CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT …library.cemaonline.ca/ckan/dataset/e7f32840-0091-4ae5-b3...Further work to understand potential cumulative effects of water withdrawal and SAGD operations

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (CEMA)

Report Disclaimer This report was commissioned by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). This report has been completed in accordance with the Working Group’s terms of reference. The Working Group has closed this project and considers this report final. The Working Group does not fully endorse all of the contents of this report, nor does the report necessarily represent the views or opinions of CEMA or the CEMA Members. The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are those of the consultant, and have neither been accepted nor rejected by the Working Group. Until such time as CEMA issues correspondence confirming acceptance, rejection, or non-consensus regarding the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, they should be regarded as information only.

For more information please contact CEMA at 780-799-3947.

***All information contained within this report is owned and copyrighted by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. As a user, you are granted a limited license to display or print the information provided for personal, non-commercial use only, provided the information is not modified and all copyright and other proprietary notices are retained. None of the information may be otherwise reproduced, republished or re-disseminated in any manner or form without the prior written permission of an authorized representative of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association.***

Cumulative Environmental Management Association Suite 214, 9914 Morrison Street

Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4A4 Phone: 780-799-3947

Facsimile: 780-714-3081 E-Mail: [email protected]

Website: www.cemaonline.ca

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cemaonline.ca/

- 1 - March 2014

Disclaimer

CONTRACT 2013-0028 Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water and Groundwater from Current and

Proposed In-Situ Oil Sands Operations SNC-Lavalin Inc.

The above named report was commissioned as part of the work of the Groundwater

Technical Group (GWTG), under the Water Working Group (WWG) of the Cumulative

Environmental Management Association (CEMA). The concerns that motivated this work

were raised in a letter from Fort McKay First Nations to CEMA on November 26, 2012. The

GWTG agreed that some of the concerns identified in the letter from Fort McKay First

Nations were currently being addressed by other organizations; however, others warranted

evaluation under a Phase I scoping study. The fundamental concern was whether there will

be enough water to support the level of proposed development without adverse impacts to

the river system.

SNC-Lavalin Inc. was contracted to assess the potential cumulative impacts to surface water

and groundwater from in-situ oil sands operations within the Mackay River Watershed. The

scoping study was to complete the following tasks:

Summarize the present state of knowledge to address potential cumulative impacts

to surface water and groundwater from current and proposed in-situ oil sands

operations;

Summarize EIA predictive models that assess the potential impact of groundwater

extraction on regional groundwater resources and flow in surface water bodies such

as the Mackay River;

Provide an assessment and discussion of specific concerns and prioritize the issues

regarding potential cumulative effects of SAGD operations on surface water and

groundwater in the Fort McKay region; and

Provide recommendations to address identified issues from the scope above to

ensure appropriate environmental goals are achieved including which organization(s)

should be responsible for conducting the proposed work.

The above named report has been completed in accordance with the WWG’s terms of

reference. The WWG has closed this project and considers this report final.

The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are those of the

consultant. The GWTG does not fully endorse all of the contents of this report, nor does the

report necessarily represent the views or opinions of CEMA or the CEMA Members. The

report presents a summary of select information from Environmental Impact Assessments

(EIAs) in the Athabasca area; however, the GWTG believes there are inconsistencies in the

conclusion and recommendations. Therefore the GWTG does not endorse the conclusions of

the report and they should be regarded as information only.

Recommendations for Future Work

Further work to understand potential cumulative effects of water withdrawal and SAGD

operations on surface water and groundwater in the Mackay River Watershed is being

evaluated by the GWTG.

For more information please contact CEMA at 780-799-3947.

SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment & Water 4

th Floor, 909 – 5 Ave SW

Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3G5 Telephone: 403.253.4333 Fax: 403.253.1975

CEMA Scientific Summary

CEMA Water Working Group/ Groundwater Technical Group

CEMA Contract Number:

2013-0028

Principle Investigators/Consultant:

SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment and Water Division

Dr Clement Agboma, PhD (Contributor)

John Jackson, MSc, PGeol (Project Hydrogeologist)

Lakshmin Bachu, MTech, MSc, PEng (Director, Prairie Region Operations Water and Rural

Development)

Dr Malcolm Reeves, PhD, FEC, FGC, PEng, PGeo (Senior Technical Advisor and Principle

Hydrogeologist)

Project Description:

There are several planned large in-situ oil sands projects in the Athabasca Oil Sands region near

the MacKay River, to which a variety of concerns have been raised regarding potential cumulative

effects of water use. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association - Groundwater

Technical Group requested SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment & Water division to summarize and

present the current state of knowledge related to potential cumulative impacts to surface water

and groundwater systems from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations in the MacKay

River watershed.

Project Deliverables:

1. Final Scientific Report entitled “Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water and

Groundwater from Current and Proposed In-Situ Oil Sands Operations”

2. Recommendations based in the ““Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water

and Groundwater from Current and Proposed In-Situ Oil Sands Operations”

Project Timeline:

September 16, 2013 (start date) until December 20, 2013 (end date)

Projects Status:

Complete (December 20, 2013)

Highlights/Milestones/Key Findings etc.:

At the time of writing three Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) in-situ projects had been

through the complete Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and two SAGD in-situ

projects are in the process. Additionally seven commercial SAGD in-situ projects were identified

which have bitumen production rates below the 2,000 m3/d rate, required to trigger an EIA.

Current SAGD Project water recycling rates are above 90%, resulting in water make-up

requirements of less than 0.3 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen produced. The make-up

water requirements are preferentially obtained from saline groundwater sources where available

and technically feasible.

To assess the impact of groundwater diversions, proponents have completed numerical

modelling within the selected study areas. The models are used to assess the potential impact of

groundwater diversions with respect to other groundwater users and surface water receptors.

The overall impact rating for groundwater diversions to other users has been rated between

negligible and low, with simulated groundwater drawdown levels within regulatory limits. Model

simulations of groundwater diversions have predicted that there is a potential for reduced

groundwater discharge to the surface water systems and, in some instances, a potential for flux

reversal. The overall impact of these potential impacts has been rated as negligible to low impact

based on comparisons with the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River.

To assess the impact of steam injection and the subsequent development of a thermal plume

around the injection well analytical assessments based on project duration, injection temperature,

and aquifer media properties have been completed. It has been predicted that thermal plume

development extent will be localized and less than well pad spacing.

Potential impacts associated with drilling fluids, casing integrity, fluid releases, waste water

disposal and energy well decommissioning are not expected as Projects are completed in

accordance with the regulatory requirements and best practices. The potential impacts from

these sources are considered localized in extent and therefore a cumulative impact assessment

is not warranted.

It has been recognized that non-saline water use associated with in-situ projects within the

MacKay River watershed has been minimized by industry practices and regulatory requirements

where possible. In addition, the cumulative effects of water use and it subsequent effects to

linked systems has been assessed as negligible to low. However, differences in model

assumptions result in a scenario where the direct comparison of individually completed

cumulative effect assessments is not appropriate or possible. In addition, where there is

significant concern regarding surface water – groundwater interactions the simulation of effects

from groundwater diversion would be better served with the use of a coupled surface water –

groundwater model.

REVIEW OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FROM CURRENT AND PROPOSED IN-SITU OIL SANDS OPERATIONS

SNC-LAVALIN INC.

December 20, 2013 FINAL REPORT Project n615131

FINAL REPORT

Cumulative Environmental Management Association Groundwater Technical Group

NOTICE TO READER

This report has been prepared and the work referred to in this report have been undertaken by the Environment & Water business unit of SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) for the exclusive use of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (the Client), who has been party to the development of the scope of work and understands its limitations. The methodology, findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based solely upon the scope of work and subject to the time and budgetary considerations described in the proposal and/or contract pursuant to which this report was issued. Any use, reliance on, or decision made by a third party based on this report is the sole responsibility of such third party. SNC-Lavalin accepts no liability or responsibility for any damages that may be suffered or incurred by any third party as a result of the use of, reliance on, or any decision made based on this report.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report (i) have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of skill normally exercised by professionals currently practicing under similar conditions in the area, and (ii) reflect SNC-Lavalin’s best judgment based on information available at the time of preparation of this report. The findings and conclusions contained in this report are valid only as of the date of this report and may be based, in part, upon information provided by others. If any of the information is inaccurate, new information is discovered or project parameters change, modifications to this report may be necessary.

This report must be read as a whole, as sections taken out of context may be misleading. If discrepancies occur between the preliminary (draft) and final version of this report, it is the final version that takes precedence. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion.

Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water and Groundwater SNC-Lavalin 615131, December 20, 2013 CEMA - GWTG Final Report

i © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE TO READER .................................................................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ II

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ V

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

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................................... 5

3. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT ................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Industrial Approval ............................................................................................................................. 6

3.1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................................................................... 7

3.1.3 EPEA Approval Monitoring................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 WATER ACT ................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2.1 Water Act Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 ALBERTA LAND STEWARDSHIP ACT ............................................................................................................... 11

3.4 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR DIRECTIVES .................................................................................................. 12

4. STUDY DOMAIN .............................................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 PROJECTS REVIEWED .................................................................................................................................. 13

4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................. 13

4.2.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 13

4.2.2 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.3 Geology............................................................................................................................................ 16

4.2.4 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 19

4.3.2 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 19

4.3.3 Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................... 20

4.4 IN-SITU PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURES .......................................................................................................... 20

4.5 CURRENT LICENCED WATER DIVERSIONS ...................................................................................................... 20


ii © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

5. SUMMARY OF IN-SITU OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 21

5.1 IN-SITU OIL SANDS TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................................. 21

5.2 IN-SITU EIAS COMPLETED/IN-PROGRESS ...................................................................................................... 22

5.3 WATER-RELATED CONCERNS ....................................................................................................................... 23

6. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EIA PREDICTIVE MODELS ................................................................................. 25

6.1 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER PREDICTIVE MODELS ...................................................................................... 25

6.1.1 Groundwater Flow Models ............................................................................................................... 25

6.1.2 Surface Water Models ..................................................................................................................... 27

6.2 MODEL IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES ........................................................................................................ 27

6.3 MODEL PREDICTED IMPACTS TO THE MACKAY RIVER BASIN WATER RESOURCES ............................................. 28

6.3.1 Suncor (Petro-Canada) - MacKay River Project .............................................................................. 29

6.3.2 Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - McKay Thermal Project ............................................................ 32

6.3.3 Brion Energy (Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.) - MacKay River Commercial Project ............................ 35

6.3.4 Brion Energy (Dover OPCO) - Dover Commercial Project ............................................................... 38

6.4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 40

7. ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE & GROUNDWATER CONCERNS .................................................................. 42

7.1 LINKAGE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 42

7.2 WATER QUANTITY ....................................................................................................................................... 43

7.2.1 Water Users ..................................................................................................................................... 43

7.2.2 Surface Water – Groundwater Interactions ...................................................................................... 44

7.2.3 Surface Water Low-Flow and Freezing Conditions .......................................................................... 44

7.3 WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................... 45

7.3.1 Drilling Fluids ................................................................................................................................... 45

7.3.2 Well Casing Failure .......................................................................................................................... 45

7.3.3 Thermal Mobilization of Metals and Trace Elements ....................................................................... 46

7.3.4 Fluid Release/Spills ......................................................................................................................... 48

7.3.5 Surface Water Low-Flow and Freezing Conditions .......................................................................... 48

7.3.6 Wastewater Disposal ....................................................................................................................... 49

7.3.7 Energy Well Decommissioning ........................................................................................................ 49

7.4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 49

8. ASSESSMENT OF NON-WATER CONCERNS............................................................................................... 51

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 52

10. CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 54

11. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 55


iii © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

DRAWINGS 4.1: Project Map – MacKay Watershed Region 4.2: Generalized Hydrostratigraphic Log 4.3: Hydrostratigraphic Cross Section 7.1: Hydrogeology Assessment Regional Study Areas 7.2: Hydrology Assessment Regional Study Areas TABLES 4.1: Extreme daily meteorological events recorded at the Mildred Lake climate station (1994 – 2007) 4.2: Estimated peak and low-flow rates for the MacKay River near Fort McKay (1972 – 2011) 4.3: SAGD Project infrastructure summary 4.4: Water diversion licence summary 5.1: Summary of In-Situ Projects status within the MacKay River watershed 6.1: Capabilities of the commonly used finite difference and finite element groundwater flow models 6.2: Projects considered in the EIA groundwater assessment under the Application Case 6.3: Final impact rating summary associated with groundwater diversion – Suncor – MacKay River

Project 6.4: Final impact rating summary associated with groundwater diversion – Southern Pacific – McKay

Thermal Project (Application Case) 6.5: Final impact rating summary associated with groundwater diversion – Brion – MacKay River

Commercial Project (Application Case) 6.6: Predicted Effect of Groundwater Diversion on Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water for the

Full Build Scenario 6.7 Final impact rating summary associated with groundwater diversion – Brion – Dover Commercial

Project (Application Case) 7.1: Summary of water quantity effect assessments 7.2: Summary of water quality effect assessments

\\SLI1653\PROJECTS\CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION\615131 CEMA REVIEW OF IN-SITU TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT\8. REPORT\2. FINAL REPORT\CEMA - FINAL REPORT.DOCX


iv © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

ABBREVIATIONS

2D Two-dimensional 3D Three-dimensional 7Q10 10-year return period minimum average flow over a 7-day period AER Alberta Energy Regulator Alberta Innovates Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures AOC Athabasca Oil Corporation (formerly Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.) bbl Barrels per day Brion Brion Energy (formerly Dover Operating Corporation) Canadian Natural Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment CEMA Cumulative Environmental Management Association CLBR Cold Lake – Beaver River Area CPF Central Processing Facility dam Decameter DCP Dover Commercial Project Dover OPCO Dover Operating Corporation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPEA Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Grizzly Grizzly Oil Sands ULC HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran Husky Husky Energy Incorporated LARP Lower Athabasca Regional Plan LSA Local study area Marathon Marathon Oil Corporation masl Meters above sea level mbgs Meters below ground surface MRP MacKay River Project MRCP MacKay River Commercial Project NAOS North Athabasca Oil Sands RAMP Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program RSA Regional study area SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage SAOS South Athabasca Oil Sands SIR Supplemental Information Request Southern Pacific Southern Pacific Resources Corporation SNC-Lavalin SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment & Water division STP Southern Pacific McKay Thermal Project Suncor Suncor Energy Inc. (formerly Petro-Canada) Sunshine Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. TAGD Thermal Assisted Gravity Drainage TDL Temporary diversion licence TDS Total dissolved solids TOR Terms of Reference WorleyParsons WorleyParsons Canada Services Ltd. WSC Water Survey of Canada


v © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are several planned large in-situ oil sands projects in the Athabasca Oil Sands region near the MacKay River, to which a variety of concerns have been raised. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association - Groundwater Technical Group requested SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment & Water division to summarize and present the current state of knowledge related to potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater systems from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations in the MacKay River watershed.

At the time of writing three Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) in-situ projects had been through the complete Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and two SAGD in-situ projects are in the process. Additionally seven commercial SAGD in-situ projects were identified which have bitumen production rates below the 2,000 m3/d rate, required to trigger an EIA. Current SAGD Project water recycling rates are above 90%, resulting in water make-up requirements of less than 0.3 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen produced. The make-up water requirements are preferentially obtained from saline groundwater sources where available and technically feasible.

To assess the impact of groundwater diversions, proponents have completed numerical modelling using groundwater codes (MODFLOW and FEFLOW) and surface water codes (Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran [HSPF]) within the selected study areas. The groundwater models are used to assess the potential impact of groundwater diversions with respect to other groundwater users and surface water receptors. The overall impact rating for groundwater diversions to other users has been rated between negligible and low, with simulated groundwater drawdown levels within the limits specified in the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (Alberta Government, 2006). Model simulations of groundwater diversions have predicted that there is a potential for reduced groundwater discharge to the surface water systems and, in some instances, a potential for flux reversal. The overall impact of these potential impacts has been rated as negligible to low impact based on comparisons with the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River.

To assess the impact of steam injection and the subsequent development of a thermal plume around the injection well proponents have completed analytical assessments based on project duration, injection temperature, and aquifer media properties. The analytical solutions under conduction and advection dominated systems predict that thermal plume development extent is localized and less than well pad spacing, therefore a cumulative impact assessment is not warranted.

Potential impacts associated with drilling fluids, casing integrity, fluid releases, waste water disposal and energy well decommissioning are not expected as Projects are completed in accordance with the Alberta Energy Regulator Directives and Best Practices. The potential impacts from these sources are considered localized in extent and therefore a cumulative impact assessment is not warranted.


1 © SNC-Lavalin Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Confidential.

It is recognized that the needs of some stakeholders might be adequately addressed by continuing to use individual models to meet project-specific requirements. However, the longer term cumulative impacts of multiple projects on surface water, groundwater, ecological and land use systems are not best-served by such an approach. The public, local stakeholders and regulators need to be assured that longterm impacts are impartially and consistently evaluated and reported.

Based on the review completed, the following recommendations are made to the stakeholders with respect to improving the characterization of surface water-groundwater interactions in the MacKay watershed:

1. Differences in model assumptions for domain-extent, boundary conditions, material properties aquifer continuity and surface water/groundwater interactions on a Project-by-Project basis result in cumulative effects assessments which are not directly comparable between sequentially-completed EIAs within the MacKay River watershed. In light of these issues, a consistent approach of defining a common study area for projects over this watershed may be needed. This approach, if properly implemented, will be useful in highlighting the specific impacts of a planned development within this watershed as well as to enhance the understanding of the potential cumulative effects.

2. The most effective way to assess regional cumulative effects is to maintain a common model framework within which proposals and alternatives can be evaluated. A single unified regional regulatory model incorporating existing operations is a necessary requirement to effectively and consistently evaluate new proposals and alternatives. A periodic review of the model framework would be necessary to ensure that it continues to be updated as new knowledge and interpretations become accepted.

3. To fully capture and quantify the interactions between the groundwater and surface water processes following a physically-based approach, a coupled surface water-groundwater model equipped with appropriate numeric engines and physics is recommended. Such a model could build on and expand the scope of the existing NAOS model. If implemented this methodology would additionally align with the stated objective of the ESRD Land Use Framework.

