APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE HOOLE GRAND RAPIDS PROJECT
ROUND 3 SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSES
SUBMITTED TO:
ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR
SUBMITTED BY:
Cavalier Energy Inc.
March 2014
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS ........... 1
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes and Rare Plant Locations ........... 2 Figure 1-2 Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area ..................................................... 7 Figure 3-1 Revised Wildlife Study Areas and Protection Zones ..................................... 13 Figure 4-1 Available Caribou Habitat within the LSA and RSA ....................................... 17 Figure 5-1 Area Well Status ............................................................................................ 22
TABLES
Table 1-1 Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Revised Local Study Area ................................................................................................................. 5
Table 1-2 Old Growth Forests in the Revised Local Study Area by Footprint Component .................................................................................................... 10
Table 5-1 Wells with Buttress Casing Connections within a 400 m Buffer of the Project Development Area ............................................................................. 21
1 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
1 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS
1. SIR(2)7 Response, Pages 32-58. SIR(2)7 indicated that applicants are expected to address project-related effects within the project area at a minimum and beyond the project area where effects can reasonably be expected to extend. Cavalier illustrated a terrestrial local study area (TLSA) limited to a 100 metre (m) buffer of the initial proposed footprint. A 100 m buffer is of limited utility in assessing constraints and tradeoffs when assessing impacts to sensitive or unique soil map units, ecosite phases, wetland classes, or wildlife habitat. In similarly sized projects, a buffer on proposed project footprints of 500 m has been used to assess effects related to the project area.
a) SIR(2)8 Response, Figures 8-7a and 8-7b, Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes and Rare Plant Locations, Pages 54-55, and SIR(2)11 Response, Table 11-1, Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Local Study Area, Page 104. Figures 8-7a and 8-7b illustrate ecosite phase and wetland class polygons beyond the previous TLSA boundary, so it appears that data is available to support an expanded TLSA.
i. Provide a revised ecosite phase, wetland class and rare plant location figure that illustrates the proposed project and development area boundaries and the project footprint (use hollow shapes). Ensure the revised figure includes a rationalized TLSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.
Response:
Effects to soils and vegetation from the Project are expected to be limited to direct disturbance from site clearing for the Project footprint. The soils and vegetation local study area (LSA) was delineated with a 100 m buffer around the Project footprint to give local context to soils and vegetation resources immediately outside of the footprint This approach is consistent with Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-disturbance Assessment and Conservation & Reclamation Plan (PDA/C&R Plan), under an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Approval, for an Enhanced Recovery In-situ Oil Sands and Heavy Oil Processing Plant and Oil Production Site (AENV 2009). Although Cavalier considers the 100 m buffer to be appropriate for the soils and vegetation assessments, the terrestrial LSA has been revised to include a 500 m buffer of the Project footprint, as per the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s request. An updated figure showing baseline ecosite phase mapping within the revised LSA is provided as Figure 1-1.
Reference:
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2009. Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-disturbance Assessment and Conservation & Reclamation Plan (PDA/C&R Plan), under an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Approval, for an Enhanced Recovery In-situ Oil Sands and Heavy Oil Processing Plant and Oil Production Site. December 2009. 23 pp. + Appendices.
I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Up
date\
Vege
tation
\Figu
re-1-1
a-b-B
aseli
ne_E
cosit
e_Ph
ases
_Wetl
and_
Clas
ses_
And_
Rare_
Plant_
Loca
tion.m
xd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
Figure03 Mar 2014 10572-514
Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson
FootprintTerrestrial Local Study AreaVegetation Baseline DisturbanceSoil & Vegetation Baseline DisturbanceWater BodyWatercourseRoadIndustry RoadCut TrailPipelineTelus Trench
Survey Season and Plot TypeEarly Meander StartLate Meander StartFullPartialRare Species
Borrow(6.13ha)
DisposalWell Pad(0.48ha)
DisposalWell Pad(0.48ha)
ProductionROW (0.69ha)
Water SourceROW (1.5ha)
DisposalROW (1.57ha)
Water Disposal/ Source ROW
(3.98ha)
Water SourceROW (2.83ha)
ProductionROW (1.25ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW (4.6ha)
ProductionROW (1.17ha)
ProductionROW (1.15ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha) Production
Well Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
Rg. 24 Rg. 23
Twp.
