides an understanding of the magnitude and the spatial
variation of potential air quality changes associated with the Project emissions. These
emissions will overlap with emissions from other local and more distant emission
sources; therefore, the ambient air quality assessment for the Project considers all of
these sources. The Project will be a source of sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compound (VOC)
and GHG emissions that result from combustion processes. Fugitive emissions of
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) may occur periodically. In addition, ambient SO2 and NOX can
form acidifying chemicals in the atmosphere, which are removed by wet and dry
deposition mechanisms. This potential acid input (PAI) can potentially change soil and
surface water chemistry. The approach used to evaluate these combustion and fugitive
emissions is consistent with assessments that have been adopted in EIAs for other oil
sands developments in the region.
The maximum effects of Project emissions tend to be limited to the vicinity of the
development (i.e., within 10 km). Ambient concentrations due to air emissions from the
Project and other existing, approved and proposed facilities will tend to decrease with
increasing distance from the respective operations. Final impacts ratings for SO2, NOx
and PM2.5 are negligible in both the Application Case and Planned Development Case.
Final impact ratings for PAI are low in both the Application Case and Planned
Development Case.
9.3 NOISE
Noise sources from the Project include the MCP, the MNP, and the production well
pads. Two separate noise modelling scenarios were generated. Modelling Scenario 1
refers to the MCP operating alone, and Modelling Scenario 2 refers to the MCP and
MNP operating concurrently.
There are no existing significant industrial noise sources or residential receptors within
the noise RSA, so no baseline monitoring was conducted. There are also no known
permanent dwellings within 5 km of the lease boundary, therefore, theoretical receptor
locations were established at a distance of 1.5 km from the Project noise sources.
The noise modelling predicted that the Project will comply with the permissible sound
levels (PSL) established under ERCB Directive 038 (2007) during the Application Case
for the construction scenario for both modelling scenarios as well as the Planned
Development Case.
No follow-up noise monitoring is required unless a formal complaint is submitted to the

local ERCB field office. If a noise complaint is submitted, then AOSC will conform to all
follow-up procedures and requirements specified in Directive 038.

December 2009
9.4 HUMAN HEALTH
The human health risk assessment (HHRA) for the Project focused on direct and indirect
(airborne and multi-media) health risks associated with industrial and community air
emissions in the RSA. The three environmental impact parameters that were assessed
for HHRA are acute inhalation health risks, chronic inhalation health risks and chronic
oral health risks.
The final impact rating for the acute inhalation assessment for the Application Case and
Planned Development Case is low based on the concentrations of PM2.5 and SO2
predicted at the maximum point of impingement (MPOI) and/or Fort McKay. The final
impact rating for the chronic inhalation assessment for the Application Case is negligible
and low for the Planned Development Case. The final impact rating for chronic oral
health risks is negligible for the Application Case and Planned Development Case. The
uncertainty incorporated in the assessment suggests that the potential for adverse
impacts to occur in humans is low. The final impact rating for all other pathways is
negligible.
9.5 HYDROGEOLOGY
The potential environmental impact parameters of the Project on groundwater were

assessed with respect to water levels and water quality including surface waterbodies,
the undifferentiated overburden aquifer/aquitard, the Empress Channel Aquifer, the La
Biche Aquitard, the Viking Aquitard, the Joli Fou Aquitard, Grand Rapids
Hydrostratigraphic units, the Clearwater Aquitard, Wabiskaw/McMurray
Hydrostratigraphic units, the Winterburn Aquifer/Aquitard, the Grosmont Aquifer, the
Ireton Aquitard, the Leduc/Cooling Lake/Beaverhill Lake Aquitard/Aquifer, the Watt
Mountain Aquitard, the Prairie-Muskeg Aquiclude, and the Keg River Aquifer.
Components of the construction, production and post-production phases of the Project

which have the potential to affect groundwater resources include groundwater
withdrawal, wastewater disposal, operation of surface facilities, and production and
steaming. Important hydrogeologic resources that may potentially be affected by the
Project include surface waterbodies and shallow overburden aquifers, the Empress
Channel Aquifer, the Grand Rapids aquifers, and the Keg River Aquifer.
Groundwater withdrawal is predicted to have no impact on the groundwater quality in the

RSA. Non-saline groundwater withdrawal for the Project is predicted to have a low
impact on the quantity of surface water and groundwater of shallow overburden aquifers,
the Grand Rapids aquifers and the Empress Channel Aquifer and no impact on the
groundwater quantity of the Keg River Aquifer. It is predicted that wastewater disposal
will have a negligible impact on the Keg River Aquifer with respect to groundwater
quantity and quality and no impact on the quality of surface water and groundwater of
shallow overburden aquifers, the Grand Rapids aquifers and the Empress Channel
Aquifer.
The Application and Planned Development Cases predict that operation of the Project
surface facilities, including production and steaming, will have a low impact on the local
hydrogeologic resources.

December 2009
9.6 HYDROLOGY
Project activities such as construction, operation and reclamation of pads, roads,

pipelines, utilities, disposal wells and plant facilities have the potential to cause changes
to surface runoff, water levels and erosion and sedimentation. Regional climate and
hydrology data along with data from site-specific field surveys were used to characterize
the hydrologic baseline conditions. Historical climate data were compiled from regional
climate stations in the RSA to provide water balance model input parameters. The three
environmental impact parameters assessed for hydrology are runoff, surface water
levels and erosion and sedimentation.
With the implementation of prescribed mitigation strategies, adherence to guidelines for

groundwater withdrawals and the implementation of best management practices it was
determined that there would be no impact to any of the parameters for the Application
Case. In addition, there is no anticipated affect on surface water users within the LSA or
RSA attributable to the Project and there will be no permanent alterations to
watercourses or waterbodies as a result of Project activities, therefore no effects are
carried forward to the Planned Development Case.
9.7 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Water quality parameters are influenced by natural factors such as temperature and
seasonal variation, precipitation, surface runoff, chemical and biotic components of the
aquatic environment, sediments and groundwater. The parameters assessed for
surface water quality included increases in suspended sediments, release of Project
related chemicals, deposition of acidifying emissions, and changes in surface water
flows and levels.
With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, it is predicted that there will
be no impact to any of the environmental parameters in the Application Case, therefore
no effects are carried forward to the Planned Development Case.
9.8 AQUATIC ECOLOGY
Project activities have the potential to cause direct physical impacts to fish and fish
habitat and indirect effects associated with changes in the invertebrate community,
surface water quality and hydrology. The parameters identified for aquatic ecology
include riparian and instream fish habitat alteration (including sedimentation, changes to
fish habitat associated with groundwater pumping, changes to water flows, and changes
to riparian habitat) and industrial disturbance to fish habitat (including spills and
discharges, changes in surface water pH and increased access to fish population).
Overall impact assessment ratings for the Application Case were predicted to be either
no impact, negligible impact or low impact. The environmental impact parameters
assessed for the Planned Development Case were sedimentation, changes to riparian
habitat, spills and discharges and access. Overall, the impact assessment ratings for
those parameters were negligible to low impact. The Project is not expected to have any
impacts on fish and fish habitat.

December 2009
9.9 TERRAIN AND SOILS
The parameters identified for terrain and soil resources include land capability (including
land capability classification, soil suitability for reclamation, and soil sensitivity to wind
and water erosion), changes to terrain (i.e., loss of landforms), and acidification
potential.
In the Application Case, the Project may impact terrain and soil resources through
surface disturbance and air emissions. The final impact ratings for all three
environmental impact parameters in the Application Case are negligible. Potential
impacts and mitigation measures in the Planned Development Case are anticipated to
be similar to those in the Application Case. The final impact ratings for changes to land
capability, changes to terrain, and soil acidification potential are negligible.
9.10 VEGETATION
The parameters identified for vegetation include terrestrial vegetation, wetlands,

communities of limited distribution, forested lands, productive forests, commercial
forests, old growth forests, traditional and medicinal plants (blueberries and cranberries),
rare plants, rare ecological communities, rare plant habitat potential, non-native and
invasive species and groundwater withdrawal. For the Planned Development Case,
potential acid inputs (PAI) or emissions of SO2 and NOx are also assessed.
For the Application Case, the Project is predicted to have no impact on terrestrial
vegetation, traditional medicinal plants, and rare ecological communities. It is predicted
that there will be a negligible impact for communities of limited distribution, commercial
forests, and alterations to hydrology. It is predicted that there will be a low impact on
wetlands, forested lands, productive forests, old growth forest, rare plants, rare plant
habitat potential and non-native and invasive species.
All parameters assessed for the Planned Development Case (terrestrial vegetation,
wetlands, communities of limited distribution, forested lands, productive forests,
commercial forests, rare plant habitat potential and PAI) have a final impact rating of
negligible.
9.11 WILDLIFE
The parameters identified for wildlife include habitat availability, habitat connectivity,
noise, mortality and wildlife health. The indicator species assessed for each parameter
were the Canadian toad, northern goshawk, mixedwood forest bird community, old
growth forest bird community, beaver, snowshoe hare, Canada lynx, moose, woodland
caribou, and black bear.
All of the wildlife indicators except black bear were used to assess the impacts to habitat
availability. Residual impacts on habitat availability for the Application Case and
Planned Development Case range from negligible to moderate.
Moose and woodland caribou were selected to assess the impacts of habitat
connectivity in the RSA because they have large home ranges and are known to exhibit
seasonal migrations. With mitigation, including above ground pipe crossing structures

December 2009
and underpasses, the final impact to moose habitat connectivity is considered low and
impacts to caribou habitat connectivity are predicted to be moderate for both the
Application Case and Planned Development Case.
Mortality risk was assessed for Canadian toads in the LSA, and for moose, woodland
caribou and black bear in the RSA. The final impact rating to wildlife indicators was
negligible to low for both the Application and Planned Development Cases.
Maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations (1-hour and annual), maximum

predicted soil concentrations and maximum predicted surface water concentrations for
the Application Case were all below the inhalation toxicology reference values (TRV),
soil quality guidelines (SQG), and surface water quality guidelines (SWQG). Therefore,
the Project effect to wildlife health is rated as no impact.
9.12 BIODIVERSITY AND FRAGMENTATION
The parameters identified for biodiversity and fragmentation on terrestrial and aquatic
diversity include habitat richness, total habitat area and habitat fragmentation. Effects
on species were assessed using predicted changes in the area and fragmentation of
individual habitats together with habitat rankings for local rarity, rarity in the Central
Mixedwood natural subregion, and species biodiversity potential.
There will be no impact to habitat richness during and after Project closure. Although
Project construction will reduce the total area of all natural and semi-natural habitats in
the LSA, after reclamation, the proportion of the LSA occupied by habitats is predicted to
be higher than it was at baseline due to the reclamation of some existing disturbed areas
outside the Project footprint.
Total habitat area for seven habitats following Project closure is expected to be reduced
from baseline levels. The majority of these are not ranked as rare in the LSA or the
Central Mixedwood natural subregion. The final impact rating is low for terrestrial
biodiversity and negligible to no impact for aquatic biodiversity during and after Project
closure.
In most cases the habitats that are expected to show the largest reductions in area or
the highest levels of fragmentation are not ranked high for species biodiversity potential.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that species diversity will be adversely affected during
Project construction and operation. The final impact rating is low for terrestrial
biodiversity and no impact for aquatic biodiversity during and after Project closure.
Project construction is expected to increase the fragmentation of most habitats. In

general, construction is predicted to cause a shift in the patch size distribution towards
more small patches and the fragmentation of patches greater than 100 ha in area.
Fragmentation effects may be partly attributable to increases in linear disturbances
during the lifetime of the Project. The final impact rating for habitat fragmentation is low.
In the Planned Development Case all disturbances are expected to occupy 13.3% of the
RSA. The contribution of the Project footprint to the total areal extent of all disturbances
in the RSA is expected to be 1.4%. Given that the Project is predicted to occupy less
than 1.0% of the RSA, effects on total habitat area, fragmentation and species diversity

December 2009
are predicted to be negligible. In the Planned Development Case the Project is

expected to have no impact on habitat richness or aquatic diversity.
9.13 LAND USE
The parameters identified for land use include environmentally important areas, airstrips,
surface (e.g., disposition holders) and subsurface interests (e.g., lease holders),
aggregate resources, forestry, berry picking, hunting, trapping, fishing and non
consumptive outdoor recreation.
The Project footprint will result in an increase in roads and linear disturbances. An
increase in access can have both positive and negative effects on recreational use and
will likely be taken advantage of by consumptive and non-consumptive recreational
users. Users that prefer to use remote areas will have greater access; however, it is not
known if the number of people who prefer to use remote areas will increase. The effect
of increased access and greater ease of access to remote areas may result in greater
competition for consumptive activities such as berry picking, hunting and fishing, which
may displace some users.
For the Application Case final impact ratings included no impact for airstrips, a negligible
impact for environmentally important areas, surface and subsurface interests, forestry,
berry picking, hunting and trapping, fishing, and non-consumptive recreation and low
impact for aggregate resources.
Planned projects in the RSA contribute to additional linear disturbance in the RSA. As
with the Application Case, an increase in access can have both positive and negative
effects on recreational users. The final impact ratings in the Planned Development Case
was negligible for environmentally important areas, surface and subsurface interest,
forestry, berry picking, hunting and trapping, fishing, and non-consumptive recreation
and low impact for aggregate resources.
9.14 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The Project will generate substantial economic benefits in the province. While the
Project may also create or add to some regional and provincial pressures, in purely
economic terms, the benefits are greater.
Construction of the Project will generate approximately 21,137 person years (P-Y) of
direct, indirect and induced employment in the province. After the Project is operational
in 2014, the Project will create approximately 510 full time equivalent positions per year
(direct, indirect and induced) in the province and generate millions of dollars in tax
revenue.
The population increase estimated in Fort McMurray due to direct, indirect and induced
job creation from the Project will peak at approximately 1,400 people in 2013 and will
increase by approximately 970 people over 15 years.
Mitigative measures for potential effects include continued provincial attention to timely
release of Crown land, planning for development, and funding formulas for medical,
education, emergency and recreation facilities, which are directly in the control of the

