Appendix A

Appendix B

8 October 2010 CE03900/100

Mr. Peter Millman Devon NEC Corporation 2000, 400 – 3rd Avenue SW , T2P 4H2

Dear Mr. Millman:

Re: Jackfish 3 – Environmental Impact of Re-orientation of the Central Processing Facility

INTRODUCTION AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. (AMEC) was retained by Devon NEC Corporation (Devon) to review proposed changes to the Jackfish 3 (J3) Central Processing Facility (CPF) and assess potential implications for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA or Assessment), completed as part of the Application for Approval of the Devon J3 Project submitted in August, 2010. The proposed changes include rotating the major equipment within the CPF by 180 degrees, shifting the equipment locations by approximately 70m within the CPF footprint, reducing cut and fill requirements and revising the entry point of pipelines to the J3 CPF.

AMEC has reviewed these proposed changes and has concluded that the CPF re-orientation will not alter the footprint of the CPF or the overall J3 Project footprint or disturbance area.

To understand how the proposed changes affect air quality, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) completed air modeling that reflects the proposed changes to the CPF orientation. AMEC, in consultation with the technical leads for the J3 EIA, reviewed the changes proposed by Devon and the results of Stantec’s air modelling, and concluded that these changes do not alter the mitigations, predictions, conclusions or recommendations identified with the J3 application as originally submitted.

Discussion related to the proposed changes for each EIA discipline excluding air quality and human health is provided in this letter report. Discussion for the air quality and human health disciplines has been provided to Devon directly by Stantec and Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc. (Intrinsik).

EIA REVIEW Noise – While the shifting of equipment and buildings will alter the noise levels within the CPF footprint, the equipment will remain the same and the results of the original noise model will not change. As reported in the EIA, sound levels are predicted to be below permissible sound levels at all receptor locations.

AMEC Earth & Environmental A division of AMEC Americas Limited 140 Quarry Park Boulevard S.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2C 3G3 Tel: +1 (403) 248-4331 Fax: +1 (403) 248-2188 www.amec.com S:\Project Ce\Ce03900\fin let-CPF reorientation impact-ce03900_100-8oct10-reid.doc Mr. Peter Millman 8 October 2010 Page 2

Hydrogeology – The CPF will be built on the same geological strata (Marie Creek Formation) and the associated mitigative and monitoring measures have not changed. The re-orientation of the CPF does not affect the results of the Assessment for hydrogeology.

Surface Water Quantity – The CPF will still be in the same watershed and the associated mitigation measures will remain unchanged, hence the results of the Assessment for surface water quantity are not affected by the proposed re-orientation.

Surface Water Quality – The CPF will remain in the same watershed and, as per the revised air modelling completed by Stantec, deposition of acidifying emissions will be slightly higher at the fenceline and will be lower at further distances from the CPF. This change does not affect the results of the Assessment for surface water quality as changes to the predicted deposition of acidifying emissions are not expected to impact water quality.

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources – Since there are no changes in water quantity or quality, the fisheries Assessment reported in the EIA remains unchanged.

Soils, Terrain and Surficial Geology – The CPF will require salvage of the same amounts of topsoil and subsoil. The locations of the stockpiles within the CPF will change; however, this will not affect the overall plant footprint. As predicted in