81
336000 337000 338000 339000
6211
000
6212
000
6213
000
6214
000
6215
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS and IHS used under license.
a
b
1-1a
Baseline Ecosite Phase/AWIUpland
Shrublandb1b2b3c1d1d2
d3e1e2e3f1f2g1h1
Wetlandh1/STNNi1/BTNNi2/BONSj1/FTNNj2/FONS
k1/FTNIk1/FTNNk2/FONSk2/SONSl1/MONGDS/SONS Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes
and Rare Plant LocationsDS: Deciduous Swamp
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
1:15,000
150 0 150Metres
I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Up
date\
Vege
tation
\Figu
re-1-1
a-b-B
aseli
ne_E
cosit
e_Ph
ases
_Wetl
and_
Clas
ses_
And_
Rare_
Plant_
Loca
tion.m
xd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
Figure03 Mar 2014 10572-514
Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson
FootprintTerrestrial Local Study AreaVegetation Baseline DisturbanceSoil & Vegetation Baseline DisturbanceWater BodyWatercourseRoadIndustry RoadCut TrailPipelineTelus Trench
Survey Season and Plot TypeEarly Meander StartLate Meander StartFullPartialRare Species
Borrow(3.98ha)
Camp(9.03ha)
Camp(1.01ha)
Access ROW(8.29ha)
ProductionROW (0.69ha)
Water SourceROW (1.5ha)
ProductionROW (1.25ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha) Production
Well Pad(5.89ha)
CPF(17.21ha)
Fire PreventionArea (1.07ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
Hoole
Creek
Rg. 24 Rg. 23
Twp.
80Tw
p. 81
336000 337000 338000 339000
6207
000
6208
000
6209
000
6210
000
6211
000
6212000
6212
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS and IHS used under license.
a
b
1-1b
Baseline Ecosite Phase/AWIUpland
Shrublandb1b2b3c1d1d2
d3e1e2e3f1f2g1h1
Wetlandh1/STNNi1/BTNIi1/BTNNi2/BONSj1/FTNNj2/FONS
k1/FTNIk1/FTNNk2/FONSk2/SONSDS/SONSFlooded Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes
and Rare Plant LocationsDS: Deciduous Swamp
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
1:15,000
150 0 150Metres
4 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
1. ii. Update Table 11-1’s columns relating to the TLSA for an expanded assessment area.
Response:
Ecosite phase and wetland class information for the revised LSA is provided in Table 1-2.
5 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
Table 1-1 Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Revised Local Study Area
Vegetation or Disturbance Type
Footprint Area (ha) Total Areas (ha)* Percentage
Disturbed by Project (%)
Percentage of Local
Study Area (%)
CPFa Construction Camp
Operations Camp
Borrow Area 1
Borrow Area 2
Well Pad 101
Well Pad 102
Well Pad 103
Well Pad 104
Well Pad 105
Well Pad 106
Well Pad 107
Well Pad 108
Well Pad 109
Main Access ROW
Production ROW a
Water Disposal/
Source ROW
Water Source
Well Pad
Water Disposal Well Pad
Fire Prevention
Area b
Total Project
Footprint
500 m Buffer
Total Local Study Area
Upland Ecosite Phase shrubland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.0 b1 – blueberry Pj-Aw - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 - - - - - - - <0.1 6.7 6.8 <0.1 0.4 b2 – blueberry Aw(Bw) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1 7.1 0 0.4 b3 – blueberry Aw-Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.6 1.6 0 0.1 c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 0.9 1.0 <0.1 0.1 d1 – low-bush cranberry Aw - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.5 1.5 1.6 <0.1 - - 3.8 96.1 99.9 0.2 6.0 d2 – low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 2.6 6.5 - 0.7 - - - 3.8 3.2 0.2 <0.1 - - - 3.1 3.2 0.5 - - 0.3 24.2 180.3 204.5 1.4 12.2 d3 – low-bush cranberry Sw - - - - - 0.6 - - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - 1.6 32.5 34.1 0.1 2.0 e1 – dogwood Pb-Aw - - - 1.8 - 2.7 1.9 0.7 - - 0.2 0.3 5.3 - 12.8 1.4 - - - 27.2 165.8 193.0 1.6 11.5 e2 – dogwood Pb-Sw 10.1 2.4 1.0 3.2 1.4 - - - - - 3.6 5.7 4.2 8.1 1.8 - - 0.5 42.1 243.1 285.1 2.5 17.0 e3 – dogwood Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - 1.0 5.9 6.9 0.1 0.4 f1 – horsetail Pb-Aw 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 11.1 11.5 <0.1 0.7 f2 – horsetail Pb-Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.5 4.5 0 0.3 g1 – Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj - - - - - - - - - 3.3 - - - - - 1.3 - - - - 4.5 18.0 22.6 0.3 1.4
h1 – Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb (upland & lowland) 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 0.4 <0.1 - 0.1 1.5 18.4 19.8 0.1 1.2
Uplands subtotal 13.7 8.8 1.0 3.9 3.2 0.0 3.4 5.7 4.0 3.5 3.6 5.9 0.3 5.4 7.9 29.3 5.4 <0.1 0.0 0.9 106.4 792.3 898.7 6.4 53.7 Wetland/AWI Ecosite Phase
