UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of DOCD

Control # - S-07556

Type - Supplemental Development Operations Coordinations Document

Lease(s) - OCS-G15563 Block - 237 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

Well No. 6

DP SEMISUBMERSIBLE

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that 

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval.

Chiquita Hill

Plan Coordinator

WELL/NO. 006 G15563/GC/237 2130 FNL, 4408 FEL G15563/GC/237

Site Type/Name Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

July 16, 2012
PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY

April 1, 2012

SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS 

COORDINATION DOCUMENT

Lease Number: OCS-G 15563

Area/Block: Green Canyon Block 237

Prospect Name: Head & Neck Prospect

Offshore: Louisiana

Submitted by: Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

400 N. Sam Houston Parkway East 

Suite 400

 Houston, Texas 77060

Wendy Braddock

 (281) 618-0551

 wbraddock@helixesg.com

Estimated start-up date: June 15, 2012

Authorized Representative: No. Copies Being Submitted:

Cathy Thornton Proprietary: 1 + 1 CD

J. Connor Consulting, Inc. Public Info: 1 + 1 CD

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700

Houston, Texas 77084 For 

BOEMRE:

(281) 705-8020 Plan No.

cathy.thornton@jccteam.com Assigned to:
Record of Changes

Date Appendix Revision

04/20/2012 B Amended information regarding:

1. Measures to enhance ability to prevent a blowout

2. Measures to reduce the likelihood of a blowout

3. Measures to enhance ability to conduct effective and early 

intervention in the event of a blowout

4. Arrangements for drilling relief wells

05/03/2012 G Amended Table 1 to provide a more detailed composition for waterbased drilling fluid.

05/03/2012 M Added Table 2 “Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of 

Onshore”.

05/15/2012 F Included the statement in Appendix F that ERT would like to retain 

the option of moving the proposed location less than 500 feet 

without having to submit a revised plan. Accordingly, based on the 

complete report prepared by C&C Technologies (including the 

Seafloor Amplitude and Seafloor Features Maps), “No high negative 

or high positive amplitude seafloor anomalies associated with fluid 

expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential 

chemosynthetic or coral communities were noted within 2000 feet 

surrounding the proposed site”(p.2). In terms of shallow gas 

potential, “No high amplitude subsurface amplitude anomalies are 

noted at the location of the proposed well bore (p.3). 

05/16/2012 F Provided additional copies of the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map, 

Seafloor Amplitude Map, Seafloor Features Map and the Subsurface 

Features Map included in C&C’s report. 
ENERGY RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY GOM, INC.

REVISED

DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS COORDINATON DOCUMENT

LEASE OCS-G 15563

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 237

APPENDIX A Plan Contents

APPENDIX B General Information

APPENDIX C Geological, Geophysical Information

APPENDIX D H2S Information

APPENDIX E Mineral Resources Conservation Information

APPENDIX F Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

APPENDIX G Wastes and Discharge Information

APPENDIX H Air Emissions Information

APPENDIX I Oil Spills Information

APPENDIX J Environmental Monitoring Information

APPENDIX K Lease Stipulations Information

APPENDIX L Environmental Mitigation Measures Information

APPENDIX M Related Facilities and Operations Information

APPENDIX N Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

APPENDIX O Onshore Support Facilities Information

APPENDIX P Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information

APPENDIX Q Environmental Impact Analysis

APPENDIX R Administrative Information
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page A-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX A

PLAN CONTENTS

(A) PLAN INFORMATION FORM

Under this Supplemental DOCD, ERT proposes to drill, complete and produce Subsea Well No. 

006. Well Location E (SSWell No. 006) will be drilled and completed with a DP 

semisubmersible and then tied back to the existing Helix Producer 1 (HP1) FPU located in Green 

Canyon Block 237. 

The Green Canyon Block 237 A-Typhoon TLP was destroyed by Hurricane Rita in 2005. Prior 

to the hurricane, Lease OCS-G 15563, Green Canyon Block 237, had four wells and Lease OCSG 16727, Green Canyon Block 282, had two wells that produced through the TLP. Effective 

August 23, 2006, ERT was designated operator of Leases OCS-G 15562, 15563 and 16727, 

Green Canyon Blocks 236, 237 and 282, respectively. The field was renamed the Phoenix Field.

ERT re-established production from the Phoenix Field utilizing a ship-shaped FPU, designated 

as the Helix Producer 1 (HP1), which is able to disconnect and move to safe harbor in the event 

of future hurricanes. The HP1 first arrived on location in March, 2010. Production from Lease 

OCS-G 15563 (Well Nos. 003 and 004) and Lease OCS-G 16727 (Well Nos. 001 and 002) was 

commenced on October 19, 2010. By letter dated March 8, 2012, BOEM approved ERT's 

Revised DOCD (Control No. R-5300) providing for the drilling, completion and commencement 

of production of SSWell No. 005. 

ERT plans to drill and complete Well No. 005 and move the rig to drill Well No. 006. 

Therefore, we hereby request an expedited approval for this Plan. 

See attached OCS Plan Information Form – Form BOEMRE-137, included as Attachment A-1.

(B) LOCATION

Included as Attachment A-2 is a location map depicting the existing surface location and water 

depth of the proposed well.

(C) SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

ERT will utilize a semi-submersible drilling unit utilizing a subsea BOP stack to conduct the 

proposed drilling and completion operations. A description of the drilling unit is included on the 

OCS Plan Information form. Rig specifications will be made part of the Application for Permit 

to Drill. A 15K FMC horizontal subsea tree will be installed utilizing an Anchor Handling 

Vessel (AHV) using Delmar’s Heave Compensated Landing System. Mooring will not be 

required for the subsea tree installation. The subsea tree installation will commence upon 

completion of the drilling operation. A schematic of the subsea tree is included in Attachment 

A-3. 

Safety features on the drilling unit will include well control, pollution prevention, and blowout 

prevention equipment as described in Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, and F; and as 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page A-2

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

further clarified by BOEMRE Notices to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the 

BOEMRE, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. Appropriate life rafts, 

life jackets, ring buoys, etc., will be maintained on the facility at all times.

Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on 

drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. 

(D) STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS

All facility tanks with a capacity of 25 bbls or more.

Type of

Storage Tank

Type of

Facility

Tank Capacity 

(bbls)

Number

of Tanks

Total Capacity 

(bbls)

Fluid Gravity

(API)

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP MODU 5000 6 30,000 32.4

Production NA

(E) ADDITIONAL MEASURES

ERT does not propose additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures 

beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.
U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM

General Information

Type of OCS Plan: Exploration Plan (EP) X Development Operations Coordination Document

Company Name: Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. BOEM Operator Number: 02899

Address: 400 N. Sam Houston Parkway E. Contact Person: Cathy Thornton

 Houston, Texas 77060 Phone Number: 713-705-8020

Email Address:

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid Receipt No.

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD)Information

Lease(s): OCS-G 15563 Area: GC Block(s): 237 Project Name (if applicable): Head & Neck

Objective(s): X Oil Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Support Base(s):

Platform/Well Name: 006 Total Volume of WCD: 65,750 API Gravity: 33

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): Volume from uncontrolled blowout:

Have you previously provided information to verify the calculations and assumptions for your WCD? Yes X No

If so, provide the Control Number of the EP or DOCD with which this information was provided.

Do you propose to use new or unusual technology to conduct your activities? Yes X No

Do you propose to use a vessel with anchors to install or modify a structure? Yes X No

Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes X No

Description of Proposed Activities and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply)

Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days

Exploration drilling

Development drilling 06/15/2012 08/01/2012 48

Well completion 08/02/2012 08/27/2012 26

Well test flaring (for more than 48-hours)

Installation or modification of structure

Installation of production facilities

Installation of subsea wellheads and/or manifolds

Installation of lease term pipelines 09/01/2013 09/15/2013 15

Commence production

Other (Specify and attach description)

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure

Jackup Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform Rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

X DP Semisubmersible Other (attach description) Floating production 

system

Other (Attach Description)

Drilling Rig Name (if known): Noble Jim Day

Description of Lease Term Pipelines

From (Facility/Area/Block) To (Facility/Area/Block) Diameter (Inches) Length (Feet)

SSWell No. 006 Plet 4.5" 56'

Plet Plet 4.5" 2000'

Plet Plet 4.5" 70'

Manifold Plet 4.5" 250'

FORM BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used. Page 1 of 4
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name / Number (if renaming well 

or structure, reference previous name)

Previously reviewed under an approved EP or 

DOCD?