4. Clear limits for acceptable change to surface water quantity based on the setting will be required for proponents to understand the relevance of predicted surface water quantity changes for a Project. In addition, there is some uncertainty in the estimation of the low-flow rates within the watershed, as such characterization of low-flow conditions may be needed to more confidently assess the relevance of simulated surface water-groundwater interactions.

5. For watershed management, it would be beneficial to develop streamflow capture maps for select non-saline aquifers. Streamflow capture maps show the spatial distribution of response functions for an aquifer, and provide a visual tool to illustrate the effects of pumping on streamflow depletion within an aquifer area.



1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A clear understanding of the cumulative impacts of in-situ oil sands developments and operations is critical in the protection and sustainable use of groundwater and surface water in the MacKay River watershed. The MacKay River watershed spans an area of approximately 5,570 km² and is composed of two major tributaries; the Dover and Dunkirk River systems. This report documents SNC-Lavalin’s review of the current and proposed EIAs of in-situ SAGD bitumen recovery operations for the MacKay River watershed and presents a relevant summary of the state of knowledge relating to the current and proposed cumulative impacts on the water resources (surface and subsurface systems) associated with in-situ oil sands developments within this watershed. The cumulative assessment of the impacts of an in-situ project on the surface water and groundwater systems is accomplished on the basis of three scenarios (Baseline, Application, and Planned Development Cases). The Baseline Case considers existing and approved conditions in the study area, while the Application Case considers the project as an addition to the Baseline scenario. The Planned Development Case considers the environmental condition that would exist as a result of the interaction of the proposed project, existing and approved projects, and other planned projects that can be reasonably expected to occur.

The nature of surface disturbance associated with in-situ bitumen recovery is distinguishable from that of surface mining. In-situ operations involve clearing a smaller area (per m3 of bitumen production), but future planned developments may result in a diffuse but notable surface disturbance through linear corridor development and well pad construction (Alberta Government, 2013a). If supporting developments such as natural gas supply is accounted for, an equivalent area to that of surface mining may be determined. In-situ oil sands recovery methods do not involve dewatering, overburden removal, tailings storage, and associated reclamation challenges which are typical in surface mining processes. The nature of the reclamation for disturbances caused by an in-situ bitumen recovery operation pose no particular technological challenge; the types of reclamation activities needed for in-situ production have been practiced successfully for many years in other applications such as conventional oil production (Gosselin et al., 2010).

This review also presents summaries of the numerical modelling results associated with the proposed or completed in-situ oil sands developments on the groundwater and surface water systems within the MacKay River watershed. Numerical flow and transport modelling is a powerful tool to characterize surface and groundwater systems by quantifying flows as well as assessing potential impacts of changes associated with pumping, injection, recharge rates and groundwater-surface water interactions. Groundwater flow models have been developed for the various Projects completed in the MacKay River watershed. These models have been used to enhance the current understanding of the surface water and groundwater conditions within this basin, as well as facilitate the evaluation of the associated cumulative effects of in-situ oil sands development. These models have been further developed for the purpose of predicting impacts of a proposed in-situ technology such as SAGD on the watershed’s surface water and groundwater systems. Results from these models have also facilitated the development of



monitoring programmes in conjunction with the formulation of adaptive management plans if impacts are predicted.

1.2 BACKGROUND

Industrial development in the Athabasca Oil Sands region has increased dramatically in the past decade and is expected to continue in coming years. Approximately 80 percent of the oil sands reserves will be developed by using a variety of in-situ technologies, such as SAGD. These in-situ technologies are still relatively new and they present different challenges compared to open pit mining. The CEMA Board of Directors has initiated this project to review the potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations.

There are several upcoming large in-situ oil sands projects in the Athabasca Oil Sands region near the MacKay River, to which a variety of concerns have been raised. The Groundwater Technical Group would like to obtain a study of the issues near the MacKay River.



2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 OBJECTIVE

Using available information, summarize the present state of knowledge and provide recommendations to address issues related to potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations in the study area.

2.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The action plans required to fulfill the requirements of the project deliverables have been sub-divided into seven components. The SNC-Lavalin delivery approaches to meeting the requirements for each of these proposed components are:

• Component I – Project Management

• Component II – Review of the Potential Cumulative Effects of In- Situ Oil Sands Operations

• Component III – Summary of Current EIA Predictive Models

• Component IV – Summary of Groundwater Related Concerns of In-Situ Processes

• Component V – Overview of Non-Water Related Concerns of In-Situ Processes

• Component VI – Recommendations and Reporting

• Component VII – Meetings and Presentations



3. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

The following outlines some of the key regulatory considerations which an in-situ project is required to address in Alberta. The regulations have been developed allowing ESRD to promote environmental performance and innovation without compromising compliance and assurance in accordance with the provincial water strategy objectives laid out in the Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability (Alberta Government, 2003) and reaffirmed in the Water for Life: A Renewal (Alberta Government, 2009).

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT

3.1.1 Industrial Approval

Under Schedule 1, Division 2 of the Alberta Regulation 276/2003, Activities Designation Regulation, enhanced recovery in-situ oil sands or heavy oil processing plants require an Approval under the EPEA to operate. Proposed in-situ projects are required to complete an Industrial Approval Application in accordance with the Guide to Content for Industrial Approval Applications (Alberta Government, 2013b). The EPEA Approval identifies an applicant’s obligations and responsibilities for design, construction, operation and reclamation of an industrial facility or plant. The Application must provide reliable information on the potential cumulative effects considerations within the proposed area, as well as proposed environmental risk avoidance and mitigation strategies. The application must be cognizant of the Project’s spatial context (ie, air, water, ecosystems, humans, wildlife, vegetation etc), as well as local and regional settings (ie, legislation, management plans etc).

With respect to the assessment of surface water and groundwater systems, the applicant is required to address the following in the Industrial Application:

1. Describe the current setting and condition of the environment, including surface water and groundwater. Identifying existing land use and zoning for the Project and surrounding area.

2. Describe and evaluate the current environmental conditions, including geology, meteorology, surface runoff, water quality, water quantity, existing water users, and existing anthropogenic effects.

In addition to assessing the current environmental conditions, the applicant is required to provide details of the expected plant/facility design, construction, operation and reclamation processes and how the proposed project will mitigate potential impacts.



3.1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

Under Schedule 1 of the Alberta Regulation 111/93, Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation, a commercial oil sands, heavy oil extraction, upgrading or processing plant producing more than 2,000 m3 (12,500 barrels) of crude bitumen or its derivatives per day is classified as a mandatory activity, for which an EIA is required in order to obtain approval under the EPEA.

The EIA is a planning document used to evaluate potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of the project. The potential effects are based on the project’s design and mitigation plans to manage potential effects. The EIA document is prepared in accordance with the Alberta EPEA and associated regulations, the Canadian Environmental and Enhancement Act (if applicable), the finalized TOR established for the Project, and applicable provincial and federal Acts. Typically, the applicant will refer to the Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (Alberta Government, 2013c), the Cumulative Effects Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports under the EPEA (Alberta Government, 2000), and the finalized TOR when preparing the EIA report.

The following provides an abridged summary of the Standardized TOR requirements for an in-situ project (Alberta Government, 2013d) related to the management, baseline assessment and impact assessment of surface and groundwater resources.

Management Requirements:

1. Non-saline and saline water supply and disposal locations and requirements

2. Water balance throughout the project’s life cycle

3. Expected process water, potable water and non-potable water requirements during construction

4. Expected variability in water use through the seasons following project implementation

5. Expected cumulative effect of the project on water quantity (loss or gain)

6. Contingency plans in the event of water supply restrictions (eg, licence change, climate change, cumulative impact water deficit)

7. Water treatment systems and chemicals used

8. Reduction of non-saline water consumption via saline use, recycling, conservation and technological improvements

9. Surface water runoff management strategy

10. Mapping of roadway, pipeline, power line and other crossings of watercourses and bodies

11. Source, quantity and quality of wastewater generated

12. Rationale for wastewater treatment and disposal location and assessment of geologic formations for disposal

13. Wastewater treatment systems and chemicals inventory



14. Sewage treatment systems and disposal locations.

Baseline Requirements:

1. Description of the baseline hydrogeologic setting (from surface to oil producing zone or disposal zone, whichever is deeper) of the project area

2. Presentation of regional geology and hydrogeology of the project area

3. Description of the hydraulic characteristics and properties of aquifers, aquicludes and aquitards in the project area

4. Presentation of the baseline groundwater quality including major ions, metals, trace elements and hydrocarbons

5. Identification of areas of groundwater recharge/discharge and areas of surface water-groundwater interaction

6. Identification of existing surface water and groundwater users

7. Determination of recharge potential of Quaternary aquifers

8. Assessment of the potential for hydraulic connection of bitumen producing zones, disposal zones formations and aquifers as a result of the project operation

9. Characterization of the disposal formations

10. Description of site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic condition below major facilities associated with the project

11. Description of the hydrologic system including seasonal water quantity and quality

Impact Assessment Requirements:

1. Description of the project components and activities which have potential to affect groundwater resource quantity and quality for all stages of the project

2. Description of the nature and significance of the potential project impact on groundwater with respect to:

a) inter-relationship between groundwater and surface water in terms of both quantity and quality

b) implications for terrestrial or riparian vegetation, wildlife and aquatic resources including wetlands

c) changes in groundwater quality, quantity and flow

d) conflicts with other groundwater users, and proposed resolutions to these conflicts

e) potential implications of seasonal variations

f) groundwater withdrawal for project operations, including any expected alterations in the groundwater flow regime during and following project operations.



3. Description of the extent of hydrological changes that result from disturbances to groundwater and surface water movement:

a) inclusion of changes to the quantity of surface flow, water levels and channel regime in watercourses (during minimum, average and peak flows) and water levels in waterbodies

b) assessment of the potential impact of any alterations in flow on the hydrology and identify all temporary and permanent alterations, channel realignments, disturbances or surface water withdrawals

c) discussion of the effect of these changes on hydrology (eg, timing, volume, peak and minimum flow rates, river regime and lake levels), including the significance of effects for downstream watercourses

d) identification of any potential erosion problems in watercourses resulting from the Project

e) description of impacts on other surface water users resulting from the Project. Identify any potential water use conflicts

f) discussion the impact of low-flow conditions and in-stream flow needs on water supply and water and wastewater management strategies

g) description the potential impacts of the Project on surface water quality

With respect to the assessment of surface water and groundwater systems, an applicant will typically complete a hydrology and hydrogeology baseline report in support of the EIA. Three development scenarios are then addressed in the EIA; the Baseline Case, the Application Case and the Planned Development Case. The Baseline Case establishes conditions which would exist if the proposed Project were not developed. These conditions include effects resulting from existing and approved projects or activities within the selected study area. The Application Case includes the Baseline Case with effects of the proposed Project added; thereby it represents a CEA for the Project. Finally, the Planned Development Case includes the Application Case and other regionally-planned Projects; therefore it is also considered a CEA for the Project. The Planned Development Case is considered a conservative assessment of social and environmental conditions as the potential Projects included may or may not proceed.

Finally, an approval of a Project EPEA application may be granted following:

• An extensive review period • Multiple rounds or SIRs and responses • The satisfactory resolution of any outstanding statements of concern by all stakeholders is

reached

3.1.3 EPEA Approval Monitoring

Within a typical EPEA Approval, the following requirements with respect to water monitoring are required for the Project to operate:



1. Industrial runoff onsite is controlled; processes are employed to minimize the potential for unplanned releases and maximize efficiency in recovery

2. Industrial runoff quantity and quality is monitored on a specified frequency and reported annually. Water is tested to ensure it meets specified criteria prior to release

3. Industrial wastewater is disposed of at approved facilities and unauthorized releases are not permitted

4. Domestic wastewater is treated prior to release to the environment 5. A groundwater monitoring program is developed and implemented. The groundwater

monitoring program requires a detailed assessment of the hydrogeological setting and potential facility impacts. The monitoring results are compared to baseline data to determine the potential impacts that may be related to the project. If any are identified, the operator and the appropriate regulatory agency(s) agree on a plan to mitigate the impacts. It should be noted that at the time of writing, ESRD has prepared a draft Groundwater Monitoring Directive which specifies the requirements for approved facilities and operations

3.2 WATER ACT

The diversion and use of non-saline water (water with a TDS concentration less than 4,000 mg/L) for commercial or industrial use in Alberta is regulated under the Water Act. Where non-saline water is diverted for industrial use other than for oilfield injection, an application to licence the water diversion must be submitted in accordance with the Alberta Environment Guide to Groundwater Authorization (Alberta Government, 2011). Where the non-saline water is used for injection at enhanced oil recovery projects, an application to licence the water diversion must be submitted in accordance with the Alberta Environment Guide to Groundwater Authorization and additional requirements in accordance with the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (Alberta Government, 2006). Both documents have been developed to ensure the sustainable development of non-saline water in Alberta considering the project application and existing water users. However, the use of non-saline water for enhanced oil recovery requires a stringent examination of alternative options and potential impacts and is summarized herein.

An application to licence non-saline water use for oilfield injection must contain a technical, economic, and environmental evaluation of water source and non-water alternatives for the Project. The level of effort required for each evaluation is scaled proportionately to the tier level associated with the Project, Tier I being minor impacts (eg, small EOR Projects in the ’Green Area‘ of Alberta), and Tier III being major impacts (eg, EOR Projects in identified water-deficient areas). The MacKay River watershed is located within a ’not regional water-short area‘ (Alberta Government, 2006), but for conservative measures, In-situ projects developed within the MacKay watershed are typically completed at a Tier II level based on the scale and type of projects. In addition, water conservation options must be assessed to minimize the use of non-saline water throughout the project life. Alternatives to minimize non-saline water use in the Project’s initial term must also be assessed. The assessment must include a review of the availability of non-saline water and the potential impacts of its proposed use. If applicable, impacts on the aquatic environment, local existing water supplies, local water users, and cumulative effects on the watershed potentially resulting from the Project should be assessed.



3.2.1 Water Act Monitoring

At locations where a Project is authorized to divert water for commercial or industrial use, the following requirements must be met with respect to water management in accordance with a typical water diversion term licence:

1. Monitor and record water diversion volumes and rates 2. Monitor and record water level responses in water source wells and observation wells 3. Obtain water quality samples on an annual basis 4. Report water use and quality annually. Review the aquifer and well performance against

those estimated during the application phase and is within regulatory limits 5. Operators are required to report and investigate any complaints received 6. Where water is used for enhanced oil recovery via injection, the operator must also develop a

Water Conservation Plan to be implemented during the term water diversion licence. This requires operators to document and report water conservation measures, water recycling, examination of non-water alternatives, and water conservation education programs

3.3 ALBERTA LAND STEWARDSHIP ACT

Environmental Management Frameworks have been developed to manage longterm cumulative effects of developments at a regional level, in support of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act. The LARP (Alberta Government, 2012a) has been developed upon the existing environmental policies, legislations and regulations (briefly outlined previously) and provides an understanding of the current state of the environment. The LARP includes regional objectives, limits and triggers (an early warning level indicative of a negative change from natural variability) for key indicators, approaches and actions to achieve objectives, and an approach to monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

As part of the LARP, three frameworks have been developed to proactively manage the cumulative effects associated with air, surface water and groundwater quality. The frameworks have been designed to provide context related to development and regulatory process, and facilitate sustainable resource management. The frameworks are intended to complement existing polices, legislations, regulations and management tools. The Surface Water Quality Management Framework (Government of Alberta, 2012b), sets the surface water quality triggers and limits for 39 indicators as measured at the Old Fort monitoring station.



The Groundwater Water Management Framework (Government of Alberta, 2012c), is designed to enhance the management of non-saline groundwater resources including the management of potential cumulative effects on the resource. The document establishes indicators of groundwater quality and quantity, and interim triggers (groundwater quality only) within the NAOS, SAOS and CLBR areas.

3.4 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR DIRECTIVES

In-situ projects are under the jurisdiction of the AER, and as such are required to obey all relevant directives. The in-situ Projects are completed in accordance with the applicable directives. Relevant Directives with respect to hydrogeology include:

• AER Directive 20: Well Abandonment (AER, 2010) • AER Directive 50: Drilling Waste Management (AER, 1996 superseded in 2012b) • AER Directive 51: Injection and Disposal Wells – Well Classifications, Completions, Logging ,

and Testing Requirements (AER, 1994) • AER Directive 55: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (AER, 2001) • AER Directive 58: Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum

Industry (AER, 1996 and 2008 as amended) • AER Directive 65: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs (AER, 2012a) • AER Directive 81: Water Disposal Limits and Reporting Requirements for Thermal In Situ Oil

Sands Schemes (AER, 2012c).



4. STUDY DOMAIN

4.1 PROJECTS REVIEWED

To complete a review of potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations within the MacKay River watershed, the following completed and planned Projects were reviewed:

• Brion Energy (formerly Dover OPCO) – Dover Commercial Project (Dover OPCO, 2010, 2011 and 2012)

• Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (currently operated by Brion Energy) – MacKay River Commercial Project (Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., 2009, 2010 and 2011)

• Southern Pacific Resource Corp. – McKay Thermal Project (Southern Pacific, 2011 and 2012)

• Suncor Energy Inc. (formerly Petro-Canada) – MacKay River Project (Petro-Canada, 1998, 2005 and 2006)

• Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. – Thickwood SAGD Expansion Project (Sunshine, 2013) Projects with less than 2,000 m3/d (12,500 barrels) of bitumen production were not included in the cumulative effect assessment review, these include:

• Athabasca Oil Corp. – Dover West Carbonates (Leduc) Project • Athabasca Oil Corp. – Dover West Sands • Grizzly Oil Sands – Thickwood Project • Husky Energy Inc. – Saleski Carbonate Project • Marathon Oil Corp. – Birchwood Project • Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. – Legend Lake Project

Drawing 4.1 is a presentation of the existing and proposed facilities within the region and the selected in-situ projects (those reviewed as part of this project).

4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1 Climate

The Mildred Lake Climate Station (ID: 3064528) which is located approximately 12 km east of the MacKay River watershed is the closest climate station with respect to the MacKay River watershed operated by Environment Canada (Drawing 4.1). The average annual precipitation observed at this climate station is approximately 406 mm; of which 28% occurs as snowfall (Canadian Climate Normals 1994-2007; Environment Canada, 2013a). The 13-year observed daily average air temperature for this station is 1.9°C. Table 4.1 presents the longterm extreme daily precipitation and air temperature data observed at this climate station.