h1/STNN - horsetail Sw-Sb /treed coniferous swamp - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.5 - - 2.0 - - - - 3.5 38.6 42.0 0.2 2.5
i1/BTNI – treed bog w/internal lawns
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.4 0 0.1
i1/BTNN – treed bog - - - - 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 2.1 0.8 4.0 0.4 - 23.2 0.3 <0.1 - - 33.4 321.7 355.2 2.0 21.2 i2/BONS – shrubby bog - - - - - 2.2 1.8 - - - - - - - - 3.4 0.8 - - - 8.3 72.9 81.2 0.5 4.9 j1/FTNN - treed poor fen - - - - - 2.6 - - - 0.3 <0.1 - - - - 0.9 - - - - 5.2 35.4 40.6 0.3 2.4 j2/FONS – shrubby poor fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.8 1.8 0 0.1 k1/FTNN – treed rich fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 - - - - 0.7 9.0 9.7 <0.1 0.6 k1/FTNI – treed rich fen w/ internal lawns - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.7 6.7 0 0.4
k2/FONS – shrubby rich fen - - - - - 0.9 - - - - - - - - - 0.7 - - - - 1.5 19.0 20.5 0.1 1.2 k2/SONS – shrubby rich swamp - - - 1.5 - - - - - <0.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - - 1.6 19.8 21.4 0.1 1.3 SONS - Deciduous swamp 3.5 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.6 - - - 0.1 4.6 9.7 14.3 0.3 0.9 Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75.7 75.7 0 4.5
Wetlands subtotal 3.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.9 5.8 2.5 0.0 1.2 2.4 2.2 0.0 5.5 0.4 0.3 31.4 1.2 <0.1 0.0 0.1 58.8 611.7 670.5 3.5 40.1 Disturbance Category -
Clearing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 0 0.0 Cutline - 0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - <0.1 0.3 <0.1 - - - 0.6 5.5 6.1 <0.1 0.4 Industrial - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.7 0 0.0 Right-of-way - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 Transportation - - - - 0.8 - - 0.2 0.7 - <0.1 - - - 0.1 3.2 2.3 0.2 0.1 - 7.5 52.2 59.8 0.5 3.6 Well Pad - - - - 0.3 <0.1 - - - - - - - <0.1 - 2.3 0.6 1.2 0.9 - 5.3 32.5 37.7 0.3 2.3
Disturbance subtotal 0.0 0.1 0.0 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.2 5.7 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 13.4 91.2 104.5 0.8 6.2 Total* 17.2 9.0 1.0 4.0 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 8.3 66.5 9.6 1.4 1.0 1.1 178.6 1,495.2 1,673.7 10.7 100.0
* Totals may not add up as values were calculated prior to rounding. a CPF = central processing facility. Although the majority of the production ROW will be 55 m wide, a width of 68 m has been applied to account for intermittent expansion loops in the ROW when calculating vegetation disturbance. b The fire prevention area is a 10 m wide buffer around the CPF that will be cleared of vegetation.
6 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
1. b) SIR(2)8 Response, Figures 8-8a and 8-8b, Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area, Pages 56-57, and SIR(2)11 Response, Table 11-2, Old Growth Forests in the Local Study Area by Footprint Component, Page 105. Interpretation of the extent of old growth forest patches beyond the previous TLSA boundary is unclear as the polygons appear clipped. The assessment area should be expanded, as discussed above.
i. Provide a revised old growth forest figure (or figures) that illustrates the proposed project and development boundaries and the project footprint as hollow shapes. Ensure the revised figure includes a rationalized TLSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.
Response:
Rationale for the originally selected LSA is provided in supplemental information request (SIR) response 1a. The LSA has been revised to include a 500 m buffer of the Project footprint, as per the AER’s request. An updated figure showing old growth forests within the revised LSA is provided as Figure 1-2.
I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Up
date\
Vege
tation
\Figu
re-1-2
a-b-O
ld_Gr
owth_
Fores
t_in_
The_
Loca
l_Stud
y_Ar
ea.m
xd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
Figure28 Feb 2014 10572-514
Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson
FootprintTerrestrial Local Study AreaVegetation Baseline DisturbanceSoil & Vegetation Baseline DisturbanceWater BodyWatercourseRoadIndustry RoadCut TrailPipelineTelus Trench
Old Growth Forest by Ecosite Phased2d3e1e2g1h1i1j1k1
Borrow(6.13ha)
DisposalWell Pad(0.48ha)
DisposalWell Pad(0.48ha)
ProductionROW (0.69ha)
Water SourceROW (1.5ha)
DisposalROW (1.57ha)
Water Disposal/ Source ROW
(3.98ha)
Water SourceROW (2.83ha)
ProductionROW (1.25ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW (4.6ha)
ProductionROW (1.17ha)
ProductionROW (1.15ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha) Production
Well Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
Rg. 24 Rg. 23
Twp.