December 2009
provincial government. The Oil Sands Secretariat, representing over 15 provincial

government departments, has initiated work on population modelling in part to support
planning for infrastructure, as part of the land use framework.
AOSC will maintain its participation in regional planning initiatives such as the OSDG
and the IOSA. As well, AOSC will work with the municipalities and local stakeholder
groups to ensure communication of Project stages and associated population changes.
9.15 HISTORICAL RESOURCES
A Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) was completed for the Project. The
baseline HRIA identified one archaeological site (HePa-1) and one trapper cabin in the
LSA. The HePa 1 site is a small scatter of artefacts which has limited interpretive value
and has been mitigated by recording, testing and collecting artefacts from the site. The
Project footprint avoids the trapper cabin. Other trapper cabins identified through
consultation are located outside the Project footprint. No other historical resources were
identified to be in conflict with the Project footprint. Eleven archaeological sites and one
historic period site were identified in the inventory search outside the Project lease and
footprint and all are of low significance. The Project footprint was evaluated by detailed
pedestrian transect inspections and 360 shovel tests and key observation areas. A
recommendation has been made to Alberta Culture and Community Spirit for Historical
Resources Clearance.
A requirement for an adaptive management strategy (AMS) for Historical Resources has
been outlined for the Project LSA. This program will include pre-impact historical
resources screening studies for future additions or revisions to the Project footprint by
applying the revised model of historical resources potential to determine historical
resources requirements and clearances within the LSA. Based on Project specific
requirements that will be developed in the AMS, it is predicted that there will be no
impact to historical resources in the Application Case.
The AMS is designed to provide a mitigation plan to prevent Project related effects such
as the clearing of land, removal of borrow material and construction of facilities on
historical resources. No project related effects to historical resources are predicted.
Consequently, the Project will not contribute to effects to historical structures,
archaeological and paleontological sites in the Planned Development Case in the RSA.
9.16 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) AND

TRADITIONAL USE (TU)
The Project is situated in proximity to the Fort McKay First Nation, Mikisew Cree First
Nation, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort McMurray First Nation, Fort Chipewyan
Métis and the Fort McKay Métis. The potential effects of the Project on traditional lands
and use are of cultural, environmental, social, and economic relevance, because it
pertains to the well being of affected Aboriginal communities (individually and
collectively) as well as the land to which the people are connected.
AOSC is engaged in ongoing consultation efforts with Fort McKay First Nation, Mikisew
Cree First Nation, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Fort McMurray First
Nation. To date, none has committed to participate in a Project-specific TEK and TU

December 2009
study. AOSC intends to continue working with these First Nations in ongoing
consultation efforts to develop an acceptable process for assessing the Project’s impacts
on Aboriginal groups.
First Nations identified several issues and concerns and relevant mitigative measures
were brought forward. AOSC intends to continue the ongoing consultation to resolve
and mitigate the identified concerns and issues. During the meeting with the Fort
Chipewyan Métis it was determined that, while the Project area had been used by Fort
Chipewyan Métis in the past, present day traditional activities carried out by community
members are now centered around the town of Fort Chipewyan, approximately 200 km
to the north of the Project. As the traditional activities of the Fort Chipewyan Métis are
not presently being carried out within the Project area, no Project specific related
concerns were identified.

MacKay River Commercial Project 10-1 References/Literature Cited
December 2009
10 REFERENCES/LITERATURE CITED
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2009a. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact
Assessment Reports in Alberta – Updated October 2009. Alberta Environment,
Environmental Assessment Team. Edmonton, Alberta. EA Guide 2009-2. 32
pp. Available online at: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8127.pdf.
AENV. 2009b. Soil Monitoring Directive. Alberta Environment, Environmental

Assurance Division. Edmonton, Alberta. Available online at:
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8159.pdf
AENV. 2007. Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) for New
Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands Region in
the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray Based on a
Review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. Edmonton,
Alberta.
AENV. 2006. Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection.
Edmonton, Alberta. Available online at:
http://www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca/docs/Oilfield_Injection_GUIDELINE.pdf
AENV. 2004. Code of Practice for Pits. Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Act and Conservation and Reclamation Regulations (115/93), as amended.
Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 2003b. Groundwater Evaluation Guideline. Alberta Environment, Environmental

Assurance Division. Edmonton, Alberta. Available online at:
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7508.pdf
AENV. 2003c. Sites Reclaimed Using Natural Recovery Method: Guidance On Site
Assessments. R&R/03-06. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 2002. Environmental Protection Guidelines for Oil Production Sites.

C&R/IL02-1. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 2000a. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Water Act – Water
(Ministerial) Regulations.
AENV. 2000b. Environmental Protection Guidelines for Roadways. Conservation and

Reclamation Information Letter. C&R/IL/00-5. November 2000. Edmonton,
Alberta. 5 pp.
AENV. 2000c. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a
Water Body. Water Act – Water (Ministerial) Regulations.
AENV. 1999a. A Guide to Content for Industrial Approval Applications. Environmental

Protection and Enhancement Act and Approvals and Registrations Procedure
Regulation (113/93). Available online at:
www.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/publications/appindustrial.pdf.

December 2009
AENV. 1997a. Reclamation Certificates for Overlapping Activities. C&R/IL/97-6.

October 1997. Edmonton, Alberta. 3 pp.
AENV. 1997b. Conservation and Reclamation Guidelines for Alberta. C&R/IL/97-1.

March 1997. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 1995a. Environmental Protection Guidelines for Electric Transmission Lines

(C&R/IL/95-2). Edmonton, Alberta
AENV. 1995b. Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities – 1995
Update. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 1994a. Guide for Pipelines Pursuant to the Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act and Regulations. Available online at:
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/publications/GuideForPipelinesPursuantToTh
eEPEARegulations_March1994.pdf
AENV. 1994b. Guide for Oil Production Sites: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection
and Enhancement Act and Regulations. Available online at:
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/home.asp
AENV. 1993. Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities)

Regulation of Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. AR
111/93.
Agriculture Canada, 1983. The Canadian Soil Information System (CanSIS), Manual for
Describing Soils in the Field (revised). Compiled by Working Group on Soil
Survey Data, Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey. Research Branch,
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. LRRI Contribution No. 82-52.
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD). 1987. Soil Quality Criteria
Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation (Revised). Soils Branch. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC). 2009. Environmentally Significant

Areas Provincial Update 2009. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre.
Available online at:
http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx
Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council (ALCRC). 1991. Guidelines for
the Preparation of Applications and Reports for Coal and Oil Sands Operations.
Edmonton, Alberta. 244 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2007a. Guide To: Reclamation

Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities 2007 – Forested Lands in the
Green Area Update. Lands and Forests Division. Edmonton, Alberta. 19 pp.
Available online at:
http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/lands/managingpublicland/pdf/Guide_to_Forested_Lan
ds.pdf

December 2009
ASRD. 2007b. Debris Management Standards for Timber Harvest Operations. Available
online at:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/forests/pdf/2007_debris_management_standards_timb
er_harvest.pdf
ASRD. 2001. Weed Management in Forestry Operations. Directive 2001-06.
Bachu, S. and Underschultz, J.R., 1993. Hydrogeology of formation waters, northeastern

Alberta basin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v.77, p.
1745-1768.
Barrow, Elaine and Ge Yu. 2005. Climate Scenarios for Alberta. A report prepared for
the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative (PARC) in co-operation with
Alberta Environment. 73 pp.
Canadian Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2006. Land Capability

Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands Region. Third Edition.
CEMA: Cumulative Environmental Management Association.
Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)/AENV. 2009. Draft Directive -

Requirements for Water Measurement, Reporting and Use for Thermal Insitu Oil
Sands Schemes. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2007a. Directive 007 - Volumetric and Infrastructure Requirements. Available

online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2007b. Directive 020 – Well Abandonment Guide. Available online at:
http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2006a. Directive 042 - Measurement, Accounting, and Reporting Plan (MARP)
Requirement for Thermal Bitumen Schemes. Available online at:
http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2006b. Directive 060 – Upstream Petroleum Industry Flaring, Incinerating and
Venting. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2001a. Directive 055 – Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum
Industry. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 2001b. Interim Directive 2001-3 – Sulphur Recovery Guidelines for the Province
of Alberta. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 1996a. Directive 050 – Drilling Waste Management. October 1996. Available
online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 1996b. Directive 058 – Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the
Upstream Petroleum Industry. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB/AENV. 1996c. Memorandum of Understanding on the Regulation of Oil Sands

Developments. IL 96-07. Available online at: http://www.ercb.ca

December 2009
ERCB. 1994. Directive 051 – Injection and Disposal Wells – Well Classifications,
Completions, Logging, and Testing Requirements. Available online at:
http://www.ercb.ca
ERCB. 1991. Directive 023 - Guidelines Respecting an Application for a Commercial

Crude Bitumen Recovery and Upgrading Project. Available online at:
http://www.ercb.ca
Environment Canada. 2009. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000. Website:

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Provin
ce=ALL&StationName=Fort%20McMurray&SearchType=BeginsWith&LocateBy=
Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&C
ityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees
=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=2519&&autofwd=
1
Environment Canada. 2008. Canada’s GHG Inventory. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ghg/

inventory_e.cfm.
Graf, Martha D. 2008. Restoring Fen Plan Communities on Cutaway Peatlands of North
America. Ph.D thesis at Plant Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture and
Food Sciences, University Laval, Quebec. 166 pp.
Hein, F.J., Marsh, R.A, and Boddy, M.J., 2008. Overview of the Oil Sands and
Carbonate Bitumen of Alberta: Regional Geologic Framework and Influence of
Salt-Dissolution Effects. AAPG Hedberg Research Conference, September 30 -
October 3, 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada - Abstracts, #90075 (2008)
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta.

Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub.
No. T/852.
Oil Sands Vegetation Reclamation Committee (OSVRC). 1998. Guidelines for

Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Alberta
Environmental Protection. Edmonton, Alberta.
Oil Sands Wetlands Working Group (OSWWG). 2000. Guideline for Wetland
Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases. N. Chymko, Editor. Report No.
ESD/LM/00-1. Alberta Environment, Environmental Services. Publication No.
T/517. Alberta Environment, Environmental Sciences Division. ISBN 0-7785-
1042-5. Edmonton, Alberta. 137 pp. + Appendices.
Petro-Canada. 2005. Amendment Application for MacKay River Expansion.
Safety Codes Council. 1999. Alberta Private Sewage System Standards of Practice
Handbook. Available online at:
http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/Handbook_index.cfm
Thimm Engineering Inc. 2008. Prediction of Hydrogen Sulphide Production in SAGD

Projects, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, January 2008, Volume 47,
No. 1.

December 2009
Vitt, D. and K. Wieder. 2007. Development of Scientific Protocols for Oil and Gas Pad
Reclamation in Peatlands of Boreal Alberta. Department of Biology, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. Research proposal; obtained from MEG
Energy 2008. Calgary, Alberta. 15 pp.