Yes X No

Is this an existing well or 

structure?

Yes X No If this is an existing well or structure, list the 

Complex ID or API No.

Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your proposed activities? X Yes No

WCD info For wells, volume of uncontrolled 

blowout (Bbls/day) 65,750

For structures, volume of all storage 

and pipelines (Bbls)

API Gravity of

fluid

33°

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple 

completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS-G 15563

Area Name GC

Block No. 237

Block Line 

Departures 

(in feet)

N/S Departure: F____L

2130' FNL

E/W Departure: F____L

4408' FEL

Lambert X-Y 

coordinates

X: 2,260,712.00'

Y: 10,072,110.00'

Latitude / 

Longitude

Latitude: 27°44'33,179" N

Longitude: 91°04'54.698"

Water Depth (Feet):

1970'

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet:

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name 

or No.

Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

FORM BOEM-0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

Provide the following information for the well with the highest Worst Case Discharge volume:

Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Well Information

WCD Well 

Name

Surface 

Lease

Surface 

Area/Block

Bottom 

Lease

Bottom 

Area/Block

Product 

Type

MD TVD

GC237 #006 G15563 GC237 G15563 GC237 Oil 15,094' 14,802'

Analog Well(s)

Area/Block OCS Lease Well No. API No.

GC237 G15563 002 60-811-40241-00

GC237 G15563 001 60-811-40231-02

Geologic Data for WCD

Open Hole Interval for WCD

Top (TVD in feet) Base (TVD in feet)

14,332' 14,367'

Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 5

Formation Data

Sand Name

Estimated Top TVD

Estimated Base TVD

Estimated Net Sand Height MD (Net Pay if 

hydrocarbon)

Estimated Net Sand Height TVT (net Pay if 

hydrocarbon)

Fluid Type

Used in WCD? (Yes/No) Yes

Seismic Survey Used

Western GECO Green Canyon Phase 4 PSTM

Engineering Data for WCD

WCD Engineering Items

WCD (STB/Day) 65,850 stb/day

WCD Calculated at Mudline X Yes No Atmosphere Yes No

Flow Correlation Hagedorn & Brown

Outlet Pressure (Psia) 880 psia

Gas Turbulence Factor

Software Model Used WellFlo 2011

Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 5

Formation Data

Sand Name B4

Permeability (mD) 200

Initial Pressure (PSIA) 10120

FORM BOEM-0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 3 of 4
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 5

Formation Data

Reservoir Temperature (F) 190

Porosity (0.00) 29%

Water Saturation (0.00) 17%

Rock Compressibility 

(microsips) 3.13 x 10-6

Water Salinity (ppm) 130,000

Drive Mechanism Water Drive

Drainage Area (acres) 156

Oil Reservoir Data

Bubble Point Pressure (PSIA) +/- 6000 psia

Initial Bo (RB/STB) 1.7

Bo (RB/STB) @ Bubble Point 1.8

Rsi (SCF/STB) 1550

Initial Oil Viscosity (Cp) .51

Oil Viscosity (CP) @ Bubble 

Point NA

Oil Compressibility (1/PSIA) 9.1 x 10-6

Oil API Gravity (API) 33

Specific Gas Gravity (0.00) .65

Gas Reservoir Data

Condensate API Gravity 

(API)

Specific Gas Gravity (0.00)

Yield (STB/MMCF)

Source of Permeability Used

Permeability from MDT

Permeability from Core Analysis Percussion core Rotary sidewall core Conventional core

Pressure Transient Analysis

Permeability from CMR or NMR log 

analysis

Permeability from other source Permeability determined from nodal analysis match of offset producers

Provide Model Input Values for Relative Permeability:

Residual Oil to Gas fraction (=1-Slc-Swc)

Residual Oil to Water fraction (=Soc) .3

Critical Gas fraction (Sgc, Gas/Oil-Water Systems)

Residual Gas to Water fraction (Sgc, Gas/Gas-Water Systems)

Kro Oil Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability) 1

Krg Gas Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability) Oil well above bubble point throughout well life

Krw Water Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability) .4

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) requires us to 

inform you that BOEM collects this information as part of an applicant’s Exploration Plan or Development Operations Coordination 

Document submitted for BOEM approval. We use the information to facilitate our review and data entry for OCS plans. We will 

protect proprietary data according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 550.197. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and 

Budget Control Number. Responses are mandatory (43 U.S.C. 1334). The public reporting burden for this form is included in the

burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that burden to average 

600 hours with an accompanying EP, or 700 hours with an accompanying DPP or DOCD, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the forms associated with subpart B. Direct comments 

regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170.

FORM BOEM-0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 4 of 4


Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX B

GENERAL INFORMATION

(A) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS

Following is a table of the additional applications/permits which will require approval prior to 

conducting the operations as proposed in this plan.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status

APD BOEMRE Pending

(B) DRILLING FLUIDS

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to 

be Used per Well (BBLS)

Water-based (Seawater, freshwater, barite) 10,000

Oil-based (diesel, minerals, oil) 0

Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 6,000

(C) PRODUCTION

Anticipated Production:

Type Average Production Rate Peak Production Rate Life of Reservoir

Oil

Gas

(D) OIL CHARACTERISTICS

On June 7, 2011, a sample was taken from the OCS-G-26302 Well No. 1 (Boris No. 3), 

B4 Sand, 16,448 Ft. - 16,474 Ft. MD Perforations; 13,978 Ft. - 14,002 Ft. TVD, 

16,492 Ft. - 16,507 Ft. MD Perforations; 14,018 Ft. - 14,032 Ft. TVD. 

In the laboratory, the recombined reservoir fluid sample exhibited a bubble point of 6,356 psia at 

156 °F and the reservoir fluid exists as an under saturated oil at current reservoir conditions 

(9,820 psia at 156 °F). On July 27, 2011, ASTM analyses were performed (flash point, boiling 

point distribution, and SARA analysis). 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-2

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Results of the analyses are shown in the following table: 

Characteristics Analytical Methodologies 

Should Be Compatible With:

1) Gravity (API) 33° ASTM D4052

2) Flash Point (°C) < -15°C ASTM D93/IP34

3) Pour Point (°C) -11° ASTM D97

4) Viscosity (Centipoise @ 25° C) 5.41 ASTM D445

5) Wax Content (wt %)

 3.0

Precipitate with 2-

butanon/dichloromethane (1 to 

1 volume) at -10° C

6) Asphaltene Content (wt %) 0.3 IP Method 143/84

7) Resin Content (wt %) 11.43 Jokuty et al. (1996)

8) Boiling point distribution including 

for each fraction, the percent volume or 

weight and the boiling point range in 

°C

 49° C ASTM D2892 (TBP 

DISTILLATION), or

ASTM D2887/5307

9) Sulphur (wt %) 1.32 ASTM D4294

NOTE: For the distillation information in item No. 8 above, the BOEMRE may accept the following 

information in lieu pf ote,s mps. 5,6,7, and 8: weight percent total of saturates, aromatics, waxes, asphaltenes, 

and resins; and total BTEX (ppm) using analytical methods compatible with the Hydrocarbon Groups 

methodology from Jokuty et al. (1996)

(E) NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

ERT does not propose to use any new or unusual technology to carry out the proposed

development activities. 

(F) BONDING STATEMENT

The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this DOCD are satisfied by a 

$3,000,000.00 areawide development bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 256, 

subpart I; NTL No. 2000-G16, "Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds;" and a current 

BOEMRE-approved deferment from providing additional security under 30 CFR 256.53(d) and 

National NTL No. 2003-N06, “Supplemental Bond Procedures”. If, at any point, ERT will no 

longer qualify for a supplemental bonding deferment, ERT will either provide the required 

additional security or a third party guarantee within 60 days after such disqualification.

(G) OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)

ERT, BOEMRE company number 02899, has demonstrated oil spill financial responsibility for 

the facilities proposed in this DOCD according to 30 CFR Part 253; and NTL No. 99-N01, 

"Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities".

