Disclaimer This Report, including the data and information contained in this Report, is provided to you on an “as is” and “as available” basis at the sole discretion of the Government of Alberta and subject to the terms and conditions of use below (the “Terms and Conditions”). The Government of Alberta has not verified this Report for accuracy and does not warrant the accuracy of, or make any other warranties or representations regarding, this Report. Furthermore, updates to this Report may not be made available. Your use of any of this Report is at your sole and absolute risk.
This Report is provided to the Government of Alberta, and the Government of Alberta has obtained a license or other authorization for use of the Reports, from:
Shell Canada Energy, Chevron Canada Limited. and Marathon Oil Canada Corporation, for the Quest Project
(collectively the “Project”)
Each member of the Project expressly disclaims any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the material and information contained herein, and none of them shall have any liability, regardless of any negligence or fault, for any statements contained in, or for any omissions from, this Report. Under no circumstances shall the Government of Alberta or the Project be liable for any damages, claims, causes of action, losses, legal fees or expenses, or any other cost whatsoever arising out of the use of this Report or any part thereof or the use of any other data or information on this website.
Terms and Conditions of Use Except as indicated in these Terms and Conditions, this Report and any part thereof shall not be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent of the Government of Alberta and the Project.
The Government of Alberta’s intent in posting this Report is to make them available to the public for personal and non-commercial (educational) use. You may not use this Report for any other purpose. You may reproduce data and information in this Report subject to the following conditions:
• any disclaimers that appear in this Report shall be retained in their original form and applied to the data and information reproduced from this Report • the data and information shall not be modified from its original form • the Project shall be identified as the original source of the data and information, while this website shall be identified as the reference source, and • the reproduction shall not be represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Alberta or the Project By accessing and using this Report, you agree to indemnify and hold the Government of Alberta and the Project, and their respective employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, actions and costs (including legal costs on a solicitor-client basis) arising out of any breach by you of these Terms and Conditions or otherwise arising out of your use or reproduction of the data and information in this Report.
Your access to and use of this Report is subject exclusively to these Terms and Conditions and any terms and conditions contained within the Report itself, all of which you shall comply with. You will not use this Report for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these Terms and Conditions. You agree that any other use of this Report means you agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions are subject to modification, and you agree to review them periodically for changes. If you do not accept these Terms and Conditions you agree to immediately stop accessing this Report and destroy all copies in your possession or control.
These Terms and Conditions may change at any time, and your continued use and reproduction of this Report following any changes shall be deemed to be your acceptance of such change.
If any of these Terms and Conditions should be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason by any court of competent jurisdiction then the applicable provision shall be severed and the remaining provisions of these Terms and Conditions shall survive and remain in full force and effect and continue to be binding and enforceable.
These Terms and Conditions shall: (i) be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the province of Alberta and you hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alberta courts, and (ii) ensure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Government of Alberta and your respective successors and assigns.
UTM mNUTM
5940000 5945000 5950000340000 5955000 5960000 5965000 5970000 5975000 5980000 5985000 345000 350000 355000 360000 365000 370000 375000 380000 385000 UTM mE
Shell Scotford Boundary Residential (RES) Agricultural (AGR) Industrial (IND) Monitoring (MON) Public Use Area (PUA)
QUEST CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PROJECT N:\1_Projects\123510425_Shell Quest CCS\Surfer Quest N:\1_Projects\123510425_Shell Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
b. The receptor locations evaluated in the HHRA represent discrete locations where people are known or suspected to spend time. For example, some represent residences, while others represent commercial facilities or known recreational areas. None of the discrete receptor locations represent the MPOI for any of the COPCs.
An assessment along the Shell Scotford fenceline estimates the maximum predicted air concentrations to which people in the area could be exposed.
Based on the values provided in Response 76a, the maximum concentrations outside the fenceline are assessed (see Table 76-3). Only the acute averaging periods are evaluated in Table 76-3, because people are expected to be near the MPOI locations for a short time. The same averaging periods and statistics applied in the acute inhalation assessment in the HHRA are included in this response. Given that Shell Scotford fenceline locations were considered in the HHRA, focus is only on the maximum ground-level air concentrations that are outside the fenceline.
Table 76-3 Maximum Ground-Level Air Concentrations outside the Shell Scotford Fenceline
Exposure Limit Application Planned COPC from HHRA Base Case Case Development Case (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
NO2 188 208 208 231 (1-hour, 98th, 3-year average)
PM2.5 30 76.7 76.7 68.1 (24-hour, 98th, 3-year average) The predicted maximum ground-level air concentrations outside the Shell Scotford fenceline
exceed the acute exposure limits for NO2 and PM2.5. However, unlike the discrete locations assessed in the HHRA, the MPOI locations outside the fenceline are variable, not fixed. The figures in Response 76a indicate that the highest maximum ground-level air concentrations
for 1-hour NO2 and 24-hour PM2.5 occur generally near Edmonton or the City of Fort Saskatchewan for all three assessment cases. As evident by the lack of difference between the Base Case and Application Case air concentrations, sources other than the Project appear to contribute to the concentrations at the MPOI locations.
The predicted maximum hourly NO2 concentrations outside the Shell Scotford fenceline, although exceeding the US EPA 1-hour standard, appear to be within the range of exposure concentrations where variable results have been reported in human studies (see the Application, Volume 2B, Table 14-10, reproduced here).
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-188
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
From the Application, Volume 2B, Section 14:
Table 14-10 Potential Acute Health Effects Associated with NO2
Air Concentration Potential Acute Health Effects1 (µg/m³) 190 to 560 Increased airway responsiveness, detectable by meta-analysis, among asthmatics. Large variability in both protocols and responses. 490 Allergen-induced decrements in lung function and increased allergen-induced airway inflammatory response among asthmatics. Most studies used non-specific airway challenges. No NO2-induced change in lung function. No documented effects among healthy individuals.
560 to 750 Potential effects on lung function indices, including inconsistent changes FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and FVC (forced vital capacity) among patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) during mild exercise. 1,900 to 3,700 Increased likelihood of inflammatory response and airway responsiveness among healthy individuals during intermittent exercise. Symptoms have not been detected by most investigators among healthy individuals. Asthmatics might experience small decrements in FEV1. ≥ 3,700 Changes in lung function, such as increased airway resistance, in healthy individuals. NOTE: 1 The descriptions are mostly for the types of health effects that might be experienced among normal, healthy individuals following acute exposure to NO2. Some descriptions refer to the types of symptoms that might occur among individuals with pre-existing eye or breathing disorders, such as asthma, bronchitis or COPD. The exact nature and severity of responses that might occur among individuals with pre-existing conditions will depend on several factors, including: i) the severity of the person’s condition; ii) the age of the individual; iii) the level of management of the disorder, including the availability and use of medications; iv) the person’s level of physical activity; and v) external environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. The symptoms that could be experienced by these individuals could be more or less severe that those described because of these factors. References: Azadniv et al. (1998); Beil and Ulmer (1976); Blomberg et al. (1997, 1999),; Cal EPA (2007, Internet site), Devlin et al. (1999); Gong et al. (2005); Jorres et al. (1995); Morrow et al. (1992); Nieding et al. (1979, 1980); Nieding and Wagner (1977); Vagaggini et al. (1996).
Considering that the predicted NO2 concentrations are expected to be below the concentration at which adverse responses have been reported in asthmatics (i.e., 490 μg/m3), the evidence suggests that the overall likelihood of adverse health effects occurring in individuals is low. In addition, the predicted concentrations are within the range examined in a recent meta-
analysis of NO2 exposure and airway hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics, where it was
suggested that there is no evidence that NO2 causes clinically relevant effects in asthmatics at concentrations of up to 1,100 μg/m³ (Goodman et al. 2009).
The 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations outside the fenceline have been predicted to exceed the Canada-wide standard (CWS) of 30 µg/m3. However, as indicated in the Application,
Volume 2A, Section 5.6.3 (pages 5-67 and 5-68), there is some uncertainty in the PM2.5
concentrations. For example, the CALPUFF model overpredicts the PM2.5 concentrations by up to a factor of three in the Edmonton area. Notwithstanding this bias, the model does
provide a relative indicator of the Project emissions on ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The Project appears to have a negligible influence on the predicted air concentrations, given the similarity of the Base and Application Case predictions.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-189
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
The maximum predicted concentrations in Table 76-3 are based on a 24-hour exposure period. A review of the available literature by Pope and Dockery (2006) concluded that the health effects attributable to particulate matter (PM) exposure depend on both concentration and length of exposure, with long-term repeated exposures being more strongly associated with adverse human health impacts. Thus, the exposures associated with the maximum predicted concentration outside the fenceline over a 24-hour averaging period are considered transient.
For an evaluation of the potential long-term health effects of PM2.5 exposure, see the chronic inhalation assessment in the HHRA (see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 14). In
addition, for an evaluation of potential health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (using Health Canada’s SUM15 assessment method) at discrete locations, see Response 80. The
predicted annual air concentrations of PM2.5 are less than the chronic exposure limit for PM2.5 for all assessment cases and for all receptor groups, suggesting that adverse health effects
from long-term PM2.5 exposure are unlikely to occur.
REFERENCES Azadniv, M., M.J. Utell, P.E. Morrow, F.R. Gibb, J. Nichols, N.J. Roberts, Jr., D.M. Speers, A. Torres, Y. Tsai, M.K. Abraham, K.Z. Voter and M.W. Frampton. 1998. Effects of nitrogen dioxide exposure on human host defense. Inhalation Toxicol. 10(6): 585−601.
Beil, M. and W.T. Ulmer. 1976. Wirkung von NO2 im MAK-Bereich auf Atemmechanik und
bronchiale Acetylcholinempfindlichkeit bei Normalpersonen [Effect of NO2 in workroom concentrations on respiratory mechanics and bronchial susceptibility to acetylcholine in normal persons]. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 38: 31−44.
Blomberg, A., M.T. Krishna, V. Bocchino, G.L. Biscione, J.K. Shute, F.J. Kelly, A.J. Frew, S.T.
Holgate and T. Sandstrom. 1997. The inflammatory effects of 2 ppm NO2 on the airways of healthy subjects. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.156: 418−424.
Blomberg, A., M.T. Krishna, R. Helleday, M. Söderberg, M C. Ledin, F.J. Kelly, A.J. Frew, S.T. Holgate and T. Sandström. 1999. Persistent airway inflammation but accommodated antioxidant and lung function responses after repeated daily exposure to nitrogen dioxide. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159: 536−543.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2007. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. Technical Support Document. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. January 5, 2007. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/no2-rs/no2tech.pdf
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-190
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
Devlin, R.B., D.P. Horstman, T.R. Gerrity, S. Becker and M.C. Madden. 1999. Inflammatory response in humans exposed to 2.0 ppm nitrogen dioxide. Inhalation Toxicol. 11: 89−109.
Gong, H., Jr., W.S. Linn, K.W. Clark, K.R. Anderson, M.D. Geller and C. Sioutas. 2005. Respiratory responses to exposures with fine particulates and nitrogen dioxide in the elderly with and without COPD. Inhalation Toxicol. 17: 123−132.
Goodman, J.E., J.K.Chandalia, S. Thakali and M. Seeley. 2009. Meta-analysis of nitrogen dioxide exposure and airway hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics. Critical Reviews of Toxicology 39(9): 719–742.
Jorres, R., D. Nowak, F. Grimminger, W. Seeger, M. Oldigs, and H. Magnussen. 1995. The effect of 1 ppm nitrogen dioxide on bronchoalveolar lavage cells and inflammatory mediators in normal and asthmatic subjects. Eur. Respir. J. 8: 416−424.
Morrow, P.E., M.J. Utell, M.A. Bauer, A.M. Smeglin, M.W. Frampton, C. Cox, D.M. Speers and F.R. Gibb. 1992. Pulmonary performance of elderly normal subjects and subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exposed to 0.3 ppm nitrogen dioxide. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 145: 291−300. Nieding, G. von and H.M. Wagner. 1977. Experimental studies on the short-term effect of air
pollutants on pulmonary function in man: two-hour exposure to NO2, O3 and SO2 alone and in combination. In: Kasuga, S., N. Suzuki, T. Yamada, G. Kimura, K. Inagaki and K. Onoe (eds.). Proceedings of the Fourth International Clean Air Congress, May, Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Union of Air Pollution Prevention Associations. 5 −8.