Table 4.1: Extreme daily meteorological events, Mildred Lake Climate Station (1994-2007) Climate Variable Quantity Month - Year

Rainfall 127 mm July 2002

Snowfall (snow water equivalent) 65.3 cm February 2007

Highest air temperature 36.2 °C August 1998

Lowest air temperature -44.5 °C January 1996

The longterm minimum, mean and maximum monthly air temperature and precipitation observed over a 13-year period (1994- 2007), are presented in Figure 4.1. Highest mean monthly precipitation is observed between June and August while the month of April exhibits the lowest recorded longterm precipitation. The observed longterm mean air temperature is highest in the month of July while the winter season is characterized by low ambient temperatures for the Mildred Lake station. Snowfall may be expected to cover the ground surface during a five-month period, beginning in October. The estimated potential evaporation from a surface waterbody as determined using a dataset from the Fort McMurray airport climate station is approximately 783 mm/year (Dover OPCO, 2010).

Figure 4.1: Precipitation and air temperature normals between 1994 and 2007, Mildred Lake Climate Station

4.2.2 Hydrology

The MacKay River watershed spans an area of 5,570 km2 and generally flows from west to east; draining into the Athabasca River at its confluence in Fort McKay. This watershed is characterized by topographic relief that extends eastward from an elevation of about 843 masl at its headwaters in the northwest to approximately 241 masl at its confluence with the Athabasca River. The MacKay River originates in the north slopes of the Thickwood Hills at an elevation of approximately 520 masl and is characterized by numerous unnamed waterbodies and one named lake (RAMP, 2013).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Air

Tem

pera

ture

(o C)

0

20

40

60

80

Precipitation (m

m)

Monthly PrecipitationMonthly Max. Air Temp.Monthly Mean Air Temp.Monthly Min. Air Temp.



Instantaneous flood peak discharges estimated or observed at a catchment’s outlet are required in the estimation of peak flow rates associated with flood events of various return periods. The accuracy in the assessment of the frequency with which a discharge of a given magnitude is exceeded for a particular watershed is enhanced as a function of the length of the available instantaneous discharge record and its homogeneity. Peak discharge data recorded at the MacKay River near Fort McKay (WSC Station: 07DB001) commencing from 1972 to 2011 (Environment Canada, 2013b) were analyzed and used in the estimation of the peak flow metrics for the watershed. A minimum flow analysis was completed for assessing the possible effects of stream diversions and water supply requirements. A low-flow frequency analysis was then conducted by fitting an appropriate probability distribution function to the minimum daily discharge data to generate low-flow rates of various recurrence intervals. The results of the peak and low-flow analyses are presented in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2. Figure 4.3 is a presentation of the longterm annual maximum and minimum discharge observed at the MacKay River near Fort McKay.

Table 4.2: Estimated peak and low-flow rates, MacKay River near Fort McKay (1972 to 2011) Return Period (years) Peak Flow Rate (m3/s) Low-flow Rate (m3/s)

200 493 0.009

100 436 0.015

50 379 0.025

25 320 0.043

10 241 0.086

5 181 0.144

3 135 0.211

2 97 0.287



Figure 4.2: Peak and low-flow rates for the MacKay River near Fort McKay

Figure 4.3: Longterm minimum and maximum daily discharge for the MacKay River near Fort McKay

4.2.3 Geology

This sub-section summarizes the stratigraphy typically encountered within the MacKay River watershed, including the Pre-Cambrian, Palaeozoic (Devonian), Mesozoic (Cretaceous) and Quaternary sequences, as documented from assessments referenced in Section 4.1. Drawing 4.2 is a presentation of the generalized stratigraphic sequence within the region while Drawing 4.3 is a presentation of a geologic cross-section from northwest to southeast through the watershed, perpendicular to the general formation dip (Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., 2009). The Pre-Cambrian crystalline basement underlies the region and its contact with the overlying strata is generally between 290 and 330 masl.

50 100 150 200Return period (years)

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Low flow

rate (m3/s)

10

100

1000

Peak

flow

rate

(m3 /s

)

Peak flowLow flow

2

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

0

100

200

300

400

Ann

ual m

axim

um d

aily

dis

char

ge (m

3 /s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7 Annual m

inimum

daily discharge (m3/s)

Annual max. daily dischargeAnnual min. daily discharge



The Pre-Cambrian basement is unconformably overlain by the Devonian La Loche Formation which is dominantly composed of regolithic, arkosic sanstones, breccias and conglomerates. Overlying the La Loche Formation is a sequence of generally conformable Middle and Upper Devonian-aged formations (Elk Point, Beaverhill Lake and Woodbend Group) which are typically composed of carbonate, evaporite and shale lithologies.

The Devonian strata are overlain unconformably by the Lower Cretaceous-aged Mannville Group which was deposited on the Devonian erosional surface and is composed primarily of clastic sediments. The McMurray Formation and the Wabiskaw Member of the Clearwater Formation, composed of fine-grained sandstone are typically the target reservoirs that are explored for oil sands operations in the region. The Clearwater Formation composed of marine claystone and shale overlies the McMurray Formation and forms the regional seal. The Grand Rapids Formation forms the upper unit of the Mannville Group and is generally composed of cyclic coarsening upward sequences (shale-siltstone-sandstone). The Joli Fou Formation which is composed predominantly of shale disconformably overlies the Mannville Group. The Viking Formation generally composed of semi-consolidated clastic sediments unconformably overlies the Joli Fou Formation. The La Biche Formation composed predominantly of mud and silty-mud conformably overlies the Joli Fou Formation.

The top of the La Biche Formation marks the Quaternary unconformity in the western areas of the MacKay watershed, in areas where the Quaternary unconformity incises deeper, other formations such as the Viking, Joli Fou, Grand Rapids and Clearwater formations may come into direct contact with the unconsolidated Quaternary deposits. The Quaternary sediments have been deposited during the episodic glaciations which have occurred within the region. Pre-glacial drainage systems incised into the Cretaceous formations, resulting in direct contact between the two systems. Pre-glacial drainage systems can infill with coarse-grained material resulting in buried valley systems. Three major buried valleys have been indentified within the region; the MacKay Channel, Spruce Valley and Thickwood Valley. The Birch Channel may have deposited contemporaneously with glaciations and may be considered a channel tunnel (Andriashek, 2001). Typically, areas between and above the buried valley deposits are composed of relatively undifferentiated fine-grained, low-permeability glacially-derived sediment (diamicton). Localized coarse-grained inter-till sand channels occur within the fine-grained glacial sequences in areas associated with glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrine, eolian and other processes, the lateral extent and inter-connection between these deposits is not well known. The term “Empress Formation” describes the stratified gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits of fluvial, lacustrine, and colluvial origin which overlies the Cretaceous/Tertiary aged bedrock (Glass, 1997). The Empress Formation is divided into three units referred to as: Unit 1 – pre-glacial sand and gravel, Unit 2 – silt and clay, and Unit 3 – glacial sand and gravel (Andriashek, 2003).

4.2.4 Hydrogeology

The hydrostratigraphy of the MacKay River watershed includes the Pre-Cambrian, Palaeozoic (Devonian), Mesozoic (Cretaceous) and Quaternary sequences, as interpreted from assessments referenced in Section 4.1. The Devonian carbonate sequence is characterized by saline aquifer systems and which have been grouped according to similar hydrostratigraphic nature include; the Beaverhill Lake-Cooking Lake-Leduc Aquifer, the Grosmont Aquifer and the Winterburn-Wabamun Aquifer. The



Grosmont Aquifer typically has reduced permeability due to hydrocarbon saturation and the Winterburn-Wabamun Aquifer is of limited occurrence through the region and confined to the western extents of the study area. The Beaverhill Lake-Cooking Lake-Leduc Aquifer has been identified as a potential saline water source for in-situ operations within this watershed.

The Cretaceous sequence is differentiated into major hydrostratigraphic systems based on gross hydrogeologic properties including the; Wabiskaw/McMurray Aquitard (variably saline/non-saline), the Clearwater Aquitard, the Grand Rapids Aquifer (non-saline) and the Viking Aquifer (non-saline). The Wabiskaw/McMurray unit is expected to have a reduced permeability due to bitumen saturation; as such, several previous studies have classed it as an aquitard. However, in areas with higher water saturation the Wabiskaw/McMurray can be considered an aquifer. The Clearwater Aquitard is a major regional hydrostratigraphic barrier to flow, isolating the Devonian and McMurray flow systems from the overlying (Cretaceous and Quaternary) flow systems. The Grand Rapids Aquifer system is associated with permeable sandstone areas of the cyclic coarsening upward sequences; these systems have variable lateral extent.

The Grand Rapids Aquifer has been identified as a potential non-saline water source for in-situ operations within the region. The Viking Aquifer subcrops across the basin and can be a variably confined or unconfined aquifer. The groundwater flow direction within the Cretaceous hydrostratigraphic units is generally downward and radially away from the recharge areas in the topographic highs (Birch Mountains, Thickwood Hills, Dunkirk, Dover and MacKay Plains) and discharges into regions of topographic lows (Athabasca River).

Within the Quaternary sequence, the principal hydrostratigraphic systems are the Empress Channel Aquifers and the undifferentiated overburden aquifer/aquitard. The Empress Channel Aquifer has been associated with the Birch Channel, MacKay Channel and Thickwood Valley. Regional horizontal flow within the Empress Channel Aquifers is generally toward the east-northeast. The Empress Channel Aquifer has been identified as a potential non-saline water source for in-situ operations within the region. The undifferentiated overburden aquifer/aquitard generally comprises low permeability fine-grained sediments and localized inter-till sand and gravel aquifers of limited water potential. The horizontal groundwater flow direction is expected to mimic surface topography towards present day surface drainage features. The inter-till sand and gravel aquifers have the potential to be used as sources of non-saline water for smaller operations in the region (ie, camp water supply).

The following hydrogeological conditions have been assessed and identified as potential interaction zones due to the hydraulic connectivity between the surface water system and underlying groundwater systems (Dover OPCO, 2010):

1. Surface water-Quaternary aquifer systems: where inter-till aquifers and Empress Channel Aquifers recharge and discharge

2. Surface water-Cretaceous aquifer systems: where Quaternary deposits have been eroded and a direct connection between the surface and Cretaceous bedrock outcrop exist

3. Quaternary-Quaternary aquifer systems: where hydraulic connections exist between inter-till aquifers and Empress Channel Aquifers



4. Quaternary-Cretaceous aquifer systems: where the Empress Channel Aquifer incises into the Cretaceous aquifer systems

5. Devonian-Cretaceous aquifer systems: where the Clearwater aquitard seal integrity may allow hydraulic connection between the two systems. The integrity of the Clearwater aquitard is assessed continuously via Project monitoring

4.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 Vegetation

The majority of the MacKay River watershed is located in the Northern Alberta Lowland Physiographic Region, and within the Central Mixedwood Natural subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. Upland areas associated with the Birch Mountains are classified as part of the Northern Alberta Upland Physiographic Region and Lower/Upper Boreal Highland subregion (Natural Regions Committee, 2006).

The Central Mixedwood Natural subregion is generally composed of a mosaic of aspen, balsam poplar, paper birch, white spruce jack pine and balsam fir stands. Poorly-drained fens and bogs are generally covered with tamarack and black spruce. The Lower/Upper Boreal Highland subregion is generally composed of aspen and white spruce with stands of mixedwoods aspen and black spruce.

Based on the Brion - Dover Commercial Project RSA, the area is composed of 37% terrestrial vegetation, 51% wetland vegetation, 5% disturbed land (roads, seismic line etc) and 7% water bodies.

4.3.2 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife

Terrestrial species indentified within the MacKay River watershed include a broad variety of mammals, amphibians and birds. Species indentified include but are not limited to; white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, woodland caribou, wolves, coyotes, red fox, Canada lynx, cougar, black and grizzly bears, weasels and related families, otters, mink, muskrat, beaver, hoary bat, silver haired bat, red bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, marsh birds, nocturnal owls, breeding birds, wood frogs, northern leopard frogs. Canadian toads and boreal toads, red-sided garter snake and western plains snake (Dover OPCO, 2010).

The MacKay River watershed can be divided into two segments based on habitat potential; the lower half provides moderate to high habitat potential (except at the confluence with the Athabasca River), and the upper portion is rated as low for habitat potential due to its low gradient and placid flow. A broad variety of sport, forage and sucker fish have been identified. The most widespread species identified include; the Arctic grayling, northern pike, walleye, longnose sucker, white sucker and several forage species. Tributaries of the MacKay River have limited aquatic habitat potential due to its placid flow, restricted habitat and substrate diversity and beaver activity blockages (Dover OPCO, 2010).



4.3.3 Protected Areas

The West Side Athabasca River woodland caribou range and Red Earth woodland caribou range are located within the MacKay River watershed (ACC, 2013). Seven Environmentally Significant Areas are located within the MacKay River watershed; ESAs 548, 621, 625, 627, 693, 704a and 704b. These areas have been identified as containing rare or unique elements (Fiera Biological Consulting, 2009).

The southern margin of the Birch Mountains Wildland Park Protected Area is also located within the MacKay watershed (ACIMS, 2013). Parks and Protected areas are presented in Drawing 4.1.

4.4 IN-SITU PROJECTS INFRASTRUCTURES

A summary description of the infrastructures associated with the reviewed in-situ projects completed or proposed within the MacKay River watershed are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: SAGD Project Infrastructure Summary

Project SAGD Well Pads Max. Design Capacity

(bpd bitumen)

Project Term

(years)

Brion - Dover

Commercial Project 525 250,000 50

Brion - MacKay River

Commercial 200 150,000 45

STP - McKay Thermal

Project 36 36,000 25

Suncor - MacKay River

Project 26 73,000 20

Sunshine – Thickwood

Project Not available 70,000 37

4.5 CURRENT LICENCED WATER DIVERSIONS

A review of current surface and groundwater non-saline water diversion licences (Alberta Government, 2013e) within the MacKay River watershed indicated that there are 39 active licences under the Water Act, of which 12 are term diversions and 27 are TDLs (set to expire in 2013 or 2014). Term water diversion licences are presented in Table 4.4 and Drawing 4.1. The annual approved water diversion volume from the MacKay River watershed is 3,967 dam3 (excluding TDLs), which represents approximately 1% of the mean annual flow (533,000 dam3). At the time of writing, the approved annual water diversion volume for use associated with SAGD in-situ injection was 3,670.3 dam3. These water volumes represent maximum licenced diversion volumes and do not reflect actual usage.



5. SUMMARY OF IN-SITU OPERATIONS

5.1 IN-SITU OIL SANDS TECHNOLOGIES

In-situ technologies for bitumen extraction are used in areas of Alberta where the targeted oil sands formation lies too deep to be developed using surface mining processes. The success of any selected in-situ method depends largely on the method’s potential to resolve two critical issues:

1. Reducing the viscosity of bitumen so that it can flow; and

2. Recovering the bitumen from reservoir rocks.

Two commercial in-situ technologies for oil sands recovery include:

1. Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS); and

2. Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).

The CSS process requires that steam is injected into a well for a period of time. The well is then left to be saturated for a period of time to enhance the reduction in bitumen viscosity and then undergoes a production cycle for a period of time. After the production phase, steam injection commences again starting another cycle. CSS requires operation at a higher pressure and is not considered an appropriate in-situ technology for the shallow clastic reservoirs in the MacKay and Dover area, although this technology may be an appropriate development process for deeper carbonate reservoirs.

The SAGD process requires the installation of two horizontal wells through the bitumen saturated reservoir and along the same vertical plane. The wells are separated by approximately 4 to 6 metres. Steam is injected into the upper well which heats the bitumen and reduces the fluid viscosity enough to permit the bitumen-water emulsion to flow by gravity to the lower production well. The water and bitumen emulsion is then pumped from the lower production well to the CPF on surface for subsequent separation and treatment. The produced water is treated and recycled for re-use as steam for injection. The SAGD process was demonstrated first in 1984 at the AOSTRA underground test facility near the current Suncor - MacKay River Project. The SAGD process was designed specifically for the developments in the MacKay and Dover areas, and as such is currently the most commonly used in-situ recovery method in the area.

The SAGD process requires water to operate, where typical water requirement is approximately three barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen. The maximum volume of water requirement is used at the beginning of operations, during the circulation phase. The water requirement then attenuates to a lower volume as the Project progresses to mature stages of operation. Much of the water used can be recirculated following water treatment reducing overall water use. SAGD facilities have a mandated water recycling rate and target greater than 90% water recycling. Higher rates of recycling are expected as treatment technologies evolve. Typically, greater than 2.7 of the 3 barrels of water required is sourced from recycled water. The remaining water requirement (less than 10% of total needed) is termed make-up water, which may be sourced from non-saline water sources only if no feasible alternative is available.



During the water treatment process, the minerals and salts that contribute to the salinity of the input water stream are removed and concentrated into a brine. It is necessary to remove these dissolved minerals from the water prior to sending the water to the steam generators. The resultant brine is subsequently disposed into a deeper geologic horizon in accordance with the Directives and Approvals provided by the AER.

Other in-situ methods are being considered but are still in the development stage and have not achieved commercial viability. These methods may have potential benefits; including higher resource recovery and lower energy costs over current technologies if proved viable.

The Toe to Heel Air Injection system involves igniting the bitumen in the reservoir with air subsequently injected into the reservoir to provide an oxidant for the combustion process. The fraction of heavy carbon molecules in the reservoir is preferably consumed by combustion, the thermal front that results heats up the reservoir, reducing the viscosity of the lighter bitumen fractions and permitting their extraction at a recovery well.

Thermal Assisted Gravity Drainage is an innovative process currently being explored within the MacKay River watershed at the AOC – Dover West Carbonates (Leduc) Project. The TAGD process uses an array of downhole electrical resistance heaters, which heat the reservoir via thermal conduction. The process operates at reduced temperatures relative to the SAGD process allowing increased energy effeciency, reduced operational cost and does not require water during the bitumen recovery process.