(H) DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT

ERT (BOEMRE company number 02899) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and 

conduct other emergency well control operations.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-3

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(I) SUSPENSION OF PRODUCTION

Green Canyon Block 237 is currently held by ongoing production. 

(J) BLOWOUT SCENARIO

Blowout Scenario

The blowout scenario assumes the rig has sunk and is displaced from the wellhead. The well is 

flowing uncontrolled at the mud line.

A 13-5/8" casing string has been set at ~11,100' TVD. Open hole is present from 11,100' –

14,802 TVD (3,702’ of open hole). No drill pipe is in the wellbore.

Worst Case Discharge

The uncontrolled flow rate is 65,750 BOPD and 101 MMSCFD. Seismic and offset well 

interpretation indicates the target reservoir is they only producible reservoir in the open hole 

section. No water sands or other hydrocarbon bearing sands are anticipated in the hole section. 

Duration of Uncontrolled Flow – Base Case

The duration of uncontrolled flow during the blow out scenario is 4 days with a total discharge 

volume of 263,000 bbls of oil. 

The duration assumes the BOP’s can be closed with an ROV at the subsea ROV intervention 

panel on the BOP stack. This assumes the initial site assessment indicates an ROV vessel can 

operate close enough to the well to remotely close the BOP. 

Surface Intervention In the Event of a Blowout

Energy Resource Technology, Inc. will immediately initiate and mobilize the Helix Well 

Containment Group’s vessels and equipment to be utilized to shut-in and contain the well. 

Equipment to be mobilized includes vessels to remotely close the blind shear rams, vessels to 

begin subsea dispersant operations, and vessels to initiate debris removal / salvage operations. 

The Helix Q-4000 will also be immediately mobilized to assist in the response. 

In the event the blind shear ram cannot be remotely closed with the ROV, the LMRP will be 

removed from the BOP, and the HWCG 13-5/8” 10K capping stack will be deployed by the Q4000 or other suitable vessel and installed on the BOP. The blind rams in the capping stack

would then be closed to contain the well. 

A top kill operation would then be initiated to kill and control the well. The proposed well design 

will be able to withstand the anticipated shut in pressure at the BOP, as well as additional 

pressure exerted on the casing during the top kill operation. The estimated shut in pressure of the 

well at the BOP is 9,100 psi, and the burst rating of the 13-5/8” casing is 10,030 psi. In addition, 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-4

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Energy Resource Technology would employ the expertise of Wild Well Control, Inc., to assist 

with any early intervention options.

The estimated duration for surface intervention that would require the deployment of the capping 

stack is 15 days. The contingency case assumes the HWCG vessels and equipment will be 

utilized to shut-in and contain the well. Energy Resource Technology, Inc. is a member of the 

Clean Gulf Associates / Helix Well Containment Group and is guaranteed this equipment in the 

event of a blow out.

Potential of Open Hole to Bridge Over

Due to the slight geopressured nature of the reservoir (14.0 ppg), the age of the reservoir 

(Pliocene), and the depth below the mud line where the reservoir exists (+/- 14,330’ TVD), it is 

highly likely that the sandstone is somewhat unconsolidated and friable. Because the blow out 

scenario creates ~6,800 psi of drawdown at the reservoir face, considerable sand production is 

anticipated. In addition, the shale sequences in the open hole will likely experience tensile failure 

at 6,800 psi drawdown. It is reasonable to assume that the sandstones and shale intervals in the 

open hole will experience tensile failure and will collapse. It is safe to assume that the sand and 

shale sequences will experience tensile failure if 6,800 psi drawdown is achieved.

Availability of Rig to Begin Drilling Relief Well

Energy Resource Technology, Inc. has a Mutual Aide agreement in place with other members of 

the Helix Well Containment Group that requires other operators to make available any 

equipment necessary to respond to an uncontrolled blowout. Energy Resource Technology, Inc. 

has a history of working with the major drilling contractors that provide MODU’s. There are 

currently 36 rigs in the GOM capable of drilling the relief well, if required. 

Relief Well Rig Package Constraints

No rig package constraints are anticipated for the rig which would drill the relief well. All 3rd, 

4

th, and 5th generation rigs in the Gulf of Mexico would be suitable to drill the relief well. Hook 

loads are minimal, and 10,000 psi BOP’s are required.

Drilling a Relief Well from a Nearby Platform

No platforms are close enough to the proposed exploration well to drill a relief well. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-5

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Estimated Time to Drill a Relief Well

The estimated time to drill a relief well is summarized in the below table: 

Description Planned Days Cumulative Days

Site Assessment 3 3

Contract/Mobilize Rig to Location 14 17

Jet 36” 2.5 19.5

Drill and set 20” casing 3 22.5

Run BOP 3.5 26

Drill and set 16” casing 5.5 31.5

Drill and set 13-5/8” casing 10 41.5

Drill and set 9-5/8” liner 11.5 53.0

Intercept well 8 61.0

Measures to Prevent or Reduce the Likelihood of a Blowout

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. proposes the following to enhance our ability to 

prevent and reduce the likelihood of a blowout.

1. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. utilizes real time pore pressure prediction at the 

rigsite to better estimate pore pressure.

2. Drilling Supervisors, Completion Supervisors, MODU OIM’s, Drillers, and Tool 

Pushers, (including all personnel that may be acting in these capacities) must hold a valid 

well control certificate from an accredited IWCF or WellCAP organization.

3. The working pressure and temperature rating of the BOPE and wellhead will exceed the 

maximum anticipated surface pressure and temperature. (Note: MASP to be based on 

Modified Chevron Method of calculating gas hydrostatic unless an alternative method is 

approved through risk assessment.) 

4. BOPE rubber goods, studs, and nuts, will be inspected prior to initial rig up. API ring 

gaskets will be inspected anytime API flanged connections are “broken” on onshore 

operations and always will be replaced with new gaskets on offshore operations. 

5. Hole-filling and pit monitoring procedures will be established by site supervision for 

every rig operation. The established procedures will be documented and approved by 

ERT and the Contractor. 

6. Circulating trip tanks are required for all drilling operations.

7. Rams must be installed to fit all sizes of drill pipe and work strings in use. 

8. All critical pressure test charts (i.e. negative tests, casing tests, FIT/LOT) will be 

reviewed by Drilling Engineer/Drilling Supervisor prior to continuing with operations. 

9. A drill string float valve (ported acceptable) will be installed in all drilling bottom hole 

assemblies. (BHA’s).Similar valves will be considered for well intervention and 

completion operations when reverse circulating is not required.

10. A pressure tested fully opening safety valve (FOSV) and opening/closing wrench with 

appropriate threads or crossover subs for all connections will be available on the rig floor 

at all times. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-6

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

11. Accumulator controls will always be left in the power position (i.e. opened/closed; not 

neutral).

12. The “hard shut-in procedure” shall be used on all kicks (other than diverter installations).

13. During drilling operations, slow circulating rates (SCR) should be obtained and recorded 

for each mud pump at least after BHA or mud weight changes and 500 feet of formation 

drilled.

14. Drilling BOP space-out and tool joint space-out diagrams shall be posted on the rig floor 

at all times. 

15. Flow checks shall be conducted after drilling breaks, prior to tripping, after or during lost 

circulation events, pumping out, prior to nippling down BOP’s, and any other time when 

anomalous pit volume readings are observed. Minimum flow check duration shall be 5 

minutes.

Enclosed with the Proprietary copy and CD is the NTL 2010-N06 Worst Case Discharge 

Analysis. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page D-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX C

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

(A) GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

Information removed from PI Copy

(B) STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS

Current structure contour maps drawn on the top of each productive hydrocarbon sand, showing 

the entire lease block, the location of the proposed well, and the locations of geological crosssections are included as Attachments C-1 and C-2.

(B) INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES 

Attached to one Proprietary Information copy of this plan, Attachments C-3, are interpreted 

seismic lines. These lines are migrated, annotated with depth scale, and are within 500’ of the 

surface location of the proposed well.

(D) GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTION 

An interpreted geological structure cross-section showing the location and depth of the proposed 

well and at least one key horizon and the objective sands labeled using standard biostratigraphic 

terms is included as Attachment C-4.