MacKay River Commercial Project A1-1 Concordance Table
December 2009
Table A1-1 ERCB Directive 023 Information Requirements (ERCB 1991)

Directive 023 Requirement (abridged) Locations in Volume 1
Section unless otherwise
noted
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.5 Project description
1.5.1 Applicable Acts and Sections under which the application is made 2.2
1.5.2 Name and address of the application and any partners involved and 2.2
the details of company incorporation
1.5.3 Statement of need and the timing for the project 1.7; 1.3
1.5.4 Overall description of the proposed scheme, including the location, 1.3
size and scope, schedule of pre-construction, construction, start up
activities, duration of operations, and a discussion of the reasons for
selecting the proposed schedule.
1.5.5 Description of the regional setting of the development and reference 1.2
to existing and proposed land use
1.5.6 a. Map indicating the freehold, leasehold, mineral and surface rights Figure 1.2-1
of the proposed scheme and surrounding area.
b. Maps with legal descriptions showing the location of landowners Volume 2, Section 2,
and their dwellings in relation to the proposed oil sands site Figure 2.7-17
1.5.7 Map showing topographical features, exiting areas of habitation, Figures 1.2-1, 1.2-2 and
industry, the proposed site and any development in the project area 1.2-3
1.5.8 Aerial photomosaic of the development area at an appropriate scale Figure 1.2-4
to illustrate the locations of the project components including the mine
area, wells, extraction plant, upgrader unit, tanks, discard storage
sites including tailing ponds, access roads, railways, pipelines and
utility corridors.
1.5.9 General description of storage and transportation facilities of the final 5.3.7
hydrocarbon product, including detail of size and ownership of any
pipeline which may be utilized
1.5.10 Proposed rate of production of the hydrocarbon product over the term 1.2
of years for which approval of the operation is requested
1.5.11 Description of the subject oil sands owned by or leased to the 3.1
applicant
1.5.12 Description of the status of negotiations held or to be held with the 7
freehold, leasehold, mineral surface rights owners
1.5.13 Proposed energy source, alternatives, resource use, sources and 5.1.5; 1.7.1
supply
1.5.14 Description and results of public information program 7
1.5.15 The term of the approval sought, including expected project start and 1.3
completion dates
1.5.16 Name of responsible person to contact 2.2
2.0 TECHNICAL INFORMATION
2.1 Surface mining operations - Not Applicable
2.2 Underground access and development Not Applicable

December 2009
Table A1-1 ERCB Directive 023 Information Requirements (ERCB 1991) (continued)
noted
2.3 Insitu operations
2.3.1 Geological description of zone of interest supported by:
a. map showing the land surface topography Figure 1.2-3
b. map showing the locations of all evaluation wells and Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2
indicating those that have been cored and those that have
been logged
c. the log and core evaluation technique 3.3
d. isopach maps of the net pay and/or bitumen metre maps Figure 3.7-2
over the zone of interest as well as for other potential
bitumen bearing zones
e. cross-sections clearly indicating the zone of interest, Figures 3.9-2 through
illustrating the top and base of porosity, fluid interfaces, 3.9-12
pertinent test data over the zone of interest and impermeable
lenses or layers
f. tabulations of reservoir rock parameters, fluid properties and Table 3.7-1
log interpretation cutoffs used
g. structure and position of fluid interfaces within the zone of 3.8
interest
h. maps showing gas caps and bottom water associated with 3.8
the zone of interest
i. a description of the techniques used to model geological 3.12.1
data
2.3.2 Identification by name and depth of the target zone including any 3.8
crude bitumen zone or water zone immediately above or below the
zone of interest.
2.3.3 Criteria used in selecting the oil sands zone for recovery 3.4.2
2.3.4 A description of the cut off bitumen grade and thickness criteria used 3.8
to establish the in-place resource potential of the project area
supported by reserve estimates and trends
2.3.5 A geological, engineering and economic evaluation of the bitumen 3; 5; 1.7
reserves recoverable by the proposed scheme and a description of
and rationale for the criteria employed
2.3.6 A geological, engineering and economic evaluation of bitumen 3.8
reserves not recoverable by the proposed scheme
2.3.7 A discussion of the potential and requirements for any follow-up 3.14
recovery of reserves from the zone of interest or other bitumen
bearing zones within the scheme area
2.3.8 Evaluation of gas reserves associated with the oil sands to be 3.8
developed, including a description of:
a. the effect the proposed operations would have on the
recovery of those reserves
b. the effect the gas reserves would have on the recovery of the
crude bitumen reserves
2.3.9 An evaluation (quantity and characteristics) of sand or fines 3.4.2; 5.1.4; 6.4
production, the effects on hydrocarbon production and recovery and
anticipated disposal methods as well as anticipated disposal methods

December 2009
noted
2.3.10 A description of the recovery process to be used, including
a. the objectives, the intended course of operation and the 3.10
applicability of the process
b. a comparison of this process with others considered, stating 1.7
the technical, economic, environmental and cost reasons for
the selection
c. potential for follow-up processes for improved recovery 3.14
d. results of computer modelling or simulation studies 3.12
e. economic and production criteria used to abandon an oil 3.10.2
sands zone
2.3.11 The recovery efficiency of the process selected, including 3.11
a. effects of reservoir well spacing and interwell communication
b. areal, vertical and displacement efficiencies, and
c. effects of reservoir properties such as pay thickness,
directional permeability trends, featuring characteristics and
the presence of gas caps, aquifers or shale breaks
2.3.12 A description of the Project layout with emphasis on equipment
spacing and surface disturbance, including
a. the sequence of development for major project components 1.3
b. the well pad configuration and spacing design, well site and 5.3; 5.1
satellite layout, fluid treatment and handling facilities
c. future pad configuration and surface facilities 5.1; 5.2
2.3.13 A description of the efforts to minimize land disturbance and the 1.2; 5.1.5
collection, conservation or other disposition of produced gases
2.3.14 A diagram and description of proposed well drilling and completion
methods, including
a. wellhead design 4.5
b. casing and tubing with specifications and setting depths 4.2
c. the cementing details proposed to ensure continued integrity 4.2
of wells
2.3.15 A description of the proposed well performance monitoring program, 4.3; 4.6
including:
a. routine production testing
b. temperature and production logging
c. surface fluid sampling
d. field and laboratory analyses programs
2.3.16 A description of geotechnical factors and techniques of monitoring, 4.6
that may affect operations, including
a. casing monitoring program to detect failures
b. the method of reporting failures, ghost holes and other
drilling anomalies
2.3.17 The volume of fluids and solids produced and the proposed 6.4
disposition of each
2.3.18 Material balances for hydrocarbons, sulphur and water in the central 5.1; 6.3.1
processing facility
2.3.19 A process flow diagram for the central processing facility, including Figures 5.1-4 through
major equipment and stream composition with the proposed 5.1-9
measurement devices and locations
2.3.20 A sample set of production accounting reports for the central 5.5
processing facility

December 2009
noted
2.4 Processing Plant
2.4.1 A separate description of the bitumen extraction, upgrading, utilities, 5.1
refining and sulphur recovery facilities, including
a. a discussion of the process
b. process flow diagrams indicating major equipment, stream
rates and composition, and the proposed production
measurement devices, characteristics and locations
c. chemical and physical characteristics and properties of feeds
and product materials
2.4.2 Overall material and energy balances, including information with Figures 5.1-10 and
respect to hydrocarbon and sulphur recoveries, water use and energy 5.1-11; 6.3.1
efficiency
2.4.3 Quantity of products, by-products and waste and their disposition 6.4
2.4.4 Surface drainage within the areas of the processing plant, product 6.2.1; 6.4
storage and waste treatment and disposal
2.4.5 Comparison of proposed process to alternatives considered on the 1.7.1
basis of overall recovery, energy efficiency, cost, commercial
availability and environmental considerations and the reasons for
selecting the proposed process
2.4.6 This number has been omitted from G-23 NA
2.4.7 Example of production accounting reports 5.5
2.5 Electrical Utilities and External Energy Sources
2.5.1 A description of any facilities to be provided for the generation of 5.1.2; 5.1.8
electricity to be used by the project.
2.5.2 Identification of the source, quantity and quality of any fuel, electricity 5.3.7
or steam to be obtained from sources beyond the project site
2.5.3 Where energy resources from outside the project boundaries are to 5.3.7; 1.7.1
be supplied to the project, a detailed appraisal of the options available
to eliminate the need for such resources, with consideration for overall
recovery, energy balance, costs, technical limitations and
environmental implications
2.6 Environmental Control
2.6.1 A description of air and water pollution control and monitoring 6.1 through 6.3
facilities, as well as a liquid spill contingency plan
2.6.2 A description of the water management program, including 5.4
a. the proposed water source and expected withdrawal 5.4
b. the source-water quality control 6.4
c. the waste-water disposal program Figures 5.1-10
d. water balance for the proposed scheme and 5.1-11
e. the produced-water clean-up/recycle program 5.1.4
2.6.3 The manner in which surface water drainage within the Project area 6.2.1
would be collected, treated and disposed
2.6.4 A description of the air and water pollution control and monitoring Volume 2, Section 2
facilities Volume 3, Section 5

December 2009
noted
2.6.5 A description of the emission control system, including 6.3;
a. stack design criteria and process data Volume 2, Section 2
b. any additions of residue gas or natural gas to the flare
system to ensure combustion of hydrogen sulphide for both
normal operating conditions and maximum emission
conditions
c. methods proposed for the control of all air pollutants from all
potential or actual emission sources at the operation
(including all vents, stacks, flares, product storage tanks,
sulphur handling areas, ponds, wells and other fugitive
emission sources) during normal, emergency and maximum
operating conditions
d. monitoring program for hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide,
total sulphation, hydrogen sulphide sulphation, soil pH,
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons in the surrounding area
3.1 Commercial Viability
3.1.1 An appraisal and projections, on an annual basis of Volume 5, Section 14
a. revenues by product
b. itemized capital and operating costs, including a breakdown
of fuel costs and non-fuel operating costs
c. some discussion of the project financing
d. royalties and taxes
e. net cash flow
f. marketing arrangements
g. supply arrangements for fuel requirements and electric
power
3.1.2 A description of project costs which include capital and operating cost, Volume 5, Section 14
including
a. a breakdown of capital and operating costs for each
component of the project including site preparation, well
drilling and completion, central processing facilities (including
steam generation, waster treatment and recycling), satellite
and surface facilities, production/injection distribution system,
upgrading, utilities and off-sites
b. depreciation
3.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis
3.2.1 A summary of quantifiable public benefits and costs incurred during Volume 5, Section 14
the construction and operation of the Project
3.2.2 A summary of non-quantifiable public benefits and costs incurred Volume 5, Section 14
each year during construction and operation of the Project
3.3 Economic Impact
3.3.1 An appraisal of the economic impact of the Project on the region, Volume 5, Section 14
province and nation
3.3.2 A discussion of any initiatives undertaken to accommodate regional Volume 5, Section 14
economic priorities and interests

December 2009
noted
3.3.3 An assessment of direct and indirect employment opportunities for all Volume 5, Section 14
groups associated with the Project including
a. projected maximum and minimum workforce demand by skill
categories in the construction and operating phases and an
analysis of how these demands shall be met
b. an analysis of the indirect and induced employment
generated by the project due to employment multiplier effects
c. a discussion of the employment and training arrangements
provided by applicant that would enable residents of the
region to participate in meeting the workforce demands
4.0 Environmental Impact Assessment Volumes 2 through 5
5.0 Biophysical Impact Assessment Volumes 2 through 4
6.0 Social Impact Assessment Volume 5
7.0 Describe the environmental protection plan including mitigation Volumes 2 through 5
measures, environmental monitoring and research
8.0 Conceptual Development and Reclamation Plan 8
9.0 Solid Waste Management Plan 6.4

December 2009
Table A2-1 A Guide to Content of Industrial Approval Applications (AENV 1999b)

AEPEA Locations in Volume 1
Guide to Information Required unless otherwise
Content noted
3(1)(a) Applicant Information 2.2
3(1)(b) Location, Size and Capacity of the Activity 1.2
1 Legal land description 1.2
2 Relation to nearest town, city, village and users of the land 1.2
3 Geographical description of the surrounding topography and relation to 6.7
nearby watercourses
4 Gas processing capacity 5.1.5
5 Sulphur production capacity; bitumen processing capacity 6.3.1; 5.1.3
6 Material balance 5.1.10
7 Descriptive size of the affected area 1.2
8 Physical dimensions of the plant site including a plot plan and number of Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2;
employees working at the facility Volume 5, Section 14
3(1)(c) Nature of the Activity
1.1 Classification of this facility under AEPEA Activities Designation Regulation 1.6
276/2003
1.2 General purpose, products, by-products 1.2
1.3 Major unit operations including a process flow diagram and description of 5.1
the process
1.4 Major environmental control operations 6
1.5 Underground and aboveground tank details 5.1.6
1.6 Aboveground storage tank leak detection systems 5.1.6
1.7 Potable water source, description of water treatment system used, sanitary 5.1.8
sewage handling procedures or septic tank details
1.8 Details on the reciprocating or turbine engines 5.1.2
1.9 Plot plan showing the exhaust stack locations Figure 5.1-2
1.10 The peak height of buildings Volume 2, Appendix 3C
1.11 Details on all natural gas fired heaters, treaters, boilers and steam Volume 2, Section 2.6
generators
1.12 Details on any auxiliary or standby process equipment or other sources of Volume 2, Section 2.6
emission
1.13 Details on flare stacks Volume 2, Section 2.6
1.14 Details on any active flare pit onsite NA
1.15 Description of any on site incineration of solid waste NA
1.16 NO2 dispersion computer modelling input and output Volume 2, Section 2
1.17 SO2 dispersion computer modelling input and output; rates and Volume 2, Section 2
composition of acid gas and fuel gas flared streams
1.18 Emergency flaring scenario SO2 dispersion modeling and rates and Volume 2, Section 2.6
composition of flared streams
1.19 Sulphur Storage Facilities details NA
1.20 Benzene emissions from glycol dehydrators controls Volume 2, Section 2.7
1.21 Volume and composition of produced gas and method of H2S treatment 6.3.1; Volume 2,
Section 2.6
3(d) ERCB Approval Status 2.1
3(e) Environmental Impact Assessment Volumes 2 through 5
3(f) Existing AEPEA Approvals (not applicable for new plants) NA
3(g) Schedule 1.3
3(h) Substance Releases 6.4

December 2009
Table A2-1 A Guide to Content of Industrial Approval Applications (AENV 1999b)