Nieding, G. von, H.M. Wagner, H. Krekeler, H. Loellgen, W. Fries and A. Beuthan. 1979.
Controlled studies of human exposure to single and combined action of NO2, O3, and
SO2. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 43: 195−210. Nieding, G. von, H.M. Wagner, H. Casper, A. Beuthan and U. Smidt. 1980. Effect of
experimental and occupational exposure to NO2 in sensitive and normal subjects. In: Lee, S. D. (ed.). Nitrogen oxides and their effects on health. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. 315−331.
Pope, C.A. and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Effects of fine particulate pollution: Lines that connect. J. Air Waste Management Association 56: 709−742.
Vagaggini, B., P.L. Paggiaro, D. Giannini, A.D. Franco, S. Cianchetti, S. Carnevali, M. Taccola,
E. Bacci, L. Bancalari, F.L. Dente and C. Giuntini. 1996. Effect of short-term NO2 exposure on induced sputum in normal, asthmatic and COPD subjects. Eur. Respir. J. 9: 1852−1857.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-191
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
Question 77: Pathways of Exposure
Volume 2B, Section 14
A conceptual site model of the risk assessment was not provided in the report. a. Provide a conceptual site model for the project including chemical fate and transport pathways, receptors, and exposure pathways.
Response 77
a. Due to the physical and chemical characteristics and the nature of the release (air) of NO2 and
PM2.5, the only relevant pathway for chemical fate and transport relates to air dispersion. Therefore, inhalation is the only relevant exposure pathway related to the Project and the
COPCs (PM2.5 and NO2).
Question 78: Statistics for Exposure Concentration Used in the HHRA
Volume 2B, Section 14.3.2.1, Page 14-11
Shell states The predicted air concentrations are evaluated for several different averaging periods: 1-hour, 24-hour and annual average. It is unclear from this statement if the exposure concentrations used in risk characterization are average or maximum values. a. Provide a rationale for the exposure concentrations used in the HHRA and clarify the statistic used in the calculations.
Response 78
a. In the acute inhalation assessment, NO2 and PM2.5 are evaluated using the 1-hour and 24-hour
averaging periods, respectively. For NO2, the statistic used in the HHRA is based on a 3-year average 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations,
consistent with the US EPA (2010). PM2.5 is evaluated using the 24-hour 98th percentile of the ambient measurement annually, based on three years of data, consistent with the CCME
Canada Wide Standard for PM2.5 (CCME 2000).
In the chronic inhalation assessment, NO2 and PM2.5 are evaluated using annual average air concentrations.
The averaging times and statistics of the exposure concentrations were chosen to be consistent with the averaging times and statistics of the exposure limits used in the HHRA.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-192
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
REFERENCES
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Endorsed by CCME Council of Ministers, June 5-6, 2000, Quebec City, QC. Available at: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010. Final Rule - Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58, EPA- HQ-OAR-2007-0352 RIN 2060-A048. June 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/fr/20100622.pdf
Question 79: CO2 Concentrations for Upset Scenarios
Section 17.5.2.1, Page 17-12 a. Provide a table with the maximum modeled ambient CO2 concentration under each modeled upset scenario and the relevant exposure limits protective of public health.
Response 79
a. See Response 16 for a detailed discussion of the dispersion modelling completed for upset scenarios. The following text is a summary of Response 16, in the context of this question.
For published exposure limits for CO2, see Table 79-1 (the same as Table 16-1 in Response 16). Because an upset venting release is anticipated to be of relatively short duration and intermittent, the most relevant criteria would be the threshold limit value- short-term exposure limit (TLV-STEL) and the IDLH criteria.
For the maximum predicted 15-minute-average CO2 concentrations within 2 km of the source, and for selected receptor heights for the venting scenarios considered, see Table 79-2
(the same as Table 16-6 in Response 16-1). The predicted CO2 concentrations can be compared with the TLV-STEL and IDLH criteria, respectively. The following observations relate to the data:
• The predicted values are below the published exposure thresholds in Table 79-1 (specifically the TLV-STEL and IDLH). • The values are predicted to be higher for a higher ambient temperature. • At higher flagpole receptor elevations, the values predicted for the turndown scenarios are larger than the normal operation scenario. • The venting scenario results in the largest predicted concentrations.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-193
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
Table 79-1 Published Exposure Limits for CO2
Averaging Time CO2 Used in Dispersion Criteria Description Concentration Modelling (ppm) (minutes) TLV-TWA Time-weighted average (TWA). The level to which it is 5,000 60 (ACGIH) believed a worker can be exposed day after day for a working lifetime without adverse health effects. TLV-STEL Short-term exposure limit (STEL). The maximum 30,000 15 (ACGIH) concentration permitted for a continuous 15-minute exposure period. There may be a maximum of four such periods per day, with at least 60 minutes between exposure periods, and provided the daily TLV-TWA is not exceeded. IDLH (NIOSH) An atmospheric concentration of any toxic, corrosive or 40,000 30 asphyxiant substance that poses an immediate threat to life, or would cause irreversible or delayed adverse health effects or would interfere with an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere. “Knock down” Potential for immediate loss of consciousness 100,000 1 NOTE: Based on NIOSH (2005), OSHA (2008), and ACGIH (2008).
Table 79-2 Maximum Predicted 15 minute-average CO2 Concentrations
Maximum Predicted CO2 Concentration (ppm) Ambient Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor Receptor Scenario Temperature Height Height Height Height Height Height (ºC) 0 m 1.5 m 5 m 10 m 20 m 30 m Compressor Scenario 1 -30 58 58 58 59 61 70 Suction Normal 30 77 77 77 78 81 94 (release (42.2 kg/s) rate) Scenario 2 -30 43 43 43 44 51 85 Turndown 30 56 56 56 58 67 377 30% (12.7 kg/s) Scenario 3 -30 21 21 21 22 28 57 Turndown 30 26 26 41 144 589 861 10% (4.2 kg/s) Compressor (41.3 kg/s) -30 54 54 54 54 56 63 Discharge 30 77 77 77 78 80 94 Pipeline Time -30 2,615 2,561 2,202 1,666 1,756 2,687 Varying 30 3,226 3,159 2,756 1,971 2,120 3,228
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-194
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
REFERENCES American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 2008. 2008 TLVs and BEIs. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2007. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, Ohio: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010. OSHA standards for general industry (29 CFR part 1910), occupational safety and health standards, 1910.1000 TABLE Z-1 limits for air contaminants. Accessed: July 6, 2010. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=99 92
Question 80: SUM15 Assessment of PM2.5 Concentrations
Volume 2B, Section 14
PM2.5 was not assessed according to the SUM15 methods typically used in particulate risk assessments (Health Canada, 1999). a. Include an assessment of the particulate data using the SUM15 methods.
Response 80
a. Predicted acute and chronic inhalation risk quotients (RQs) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are predicted to be less than 1.0 at all locations evaluated in the HHRA (see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 14), including the Shell Scotford fenceline. This demonstrates that
predicted PM2.5 air concentrations are predicted to be less than recognized acute and chronic
standards for PM2.5 within the assessment area. Acute health risks are based on the CWS of 30 µg/m³ (24-hour 98th percentile) (CCME 2000), while chronic health risks are based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) standard of 12 µg/m³ (annual average) (CARB
2002). These standards are commonly used for HHRAs in the Alberta context for PM 2.5 studies. Their use has been accepted by Alberta Health and Wellness and Health Canada. The HHRA did not include a SUM15 assessment for the following reasons:
• The lack of transferability of the concentration-response (C-R) functions used in the SUM15 assessment: C-R functions provide an estimate of the relationship between the health endpoints of interest and particulate matter (PM) concentration. C-R functions may not provide an adequate representation of the C-R relationship in times and places other than those in which they were estimated, e.g., large North American cities versus communities within the Project HHRA.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-195
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
• The poor extrapolation of C-R relationships beyond the range of observed PM data: A C- R relationship estimated by an epidemiological study is likely not valid at concentrations below the range of concentrations observed for the analysis location, i.e., Project HHRA. The form of the C-R function is log-linear and confidence intervals are expected to increase substantially at the lower end of the concentration range for health endpoints
associated with PM2.5 (as would be the case for the Project HHRA). • The apparent inadequacy of the relative risk estimates: Some of the criteria used in the original statistical analysis of the epidemiological data have led to the apparent
overestimation of the relative risks to PM2.5 exposure in the SUM15 analysis. Overall, lower effects levels were reported from a revised analysis of the results from a number of studies; in fact, the effect estimates from the National Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) were half the original estimated effects (Health Effects Institute [HEI] 2003).
These points suggest that a SUM15 assessment may not be the appropriate approach for
characterizing the potential health effects associated with PM2.5 in the Project HHRA.
However, in response to the question, a SUM15 assessment of the PM2.5 air concentrations was completed, despite the concerns described.
HEALTH CANADA’S PM2.5 SUM15 ASSESSMENT
Health Canada’s SUM15 method is used to estimate ‘excess health risk’ by summing daily PM2.5 air concentrations that exceed 15 µg/m³ (Health Canada 1999). The receptor ID (and type) included in the SUM15 assessment include:
• R124 (monitoring) • R125 (monitoring) • R304 (industrial) • R305 (industrial) • R307 (agricultural) • R309 (industrial)
• R393 (monitoring) • R414 (industrial) • R573 (residential) • R574 (residential) These locations were chosen because they represent the 10 locations with the highest 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations in the Application Case.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-196
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
METHODS ‘Excess health risks’, as defined by Health Canada (1999), were calculated for these 10 receptor
locations based on 24-hour PM2.5 predicted air concentrations. PM2.5 air concentrations were predicted on an hourly basis for 8,760 hours per year for five consecutive years, using meteorological data from 2002 to 2006. The year 2004 is an exception because it was a leap year (i.e., 8,784 hours in 366 days). Excess health risks were estimated for each of the five years of
PM2.5 air quality predictions and presented as a range (minimum to maximum) for each receptor location and assessment case (i.e., Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case).
Excess health risks were estimated for mortality, respiratory hospital admissions (RHA) and cardiovascular hospital admissions (CHA) based on the calculated cumulative concentration above 15 µg/m³ (or SUM15). This required:
• cumulative air concentrations of PM2.5: the one-year sum (i.e., 365 or 366 days) of 24-hour
PM2.5 air concentrations that exceed 15 μg/m³ (i.e., ∑[24 -hour PM2.5 air concentration – 15 µg/m³]) • relative risk estimates for mortality, RHA and CHA • baseline mortality, RHA and CHA incidence rates
For the range of annual cumulative PM2.5 air concentrations for the receptor locations in the Base, Application and Planned Development Cases, see Table 80-1. For Health Canada’s baseline incidence rates for mortality, CHA and RHA, see Table 80-2.
Table 80-1 Cumulative Daily PM2.5 Air Concentrations Exceeding 15 µg/m³
Air Concentration (µg/m³), 2002 to 2006 Planned Location Base Case Application Case Development Case R124 101.94 to 223.77 102.20 to 223.97 68.91 to 152.47 R125 79.05 to 155.94 79.30 to 156.03 51.89 to 107.84 R304 79.75 to 159.98 79.99 to 160.43 55.19 to 112.23 R305 88.33 to 172.64 88.57 to 172.92 56.06 to 118.88 R307 81.99 to 160.16 82.24 to 160.42 53.77 to 11.49 R309 110.33 to 158.26 110.62 to 258.29 88.62 to 204.10 R393 79.17 to 156.03 79.42 to 156.12 51.71 to 108.06 R414 340.55 to 514.47 341.27 to 516.07 340.38 to 520.56 R573 71.96 to 146.74 72.10 to 146.77 48.45 to 100.50 R574 75.16 to 153.05 75.40 to 153.15 51.06 to 108.57
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-197
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
Table 80-2 Calculated Baseline Incidence Rates and Relative National Risk Estimates
Relative Risk per 1 µg/m³ Change in PM2.5 Incidence Rate per 1,000,000 95% Confidence Health Endpoint Population per Day Point Estimate Interval Mortality 18.4 1.0014 1.001 to 1.0018 Respiratory hospital admissions 16 1.00074 1.00049 to 1.00099 Cardiovascular hospital admissions 14.4 1.0007 1.00036 to 1.001 SOURCE: Health Canada (1999). Health Canada uses this information to calculate potential health risks related to mortality, RHA
and CHA that may be attributable to PM2.5 as follows:
Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration x Incidence Rate x (Relative Risk – 1) (Equation 1)
Using Equation 1, potential health risks were estimated for each health endpoint. For example, the maximum predicted change in the daily mortality rate for R124 under the Base Case that
would be attributable to PM2.5 was calculated as follows:
Change in Mortality Rate = 223.77 µg/m³ x 18.4 per 1,000,000 x (1.0014 - 1) = 5.76 per 1,000,000
This calculation illustrates that the cumulative PM2.5 concentration of 223.77 µg/m³ predicted under the Base Case for R124 is associated with a maximum predicted increase in the non- accident mortality rate of 5.76 per 1,000,000 (i.e., from 18.4 to 24.16). This change in the
mortality rate is due to the Base Case PM2.5 air concentrations and is not related to Project emissions.