(E) SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

ERT contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. to conduct a shallow hazards survey across a portion 

of Green Canyon Block 237. One diskette and one hard copy of this report are being submitted 

on this date under separate cover.

(F) SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

Utilizing the 3D seismic exploration data, a shallow hazards assessment was prepared for the 

proposed surface locations, and is included as Attachment C-5. 

(G) HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES 

In accordance with the criteria set forth in Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2008-G05, included as 

Attachment C-6 is 3-D survey data including swath bathymetry/seafloor rendering/edge 

detection (fault scarp trends) overlain with the seafloor amplitude. 

(H) STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic column depicting each well from the seafloor to 

total depth, with each objective horizon labeled, is included as Attachments C-7.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page D-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(I) TIME VS DEPTH TABLES

Appropriate tables providing seismic travel time versus depth for the proposed well location in 

areas where there is no well control is included as Attachments C-8.
1 

GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 110728 

March 27, 2012 

Helix ERT 

8401 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75225 

ATTN: Mr. Luke Pierce 

Site Clearance Letter 

Proposed Well “E” 

Block 237 (OCS-G-15563), Green Canyon Area 

INTRODUCTION 

C & C Technologies, Inc. was contracted by Helix ERT to prepare a well site clearance letter for the 

proposed Well “E” location in Block 237 (OCS-G-15563), Green Canyon (GC) Area. This letter 

provides a tophole drilling prognosis from 3D seismic data and addresses seafloor conditions within a 

2,000-foot radius of the proposed surface location. A dynamically positioned rig will be used for the well 

drilling and therefore anchor spreads will not be addressed. The depth limit of the investigation is roughly 

one and half seconds of two-way traveltime below mudline (BML). The assessment is based on the 

geohazard interpretation of WesternGeco (WGC) and CGG 3D seismic data sets that were provided to C 

& C Technologies, Inc. by Helix ERT. In addition, Williamson and Associates conducted a side scan 

sonar and ROV survey around the previous location of the Typhoon Platform for a Debris Assessment. 

The results of the Debris Assessment were provided by Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. 

(GEMS) and the location of the damaged flowlines, umbilicals, and scattered debris were added to the 

seafloor hazards portion of the main report and used for well clearance where applicable. 

The WGC survey was performed prior to the construction of the Typhoon Platform that was destroyed by 

Hurricane Rita in 2005. The CGG survey was performed after construction of the Typhoon Platform 

resulting in poor near-trace data where the platform existed. The WGC data provides data coverage for a 

gap in proximity to the platform location. C&C completed the report titled “3D Seismic Shallow Hazard

Study of Phoenix Prospect in Blocks 236, 237, and 238, Green Canyon Area” in October 2007. This 

letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000-foot radius of 

the proposed well location. The assessment and enclosures presented with this letter comply with U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008-G05 (Shallow Hazards 

Program) and NTL No. 2009-G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities). A deep-tow high resolution 

geophysical survey was conducted by Tesla Offshore in February 2012. The results from that survey 

have been reviewed by Tesla Offshore’s staff Marine Archaeologist for compliance with the Pre-Seabed 

Disturbance Mitigation Policy issued on March 25, 2011. 

METHODS 

The WGC and CGG 3D seismic data used were provided in SEG-Y format via download from a file 

transfer protocol (ftp) site provided by Helix ERT. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro 

Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The inlines of the WGC data volume run north south 

and are spaced at 65.62-foot (20-meter) intervals with the crosslines spaced at 41.01-foot (12.5-meter) 

intervals. The inlines of the CGG data volume run east west and are spaced at 65.62-foot (20-meter) 

intervals with the crosslines spaced at 82.02-foot (25-meter) intervals. 
2 

GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 110728 

WELL LOCATION 

The coordinates of the proposed surface location for Well “E” and calls from GC237 are tabulated below: 

Well 

Coordinates 

Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 237 

Green Canyon Area X-Coordinate Y-Coordinate 

Surface 2,260,712.00’ 10,072,110.00’ 27° 44’ 33.129”N 91° 04’ 54.698”W 2,130’ FNL 4,408’ FEL 

Units are in U.S. Survey Feet. The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North 

American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected to the Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15 North (15N). The location of the proposed Well “E” and a 2,000-

foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map, Seafloor Amplitude Map, Seafloor 

Features Map, Subsurface Features Map and Figures 1 and 2. 

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS 

The water depth at the proposed Well “E” location is 1,981 feet below sea level (BSL) (Figure 1). The

seafloor at the proposed well site slopes to the south-southeast at a gradient of 1.1°. Water depths range 

from 1,940 feet in the northwest to 2,200 feet in the northeast within the 2,000-foot radius. The seafloor 

surrounding the well site is smooth and featureless. A seafloor fault is located 300 feet to the east having 

190 feet of seafloor offset, sloping east at a gradient of 10.9° (Figure 1). 

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS 

The seafloor reflector exhibits low to moderate seismic amplitude throughout the 2,000-foot radius, 

suggesting fine textured seafloor sediments consisting mainly of hemipelagic clay (Figure 2). Three 

seafloor faults are located within 985 feet of the proposed surface location. These faults are downthrown 

to the northeast and do not pose a hazard to drilling activities. The seafloor is smooth and free of any 

significant geohazards created from natural processes. 

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES 

No high negative or high positive amplitude seafloor anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or 

mounded carbonates representing potential chemosynthetic or coral communities were noted within 2,000 

feet surrounding the proposed well site (Figures 3 and 4). Areas of low return identified on the fault scarp 

faces are attributed to the high angle of seabed where signal reflection is low. This lower amplitude likely 

results from the seismic signal being deflected away from the hydrophones by the high angle of incident 

of the fault scarp face. 

Side scan sonar data collected by Tesla Offshore displays several areas of high-reflectivity indicating 

outcrops on the seafloor. Subbottom profiler data was reviewed and features related to outcrops are the 

result of eroded and exposed strata at the seafloor. No indication of fluid/gas migration or 

chemosynthetic or coral community growth is evident in the subbottom profiler data (Figure 5). 

MAN-MADE HAZARDS 

A review of company and BOEM/BSEE data indicates two pipelines, one umbilical and two wells exist 

within the 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well site (Figure 5). 
3 

GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 110728 

SUBSURFACE FEATURES 

Five stratigraphic units of distinct seismic character were assessed (Figures 4-6). A detailed description 

of the sequence units can be found in the 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Study Report. Subsurface 

deposition in the upper 511 feet (Unit A) of the wellbore is mostly parallel-stratified sediment interpreted 

as fine-grained hemipelagic clay sediment. 

Continuous to semi continuous, highly parallel, highly faulted reflectors, indicative of alternating 

hemipelagic clays, coarser sediments, and slumps, that remain uniform throughout the study area 

characterize the Unit B sequence identified between 2,492 and 2,818 feet (0.916 to 1.030 seconds) BSL. 

These reflectors record high to moderate amplitudes likely of coarser sediments with intermixed fine 

grained sediments having lower reflectors. A high amplitude reflector is found at the base of the unit with 

properties of a sand sheet. 

Unit C consists of low amplitude, continuous to semi-continuous, parallel to semi-parallel reflectors at the 

top of the unit that transition into highly channelized and slumped sediments. Unit C is located 2,818 to 

3,847 feet (1.030 to 1.381 seconds) BSL. Moderate to low parallel reflectors indicative of turbidites

characterize the base of this unit. Two faults intersect the wellbore within this unit. 

Unit D is located 3,847 to 4,399 feet (1.381 to 1.564 seconds) BSL. The top of the unit is characterized 

by highly channelized and slumped deposits with moderate reflectors. The base of the unit contains 

parallel to semi-parallel, low reflectors indicative of turbidite deposits. This unit is highly faulted and is 

indistinguishable to the east and west where it encounters salt intrusion. 

Unit E is greatly characterized by a highly channelized sequence with moderate to high amplitude 

reflectors occurring throughout the middle of the unit. The top of this unit has parallel to semi parallel 

reflectors with low amplitudes which become extremely chaotic with depth. One fault will intersect the 

wellbore within this unit. This unit is identified 4,399 feet BSL to the end of the data. 