(continued)
AEPEA Locations in Volume 1
Guide to Information Required unless otherwise
Content noted
1.1 A list and quantity of substances used in the production process 5.1.9
1.2 Water demand; sources, purpose and quantities 5.4
1.3 Sources of the substances to be released to the environment 6.2; 6.3; 6.4
1.4 Amount of the substances to be released to the environment Volume 2, Section 2
1.5 Methods of release of substances to the environment 6.2; 6.3; 6.4
1.6 Pollution prevention and control measures 6
1.7 Runoff volume determination 6.2.1
1.8 Spill Containment details 6.1.1
3(i) Environmental Monitoring Information Volumes 2 through 4
1.1 Any baseline ambient environmental data that may have been collected at Volumes 2 through 4
the site (for air, water, soils, etc.)
1.2 Baseline hydrogeologic characteristics and groundwater monitoring data Volume 3, Section 5
3(j) Past Use of Substance Release Control Systems (not applicable to new NA
plants)
3(k) Justification for Substance Releases Volume 2, Section 2
1 Application of process technology, management practices and current 6
environmental control technology/control systems
3(l) Waste Minimization Measures 6.4
1.1 Waste Management Summary 6.4
1.2 Waste minimization measures to be implemented 6.4
3(m) Surface Disturbance Impacts 1.2; Volume 4
1 Extent and nature of the surface disturbance 1.2; Volume 2
3(n) Emergency Response Plans 6.1
1 Confirmation of filing with the ERCB and other agencies 1
3(o) Environmental Contingency Plans 6.1
3(p) Conservation and Reclamation 8
1.1 Potential impact of the project on landscape aesthetics 8
1.2 Topsoil Conservation 8
1.3 Plant decommissioning and reclamation 8
3(q) Public Involvement Process 7
1.1 Proposed or conducted public involvement process 7
1.2 Frequency, type and purpose for the public involvement and environmental 7
concerns identified
1.3 Newspapers for advertising the application/approval 7

A3-1 Concordance Table
MacKay River Commercial Project December 2009
Table A3-1 Final Terms of Reference Issued by Alberta Environment – Concordance
TOR Section Environmental Assessment or Topic Location TOR Addressed

1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION
[A] Document the public engagement program implemented for the Project. Volume 1, Section 7, Appendix D
1 [B] Document the aboriginal consultation program implemented for the Project. Volume 5, Sections 16.3, 16.4, 16.5
PUBLIC Volume 1, Section 7
ENGAGEMENT AND [C] Describe plans to maintain the public engagement and aboriginal consultation process Volume 1, Section 7
ABORIGINAL following completion of the EIA report review to ensure that the public and aboriginal
CONSULTATION peoples will have an appropriate forum for expressing their views on the ongoing
development, operation and reclamation of the Project.
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
[A] Provide a corporate profile and the name of the legal entity that will develop, manage and Volume 1, Sections 1.1 and 2.2
operate the Project and hold the operating approvals.
2.1
The Proponent [B] Describe AOSC and its history in Alberta, with specific reference to existing operations, Volume 1, Section 1.1
proposed operations, minerals resources, environmental studies and community
involvement.
[A] Provide a development plan. Volume 1, Sections 1.3 and 5
[B] Provide a schedule outlining the proposed phases of development and the sequence and Volume 1, Section 1.3
2.2
duration of key project components, including the timing of key steps in the construction,
Project
operation, decommissioning and reclamation stages of each phase.
Development
[C] Discuss the key factors controlling the schedule, restrictions for conducting certain Volume 1, Sections 1.3 and 1.7
development activities, and uncertainties.
2.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
2.3.1 [A] Discuss the need for the Project and discuss any alternatives. Volume 1, Sections 1.7 and 6.5
Project Alternatives [B] Discuss the implications of not going ahead with the Project. Volume 1, Section 1.7
[A] Describe the process and criteria used to select sites for facilities and infrastructure. Volume 1, Section 1.2
[B] Discuss the route or site selection criteria for any linear or other infrastructure development Volume 1, Section 1.2
or modification and provide the rationale for selecting the proposed alignment and design.
[C] Discuss the options considered for supplying the thermal energy and electric power required Volume 1, Section 5
for the Project and their environmental implications. Discuss the implications that alternate
fuel sources may have on the selection of pollution abatement equipment or technologies.
2.3.2
[D] Describe the criteria and rationale for selecting the preferred water supply sources. Include Volume 1, Sections 5.4 and 6.2
Process and
options for using saline groundwater and the criteria used to assess the feasibility of its use.
Infrastructure
[E] Discuss the potential for new or additional technology to increase resource recovery at later Volume 1, Section 3.14
Alternatives
times in the field development and to affect the number of wells required.
[F] Discuss options and technologies considered for wastewater treatment, wastewater Volume 1, Section 5.4.5
management and wastewater disposal.
[G] Discuss options and technologies considered for air emission and air quality management. Volume 1, Section 6.3
[H] Discuss the waste disposal options. Discuss the strategy for on-site waste disposal versus Volume 1, Section 6.4
off-site waste disposal.

Table A3-1 Final Terms of Reference Issued by Alberta Environment – Concordance (continued)

[A] Provide maps and/or drawings of the Project components and activities. Volume 1, Figures 1.2-1, 1.2-2, 1.2-
3, 1.3-3, 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.2-1, 5.3-2,
8.2-1
[B] Provide a list of facilities for which locations will be determined later. Volume 1, Section 6.2.2.1
[C] Describe the primary resource recovery process, any proposed follow-up recovery process Volume 1, Sections 1.2 and 1.7
2.4
and other related processes and process facilities of the Project.
Project Processes
and Facilities [D] Discuss the amount and source of energy required for the Project. Volume 1, Section 5.1.10
[E] Describe the proposed method to transport product to markets. Volume 1, Section 5.3.7.5
[F] Provide a listing of chemical products to be manufactured, processed or otherwise used for Volume 1, Section 6.4.5
the Project and describe, in general terms, how these products will be stored and managed.
[G] Describe the nature and amount of on-site hydrocarbon storage. Discuss containment and Volume 1, Section 5.1.6
other environmental protection measures.
[A] Provide a summary of traffic for the Project. Volume 1, Section 6.5
[B] Describe and map the locations of any new road or intersection related to the development Volume 1, Sections 1.2 and 5.1.6
of the Project.
[C] Identify the type, volume, location and availability of road construction and reclamation Volume 1, Section 5.8
2.5 materials related to the development of the Project. Volume 5, Section 13.5.10
Transportation [D] Describe access corridors needed and/or planned by other resource development Volume 1, Section 1.2
Infrastructure stakeholders including those responsible for Forest Management Areas and other timber
quota holders.
[E] Indicate where Crown land dispositions may be needed for roads or other infrastructure for Volume 1, Section 2
the Project.
[F] Describe crossings of watercourses or waterbodies required for the Project. Volume 3, Sections 6.6 and 8.6
[A] Provide a description and timing of land clearing activities. Volume 1, Section 8
Volume 4, Section 10.6
[B] Provide a timber salvage plan, highlighting end users and identifying proposed volumes for Volume 1, Section 8
2.6
removal for all stages of the Project. Volume 4, Section 10.6
Land Management
[C] Identify any access restrictions including where appropriate, measures taken to control Volume 1, Section 5.3.7
access to the Project Area while ensuring continued access to adjacent wildland areas.
[D] Provide a fire control plan. Volume 1, Section 6.1.2
2.7 [A] Provide emission profiles (type, rate and source) for the Project’s operating and construction Volume 1, Sections 5 and 6.3
Air Emissions emissions including point and non-point sources and fugitive emissions. Consider both Volume 2, Section 2
Management normal and upset conditions.
2.8 [A] Discuss potential cooperation with other parties regarding water related infrastructure and Volume 1, Section 6.2
Water Management management.
2.8.1 [A] Describe the water supply requirements for the Project. Volume 1, Sections 5.1.10 and 5.4
Water Supply Volume 3, Section 5.6


[A] Describe the surface water management strategy for all stages of the Project. Volume 1, Section 6.2.1
2.8.2 Volume 3, Sections 6 and 7
Surface Water [B] Provide a description of navigable waterways and the results of navigability assessment(s) Volume 3, Section 6
for waterways that may be affected by the Project.
2.8.3 [A] Describe the wastewater management strategy. Volume 1, Sections 5.4.5 and 6.4
Wastewater
Management
2.9 [A] Characterize and quantify the anticipated dangerous goods, and hazardous, nonhazardous, Volume 1, Section 6.4
Waste Management and recyclable wastes generated by the Project.
[A] Provide a conceptual conservation and reclamation plan for the Project. Volume 1 Section 8
2.10 [B] Provide a predicted Ecological Land Classification map for the post-reclamation landscape. Volume 1, Figure 8.5-4
Conservation and [C] Provide a conceptual plan to monitor reclamation performance and success (including soils, Volume 1, Section 8.5.13
Reclamation vegetation, wildlife and aquatic resources).
[D] Discuss uncertainties related to the conceptual reclamation plan. Volume 1, Section 8.3
[A] Summarize key elements of AOSC’s existing or proposed environment, health and safety Volume 1 Section 6.1
2.11 management system.
Environmental [B] Describe adaptive management plans that minimize the impact of the Project. Describe the Volume 1, Section 6.6.3
Management flexibility built into the Project to accommodate future modifications. Volume 3, Section 6
Systems [C] Describe AOSC’s current and proposed monitoring programs. Volume 1, Sections 6 and 9
[D] Discuss how monitoring data will be disseminated. Volume 1 Section 5.7.10
2.12 [A] Discuss AOSC’s involvement in regional and cooperative efforts to address environmental Volume 1 Section 5.1.5
Regional and and socio-economic issues associated with regional development.
Cooperative [B] Discuss AOSC’s regional monitoring activities. Volumes 2 to 5
Initiatives
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Assessment Requirements
3.1.1
[A] Define assessment scenarios. Volume 2, Section 1
Scenarios
3.1.2 Study Areas
3.1.2.1
[A] Describe the Project Area including all lands subject to direct disturbance from the Project. Volume 2, Section 1.2
Project Area


[A] The Local Study Area (LSA) is the area existing outside the boundaries of the Project Area,
where there is a reasonable potential for immediate environmental impacts due to ongoing Volumes 2 to 5
Project activities.
[B] The Regional Study Area (RSA) is the area within which there is the potential for cumulative
3.1.2.2 and socio-economic effects, and that may be relevant to the assessment of any wider- Volumes 2 to 5
Local and Regional spread effects of the Project.
Study Areas [C] The Study Area for the EIA report shall include the Project Area as well as the spatial and
temporal limits of individual environmental components outside of the Project Area
Volumes 2 to 5
boundaries where an effect can be reasonably expected. The Study Area includes both the
Local and Regional Study Areas.
[D] For each LSA and RSA provide the scientific rationale used to define the spatial and Volume 2, Section 1
temporal aspects. Volumes 2 to 5
3.1.3 [A] AOSC will assess cumulative environmental effects. Volumes 2 to 5
Cumulative
Environmental [B] Explain the approach and methods used to identify and assess cumulative impacts. Volume 2, Section 1
Effects
3.1.4
Information AOSC will include detailed environmental information. Volumes 2 to 5
Requirements
[A] For those models or modelling techniques used that are not prescribed by regulators to
Volumes 2 to 5
3.1.5 predict Project impacts, provide justification and documentation for the model used.
Modelling [B] Air quality modelling shall be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of the Air
Volume 2, Section 2
Quality Modelling Guidelines published by Alberta Environment.
3.2 Air Quality, Climate, Noise
3.2.1 [A] Discuss the baseline climatic and air quality conditions. Volume 2, Section 2.5
Baseline Information [B] Provide representative baseline noise levels at receptor locations. Volume 2, Section 3.5
[A] Identify components of the Project that will affect air quality. Volume 1, Section 5
[B] Identify stages or elements of the Project that are sensitive to changes or variability in Volume 1, Section 6.6
climate parameters. Volume 2, Section 2
3.2.2
[C] Identify components of the Project that have the potential to increase noise levels and Volume 2, Section 3.6
Impact Assessment
discuss the implications. Present the results of a noise assessment.
[D] Describe how air quality and noise impacts resulting from the Project will be mitigated. Volume 1, Section 5
Volume 2, Sections 2.6 and 3.6
[E] Describe the residual air quality and noise effects of the Project and AOSC’s plans to Volume 2, Sections 2.6, 2.8, 3.6, 3.8
manage those effects.