81
336000 337000 338000 339000
6211
000
6212
000
6213
000
6214
000
6215
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS and IHS used under license.
a
b
1-2a
Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area
W
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
1:15,000
150 0 150Metres
I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Up
date\
Vege
tation
\Figu
re-1-2
a-b-O
ld_Gr
owth_
Fores
t_in_
The_
Loca
l_Stud
y_Ar
ea.m
xd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
Figure28 Feb 2014 10572-514
Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson
FootprintTerrestrial Local Study AreaVegetation Baseline DisturbanceSoil & Vegetation Baseline DisturbanceWater BodyWatercourseRoadIndustry RoadCut TrailPipelineTelus Trench
Old Growth Forest by Ecosite Phased2e2g1h1j1
Borrow(3.98ha)
Camp(9.03ha)
Camp(1.01ha)
Access ROW(8.29ha)
ProductionROW (0.69ha)
Water SourceROW (1.5ha)
ProductionROW (1.25ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)
ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha) Production
Well Pad(5.89ha)
CPF(17.21ha)
Fire PreventionArea (1.07ha)
ProductionROW
(14.13ha)
ProductionROW
(43.54ha)
Hoole
Creek
Rg. 24 Rg. 23
Twp.
80Tw
p. 81
336000 337000 338000 339000
6207
000
6208
000
6209
000
6210
000
6211
000
6212000
6212
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS and IHS used under license.
a
b
1-2b
Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area
W
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
1:15,000
150 0 150Metres
9 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
1. ii. Update Table 11-2’s columns relating to the TLSA for an expanded assessment area.
Response:
Old growth information for the revised LSA is provided in Table 1-2.
10 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
Table 1-2 Old Growth Forests in the Revised Local Study Area by Footprint Component
Vegetation Type
Footprint Area (ha) Total Areas (ha)* Percentage
Disturbed by Project (%)
Percentage of Local
Study Area (%)
CPFa Construction Camp
Operations Camp
Borrow Area 1
Borrow Area 2
Well Pad 101
Well Pad 102
Well Pad 103
Well Pad 104
Well Pad 105
Well Pad 106
Well Pad 107
Well Pad 108
Well Pad 109
Main Access ROW
Production ROW a
Water Disposal/
Source ROW
Water Source
Well Pad
Water Disposal Well Pad
Fire Prevention
Area b
Total Project
Footprint
500 m Buffer
Total Local Study Area
Upland Ecosite Phase d2 – low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 1.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.4 - - - - 1.7 9.3 11.0 1.9 0.7 d3 – low-bush cranberry Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 4.8 4.9 0.1 0.3 e1 – dogwood Pb-Aw - - - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 4.8 5.5 0.9 0.3 e2 – dogwood Pb-Sw 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - 0.3 - - 0.1 3.8 41.7 45.5 4.3 2.7 g1 – Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj - - - - - - - - - 3.3 - - - - - - - - - - 3.3 0.8 4.0 3.7 0.2
Uplands subtotal 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.6 61.4 71.0 10.8 4.2 Wetland/AWI Ecosite Phase
h1/STNN- horsetail Sw /treed coniferous swamp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 - - - - 0.4 14.0 14.4 0.4 0.9
i1/BTNN – treed bog - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 j1/FTNN - treed poor fen - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.1 k1/FTNN – treed rich fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.5 1.5 0.1
Wetlands subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 17.4 18.2 0.9 1.1
Total* 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.4 78.8 89.1 11.8 5.3
* Totals may not add up as values were calculated prior to rounding.
11 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
2. SIR(2)13 Response, Wildlife Assessment, Page 113. Cavalier stated “loss of the preferred old growth forest will have an effect on upland mature forest birds; however the effect is expected to be low due to the limited extent of old growth in the LSA.” Reduction of limited habitat availability for species at risk that depend on old growth forest could be considered to be a high impact effect, rather than a low effect. Update Cavalier’s constraint evaluation discussion to include tradeoffs considered in old growth forest impacts.
Response:
As described in Round 2 SIR response 7a, Cavalier considered a number of factors when deciding on placement of facilities and infrastructure, including:
• reservoir and geology • construction and engineering • environment • potential for future development (expansion) • feedback from stakeholders
A total of 10.4 ha of old growth forest are predicted to be disturbed by the Project, of which 7.4 ha are a result of the CPF and well pads. Site selection of these facilities was determined with construction suitability (CPF) and maximization of resource recovery (well pads) as the primary factors. The remaining disturbance of old growth forest is created by Project rights-of-way (ROWs). These ROW corridors were selected to follow existing disturbances where possible, and the disturbance to old growth forest is attributed to the widening of existing cutlines to accommodate Project ROWs (Figure 1-2). Cavalier considers the constraint evaluation regarding Project disturbance to old growth forest to be adequate, as only 5.8% of the footprint disturbs this habitat.
Old growth forests are generally dominated by large, old canopy trees and have an accumulation of snags and downed woody material, as well as high species diversity (Juutinen 2007; Lee et al. 2000; Liira et al. 2007; Timoney 2001; Zenner 2005 and 2004). Old growth forests provide habitat for a variety of species including several bird species at risk in Alberta (e.g., pileated woodpecker, Cape May warbler, black-throated green warbler, bay-breasted warbler and western tanager; ASRD 2013; BAM 2012; Appendix I in the Application).