5.2 IN-SITU EIAS COMPLETED/IN-PROGRESS

There are currently three SAGD in-situ projects that have completed the EIA and SIR process within the MacKay River watershed. A further two are in the EIA and SIR process, and seven commercial projects have less than 2,000 m3/d bitumen. A summary of these Projects in conjunction with their respective status is presented in Table 5.1.



Table 5.1: Summary of In-Situ Projects Status Within the MacKay River Watershed Completed EIA In Process EIA Commercial Project1

Dover Commercial Project - Brion STP McKay Thermal Project

Application – Southern Pacific

Dover West Carbonates (Leduc)

Project – AOC2

MacKay River Commercial Project -

Brion Thickwood Project - Sunshine Dover West Sands - AOC

MacKay River Project - Suncor - Thickwood Project - Grizzly

- - Saleski Carbonate Project - Husky

- - Birchwood Project - Marathon

- - Legend Lake Project - Sunshine

- - West Ells Project - Sunshine

NOTES 1. Project produces less the 2,000 m3/d bitumen production threshold required for an EIA, Project reviewed under

Environmental Assessment. 2. Dover West Carbonates (Leduc) is a TAGD in-situ operation

5.3 WATER-RELATED CONCERNS

Prior to abstraction of groundwater there is a state of dynamic pseudo-equilibrium between the groundwater and hydraulically connected surface water. When a well begins to abstract groundwater a ’cone of depression‘ in the potentiometric surface will form around wells, the water level declines are greatest at the well and decrease to effectively zero at some radial distance away from the well (Theis, 1940). Initially, the water being abstracted is released from aquifer storage. The release of water continues from aquifer storage until the cone of depression reaches one or more areas of an aquifer from which water can be captured, through either an increase in natural or artificial recharge, or a decrease in discharge (Barlow and Leake, 2012).

In light of the in-situ projects being completed or proposed within the MacKay River watershed, water requirements, and multi-party stakeholder interests, there are concerns regarding the preservation of the water resources in this catchment. These concerns have required that in-situ Projects are planned and developed recognizing the protection of the MacKay River’s ecosystem, consistent with Projects located in all of Alberta’s watersheds. This is essential to the integrity of this watershed’s ecosystem, human health and societal wellbeing as well as promoting economic growth in an environmentally-responsible manner which adheres to the principles of sustainable development.

Current in-situ project development processes with the potential to impact the water resources of the MacKay River watershed are required to be assessed as part of the Project’s EIA. These potential impacts include: water withdrawals, altered land use, installation, operation and reclamation of in-situ facilities, Project operation incidents and waste management/disposal.



Specific water related concerns associated with in-situ Projects that have been expressed include; non-saline groundwater use and impact on existing users, thermal mobilization of metals, and reduced groundwater discharge to surface receptors as well as consequential impact to associated systems.

The EIA of potential in-situ Project effects on the aquatic environment is developed considering the use of groundwater. These potential effects relate to water quantity, flow rates and quality within the groundwater systems, watercourses and waterbodies; and the effects to aquatic health, fish and fish habitat. The cumulative impact assessments for water are completed to assess the following issues (parentheses denote the systems assessed for impact):

1. Water withdrawals (hydrogeology, hydrology, surface water quality and aquatic ecology)

2. Altered land use (hydrology, surface water quality and aquatic ecology)

The following issues are assessed on an individual basis where a cumulative impact assessment is not warranted, owing to low impact rating or lack of offsite interactions:

1. Installation of in-situ wells (hydrogeology)

2. Operation of in-situ wells – Casing failure (hydrogeology)

3. Operation of in-situ wells – Thermal effects (hydrogeology)

4. Reclamation of in-situ wells (hydrogeology)

5. Project operation upsets (hydrogeology and surface water quality)

6. Deep well waste water disposal (hydrogeology)



6. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EIA PREDICTIVE MODELS

6.1 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER PREDICTIVE MODELS

6.1.1 Groundwater Flow Models

Numerical flow and transport modelling is a powerful tool to characterize surface water and groundwater systems by quantifying flows as well as assessing potential impacts of changes associated with pumping, injection, recharge rates and groundwater-surface water interactions. Prior to the development of a numerical groundwater flow model for a watershed, there is the need to develop a representative conceptual model for such a watershed. The conceptual model of the system consists of basic elements comprising inflows, , and the system’s geometry which represents the hypothesis of how the hydrogeologic system works. Mathematical modelling is a method of testing this hypothesis, typically by solving the partial differential equations of flow for hydraulic heads constrained by boundary conditions and for transient problems, initial conditions (Maidment, 1993). A hydrogeologic model is developed to arrive at a management decision which serves at least three main purposes:

• To provide insight into the hydrologic processes operative in the study area

• To develop predictions of a system behaviour under changed conditions

• To test alternative future scenarios to guide site investigation plans and to increase the confidence level in the management decision.

There is a range of numerical methods used in groundwater modelling including finite difference, finite element, integrated finite difference and analytic elements techniques (Anderson & Woessner, 1992). The finite difference and finite element methods formulate the continuous flow domain into discrete components. Both techniques generate sets of algebraic equations that approximate the partial differential flow equations. The finite difference method involves replacing the flow equations with finite difference equations for a set point or nodes; hence, the technique results in large sets of simultaneous algebraic difference equations to be solved.

The finite element method is an alternative formulation for developing a set of algebraic equations. The finite element method defines a variation of head within elements by the use of interpolation (basis) functions. Head is calculated at nodes but it is defined everywhere else by the basis functions (Anderson & Woessner, 1992). The finite element method has the advantage over the finite difference method of being able to more efficiently discretize irregular flow regions. It has a further advantage of handling complex boundary conditions, heterogeneity and anisotropy with comparative ease.

Groundwater flow models applying finite difference and finite element methods of approximating the groundwater flow problems have been developed for the various Projects completed in the MacKay River watershed. These models have been used to enhance the current understanding in the surface water and groundwater conditions within this region, as well as to facilitate the evaluation of the associated cumulative effects of in-situ oil sands development. Furthermore, they are often applied for the purpose of predicting impacts of a proposed in-situ technology such as the SAGD on the surface and subsurface



water systems. The most common EIA predictive models that have been used to assess cumulative impacts of in-situ oil sands development within the MacKay River watershed include the following:

• United States Geological Survey Finite Difference Groundwater Model (MODFLOW)

• Schlumberger Water Services Groundwater Model (Visual MODFLOW)

• DHI-WASY Gmbh Finite Element Subsurface Flow System (FEFLOW)

Table 6.1 is a summarized presentation of the key differences between the two most popular finite difference (MODFLOW) and finite element (FEFLOW) based groundwater flow models that have been deployed in this watershed. MODFLOW is a saturated flow model but has a range of code extensions that expand its capabilities to contaminant transport (MT3D, MT3DMS and MOC), density-dependent flow (MOCDENSE and SEAWAT), flowline tracing (MODPATH) and surface water interactions (MOD-SURFACT). FEFLOW has all the capabilities of the MODFLOW family plus the ability to handle unsaturated and thermal problems.

Table 6.1: Capabilities of the Commonly Used Finite Difference and Finite Element Groundwater Flow Models

Process MODFLOW FEFLOW

Saturation Saturated Saturated/Unsaturated

Dimension 2D/3D 2D/3D

State Steady/Transient Steady/Transient

Formulation Finite Difference Finite Element

Heterogeneity

Fracture Flow

Advection With extension

Dispersion With extension

Diffusion With extension

Reaction With extension

Adsorption With extension

Multi-Species With extension

Density With extension

Temperature

These models have been used by in-situ operators to address a number of different scenarios and ‘what if’ conditions in the local and regional study areas of the respective projects where in-situ technology is proposed to be deployed, such as:

• Interactions between groundwater and surface water in terms of surface water quantity



• Changes in groundwater quantity

• Potential implications of seasonal variations on groundwater flows and water levels

• Groundwater withdrawal for projects including expected alterations in the groundwater flow regime during and following operations

• Assess the potential impact of alterations in flow on the hydrology and identify temporary and permanent alterations, channel realignments, disturbances or surface water withdrawals

• Cumulative effects of the changes on hydrology (eg, timing, volume, peak and minimum flow rates, river regime and lake levels), including the significance of effects for downstream watercourses

6.1.2 Surface Water Models

Surface water models are used by in-situ operators to address changes to the quantity of surface water flow, water levels and channel regime in watercourses (during minimum, average and peak flows) as well as the estimation of water levels in waterbodies. The HSPF model was developed for some of the projects within the MacKay River watershed to quantify flow rates and water levels for the surface water features. It was used to estimate different flow metrics associated with some of the surface water features within the respective LSAs where observed hydrologic data series were either not available or of insufficient record length to permit adequate analysis. The HSPF model was developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, 2000). It requires both meteorological and watershed physiographic inputs such as; land use and cover, stream reach characteristics, precipitation record, relative humidity, solar irradiance, and air temperature. Additional information may be useful in estimating model parameters and for model verification purposes. Relatively longterm stream flow records are required for robust parameter estimation and validation to ascertain the model’s ability to represent the watershed’s streamflow regime and response during dry and wet periods. The HSPF model is a semi-distributed model that can be used to represent variation in land segments to capture the spatial variability of land use and the attendant sub-basin’s hydrological response within a watershed. This review does not present the various HSPF modelling results obtained for the different EIAs completed over the MacKay River watershed since the make-up water used for the various in-situ oil sands developments within this watershed is, or is proposed to be diverted from saline and non-saline groundwater sources and not from the surface water features.

6.2 MODEL IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES

The cumulative assessment of the impacts of an in-situ project on the surface and groundwater systems is accomplished on the basis of three scenarios;

• Baseline Case: This case considers existing and approved conditions within the study area

• Application Case: This case considers the Project as an addition to the baseline scenario



• Planned Development Case: This considers the environmental condition that would exist as a result of the interaction of the proposed project, existing and approved projects and other planned projects that can be reasonably expected to occur

The procedure for the groundwater flow model development to assess the impacts of the project on the groundwater and surface water system within the MacKay River watershed for the various cases are summarized as follows:

1. Identification of the purpose of the groundwater model

2. Development of the conceptual model of the geologic framework across the study area.

3. Selection of an appropriate numeric code (typically, but not necessarily, FEFLOW or MODFLOW)

4. Model design which entails the transformation of the site conceptual/geological model into numerical model

5. Calibration of the numerical flow model with empirical data from pressure transient testing

6. Sensitivity analysis examining such parameters as material properties and recharge ratios

7. Verification of the calibrated model to reproduce a set of field measurements not used in the calibration process, to increase the confidence in the developed model

8. Scenario analysis and documentation

Steps 1 through to 7 relates to the development of the numerical model over the study area while step 8 represents the various simulations that are conducted using the calibrated and validated numerical model.

6.3 MODEL PREDICTED IMPACTS TO THE MACKAY RIVER BASIN WATER RESOURCES

The following sub-sections provide summaries of the numerical modelling results associated with the proposed or completed in-situ oil sands development, as specified in Section 4.1, on the groundwater and surface water systems within the MacKay River watershed. Care has been taken to preserve the terminology used by the original author, in effort to preserve context. Specific project details and definitions can be found in the original EIA, SIR or Project Update as referenced in Section 4.1.

Table 6.2 provides a summary of projects considered within the groundwater assessment Application Case for each of the EIAs reviewed.



Table 6.2: Projects Considered in the EIA Groundwater Assessment under the Application Case

Suncor

MacKay River Project

Southern Pacific STP McKay Thermal

Project

Brion MacKay River

Commercial Project

Brion Dover Commercial

Project

Suncor

Dover Facility

Brion


Brion

MacKay River

Commercial Project

Brion

MacKay River

Commercial Project

Suncor

MacKay River Project and

Expansion Project

Southern Pacific

STP McKay Thermal

Project – Phase 1 and 2

Suncor

Dover Facility

Suncor

Dover Facility

Syncrude

Mildred Lake

Suncor

Dover Facility

Suncor


Expansion Project

Suncor


Expansion Project

-

Suncor


Expansion Project

Deer Creek Energy Ltd.

Joslyn In-situ

Value Creation Inc.

Terre de Grace Pilot

- - Canadian Natural

Horizon Mine -

- - Syncrude

Mildred Lake -

6.3.1 Suncor (Petro-Canada) - MacKay River Project

Potential groundwater issues were selected based on the planned activities of the Suncor - MacKay River Expansion (MRE), historical and current data on groundwater in the area from the existing Suncor - MacKay River Project (MRP), and recent impact assessments completed for other SAGD projects in the Athabasca oil sands area. The following groundwater issues were considered in the impact assessment:

• Potential for impacts to the quantity of groundwater on a regional and local scale

• Potential for impacts to the interaction between groundwater and surface water on a regional and local scale

• Potential for impacts to the quality of groundwater on a regional and local scale

The primary groundwater source of concern was the Quaternary-aged deposits (Birch Channel Aquifer). Given the lack of a suitable alternative aquifer source of water supply for this project (ie, brackish, saline, or surface sources), non-saline water from the Birch Channel Aquifer was proposed for steam generation. Groundwater withdrawal and injection activities are expected to alter groundwater flow patterns, which



may change the nature and magnitude of groundwater-surface water interactions. Changes in groundwater-surface water interactions may in turn affect surface water availability (ie, river baseflow) and quality, thus potentially affecting the local ecosystem habitat.

A 3D finite difference numerical groundwater flow model was developed for the RSA using the USGS MODFLOW code (MacDonald & Harbaugh, 1988). The Groundwater Vistas modelling environment Version 4 was used to construct the model and for pre- and post-processing model input and output. For the purpose of the impact assessment, modelling of the responses to groundwater withdrawal from the Birch Channel Aquifer was conducted using a total volume of 4,000 m3/d, which breaks down into 2,400 m3/d for the Suncor - MRE and the balance for existing operations at the Suncor Dover Facility and Suncor - MRP. Wastewater disposal was expected to commence at a rate of 320 m3/d for a 6-month period, followed by a sustained rate of 280 m3/d over the remainder of the project.

Model simulations were assessed at the Application Case (maximum disturbance) and at Closure using a rate of 4,000 m3/d. The results were then compared to the modeled Baseline Case. The MODLOW model was used to assess the total quantity of groundwater available in the Birch Channel Aquifer which was described in two ways:

• The total inflow to the Birch Channel Aquifer

• The total amount of water in storage within the channel

For the Birch Channel aquifer, modelling results indicate drawdown at Maximum Disturbance (Q1, 2035) due to groundwater diversion. Compared to the Baseline Case (Q4, 2004), drawdown in the Birch Channel Aquifer at the sustained rate of 4,000 m3/d is predicted to be greater than 5 m in the vicinity of the water production wells. The cone of depression defined by a minimum drawdown of 0.1 m, is expected to extend approximately 20 km up-gradient to the west and 5 km down-gradient to the east of the pumping centre. In the event that the maximum licensed withdrawal rates for the Suncor - Dover Facility and Suncor - MRP are required in conjunction with the proposed water use for the Suncor - MRE, the drawdown near the pumping centre would be in the order of 9.4 m. The associated drawdown cone could be expected to extend an additional 200 m further down-gradient to the east.

Groundwater inflow is predicted to increase as a result of groundwater withdrawal predominantly through increased infiltration or recharge, to the Birch Channel Aquifer from the overlying till (+ 1,500 m3/d), and reduced discharge to the down-gradient wetland complex (-700 m3/d). The predicted inflow, excluding changes in storage, under Maximum Disturbance is 16,900 m3/d. The estimated increase in groundwater extraction of 2,500 m3/d corresponds to approximately 15% of predicted inflow under Maximum Disturbance conditions.

At the end of the proposed Suncor – MRE Project, groundwater withdrawal will cease. Groundwater inflows will gradually replenish the extracted water, and water levels within the Birch Channel Aquifer will eventually recover to pre-Baseline conditions (assuming a static climate, or the absence of other withdrawals). The local-scale hydrological inflow systems will similarly re-establish themselves and reach a new steady state. Results from the model indicate that residual drawdown in the Birch Channel Aquifer 5 years after termination of groundwater diversions at Q1, 2040 (compared to the Baseline Case) is negligible over most portions of the aquifer. However, water levels near the groundwater production wells will have increased by approximately 1.5 m over the Baseline Case levels. The predicted rise in the



water level to above 2004 levels reflects a return of the aquifer to pre-1984 conditions, before the Suncor - Dover Facility and Suncor – MRP commenced operations in the area.

There are several significant points of interactions between the groundwater and surface water in the vicinity of the MRE which include;

1. Groundwater discharge as surface seepage to wetland complexes

2. Indirect discharge to rivers and tributary streams via springs and seeps

3. Direct groundwater discharge to rivers

Based on the results from the calibrated numerical groundwater model for the Baseline Case, the Birch Channel Aquifer would appear to contribute up to 8,000 m3/d of water to the eastern wetland complex (under natural pre-disturbance conditions). A change in this dynamic equilibrium during removal of groundwater is therefore expected. The MacKay River and its valley also act as a discharge area for local- and possibly intermediate-scale groundwater flow systems. Geologic units that have been reported to outcrop in the MacKay River valley northeast and east of the Planned Development Area (PDA) include the Beaverhill Lake Group, Wabiskaw Member, the upper part of the Clearwater Formation, and the Birch Channel Aquifer. Based on the regional geology, the Beaverhill Lake Group Aquifer outcrops in the MacKay River valley about 5 km upstream of the confluence with the Dover River. Considering the estimated river elevation in that area (250 masl) and the estimated hydraulic head in the Beaverhill Lake Group Aquifer near the confluence of the MacKay and Dover Rivers (250 masl to 275 masl) there would appear to be potential for groundwater to discharge from that interval to the MacKay River. The estimated rate of discharge from all sources to the MacKay River calculated by the groundwater model is approximately 2,500 m3/day. With respect to the Birch Channel Aquifer, the calculated discharge rate to the MacKay River is estimated at 2,500 m3/d and is not adversely affected by groundwater withdrawal from that interval.