[A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts to air quality and Volume 2, Sections 2.8 and 3.8
3.2.3 noise.
Monitoring [B] Describe any monitoring programs proposed to monitor the effects of acid deposition. Volume 3, Section 7.8
3.3 Hydrogeology
3.3.1 [A] Provide an overview of the existing geologic and hydrogeologic setting from the ground Volume 3, Section 5.5
Baseline Information surface down to, and including, the oil producing zones and disposal zones.
[A] Describe Project components and activities that have the potential to affect groundwater Volume 3, Sections 5.4 and 5.6
resource quantity and quality at all stages of the Project.
[B] Describe the nature and significance of the potential Project impacts on groundwater. Volume 3, Sections 5.6
3.3.2
[C] Describe programs to manage and protect groundwater resources. Volume 3, Sections 5.7
Impact Assessment
[D] Identify measures to reduce the environmental risks from casing failures. Volume 1, Section 5.4.6
[E] Describe the residual effects of the Project on groundwater quality and quantity and AOSC’s Volume 3, Sections 5.7
plans to manage those effects.
3.3.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts to groundwater Volume 3, Sections 5.7
Monitoring quality and quantity.
3.4 Hydrology
[A] Describe and map the surface hydrology. Include flow regimes of streams in the Project Volume 3, Sections 6.5
3.4.1 Area.
Baseline Information [B] Provide surface flow baseline data. Volume 3, Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.4
[C] Identify any surface water users who have existing approvals, permits or licenses. Volume 3, Section 6.4.1.2
[A] Discuss changes to watersheds, including surface and near-surface drainage conditions. Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
[B] Describe the extent of hydrological changes that will result from disturbances to Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
groundwater and surface water movement.
[C] Discuss changes in sedimentation patterns in receiving waters resulting from the Project. Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
[D] Describe impacts on other surface water users due to the Project. Identify any potential Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
water use conflicts.
3.4.2 [E] Describe potential downstream impact if surface water is removed. Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
Impact Assessment [F] Discuss the impact of low flow conditions and in-stream flow needs on water supply and Volume 3, Section 6.6.1
water and wastewater management strategies.
[G] Discuss how potential impacts of temporary and permanent roads and wellpads on wetland Volume 3, Section 6.6.2.2
hydrology will be minimized and mitigated.
[H] Describe mitigation measures to address impacts during all stages of the Project. Volume 3, Sections 6.6 and 6.8
[I] Describe residual effects of the Project on hydrology and AOSC’s plans to manage those Volume 3, Sections 6.6 and 6.8
effects.
3.4.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess the impacts of changes in surface Volume 3, Sections 6.8, 7.8, 8.8,
Monitoring water flows and levels. 10.8


3.5 Surface Water Quality
3.5.1 [A] Describe the baseline water quality of watercourses and waterbodies. Discuss the effects of Volume 3, Section 7.5
Baseline Information seasonal variations, flow and other factors on water quality.
[A] Identify Project components that may influence or impact surface water quality. Volume 3, Sections 7.2, 7.3
[B] Describe the potential impacts of the Project on surface water quality. Volume 3, Section 7.6
3.5.2 [C] Describe proposed mitigation measures to maintain surface water quality at all stages of the Volume 3, Section 7.6
Impact Assessment Project.
[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on surface water quality and AOSC’s plans to Volume 3, Section 7.6
3.5.3 [A] Describe any monitoring programs proposed to assess surface water quality impacts from Volume 3, Section 7.8
Monitoring the Project.
3.6 Aquatic Ecology
[A] Describe the existing fish and other aquatic resources (e.g., benthic invertebrates). Volume 3, Section 8.5.1,
3.6.1 Appendix 8A
Baseline Information [B] Describe and map, as appropriate, the fish habitat and aquatic resources of the lakes, Volume 3, Section 8.5.4, Figures
rivers, ephemeral water bodies and other waters. 8.5-1 to 8.5-26
[A] Describe the potential impacts to fish, fish habitat, and other aquatic resources (e.g., stream Volume 3, Section 8.6
alterations and changes to substrate conditions, water quality and quantity).
[B] Discuss the design, construction and operational factors to be incorporated into the Project Volume 3, Sections 8.6.1 and 8.6.2
3.6.2 to minimize effects to fish and fish habitat and protect aquatic resources.
Impact Assessment [C] Identify plans proposed to offset any loss in the productivity of fish habitat. Volume 3, Section 8.6
[D] Describe the effects of any surface water withdrawals considered including cumulative Volume 3, Section 8.3
effects on aquatic resources.
[E] Describe the residual effects of the Project on fish, fish habitat, and other aquatic resources. Volume 3, Sections 8.6 and 8.8
3.6.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts to fish, fish Volume 3, Section 8.8
Monitoring habitat and other aquatic resources.


3.7 Vegetation
[A] Describe and map vegetation communities for each ecosite phase. Volume 4, Section 10.5.1
[B] Describe and map wetlands, and discuss the distribution and relative abundance of Volume 4, Section 10.5.1 and 10.5.2
wetlands.
[C] Identify, verify and map the relative abundance of species of rare plants and the ecosite Volume 4, Section 10.5.6
phases where they are found.
[D] Identify key indicators and discuss the rationale for their selection. Volume 4, Sections 10.3 and 10.4.3
3.7.1 [E] Discuss the potential of each ecosite phase to support rare plant species, plants for Volume 4, Sections 10.5.2, 10.5.4,
Baseline Information traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes, old growth forests and communities of limited 10.5.5, 10.5.6.3
distribution.
[F] Describe the regional relevance of landscape units that are identified as rare. Volume 4, Sections 10.5.2 and
10.5.6
[G] Provide Timber Productivity Ratings for the both the Project Area and the Local Study Area, Volume 4, Section 10.5.3
including identification of productive forested, non-productive forested and non-forested
lands.
[A] Identify the amount of vegetation and wetlands to be disturbed for all stages of the Project. Volume 4, Sections 10.6.3, 10.7.3
[B] Discuss any potential effects the Project may have on rare plants or endangered species. Volume 4, Sections 10.6.3 and
10.7.3
[C] Discuss temporary (include timeframe) and permanent changes to vegetation and wetland Volume 4, Section 10.6.3
communities.
[D] Describe the regional impact of any ecosite phase to be removed. Volume 4, Section 10.6.3.1
[E] Discuss from an ecological perspective, the expected timelines for establishment and Volume 4, Sections 10.6, 10.6.3
recovery of vegetative communities and the expected differences in the resulting vegetative
community structures.
3.7.2
[F] Provide an Ecological Land Classification map that shows the reclaimed vegetation. Volume 4, Section 10.6.3, Figures
Impact Assessment
10.6-1 and 10.6-2
[G] Discuss the impact of any loss of wetlands, as well as how this will affect land use, Volume 4, Section 10.6.3
fragmentation and biodiversity.
[H] Provide a mitigation strategy that will minimize Project impacts. Volume 4, Sections 10.6.2, 10.6.3,
10.7.2
[I] Discuss weeds and non-native invasive species and describe how these species will be Volume 4, Sections 10.5.7, 10.6.2
assessed and controlled prior to and during operation and reclamation.
[J] Describe the residual effects of the Project on vegetation and AOSC’s plans to manage Volume 4, Section 10.6.3
those effects.
3.7.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts to vegetation Volume 4, Section 10.8
Monitoring wetlands and riparian areas.


3.8 Wildlife
[A] Describe and map existing wildlife resources (amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial and Volume 4, Section 11.5.1,
aquatic mammals) and their use and potential use of habitats. Figures 11.5-1 to 11.5-18,
Appendices 11A and 11C
3.8.1 [B] Identify key indicator species and discuss the rationale for their selection. Volume 4, Sections 11.3.2, 11.5.1,
Baseline Information 11.5.2
[C] Describe, quantify and map all existing habitat disturbance (including exploration activities) Volume 4, Section 11.5
and identify those habitat disturbances that are related to existing and approved Project
operations.
[A] Describe Project components and activities that may affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Volume 4, Section 11.6.1
[B] Describe and assess the potential impacts of the Project on key indicator species and relate Volume 4, Section 11.6
those impacts to wildlife populations and wildlife habitats.
3.8.2
[C] Provide a strategy and mitigation plan to minimize impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat Volume 4, Section 11.6.2
Impact Assessment
during all stages of the Project and to return productive wildlife habitat to the area.
[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat and AOSC’s plans Volume 4, Section 11.6.3
to manage those effects.
3.8.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts to wildlife. Volume 4, Section 11.8
Monitoring
3.9 Biodiversity and Fragmentation
[A] Describe the terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity metrics that will be used to characterize the Volume 4, Sections 12.4 and 12.5,
3.9.1
existing ecosystems and probable effects of the Project. Appendix 12A
Baseline Information
[B] Describe the current level of habitat fragmentation. Volume 4, Section 12.5.5
[A] Describe the metrics used to assess the probable effects of Project. Discuss the Volume 4, Sections 12.4.3, 12.6.3
contribution of the Project to any anticipated changes in regional biodiversity and the and 12.6.4
potential impact to local and regional ecosystems.
3.9.2 [B] Identify and evaluate the extent of potential effects from fragmentation that may result from Volume 4, Sections 12.4.3.2, 12.6.3,
Impact Assessment the Project.
[C] Discuss the measures to minimize any anticipated changes in regional biodiversity. Volume 4, Section 12.6.2
[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on biodiversity and fragmentation and AOSC’s Volume 4, Sections 12.6.3, 12.6.4,
plans to manage those effects. 12.7.3
3.9.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts on biodiversity Volume 4, Section 12.8
Monitoring and fragmentation.


3.10 Terrain and Soils
3.10.1 [A] Provide descriptions and maps of the terrain and soils conditions. Volume 4, Section 9.5
[A] Describe Project activities and other related issues that could affect soil quality (e.g., Volume 1, Section 1.2, Figure 1.2-2
compaction, contaminants). Volume 4, Section 9.6.1
[B] Discuss the potential for changes in the ground surface during steaming and recovery Volume 1, Section 3.13
3.10.2 operations (e.g., ground heave and/or subsidence) and their environmental implications.
Impact Assessment [C] Provide a mitigation plan. Volume 1, Section 8.5.2
Volume 4, Section 9.6.2
[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on terrain and soils and AOSC’s plans to Volume 4, Sections 9.6.3, 9.7.3
3.10.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts on terrain and Volume 1, Section 8
Monitoring soils. Volume 4, Section 9.8
3.11 Land Use
[A] Identify the current land uses, including oil and gas development, agriculture, forestry, Volume 5, Section 13.5
tourism, aboriginal uses and other outdoor recreational activities.
3.11.1 [B] Identify and map all Crown land and Crown Reservations. Volume 5, Section 13.5.9
Baseline Information [C] Identify and map unique sites or special features. Volume 5, Section 13.5.3
[D] Identify any land use policies and resource management initiatives that pertain to the Volume 5, Section 13.5.2
Project, and discuss how the Project will be consistent with the intent of these initiatives.
[A] Identify the potential impact of the Project on land uses. Volume 5, Section 13.6
3.11.2 [B] Discuss possible mitigation strategies. Volume 5, Section 13.6
Impact Assessment [C] Describe the residual effects of the Project on land use and AOSC’s plans to manage those Volume 5, Section 13.6
effects.
3.11.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project impacts on land use. Volume 1, Sections 7.4.1 and 7.8
Monitoring Volume 5, Section 13.8
4 HISTORIC RESOURCES
4 [A] Describe consultation with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) concerning the Volume 5, Section 15
HISTORIC need for a Historic Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the Project, and provide a
RESOURCES general overview of the results of any historic resource studies.
5 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE
5 [A] Provide a description of the extent of traditional use of land in the Project Area. Volume 5, Section 16
TRADITIONAL [B] Determine the impact of the Project on traditional uses and identify possible mitigation Volume 5, Section 16
ECOLOGICAL strategies.
KNOWLEDGE AND
LAND USE


6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT
6 [A] Describe those aspects of the Project that may have implications for public health. Volume 2, Section 4, Appendices 4B
PUBLIC HEALTH and 4C
AND SAFETY
ASSESSMENT [B] Describe those aspects of the Project that may have implications for public safety. Volume 1, Sections 6.1
7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
[A] Describe the existing socio-economic conditions in the region and in the communities in the Volume 5, Section 14.5
7.1
region.
[B] Describe factors that may affect existing socio-economic conditions. Volume 5, Section 14.5
[A] Describe the socio-economic effects of construction and operation of the Project. Volume 5, Sections 14.6, 14.7, 14.8
[B] Describe the socio-economic effects of any construction camp required for the Project. Volume 5, Section 14.7.3
7.2
[C] Discuss options for mitigating impacts. Volume 5, Sections 14.6, 14.7, 14.8
Impact Assessment
[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on socio-economic conditions and AOSC’s plans Volume 5, Sections 14.6, 14.7, 14.9
to manage those effects.
7.3 [A] Describe the monitoring programs proposed to assess any Project socio-economic impacts. Volume 5, Section 14.9
Monitoring

B-1 Glossary and List of Acronyms
B1 ACRONYMS
3D Three-Dimensional
4D Four-Dimensional
7Q10 Seven-Day 10-Year Low Flow
AAAQO Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives
AAC Annual Allowable Cut
AADAC Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts
AAFC Agriculture and Agri Food Canada
AAQC Ambient Air Quality Criterion
ACB Alberta Cancer Board
ACD Alberta Community Development
ACFN Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ACS American Cancer Society
AED Alberta Economic Development
AENV Alberta Environment
AFRD Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
AGCC Alberta Ground Cover Classification
AGRASID Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database
AIC Agricultural Institute of Canada
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
ALCRC Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council
Al-Pac Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.
AMS Ambient Monitoring Station
ANC Acid Neutralizing Capacity
AOSC Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation
ARET Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics
ASIC Alberta Soil Information Centre
ASIR Age-Standardized Incidence Rate
ASMR Age-Standardized Mortality Rate
ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
ASWQG Alberta Surface Water Quality Guidelines
ATC Athabasca Tribal Council
AVI Alberta Vegetation Inventory