In the revised wildlife LSA, 89 ha (or 5%) is identified as old growth forest. Due to this small proportion, bird species with habitat preference for old growth forest are not expected to be abundant within the LSA. Therefore the amount of Project-related habitat loss is unlikely to have a high impact effect on bird populations that use old growth forest.
References:
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2013. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps – Data Sets. Last Updated on March 28, 2013. Accessed February 2014. http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx
Boreal Avian Modelling Project (BAM).2012. Boreal Birds: Yellow-rumped Warbler. Accessed February 2014. http://www.borealbirds.ca/avian_db/accounts.php/Setophaga+coronata/habitat
Juutinen A. 2007. “Old-growth boreal forests: Worth protecting for biodiversity?” Journal of Forest Economics: 1-26.
12 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
Lee P., Hanus S. and B. Grover. 2000. “Criteria for estimating old growth in boreal mixedwoods from standard timber inventory data.” Forest Ecology and Management 129: 25-30.
Liira J., Sepp T. and O. Parrest. 2007. “The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient.” Forest Ecology and Management 250: 34-46.
Timoney K.P. 2001. “Types and attributes of old-growth forests in Alberta, Canada.” Natural Areas Journal 21: 282-300.
Zenner E.K. 2004. “Does old-growth condition imply high live-tree structural complexity?” Forest
Ecology and Management 195: 243-258.
Zenner E.K. 2005. “Investigating scale-dependent stand heterogeneity with structure-area-curves.” Forest Ecology and Management 209: 87-100.
3. SIR(2)13 Response, Wildlife Assessment, Page 112. Cavalier stated “the LSA was established to assess potential effects of the Project development on wildlife at the local scale. .…The RSA was established to assess wide-ranging wildlife species that could either be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.” Cavalier’s proposed project is within the West Side of the Athabasca River caribou range. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies that the “application of a 500 m buffer to mapped anthropogenic features best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale.” Therefore, the 100 m footprint buffer for the wildlife LSA illustrated in Figure 8-9 is insufficient for the assessment of potential project effects on caribou or other mobile wildlife species.
Cavalier’s proposed project is within the West Side of the Athabasca River caribou range. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies that the “application of a 500 m buffer to mapped anthropogenic features best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale.” Therefore, the 100 m footprint buffer for the wildlife LSA illustrated in Figure 8-9 is insufficient for the assessment of potential project effects on caribou or other mobile wildlife species.
a) Revise Figure 8-9’s wildlife local study area and include rationale for a LSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.
Response:
An updated figure with the revised wildlife LSA is provided as Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1 includes a 500 m buffer around the Project footprint to assist in assessing anthropogenic features that may affect woodland caribou, as directed in the 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). The 500 m buffer is considered to be large enough to encompass wildlife zones of influence, potential edge effects, or other potential local indirect effects on wildlife resources adjacent to the Project footprint.
Reference:
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.
3-1I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Up
date\
Wild
life\Fi
gure-
3-1-W
ildlife
_Stud
y_Ar
eas_
and_
Prote
ction
_Zon
es.m
xd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
FigureNAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
28 Feb 2014 10572-514Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson
FootprintWildlife Local Study AreaWildlife Regional Study AreaCaribou RangeCavalier Oil Sands RightsCommunityIndian ReserveWater BodyWatercourseHighwayRoad
FWMIS Species At Risk (Count)! Cape May Warbler! Great Gray Owl! Least Flycatcher! Woodland Caribou
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
Wabasca-Desmarais
(1)
(1)(1)
(1)
(1)(1)
(5)(5)
(6)(5)(2)
(1)
Wabasca 166
Wabasca 166c
Wabasca 166a
Wabasca 166d
IslandLake
SouthWabasca
Lake
KamistikowikLake
HorsetailLake
SandyLake
Wabasca River
HooleCreek
UV813
Rg. 24 Rg. 23Rg. 25 Rg. 22
Twp.
79Tw
p. 80
Twp.
81Tw
p. 82
Twp.
83
325000 330000 335000 340000 345000 350000
6195
000
6200
000
6205
000
6210
000
6215
000
6220
000
6225
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS © Government of Alberta and GeoBase®. GDM transportation infrastructure data provided by IHS © 2013.
1:100,000
1.5 0 1.5Kilometres
Wildlife Study Areasand Protection Zones
W
14 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
3. b) Cavalier identified a wildlife regional study area (RSA), but consideration of the RSA boundary in the wildlife assessment is not clear. Discuss the purpose of the RSA in the desktop wildlife assessment, the criteria for establishing the 5 km footprint buffer, whether it was consistently used for the assessment of all wildlife groups, and how it would be used in monitoring the impacts and mitigation successes of the proposed project.