The remaining calculations for mortality, RHA and CHA are summarized in Tables 80-3, 80-4 and 80-5, respectively. The risk estimates are presented in terms of ‘health effects per 1,000,000 people’.
1 Table 80-3 Calculated Mortality Attributed to Changes in Daily PM2.5 Location Base Case Application Case Planned Development Case R124 2.63 to 5.76 2.63 to 5.77 1.78 to 3.93 R125 2.04 to 4.02 2.04 to 4.02 1.34 to 2.78 R304 2.05 to 4.12 2.06 to 4.13 1.42 to 2.89 R305 2.28 to 4.45 2.28 to 4.45 1.44 to 3.06 R307 2.11 to 4.13 2.12 to 4.13 1.39 to 2.87 R309 2.84 to 6.65 2.85 to 6.65 2.28 to 5.26 R393 2.04 to 4.02 2.05 to 4.02 1.33 to 2.78 R414 8.77 to 13.25 8.79 to 13.29 8.77 to 13.41 R573 1.85 to 3.78 1.86 to 3.78 1.25 to 2.59 R574 1.94 to 3.94 1.94 to 3.95 1.32 to 2.80 NOTE: 1 Per 1,000,000 people
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-198
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
Table 80-4 Calculated Respiratory Hospital Admissions1 Attributed to Changes in Daily PM2.5 Location Base Case Application Case Planned Development Case R124 1.21 to 2.65 1.21 to 2.65 0.82 to 1.81 R125 0.94 to 1.85 0.94 to 1.85 0.61 to 1.28 R304 0.94 to 1.89 0.95 to 1.90 0.65 to 1.33 R305 1.05 to 2.04 1.05 to 2.05 0.66 to 1.41 R307 0.97 to 1.90 0.97 to 1.90 0.64 to 1.32 R309 1.31 to 3.06 1.31 to 3.06 1.05 to 2.42 R393 0.94 to 1.85 0.94 to 1.85 0.61 to 1.28 R414 4.03 to 6.09 4.04 to 6.11 4.03 to 6.16 R573 0.85 to 1.74 0.85 to 1.74 0.57 to 1.19 R574 0.89 to 1.81 0.89 to 1.81 0.60 to 1.29 NOTE: 1 Per 1,000,000 people
Table 80-5 Calculated Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions1 Attributed to Changes in Daily PM2.5 Location Base Case Application Case Planned Development Case R124 1.03 to 2.26 1.03 to 2.26 0.69 to 1.54 R125 0.80 to 1.57 0.80 to 1.57 0.52 to 1.09 R304 0.80 to 1.61 0.81 to 1.62 0.56 to 1.13 R305 0.89 to 1.74 0.89 to 1.74 0.57 to 1.20 R307 0.83 to 1.61 0.83 to 1.62 0.54 to 1.12 R309 1.11 to 2.60 1.12 to 2.60 0.89 to 2.06 R393 0.80 to 1.57 0.80 to 1.57 0.52 to 1.09 R414 3.43 to 5.19 3.44 to 5.20 3.43 to 5.25 R573 0.73 to 1.48 0.73 to 1.48 0.49 to 1.01 R574 0.76 to 1.54 0.76 to 1.54 0.51 to 1.09 NOTE: 1 Per 1,000,000 people The results of the risk estimates in Tables 80-3 through 80-5 are presented in terms of ‘health
effects per 1,000,000 people’. Therefore, it is unlikely that a PM2.5 attributable health effect (as it relates to the predicted air concentrations) could be detected at any of the receptor locations assessed, considering the area’s small population size (i.e., when compared to a population of 1,000,000).
At all 10 locations, the increase from Base Case to Application Case is negligible (less than 1%), while at most locations there is no change at all. This relates to the difference between the Base Case risk estimates and the Application Case risk estimates: there is little to no influence from the
Project’s PM2.5 emissions. There is a slight decrease between Base Case and the Planned Development Case that is attributable to a reduction in traffic emissions over time at these locations. Expected changes in
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-199
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
fuel composition and improved vehicle emission technology were incorporated into the air quality predictions for the Planned Development Case. At locations heavily influenced by traffic emissions, these predicted changes have resulted in a decrease in estimated PM emissions.
CONCLUSIONS The RQ values calculated on an acute and chronic basis for all locations considered in the HHRA
are predicted to be less than 1.0, indicating that 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentrations predicted in the assessment area are below guidelines. The Project is not expected to contribute appreciably to PM-related health risks in the region. This is further supported by the results of the SUM15 assessment, which indicates that incremental changes in mortality and morbidity as a result of the Project are expected to be negligible.
REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2002. Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. May 2002.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Endorsed by CCME Council of Ministers, June 5-6, 2000, Quebec City, QC. Available at: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf
Health Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter: Addendum to the Science Assessment Document. Federal - Provincial Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available at: http://dsppsd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-98-220-1-9E.pdf
Health Effects Institute (HEI). 2003. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and Health. Special Report.
Question 81: Project-Only and Incremental Risk Quotients
Volume 2B, Section 14.4.2, Tables 14-7, 14-8, 14-12, 14-13
The risk quotient tables presented in the report include the maximum values for each receptor group. a. Present the Project-only differences between the Base and Application cases and discuss the relative impact of the project on human health. b. Present the Planned Development differences between the Base and Planned Development cases and discuss the relative impact of the project and planned development on human health.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-200
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
Many of the risk quotients in the Planned Development Case are lower than the Application Case.
c. Discuss the possible reasons for the apparent decrease in risk quotients with an increase in industrial emissions.
Response 81
a. In the HHRA, the potential effects of Project emissions on human health are assessed for four primary cases: • baseline conditions • Base Case • Application Case • Planned Development Case The incremental change from the Project alone was assessed by comparing the Base Case risk estimates with the Application Case risk estimates. As described in the HHRA, the relative magnitude of potential effects from the Project is expected to be negligible.
For the requested Project-only differences in risk estimates between the Base and Application Cases (i.e., risk quotient [RQ] values), see Table 81-1. The same statistics and exposure limits described in the HHRA are used in this table for consistency.
All RQ values are well below 1, and are relatively small when compared with the Base, Application and Planned Development Cases in the HHRA. The Project-only risk estimates indicate that the Project’s magnitude of potential effects on health is expected to be negligible.
1 Table 81-1 Project-Only Risk Quotients, NO2 and PM2.5, All Receptor Groups
Averaging Period / Public Use COPC Statistic Agricultural Residential Industrial Monitoring Area Fenceline th NO2 1-hour 98 0.017 0.011 0.014 0.018 0.009 0.063 US EPA Annual 0.007 0.003 0.009 0.013 0.003 N/A th PM2.5 24-hour 98 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 Annual 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.001 0.001 N/A NOTES: 1 Project-only is Application Case minus Base Case N/A - not applicable to this receptor group
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-201
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
b. In the HHRA, the incremental contribution of the Project-only and the Planned Development Case on human health is assessed by comparing the Base Case risk estimates to the Planned Development Case risk estimates. The result of the comparison indicates that the magnitude of potential effects from the Project-only and the Planned Development Case are expected to be negligible.
For the requested differences between the Base Case and Planned Development Case RQ values, see Table 81-2. The same statistics and exposure limits described in the HHRA are applied in calculating these values.
All RQs predicted for the differences between the Base and Planned Development Cases are well below 1. To summarize, the magnitude of potential effects for the Planned Development Case on human health is expected to be negligible.
1 Table 81-2 Future Incremental Risk Quotients, NO2 and PM2.5, All Receptor Groups
Averaging Period / Public Use COPC Statistic Agriculture Residential Industrial Monitoring Area Fenceline
NO2 1-hour 98th 0.192 0.113 0.070 0.031 0.026 0.078 US EPA Annual 0.193 0.105 0.039 0.027 0.011 N/A
PM2.5 24-hour 98th 0.009 -0.008 0.010 0.003 -0.001 0.014 Annual 0.127 0.084 0.024 0.017 0.007 N/A NOTES: 1 Future incremental is Planned Development Case minus Base Case N/A - not applicable to this receptor group c. Emissions in the region result from both industrial and non-industrial sources, the latter including traffic sources. In some parts of the LAA, the ambient concentrations are dominated by the industrial emissions, whereas in other parts, the ambient concentrations are dominated by non-industrial (i.e., traffic) emissions. Although the Planned Development Case results in increased industrial emissions, the expected increased use of more efficient vehicles in the future also results in a reduction of traffic emissions. As indicated by Cheminfo (2007) in its review of transportation emission projections for the period 2000 to 2020:
“All transportation emissions are projected to decrease. These decreases are largely a result of improved emission performance standards taking effect and stringent fuel sulphur content levels that will be in full effect by 2015.”
These industrial increases and traffic decreases have been accounted for in the air quality assessment.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-202
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
For locations in the LAA that are dominated by traffic emissions, the associated emission decreases will result in reduced ambient concentrations and reduced risk quotients for the Planned Development Case.
REFERENCE ChemInfo. 2007. Forecast of Criteria Air Contaminants in Alberta (2002 to 2020). Final Report. Prepared for Environment Canada.
Question 82: Uncertainty and Assumptions in Exposure Modelling
Volume 2B a. Provide a discussion of the uncertainty associated with the risk assessment including key assumptions in the exposure modelling and the potential impact on the risk assessment results and conclusions.
Response 82
a. Several assumptions are used in the HHRA so that predicted health risks are adequately protective of people living in the area, including sensitive individuals. For a summary of conservative assumptions and uncertainties associated with the various steps of the risk assessment, see Table 82-1.