AWI Alberta Wetland Inventory

BCC Boreal Caribou Committee
BFW Boiler Feedwater
BMCL Benchmark Concentration Level
BMDL Benchmark Dose Level
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
bpd barrels per day
BS&W Basic Sediments and Water
BSL Basic Sound Level
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes
C&R Conservation and Reclamation
CAC Criteria Air Contaminant
CanSIS Canadian Soil Information System
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CEMA Cumulative Environmental Management Association
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
CNS Central Nervous System
COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern
COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
CPP Caribou Protection Plans
CWS Canada-wide Standard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
dS/m deciSiemens per metre
DST Drill Stem Test
EC Electrical Conductivity
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELC Ecological Land Classification
EMS Environmental Management System
ERCB Alberta Energy Resources and Conservation Board
ERP Emergency Response Plan

FMA Forest Management Agreement

GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GLC Ground-Level Concentration
GSA Geological Study Area
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HRIA Historical Resources Impact Assessment
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
HSI Habitat Suitability Index
HU Habitat Units
IDA Initial Development Area
+
keq H /ha/y kiloequivalent Hydrogen ions per hectare per year
Leq Equivalent continuous sound level
LSA Local Study Area
MARP Measurements, Accounting and Reporting Plan
masl metres above sea level
mbsl metres below sea level
MCFN Mikisew Cree First Nation
MCF MacKay River Central Field
MCP MacKay River Central Plant
MNF MacKay River North Field
MNP MacKay River North Plant
MRCP MacKay River Commercial Project
n/a Not Applicable
NTS National Topographic Survey
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OBIP Original Bitumen In Place
OTSG Once Through Steam Generator
P&NG Petroleum and Natural Gas
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PAI Potential Acid Input
PCA Principal Components Analysis
PSL Permissible Sound Level
PVA Population Viability Analysis
PWL Sound Power Level
P-Y Person Year

Q20 20-year Safe Yield

RMWB Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
ROW Right-of-Way
RSA Regional Study Area
SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SARA Species at Risk Act
SCO Synthetic Crude Oil
SEIA Socio-Economic Impact Assessment
SIL Survey Intensity Level
SOR Steam Oil Ratio
TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TLV Threshold Limit Value
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TOR Terms of Reference
TPM Total Particulate Matter
TPR Timber Productivity Rating
TVD True Vertical Depth
TWA Time Weighted Average
VRU Vapour Recovery Unit

B2 GLOSSARY
Abiotic Non-living factors that influence an ecosystem, such as climate, geology
and soil characteristics.
Acid Anion Negatively charged ion that does not react with hydrogen ion in the pH
range of most natural waters.
Acid Cation Hydrogen ion or metal ion that can hydrolyze water to produce hydrogen
ions (e.g., ionic forms of aluminum, manganese and iron).
Acid Neutralizing The equivalent capacity of a solution to neutralize strong acids. Acid
Capacity Neutralizing Capacity can be calculated as the difference between non-
marine base cations and strong anions.
Admixing The dilution of topsoil with subsoil, spoil or waste material, with the result
that topsoil quality is reduced. Admixing can result in adverse changes in
topsoil texture, poor soil aggregation and structure, loss of organic matter
and decrease in friability.
Adsorption The surface retention of solid, liquid or gas particles by a solid or a liquid.
Alberta Vegetation A GIS mapping system and digital forest inventory. It includes tree
Inventory species, height, canopy closure, stand age, site conditions. and non-
commercial vegetated and nonvegetated cover types.
Aquiclude A low-permeability unit that forms either the upper or lower boundary of a
ground-water system.
Aquifer A permeable body of rock or soil that stores and transmits groundwater in
sufficient quantity to supply wells.
Aquitard A material of intermediate permeability between an aquifer and an
aquiclude. An aquitard allows some measure of leakage between the
aquifers it separates.
Basic Sound Level The allowable sound level at a residential location, as defined by the
current EUB Directive, with the inclusion of industrial presence based
upon dwelling unit density and proximity to transportation noise sources.
Biodiversity Ranking The relative contribution of an ecosite phase/wetlands type to the overall
biological diversity of an area.
Bog Ombrotrophic, acidic, peat-forming wetlands that receives its surface
moisture from precipitation. Characterized by a level, raised or sloping
peat surface with hollows and hummocks.
Canopy An overhanging cover, shelter or shade. The tallest layer of vegetation in
an area.
Cervid Of the family Cervidae, which includes elk, deer, moose and caribou.
Depositional habitat An aquatic environment where the bottom material consists of fine
sediments. It refers to portions of watercourses or waterbodies where
water movement is very slow allowing fine sediments that may be in
suspension to settle out and become deposited on the bottom.
Ecological Land A means of classifying landscapes by integrating landforms, soils and
Classification vegetation components in a hierarchical manner.
Ecoregion Ecological regions that have broad similarities with respect to soil, terrain

and dominant vegetation.

Ecosite Ecological units that develop under similar environmental influences
(climate, moisture and nutrient regime). Ecosites are groups of one or
more ecosite phases that occur within the same portion of the
moisture/nutrient grid. Ecosite is a functional unit defined by the moisture
and nutrient regime. It is not tied to specific landforms or plant
communities, but is based on the combined interaction of biophysical
factors that together dictate the availability of moisture and nutrients for
plant growth.
Ecosite Phase A subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant tree species in the
canopy. On some sites where the tree canopy is lacking, the tallest
structural vegetation layer determines the ecosite phase.
Ecosystem An integrated and stable association of living and non-living resources
functioning within a defined physical location. A community of organisms
and its environment functioning as an ecological unit. For the purposes of
assessment, the ecosystem must be defined according to a particular unit
and scale.
Equivalent Land The capability of land to support various land uses after reclamation is
Capability similar to the ability that existed prior to any activity on the land, but the
ability to support individual land uses will not necessarily be equal after
reclamation.
Extirpated A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in
the world.
Fen Minerotropic peat-forming wetlands that receive surface moisture from
precipitation and groundwater. Fens are less acidic than bogs, deriving
most of their water from groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium.
Fragmentation The process of breaking into pieces or sections. For example, dividing
contiguous tracts of land into smaller and less connected sections
through site clearing (e.g., for roads).
Furbearer Mammals that have traditionally been trapped or hunted for their fur.
Hydraulic Conductivity The permeability of soil or rock to water.

Marsh A non-peat-forming (generally <40 cm of accumulated organics), nutrient-
rich wetlands characterized by fluctuating water levels.
Muskeg A soil type comprised primarily of organic matter. Also known as bog
peat. A swamp or bog formed by an accumulation of sphagnum moss,
leaves and decayed matter resembling peat. Prevalent in Canada and
Alaska and part of the North American boreal forest biome.
Non-vascular plant Plants that do not possess conductive tissues (e.g., veins) for the
transport of water and food.
Patch An area that is different from the area around it (e.g., vegetation types,
non-forested areas). This term is used to recognize that most ecosystems
are not homogeneous, but rather exist as a group of patches or ecological
islands that are recognizably different from the parts of the ecosystem that
surround them but nevertheless interact with them.
Peat A material composed almost entirely of organic matter from the partial
decomposition of plants growing in wet conditions.

Potential Acid Input A composite measure of acidification determined from the relative
quantities of deposition from background and industrial emissions of
sulphur, nitrogen and base cations.
Propagules Root fragments, seeds, and other plant materials that can develop into a
plant under the right conditions.
Richness The number of species in a biological community (e.g., habitat).
Riffle A reach of stream that is characterized by shallow, fast-moving water
broken by the presence of rocks and boulders.
Riparian Refers to terrain, vegetation or simply a position next to or associated
with a stream, flood plain, or standing waterbody.
Run Habitat Areas of swiftly flowing water, without surface waves, that approximate
uniform flow and in which the slope of water surface is roughly parallel to
the overall gradient of the stream reach.
Swamp Forested, wooded or shrub-dominated non-peat-forming wetlands.
Transpiration Transpiration is the process by which water is transferred from soil and
plant surfaces to the atmosphere.
Understory Those trees or other vegetation in a forest stand below the main canopy
level.
Uplands Areas where the soil is not saturated for extended periods as indicated by
vegetation and soils.
Upset Conditions An acute time period within which usual conditions become highly
unfavourable; severity and duration may vary.
Vascular Plant Plants possessing conductive tissues (e.g., veins) for the transport of
water and food.

MacKay River Commercial Project D-1 Project Application
December 2009
D1 CONSULTATION SUMMARY
The following Summary provides details related to consultation undertaken by Athabasca Oil
Sands Corp. in relation to its MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project. Groups and individuals
identified by name. There is also a Multi-Group Consultation Summary at the end of this
Summary.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Lisa King
Director of Industry Relations, Athabasca Chipewyan First
Nation
Notification package Summary: Sent out MacKay River SAGD Commercial Terms of Reference notification
8 Apr 2009 package to ACFN IRC.
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney
Letter Merged Event

28 Apr 2009
Participants: Summary: Letter sent to Mr. Peace re: ACFN's participation in contributing to the TLU
Lisa King section of the MacKay River TLU section. Letter attached. Letter was copied to Ms.
Director of Industry Lisa King, Executive Director of the ACFN IRC.
Relations - Athabasca Stakeholder Comments: Jerry received a response via mail on approximately May 27,
Chipewyan First Nation 2009. ACFN requested a meeting to discuss the process.
Ian Peace Team Response: Follow up: Ken Shipley emailed Mr. Peace on May 19th requesting
Project Manager - his thoughts on the letter.
Athabasca Chipewyan First
Nation IRC On June 8th, AOSC offered to meet and provided possible dates of June 24th, 25th,
Team Members: or 26th.
Jerry Demchuk
Ken Shipley Outcome: Matter discussed a Sept. 1, 2009 meeting. AOSC provided Mr. Peace with
the follow up email and a copy of his letter to AOSC in September.
Ian Peace
Project Manager, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation IRC
Email Summary: Dropped off TLU agreement and emailed electronic version of TLU
20 Aug 2009 agreement to ACFN (separate dates) - for review.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments: Ian requested the marked up version from our lawyers to
Sheri Pidhirney send to ACFN lawyers – Sheri agreed to send by September 8th. Follow up meeting
scheduled with Ian Peace and Lisa King on September 2nd at 9a.m .in Calgary.
Meeting Summary: AOSC provided update on AOSC activities, ACFN’s involvement in the
1 Sep 2009 developing the TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Application,
review of the Commercial Application. Note: Ms. King was a participant for a portion of
Team Members: this meeting.
Sheri Pidhirney
Project Updates:
Ken Shipley
 Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs) for the Dover Pilot Project have been
submitted to regulators. There is one issue outstanding with another oil and gas
company.
 The well pads associated with this project could become part of any commercial
project that may occur.
 The MacKay Commercial Project will be 35,000 barrels a day of bitumen,
ultimately climbing to 150,000 barrels of oil a day.

December 2009
Ian Peace
 The Terms of Reference for the Commercial Project have been finalized and the
plan is to have the Commercial Application filed by the end of 2009.
 Two and half years of field data has been collected.
Comment: Lisa King stated ACFN wants ACFN members to be part of the data
collection – both Traditional Knowledge Holders and helpers.
Jerry Demchuk stated the first season of collecting baseline information on the Dover
North lease is underway so there is an opportunity to include knowledge holders and
helpers in that process.
Action: Jerry will look into the possibility of this happening.
 Jerry explained that PetroChina has purchased 60% of the MacKay River and
Dover leases. AOSC is the operating company.
 AOSC will be preparing a letter to First Nations explaining the PetroChina
relationship in more detail.
 The Winter Exploration Programs on all leases will be 70-80 wells. OSEs have
not been submitted.
Action: Send OSEs to Ian with copies to Lisa.

Action: OSE maps to show primary and potential wells.
Action: Mail hard copies of OSEs to Ian’s attention General Delivery, Fort Chipewyan.
IRC Funding:
The IRC requested a response to the August 31, 2009 letter regarding the IRC funding
requirements.
Action: Jerry will review this request and respond by the end of the week. Request
subsequently met.
Traditional Land Use and Traditional Environmental Knowledge:
 Discussed were two options for ACFN involvement in providing its traditional
knowledge in the MacKay River Application:
1. Prior to Application Filing
2. Post Application Filing
The last day to include the information in the Application would be the first week of
November. Ian felt the knowledge sharing and assessment could not be complete by
ACFN until the third quarter of 2010. This would allow the information to be included in
the SIRs.
Jerry saw the sharing of traditional knowledge as an on-going process.
Action: AOSC to send marked up version of ACFN’s TLU Agreement to Ian.