SHALLOW GAS POTENTIAL 

Very high amplitude anomalies, commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential regions of 

fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude 

levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at on of four levels. These are: 

• Negligible – No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present. 

• Low risk of gas – Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2-3x background 

level) and phase reversal. This may also include diffuse areas of gas blanking. 

• Moderate risk of gas – Generally indicated by high amplitude (3-4x background 

level) and phase reversal. 

• High risk of gas – Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x 

background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of 

the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull-down and masking of underlying 

sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account. 

No high amplitude subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted at the location of the proposed well bore 

(Sheet 4; Figure No. 6). The nearest amplitude anomaly is located 1,570 feet to the northwest of the 

drilling location and is likely a sand sheet. A low to negligible risk of shallow gas exists along the 

wellbore for the proposed Well “E” drilling site. 
4 

GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 110728 

SHALLOW WATER FLOWS 

Shallow Water Flows (SWF) are over-pressured, unconsolidated sands that are encountered in the tophole

sections of some wells drilled in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Sands with SWF potential

often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in 

unconsolidated and over-pressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially 

disastrous hazard for drilling operations. 

Block GC237 is classified as shallow water up flow area by the BOEM. The BOEM website reports a 

low severity of shallow water flows from Well No. 3 (OCS-G-15563) in GC237 at a depth of 720 feet 

BML. The Well No. 3 (OCS-G-15563) is 7,350 feet southeast of the proposed Well “E” location. 

 

The assessment of seismic profiles and pre-existing shallow water flow events suggests overall the risk of 

SWF potential is a low to negligible chance of occurrence at the well location. Salt encroachment to the 

east and west has likely negated any overpressure within the units along the proposed well bore. A 

tophole prognosis chart showing subsurface conditions and shallow water flow potential is summarized in 

Figure 6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The water depth at the proposed GC237 Well “E” surface location is 1,981 feet BSL. The proposed 

surface well site location is clear of geological constraints. The seafloor within a 985-foot radius of the 

drill location contains 3 seafloor fault scarps. 

No high or low seafloor amplitudes that may indicate the occurrence of hardground, carbonates, or 

potential expulsion, are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “E” surface location. 

Two pipelines, one umbilical and two wells are located within 2,000-feet of the surface location. 

A low to negligible risk of shallow gas exists along the majority of the well bore for the proposed Well 

“E” drilling site. 

A shallow water flow did occur approximately 7,350 feet southwest of the proposed well location. The

assessment of seismic profiles and pre-existing shallow water flow events suggests that no potential SWF 

intervals exist along the proposed well bore. 

Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning 

this assessment. 

Sincerely, 

Hallie Graves 

Marine Geologist 

(Project No. 110728) 
5 

GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 110728 

Figures: 

Figure 1. A Fledermaus 3D seafloor perspective view looking to the north across the well location. 

Figure 2. Seafloor amplitudes evident at the well location. 

Figure 3. 3D seismic profile of inline 2128 from WGC data. 

Figure 4. 3D seismic profile of crossline 4909 from WGC data. 

Figure 5. Subbottom profiler data in areas of increased reflectivity on the seafloor. 

Figure 6. Tophole prognosis chart for the proposed Well “E” in GC237. 

Figure 7. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Proposed Well “E”. 

Enclosures: 

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map 

Sheet 2. Seafloor Amplitude Map 

Sheet 3. Seafloor Features Map 

Sheet 4. Subsurface Features Map 
6 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 1. A Fledermaus 3D seafloor perspective view looking to the north across the well 
7 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 2. Seafloor amplitudes evident at the well location.
8 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 3. Profile of inline 2128 from WGC data. 
9 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 4. Profile of crossline 4909 from WGC data. 
10 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 5. Subbottom profiler data in areas of increased reflectivity on the seafloor
11 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 6. Tophole prognosis chart for the proposed Well “E” in GC237.
12 

 GC237 Well “E” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 

Figure 7. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Proposed Well “E”. 
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC / LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

SEQUENCE

AGE

MYA

DEPTH

TVDSS

LITHOLOGIC

DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGIC

COLUMN

BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC

ZONES WITH ECOZONES

OBJECTIVE

SECTION

-2000

-4000

SAND & 

SHALE

Attachment F

Green Canyon 237

-5000

-10000

PLEISTOCENE

0.2

SAND & 

SHALE

Trimosina A

Outer Shelf

Upper Slope

0.58

SAND & 

SHALE

-3000

-6000

Angulogerina B

-7000

-8000

-11000

-12000

-13000

-14000

SAND

-9000

Sangamon Fauna

Middle Slope

Lower Slope

SAND

-15000

-16000

-17000

-18000

PLIOCENE

Upper Pliocene

B-4 sand (oil)

Primary Target 

Location E

SAND & 

SHALE

Outer Shelf

Upper Slope

Middle Shelf

1.4

2.2
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page E-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX D

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

(A) CONCENTRATION

ERT does not anticipate encountering any H2S during the proposed operations.

(B) CLASSIFICATION

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), ERT requests that Green Canyon Block 237 be 

classified by the BOEMRE as H2S absent.

The basis for this determination is the evaluation of he Green Canyon Block 237 offset wells 

which were drilled to the stratigraphic equivalent of the B4 Sand Series as proposed in this 

DOCD.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page F-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX E

MINERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION INFORMATION

(A) TECHNOLOGY & RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Information removed from PI Copy

(B) TECHNOLOGY AND RECOVERY PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Information removed from PI Copy

(C) RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT

(D) Information removed from PI Copy
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page F-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX F

BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

The biological, physical and socioeconomic information provided and approved in the 

Supplemental DOCD (Control No. S-7156). 

ERT's proposed operations have the potential to impact submerged archaeological resources that 

could be in the area of potential effect (APE), which encompasses all portions of the seafloor 

where bottom-disturbing activities are to occur. Before conducting any authorized, bottom 

disturbing activities, ERT will follow the guidance provided at 

http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/archaeological/Conditional-Archaeological-Mitigation.pdf, 

which includes minimum survey recommendations, requisite certification submittals, and postactivity reporting standards needed to ensure compliance with the regulations under 30 CFR 

§550.194.

(A) DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES 

Activities proposed in this DOCD will disturb seafloor areas in water depths greater than 300 

meters (984 feet); therefore, information as outlined in Attachment A of NTL No. 2009-G40, 

"Deepwater Benthic Communities", is provided below. ERT will avoid all high-density 

deepwater benthic communities by 2000 feet from each proposed mud and cuttings discharge 

location and 250 feet from the location of all other seafloor disturbances.

ERT would like to retain the option of moving the proposed location less than 500 feet without 

having to submit a revised plan. Accordingly, based on the complete report prepared by C&C 

Technologies (including the Seafloor Amplitude and Seafloor Features Maps), “No high negative 

or high positive amplitude seafloor anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded 

carbonates representing potential chemosynthetic or coral communities were noted within 2000 

feet surrounding the proposed site”(p.2). In terms of shallow gas potential, “No high amplitude 

subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted at the location of the proposed well bore (p.3). 

MAPS

Attached to this DOCD are maps prepared using 3-D seismic data depicting seafloor and shallow 

geological features and areas, and the surface locations of the proposed wells with a radius circle 

of 2000 feet around the well.

ANALYSIS

Using 3-D seismic information, all seafloor features and areas that could be disturbed by the 

activities proposed in this plan have been identified. The likelihood of these proposed activities 

disturbing these seafloor and shallow geologic features is discussed in the following summary:

Well Location E: Features or areas that could support high-density deepwater benthic 

communities are not located within 2000 feet of any proposed muds and cuttings discharge 

location. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page F-2

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(B) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES MAP 

Activities proposed in this DOCD do not fall within 305 meters (1000 feet) of a topographic “no 

activity zone”.

(C) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)

All activities proposed under this DOCD will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature 

Protective Zones, therefore shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required 

(D) LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND) MAP

Green Canyon Block 237 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; 

therefore a separate bathymetric map is not required. 

(E) LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) STIPULATION 

Green Canyon Block 237 is not located within 100 feet of any pinnacle trend feature with 

vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not 

required.