Groundwater from the Birch Channel Aquifer is expected to discharge as surface seepage over portions of the lowland areas east of the PDA. As groundwater levels in the Birch Channel Aquifer are lowered, discharge to the overlying till will decrease resulting in a decrease in surface seepage. A wetland complex exists immediately east of the PDA above the Birch Channel Aquifer. A decrease in discharge flux in this area may affect wetland flora and/or fauna within this area. Groundwater withdrawal may also indirectly affect surface seepage through surficial till formations that are hydraulically connected with the underlying Birch Channel Aquifer. Drawdown in the Birch Channel Aquifer will increase the vertical hydraulic gradient through the overlying till. This increased vertical hydraulic gradient has the potential for increased infiltration through the till. This is of particular importance in wetland complexes where ponded water may be partially drained out of the area if it is not sufficiently replenished by the surrounding areas.

The Birch Channel Aquifer discharges groundwater to tributary stream east of the PDA that eventually drain into the MacKay River, thus adding somewhat to the flow in the River. Groundwater extraction at the MRE may reduce groundwater discharge from these tributaries (up to 9%), thereby affecting flow volumes in the MacKay River to a minor degree. During the period of maximum disturbance (Application Case), the model predicts groundwater infiltration to the Birch Channel Aquifer to increase approximately 1,500 m3/d within and up-gradient from the PDA. In contrast, groundwater discharge is predicted to decrease by approximately 700 m3/d down-gradient of the PDA.



At maximum disturbance, the model predicted incremental decrease in groundwater discharge to the down-gradient wetland complex is 9%. At the maximum groundwater allocation for the Suncor - Dover and Suncor - MRP Facilities, and anticipated groundwater use for the Suncor - MRE, the decrease in groundwater discharge to the down-gradient wetland may be expected to double to 18% (ie, reduction to 6,548 m3/day from 7,300 m3/day). The model predicts discharge to the MacKay River from the Birch Channel Aquifer under the Baseline Case to be 2,500 m3/day, and to remain unchanged during the maximum disturbance. During the Closure Case, the model-predicted discharge to the MacKay River valley in 2040 is 2,500 m3/day, which is unchanged from the Baseline Case.

The final impact rating associated with potential impacts arising from groundwater diversion are summarized in Table 6.3, the definitions of each criteria are available within the original EIA document.

Table 6.3: Final Impact Rating Summary Associated with Groundwater Diversion – Suncor – MacKay River Project

Issue Extent Magnitude Direction Duration Confidence Rating

Water availability to

down-gradient wetland

complexes

LSA Low to

moderate Positive Longterm

High to

moderate

3

(negligible

effect during

Project life)

Groundwater discharge

to MacKay River

baseflow

Not

applicable

Not

applicable Neutral

Not

applicable Moderate

4

(no change)

Groundwater quantity

within the Birch

Channel Aquifer

LSA Low to

moderate Positive Longterm

High to

moderate

3

(negligible

effect during

Project life)

6.3.2 Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - McKay Thermal Project

A numerical groundwater flow model was developed to complete the assessment of the potential impacts due to groundwater production from the Empress Formation. The USGS MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988) and the Visual MODLFOW interface developed by Schlumberger Water Services (2010) were used in this project. The impacts to groundwater resources for the Application and Planned Development Cases were determined using the model to predict changes in water level for the different aquifers. The results of these assessments are presented as follows:

1. Empress Aquifer

The Baseline Case includes production from the Empress Aquifer, the Grand Rapids 4 sand and the Grand Rapids 5 sand. The model predicted maximum drawdown for the Baseline Case at the end of the



Suncor pumping in 2035. The maximum drawdown predicted within the Empress Aquifer during the baseline case is 6m at the Southern Pacific source wells and 13 m at the Suncor source wells.

The production schedule for the project was included in the Application Case model simulation in addition to the production already simulated in the Baseline Case. Production at the project results in the development of a cone of depression that reaches a near maximum drawdown near the Southern Pacific source wells in 2015. This time corresponds to the decrease in project pumping rates from 4,000 m3/d during start-up to a steady state production of 1,708 m3/d. The drawdown cone continues to expand until the Suncor wells cease pumping in 2035. The maximum drawdown near the Southern Pacific source wells is 16 m in 2035 and 15 m near the Suncor source wells. The percent reduction in groundwater level within the Empress Aquifer as a result of the project production is then calculated as 14% at the Southern Pacific source wells based on available head of 69 m. Similarly, the percent reduction in groundwater level within the Empress Aquifer as a result of the project production is 7% at the Suncor source wells based on an assumed available head of 30 m. It should be noted that in the project update the production schedule and rates were revised. Based on the updated production schedule the maximum drawdown was predicted to occur in 2030, which coincides with the end of the steady high rate pumping period at 2,778 m3/d. The revised drawdown was estimated between 15.9 and 16.7 m at the Southern Pacific source wells.

The Planned Development Case was simulated including the production schedules for the Brion – MacKay River Commercial Project and Brion – Central Pilot project in addition to the Application Case schedule. The maximum predicted drawdown was simulated to occur after the cessation of pumping at the Suncor projects in 2035. The maximum predicted drawdown at the Southern Pacific source wells is 24 m in 2035 and 16 m near the Suncor source wells. Based on the updated production schedule the maximum drawdown was revised and predicted to occur in 2030, the end of the steady high rate pumping period at 2,778 m3/d. The revised drawdown was estimated between 20.1 and 20.7 m at the Southern Pacific source wells.

2. Grand Rapids Aquifers

The model drawdown predictions were used to evaluate effects to groundwater levels within the Grand Rapids 4 and Grand Rapids 5 Aquifers. Predicted effects at the Grand Rapids 3 Aquifer in the Application Case simulation were assessed as minimal in the vicinity of the Dover Central Pilot project, therefore, no further assessment of effects to groundwater levels in the Grand Rapids 3 Aquifer were undertaken. Available heads for these locations were estimated from available well locations as 49 m for the Grand Rapids 5 Aquifer and 47 m for Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer. The Baseline Case drawdown is predicted as 1.5 m for the Grand Rapids 5 Aquifer and 3 m for the Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer. The Application Case simulation predicts 3 m of drawdown for the Grand Rapids 5 Aquifer and 6 m for the Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer. The percent reduction in groundwater level associated with the project production was estimated to be 3% for the Grand Rapids 5 Aquifer and 6% for the Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer.

The Planned Development drawdown is predicted as 6 m for the Grand Rapids 5 Aquifer, 11 m for the Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer and no effect at the Grand Rapids 3 Aquifer.



3. Shallow Drift Aquifers, Surface Waterbodies and Wetland Areas

Groundwater withdrawal from the Empress Aquifer has been shown to result in drawdown within shallower aquifer units. The effects of this drawdown could result in drawdown within shallow drift aquifers and cause surface waterbodies to begin providing recharge to the underlying sediments.

Predicted drawdown in the uppermost layer of the model, which represents the base of the drift, varies between 0 and 6 m near Southern Pacific and up to 13 m near Suncor in the Baseline Case simulation at maximum drawdown in 2035. The extent of the drawdown cone (defined as the 1 m drawdown contour interval) is approximately 10 km to the west of the Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal Project, 15 km to the south and extending northeast towards the Suncor project. The application simulation at 2035 shows a slightly greater extent of the drawdown cone with maximum values of 15 m near the Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal project and 14 m near the Suncor project.

The hydraulic head of the Grand Rapids 4 Aquifer, which is uppermost at the Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal project, is 458 masl near the MacKay River relative to a river elevation of about 450 masl. This indicates a hydraulic relationship which is consistently observed between the MacKay River and the groundwater units (ie, shallow drift, the Grand Rapids 4 and 5 Aquifer and the Empress Aquifer), where the groundwater units have higher hydraulic heads compared to the river and are therefore providing recharge to the river. An estimate of the flux change for MacKay River was made using an average drawdown of 3 m for the baseline simulation and 7 m for the application case. Baseline condition at the Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal project was assumed as representative of the regional relationships and a conservative value of 2x10-7 m/s was used as the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the surficial drift. Based on this information, the groundwater flux to the MacKay River was calculated as 0.01 m3/s for the Baseline Case and 0.0003 m3/s for the Application Case (revised to 0.002 m3/s in the 2012 project Update). The groundwater units are expected to continue to provide recharge to the MacKay River at a reduced rate. Relative to the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River which is 2.46 m/s, the baseline recharge represents only 0.5% and any reduction in this amount would be quantitatively negligible.

The Planned Development simulation indicates the maximum drawdown may vary between 0 and 24 m near the Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal project and up to 15 m near the Suncor project. An estimate of the flux change for MacKay River was made using an average drawdown of 12 m for the Planned Development Case. Based on this assumption the groundwater flux to the MacKay River was calculated as -0.02 m3/s (later revised to -0.001 m3/s in the 2012 project update). This indicates a potential shift in the hydraulic relationship between the MacKay River and the underlying groundwater units. The change in groundwater discharge was assessed as a negligible quantity in comparison to the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River.




Table 6.4: Final impact Rating Summary Associated with Groundwater Diversion – Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal Project (Application Case)

Issue Extent Magnitude Direction Duration Confidence Rating

Surface water

quantity

Water Bodies and

wetland

Regional Negligible Negative

Residual

(>10 years after

decommissioning)

Low Low

Groundwater

quantity

Drift Aquifers

Regional Low Negative

Residual

(>10 years after

decommissioning)

Low Low

Groundwater

quantity

Empress Aquifer


Residual

(>10 years after

decommissioning)

Moderate Low

Groundwater

quantity

Grand Rapids

Aquifers


Residual

(>10 years after

decommissioning)

Moderate Low

6.3.3 Brion Energy (Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.) - MacKay River Commercial Project

The nature of the disturbance and the potential effect due to each of the operational aspects of the Brion - MacKay River Commercial project (MRCP) is associated with the following:

• Groundwater withdrawal

• Wastewater disposal

• Operation of surface facilities

• Production and steaming

Potential impacts associated with water level and water quality are evaluated with respect to potential changes expected for:

• Surface waterbodies and shallow overburden aquifers

• The Empress Channel Aquifers

• Grand Rapids Aquifer

• The Keg River Aquifer



Groundwater withdrawal and wastewater disposal impacts are believed to be the main cumulative effects attributed to the MRCP and are addressed in terms of the Baseline, Application and Planned Development Case scenarios. Groundwater flow was simulated in this study using the USGS MODFLOW code. Assessment of the cumulative effects of non-saline water withdrawal for the Brion - MRCP on water quantity was facilitated using the developed groundwater flow model. The numerical groundwater flow model represents the Empress Channel Aquifer in the MacKay River watershed and groundwater diversions from this aquifer were simulated.

To facilitate the cumulative effects assessment discussion regarding the Application Case and Planned Development Case scenarios for the Empress Channel Aquifer (MacKay Channel), two theoretical observation wells (Observation Points #1 and #2) were simulated in the flow model. The maximum predicted drawdown at Observation Point #1 was approximately 8 m in 2059 for the Application Case scenario and 10 m in 2041 for the Planned Development Case scenario. The available head at Observation Point #1, which is 150 m from the diversion point, is approximately 70 m. The predicted percent change in available head at Observation Point #1 is 11% and 14% for the Application and Planned Development Case scenarios, respectively. These predicted percent changes in available head values are considered low magnitudes of impact for this assessment. They result in a percent change in available head less than 35% in the first year and 50% thereafter, which is within the drawdown constraints of the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (Alberta Government, 2006).

The maximum predicted drawdown at Observation Point #2 is approximately 1 m in 2059 for the Application Case scenario and 2 m for 2041 for the Planned Development Case scenario. The resulting predicted percent change in available head at this location will be less than 5% for both the Application and Planned Development Case scenarios and is considered a negligible magnitude impact. At the location of Suncor’s groundwater withdrawal from the Birch Channel (over 15 km away from Observation Point #2), it is predicted that the effect of groundwater withdrawal from the MacKay Channel for the non-saline requirements of the Brion - MRCP will be less than 1 m and would not affect Suncor’s ability to source groundwater from the Birch Channel.

The drawdown in the Empress Channel Aquifer is expected to propagate vertically and could result in a combination of:

• Drawdown in overlying overburden aquifers

• Induced recharge from shallow groundwater aquifers into the Empress Channel Aquifer

• Induced recharge from the MacKay River and tributaries

• Induced recharge from spatially distributed surface waterbodies such as wetlands

• Changes in water storage within the Empress Channel Aquifer and overlying overburden due to changes in pore pressure and/or water saturation

The relative magnitude of aquifer support derived from each of the mechanisms listed above is complex and dependent on a wide variety of interrelated hydrogeologic characteristics such as:

• Aquifer lithology and heterogeneity



• Overburden lithology and heterogeneity

• The lithology and heterogeneity of material below the rivers and tributaries in the region

• Seasonal variability in recharge related to spring runoff, winter freeze and summer precipitation

• The seasonal distribution of spatially distributed surface waterbodies such as wetlands, the spatial and temporal variability in evapotranspiration and the potential change in evapotranspiration due to potential changes in groundwater recharge

To facilitate the cumulative effects assessment discussion regarding the predicted impacts to surface waterbodies and shallow overburden aquifers due to groundwater withdrawal from the Empress Channel Aquifer in the MacKay Channel, the predicted drawdown near surface (layer 1 of the numerical model) at Observation Point #1 was assessed. In the Application and Planned Development Case scenarios, the predicted drawdown near surface ranges from 0 m away from the source wells to up to 4.5 m in the vicinity of the 06-05 WSW. With respect to groundwater quantity, predicted drawdown of this magnitude at the near surface could have potentially high magnitude impacts to shallow overburden aquifer and surface water body levels. It is important to note that the project related change in shallow water levels is predicted to be non-detectable for more than 10 years and will not reach the maximum predicted water level change until 2059, after more than 45 years of pumping. The predicted change in shallow water levels in 2059 is less than 1 m if the average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the overburden material is 8 x 10-10 m/s compared to greater than 3 m if the average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the overburden is 8.0 x 10-9 m/s. Both of these vertical hydraulic conductivity values are within the range of possibility given the lithology of the overburden.

Under steady-state baseline conditions, the simulated net groundwater discharge to the MacKay River and its tributaries above the MacKay Channel was determined at approximately 4,730 m3/d. In 2059 for the Application Case, the simulated net groundwater discharge to the MacKay River and its tributaries above the Mackay Channel was determined at approximately 3,750 m3/d representing a decrease of approximately 980 m3/d compared to baseline net discharge. This represents less than 0.1% of the mean annual discharge of the MacKay River as measured at the WSC station 07DB001.

The effects of groundwater diversions were not predicted to propagate into the Cretaceous formations outside the immediate vicinity of the MacKay Channel

The final impact rating associated with potential impacts arising from groundwater diversion are summarized in Table 6.5, the definitions of each criteria are available within the original EIA document. It should be noted that as part of the project update the saline Leduc Aquifer was identified as a viable make-up water source, with non-saline water use from the MacKay Channel Aquifer potentially being used for dilution if needed. As such the potential impacts simulated as part of the EIA detailed above represent a conservative scenario.



Table 6.5: Final Impact Rating Summary Associated with Groundwater Diversion – Brion – MacKay River Commercial Project (Application Case)

Issue Extent Magnitude Direction Duration Permanence Confidence Rating

Surface and

shallow

groundwater

quantity

Local Potential

high Negative Longterm

Reversible in

the longterm Low Low

Groundwater

quantity

Empress Aquifer

Local Low Negative Longterm Reversible in

the longterm Medium Low

Groundwater

quantity

Grand Rapids

Aquifers

Local/

Regional1 Low Negative Longterm

Reversible in

the longterm High Low

NOTES : 1. The extent impact rating was documented as “Regional” in text and “Local” in EIA tables, further clarification was not identified in the Project Updates and SIR Responses reviewed.

6.3.4 Brion Energy (Dover OPCO) - Dover Commercial Project

Brion Energy (formerly, Dover OPCO) proposed a SAGD facility, which is located approximately 70 km northwest of Fort McMurray. A source of water is required for drilling, construction, steam generation, operations, utility requirements, domestic purposes, etc., in order to operate the proposed facility. The proposed source of water was from both the Grand Rapids Aquifer and Empress Channel Aquifer (Birch Channel). A 3D groundwater flow model (FEFLOW) was used to evaluate the impacts of groundwater diversion on the groundwater hydrology and corresponding possible induced groundwater-surface water interaction. The purpose of the groundwater modeling was to:

• Enable quantitative assessments of the effects of pumping operations

• Enable assessment of possible cumulative impacts with other operations

• To obtain quantitative insights regarding possible accompanying induced changes in interaction between groundwater and surface water

The results obtained from the numerical modelling for the different considered scenarios are presented as follows:

1. Phase 1 Only Scenario

Based on the defined pumping scenario, the maximum theoretical drawdown after 42 years of continuous pumping is expected to be generally less than 20 m within the Grand Rapids Aquifer and less than10 m in the Empress Channel Aquifer. The simulated drawdown within both Aquifer systems is shown to be constrained by aquifer geometries. The simulated drawdown at all evaluation points is less than 35% of



the available drawdown through the project lifetime, and therefore meets the requirements of the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection.

There is thought to be a potential hydraulic connectivity between the Grand Rapids Aquifer System and the Empress Channel Aquifer. From the predictive modeling results, the drawdown in the Grand Rapids Aquifer System may influence or propagate to groundwater levels in the Empress Formation Aquifer. Drawdown from water use in support of the project is not anticipated to significantly affect other groundwater users within the regional study area. At the end of the project, when groundwater withdrawals cease, groundwater levels are predicted to recover, with simulations indicating up to 94% of drawdown recovery within pumping wells 10 years after pumping cessation. Recovery within the wider area will occur at a slower rate.

2. Full Build Scenario

Under the Full Build Scenario pumping scenario, the maximum theoretical drawdown after 66 years of continuous pumping is expected to be generally less than 20 m within the Grand Rapids Aquifer and less than10 m in the Empress Channel Aquifer. The simulated drawdown within both Aquifer systems is shown to be constrained by aquifer geometries. The simulated drawdown at all evaluation points is less than 35% of the available drawdown through the project lifetime, and therefore meets the requirements of the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection

3. Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions (Full Build Scenario)

Within the LSA, the effects of groundwater diversion may also affect naturally prevailing groundwater-surface water interactions. During the life of the project, direct pumping from the Empress Birch Channel Aquifer and drawdown of groundwater from the Grand Rapids Aquifer System will lower groundwater within the Empress Birch Channel Aquifer. As a result of pumping-induced lower groundwater levels, groundwater discharge to surface water within the LSA may decrease. As a result of the reduced groundwater level, groundwater discharge to surface water bodies and wetlands may be affected. Groundwater outflow that may be affected within the regional study area include discharge to surface watercourses.