Response:
The wildlife regional study area (RSA) provided a spatial framework for the desktop assessment for the Application. Used as a general guideline, the RSA largely defined the historical record search area for the following:
• species at risk • species of socio-economic or cultural importance • wide-ranging wildlife species (e.g., woodland caribou, moose, deer) • sensitive wildlife areas
The RSA is a 5 km buffer surrounding the Project footprint. The buffer is considered large enough to provide historical reference for species in the region, and was used to identify potential species of concern for which Project-specific mitigation would be required. Potential effects to identified species were considered to be changes in habitat availability, connectivity and quality, and direct mortality. The mitigation measures to reduce these effects are proposed at a local scale to focus on direct effects of the Project.
Cavalier will monitor Project effects and mitigation successes within the LSA. Mitigation measures for Project effects to wildlife at a local scale are provided in Round 2 SIR response #13d, and monitoring is described in Round 2 SIR response #13f.
4. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies an increase to 65% undisturbed caribou habitat as the management target for caribou ranges in Alberta. Aside from committing to develop a woodland caribou mitigation and monitoring plan, Cavalier has not committed to restoring caribou habitat, and constraints mapping has not explicitly shown efforts to avoid disturbance to caribou habitat.
a) Provide an evaluation (including a map) of available caribou habitat within the RSA and revised LSA, and indicate the proposed portion to be disturbed by the project. Evaluate footprint adjustments or other mitigations (e.g., temporal management of development) for any proposed surface disturbance that results in the removal of caribou habitat.
Response:
Figure 4-1 shows available caribou habitat within the RSA and revised LSA as defined by the federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). This strategy identifies caribou habitat as more than 500 m from development (e.g., seismic, pipelines, ROWs, well pads, CPFs, OSE wells) within a defined caribou range (Environment Canada 2012). Based on the location of Cavalier’s proposed Project Development Area within the West Side Athabasca River caribou range, avoiding any disturbance to caribou habitat is not practical.
However, caribou habitat within the revised LSA and RSA is largely previously disturbed, and the Project will increase this disturbance by 10 ha, or less than 1% of undisturbed caribou habitat in the revised LSA (Figure 4-1). The majority of the Project-related caribou habitat disturbance is associated with the CPF access road. As described in Round 2 SIR response 7b, the alignment for the CPF access road was selected because it is on upland soil that would be suitable for
15 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
construction. Relocating the access road east to avoid undisturbed caribou habitat would place it in a wetland area with poor drainage, and would not be feasible for construction. The remaining Project-related caribou habitat disturbance is associated with a well pad; however, shifting this pad to the west to avoid undisturbed caribou habitat would place it within the 100 m setback from a water body.
Cavalier’s proposed mitigation to increase and maintain caribou habitat in the Woodland Caribou Land Use Referral Boundary and Woodland Caribou Population Range Area, includes:
• Using previously disturbed areas to reduce the amount of new clearing wherever existing disturbance is present and oriented in such a way that is consistent with Project development.
• Optimizing linear corridor widths and accommodating multiple-use areas such as roads, pipelines, and power lines within the same right-of-way to limit surface disturbance.
• Removing all snow fills, log fills, and culverts on completion of operations.
• Constructing above ground pipeline crossings or allowing underpasses for wildlife to accommodate movement across pipeline. Cavalier’s design of above ground pipelines will be consistent with the Above Ground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive (ESRD 2014).
• Providing wildlife crossing points through the use of natural terrain features.
• Considering pipeline height, wildlife use (e.g., game trails), high quality habitat, riparian areas and topography when planning crossing locations and designs.
• During construction of underground pipeline, leaving gaps in linear construction areas to allow wildlife movements across the work area.
• Limiting off-road access on new disturbances, where practical, by rolling back debris near the intersection of linear disturbances.
• Conducting progressive reclamation where applicable. Return sites to equivalent land capability and use ESRD certified native vegetation species where appropriate.
• Providing appropriate supervision during construction in environmentally sensitive areas to implement effective environmental mitigation.
• Implementing measures to reduce erosion and provide runoff control during construction.
• Providing facilities, including well pads, roads, and pipelines (except for watercourse crossings), with a 100 m setback distance from watercourses and water bodies, in consultation with ESRD.
Cavalier understands that caribou conservation is a shared responsibility between industry and government. Cavalier is committed to addressing caribou management as part of a long term management of landscape during the lifetime of the Project. Cavalier will develop a Woodland Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (CMMP) for review and approval by ESRD, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project’s EPEA Approval. A comprehensive list of Cavalier’s commitments to reduce impacts to caribou will be provided in the CMMP. Cavalier will develop targets and schedules for maintaining and restoring caribou habitat as part of the CMMP and will monitor progress on a regular basis.
16 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
References:
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2014. Above Ground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive. Updated Feburary 3, 2014. 6 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/directives/documents/PipelineWildlifeCrossing-2014-07-Feb03-2014.pdf
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.