Table 82-1 Summary of Assumptions and Uncertainties
Risk Assessment Step Assumption Discussion of Potential Conservatism or Uncertainty Exposure Human exposures are based on In the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5.3.1.2 provides assessment predicted ground level air a discussion of several uncertainties that can influence concentrations of the COPCs identified the air quality assessment, and thus indirectly influence from the emissions inventory for the the HHRA. In particular, Section 5.3.1.2 states “The Project ability of a model to predict ambient concentrations depends on the accuracy of the source and emission inventory, the representativeness of the meteorology, and the assumptions used to represent atmospheric physics and chemistry processes.” Section 5.6.2.41 also indicates that the results of the air quality model represent best estimates, and are associated with some uncertainty in overall prediction confidence. Exposure People participating in recreational It is unlikely that people would be at the Shell Scotford assessment activities might be found at the Shell fenceline locations at the same time as the Scotford fenceline locations. This meteorological conditions that contribute to the presents the possibility that they could maximum concentrations occur. Therefore, exposure be exposed to the maximum predicted levels to people participating in recreational activities are ground-level air concentrations of the likely overstated. Actual risks to people will be lower than COPCs within the LAA. what is predicted.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-203
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
Table 82-1 Summary of Assumptions and Uncertainties (cont’d)
Risk Assessment Step Assumption Discussion of Potential Conservatism or Uncertainty Exposure The people with the highest predicted Potential exposure assumed for each lifestyle category assessment exposures within each lifestyle category represents a ‘reasonable worst-case’ scenario. This (i.e., residents, workers and recreational contributes to the overestimate of potential risks to other people) are used to characterize the people in the lifestyle category. potential exposures for all people represented by the lifestyle category. Exposure Predicted chronic exposures for the The operating life of the Project is expected to be less assessment residents are based on the assumption than 80 years; thus, assuming 80 years of COPC that individuals would be exposed 24 emissions into the air likely overstates actual levels of hours per day, 365 days per year to the exposures. It is feasible that some individuals may live maximum predicted ground-level air away from the area for part of their life, or at the very concentrations of the COPCs for the least visit locations outside the LAA [and also that they entire duration of their lives (i.e., 80 spend up to half of their time inside where they wouldn’t years). be exposed to maximum ground-level air concentrations?]. This assumption results in a probable overestimation of exposure. Toxicity Exposure limits were developed to be Generally, a considerable amount of conservatism is assessment protective of sensitive individuals within incorporated in the exposure limits. Limits are set the general population (e.g., infants and deliberately to be protective of sensitive individuals. The young children, the elderly, individuals limits are based on the most sensitive endpoints and with compromised health) adjusted to account for differences in sensitivity to chemicals among individuals. The use of uncertainty factors is directed, in part, toward the protection of sensitive individuals. NOTES: 1 From Volume 2A, Section 5.6.2.4: “The prediction confidence relates to the uncertainty associated with the emission estimates, the uncertainty in representing area source emissions, and the uncertainty associated with the model’s ability to predict ambient concentrations. The comparison between predictions and measurements (see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5D) accounts for these uncertainties. Based on the comparison, the maximum 1-hour and annual NO2 concentrations are predicted reasonably well at the FAP monitoring stations and overpredicted by 30 to 40% at the Edmonton monitoring stations. In general, the model predicts high concentrations where high concentrations are measured and low concentrations where low concentrations are measured. The model can be viewed as an appropriate ‘best estimate’ tool. The US EPA (2005) states: “models are reasonably reliable in estimating the magnitude of highest concentrations occurring sometime, somewhere within an area. For example, errors in highest estimated concentrations of ±10 to ±40% are found to be typical, i.e., certainly well within the often quoted factor-of-two accuracy that has long been recognized for these models.”
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-204
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 3. Part A
Question 83: Stakeholder Contact
TOR Section 2.3.8
TOR Section 2.3.8 of the final Terms of Reference requires that health concerns raised by stakeholders during consultation be documented. a. Provide documentation of stakeholder health concerns, if any, and/or provide reference to the section(s) of the application where they are documented.
Response 83
a. One landowner contacted Shell and asked if gas would be injected down the well that will be drilled close to his land and if Shell intended to fracture the well. The landowner had concerns about the effects this might have on his family and the effects that seismic activity in the area might have on his water well. Shell contacted the landowner by telephone to discuss these concerns and thereafter provided the landowner with: • information about the safety and monitoring measures Shell will implement • a copy of the landowner’s water well test results from the seismic testing conducted in early 2010
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 3-205
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 3. Part A from Alberta Environment
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 3-206
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
4. Part B
4.1. Hydrogeology and Groundwater Resources
Question 84: Water Wells and Water Licence Information
Volume 2, Appendix 7A.6, Pages 7A-55 to 7A-68
As required by the TOR, the baseline hydrogeological assessment shall include a description of water wells and an inventory of groundwater users in the study area. a. Indicate whether any additional water wells were discovered during Shell’s pre- and post- seismic domestic water well testing program (referenced in Appendix 7A.7, Page 7A-69) that did not have corresponding water well records in either the PFRA regional groundwater assessment reports or AENV Water Well Information Database. b. Include a summary of Water Act license information for non-saline groundwater diversions in the AOI, including but not limited to: licence number, effective date and expiry date, source of water, licensee, diversion volume(s) and maximum rate of diversion(s), and purpose of diversion.
Response 84
a. No wells were discovered during the pre- and post-seismic domestic water well testing program that were known to not be included in the PFRA regional groundwater assessment reports or the AENV Water Well Information Database. (It is not always possible to reconcile domestic water wells identified in the field with water well records within the AENV database. In most cases, a landowner does not know their AENV well ID and, in circumstances where there are multiple well records within a given legal land description, it is often impossible to reconcile wells in the database with those visited in the field).
b. Table 84-1 lists Water Act licences within the AOI. However, not all of the information as requested in the question is available from AENV for all licences. Of the 197 Water Act licences that have been issued within the AOI, some are not active. Domestic well or code of practice registrations have not been included in Table 84-1. Figure 84-1 shows the locations the Water Act nonsaline groundwater diversion licences presented in Table 84-1.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-1
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-2
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 23937 Expired and Renewable 01-Jan-2004 13-May-1996 31-Dec-2003 Dewatering Drainage Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 18,500 1,964 19950804006 54.316169 -113.556753 24164 Active 11-Aug-1995 11-Aug-1995 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 8,390 59 19950223004 54.243163 -113.044490 24351 Active 17-Nov-1994 17-Nov-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,730 26 19940930004 54.423995 -113.023897 24351 Active 17-Nov-1994 17-Nov-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19940930005 54.431222 -113.023901 24351 Active 17-Nov-1994 17-Nov-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 990 20 19940930006 54.431222 -113.023901 24399 Active 07-Sep-1994 07-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 39 19940802005 54.127270 -113.231599 24399 Active 07-Sep-1994 07-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19940802006 54.127270 -113.231599 24399 Active 07-Sep-1994 07-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,600 7 19940802007 54.127270 -113.231599 24433 Active 08-Aug-1994 08-Aug-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,360 52 19940616007 54.308953 -113.481751 24434 Active 08-Aug-1994 08-Aug-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 33 19940616006 54.112646 -113.206644 24495 Active 19-May-1994 19-May-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19940330001 54.127206 -113.131971 24497 Active 19-May-1994 19-May-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 16 19940326002 54.308648 -113.057139 24497 Active 19-May-1994 19-May-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 20 19940325003 54.301479 -113.069451 24497 Active 19-May-1994 19-May-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 20 19940325004 54.308648 -113.057139 24564 Active 09-Mar-1994 09-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 20 19940210002 54.243677 -113.256784 24564 Active 09-Mar-1994 09-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 20 19940210003 54.243676 -113.269119 24564 Active 09-Mar-1994 09-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 16 19940210004 54.243677 -113.256784 24565 Active 09-Mar-1994 09-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 20 19940210001 54.243677 -113.256784 24593 Active 08-Mar-1994 08-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 33 19940126004 53.996663 -113.192523 24593 Active 08-Mar-1994 08-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 39 19940126005 53.996663 -113.192523 24600 Active 08-Mar-1994 08-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 5,550 655 19931216003 54.366571 -112.894500 24601 Active 08-Mar-1994 08-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 1 19931216001 54.366571 -112.894500 24601 Active 08-Mar-1994 08-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 1 19931216002 54.366571 -112.894500 24615 Active 07-Mar-1994 07-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19931231002 54.148856 -113.368804 24615 Active 07-Mar-1994 07-Mar-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 33 19931231003 54.148856 -113.368804 24708 Active 17-Jan-1996 17-Jan-1996 Commercial Aggregate Washing Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 48,110 5,237 19931026002 54.054924 -113.415526 24730 Expired 01-Jan-2008 20-Sep-1993 31-Dec-2007 Commercial Aggregate Washing Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 61,670 6,546 19920424002 53.880287 -112.932435 24952 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 16 19930120006 54.032800 -113.216900 24953 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 16 19930120001 54.032800 -113.223100 24953 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 16 19930120002 54.032800 -113.223100 24953 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 16 19930120003 54.032800 -113.223100 24953 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 16 19930120004 54.032800 -113.223100 24953 Active 06-May-1993 06-May-1993 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 16 19930120005 54.032800 -113.223100 25195 Active 29-Oct-1992 29-Oct-1992 Recreational Recreational Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 74,010 1,296 19921020001 54.302200 -113.481400 25218 Active 21-Sep-1992 21-Sep-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,080 39 19920824003 54.298600 -113.037800 25218 Active 21-Sep-1992 21-Sep-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 39 19920824004 54.298600 -113.037800
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-3
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest (cont’d)
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 25244 Expired 01-Jan-2007 22-Mar-1995 31-Dec-2006 Commercial Other Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 80,180 1 19950103024 53.858445 -113.081135 25245 Expired 01-Jan-2007 07-Mar-1994 31-Dec-2006 Commercial Other Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 35,770 262 19940128001 53.849400 -113.093100 25246 Expired 01-Jan-2007 28-Sep-1992 31-Dec-2006 Commercial Other Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 46,870 262 19920717003 53.849400 -113.093100 25247 Expired 01-Jan-2007 04-Nov-1996 31-Dec-2006 Commercial Other Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 8,630 1 19960820002 53.851227 -113.081102 25250 Active 16-Aug-1994 16-Aug-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,700 33 19920727002 54.087500 -112.825300 25269 Active 16-Aug-1994 16-Aug-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,080 39 19920714001 54.007500 -112.740000 25307 Active 04-Aug-1992 04-Aug-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 20 19920623007 54.298600 -113.537500 25307 Active 04-Aug-1992 04-Aug-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,080 33 19920623008 54.298600 -113.537500 25309 Active 04-Aug-1992 04-Aug-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 33 19920623002 54.298600 -113.556400 25309 Active 04-Aug-1992 04-Aug-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 65 19920623003 54.298600 -113.556400 25492 Active 08-Sep-1994 08-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 52 19920403004 53.978600 -113.105600 25493 Active 08-Sep-1994 08-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 98 19920403002 54.032800 -113.254200 25493 Active 08-Sep-1994 08-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 655 19920403003 54.029200 -113.254200 25500 Active 10-Aug-1995 10-Aug-1995 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 13 19920402001 53.971100 -112.882500 25500 Active 10-Aug-1995 10-Aug-1995 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 20 19920402002 53.971100 -112.882500 25500 Active 10-Aug-1995 10-Aug-1995 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 39 19920402003 53.971100 -112.888600 25518 Active 11-Jul-1994 11-Jul-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 5,550 33 19920316003 54.296700 -113.499200 25519 Active 11-Jul-1994 11-Jul-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,850 16 19920316002 54.296700 -113.499200 25596 Active 12-Jul-1994 12-Jul-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 1 19920122007 54.305800 -113.493600 25597 Active 12-Jul-1994 12-Jul-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 79 19920122006 54.305800 -113.493600 25598 Active 12-Jul-1994 12-Jul-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 7 19920122005 54.305800 -113.493600 26503 Active 29-Jan-1990 29-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 33 19891212004 54.211400 -113.231400 26504 Active 29-Jan-1990 29-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19891212002 54.211400 -113.231400 26504 Active 29-Jan-1990 29-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 295 19891212003 54.211400 -113.231400 26505 Active 29-Jan-1990 29-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,700 49 19891211002 54.233100 -112.800300 26506 Active 29-Jan-1990 29-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 26 19891211001 54.233100 -112.800300 26508 Active 16-Jan-1990 16-Jan-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,700 26 19891204007 53.803900 -112.888600 26571 Active 29-Jul-1991 29-Jul-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 65 19910215009 54.240300 -113.006700 26572 Active 29-Jul-1991 29-Jul-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 20 19910215008 54.240300 -113.006700 26609 Active 19-Feb-1991 19-Feb-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 23 19901205004 54.236700 -113.043900 26610 Active 19-Feb-1991 19-Feb-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 26 19901205003 54.236700 -113.043900 26610 Active 19-Feb-1991 19-Feb-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 16 19901205006 54.236700 -113.043900 26611 Active 19-Feb-1991 19-Feb-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 20 19901205001 54.240300 -113.056700 26611 Active 19-Feb-1991 19-Feb-1991 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 33 19901205002 54.240300 -113.056700 26698 Active 17-Dec-1990 17-Dec-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 65 19901018002 54.178300 -113.587500 26699 Active 17-Dec-1990 17-Dec-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 1 19901018001 54.178300 -113.587500
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-5
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest (cont’d)
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 27094 Active 16-Aug-1994 16-Aug-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 65 19900314001 54.087500 -112.687800 27183 Active 26-Mar-1990 26-Mar-1990 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 10 19900214002 54.269400 -112.975000 27184 Active 30-Dec-1992 30-Dec-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 1 19900214001 54.273100 -112.975000 27184 Active 30-Dec-1992 30-Dec-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 65 19900214022 54.273100 -112.975000 27184 Active 30-Dec-1992 30-Dec-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 65 19900214023 54.269400 -112.975000 27184 Active 30-Dec-1992 30-Dec-1992 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 620 65 19900214024 54.269400 -112.975000 27363 Active 11-Dec-1989 11-Dec-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 26 19890907001 53.891100 -112.770800 27420 Active 04-Dec-1989 04-Dec-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 65 19890921001 54.236700 -112.806700 27923 Active 20-Jun-1989 20-Jun-1989 Commercial Other Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 1 19890516001 54.058300 -113.396400 27951 Active 29-Aug-1989 29-Aug-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 7 19890410012 54.298600 -112.981700 27951 Active 29-Aug-1989 29-Aug-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 39 19890410013 54.298600 -112.981700 28022 Active 07-Feb-1989 07-Feb-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 52 19881215001 53.909200 -113.148600 28022 Active 07-Feb-1989 07-Feb-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 7,400 131 19881215002 53.909200 -113.148600 28103 Active 14-Sep-1994 14-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,700 79 19881129008 54.229400 -113.525000 28103 Active 14-Sep-1994 14-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,700 98 19881129009 54.233100 -113.525000 28117 Active 09-May-1989 09-May-1989 Commercial Aggregate Washing Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 19,740 491 19890414001 54.031100 -113.182800 28461 Active 15-Sep-1994 15-Sep-1994 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 2,470 98 19910424001 54.254700 -113.306400 29641 Active 03-Jun-1985 03-Jun-1985 Municipal Cooperative Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 1 19850506003 54.036700 -113.130300 32262 Active 29-Aug-1989 29-Aug-1989 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 13,570 1 19780714006 54.298600 -112.968900 32340 Active 15-Oct-1979 15-Oct-1979 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 7,400 1 19661231002 54.095000 -112.631700 32341 Active 03-Mar-1981 03-Mar-1981 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 7,400 78 19700918001 54.087500 -112.825300 32946 Active 24-Nov-1995 24-Nov-1995 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 12,330 655 19930624008 54.330248 -112.944574 32947 Active 24-Nov-1995 24-Nov-1995 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 9,870 655 19910717001 54.330248 -112.944574 32947 Active 24-Nov-1995 24-Nov-1995 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 655 19910717002 54.330248 -112.944574 32948 Active 27-Jan-1986 27-Jan-1986 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 7,400 39 19800516002 54.330248 -112.944574 32948 Active 31-Aug-2010 31-Aug-2010 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 52 19840529003 54.330248 -112.944574 32948 Active 31-Aug-2010 31-Aug-2010 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 19800516004 54.330248 -112.944574 32949 Active 27-Jan-1986 27-Jan-1986 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 13 19800516001 54.330248 -112.944574 32949 Active 27-Jan-1986 27-Jan-1986 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 19800516003 54.330248 -112.944574 33040 Active 11-Jan-1984 11-Jan-1984 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,230 52 19790305001 54.313100 -113.256400 33539 Cancelled 30-Nov-1987 30-Jan-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 24,670 131 19640507001 54.163423 -113.119290 33539 Cancelled 30-Nov-1987 30-Jan-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 29,600 79 19781117001 54.170722 -113.131901 33539 Cancelled 30-Nov-1987 30-Jan-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 18,500 46 19541230002 54.163501 -113.131914 33539 Cancelled 30-Nov-1987 30-Jan-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 19,740 52 19781117002 54.156211 -113.119302 33539 Cancelled 30-Nov-1987 30-Jan-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 7,400 20 19680425006 54.156211 -113.119302 34263 Active 02-Nov-1990 02-Nov-1990 Municipal Subdivision Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 13 19860603003 54.331400 -113.143900
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-7
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest (cont’d)
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 34991 Active 07-Apr-1986 07-Apr-1986 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 88,810 818 19800326006 54.177817 -113.556743 35289 Cancelled 02-Jun-1983 19-Nov-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 19800903001 53.829200 -112.981700 35291 Cancelled 02-Jun-1983 19-Nov-1980 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 19691231012 53.800000 -112.931900 35816 Active 10-Aug-1995 10-Aug-1995 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 18,500 131 19940222007 54.089868 -112.619324 35817 Active 13-Jul-1983 13-Jul-1983 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 26 19801205002 54.091100 -112.612800 35817 Active 13-Jul-1983 13-Jul-1983 Municipal Urban Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,930 52 19801205003 54.091100 -112.612800 155396 Expired 22-Oct-2002 22-Oct-2001 21-Oct-2002 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,825 5 54.250173 -112.719351 155399 Active 26-Oct-2001 26-Oct-2001 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 730 2 54.243676 -113.269119 156651 Expired 11-Nov-2002 09-Nov-2001 08-Nov-2002 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,985 5 54.075311 -112.982055 156650 Expired 21-Nov-2002 21-Nov-2001 20-Nov-2002 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 916 3 54.148122 -112.556979 157282 Expired 19-Nov-2002 19-Nov-2001 18-Nov-2002 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,990 6 54.148708 -113.594088 158099 Expired 20-Dec-2002 20-Dec-2001 19-Dec-2002 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 1,443 4 54.309017 -113.381958 158793 Expired 13-Jan-2003 11-Jan-2002 10-Jan-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 3,982 11 54.301856 -113.206774 179272 Expired 11-Feb-2003 11-Feb-2002 10-Feb-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 757 2 54.228198 -112.869479 181576 Expired 03-Apr-2003 03-Apr-2002 02-Apr-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,677 6 54.366973 -113.082091 173206 Expired 02-Apr-2003 02-Apr-2002 01-Apr-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,104 9 54.308906 -113.594086 160106 Expired 02-Apr-2003 02-Apr-2002 01-Apr-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,792 6 54.199707 -113.569073 183045 Expired 22-Apr-2003 22-Apr-2002 21-Apr-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 4,734 19 54.112643 -113.218977 186412 Expired 04-Jul-2003 04-Jul-2002 03-Jul-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 292 2 53.931213 -112.858225 188700 Active 25-Feb-2003 25-Feb-2003 02-Sep-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,298 4 20010516002 54.388391 -112.694346 188347 Expired 04-Sep-2003 04-Sep-2002 03-Sep-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,000 4 54.352647 -113.194271 188347 Expired 04-Sep-2003 04-Sep-2002 03-Sep-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,500 4 54.345392 -113.244207 160137 Active 16-Oct-2002 16-Oct-2002 15-Oct-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 5,000 14 20021007001 53.894952 -113.093371 173992 Active 31-Oct-2002 31-Oct-2002 30-Oct-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 4,977 14 20011220004 54.338099 -113.406776 191579 Active 11-Dec-2002 11-Dec-2002 10-Dec-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 916 3 20011030005 54.148122 -112.556979 191580 Active 11-Dec-2002 11-Dec-2002 10-Dec-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,990 6 20011114006 54.148708 -113.594088 191879 Active 16-Dec-2002 16-Dec-2002 15-Dec-2027 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,982 11 20011210005 54.301856 -113.206774 192732 Active 16-Jan-2003 16-Jan-2003 15-Jan-2023 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 9,623 26 20030114002 54.082609 -112.869438 193746 Active 07-Feb-2003 07-Feb-2003 06-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,443 4 20011218003 54.309017 -113.381958 192942 Active 21-Feb-2003 21-Feb-2003 20-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 654 2 20030131001 53.945700 -113.167789 192152 Active 14-Feb-2003 14-Feb-2003 13-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,000 13 20030131002 53.858368 -112.882966 189825 Active 25-Feb-2003 25-Feb-2003 24-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 345 2 20021017002 53.829404 -113.068474 194436 Active 28-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 27-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 4,993 14 20020118007 54.272038 -112.969564 194443 Active 28-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 27-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 757 2 20020205001 54.228198 -112.869479 194447 Active 28-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 27-Feb-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,677 6 20020130004 54.366973 -113.082091 189819 Active 10-Mar-2003 10-Mar-2003 09-Mar-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 179 1 20021022002 54.381678 -113.369086
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-9
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest (cont’d)
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 195650 Active 31-Mar-2003 31-Mar-2003 30-Mar-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,375 33 20030307001 54.381000 -112.719321 192900 Active 07-Apr-2003 07-Apr-2003 06-Apr-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,818 5 20021209001 54.206394 -112.707111 192900 Active 07-Apr-2003 07-Apr-2003 06-Apr-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 682 2 20021209002 54.228311 -112.657064 194366 Active 07-Apr-2003 07-Apr-2003 06-Apr-2028 Recreational Recreational Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 532 2 20030312001 53.865865 -112.969443 194366 Active 07-Apr-2003 07-Apr-2003 06-Apr-2028 Recreational Recreational Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,139 13 53.865865 -112.969443 196275 Active 22-Apr-2003 22-Apr-2003 21-Apr-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,792 6 20011119005 54.199707 -113.569073 196201 Active 12-May-2003 12-May-2003 11-May-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,472 8 20030331002 54.220968 -112.732072 196978 Active 16-May-2003 16-May-2003 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 47 0 20010507003 54.170026 -112.556996 196999 Active 29-Apr-2004 29-Apr-2004 28-Apr-2029 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,320 0 20010307001 54.389139 -113.244209 196999 Active 29-Apr-2004 29-Apr-2004 28-Apr-2029 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,707 0 20010307002 54.389139 -113.244209 195927 Active 20-May-2003 20-May-2003 19-May-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 846 2 20030328004 54.133650 -112.794455 197041 Active 21-May-2003 21-May-2003 20-May-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 915 0 20020103008 53.836688 -112.944676 198171 Active 22-Nov-2006 22-Nov-2006 21-Nov-2031 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 292 33 20020603002 53.931213 -112.858225 198190 Active 18-Jun-2003 18-Jun-2003 17-Jun-2023 Commercial Groundwater Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 59,860 173 20030331003 54.089864 -112.606970 Hauling 198746 Active 14-Jul-2003 14-Jul-2003 13-Jul-2023 Commercial Groundwater Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 59,860 164 20030331005 54.097292 -112.769448 Hauling 196089 Active 11-Jul-2003 11-Jul-2003 10-Jul-2023 Commercial Groundwater Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 59,860 180 20030513001 54.431245 -112.961084 Hauling 182946 Active 17-Sep-2003 17-Sep-2003 16-Sep-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 2,400 8 20020227008 54.381663 -113.406794 196093 Active 20-Aug-2003 20-Aug-2003 19-Aug-2023 Commercial Groundwater Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 39,785 140 20030513002 54.069174 -113.218973 Hauling 200787 Active 09-Sep-2003 09-Sep-2003 08-Sep-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,000 4 20020424001 54.352647 -113.194271 200787 Active 09-Sep-2003 09-Sep-2003 08-Sep-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,500 4 20020424002 54.345392 -113.244207 201211 Active 29-May-2008 29-May-2008 29-Sep-2023 Other Other Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 5,500 0 20030806001 53.800126 -112.895194 200939 Active 06-Oct-2003 06-Oct-2003 05-Oct-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 600 5 20030905001 54.075400 -112.807119 203255 Active 03-Dec-2003 03-Dec-2003 02-Dec-2028 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,578 0 20020103010 53.909308 -112.709445 203483 Active 30-Jan-2004 30-Jan-2004 29-Jan-2024 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 2,302 0 20020103011 53.894866 -112.759052 224840 Active 27-Oct-2005 27-Oct-2005 26-Oct-2030 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 386 0 20011228017 54.082590 -112.907079 224840 Active 27-Oct-2005 27-Oct-2005 26-Oct-2030 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,078 0 54.082590 -112.907079 209465 Active 16-Feb-2006 16-Feb-2006 15-Feb-2026 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 487 1 20040601001 54.140892 -112.769447 209465 Active 16-Feb-2006 16-Feb-2006 15-Feb-2026 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 137 1 54.140892 -112.769447 229660 Active 12-May-2006 12-May-2006 11-May-2031 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 2,557 7 20040706002 54.177257 -112.744449 230967 Active 12-May-2006 12-May-2006 11-May-2031 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,705 5 20060404002 54.184680 -112.719465 231913 Expired 20-Jun-2007 20-Jun-2006 19-Jun-2007 Industrial Injection Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 30,000 0 53.960308 -112.783802 197992 Active 16-Oct-2006 16-Oct-2006 15-Oct-2026 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,468 0 20040607002 53.931161 -112.684674 234895 Active 18-Oct-2006 18-Oct-2006 17-Oct-2026 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 916 98 20040614001 53.909478 -113.229953