The model was used to simulate the predicted decrease in groundwater discharge to the Ells River, Dover River and Dunkirk River along specified reaches represented by discrete assessment nodes. Decrease in groundwater discharge was also estimated for the point at which the Dover discharges to the MacKay River. The model predicted an overall decrease in discharge for all three rivers, which pass in the vicinity of or cross the Birch Channel. The model did not record a change in respect to the MacKay River. The change in discharge to surface water over the life of the project varies along the river reach. The initial (ie, pre-project-pumping) discharge to surface water and the minimum predicted discharge (ie, maximum pumping influence) to surface water over the Full Build project life were calculated as a sum of incremental changes along the total length of reach assessed and expressed as an overall percentage. These percentages are presented in Table 6.6. The greatest effects were observed where each river traverses, or passes in close proximity to the position of the Birch Channel. The maximum reduction in groundwater discharge occurs between years 2075 and 2089, and is consistent with the predicted maximum drawdown for the Full Build Scenario which occurs in 2079. The effects will be reversible because groundwater discharge recovers following cessation of pumping.



Table 6.6: Predicted Effect of Groundwater Diversion on Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water for the Full Build Scenario

Location

Total Length of

Reach Assessed (km)

Initial Discharge to

Surface Water (m3/d)

Minimum Discharge to

Surface Water over

Project Life (m3/d)

Decrease in

Discharge to Surface Water (%)

Dover River 98 2,858 2,643 8

Ells River 99 1,959 1,783 9

Dunkirk River 57 1,358 1,171 14


Table 6.7: Final Impact Rating Summary Associated with Groundwater Diversion – Brion – Dover Commercial Project (Application Case)

Issue Extent Magnitude Direction Duration Reversibility Frequency Environmental Consequence

Surface water

interactions Local Moderate Negative Longterm Reversible Moderate Low

Groundwater

quantity Regional Moderate Negative Longterm Reversible High Moderate

6.4 DISCUSSION

The potential impact of groundwater withdrawal for make-up water on the surface water and groundwater systems for some of the in-situ oil sands projects presented above (based upon modelling results) were considered regional in extent, potentially longterm in duration, continuous in frequency, reversible in the longterm, of negligible to low magnitude, and to have a negative contribution. However, as pointed out in the Suncor MacKay River Expansion project, there are several significant points of interactions between the groundwater and surface water within the MacKay River watershed which include;

• Groundwater discharge as surface seepage to wetland complexes

• Indirect discharge to rivers and tributary streams via springs and seeps

• Direct groundwater discharge to rivers

Simulations of groundwater withdrawal from the Grand Rapids and Empress Aquifers have been shown to result in drawdown within the shallower aquifer units. The effects of this drawdown could result in reduced groundwater discharge to the surface water system and potentially groundwater discharge flux reversals, whereby surface waterbodies previously receiving groundwater discharge begin to source



groundwater recharge (Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal project). The simulated reversal of groundwater discharge flux at this time has been determined to be of negligible impact based on comparisons with the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River.

A clear understanding and quantification of the interaction between surface water and groundwater is critical in closing the water budget of the MacKay River watershed. In the assessments completed in these different EIAs, either MODFLOW or FEFLOW models have been developed to evaluate the potential impacts of groundwater abstractions on the groundwater and surface water systems. HSPF was also deployed for some of these projects to assess potential impacts to the surface waterbodies.

FEFLOW and MODFLOW, as applied to the projects, employed recharge as a calibration parameter during the parameter estimation phase in order to reproduce the observed groundwater heads. This approach is a commonly-used simplification but is not a limitation of either MODFLOW or FEFLOW. Both codes allow much more sophisticated treatment of recharge incorporating climatic variables. The intricate interactions between the surface water bodies and shallow groundwater system that exist in the MacKay River watershed system suggest that greater emphasis could be placed on representing recharge-discharge processes and the interaction with surface water bodies.

To capture and quantify the interactions between the groundwater and surface water processes following a physically-based approach, coupled surface water-groundwater models equipped with appropriate numeric engines and physics are favoured (Jones and Mendoza, 2013). If implemented this methodology would additionally align with the stated objective of the ESRD Land Use Framework.

Finally, differences in model assumptions for domain, boundary conditions, material properties aquifer continuity and surface water/groundwater interactions on a project by project basis result in cumulative effects assessments which are not directly comparable between sequentially completed EIAs within the MacKay River watershed. At the time of writing the NAOS regional groundwater flow model (using FEFLOW), encompassing the proposed oil sands leases of the MacKay watershed has recently been developed (WorleyParsons, 2011). This model is an extensive regional model covering an area approximately 3 or 4 times that of the MacKay River watershed. The NAOS model has the potential to evaluate cumulative impacts of the deeper saline groundwater systems. The broad regional extent of the model may mitigate against its use to effectively quantify local shallow surface water-groundwater interactions where increased vertical resolution is imperative. The NAOS model could be adapted to incorporate such features together with a mesh design to allow local-scale project ‘inserts’.



7. ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE & GROUNDWATER CONCERNS

Addressing the requirements specified in the EIA TOR necessitate that some components of the EIA are designed to assess Hydrogeology and Aquatic Resources (hydrology, surface water quality and aquatic ecology). These assessments for various systems can result in the delineation of slightly different regional and local study areas which may be within the watershed or span beyond its physical boundaries. The LSA selected is the area surrounding and including the project area, where there is a reasonable potential for immediate environmental impacts due to ongoing project activities. The RSA selected is the area where there is a potential for cumulative and socioeconomic effects, and that will be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the project (Alberta Government, 2013c). The hydrogeological assessment RSA for each project reviewed is presented in Drawing 7.1. The hydrogeology RSA assessments represent areas of approximately 23,590 km2 (Brion - Dover Commercial project), 4,879 km2 (Brion - MacKay River Commercial project), 6,880 km2 (Southern Pacific –McKay Thermal project) and 1,929 km2 (Suncor - MacKay River project). The hydrology assessment RSA for each project reviewed is presented in Drawing 7.2. The hydrology RSA assessments represent areas of approximately 8,000 km2 (Brion - Dover Commercial project), 10,100 km2 (Brion - MacKay River Commercial project), 80 km2 (Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal project) and 5,415 km2 (Suncor - MacKay River project).

The subsequent section provides a review of how impacts to surface water and groundwater systems have been addressed for in-situ projects completed within the MacKay River watershed to date. It further details how cumulative effects are assessed and the most recent effect assessments undertaken, if applicable.

It has to be emphasized that the effect assessment is generally not completed where regulation-required or vulnerability-driven mitigation strategies have been employed to reduce or mitigate possible effects. These assessments are based on individual EIAs which may or may not address certain potential impacts based on the project setting and issued TOR.

7.1 LINKAGE ANALYSIS

Key activities associated with in-situ projects which could cause potential environmental impact to the hydrogeological system have been identified and these may include; water withdrawals by multiple operators; drilling, installation and operation of SAGD wells including potential casing failures; and, operation of related infrastructure (ie, pipelines, roads). The potential impacts to the hydrogeological system include; altered groundwater quantities and levels, changes to flow system pattern and water quality change.

The transfer mechanism of the potential impacts from the hydrogeological system to the hydrological and ecological systems is then investigated. This includes altered groundwater discharge to the surface water system (or flow reversal), surface water quality change due to reduced baseflow, reduced groundwater levels in groundwater-dependent ecosystems (fens), and human health impacts. These potential impacts can cause further impacts, such as changes to aquatic life and wildlife habitats. To assess the potential interconnected impacts, the proponent first predicts (using numerical modeling) the likely and potential



effects of the project to the hydrogeological system (Section 6). Secondary effects transferred from the hydrogeological system into the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are then assessed if a valid linkage is expected.

7.2 WATER QUANTITY

The subsequent Sections detail how the project reviewed have completed the effects and cumulative effect assessments with respect to water quantity concerns.

A summary of the completed effect and cumulative effect assessments to date for in-situ projects within the MacKay River watershed is presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Summary of Water Quantity Effect Assessments

Concern Suncor - MRP Southern Pacific –

STP Brion - MRCP Brion - DCP

Groundwater availability

Surface water – groundwater

interactions

Surface water low-flow rates

and water levels

(no change

expected)

7.2.1 Water Users

The impact of non-saline groundwater diversions from Cretaceous and Quaternary aquifers on existing water users has also been assessed via the development of 3D numerical groundwater flow models (Section 6). The numerical model is developed based on the project domain, geologic and hydrogeologic setting, and existing water users. The models are calibrated based on historical water level and diversion data to represent the Baseline Case at the time of the proposed projects start-up. The Application Case is then simulated to account for hydrogeological change resulting from project groundwater diversions. The models are developed to assess expected effects on groundwater levels in conjunction with existing diversions.

To assess the project impact on existing groundwater users, the Application Case and Planned Development Case model simulations are completed and inter-compared with the specifications regarding drawdown as outlined in the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (Alberta Government, 2006). Under this guideline, the project is required to be designed so that the available head is not lowered more than 35% after 1 year of production and not more than 50% throughout the project life, as determined at a distance of 150 m from the water diversion source. This criterion is applied to the Proponent’s non-saline water source wells and other users’ non-saline water source wells within the RSA.



7.2.2 Surface Water – Groundwater Interactions

The impact of non-saline groundwater diversions from the Cretaceous and Quaternary aquifers contributing baseflow to the surface water system has been assessed via the development of 3D numerical groundwater models, as described in Section 6.1.1. The models are developed to estimate groundwater flux in the vicinity of surface water features, allowing the Proponent to ascertain the potential effects of reduced discharge (gaining streams), increased recharge conditions (losing streams) or flow reversals (switch from discharging to recharging conditions).

In general, the EIA’s within the MacKay watershed have simulated reduced groundwater discharge to the surface water receptors, the impact of reduced discharge has been classed as negligible based on the seasonal flow of the MacKay River. However, local scale areas of flux reversal have been simulated. For example the Planned Development Case at the Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal project identified that groundwater levels could drop below the surface water elevation of the MacKay River in localized areas, resulting in a flux reversal from groundwater discharge to groundwater recharge.

Monitoring programs have been developed to include shallow aquifers and surface water features, so that groundwater diversions can be adapted and managed in the event of detectable near surface/surface water quantity impact which can be demonstrated to represent an unsustainable impact.

7.2.3 Surface Water Low-Flow and Freezing Conditions

Surface water levels are in dynamic equilibrium with precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, groundwater recharge/discharge and surface water inflow/outflow. Where a project affects the groundwater flux into or out of a surface water body, it will affect the flow rate and water level of the surface water body to some extent. During low-flow periods (mid to late winter or drought periods), the groundwater contribution to streamflow may become significant. The impact of non-saline groundwater diversions from Cretaceous and Quaternary aquifers on surface water systems during low-flow periods was assessed by comparing the predicted groundwater discharge change (Section 6) against the baseline hydrologic data for a given area.

Low-flow rates have been derived from rating curves developed by direct water level and discharge measurements, HSPF modeling and/or from estimated groundwater discharge rates (Section 6). Potential effect assessments were completed conservatively by assuming that during low-flow period, surface water is sourced solely from groundwater discharge. Reduced groundwater discharge to surface water can result in reduced instream flow that typically has minimal hydrologic effects under average and high flow conditions but may have hydrologic consequences during low-flow periods (Dover OPCO, 2010).

Where a decrease in surface water flow rate is predicted, an assessment on the impact to the aquatic habitat quality and quantity is completed. If a decrease in water level is predicted, there is a potential adverse affect (reduction) to overwintering habitat. However, these adverse affects are limited in size and frequency and may be balanced out by predicted increase in runoff generation from land use changes. Monitoring programs have been developed to include shallow aquifers and surface water features, so that



groundwater diversions can be adapted and managed in the event of detectable near surface/surface water quantity impact.

7.3 WATER QUALITY

Existing information on the surface and groundwater systems are evaluated to define the Baseline Case conditions within the RSA and LSA. This Section details how the project reviewed have completed effect and cumulative effect assessments with respect to water quality issues. A summary of the effect and cumulative effect assessments completed to date for in-situ Projects within the MacKay River watershed is presented in Table 7.2

Table 7.2: Summary of Water Quality Effect Assessments

Concern Suncor - MRP Southern Pacific –

STP Brion - MRCP Brion - DCP

Drilling fluids

Casing failure

Thermal effects

Fluid release

Waste water disposal (offsite facility) (offsite facility)

Reduced stream flow (no change

expected)

(no change

expected)

NOTES: 1. No CEA denotes no cumulative effect assessment. The Proponent indicated no valid linkage between sources existed at

this report development. Therefore, a CEA was not warranted.

7.3.1 Drilling Fluids

There is a concern that during the drilling phase of the in-situ project, drilling fluids could impact groundwater quality. Non-saline aquifers most at risk include: localized inter-till sands and gravel aquifers, Empress Channel Aquifers, and Grand Rapids Aquifers.

The risks associated with drilling fluids have been assessed as low based on the highly localized occurrence and designed viscosity of drilling fluids. As the construction materials are selected in accordance with AER Directives, and are considered to be innocuous or inert, the longterm effect of drilling fluids is considered low. In light of the above, drilling fluids have not been considered to have potential cumulative impact effects on water quality.

7.3.2 Well Casing Failure

There is a concern that during the operation of SAGD wells, several mechanisms could potentially impact the groundwater quality of the surrounding hydrogeological system. Incomplete annular sealants could



result in cross connection of previously isolated aquifers. A casing failure could occur resulting in direct contact between the well injection/production fluids and a shallower aquifer, and potential upward migration of impacts. Furthermore, steam injection over-pressurization could fracture the cap rock.

Projects are initially drilled with surface and intermediate casings cemented into place between the surface and the target formation. Cement bond logs are run to confirm cement integrity and hydraulic isolation of shallower water-bearing units. Casings and materials are engineered to withstand thermal operations. The potential for casing failure is monitored so that shut down procedures can be implemented in the event of an appreciable pressure drop. Steam injection pressures are regulated to minimize potential of fracturing either to the reservoir or caprock.

Within the EIA process the risks associated with casing failure have been assessed as low based on operating practices and the highly localized occurrence in the event impacts occur. In the event a casing failure does occur and is detected, the impacts have been determined as reversible in the medium term via monitored natural attenuation, in-situ remedial action, and/or risk management. Consequently, casing failures have not been considered to have a potential cumulative impact effect. However, there have been documented concerns regarding the longterm performance of cements used during energy well abandonment (Dusseault et al., 2000). These concerns are addressed during the project reclamation phase.

To mitigate any potential impact to the groundwater quality, projects are developed with nested and/or clustered groundwater monitoring networks (at selected locations). The groundwater monitoring wells typically record pressure, temperature and quality indicators which can detect the presence of groundwater quality impacts in the vicinity of a SAGD pad.

7.3.3 Thermal Mobilization of Metals and Trace Elements

There is a concern that during the injection of steam into SAGD wells, the conduction of heat from the vertical wellbores into the adjacent hydrogeological system has the potential to impact groundwater quality by altering the equilibrium conditions. Increased temperatures can affect the solubility and mobility of elemental constituents naturally occurring within the geological media (Hem, 1989). Within the area of elevated temperature around the wellbore the promotion of element release from sediments to groundwater (eg, arsenic) and precipitation of minerals from groundwater (eg, carbonates) can occur. The distribution of heat within the hydrogeological system is controlled by conduction (dominant in low permeability materials), convection and advection (dominant in permeable materials).

To assess risks associated with thermal anomaly development attempts have been made to estimate the radius of heat influence by considering conduction around a well based on time and the geological media’s effective thermal diffusivity. In low permeability units, it is assumed that the thermal plume development will be radial, of limited extent and possess a longer time period of residual signature following heat shut down. However, the thermal plume development in advection dominated systems (high permeability media) will develop downgradient of the injection well, across a larger area and possess a shorter time period of residual signature following heat shut down. In settings with high groundwater flow velocities (greater than 50 m/yr), the heat propagation has been detected up to 400 m



downgradient of the source (Imperial Oil, 2002). It is anticipated that elevated temperatures will remain in the hydrogeological system in the order of decades if not hundreds of years or more (Imperial Oil, 2002).

The recent Application Case scenario assessment for the Brion - Dover Commercial Project based on analytical solutions (Matthews and Russell, 1967, and Johnston, 1981) indicated that the theoretical thermal zone of influence around a SAGD well is approximately 65 m in radius assuming continuous heating for 10 years. This would be the expected scenario in a conduction dominated system (low-flow velocity). The effective radius of a thermal anomaly based on thermal diffusivity of wet sand (3.3x10-6 m2/s) as used in analytical analyses of the Brion - Dover Commercial Project and Suncor - MacKay River Project is presented in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1: Effective Radius of a Thermal Anomaly Based on the Thermal Diffusivity of a Wet Sand Assuming No Hydraulic Gradient

To estimate plume development in convection dominated systems (high flow velocity), analytical solutions for conduction are combined with advection estimates based on the groundwater flow velocity (dependant on media effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient). In the case of the Brion – Dover Commercial project downgradient thermal plume development was estimated at 65 m (no hydraulic gradient) in the Viking Aquifer and 185 m (15 years of 8 m per year advection) in the Grand Rapids Aquifer. As the thermal plume development lengths are less than well pad spacing (typically 750 m, Brion – Dover Commercial project) it is not expected that thermal anomalies will coalesce.

Additionally, estimates of thermal plume development are compared with observed thermal plume development at existing projects (Imperial Oil, 2002 and Canadian Natural, 2006). It should be noted that the Imperial Oil project is a CSS in-situ facility, and is not directly analogous to SAGD well pads. The Suncor - MacKay River project predicted thermal plume development of about 1 km in length within the Birch Channel Aquifer due to high groundwater flow velocity (125 m/yr), based on comparisons to the

0 10 20 30 40 50Time (years)

0

40

80

120

160

Ther

mal

ano

mal

y ra

dius

(m)

Dover Commercial Project




Imperial Oil CSS field observations. However, monitoring wells did not detect any discernible groundwater temperature change between 2002 and 2005 (Petro-Canada, 2005).