Action: Ian will provide AOSC’s comments to the First Nation’s lawyer.
Action: Ian will decide on a suitable process and costs for ACFN’s participation in
informing the TLU/TEK section of the MacKay Application and
Sheri recommended that the parties look at establishing a bi-lateral agreement to

December 2009
Ian Peace
define ACFN’s involvement “on the land” going forward.
Action: If the above approach is desired, the parties will seek existing government
funding.
ACFN expressed an interest in conducting joint core hole assessments using traditional
knowledge for this year’s winter work program.
ACFN needs to understand the spatial impacts of the Dover North Winter Work
Program.
Action: AOSC to get the spatial impacts from Matrix and forward to Ian.
Action: AOSC to discuss this matter with its field personnel.
Action: Sheri to send Ian Shape Files for this year’s Winter Exploration Program.
Action: AOSC to provide Ian with status of baseline work on the MacKay lease.
MacKay SAGD Application Technical Review:
 ACFN uses Petr Komers and is willing to share his Technical Review of the
Application with other First Nations.
Action: The IRC will establish a community engagement process AOSC can
use that will include getting advice from the community on the impacts of the
project and a process for validating those impacts. This cannot occur until
after the technical review is complete.
 ACFN’s recommendation is that an open house be held after the Application is

filed and after ACFN completes its assessment of impacts.
 ACFN has identified a cultural training program that will cost $65,000. There
was a discussion without decision that AOSC could fund all or part of this
program.
Traditional Land Use Summary: Sent note in the Team Response to Mr. Peace as he requested on Sept. 1,
10 Sep 2009 2009. It is the response to ACFN letter of May 19 re: ACFN's involvement in the TLU
Team Members: and TEK section of the MacKay Commercial Project.
Ken Shipley Team Response: "We received a mailed copy of your letter dated May 19th. (No faxed
copies were received.) Jerry Demchuk asked me to respond. We would welcome a
meeting with you to discuss the points in your letter. I am in Fort McMurray on June
24th, June 25th and 26th. I arrive at 3:15 p.m. on the 24th and can rearrange my
schedule on any of these three days to have a meeting with ACFN."
Traditional Land Use Summary: Sent marked up version of TEK Agreement to Mr. Peace including Petro-
14 Sep 2009 China Partnership public notice as he requested on Sept. 1, 2009.
Team Members: Team Response: Revised TEK agreement attached for Mr. Peace's review.
Sheri Pidhirney
Attachments:
- aosc_2009_tk_agreement-acfn.doc
Email Summary: AOSC agreed to increased annual membership fee for 2009-10.
14 Sep 2009 Stakeholder Comments: Thank you for recognizing our need for additional funding.
Team Members: Team Response: Hi Ian,

December 2009
Ian Peace
Sheri Pidhirney As per your request per our meeting a couple of weeks ago, AOSC has agreed to the
increase in our membership fee at the rates put forward by ACFN.
Please invoice us accordingly.

Email Summary: AOSC requested information about training program for doing traditional
27 Sep 2009 assessment referenced in Sept. 1 meeting.
Team Members:
Ken Shipley
Email Summary: Provided Ms. King and Mr. Peace a draft copy of the Sept 1 meeting notes
5 Oct 2009 for review.
Team Members:
Ken Shipley
Email Summary: Email update from Mr. Ian Peace regarding ACFN's business arrangements
29 Oct 2009 and joint venture activities.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments: Sheri and Jerry,
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney ACFN Business Group has entered into a Joint Venture with Allnorth Consultants
Limited. Allnorth provides a wide range of construction services in the region. The
name of the new company is ACFN Allnorth.
For your convenience Darryl Bell, Allnorth Director of Corporate Development and
David Castley, Allnorth Fort McMurray Division Manager, are cc’d.
For development work in the oilsands region, I encourage you to consider ACFN
Allnorth.
If you have any questions about the new Joint Venture please contact Bryn Botham,
ACFN Business Group Chief Financial Officer.
Email Summary: AOSC followed up on status of TLU and Consultation Agreements, draft
13 Nov 2009 meeting notes and proposal for TLU training from ACFN who have these items to
Team Members: consider.
Ken Shipley
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation

Shaun Janvier
Executive Director, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
8 Apr 2009 package to CPDFN IRC.
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney

December 2009
Fred (Jumbo) Fraser

Fort Chipewyan
Traditional Land Use Summary: AOSC met with Mr. Fraser to discuss the Metis' traditional use of the
24 Jul 2009 MacKay River Lease area and identify potential impact and mitigation measures as
required. Stakeholder Comments are a summary of the interview only.
Stakeholder Comments: Mr. Fraser's grandfather and great-grandfather transported
furs to Fort Chipewyan up the Athabasca River. The Metis hunted in the Fort
Chipewyan area and along the Athabasca River. After the fur trade ended (Mr. Fraser,
who is 71 years old was not involved in the fur trade) the Metis hunted, fished and
gathered in the Fort Chipewyan area. Mr. Fraser believes the Bennett Dam has
caused the environmental impacts on Fort Chipewyan. He does not believe the
MacKay River SAGD Project will have an impact on the Metis people of Fort
Chipewyan but states that industry must understand its cumulative affects and
mitigate any impacts.
Team Response: Mr. Fraser's input will be included in the TLU section of the MacKay
River Application.
Fort McKay (Fort McKay First Nation and Fort McKay IRC)
Marie Lagimodiere
Fort McKay IRC
Email Summary: AOSC followed up with Ms. Lagimodiere to determine if the Company was
1 Oct 2009 meeting with David Spink the week of Oct. 9 to discuss the air matrix to understand
Team Members: Fort McKay information requirements for the MacKay River SAGD Commercial
Jerry Demchuk Project. This was an action out of a meeting with Lisa Schaldemose on Sept. 17th.
Team Response: Ms. Lagimodiere will check on Mr. Spink's availability.
Outcome: Air quality modeling assessment approach and methodology approach was
discussed. Parties agreed approach was appropriate for the Project.
Zachery Powder
Trapper, Fort McKay First Nation
Traditional Land Use Summary: AOSC met with Mr. Powder to discuss his traditional knowledge about the
26 May 2009 MacKay River Lease and potential impacts of the SAGD project on his trapline. Note:
Team Members: other Fort McKay knowledge holders present who do not hold RFMAs on the MacKay
Ken Shipley Lease were Edward Rolland and Maurice McDonald.
Stakeholder Comments: Mr. Powder uses the area for trapping and hunting. His
concerns about development on his trapline are:
Loss of trees, air pollution, loss of wildlife in the area, changing creek routes, loss of
beavers, and cutlines take away food from the moose, loss of traditional trails, Traffic
brings other people into the territory to hunt.
Potential Mitigation recommended include:
Talk to trappers before we do the work. Maybe they can trap the beaver.
Let us know what you are doing before you do it
Do not roll back everything – work with government so you don’t have to
Mr. Powder is also concerned that AOSC built a camp on his line and did not tell him
or compensate him.
Team Response: AOSC will meet with Mr. Powder before any work is done on his line
this coming winter.
His concerns will be given to those developing the Application.

AOSC will find out whose camp was on his line.

December 2009
Lisa Schaldemose
Executive Director, Fort McKay IRC
8 Apr 2009 package to Fort McKay FN IRC.
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney
Meeting Summary: Regular meeting with Fort McKay IRC.
15 Apr 2009 Stakeholder Comments: Lisa indicated that a Chief and Council Meeting were held
Team Members: the previous Thursday and Fort McKay at the meeting Mike Orr indicated that AOSC
Sheri Pidhirney had not consulted with him on their projects. Lisa called and left a message for Sheri
to respond.
Lisa also indicated that David Bouchier was concerned that there was drilling activity
between Moose Lake and Buffalo Lake – was the activity from AOSC?
Upcoming meeting in Kelowna was discussed (April 21st meeting) – Lisa suggested
we give Chief Jim Boucher a brief description of our plans for Dover and MacKay
River leases.
Team Response: AOSC responded with a report on several meetings we have had
with Mike and Marlene over the last 6 months.
Our response was no - the activity between Moose Lake and Buffalo Lake was not
AOSC activity.
Follow-up:
- Determine location for next meeting on June 18th.
- Forward notes from meetings with Mike Orr to Lisa Schaldemose
- Book travel and registration for PBLI conference in Ottawa.
Outcomes:
- Agreed to forward meeting notes with Mike Orr.
Phone call Summary: Discussion regarding incorporating Fort McKay Specific Assessment into
21 Apr 2009 the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Application.
Team Members: Team Response: Follow up: AOSC to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to
Jerry Demchuk receiving and reviewing the Fort McKay Specific Assessment.
Sheri Pidhirney
Ken Shipley

December 2009
Lisa Schaldemose
Executive Director, Fort McKay IRC
Letter Summary: Ms. Schaldemose provided with letter offering to have Fort McKay
29 Apr 2009 participation in the TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments & Follow up: On May 25th Ms. Schaldemose via email gave
Jerry Demchuk go ahead for AOSC and Fort McKay to work together on the TLU section with the
Ken Shipley proviso that the traditional land users group choose who is to be involved in the fly-
over and that Fort McKay will choose the traditional land owners.
Team Response & Follow up: Ken Shipley emailed Ms. Schaldemose on May 19 to
follow up on the letter.
Outcome: Ken Shipley met with Dan Stuckless of the Fort McKay IRC to initiate the
project. Tentative meeting with Mr. Stuckless and Fort McKay traditional landowners
set for June 18th, 2009.
Dan Stuckless
Fort McKay IRC
Meeting Summary: Meeting to initiate TLU work for the MacKay River SAGD Commercial
29 May 2009 Project.
Fort McMurray Stakeholder Comments: Follow up: Mr. Stuckless will contact Ann Garibaldi on
Team Members: Monday June 1 to bring her up to speed on the project and to get her input.
Ken Shipley
He will let me know on May 29 which traditional land users he has identified to
participate in the project.
Phone call Summary: Follow up to organize fly over of MacKay River Lease with Traditional Land
29 Jul 2009 Users in Fort McKay.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments: - Will determine availability of traditional land users for
Ken Shipley August 18th for flyover.
Will determine IRC staff availability for August 18th as well.

Team Response: AOSC welcomes IRC participation to ensure land users have no
concerns and so IRC can follow up if concerns are raised subsequently to August
18th.
Traditional Land Use Summary: Email received from Mr. Stuckless indicating the traditional land users who
31 Jul 2009 requested to go on the flyover of the MacKay River lease to follow up on the
Team Members: interviews conducted with them re: MacKay River Commercial Project are willing to go
Sheri Pidhirney on the flyover.
Ken Shipley Stakeholder Comments: Travel arrangements for Mr. Powder and Mr. Rolland to be
confirmed.
Also concern raised by Mr. Powder about the need to consult with AOSC on the camp
on his trapline.
Team Response& Follow up:
Ken Shipley will confirm August 18th as the flyover date.
Ken has forwarded Mr. Powder's concern to Sheri Pidhirney but also indicated he is
not aware of any camp on his trapline.

December 2009
Email Merged Event

1 May 2009
Participants: Summary: Email to Ms. Schaldemose outlining the company's project submissions to
Michael Orr regulators to date.
Trapper & Councillor - Fort Stakeholder Comments: Mike Orr requested an outline of projects submitted to the
McKay First Nation regulators by AOSC and to be sent to Ms. Schaldemose.
Lisa Schaldemose
Executive Director - Fort Team Response: Timelines referenced above provided.
McKay IRC
Team Members: AOSC Project Plans:
Sheri Pidhirney 1. Dover Central Pilot - filed June 2, 2008
1st round of SIRs completed and submitted
2nd round of SIRs being completed
Anticipated approval - June 2009
2. MacKay River Pilot - filed October 14th, 2008

1st round of SIRs - being completed
Anticipated Approval - Oct/Nov 2009
3. MacKay River SAGD Project (30,000 bpd)

Proposed TOR out for Public Comment - April 2009
(ends May 21st, 2009)
Submission of Regulatory Application - End of 2009
Traditional Land Use Merged Event

26 June 2009
Fort McKay
Participants: Summary: Traditional Land Use Meeting for TLU section of Commercial SAGD
Zachery Powder Project.
Trapper - Fort McKay First Stakeholder Comments:
Nation  Loss of trees
Dan Stuckless  Pollution
Fort McKay IRC  Chase animals away
Edward Rolland  Change creek routes
Trapper – Fort McKay First  Ground water disturbance
Nation  Loss of beavers
 Cutlines take away food from the moose
 Loss of traditional trails
Maurice McDonald
 Traffic brings other people into the territory to hunt
Trapper-Fort McKay First
Nation Potential Mitigation recommended by Trappers:
Team Members:  Talk to trappers before we do the work. Maybe they can trap the beaver.
 Let us know what you are doing before you do it
Ken Shipley  Do not roll back everything – work with government so you don’t have to
History:
Zachery’s trapline used to belong to Alphonse Powder
Sites:
 AOSC needs to GPS Zachery’s cabin - may not be on the AOSC lease
 Maurice has a cabin near a one-lane bridge – the map I had did not show the
bridge and we couldn’t find it – not likely on AOSC lease – may find during
flyover
 There are no known gathering sites on or around the lease. Camp sites were
along the Athabasca River from Fort McMurray to Fort McKay
 There are no known grave sites on the lease

December 2009

26 June 2009
Fort McKay
 There is a “south slew trail” but trappers could not identify it (May find via
flyover)
 There are no known cabin sites
 No known traditional plants in the area
Cree/Dene Names:
 Only one offered was that the McKay River is called “Red River” by Fort
McKay people
Activities:
 Zachery only traps on line. He does not carry out other traditional activities
 Edward has not hunted in the general area for about 15 years. Use to hunt
moose and camp
 Zachery and Edward said there is not very good fishing in the area of the
lease. Maybe there some pickerel and jackfish.
 Amount of fur harvest not available from trappers
 Trapping consist of martens, lynx, beaver. There are more beavers than
before