(F) POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES

Green Canyon Block 237 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive 

biological features; therefore, biologically sensitive area maps are not required.

(G) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS 

BOEM has determined there is enough data gathered in this grid area, therefore, we will not be 

conducting any ROV surveys either pre-spudding or post-drilling operations.

(H)THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE 

MAMMAL INFORMATION

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all federal agencies must ensure that any 

actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat.

In accordance with the 30 CFR 250, Subpart B, effective May 14, 2007, and further outlined in 

Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2008-G04, lessees/operators are required to address site-specific 

information on the presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical 

habitat designated under the ESA and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of proposes activities under this plan.

NOAA Fisheries currently lists the Sperm Whale, Leatherback Turtle, Green Turtle, Hawksbill 

Turtle, and the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle as endangered and the Loggerhead Turtle and Gulf 

Sturgeon as threatened. Currently there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species 

in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, however, it is possible that one or more of these 

species could be seen in the area of our operations.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page F-3

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(I) ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

Green Canyon Block 237 is not located in an area determined to have any historic or prehistoric 

cultural resources.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page G-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX G

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

(A) PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES

Table 1, “Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the GOM”

is included in the following Table.

please specify if the amount reported is a total or per well amount

Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges 

Type of Waste Composition 

Projected 

Amount 

(BBLS/Well)

Discharge 

Rate 

(BBLS/Day) Discharge Method

Answer yes or 

no

Will drilling occur ? If yes, you should list muds and cuttings

Water-based drilling fluid

Consists of water, barite, 

bentonite, and sodium 

chloride

10,000 5,000 Seafloor before installation of marine riser No

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid

Cuttings generated while 

using water-based drilling 

fluids

1,750 875 Seafloor before installation of marine riser No

Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid 

Synthetic based drilling fluids 

adhering to drill cuttings from 

synthetic-based hole intervals

 3,400 75

Treated cuttings will be discharged overboard while 

drilling SBM interval. Cuttings will pass through 

cuttings dryer to reduce ROC percentage in 

compliance with EPA and will then be shunt 

through downpipe below water line

No

Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

Domestic waste

Gray water from galleys, 

sinks, showers, and laundry 4320

48 USCG approved MSD with chlorination and 

discharged

No

Sanitary waste

Human body treated waste 

discharged from toilets 2875

32 USCG approved MSD with chlorination and 

discharged

No

Is there a deck? If yes, there will be Deck Drainage

Deck Drainage Rain water and rig wash 7500

125 Deck drainage is gravity separated, tested and 

discharged overboard

No

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover? 

Well treatment fluids Frac fluid (gel) 100 100 Discharged overboard through shunt line

Well completion fluids Calcium Bromide 100 15 Discharged overboard through shunt line

Workover fluids N/A

Miscellaneous discharges. If yes, only fill in those associated with your activity. 

Desalinization unit discharge N/A

Blowout prevent fluid Transaqua DW 50 0.55 Discharged from vent ports on BOP stack No

Ballast water Uncontaminated seawater 36000 400 Per MARPOL regulations No

Bilge water N/A 0

Excess cement at seafloor Cement slurry 265 265 Seafloor before installation of marine riser No

Fire water N/A

Cooling water N/A

Excess food Misc. food 135 1.5 Discharged overboard No

Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in for produced water.

Produced water 450,000 500

Processed through production train then discharged 

in sump pile No

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit ? General

TABLE 1. WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR 

DISCHARGE TO THE GOM

Projected 

Downhole 

Disposal
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 

MSDS NO. 12153 Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC) Revision Date: 05/30/2006

1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

Chemical Family: Mixture

Product Use: Oil well drilling fluid additive. 

Emergency Telephone (24 hr.): 281-561-1600

Supplied by: M-I L.L.C.

P.O. Box 42842

Houston, TX 77242

www.miswaco.com

Telephone Number: 281-561-1512

Contact Person: Joanne Galvan, Sr. Product Safety Specialist

Revision Number: 1

HMIS Rating

 HMIS Key: 4=Severe, 3=Serious, 2=Moderate, 1=Slight, 0=Minimal Hazard. *Chronic effects - See Section 11. See 

Section 8 for Personal Protective Equipment recommendations.

2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

Emergency Overview: Caution! May cause eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. Cancer hazard. 

Contains crystalline silica which may cause cancer. 

Canadian Classification:

Potential Health Effects: 

Acute Effects 

 Eye Contact: May irritate eyes.

 Skin Contact: May be irritating to the skin. Long term contact can cause skin dryness. 

 Inhalation: Not expected to be an inhalation hazard. Prolonged inhalation of vapors or mists, 

however, may cause irritation. 

 Ingestion: May cause gastric distress, nausea and vomiting if ingested. 

Carcinogenicity & Chronic 

Effects:

See Section 11 - Toxicological Information. 

Routes of Exposure: Eyes. Dermal (skin) contact. Inhalation.

Target Organs/Medical 

Conditions Aggravated by 

Overexposure:

Eyes. Skin. Respiratory System.

Not regulated. WHMIS Class: D2A D2B

 Health: 1*

Physical 

State:

Liquid

 Flammability: 1

Odor: Mud Color: Tan to grey

 Physical Hazard: 0 PPE: J 

UN PIN No:
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

MSDS NO. 12153 Revision Date: 05/30/2006 Page 2/6 

3. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

Ingredient CAS No. Wt. % Comments:

Water 7732-18-5 30 - 60 No comments.

Barite 7727-43-7 10 - 30 No comments.

Bentonite 1302-78-9 10 - 30 No comments.

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 5 - 10 No comments.

Silica, crystalline, quartz 14808-60-7 1 - 5 No comments.

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 0.1 - 1 No comments.

Silica, crystalline, Tridymite 15468-32-3 0.1 - 1 No comments.

4. FIRST AID MEASURES

Eye Contact: Promptly wash eyes with lots of water while lifting eye lids. Continue to rinse for at 

least 15 minutes. Get medical attention if any discomfort continues. 

Skin Contact: Wash skin thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing and 

launder before reuse. Get medical attention if any discomfort continues. 

Inhalation: Move person to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is 

difficult, give oxygen. Get medical attention. 

Ingestion: Dilute with 2 - 3 glasses of water or milk, if conscious. Never give anything by mouth 

to an unconscious person. If signs of irritation or toxicity occur seek medical 

attention.

General Notes: Persons seeking medical attention should carry a copy of this MSDS with them.

5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES

Flammable Properties 

Flash Point: F (C): >200F (93C)

Flash Point Method: Estimated

Flammable Limits in Air - Lower (%): ND

Flammable Limits in Air - Upper (%): ND

Autoignition Temperature: F (C): ND

Flammability Class: IIIB

Other Flammable Properties: ND

Extinguishing Media: This material is not combustible. Use extinguishing media appropriate for 

surrounding fire.

Protection Of Fire-Fighters: 

Special Fire-Fighting Procedures: Do not enter fire area without proper personal protective equipment, including 

NIOSH/MSHA approved self-contained breathing apparatus. Evacuate area and fight fire from a safe distance. Water 

spray may be used to keep fire-exposed containers cool. Keep water run off out of sewers and waterways.

Hazardous Combustion Products: Oxides of: Carbon.

6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

Personal Precautions: Use personal protective equipment identified in Section 8.

Spill Procedures: Evacuate surrounding area, if necessary. Spilled product is very slippery. Contain 

spilled material. Absorb in vermiculite, dry sand or earth. Place into containers for 

disposal. 

Environmental Precautions: Do not allow to enter sewer or surface and subsurface waters. Waste must be 

disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws. 
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

MSDS NO. 12153 Revision Date: 05/30/2006 Page 3/6 

7. HANDLING AND STORAGE

Handling: Put on appropriate personal protective equipment. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. 

Avoid breathing vapors or spray mists. Use only in a well ventilated area. Wash 

thoroughly after handling. 

Storage: Store in dry, well-ventilated area. Keep container closed. Store away from 

incompatibles. Follow safe warehousing practices regarding palletizing, banding, 

shrink-wrapping and/or stacking. 