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-11
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Table 84-1 Water Act Licences within the Area of Interest (cont’d)
Approval Maximum Priority ID Status Status Date Effective Date Expiry Date Activity Type Specific Activity Source Total Quantity Diversion Rate Number Latitude Longitude (m3/a) (m3/d) 154524 Active 22-Nov-2006 22-Nov-2006 21-Nov-2031 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 4,090 33 20010920001 54.264635 -112.832060 237800 Active 23-Apr-2007 23-Apr-2007 22-Apr-2032 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 13,900 38 20011211010 53.996639 -112.808584 240881 Expired 26-Oct-2007 26-Oct-2007 13-Aug-2008 Other Other Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 30,000 0 53.960308 -112.783802 241233 Active 23-Jan-2008 23-Jan-2008 22-Jan-2033 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 1,700 0 20070412001 54.323408 -113.544100 250746 Active 16-Oct-2008 16-Oct-2008 17-Oct-2033 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 3,400 0 20080925001 54.338099 -113.419116 246893 Expired 22-Jun-2009 03-Nov-2008 01-Jun-2009 Municipal Camps Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 420 0 53.836819 -113.105802 253731 Active 17-Jun-2009 17-Jun-2009 16-Jun-2029 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 4,996 68 20090226003 54.460303 -113.175193 263222 Expired 06-Sep-2010 04-Sep-2009 03-Sep-2010 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 9,600 120 53.829279 -112.981962 263157 Active 22-Sep-2009 22-Sep-2009 21-Sep-2019 Municipal Camps Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 836 136 20090901001 53.836837 -113.118099 262600 Active 16-Nov-2009 16-Nov-2009 31-Oct-2016 Commercial Aggregate Washing Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 36,000 0 20090720001 54.199176 -112.557014 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 225,000 0 20070815001 53.800096 -113.117990 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.800169 -113.105753 244237 Active 16-Feb-2010 16-Feb-2010 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.800246 -113.093232 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.814796 -113.118071 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.814876 -113.105803 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.807660 -113.105765 244237 Active 05-Jun-2008 05-Jun-2008 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.814917 -113.093264 244237 Active 16-Feb-2010 16-Feb-2010 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.814903 -113.081057 244237 Active 16-Feb-2010 16-Feb-2010 04-Jun-2018 Industrial Gas/Petroleum Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 0 0 20070815001 53.807660 -113.093238 266971 Active 09-Jun-2010 09-Jun-2010 08-Jun-2030 Agricultural Stock Watering Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 19,200 240 20100407001 53.829279 -112.981962
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-13
345000 365000 385000
6065000 Groundwater Licenses TOWN OF ATHABASCA 6065000 Activity Type ˆ Agricultural # Commercial ± JK Dewatering
¾[ Industrial COLINTON
Þ Municipal k Other k[ Recreational MEANOOK Quest Project Wells (! Completed Appraisal Well (! Candidate Injection Well* AOI County Boundaries Pipeline Route 6045000 6045000 Shell Scotford ELLSCOTT
0 2 4 6 Kilometres PERRYVALE *note that well 8-19 has also been completed LONG LAKE as an appraisal well ˆ
ˆˆˆ #
ROCHESTER ˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆˆˆ ˆ 6025000 ˆˆ ˆ NEWBROOK 6025000 ˆ Þ JK TAWATINAW ÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ ˆ ˆˆˆˆ ˆ ¾[ ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆˆ k[ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆˆˆ
NESTOW ˆˆˆˆ ˆ ABEE ˆ ˆˆˆˆ ˆ ˆˆˆ ˆˆ ˆ ˆ 15-29ˆˆˆ ˆ (! ˆ ˆˆ ˆ ˆ ˆˆˆ ˆ 12-14 ˆ ˆˆ Þ 15-16(! (! # THORHILDÞ ˆ ˆ 6005000 ˆ ÞÞ 10-6 ˆ 6005000 ˆˆ ÞÞ 5-35 (! (! ˆˆ ˆ ˆˆˆ ˆ ˆ 8-19 ˆˆ (! WARSPITE 7-11 # ˆ 15-1 RADWAYˆˆ (!ˆ ˆ ˆ ÞÞÞ# # (!ˆ ˆ ## EGREMONT ˆ ˆˆˆˆˆˆ # Þ OPAL ˆ ˆˆ ˆ 5985000 ˆ 5985000 ˆˆˆ TOWN OF LEGAL ¾[k TOWNˆ OF REDWATER ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆˆ 3-4 ˆ ˆ (! ˆ # ˆ k[ ### ˆ TOWN OF BON ACCORD ÞÞ ST. MICHAEL ˆ ˆÞ ˆ STAR TOWN OF GIBBONS ¾[¾[¾[¾[ 5965000 CARDIFF ¾[¾[ 11-32 5965000 ¾[¾[¾[(! TOWN OF ÞBRUDERHEIMˆk
TOWN OF LAMONT 345000 365000 385000
PREPARED BY QUEST CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PROJECT AB
Area PREPARED FOR of SK BC Interest Location of Licenced Non-Saline Groundwater Diversions in the AOI
FIGURE NO. Acknowledgements: Original Drawing by Stantec Pipeline: Sunstone Engineering August 11, 2010, Basedata: Altalis 1 Million USA 84-1
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Question 85: Annual Reporting Requirements
Volume 1, Appendix A, Section 3, Page 3-4
The TOR requires that the monitoring program includes the process for addressing concerns from groundwater users reporting potential environmental effects to their groundwater source. The MMV plan indicates proposed annual requirements will include plans for responding to...any complaints from the public about impacts due to suspected loss of containment. a. Expand proposed annual reporting requirements to address complaints from the public that may relate to potential environmental effects to groundwater sources that may be caused by factors other than loss of containment.
Response 85
a. Shell will include the resolution of public complaints in its annual reporting on the MMV plan and will have a process for receipt of, investigating and responding to complaints. If Shell were to receive a complaint of suspected loss of containment, an investigation would be initiated immediately. The report would be documented internally and quickly followed by a meeting with the complainant to investigate and gather information, including potentially sampling the complainant’s water well, if appropriate. Any existing MMV data that may be pertinent, including baseline data, would be analyzed. A response would be made to the complainant as quickly as possible, including any mitigation measures Shell would take. If there were a dispute with respect to the conclusion of Shell’s investigation, a third party analysis would be sought.
Question 86: Post-Closure Groundwater Monitoring
Volume 1, Appendix A, Multiple Sections, Multiple Pages
The TOR requires Shell to provide justification for proposed post-closure groundwater monitoring, as well as the conditions for reducing or ceasing groundwater monitoring. Based on the information provided in the MMV Plan, Shell has not currently committed to continuing monitoring during the post-closure stage of the project.
a. Provide specific information and justification about groundwater monitoring during the post-closure period, including proposed activities and duration, as it relates to well abandonment and the potential for migration upwards into non-saline aquifers.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-17
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Response 86
a. Shell proposes no groundwater monitoring during the post-closure period. The justification for this is that monitoring during the injection and closure periods (the period after injection has stopped and before a closure certificate is issued) is expected to demonstrate that the risk for long-term loss of containment during the post-closure period is acceptably small. Monitoring during the closure period will verify the integrity of the BCS storage complex, including the proper abandonment of Project wells—which includes all wells associated with the Project and owned by Shell, such as injection wells, deep MMV wells, observation wells, appraisal wells and groundwater monitoring wells—to remove any potential migration pathways. Recommendations for post-closure monitoring will depend on the performance of the BCS storage complex and the monitoring technologies at that time. Therefore post-closure monitoring will be defined at the time of closure. Subject to agreement between Shell and the Regulatory Authorities at the time of closure, monitoring infrastructure necessary to support post-closure monitoring can be left in place and transferred to the Regulatory Authorities as part of the handover of liabilities for the BCS storage complex following issuance of a closure certificate.
Question 87: Management of Drilling Waste
Volume 1, Section 3.3.2.4, Page 3-4
The Drilling Waste section describes the management of drilling wastes associated with the drilling of Well 8-19. These wastes were removed from the site daily and transported to a landfill for disposal. a. Confirm that the drilling wastes will be managed similarly for all the other planned injection wells – that is, removed from the site daily and transported to a landfill for disposal.
Response 87
a. Yes, drilling waste will be managed in a similar manner for all other wells. Testing and landfill and disposal acceptance for solid cuttings and fluids will be performed in accordance with ERCB Directive 050: Drilling Waste Management (Latest release: October 1996) (Directive 50) and Directive 058: Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (Latest release: November 1996, addendum December 23, 2008) (Directive 58). The solid cuttings will meet the landfill criteria outlined in the Alberta Users Guide for Waste Managers for Acceptance into a Class II Landfill (AENV 1996). Fluids disposal will follow Directive 58 guidelines.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-18
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Question 88: Legacy Wells
Volume 1, Appendix A, Section 5.3.1, Table 5.2, Page 5-5
The Table lists several legacy wells that penetrate all the seals of the BCS storage complex and may constitute a threat to containment of CO2 and displaced brine. The last two legacy wells on the Table, under cement plugs, state well report gathering in process. a. Provide a status report on this well report gathering and provide results that indicate the placement of the cement plugs. b. Identify the location of the two legacy wells similarly to how the other legacy wells have been identified on for instance Figure 2.5 under Section 2.3.3.1. c. Confirm whether the cement plugs placed in the other identified legacy wells are in fact intact.
Response 88
a. Imperial Gibbons No. 1 (100-02-16-056-22W400) abandonment report describes the cement plugs listed in Table 88-1. This well is outside the Project AOI and no further detailed work will be completed on it. Imperial PLC Redwater liquid petroleum gas storage (LPGS) (located at 100-07-17-056- 21W400) abandonment report describes the cement plugs listed in Table 88-1. This well is a salt cavern that penetrates only to the base of the Upper Lotsberg Salt, does not penetrate the Lower Lotsberg Salt, and is therefore a very low risk to loss of containment. Because the well was abandoned in 2007, its method of abandonment was consistent with current practices.
Since submission of the Application, Westcoast et al. Newbrook 100-09-31-062-19W40 (Westcoast 9-31) was reclassified as a legacy well that penetrates all three major seals in the BCS storage complex. Westcoast 9-31, licensed to Devon Canada Corporation, was drilled and abandoned in 1978. Westcoast 9-31 penetrates through all three major seals but its total depth is within the top of the LMS, above the BCS. The Westcoast 9-31 abandonment report describes the cement plugs listed in Table 88-1. Westcoast 9-31 is north of Imperial Darling No. 1 (see Figure 88-1) and has a similar design to Imperial Darling No. 1. However, unlike Imperial Darling No. 1, Westcoast 9-31 has its deepest cement plug set within the BCS storage complex.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-19
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Table 88-1 Updated Legacy Well Status Data
Well Name and Seals Drilled UWI History Through Casings and Holes Cement Plugs Imperial Gibbons • Drilled and • Upper Lotsberg • 13 3/8” casing to 180 m No. 1: 695–754 m No. 1 abandoned in 1949 • Lower Lotsberg • 9” openhole to 2,024 m TD No. 2: 893–983 m 100-02-16-056- • Outside the AOI No. 3: 1,052–1,113 m 22W400 Imperial PLC • Drilled in 1974 • Upper Lotsberg • 13 3/8”casing to 188.4 m No. 1: 0–500 m Redwater LPGS • Converted to a • 9 5/8” casing to 1,778.2 m No. 2: 1,435–1,760 m 100-07-17-056- liquefied petroleum • 7” casing to 1,836 m No. 3: 1,760–1,861 m 21W400 gas (LPG) reproducer • TD at 1,861 m in 1975 • Abandoned in 2007 Westcoast et al. • Drilled and • Upper Lotsberg • 9 5/8” casing to 230 m No. 1: 183–366 m Newbrook abandoned in 1978 • Lower Lotsberg • 7” (supposed) openhole to No. 2: 518–701 m 100-09-31-062- • MCS TD at 1,923 m No. 3: 838–960 m 19W400 No. 4: 1,082–1,204 m No. 5: 1,280–1,402 m No. 6: 1,524–1,615 m No. 7: 1,707–1,923 m b. The locations of legacy wells penetrating one or more seals in the BCS storage complex are identified in Figure 88-1. For more details on definitions and status of legacy wells, see Response 118 and Response 127. c. As each of the legacy wells identified received ERCB abandonment approvals at the time of abandonment, the cement plugs are assumed to be intact. Each of these wells contains more than one plug and the plugs are of substantial length (greater than 50 m).
