Pierre River Mine Project

PIERRE RIVER MINE
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART 3: AENV SIRS – ROUND 2
Question No. 97
Request EIA Volume 2, Section 19.2.
ERRATA
AENV SIRS 97 – 98
Section 16.1
This section outlines the EPEA application requirements for approval of the
Pierre River Mine Project. The header on the pages in this section indicate
Application for Renewal. This is incorrect. Correct this header as this is an
application for approval for a new (proposed) project.
Response 97 Shell acknowledges that the header in EIA, Volume 2, Section 19.2, pp. 19-3 to
19-34, was incorrect. The correct heading should have read Application for
Approval. This information is also presented in Section 2.1, Project Description
Errata.
Question No. 98
Request Volume 2, SIR 251, Page 20-48.
Shell states that the chemical reaction scheme chosen for the CALGRID
modelling assessment in 2000 was not specified.
98a Given the potential for underestimating predicted ozone concentrations
depending on which chemical reaction scheme is chosen as determined in the
paper by Lueken et al. (2008) cited in the SIR, Shell should acknowledge that
there is uncertainty in the accuracy of the predicted impacts on ambient ozone
concentrations.
Response 98a The ozone modelling work using the CALGRID model was completed by Earth
Tech and Conor Pacific in 1998 and 2000. In the 1998 ozone modelling work
(Earth Tech and Conor Pacific 1998), Carbon Bond 4 (CB4) was chosen as the
chemical reaction mechanism in the CALGRID model. In the 2000 ozone
modelling work (Earth Tech Inc. 2000), the chemical reaction mechanism chosen
for the CALGRID model was not specified. While Shell did not perform the
CALGRID modelling, it is understood that there is uncertainty in the accuracy of
the predicted ambient ozone concentrations provided in these two studies.
April 2010 Shell Canada Limited 16-1
CR029