8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION

Exposure Limits (TLV & PEL - 8H TWA): 

Ingredient CAS No. Wt. % ACGIH TLV OSHA PEL Other Notes

Water 7732-18-5 30 - 60 NA NA NA None

Barite 7727-43-7 10 - 30 10 mg/m3 15 mg/m3

(total); 5 

mg/m3 (resp)

NA None

Bentonite 1302-78-9 10 - 30 NA NA NA (1)

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 5 - 10 NA NA NA (1)

Silica, crystalline, quartz 14808-60-7 1 - 5 0.05 mg/m3 see Table Z-3 NIOSH: 0.05 

mg/m3 TWA 

(10H day/40H 

wk)

(R)

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 0.1 - 1 2 mg/m3 (C) 2 mg/m3 NA None

Silica, crystalline, Tridymite 15468-32-3 0.1 - 1 0.05 mg/m3 see Table Z-3 NA (R)

Notes

(1) Control as an ACGIH particulate not otherwise specified (PNOS): 10 mg/m3 (Inhalable); 3 mg/m3 (Respirable) and an 

OSHA particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR): 15 mg/m3 (Total); 5 mg/m3 (Respirable). 

(R) Respirable fraction (ACGIH);

Table Z-3: PEL for Mineral Dusts containing crystalline silica are 10 mg/m3

 / (%SiO2+2) for quartz and 1/2 the calculated 

quartz value for cristobalite and tridymite.

Engineering Controls: Use appropriate engineering controls such as, exhaust ventilation and process enclosure, to 

ensure air contamination and keep workers exposure below the applicable limits.

Personal Protection Equipment

All chemical Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should be selected based on an assessment of both the chemical 

hazards present and the risk of exposure to those hazards. The PPE recommendations below are based on our 

assessment of the chemical hazards associated with this product. The risk of exposure and need for respiratory 

protection will vary from workplace to workplace and should be assessed by the user. 

Eye/Face Protection: Wear chemical safety goggles.

Skin Protection: Wear appropriate clothing to prevent repeated or prolonged skin contact. Chemical 

resistant gloves recommended for prolonged or repeated contact. Use protective 

gloves made of: Neoprene. Nitrile. 
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

MSDS NO. 12153 Revision Date: 05/30/2006 Page 4/6 

Respiratory Protection: All respiratory protection equipment should be used within a comprehensive 

respiratory protection program that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134 

(U.S. OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard) or local equivalent.

If exposed to airborne mist/aerosol of this product, use at least a NIOSH-approved 

N95 half-mask disposable or re-usable particulate respirator. In work environments 

containing oil mist/aerosol, use at least a NIOSH-approved P95 half-mask disposable 

or reuseable particulate respirator.

If exposed to vapors from this product use a NIOSH/MSHA-approved respirator with 

an Organic Vapor cartridge. 

General Hygiene Considerations: Work clothes should be washed separately at the end of each work day. Disposable 

clothing should be discarded, if contaminated with product.

9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Color: Tan to grey

Odor: Mud 

Physical State: Liquid

pH: ND

Specific Gravity (H2O = 1): ND

Solubility (Water): Dispersible

Flash Point: F (C): >200F (93C)

Melting/Freezing Point: ND

Boiling Point: ND

Vapor Pressure: ND

Vapor Density (Air=1): ND

Evaporation Rate: ND

Odor Threshold(s): ND

10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY

Chemical Stability: Stable

Conditions to Avoid: Keep away from heat, sparks and flame.

Materials to Avoid: Oxidizers. 

Hazardous Decomposition 

Products:

For thermal decomposition products, see Section 5. 

Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Component Toxicological Data: Any adverse component toxicological effects are listed below. If no effects are listed, 

no such data were found. 

Ingredient CAS No. Acute Data

Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 Oral LD50: 3 g/kg (rat); Dermal LD50: >10 g/kg (rabbit); 

Inhalation LC50: >42 g/m3/1H (rat)

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 Oral LDLo: 500 mg/kg (rabbit)
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

MSDS NO. 12153 Revision Date: 05/30/2006 Page 5/6 

Ingredient Component Toxicological Summary 

Silica, crystalline, 

quartz

Crystalline silica is the most widely occurring of all minerals. The most common form of silica is 

sand. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated crystalline silica 

in the form of quartz or cristobalite a Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans). This designation was 

based on an increased risk of lung cancer among crystalline silica exposed workers. IARC did 

note that carcinogenicity of crystalline silica in humans was not detected in all industrial 

circumstances studied. Further, carcinogenicity of crystalline silica may be dependent on 

inherent characteristics of the crystalline silica or external factors affecting its biological activity or 

distribution of polymorphs. (IARC Vol. 68, 1997, p. 41). 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifies crystalline silica as "reasonably anticipated to 

cause cancer in humans" (6th Annual Report on Carcinogens, 1991). Long term inhalation of 

crystalline silica can also result in the lung disease, silicosis. Symptoms of this disease include 

coughing and shortness of breath. (NJ HSFS, January 1996)

Product Toxicological Information:

No toxicological data is available for this product. 

12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Component Ecotoxicity Data: No data available.

Ingredient CAS No. Data

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 LC50: 160 mg/l (goldfish) 24H, LC50 48H: 99 mg/l (bluegill 

sunfish), LC50 96H: 125 mg/l (mosquito fish), LC100 24H : 

180 mg/l (carp), Lethal 48H : 100 mg/l (water flea), Lethal 

48H: 700 mg/l (midge)

Product Ecotoxicity Data: Contact M-I Environmental Affairs Department for available product ecotoxicity data.

Biodegration: ND

Bioaccumulation: ND

Octanol/Water Partition 

Coefficient:

ND

13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

Waste Classification: ND

Waste Management: Under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act ( RCRA), it is the responsibility of the user to determine at the time of 

disposal, whether the product meets RCRA criteria for the hazardous waste. This is 

because product uses, transformations, mixtures, processes, etc., may render the 

resulting materials hazardous. Empty containers retain residues. All labeled 

precautions must be observed.

Disposal Method: Recover and reclaim or recycle, if practical. Should this product become a waste, 

dispose of in a permitted industrial landfill. Ensure that the containers are empty by 

the RCRA criteria prior to disposal in a permitted industrial landfill. 

14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION

 U.S. DOT Shipping Description: Not regulated for transportation by DOT, TDG, IMDG, 

ICAO/IATA.

 Canada TDG Shipping Description: Not regulated. 

 UN PIN No: Not regulated.

 IMDG Shipping Description: Not regulated. 
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Trade Name: WATER BASED MUD (GENERIC)

MSDS NO. 12153 Revision Date: 05/30/2006 Page 6/6 

 ICAO/IATA Shipping Description: Not regulated. 

15. REGULATORY INFORMATION

U.S. Federal and State Regulations 

SARA 311/312 Hazard Catagories:Immediate (acute) health hazard. Delayed (chronic) health hazard. 

SARA 302/304, 313; CERCLA RQ, 

California Proposition 65: 

Note: If no components are listed below, this product is not subject to the referenced 

SARA and CERCLA regulations and is not known to contain a Proposition 65 listed 

chemical at a level that is expected to pose a significant risk under anticipated use 

conditions.

Ingredient SARA 302 

/ TPQs

SARA 313 CERCLA 

RQ

CA 65 

Cancer

CA 65 

Dev. Tox.

CA 65 

Repro. F

CA 65 

Repro. M

Silica, crystalline, quartz --- --- --- X --- --- ---

Sodium hydroxide --- --- 1000 lb 

(454 kg)

--- --- --- ---

Silica, crystalline, Tridymite --- --- --- X --- --- ---

International Chemical Inventories 

Australia AICS - Components are listed or exempt from listing. 

 Canada DSL - Components are listed or exempt from listing. 

 China Inventory - Contains a component that is not listed.

 European Union EINECS - Contains a component(s) that is not listed.

 Japan METI ENCS - Contains a component that is not listed.

 Korea TCCL ECL - Contains a component that is not listed.

 Philippine PICCS - Contains a component that is not listed.

 U.S. TSCA - Components are listed or exempt from listing. 

 U.S. TSCA - No components are subject to TSCA 12(b) export notification requirements.

Canadian Classification:

Controlled Products Regulations Statement: This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the 

CPR and the MSDS contains all the information required by the CPR.