18 Aug 2009
Fort McMurray
Participants: Summary: AOSC provided Mr. Powder with a fly over of his trapline to identify any
Zachery Powder important sites on his line. AOSC also consulted with Mr. Powder and Mr. Stuckless
Trapper - Fort McKay First on the MacKay River road.
Nation Stakeholder Comments: Mr. Powder said AOSC was supposed to leave wood for him
Dan Stuckless last winter at his cabin and did not. He does not believe he received a compensation
Fort McKay IRC cheque from AOSC last year. Also believes AOSC built a camp near Willow Creek
and he was not compensated for it.
Team Members:
Sheri Pidhirney Mr. Powder had no issues at that time with the road. However, Mr. Stuckless
Ken Shipley requested our application to DFO for review.
Team Response: Sheri will track down the cancelled cheque she provided to Mr.
Powder in November. Cheque was given to the IRC who in return provided it to Lucy
Richer, Mr. Powder’s daughter.
The route of road was shared with Mr. Stuckless and Mr. Powder.
Ken will follow up to determine the company that owned the camp. AOSC to provide
Mr. Stuckless with the GPS points of the camp location that Mr. Powder believes was
AOSC's camp. Mr. Stuckless is going to use the points and the rough map AOSC sent
him showing the location of the campsite in his discussion with SRD to determine
whose site this is. The GPS points put the campsite east of AOSC leases.
Fort McMurray #468 First Nation

Doreen Somers
Executive Director, Fort McMurray #468 First Nation IRC
8 Apr 2009 package to FMFN #468 IRC.
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney

December 2009
Doreen Somers
Executive Director, Fort McMurray #468 First Nation IRC
Letter Summary: Sent a letter offering Fort McMurray #468 First Nation participation in the
28 Apr 2009 TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments: No response to date.
Jerry Demchuk Team Response: Ken emailed Ms. Somers on May 19 and re-sent the letter to follow
Ken Shipley up.
Meeting Summary: Meeting held to review Winter Work Programs on MacKay and Dover
29 Oct 2009 leases and the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project production, timing of
Team Members: Application and discuss future consultation.
Sheri Pidhirney Stakeholder Comments: Ms. Somers reported on the First Nations main priority being
Ken Shipley that of a multi-use community centre.
Follow up: Ms. Somers is investigating the possibility of sharing the consultants for
technical reviews with other First Nations.
Ms. Somers did not think we needed to host an Open House in the community, as the
FN does not have the facilities to host an open house. However, she would like to
opportunity for the Fort McMurray FN members to attend the Fort McMurray Open
House.
Team Response: Outcomes: AOSC will join the Fort McMurray #468 First Nation.
Funding and non-producers membership agreement will be in effect until March 31,
2009. Ms. Somers will send an invoice for the total amount owed.
The parties will discuss the technical review i.e., scope, cost and consultants being
used at a later date.
Parties will also discuss in more detail transportation of First Nation members to Fort
McMurray for an open house related to the Commercial Project.
Metis Local # 1935

Brenda Blake
General Manager, Metis Local #1935
Notification package Summary: Sent MacKay River SAGD Commercial Terms of Reference notification
8 Apr 2009 package to Metis Local 1935.
Team Members: Team Response & Outcome:
Jerry Demchuk See May 21st meeting with Mr. Dragon et al.
Sheri Pidhirney
Dick Dragon
President, Metis Local #1935
Letter Summary: Letter mailed offering to include participation of traditional land users from
28 Apr 2009 Local #1935 in the TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project.
Team Members: Stakeholder Comments:
Jerry Demchuk Follow up: at a meeting on May 21, Mr. Dragon informed Ken Shipley and Sheri
Ken Shipley Pidhirney that he had not seen the TLU letter of invitation. Mr. Dragon also indicated
the Local would not be making decisions on various matters until a new General
Manager was in place. This position was vacant as of May 21. In a subsequent
discussion with the new General Manager, it was decided that AOSC would seek Mr.
Gary Pliska’s permission to share the TLU information he provided with the Local to
inform their Mark of the Metis Project.
Team Response: Follow up: Ken Shipley faxed letter to Dana at the Metis Local office
as requested on or about May 22.

December 2009
May-Britt Jahelka
General Manager, Fort McMurray Metis Local #1935
Meeting Summary: AOSC provided an overview of the company and its activities, the invitation
8 Oct 2009 to participate in providing input into the TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD
Team Members: Commercial Application. The Local outlined their priorities as: Land acquisition,
Rupert Kelly revisiting the cultural centre initiative, increasing the size of the annual golf
Sheri Pidhirney tournament, moving the relationship with AOSC forward.
Ken Shipley Stakeholder Comments: Local priorities are Land acquisition, review cultural centre,
increase size of yearly golf tournament and complete Mark of the Metis Project.
Team Response & Follow up: Share information about Gary Pliska’s trapline with the
Local for the Mark of the Metis project.
The parties will develop a joint work plan leading to an MOU for 2010, and including
setting up an Elders’ committee, AOSC’s participation in the Local’s priorities.
Sheri to do a summary of AOSC-Local relationship to date and a first draft of the work
plan.
Sheri to provide electronic version of the Dover and MacKay maps.
Rupert to provide names of acronyms shown on the Dover and MacKay maps.
AOSC will provide the Local with a half-day course on “Regulatory Affairs 101”.
Sheri to send electronic version of Exploration based newsletter to the Local.
Meeting Merged Event

21 May 2009
Fort McMurray
Participants: Summary: Meeting was to provide Metis Local #1935 with an update on AOSC plans
Dick Dragon and discuss status of Local #1935 matters.
President - Metis Local Stakeholder Comments: Mr. Dragon did not receive letter offering Metis Local 1935
#1935 participation in the TLU section of the MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project.
Dana Patterson-Lacorde
Executive Assistant - Metis All activities with industry are on hold until the appointment of a new General
Local #1935 Manager.
Ryan Pruden There are elections for the Local's Board of Directors this summer but no date set for
Owner - Wapoose Medial Annual General Meeting.
Services Team Response: Follow up: Ken Shipley to fax TLU letter to Ms. Patterson-Lacorde.
Team Members: This action was complete on or about May 22.
Sheri Pidhirney
Ken Shipley Sheri informed the group that we might not be proceeding with the Dover Pilot Plant;
that we plan to file an application for a Commercial SAGD Project on the MacKay
River lease by year's end and provided general locations of the leases.
Sheri made a commitment for AOSC to be involved in the Local's golf tournament.

December 2009
Mikisew Cree First Nation

Melody Lepine, Executive Director, GIR
8 Apr 2009 package to MCFN GIR.
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney

17 Sep 2009
Participants: Summary: Meeting re: MCFN interim agreement, Traditional Land Use Assessment for
Melody Lepine MacKay River SAGD Application, Open House for MacKay River Commercial
Executive Director - Application, Christmas Parties, and MacKay River Pilot Project.
Mikisew Cree First Nation Stakeholder Comments & Actions:
GIR Ms. Lepine to send an invoice for AOSC’s membership in the GIR for 2009.
Cathleen O'Brien
Regulatory Affairs Ms. Lepine to provide AOSC with a set of questions GIR typically asks in their reviews
Coordinator - Mikisew Cree so they may be considered for the MacKay SAGD Project.
First Nation Government
and Industry Relations In the Spring of 2010, MCFN will identify people who are familiar with the MacKay
River Lease hand have them work with AOSC to identify gaps in the TLU section of
Team Members: the Commercial Application. MCFN noted that it has its own TLU assessment
Jerry Demchuk process. At the August 18 meeting, they described this process. MCFN will provide
Sheri Pidhirney AOSC with a scope of work and cost for following this process at the appropriate time.
Ken Shipley
Team Response: The process and protocol for conducting an open house with MCFN
members were discussed. No follow up required at this time.
Action:
AOSC to provide MCFN with comments on the interim agreement.
AOSC will respond in writing to MCFN’s technical review of the MacKay River Pilot
Project.
Gary Pliska, Trapper
9 Oct 2009
Participants: Summary: AOSC provided Mr. Pliska with update on company developments,
Gary Pliska suspension of the pilot projects and related roadwork, explanation of the winter work
Trapper - programs and an overview of the Commercial Project. Mr. Pliska was represented at
the meeting by Mr. Tony Punko.
Tony Punko
Executive Director - Wood Stakeholder Comments: Will there be any clearing this winter for the road?
Buffalo Metis Corp
Mr. Pliska asked if Mr. Punko could be compensated for his time in representing him
Team Members: at this meeting. Mr. Punko will send an invoice and his rates to Ken Shipley.
Rupert Kelly
Sheri Pidhirney
Ken Shipley Team Response: Discussion involved the potential need for Mr. Pliska to move his
cabin due to overall development on his line; potential business opportunities for Mr.
Pliska due to overall activities.
Commitments:
Sheri committed to approach Mr. Pliska first for security work.
Rupert committed to assist him with paperwork that may be required to support
potential business opportunities.
Sheri committed to increase compensation paid by using the new Fort McKay Matrix
should it be established during this winter drilling season.

December 2009

9 Oct 2009
Sheri committed to relocate Mr. Pliska’s cabin if our long-term development affects
the current location of his cabin.
AOSC committed to involve Mr. Pliska in interviews for the TLU and TEK sections of
the MacKay River Commercial Application and to compensate him for his time.
Currently, there are no plans to clear the road this winter.
AOSC will take the matter of compensation for Mr. Punko under advisement.
Wood Buffalo Metis Corp.

Tony Punko
Executive Director, Wood Buffalo Metis Corp
Canada
8 Apr 2009 package to WBMC
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk
Sheri Pidhirney
Damon Wright, Trapper

Damond Wright
Trapper
Site visit Summary: Matrix Solutions met with Mr. Wright to inform the TLU Section of the SAGD
18 Nov 2009 Commercial Application. He did not have any specific information that would relate to
the TEK work other than the trapping in the area is for marten, weasel and lynx.
Multi-Group Consultation
Notification package Merged Event
6 Mar 2009
Participants: Summary: Sent out application summary table of MacKay River SAGD Commercial
Brenda Blake Project to First Nations and Metis stakeholders.
General Manager - Metis
Local #1935
Fred (Jumbo) Fraser
President - Metis Local
#125
Shaun Janvier
Executive Director -
Chipewyan Prairie Dene
First Nation
Lisa King
Director of Industry
Relations - Athabasca
Chipewyan First Nation
Melody Lepine
GIR

December 2009

6 Mar 2009
Tony Punko
Executive Director - Wood
Buffalo Metis Corp
Ron Quintal
President - Metis Local
#63, Fort McKay
Lisa Schaldemose
Executive Director - Fort
McKay IRC
Doreen Somers
McMurray #468 First
Nation IRC
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk

9 Mar 2009
Participants: Summary: Participants provided with MacKay River SAGD Commercial Project First
Shaun Janvier Nation Consultation Plan.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene
First Nation
Lisa King
Director of Industry
Relations - Athabasca
Chipewyan First Nation
Melody Lepine
GIR
Lisa Schaldemose
McKay IRC
Doreen Somers
McMurray #468 First
Nation IRC
Team Members:
Jerry Demchuk

Volume 1

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

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MacKay River Commercial Project

· Overview · Public Consultation

· Introduction and Assessment Methodology

· Terrain and Soils

Submitted by: Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board

Attention: Mr. Ken Schuldhaus

Alberta Environment Alberta Environment

Attention: Mr. Pat Marriott Attention: Mr. Chris Powter

AOSC is seeking approval from:

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for:

Attachment: Application for Approval of the MacKay River Commercial Project

ALBERTA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

2 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL ........................................................................................2-1

3 GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR ............................................................................................3-1

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

3.13 RESERVOIR MONITORING ....................................................................................3-96

4 WELL DESCRIPTIONS .......................................................................................................4-1

5 FACILITIES DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................5-1

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS......................................................6-1

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

6.2 WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................6-3

7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................7-1

8 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN ..................................................................8-1

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

8.4.3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................8-11

9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY...................................................9-1

10 REFERENCES/LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................10-1

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

Figure 3.8-6 Structural Cross-Section AD-AD’ .......................................................................3-62

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

APPENDIX B GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS

APPENDIX C CORPORATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX D CONSULTATION SUMMARY

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

AOSC is seeking approval from:

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for:

Alberta Environment (AENV) to:

1.1 ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

undertaken and surface facilities located to mitigate potential environmental effects,

ATHABASCA OIL SANDS CORP.

Fort McKay No. 174

INDIAN RESERVE Peace River

Project Code: Technical: Date:

MACKAY RIVER NORTH PLANT

SUMP MRCP ROW

WATER SOURCE ROW

SALT CAVERN WELL

MACKAY RIVER CENTRAL PLANT

AM WATER SOURCE ROW

WATER SOURCE WELL

BORROW PIT 1 MRCP CAMP

STOCK PILE 1 MCP 34 kV ROW

BORROW PIT 4 River

MCP SEPTIC FIELD 34kV POWERLINE ROW

MNP DISPOSAL WELL MRCP CAMP NG PIPELINE ROW