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-20
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Figure 88-1 Legacy Wells Penetrating One or More Seals in the BCS Storage Complex
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-21
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Question 89: Integrity of Redwater Well 3-4
Volume 1, Appendix A, Section 5.3.1, Table 5.3, Page 5-6
The Table lists the status of three appraisal wells that penetrate the seals of the BCS storage
complex and may constitute a threat to containment of CO2 and displaced brine. One of these wells is 03-04-57-20W4M. Based on status information provided, the well is cased and cemented to TD. However, the well is suspended with 19 joints of drill pipe and liner running tool cemented in hole. The top of cement at 1696.5m with top of fish at 1672m.
a. This well appears to have had problems with drill pipe and a liner running tool cemented downhole. There appears to be considerable open hole above the top of cement. Provide more details as to why this occurred and what are the potential consequences in terms of potential threat to containment.
Response 89
a. Shell is confident of the integrity of Redwater Well 3-4. Threats to containment from this well are considered unlikely. There is no open hole above the top of the fish. See Figure 89-1, which is a well schematic showing the current status of the Redwater Well 3-4. The liner was cemented in place at the planned setting depth, together with 12 joints of drill pipe and the liner setting tool, because the cement set earlier than expected. Although no cement bond log (CBL) was run over the liner section, all verifications of the liner cementing, as described below, consistently suggest effective cement placement:
• The cementing was executed as per the planned cementing program (volume displaced, pump pressure, string reciprocating). • A slickline run afterwards tagged the bottom of the liner and confirmed cement displacement inside the liner according to plan. • The measurement at the top of the cement behind the drill pipe was as expected, according to the calliper measurements done before cementing. • During pressure testing after cementing, the well pressure was stable at 7.3 MPa, demonstrating the integrity of the cement liner.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-22
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Current status of 100/3-4-57-20W4 with 12 joints of drill pipe cemented in hole
•Surface casing and intermediate casing cemented to surface •Liner is cemented with sufficient overlap of intermediate casing shoe and PBTD below BCS
1891
2070
2115 PBTD :2139m- W/L tagged
NOTES: PBTD plug back total depth TD total depth Figure 89-1 Completion Diagram Illustrating the Current Status of Redwater Well 3-4
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-23
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
In addition to the verification of the liner cement as described above, there is strong evidence that the intermediate casing provides hydraulic isolation across the second (Lower Lotsberg) and ultimate (Upper Lotsberg) seals of the BCS storage complex and will continue to do so during the Project’s lifetime:
• A CBL/VDL/USIT (time-lapse ultrasonic casing imaging) log was run at 0 and 7 MPa in the intermediate casing, and both interpretations confirmed excellent cement bond across the Upper and Lower Lotsberg. • The casing shoe was exposed to a stable pressure of 29.5 MPa during cementing of the liner. This pressure is well above the maximum pressures expected in this well over the Project lifetime. No pressure loss was observed at the surface, indicating a competent casing shoe. In conclusion, there is high confidence that the cement behind the liner provides hydraulic isolation over the Middle Cambrian Shale, the first seal of the BCS storage complex. Moreover, the intermediate casing shows proven hydraulic isolation over the second (Lower Lotsberg) and ultimate (Upper Lotsberg) seals of the BCS storage complex.
Question 90: Lessons Learned from other CCS Projects
Volume 1, Appendix B, Table B.2-1, Page B-24
The Concordance Table, under Section 5.3.2 – the last bullet requires that Shell provide a description of: How Shell has incorporated lessons learned from other carbon capture and storage projects into the development of this EIA, with specific reference to protection of overlying groundwater resources and groundwater users. A review of the Table and the EIA indicates that Section 1.6 in Volume 1 identifies and provides a brief summary of other carbon capture and storage projects. a. Shell has not specifically addressed the lessons learned at the other carbon capture and storage projects with specific reference to protection of overlying groundwater resources and groundwater users. Provide this information to address the latter part of the requirement.
Response 90
a. Shell incorporated lessons learned from other CCS projects through the Independent Project Review process conducted by a panel of CCS experts selected by DNV. This panel included individuals with particular expertise in groundwater monitoring and protection and lead
scientists within the Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project run by the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Program.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-24
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
To incorporate the lessons learned in relation to the protection of groundwater resources and groundwater users, the MMV Plan will include details on:
• drilling at least three groundwater observation wells for each CO2 injection well. The locations of these wells will target known potential migration pathways and will include at least one groundwater well located on each injection well pad and screened above the BGWP. • monitoring water electrical conductivity continuously within each of the groundwater monitoring wells • collecting water samples and conducting chemical analysis from each observation well at least once every year during the pre-injection and injection periods, and at least once every two years during the closure period • increasing the frequency of water sample collection and chemical analysis if deeper monitoring systems indicate a potential loss of containment • using natural tracers within the BCS brine to verify the absence or presence of BCS brine above the BGWP.
The CO2QUALSTORE Joint Industry Project (JIP) has published two reports of recommendation based on lessons learned including those applicable to MMV (Det Norske Veritas [DNV] 2010a, 2010b, Internet sites). The key lessons learned applicable to the protection of groundwater resources and users and incorporated by Shell into the Project are:
• site-specific selection of monitoring methods designed to verify containment • risk-based selection of monitoring methods and monitoring schedules designed to verify containment and to provide early warning in the unlikely event of a potential loss of containment • adaptive updates to the MMV Plan in response to new information obtained about the performance of the storage complex and the monitoring technologies
REFERENCES Det Norske Veritas. 2010a. DNV CO2QUALSTORE Report: Guideline for Selection, Characterization and Qualification of Sites and Projects for Geological Storage of CO2. 79. Available at: http://www.dnv.com/binaries/CO2QUALSTORE_guideline_tcm4- 412142.pdf
Det Norske Veritas. 2010b. DNV CO2QUALSTORE Workbook with Examples of Applications. Available at: http://www.dnv.com/binaries/CO2QUALSTORE_Workbook_tcm4- 436659.pdf
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-25
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Question 91: Hydrosphere Monitoring Plan
Volume 1, Appendix A, Section 6.5.3, Page 6-29 and Table 6-5, Page 6-22
Under this Section, Shell provides a conceptual Hydrosphere Monitoring Plan which consists of groundwater monitoring wells and according to Table 6-5 observation wells in GWPZ. Information provided indicates a total of 15 observation wells, three times a development scenario of five injection wells. It is understood that monitoring will consist of annual natural isotope tracer monitoring, continuous electrical conductivity and pH monitoring, annual fluid sampling and water chemistry analysis starting at two years prior to injection, continuing through injection and then every two years throughout the closure period. a. Confirm that the above understanding is correct. b. The number of groundwater monitoring wells appears to equate to three per injection well. Confirm. c. On what basis has Shell determined that it is adequate to conduct annual groundwater (fluid) sampling and analysis as opposed to a twice per year basis (spring and fall).
Response 91
a. No, this is the conceptual Hydrosphere Monitoring Plan. Annual natural isotope tracer monitoring, continuous electrical conductivity and pH monitoring, annual fluid sampling and water chemistry analysis are neither included nor excluded from the initial Base- Case Monitoring Plan. This selection will be based on the outcome of ongoing technical feasibility studies. An updated MMV Plan that specifies the initial Base-Case Monitoring Plan will be submitted for review before baseline monitoring starts. b. No, this is the conceptual Hydrosphere Monitoring Plan. Nonetheless, Shell does now commit to three groundwater monitoring wells for each injection well: at least one monitoring well will be located on each injection well pad; the other two monitoring wells may be located elsewhere. Monitoring within these wells will include continuous down- hole water electrical conductivity measurements. c. The conceptual Hydrosphere Monitoring Plan indicates annual sampling during the baseline and injection periods. However, the groundwater fluid sampling frequency within the initial Base-Case Monitoring Plan is not yet selected. An updated MMV Plan that specifies the initial baseline groundwater sampling frequency will be submitted for review before baseline monitoring starts. Annual monitoring for the presence or absence of tracers within the groundwater is expected to be effective as these should not be subject to seasonal changes between spring and fall. Continuous monitoring of down- hole water electrical conductivity will measure any variation between spring and fall within the Project groundwater monitoring wells.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-26
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Question 92: Modelling Requirements
Volume 1, Appendix B, Table B.2-1, Page B-28
Section 5.3.4 of the TOR requires for each model used in the effect analysis provide:
• the justification for the model used • a detailed conceptual model • model input parameters • documentation of the calibration process, the validation process and the assumptions used to obtain the modeling predictions in the EIA • discussion of the limitations of the models, including sources of error and relative accuracy, and how these limitations were addressed in the EIA • a sensitivity analysis that includes extreme climatic variations.
A review of the EIA indicates that air, noise, digital elevation, geomechanical, CO2 extent (plume migration), and geochemical – reactive transport (TOUGHREACT) modeling was conducted.
a. Were all the above requirements addressed for each model described and what were the results? b. Was there any specific groundwater modeling conducted for the aquifers above the Base of Groundwater Protection and if not, why not?
Response 92
a. Shell undertook the following modelling to support the environmental effects assessment: • air quality dispersion modelling • noise propagation modelling • geomechanical modelling to predict surface heave The digital elevation model (DEM) is a physical model of the ground surface, rather than a numerical or analytical model. The geochemical–reactive transport modelling supports BCS characterization, rather than the environmental effects assessment.
The requirements for air quality, noise and geomechanical modelling are presented below.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-27
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
AIR QUALITY
JUSTIFICATION AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL As discussed in the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5.3.1.1, the CALMET/CALPUFF modelling system is used for the air quality assessment. This model system is approved by the 2009 Alberta air quality model guideline, and has been the basis of virtually every major air quality impact assessment conducted in Alberta for the last decade.
For a discussion of the conceptual model for the air quality assessment, see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5.3.1.1. For further details about the CALPUFF model, see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5, Appendix 5D. For further details about the CALMET model, see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5, Appendix 5C.
MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS The CALPUFF model requires:
• source and emission inventory information (see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5A) • meteorological information (see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5B) • additional information related to receptor grids, chemistry assumption and other details (see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5D) The CALMET model requires:
• local and regional meteorological information • terrain and land cover parameters For the CALMET information, see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5C.
CALIBRATION, VALIDATION AND ASSUMPTIONS The performance of the CALMET/CALPUFF model system was assessed by comparing predictions to ambient air quality measurements conducted in the region (see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5D, Section 5D.3.14).
LIMITATIONS For a summary of the performance of the CALMET/CALPUFF model system, see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5D, Section 5D.4.2. For the confidence relative to the environmental assessment predictions for each potential effect, see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5, as follows:
• Section 5.6.2.4 for NO2 concentration predictions
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-28
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
• Section 5.6.3.4 for PM2.5 concentration predictions • Section 5.6.4.4 for PAI deposition predictions • Section 5.6.5.4 for nitrogen deposition predictions • Section 5.6.6.3 for ozone concentration predictions • Section 5.6.7.3 for visibility reduction predictions • Section 5.6.8.3 for greenhouse gas emission estimations For a summary of the prediction confidence for each air quality component, see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 5.7.2, Table 5-37.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The air quality assessment, in accordance with the 2009 Alberta air quality model guideline, uses five years of hourly meteorological data to provide predictions. These predictions are considered more robust than those that would be obtained using one year of hourly meteorological data, which was required in the former 2003 air quality model guideline. For an evaluation of how representative the selected five-year period is, see the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 5C.
NOISE
JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILED CONCEPTUAL MODEL The detailed noise assessment uses the methods and procedures required in Directive 38 (see the Application, Volume 2A, Section 6).
MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS
The sound power level data for the CO2 capture infrastructure is estimated from the equipment noise emission performance specifications and from published literature values, where applicable. The ISO 9613 sound propagation algorithms adopted in the assessment are specifically recommended in Directive 38. The ISO 9613 model produces conservative results, which represent meteorological conditions that enhance sound propagation from the sound source to the residences (e.g., downwind and temperature inversion conditions). Because these conditions do not occur all the time in the area, the model predictions are
expected to be conservative. Therefore, actual sound level contributions by the CO2 capture infrastructure at the residences are expected to be less than those predicted by the model.
Some of the approved upgrader projects in the area are currently on hold (e.g., BA Energy Upgrader, Fort Hills Sturgeon Upgrader and Northwest Upgrader). However, their sound contributions are included in the cumulative environmental effects assessment, to provide a
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-29
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
conservative assessment. Based on these factors, confidence is high that the model has not
underpredicted the noise level and potential environmental effects from the CO2 capture infrastructure.
CALIBRATION, VALIDATION AND ASSUMPTIONS The ISO 9613 sound propagation algorithms adopted in this study have a published accuracy of ±3 dBA. A 3 dBA increase or decrease in sound pressure levels (SPLs) would be imperceptible to humans. Directive 38 recommends the use of this algorithm in noise impact assessments in Alberta.
LIMITATIONS Overall prediction accuracy depends on two factors:
• the accuracy of the acoustical source data • the accuracy of the sound propagation model
The representative sound power level data for the CO2 capture infrastructure uses equipment noise emission performance specifications and values from published literature, where applicable. The Cadna/A model predicts outdoor noise in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613 (1 and 2): Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors (ISO 1996) as well as several international and European acoustic standards. The ISO 9613 sound propagation algorithms have a published accuracy of ±3 dB over source receiver distances between 100 and 1,000 m. The accuracy for the distances up to, or over, 1.5 km is not stated. The ISO 9613 model also produces results representative of meteorological conditions enhancing sound propagation (e.g., downwind and temperature inversion conditions). These conditions do not occur all the time; therefore, the model predictions are expected to be conservative.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The modelling results in the assessment assume conservative meteorological conditions that enhance sound propagation from the sound sources to the residences of concern. These meteorological conditions include downwind and temperature inversion conditions. Temperature (10°C) and relative humidity (70%) values followed ISO 9613. These two conditions reduce the atmospheric absorption of sound energy, thereby enhancing sound propagation. Because these conditions do not occur all the time, the model predictions are conservative, and actual sound levels at the receptor locations during any other climate conditions are expected to be less than those indicated. As a result, the Project-related environmental effects described in the assessment are considered to be reliable during different climate conditions.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-30
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
GEOMECHANICAL MODELLING
JUSTIFICATION AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The expected surface uplift due to CO2 storage uses an elastic geomechanics model. This model is appropriate to represent the small reversible deformations within a homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic medium induced by small volume changes within the BCS storage
complex due to CO2 storage.
MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS The key model input is the areal distribution of volume changes expected inside the BCS due
to pressure increases after 27 Mt (over a 25-year period) of CO2 injection into the BCS storage complex.
CALIBRATION, VALIDATION AND ASSUMPTIONS Model solutions are based on the superposition of exact analytic solutions.
LIMITATIONS The main limitation is uncertainty about the compressibility of the BCS.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity to this uncertainty was addressed by modelling the largest value consistent with available measurements.
b. Groundwater modelling of aquifers above the BGWP was not conducted because an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project on groundwater under normal operating conditions was not required. Project interactions with groundwater will be limited to:
• localized dewatering activities that might occur during construction of the CO2 pipeline
• surface heave as a result of increased pressure from CO2 injection in the BCS during the operation phase Because the potential effects of these two interactions on groundwater above the BGWP are assessed qualitatively, no groundwater modelling of aquifers was required.
The potential environmental effects of the accidental release of CO2, BCS brine or CO2 saturated brine on groundwater are assessed as part of accidents, malfunctions and unplanned events (see the Application, Volume 2B, Section 17).
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-31
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Question 93: Independent Project Review by Det Norske Veritas
Volume 1, Appendix G
Shell provides an Agenda G entitled Independent Project Review of Quest Storage Component prepared by Det Norske Veritas (DNV). An executive summary of this Draft Report review was provided. a. Has this Draft report been finalized? Provide a final version of the executive summary. b. In its review of the MMV program, did the expert panel comment specifically on the adequacy of the conceptual groundwater monitoring program and if so, what were those comments?
Response 93
a. See Figure 93-1 for the executive summary from the Independent Project Review (IPR) of the Storage Component of the Quest CCS Project (DNV 2011).
Figure 93-1 Independent Project Review Executive Summary by Det Norske Veritas
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-32
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
b. The expert panel did not comment specifically on the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring program but did make an overall comment on the MMV program (DNV 2011):
“The draft MMV plan for the QUEST CCS project is quite likely the most comprehensive MMV plan for any CCS project in the world today. It clearly outlines how the MMV program supports the risk management of the storage project, it defines the principles and precedents that have influenced the design of the MMV program, and it provides a comprehensive and systematic overview of the role of monitoring technologies to monitor and detect indicators that trigger implementation of additional safeguards. Both selected and rejected monitoring technologies are discussed from a risk-based perspective, i.e., related to their potential to reduce risks ALARP.
DNV is if the opinion that the approach taken to formulate the MMV plan is state-of-the-art and may serve to set a precedent for design of MMV programs for CCS projects world- wide.”
The expert panel also had a specific observation and recommendation on the groundwater monitoring:
Observation “Activities to establish a geochemical baseline for overlying aquifers is underway with ground water sampling, but it was not clear from the presentations if existing fluid compositional data bases were used. No numerical modeling was performed to characterize
the potential impact of CO2 or brine migration on shallow aquifer geochemistry.”
Recommendation “It should be ensured that existing fluid compositional data bases for overlying aquifers are used to establish regional trends to be evaluated and incorporated into the shallow groundwater investigation and baseline water-chemistry monitoring program. Baseline chemical characterization of the formation fluids (water, gas) should be performed in as many units in the stratigraphic succession as possible. In particular, to characterize the impact of
potential CO2 and brine migration on shallow aquifer geochemistry it will be beneficial to set up a numerical model for shallow aquifer that incorporates results of mineralogical
characterization as well as laboratory experiments on CO2-water-rock interactions.”
REFERENCE Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2011. Independent Project Review (IPR) of Storage Component of the Shell QUEST Carbon Capture and Storage Project. Final Report. Prepared for Shell Canada Energy.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-33
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Question 94: Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Volume 2A, Section 7.4, Page 7-12
Under this Section, Follow Up and Monitoring, Shell describes in more detail the groundwater monitoring. Shell states The groundwater monitoring program will consist of a regional-scale groundwater monitoring network, which will be located within the groundwater assessment area. The regional network of wells will be strategically positioned within the assessment area to provide baseline groundwater quality monitoring (before injection) as well as ongoing operational monitoring during the operation and post-closure phases of the Project (as identified in the MMV Plan, see Volume 1, Appendix A). Monitoring wells in the regional network will be equipped with data logging multi-parameter probes capable of measuring electrical conductivity and pH and temperature. Groundwater samples will be periodically collected from these monitoring wells and submitted for analysis of routine potability parameters, major ions, dissolved metals, select organic parameters, and potentially other parameters specific to the Project. Monitoring wells within the regional network will be installed at locations where there is a higher level of risk of groundwater contamination. Such locations may include areas near the CO2 injection wells, legacy wells penetrating the BCS, or other areas more susceptible to contamination. Some of the monitoring wells in the regional network would be installed approximately two years before injection to allow time to collect baseline data. a. Describe the select organic parameters that may be analysed. b. With respect to locations of monitoring wells, provide more specifics as to exactly where these locations may be (township/range/section). c. It is anticipated that three monitoring wells will be completed per injection site within the groundwater protection zone. Provide more detail as to whether the monitoring wells will be completed at three different completion intervals within the same vicinity or whether the monitoring wells will be completed at a triangular pattern, at different depths, around each injection well site. d. Confirm that if more than five injection sites are required, a further corresponding number of additional groundwater monitoring wells will be installed (three per site). e. Did Shell or will Shell consider monitoring landowner wells ( to obtain baseline groundwater quality information) in the vicinity of the injection well sites prior to injection and if not, why not?
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-34
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request from Alberta Environment 4. Part B
Response 94
a. Analyses of a selection of organic parameters may form part of the MMV Plan. These parameters are currently planned to include dissolved organic carbon. An updated MMV Plan, which specifies the groundwater analytical parameters, will be submitted for review
before baseline measurements start, two years before sustained CO2 injection. b. The locations of groundwater monitoring wells are subject to ongoing characterization work and will be documented as part of the MMV Plan. The wells are expected to be located within the townships and ranges listed in the D65 Application, Table 2-2 (reproduced here):
Table 2-2 Townships Included Within the CO2 Storage AOI Township Ranges (W of Fourth Meridian) 63 22, 21, 20---- 62 23, 22, 21, 20, 19-- 61 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18-- 60 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18-- 59 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18 58 23, 22, 21, 20, 19 57 22, 21, 20, 19 56 21, 20, 19 c. There will be three groundwater monitoring wells for each injection well: at least one monitoring well will be located on each injection well pad; the other two monitoring wells may be located elsewhere. The completion depths and locations of the groundwater monitoring wells will depend on the outcome of ongoing BGWP aquifer appraisal work. The outcome will be included in an update to the MMV Plan, which will be submitted for review before baseline monitoring starts. d. Yes; see Response 94c. e. Monitoring landowner groundwater wells is expected to form part of the groundwater monitoring plan. Some appraisal data from landowner wells has already been received within the area of the 3D seismic surveys acquired in 2010.
Shell Canada Limited July 2011 Page 4-35
Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project Response to the Supplemental Information Request 4. Part B from Alberta Environment
Question 95: Oil and Gas Wells in Second White Speckled Sandstone and Viking Formations
Volume 2A, Appendix 7A, Section 7A.8.1, Page 7A-85 and Figure 7A-37, Page 7A-87
Shell identifies in this Section that 6,143 and 6,182 oil and gas wells were completed in the Second White Speckled Sandstone and Viking Formation respectively. a. Describe why Figure 7A-37 does not identify this abundance of records for the above aforementioned zones when it clearly identifies the abundance of records for other zones of interest?
Response 95
a. In the Application, Volume 2A, Appendix 7A, Figure 7A-37 does not show most of the oil and gas wells completed in the Second White Speckled Sandstone and Viking Formations because most of the wells in these formations are located at the same surface locations as other wells completed in deeper formations. As indicated in the legend for Figure 7A-37, “where more than one completion formation is reported at one location, only the deepest completion formation is indicated on the map”. Mapping layers representing those wells in Figure 7A-37 are hidden under layers for other deeper wells situated at the same surface location, thus obstructing them from view on the map. Supplemental figures showing all of the wells completed in the Second White Speckled Sandstone and Viking Formations are provided as Figures 95-1 through 95-9.
July 2011 Shell Canada Limited Page 4-36
345000 365000 385000
!( Legacy Oil and Gas Wells - Belly River (! Completed Appraisal Well ± (! Candidate Injection Well AOI !( !( County Boundaries Pipeline Route Shell Scotford
0 2 4 6 !(
Kilometres *note that well 8-19 has also been completed as an appraisal well 6045000 6045000
!( (! (! !( (! (! !( (! (! (! (! (! (!
!( (!
6025000 (! (! 6025000 (!(! (! (! (!(! !( (! (!(! (! (! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! !( (! (! (! (! (! ! (! (!(! (! (! ( (! (!(!(! (!(! (! (! (! (!(! (! (! (! (!(! (! !( (! (! (! (! 15-29 !( (! (! 12-14 15-16(! (! (!
6005000 10-6 6005000 !( 5-35 (! (! 8-19 (! (! (! (!7-11 15-1 (!(! !( !( (! !( (!
!(
(! (! (! !( 5985000 5985000 (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! 3-4 (!
!( !(
5965000 11-32 5965000 (! !(
!( 345000 365000 385000
PREPARED BY QUEST CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PROJECT AB
Area PREPARED FOR of SK BC Interest Location of Legacy Oil and Gas Wells in the Belly River Formation
FIGURE NO. Acknowledgements: Original Drawing by Stantec Pipeline: Sunstone Engineering August 11, 2010, Basedata: Altalis 1 Million USA 95-1