It is expected that individual well heat plumes will coalesce, where elemental constituents will be mobilized within the heat plume (Dover OPCO, 2010). Attempts to simulate coalesced thermal plume development and aqueous phase geochemical reactions beyond analytical solutions have not been included in EIAs due to the poor understanding of some variables, such as; ambient aqueous geochemistry, equilibrium solubility, geological mineralization, geological heterogeneity, variable element retardation factors and variable heating (Dover OPCO, 2010). It is anticipated that attenuation processes such as hydrodynamic dispersion, sorption, precipitation and biomineralization will reduce elevated solute concentrations within a few hundred meters of the heat source (Imperial Oil, 2002). As such, the potential impacts of element mobilization have been characterized as local in extent and of negligible effect on a regional scale. Therefore, thermal mobilization of element is considered as not having a potential cumulative impact effect. The transfer of potential groundwater quality impacts to the surface water system is not expected based on a lack of linkage between the areas of impact and the identified surface water receptor locations.

To mitigate potential impact to the groundwater quality, projects are developed with nested and/or clustered groundwater monitoring networks (at selected locations) which are designed to detect and characterize thermal plume development and mobilization of elements, and to allow adaptive management implementation, if needed. In the event that a deleterious impact is identified, the operator will attempt to delineate the extent of impact, ascertain the temporal nature of impacts, determine linkage to potential receptors and develop predictive models. The locations are typically selected on a risk-based basis, having reviewed location, hydraulic parameters and proximity to sensitive receptors.

7.3.4 Fluid Release/Spills

There is a concern that during the operation of SAGD facilities, accidental surface releases of fluids and chemicals associated with the project could result in groundwater or surface water quality impact.

Projects are designed with primary and secondary containment controls to minimize the potential of spills or fluid releases interacting with the environment. Additionally, setbacks are required when transferring chemicals. Should a fluid release breach secondary containment, the onsite groundwater monitoring network is designed to detect the impact before it can migrate offsite toward sensitive receptors. In the event that water quality impacts are detected, source removal, remedial actions, and/or risk assessment/management may be triggered as regulated under EPEA.

Based on the localized nature of impact source, engineered controls, monitoring network and remedial options, EIAs have not considered cumulative effect assessment to surface and groundwater quality from surface release.

7.3.5 Surface Water Low-Flow and Freezing Conditions

There is a concern that during low-flow periods, a reduction in groundwater discharge could develop resultant from groundwater diversions. The reduced groundwater discharge could result in reduced TDS



concentrations (where TDS is primarily sourced from groundwater discharge) to a surface waterbody. Other impacts associated with reduced water levels may include; increased temperature changes (reduced buffering capacity), increased light penetration, and increased chemical loadings (reduced dilution) (Hayashi and Rosenberry, 2002). Changes in chemical and biological processes can also impact water pH and cause mineral precipitation which in turn can affect the aquatic ecology.

Baseline data is obtained from field sampling programs of surface water quality; water quality samples are obtained to characterize seasonal and spatial quality trends. Based on the recently completed EIA for the Brion - Dover Commercial project, simulated groundwater discharge to the MacKay River is negligible in the upper reaches, and the total reduction in groundwater discharge is less than 0.005 m3/s below the confluence of the MacKay and Dunkirk Rivers. The simulated reduction is less than 5% of the 7Q10 flow rate (0.10 m3/s).

To mitigate potential impacts to the surface water quality and aquatic ecosystem, projects have developed groundwater, shallow groundwater and surface water monitoring networks. Impacts are monitored to identify trends and adaptive management programs can be implemented as required to mitigate the impact, if required.

7.3.6 Wastewater Disposal

During the operation of SAGD facilities, wastewater which cannot be recycled for injection needs to be disposed. As wastewater is managed, treated and disposed in accordance with the facilities approval and regulations (AER Directives 51, 65 and 81), the potential impact to surface water and groundwater quality has not been addressed from a cumulative impact perspective.

7.3.7 Energy Well Decommissioning

There is a concern that following the operation of SAGD wells, improper abandonment and reclamation practices can potentially result in groundwater quality impacts.

SAGD wells abandonments are completed in accordance with AER Directive 20 and under the direction of the AER. Production fluids are removed from the SAGD well prior to decommissioning. Therefore, the potential impact to surface water and groundwater quality has not been assessed from a cumulative impact perspective.

7.4 DISCUSSION

On the basis of the review of current cumulative impact assessments of in-situ operations on surface and groundwater quantity and quality, the following points are noteworthy:

1. Simulations of groundwater diversions from SAGD operations and altered groundwater discharge to the surface water system have been interpreted to have minimal hydrologic effect under average and high flow conditions but may have hydrologic consequences during low-flow periods. Local scale areas of flux reversal have been simulated as part of the Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal project.



2. The potential thermal mobilisation of metals and trace elements are assessed by analytical solutions and by comparisons with existing field observations. Based on the expected size of thermal plume development and well pad spacing the potential impacts are expected to be localised in extent and therefore a cumulative impact assessment is not warranted.

3. Potential impacts associated with drilling fluids, casing integrity, fluid releases, waste water disposal and energy well decommissioning are not expected as projects are completed in accordance with AER Directives and Best Practices. The potential impacts from these sources are considered localised in extent and therefore a cumulative impact assessment is not warranted.



8. ASSESSMENT OF NON-WATER CONCERNS

In-situ oil sands development includes the construction of surface leases, access roads, and pipeline rights of way. These developments have the potential to affect vegetation and wildlife as well as the natural landscape that First Nation and Métis depend on. It could also lead to impact on the watershed’s biodiversity and fragmentation, terrain and soils as well as modifications to existing landuse due to access and construction.

Assessment of cumulative impacts on the surface and groundwater regimes within the MacKay River watershed due to multiple in-situ project developments and operations can be complex owing to a number of different factors. Given that the various components of a watershed’s ecosystem have the potential to be inter-connected impacts to one component can potentially propagate through the other components of the system. Therefore, potential impact to the surface water and groundwater systems due groundwater withdrawal and other in-situ development processes could exert corresponding impacts on the flora and fauna inhabiting this watershed.

Completed EIAs for in-situ projects within the MacKay River watershed have essentially assessed the transfer of impacts from the surface and groundwater systems to the aquatic and terrestrial habitats and wildlife especially in areas where direct linkages have been established and potential impacts have been predicted.

The potential impact of groundwater diversions which have the potential to affect fish habitat were assessed as negligible, except in areas where decreased mean winter flow rates were predicted. Decreased water levels in river channels or other surface waterbodies may have the potential for adverse effects on overwintering habitats during low-flow periods; however these periods would be of limited duration (Dover OPCO, 2010).

The impact of increased fish harvest with increased accessibility on fish abundance is considered negligible based on the assumption that appropriate governmental management policy of fish populations is in place. The current projects have not indicated expected impacts to fish habitat or abundance.

The potential for adverse effects of in-situ oil sands developments and operations on the terrestrial vegetation, wetlands and forestry associated with changes to the surface and groundwater systems have been identified owing to the interactions between these systems. Potential project related effects to these components of the watershed’s ecosystem are mitigated through project design and implementation as well as other management measures. The impact of the projects to wildlife health due to changes in the surface and groundwater systems has been assessed as negligible since these projects do not release waste products into the environment.

Finally, the impact assessments to the various environmental systems from non-water issues of in-situ oil sands developments, such as air emissions, surface disturbance, watercourse crossing, and changes in surface runoff, sediment yield, site accessibility and reclamation are not reviewed as part of the scope of this study. Detailed information on these various assessments is available in the respective completed EIAs for the MacKay River watershed.



9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are several planned large in-situ oil sands projects in the Athabasca Oil Sands region near the MacKay River, to which a variety of concerns had been raised. The CEMA - Groundwater Technical Group requested SNC-Lavalin to summarize and present the current state of knowledge and provide recommendations to address issues related to potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater from current and proposed in-situ oil sands operations in the MacKay River watershed.

Based on the review of the current and completed EIAs related to SAGD projects within the MacKay River watershed, the following conclusions are noteworthy:

1. In-situ SAGD Projects are developed in accordance with Provincial and Federal Acts, Regulations, Authorizations, Guidelines, Policies, Strategies and Directives to support the successful management of groundwater resources.

2. There are three in-situ SAGD Projects for which the respective EIAs and SIR responses have been completed. A further two are in the EIA and SIR process, and seven commercial projects have less than 2,000 m3/d bitumen production.

3. Water recycling rates greater than 90% have reduced make-up water requirements to less than 0.3 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen production. Where possible proponents have considered sourcing the make-up water from saline water sources, reducing the requirements for non-saline water.

4. Potential impacts associated with groundwater withdrawals have been assessed by numerical groundwater models (MODFLOW and FEFLOW) and surface water models (HSPF).

5. Groundwater diversion impacts have been assessed with respect to other users in accordance with the Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (Alberta Government, 2006). Model simulations have predicted that there is a potential for reduced groundwater discharge to the surface water systems and in some instances a potential for flux reversal. The overall impact associated with altered groundwater discharge has been rated as negligible to low based on comparisons with the mean seasonal flow of the MacKay River.

6. The potential thermal mobilisation of metals and trace elements has been assessed by analytical solutions and by comparisons with existing field observations. Based on the expected size of thermal plume developments and well pad spacing, the potential impacts are expected to be restricted to a localised area.



Based on the review completed, the following recommendations are made to the stakeholders with respect to improving the characterization of surface water-groundwater interactions in the MacKay watershed:

1. Differences in model assumptions for domain-extent, boundary conditions, material properties aquifer continuity and surface water/groundwater interactions on a project by project basis result in cumulative effects assessments which are not directly comparable between sequentially completed EIAs within the MacKay River watershed. In light of these issues, a consistent approach of defining a common RSA for in-situ projects over this watershed may be needed. This approach, if properly implemented, will be useful in highlighting the specific impacts of a planned development within this watershed as well as to enhance the understanding of the potential cumulative effects.

2. The most effective way to assess regional cumulative effects is to maintain a common model framework within which proposals and alternatives can be evaluated. A single unified regional regulatory model incorporating existing operations is a necessary requirement to effectively and consistently evaluate new proposals and alternatives. A periodic review of the model framework would be necessary to ensure that it continues to be updated as new knowledge and interpretations become accepted.

3. To fully capture and quantify the interactions between the groundwater and surface water processes following a physically-based approach, a coupled surface water-groundwater model equipped with appropriate numeric engines and physics is recommended. Such a model could build-on and expand the scope of the existing NAOS model. If implemented this methodology would additionally align with the stated objective of the ESRD Land Use Framework.

4. Clear limits for acceptable change to surface water quantity based on the setting will be required for proponents to understand the relevance of predicted surface water quantity changes for a project. In addition, there is some uncertainty in the estimation of the low-flow rates within the watershed, as such characterization of low-flow conditions may be needed to more confidently assess the relevance of simulated surface water – groundwater interactions.

5. For watershed management, it would be beneficial to develop streamflow capture maps for select non-saline aquifers. Streamflow capture maps show the spatial distribution of response functions for an aquifer, and provide a visual tool to illustrate the effects of pumping on streamflow depletion within an aquifer area (Barlow and Leake, 2012). The development of streamflow capture maps for non-saline aquifers from which abstraction is occurring or planned in the region will allow a clearer understanding of where water is being removed from with time (ie, aquifer storage or streamflow capture).



10. CLOSURE

We trust this meets your current requirements. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Prepared by: Contributor:

John Jackson, MSc, PGeo Dr Clement Agboma, PhD

Project Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrologist

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

Lakshmin Bachu, MTech, Msc, PEng Dr Malcolm Reeves, PhD, FEC, FGC, PEng, PGeo

Director, Prairie Region Operations Senior Technical Advisor and Principal Hydrogeologist

SNC Lavalin Inc., Environment & Water Division

Permit to Practice: P09643

JJ\\LB\MR



11. REFERENCES

Alberta Caribou Committee (ACC), 2013. Accessed on October 22, 2013 at http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca

Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS), 2013. Accessed October 22, 2013 at

http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/alberta-conservation-information-management-system-(acims).aspx

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 1994. Directive 051: Injection and Disposal Wells – Well Classifications,

Completions, Logging , and Testing Requirements. March 1994. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2001. Directive 055: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum

Industry. December 2001. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2008. Directive 058: Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the

Upstream Petroleum Industry. December 2008. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2010. Directive 020: Well Abandonment. June 9, 2010. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2012a. Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas

Reservoirs. March 14, 2012. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2012b. Directive 050: Drilling Waste Management. May 2, 2012. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), 2012c. Directive 081: Water Disposal Limits and Reporting

Requirements for Thermal In Situ Oil Sands Schemes. November, 2012.

Alberta Government, 2000. Cumulative Effects Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Alberta Environment and Natural Resources Conservation Board. 6pp.

Alberta Government, 2003. Water for Life – Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability. Edmonton, Alberta.

30pp. Alberta Government, 2006. Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection. Edmonton,

Alberta. 64pp. Alberta Government, 2009. Water for Life – A Renewal. Edmonton, Alberta. 18pp. Alberta Government, 2011. Alberta Environment Guide to Groundwater Authorization, March 2011.

Edmonton, Alberta. 36pp. Alberta Government, 2012a. Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012 - 2022, August 2012. Edmonton,

Alberta. 98pp. Alberta Government, 2012b. Lower Athabasca Region – Surface Water Quality Management Framework,

August 2012. Edmonton, Alberta. 52pp.



http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca/



Alberta Government, 2012c. Lower Athabasca Region – Groundwater Management Framework, August 2012. Edmonton, Alberta. 52pp.

Alberta Government, 2013a. Lower Athabasca Region Groundwater Management Framework

Supporting Document for the North Athabasca Oil Sands (NAOS) Area. ISBN:978-1-4601-1118-5. 94pp..

Alberta Government, 2013b. Guide to Content for Industrial Approval Applications. ISBN:978-1-4601-

1254-0. 101pp. Alberta Government, 2013c. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta –

Updated March 2013. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Environmental Assessment Team, Edmonton, Alberta. EA Guide 2009-2. 26pp.

Alberta Government, 2013d. Standardized Terms of Reference – Updated January 2013. Environmental

Assessment Team, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta. EA Guide 2009-1. 1pp.

Alberta Government, 2013e. Authorization / Approval Viewer, Accessed on October, 2013 at

http://envext02.env.gov.ab.ca/pls/xedp_apv/avwp_avwh1000_02.startup?Z_CHK=0 Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures (Alberta Innovates), 2012. CEMA Groundwater Modelling

Guidelines. Prepared for the CEMA GWWG. November 2012. Anderson, M.P., Woessner, W.W. 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling, Simulation of Flow and

Advective Transport, Academic Press, California, USA. Andriashek, L.D. 2001. Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Buried Birch and Willow Bedrock Channels, NE

Alberta. EUB/AGS Earth Sciences Report 2000-15. Andriashek, L.D. 2003. Quaternary Geological Setting of the Athabasca Oil Sands (In-situ) Area,

Northeast Alberta. EUB/AGS Earth Sciences Report ESR 2002-03. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., 2009. MacKay River Commercial Project Application and Environmental

Impact Assessment. December 2009. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., 2010. MacKay River Commercial Project, Project Update and Supplemental

Information Request Responses. August 2010. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., 2011. MacKay River Commercial Project, Round 2 Supplemental

Information Request Responses. March 2011. Barlow, P.M. and Leake, S.A., 2012. Streamflow depletion by wells – Understanding and managing the

effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow. United States Geological Survey Circular 1376, 84p.

Bredehoeft, J.D., 2011. Monitoring Regional Groundwater Extraction: The Problem. Groundwater 49,

No. 6. 808-814p.



http://envext02.env.gov.ab.ca/pls/xedp_apv/avwp_avwh1000_02.startup?Z_CHK=0

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (Canadian Natural), 2006. Primrose In-situ Oil Sands Project. Primrose Expansion Application for Approval. Volumes 1 to 6. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. January, 2006.

Dusseault, M.B., Gray, M.N. and Nawrocki, P.A., 2000. Why Oilwells Leak: Cement Behavior and

Longterm Consequences. Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, November 2000.

Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO), 2010. Dover Commercial Project Application and Environmental

Impact Assessment, December 2010. Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO), 2011. Dover Commercial Project, Project Update and

Supplemental Information Request Responses, September 2011. Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO), 2012. Submission of Reponses to SIR (Round 2) for the Dover

Commercial Project, March 2012. Environment Canada, 2013a. Canadian Climate Normals, 1981 – 2010, accessed on September 30,

2013 at http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Environment Canada, 2013b. Hydrometric Data, accessed on September 30, 2013 at

http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/graph/graph_e.html?stn=07DB001 Fiera Biological Consulting, 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Prepared for the Government of

Alberta. Glass, D, 1997. Lexicon of Canadian Stratigraphy, Volume 4 Western Canada, Including Eastern British

Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Southern Manitoba, Canadian Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta. ISBN 0-920230-23-7.

Gosselin, P.,Hrudey, S.E., Naeth, M.A., Plourde, A., Therrien, R., Xu Z., 2010. The Royal Society of

Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry. Harbaugh, A.W., McDonald, M.G. 1988. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Groundwater

Flow Model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations. Book 6, Chapter. A1, [Online], Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri6a1/ [10 August 2005].

Hayashi, M. and Rosenberry, D.O. 2002. Effects of ground water exchange on the hydrology and ecology

of surface water. Goundwater, Vol. 40, No. 3, p.309-316. Hem, J.D., 1989. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, Third

Edition. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263pp. Imperial Oil (Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.), 2002. Application for Approval of the Cold Lake Expansion

Projects Nabiye and Mahikan North. Johnston. 1981, Permafrost – Engineering Design and Construction. John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-

79918-1, pp/ 156-159.



http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/graph/graph_e.html?stn=07DB001

Jones, J.P. and Mendoza, C. 2013. Alberta Oil Sands Groundwater Modelling Guidelines. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. February, 2013.