4.1I:\Cav
alier\
1057
2\Figu
resAn
dTab
les\P
LT_S
IR3\2
014\R
eport
\SIR
3_AE
R_Re
spon
se\Fi
gure-
4-1-A
vaila
ble_C
aribo
u_Ha
bitat_
withi
n_the
_LSA
_and
_RSA
.mxd
Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:
FigureNAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
03 Mar 2014 10572-514Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.
M. WilkinsonM. CollardD. Player
FootprintWildlife Local Study AreaWildlife Regional Study AreaCaribou RangeCaribou Baseline Habitat (within LSA)Caribou Baseline Disturbance (within Caribou Range)Caribou Baseline Disturbance (within LSA)Cavalier Oil Sands RightsDisturbance
Water BodyWatercourseHighwayRoad
HooleCreek
UV813
Rg. 24 Rg. 23
Twp.
80Tw
p. 81
Twp.
82
332000 334000 336000 338000 340000 342000
6204
000
6206
000
6208
000
6210
000
6212
000
6214
000
6216
000
6218
000
W4M
Hoole Grand Rapids
Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS © Government of Alberta and GeoBase®. GDM transportation infrastructure data provided by IHS © 2013.
1:50,000
500 0 500Metres
Available Caribou Habitatwithin the LSA and RSA
W
18 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
4. b) Identify all applicable management plans related to caribou and discuss Cavalier’s compliance with these plans.
Response:
The Government of Alberta has established A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta that aims to achieve naturally sustaining woodland caribou populations (GoA 2011). The woodland caribou policy suggests that caribou populations will be stabilized using a combination of land use planning, habitat conservation, habitat restoration and predator-prey management, as required by individual populations. Cavalier is committed to caribou recovery efforts in Alberta, and Cavalier will submit a CMMP that meets the requirements of the Project’s anticipated EPEA Approval and follows the intent of A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta (GoA 2011). More information is provided in Response 4c. Cavalier will work with the Government of Alberta and other operators to develop appropriate solutions for caribou recovery and stabilization.
Reference:
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2011. A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta. Pub. No. I/524. 2 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/documents/WoodlandCaribouPolicy-Alberta-Jun2011.pdf
4. c) Discuss Cavalier’s plans for caribou habitat mitigation and compensation, including management of existing disturbances within the area of the proposed project.
Response:
Cavalier is supportive of efforts to stabilize caribou populations within the RSA and will work with the Government of Alberta and other operators to develop appropriate solutions. Key issues are habitat preservation and restoration, habitat connectivity, and predator control (Dyer et al. 2001; Hebblewhite et al. 2007; Sorenson et al. 2008; ASRD and ACA 2010; DeCesare et al. 2013). Mitigation for Project effects to caribou habitat is provided in SIR response 4a.
Cavalier’s strategies regarding caribou habitat restoration, habitat connectivity and predator control will be developed as part of the CMMP. The CMMP will be developed for review and approval by regulators, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project’s anticipated EPEA approval and Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Guidance Document when they are issued. The CMMP will consider recommendations from regulators, as well as industry best practices. It is expected to include restoration of existing disturbances within the Hoole lease to offset Project disturbances, as per the federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). Objectives in the CMMP will be developed in consideration of A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta which aims to achieve naturally sustaining woodland caribou populations (GoA 2011).
Cavalier currently completes vegetation assessments annually on OSE programs until they meet ESRD eligibility requirements for reclamation certification. Deficient vegetation growth is identified, in accordance with the requirements outlined by ESRD OSE reclamation guidance (ASRD 2010). Cavalier coordinates site preparation and tree planting to rectify any deficiencies.
19 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
References:
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010. Coal and Oil Sands Exploration Reclamation Requirements. External Directive. Directive Number: SD 2010-01. January 25, 2010.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Directives/documents/SD2010-01-CoalOilSandsExReclamationReq-Directive-Jan10.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 30 (Update 2010). Edmonton, Alberta. 88 pp.
DeCesare N.J. et al. 2013. “Linking habitat selection and predation risk to spatial variation in survival.” Journal of Animal Ecology 83(2): 343-352.
Dyer S.J. et al. 2001. “Avoidance of industrial developments by woodland caribou.” Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 531-542.
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2011. A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta. Pub. No. I/524. 2 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/documents/WoodlandCaribouPolicy-Alberta-Jun2011.pdf
Hebblewhite M. et al. 2007. “Conditions for caribou persistence in the wolf-elk-caribou systems of the Canadian Rockies.” Rangifer 17: 79-91.
Sorenson T.C. et al. 2008. “Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou: a management model.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(4): 900-905.