Maidment, D. R., ed., 1993. Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G., 1967. Pressure Build up and Flow Tests in Wells. SPE Monograph,

pp116. 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. Petro-Canada, 1998. Application for Commercial Approval of MacKay River Project. November 1998. Petro-Canada, 2005. MacKay River Expansion Project Application and Environmental Impact

Assessment. November 2005. Petro-Canada, 2006. Supplemental Information Request Petro-Canada’s Proposed MacKay River

Expansion. June 2006. Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP), 2013. Accessed on October 22, 2013 at http://www.ramp-

alberta.org/river/hydrology.aspx Southern Pacific Resource Corp., 2011. STP McKay Thermal Project Application and Environmental

Impact Assessment. November 2011. Southern Pacific Resource Corp., 2012. STP McKay Thermal Project Update. October 2012. Sunshine Oilsands Ltd., 2010. West Ells Project Application. March 2010. Sunshine Oilsands Ltd., 2013. Thickwood SAGD Expansion Project. July 2013. Theis, C.V., 1940. The source of water derived from wells-Essential factors controlling the response of an

aquifer to development. Civil Engineering, v.10, no. 5, p.277-280. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2000. EPA BASINS Technical Note 6,

Estimating hydrology and hydraulic parameters for HSPF. EPA-823-R00-012, July 2000. WorleyParsons Canada Services Ltd (WorleyParsons), 2011. Draft Groundwater Flow Model for the

Athabasca Oil Sands, North of Fort McMurray : Conceptual Model Report. Draft Report prepared for Alberta Environment and Water, November, 2011.



http://www.ramp-alberta.org/river/hydrology.aspx

http://www.ramp-alberta.org/river/hydrology.aspx

DRAWINGS

4.1: Project Map – McKay Watershed Region

4.2: Generalized Hydrostratigraphic Log

4.3: Hydrostratigraphic Cross Section

7.1: Hydrogeology Assessment Regional Study Areas

7.2: Hydrology Assessment Regional Study Areas

Drawing 4.1: Project Map - MacKay Watershed Region

CEMACLIENT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION:

FORT MACKAY AREA

LEGEND

Reference: - Existing or Proposed Facilities - Alberta Government, 2013. Athabasca Oil Sands Projects and Upgraders (July, 2013) – verified using EPEA Approval review- Elevation data - Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of the data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

Design/Verified: WH/JJ Revision: 01 Date: 2013.12.19 Project No.: 615131

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!(D

!(D

!A

!A

!A!A!A!A!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

#

#

#

#

#

*

*

*

*

*

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYOF WOOD BUFFALO

MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OFOPPORTUNITY NO. 17

Gregoire LakeProv. Park

MargueriteRiver Wildland

Park

Birch MountainsWildland Park

Grand RapidsWildland Park Gipsy Lake

WildlandPark

Snipe C

reek

Chelsea Creek

Buffalo Creek

Louis

e River

Wood Buffalo River

Joslyn Creek

Seaforth Creek

Pierre River

Dunkirk River

Reid Creek

Filion Creek

Grayling Creek

Mikkwa River

Muskeg River

Asphalt Creek

Liége River

Marguerite River

MacKay River

Osi C

reek

Be

aver River

Dover River

Saline Creek

Birch River

Livock River

Tar River

Steepbank River

Clarke Creek

Chipewyan River

Buckton Creek

Algar

Rive

r

Horse River

LegendLake

MinkLake

ChipewyanLake

GrewLake

AudetLake

GalootLake

NamurLake

McClellandLake

KearlLake

WillowLake

FORTMcMURRAY

UV63

07CC

07CD

07CE

07DA

07DC

07DD

07JB

07JE

07KD

07KE

07KF

Fort McKay

Bitumount

Mildred Lake

Tar Island

Chipewyan Lake

Anzac

Draper

Twp.86

Twp.101

Twp.91

Twp.96

Twp.88

Twp.92

Twp.95

Twp.98

Twp.87

Twp.89

Twp.90

Twp.93

Twp.94

Twp.97

Twp.99

Twp.100

Rge.11 Rge.8Rge.9Rge.12Rge.22

Rge.10Rge.24

Rge.13Rge.23

Rge.16 Rge.14Rge.15Rge.17Rge.18Rge.19Rge.7

Rge.20Rge.5Rge.6

Rge.21 Rge.4W4M

MACKAY RIVERNEAR FORT MACKAY

Southern Pacific Resources Corp.STP McKay

Laricina Energy Ltd.Germain

Ivanhoe Energy Inc.Tamarack

Marathon Oil CorporationBirchwood

BP PLCTerre de Grace

E-T Energy Ltd.Poplar Creek

Oak Point EnergyLewis SAGD Pilot

Ivanhoe Energy Inc.Tamarack

Athabasca Oil Corp.Hangingstone

Athabasca Oil SandsClearwater West

Value CreationAdvanced TriStar

Value CreationTriStar

Imperial OilKearl

SuncorSuncor Oil Sands

Shell Albian SandsJackpine

Shell Albian SandsMuskeg River

Suncor Energy Inc.Fort Hills

Total E&P Canada Ltd.Joslyn North Mine

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.Horizon

Grizzly Oil SandsThickwood

HuskySaleski Carbonate Project

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.Harper

Suncor Energy Inc.MacKay River

SuncorLewis

Shell Albian SandsPierre River

Teck Resources Ltd.Frontier

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.Gregori Lake

CenovusEast McMurray

Athabasca Oil Corp.Dover West Carbonates (Leduc)

Athabasca Oil SandsBirch

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.West Ells

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.Thickwood

Athabasca Oil SandsDover West Sands & Clastics

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.Legend Lake

SuncorFirebag

HuskySunrise

CenovusSteepbank

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.Birch Mountain

Imperial OilAspen

Syncrude Canada Ltd.Aurora North

Syncrude Canada Ltd.Aurora South

Syncrude Canada Ltd.Mildred Lake

Birch Mountain Resources Ltd.Hammerstone

Suncor Energy Inc.Base, Millennium & Steepbank

Suncor Energy Inc.Voyager

Suncor Energy Inc.Voyager South

Brion EnergyMacKay River South

Brion EnergyMacKay River North

Brion EnergyDover South

Brion EnergyDover Pilot

Brion EnergyDover North

MILDRED LAKECLIMATE STATION

07DB

00026507

00080991

00188229001882290024864600248646

0024864600248646

0024947000251163

00253181

00266369

00266369 00266369

00307934

00316276

00316379

00316770

325000

325000

350000

350000

375000

375000

400000

400000

425000

425000

450000

450000

475000

475000

500000

500000

525000

525000

6275

000

6275

000

6300

000

6300

000

6325

000

6325

000

6350

000

6350

000

6375

000

6375

000

6400

000

6400

000

!

!

!

!

!

Calgary

Edmonton

Peace River

Slave Lake

FortMcMurray

Alberta

Existing or Proposed Facility*#* Experimental#* In-Situ#* Other Project

In-Situ Project AreaBrion – Dover Commercial Project1Brion – MacKay River Commercial Project2Southern Pacific – McKay Thermal Project3Suncor – MacKay River Project4Sunshine – Thickwood Project5Sunshine – West Ells Project6

!(D Climate Station! Hamlet or Locality!(D Hydrometric Station !A Water Diversion*

Major RoadRiver or StreamFirst Nations ReservePark or Protected AreaMunicipal or County BoundaryMacKay River Basin BoundaryRiver Basin BoundaryTownshipUrban AreaWater Body

Ground Elevation (masl)High : 867

Low : 216

0 20 4010Kilometers

NAD83 UTM zone 12N

Area Shown

*Note:- Project locations are approximate and do not represent the full extent of the project area- Excludes projects with production of less than 1,000 bbls of bitumen in the last six months- Water Diversion Locations are approximate based on the LSD provided within the Licence

$

Source:1. Dover OPCO 20102. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. 20093. Southern Pacific Resource Corp. 20114. Petro-Canada 20055. Sunshine 20136. Millennium 2008

Drawing 4.2: Generalized Hydrostratigraphic Log


FORT MACKAY AREA

Reference: - Adapted from AOSC, 2009

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of the data are advised that errors in the data may be present.Design/Verified: WH/JJ Revision: 00 Date: 2013.10.22 Project No.: 615131

Drawing 4.3: Hydrostratigraphic Cross Section


FORT MACKAY AREA

LEGEND

Note:- Vertical exaggeration approximately 12x

Reference: - Adapted from AOSC, 2009

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of the data are advised that errors in the data may be present.


AquiferAquitard

Aquifer/Aquitard

Undifferentiated Overburden Aquifer/AquitardMajor Unconformity

Intrepreted Major Unconformity

Conformable Contact

Interpreted Contact

A

A'

FORT McMURRAY


07DB

$

Drawing 7.1: Hydrogeology Assessment Regional Study Areas


FORT MACKAY AREA

LEGEND

Reference: - Elevation data - Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.



!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

GregoireLake Prov.Park

Maybelle RiverWildland Park

RichardsonRiver Dunes

Wildland Park


Grand RapidsWildland

Park

Wood BuffaloNational Park

Snipe Cree

k

Bolton Creek

Peel Creek

Buffalo Creek

McIvor River

Louis

e River

Harper Creek

Carolyn Creek

Panny River Joslyn Creek

Seaf ort h Cre ek

Burnt River

Buckton Creek

Edra

Cree

kPierre River

Alice Creek

Shoa

l Rive

r

Dunkirk River

Filion Creek

Grayling Creek

Mikkwa River

Muskeg

River

Wood Creek

Asphalt Creek

Liége River

MacKay River

Rede

arth C

reek

Osi Creek

Beaver River

Hous e Creek

Trout Riv er

Dover River

Saline Creek

Hosp

ital C

reek

Birch River

Livock

River

Tar River

Swift Current Creek

Owl Creek

Chipewyan River

Sputi

na Riv

er

Algar R

iver

Horse River

Lamb

ert

Creek

LegendLake

MinkLake

LongLake

RoundLake

ChipewyanLake

QuittingLake

TepeeLake

GrewLake

GodsLake

VandersteeneLake

GalootLake

NamurLake

McClellandLake

KearlLake

WillowLake

MACKENZIECOUNTY


I.D. NO. 24(WOOD BUFFALO)


FORTMcMURRAY

UV686

UV63

07CC07CD

07CE

07DA

07DB

07DC

07DD

07JA

07JB

07JC

07JD

07JE

07KA

07KD

07KE

07KF

Trout Lake

Fort McKay

Bitumount

Mildred Lake

Tar Island

Chipewyan Lake

Peerless Lake

Anzac

Draper

Rge.22

Rge.6

Rge.8Rge.23Rge.24 Rge.13

Rge.10Rge.11 Rge.9Rge.12Rge.15 Rge.14Rge.16Rge.17Rge.18Rge.2Rge.3

Rge.20

Rge.4Rge.5


W4M

Twp.91

Twp.96

Twp.101

Twp.87

Twp.88

Twp.90

Twp.92

Twp.94

Twp.95

Twp.98

Twp.100

Twp.102

Twp.89

Twp.93

Twp.97

Twp.99

Twp.103

275000

275000

300000

300000

325000

325000

350000

350000

375000

375000

400000

400000

425000

425000

450000

450000

475000

475000

500000

500000

6275

000

6275

000

6300

000

6300

000

6325

000

6325

000

6350

000

6350

000

6375

000

6375

000

6400

000

6400

000

6425

000

6425

000

6450

000

6450

000

!

!

!

!

!

Calgary

Edmonton

Peace River

Slave Lake

FortMcMurray

Alberta

Regional Study Area*Brion - Dover Commercial Project Brion - MacKay River Commercial Project Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal Project Suncor - MacKay River Project

! Hamlet or LocalityMajor RoadRiver or StreamFirst Nations ReservePark or Protected AreaMunicipal or County BoundaryRiver Basin BoundaryTownshipUrban AreaWater Body


Low : 209

0 20 4010Kilometers

NAD83 UTM zone 12N

Area Shown

*Note:- Regional Study Area locations are approximate

$

Drawing 7.2: Hydrology Assessment Regional Study Areas


FORT MACKAY AREA

LEGEND

Reference: - Elevation data - Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.



!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

GregoireLake Prov.Park

Maybelle RiverWildland Park

RichardsonRiver Dunes

Wildland Park


Grand RapidsWildland

Park

Wood BuffaloNational Park

Snipe Cree

k

Bolton Creek

Peel Creek

Buffalo Creek

McIvor River

Louis

e River

Harper Creek

Carolyn Creek

Panny River Joslyn Creek

Seaf ort h Cre ek

Burnt River

Buckton Creek

Edra

Cree

kPierre River

Alice Creek

Shoa

l Rive

r

Dunkirk River

Filion Creek

Grayling Creek

Mikkwa River

Muskeg

River

Wood Creek

Asphalt Creek

Liége River

MacKay River

Rede

arth C

reek

Osi Creek

Beaver River

Hous e Creek

Trout Riv er

Dover River

Saline Creek

Hosp

ital C

reek

Birch River

Livock River

Tar River

Swift Current Creek

Owl Creek

Chipewyan River

Sputin

a Rive

r

Algar R

iver

Horse River

Lamb

ert

Creek

LegendLake

MinkLake

LongLake

RoundLake

ChipewyanLake

QuittingLake

TepeeLake

GrewLake

GodsLake

VandersteeneLake

GalootLake

NamurLake

McClellandLake

KearlLake

WillowLake

MACKENZIECOUNTY


I.D. NO. 24(WOOD BUFFALO)


FORTMcMURRAY

UV686

UV63

07CC07CD

07CE

07DA

07DB

07DC

07DD

07JA

07JB

07JC

07JD

07JE

07KA

07KD

07KE

07KF

Trout Lake

Fort McKay

Bitumount

Mildred Lake

Tar Island

Chipewyan Lake

Peerless Lake

Anzac

Draper

Rge.22

Rge.6

Rge.8Rge.23Rge.24

Rge.13 Rge.10Rge.11 Rge.9Rge.12Rge.15 Rge.14Rge.16Rge.17Rge.18Rge.2Rge.3

Rge.20

Rge.4Rge.5


W4M

Twp.91

Twp.96

Twp.101

Twp.87

Twp.88

Twp.90

Twp.92

Twp.94

Twp.95

Twp.98

Twp.100

Twp.102

Twp.89

Twp.93

Twp.97

Twp.99

Twp.103

275000

275000

300000

300000

325000

325000

350000

350000

375000

375000

400000

400000

425000

425000

450000

450000

475000

475000

500000

500000

6275

000

6275

000

6300

000

6300

000

6325

000

6325

000

6350

000

6350

000

6375

000

6375

000

6400

000

6400

000

6425

000

6425

000

6450

000

6450

000

!

!

!

!

!

Calgary

Edmonton

Peace River

Slave Lake

FortMcMurray

Alberta

Regional Study Area*Brion - Dover Commercial Project Brion - MacKay River Commercial Project Southern Pacific - McKay Thermal Project Suncor - MacKay River Project

! Hamlet or LocalityMajor RoadRiver or StreamFirst Nations ReservePark or Protected AreaMunicipal or County BoundaryRiver Basin BoundaryTownshipUrban AreaWater Body


Low : 209

0 20 4010Kilometers

NAD83 UTM zone 12N

Area Shown

*Note:- Regional Study Area locations are approximate

$

TABLES

4.4: Water Diversion Licence Summary

SNC-LAVALIN INC. 1 of 1 615131 / 2013-12-20

\\SLI1653\projects\Cumulative Environmental Management Association\615131 CEMA Review of In-Situ Technology Development\8. Report\2. Final Report\TABLE 4.4 - Approvals Summary.xlsx

TABLE 4.4: Water Diversion Licence Summary

LSD Sec Twp Rge W00026507-00-00/01 Canadian Natural Resources Limited Camp 13-Mar-90 - Aquifer 31.7 to 33.2 mbgs NW 9 93 18 4 1,136 0.05

00080991-00-00 Paramount Resources Ltd. Processing 03-Mar-00 02-Mar-10 Aquifer 26.9 to 28.4 mbgs 12 31 94 18 4 7,100 n/a13 5 93 12 44 8 93 12 4W 5 93 12 4NE 6 93 12 4SE 8 93 12 4SW 8 93 12 4

00249470-01-00 Suncor Energy Inc. Industrial 21-Jul-13 21-Jul-38 Aquifer 47.7 to 55.0 mbgs 12 5 93 12 4 25,550 12300251163-00-00 Suncor Energy Inc. Injection 15-Dec-08 14-Dec-13 Aquifer 67.8 to 77.2 mbgs SE 7 93 12 4 677,354 5,656

00253181-00-00/01/02 Perpetual Energy Operating Corp Industrial 11-Feb-09 10-Feb-29 Aquifer 16.4 to 17.6 mbgs 5 8 88 18 4 2,500 27SW 5 91 14 4NW 9 90 15 4NW 10 90 15 4SE 4 92 10 4NE 33 91 10 4NE 31 91 10 4SW 8 92 12 4

00316276-00-00 MacKay Operating Corp. Camp 24-May-13 23-May-23 Aquifer 53.1 to 69.6 mbgs 15 2 90 14 4 82,125 76000316379-00-00/01 Marathon Oil Canada Corporation Commercial 28-Nov-12 27-Nov-22 MacKay River SW 16 91 14 4 10,000 0.02

00316770-00-00 Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. SAGD 27-May-13 26-May-15 Viking formation 16 32 94 17 4 365,000 2,000

All terms defined within the body of SNC-Lavalin's report.

00307934-00-00 Suncor Energy Inc. Commercial 13-Jun-13

00266369-00-00/01 MacKay Operating Corp. Industrial 13-Aug-12

01-May-19 Surface runoff tributary to the MacKay River 140,555 n/a

12-Jun-23 Surface runoff

12-Aug-14

28,000 n/a

Empress Formation 2,116,964 7,778

00248646-00-00/01 Suncor Energy Inc. Industrial 30-Jun-09

Birch Channel Aquifer 511,000 3,229

SourceDiversion Location

Annual Diversion Volume

(m3)

Max Diversion Rate

(m3/day)

00188229-02-00 Suncor Energy Inc. Injection 06-Sep-12 05-Sep-17

License No. & Ammendment Licensee Purpose Date of First Issue Date of Expiry

4th Floor, 909 – 5 Ave SW Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 3G5 403.253.4333 – 403.253.1975

Documents

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT …library.cemaonline.ca/ckan/dataset/e7f32840-0091-4ae5-b3...Further work to understand potential cumulative effects of water withdrawal and SAGD operations