5. SIR(2)14 Response. Cavalier stated “the buttress connections are considered to be compatible with thermal operations as per Industry Recommended Practice 3 (ENFORM 2012). As per Appendix G: Connection Types and Definitions of Industry Recommended Practice 3, buttress connections are considered to have low sealability. Furthermore, as per Section 3.2.1.3.4(a) of Industry Recommended Practice 3, the casing connection selected for thermal well service shall provide adequate sealing under the anticipated operating conditions through the life cycle of the well. Justify why the intermediate casing connection types identified in Table 17-1 are considered to be compatible with the proposed thermal operations.
Response:
There are three wells (100/04-25-081-24W4, 100/13-24-081-24W4, and 100/13-19-081-24W4) within the Project Development Area or within 400 m of the Project Development Area boundary which have casing with buttress connections (Figure 5-1). These wells were all drilled in 2011 and
20 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
the casing was cemented in place using thermal cement. Table 5-1 provides pertinent drilling and completions data for these wells.
The wells are classified as standing wells. None of them will be utilized for steam injection or bitumen production operations but may be utilized for water disposal or utility wells.
The 4-25 and 13-19 wells are being considered for use as water disposal wells into the underlying Winterburn/Nisku/ Grosmont carbonates. If the wells are completed for water disposal operations, they will be equipped with an 88.9 mm tubing string with a packer set in the intermediate casing below the base of the Grand Rapids Formation. The annular space will be filled with water and have an annual packer isolation test completed as per AER Directive 51 (ERCB 2012). Under these operating conditions, Cavalier believes buttress connections are adequate.
The 13-24 well is being considered as a potential source water supply well for future development in the area. If a downhole pump is installed in this well for that purpose, the casing will be continuously monitored for anomalous pressure and temperature variations. Remedial actions to repair the well will be undertaken if the monitoring indicates and issue with the casing integrity.
Reference:
Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). 2012. Draft Directive 051: Wellbore Injection Requirements. Revised edition August 14, 2012. Replaces previous edition issued March 1994. Calgary, Alberta. http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Draft_Directive051.pdf
21 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project
CAVALIER ENERGY INC.
Table 5-1 Wells with Buttress Casing Connections within a 400 m Buffer of the Project Development Area
Well Name UWI Date Well Spudded
Well Licence
Well Status
Current Operator
Total Depth
(mTVD)
Surface Casing
Depth (m)
Completion Details Intermediate Completion Details Abandonment SCVF (Y/N)
Thermal Compatibility
(Y/N)
D20 Compliance
(Y/N) Notes Intermediate
Casing Depth (m)
Intermediate Casing Size
(mm)
Weight (kg/m) Grade Connection
Type Cement
Type Cement
Top Cement Returns
Cut & Cap
Plug #1 Type
Plug #1 Interval
(m)
Plug #2
Type
Plug #2 Interval
(m)
Plug #3
Type
Plug #3 Interval
(m)
CAVALIER HOOLE 4-25-81-24
100/04-25-081-24W4/00
2/2/ 2011 428534
Drilled & Cased
Cavalier Energy Inc.
710.0 116.0 328.0 177.8 34.2 C95 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge
plug 240 N Y n/a
Suspended well, will be utilized as Grosmont
water disposal well. 177.8 mm intermediate casing to 342 mKB cemented
with thermal 40 cement. 114.3 mm liner from
277-710 mKB cemented in. WRP set to suspend
well. Thermally compatible well.
CAVALIER HOOLE 13-24-81-24
100/13-24-081-24W4/00
2/11/ 2011 428529
Drilled & Cased
Cavalier Energy Inc.
406.0 77.5 301.0 177.8 34.2 L80 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge
plug 180 N Y n/a
Suspended well tested for use as Lower Grand
Rapids source water supply well. Well is
thermally compatible.
CAVALIER BRINT 13-19-81-23
100/13-19-081-23W4/00
1/25 /2011 428533
Drilled & Cased
Cavalier Energy Inc.
692.0 116.0 483.4 177.8 34.2 C95 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge
plug 481 N Y n/a
Standing well will be utilized as
Winterburn/Nisku/Grosmont disposal well. 177.8 mm casing to 483 mKB
cemented with Thermal 40 to surface. OH from 483-692 mKB. Well is thermally compatible.
n/a = not applicable
102 103
Area Well Status
Hoole Grand Rapids Project
10572-CGSP-13February 2014Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to the other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has notentered into contract.F:
\105
72\D
rafti
ng\2
013\
1057
2-C
GS
P-1
3.dw
g -
Are
aWel
lSta
t-R3
- Fr
iday
, Dec
embe
r 06,
201
3 8:
40:3
9 A
M -
Edw
ard
Rug
ayan
Plo
t 1:1
= L
ette
r (P
)
Reference:
Drainage Boxes for the Initial Two Well Pads
Project Development Area
400 m Buffer
Well Location within 400 m of PDA
Requires Remedial Work
Figure
5-1
B. FuchsT. Hodgson E. Rugayan
R 23 W4MR 24
T 81
4002000
1:20000
200