WHMIS Class: D2A D2B

16. OTHER INFORMATION

The following sections have been revised: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

NA - Not Applicable, ND - Not Determined. 

Disclaimer:

MSDS furnished independent of product sale. While every effort has been made to accurately describe this product, some of the data are obtained from 

sources beyond our direct supervision. We can not make any assertions as to its reliability or completeness; therefore, user may rely on it only at user ́s 

risk. We have made no effort to censor or conceal deleterious aspects of this product. Since we cannot anticipate or control the conditions under which 

this information and product may be used, we make no guartantee that the precautions we have suggested will be adequate for all individuals and/or 

situations. It is the obligation of each user of this product to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws regarding use and disposal of this 

product. Additional information will be furnished upon request to assist the user; however, no warranty, either expressed or implied, nor liability of any 

nature with respect to this product or to the data herein is made or incurred hereunder. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX H

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(2) Screening Questions

Screen Procedures for DOCD’s Yes No

Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (tons) associated with your 

proposed development activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the 

following formulas: CT = 3400D2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants 

(where D = distance to shore in miles)?

X

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified 

emission factors?

X

Does or will the facility complex associated with your proposed development and 

production activities process production from eight or more wells?

X

Do you expect to encounter H2S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X

Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas in excess or criteria set for the under 

250.1105(a)(2) and (3)?

X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

Are your proposed development and production activities located within 25 miles (40 

kilometers) from shore?

X

Are your proposed development and production activities located within 124 miles (200 

kilometers) of the Breton Wilderness Area?

X

There are no existing facilities or activities co-located with the currently proposed activities, 

therefore the Complex Total Emissions are the same as the Plan Emissions and are provided in 

the table below.

Air Pollutant

Plan 

Emission 

Amounts1

(tons)

Calculated 

Exemption 

Amounts2

(tons)

Calculated 

Complex Total 

Emission 

Amounts3

(tons)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 66.00 3030.30 66.00

Particular matter (PM) 302.87 3030.30 302.87

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 3020.99 3030.30 3020.99

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 78.0 3030.30 78.0

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 1142.10 68,787.02 1142.10

1

For activities proposed in your DOCD, list the projected emissions calculated from the worksheets.

2List the exemption amounts for your proposed activities calculated by using the formulas in 30 CFR 250.303(d).

3List the complex total emissions associated with your proposed activities calculated from the worksheets.

This information was calculated by: Cathy Thornton

(281) 578-3388

cathy.thornton@jccteam.com
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX I

OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

(A) OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.’s (MMS Operator Number 02899) Regional Oil Spill 

Response Plan (OSRP) was submitted in April, 2010 with the latest modification received on 

February 15, 2012 and the Regional OSRP was approved on February 16, 2012. The next 

Biennial Oil Spill Response Plan is due by April 30, 2012. The activities proposed in this 

DOCD will be covered by the Regional OSRP in accordance with 30 CFR 254. The WCD for 

this block was reviewed under Plan R-5300 on October 26, 2011. 

(B) SPILL RESPONSE SITES

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location

Houma, Louisiana Fourchon, Louisiana

(C) OSRO INFORMATION

ERT’s primary equipment provider is Clean Gulf Associates (CGA). The Marine Spill Response 

Corporation’s (MSRC) STARS network will provide closest available personnel, as well as an 

MSRC supervisor to operate the equipment. 

(D) WORST-CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

Category

Drilling Production

Regional 

OSRP

WCD

DOCD

WCD

Regional 

OSRP

WCD

DOCD

WCD

Type of Activity Drilling Drilling >10 mile 

Production

>10 mile 

Production

Facility Location 

(Area/Block) GC237 GC237 GC 282 GC237

Facility Designation SSWell No. 005 SSWell No. 005

SS Well No. 1 

(ST03BP01) SSWell No. 006

Distance to Nearest 

Shoreline (miles) 91 91 91 91

Volume

 Storage tanks & flowlines

 Lease term pipelines

 Uncontrolled blowout

Total Volume (bbls)

212,891

212,891

212,891

212,891

43,280

43,280

 325 

22,960 

23,285

Type of Oil(s)

(crude, condensate, diesel) Crude Crude Crude Crude

API Gravity 33° 33° 32° 33°
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-2

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

ERT has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this DOCD does 

not supersede the worst-case scenario from our approved regional OSRP (for far-shore drilling 

activities).

(E) SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Management Act analysis, the largest spill volume 

originating from the proposed activity would be a well blowout during drilling operations, 

estimated to be 212,891 barrels of crude oil with an API gravity of 33°.

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected 

utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and 

Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website. The results are shown in Figure 1. The 

BOEM OSRAM identifies a 7% probability of impact to the shorelines of Cameron Parish, 

Louisiana within 30 days. Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake. 

Cameron Parish also includes the area along the coastline from Sabine Pass to Big Constance 

Lake in Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge. This region is composed of open public beaches, 

marshlands and swamps. It serves as a habitat for numerous birds, finfish and other animals, 

including several rare, threatened and endangered species.

Response

ERT will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as practicable. 

A description of the response equipment under contract to contain and recover the Worst Case 

Discharge is shown in Figure 2.

Using the estimated chemical and physical characteristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering 

model was run on a similar product from the ADIOS oil database. The results indicate 18% or 

approximately 20,280 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with 

approximately 135,720 barrels remaining.

Spill Response GC 237, SS Well No. 005 Barrels of Oil 

WCD Volume 212,891

Less 18% natural evaporation/dispersion 38,320

Remaining volume 174,571

Daily dispersant capability 7,540

Oil addressed by in-situ burning 8,728

Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary 

storage equipment available to respond to a spill of 174,571 barrels. The volume accounts for the 

amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates individual times 

needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure 2 also indicates 

how operations will be supported. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-3

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

ERT’s Oil Spill Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants

and in-situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified Command based on size of the spill, 

weather and potential impacts. If aerial dispersants are utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from 

two of the DC-3 aircrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraft would provide a 

daily dispersant capability of 7,540 barrels. If the conditions are favorable for in-situ burning, the 

proper approvals have been obtained and the proper planning is in place, in-situ burning of oil 

may be attempted. Using estimates based on the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, up to 5% or 

approximately 6,786 barrels of the total daily Worst Case Discharge volume could be burned. 

Slick containment boom would be immediately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. 

Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing the HOSS barge, nine Fast 

Response Units, eleven sets of Koseq skimming arms, and two Aqua Guard Triton RBS 

skimmers, with a total derated skimming capacity of 318,609 barrels. Temporary storage 

associated with skimming equipment equals 31,700 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 

47,000 barrel storage barge, a 25,000 barrel storage barge, three 23,000 barrel storage barges, an 

80,000 barrel storage barge, and an 83,937 barrel storage barge may be mobilized and centrally 

located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as 

much as possible. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and 

operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming attempts. 

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Cameron Parish, Louisiana would depend upon 

existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the use of CGA’s near 

shore and shallow water skimmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity of 54,753 barrels. 

Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 1,761 barrels. If additional 

storage is needed, three 20,000 barrel storage barges may be mobilized and centrally located to 

provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as 

possible. Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or 

protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. A Letter of Intent from Oil Mop will ensure 

access to 30,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom. Figure 2 outlines individual times 

needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would be 

based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given 

actual sea and weather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for 

Cameron Parish and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that environmental and 

special economic resources would be correctly identified and prioritized to ensure optimal 

protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protection response modes applicable for oil 

spill clean-up operations. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan provides detailed 

shoreline protection strategies for this area, and it describes necessary action to keep the oil spill 

from entering Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, based on the assumption that removal of the released 

oil will be much easier and less damaging to fragile coastal ecosystems if done in the open 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment 

and operation of equipment allowing a more effective response to site-specific circumstances.

ERT’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill 

Response Plan.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-4

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, ERT can be onsite with contracted oil 

spill recovery equipment with adequate response capacity to contain and recover surface 

hydrocarbons, and prevent land impact, to the maximum extent practicable, within an estimated 

41 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)). ERT will 

continue to commit additional on-water mechanical recovery resources as well as apply 

dispersants and in-situ burning needed and as approved, under the supervision of the USCG 

Captain of the Port (COTP) and the Regional Response Team (RRT).

Initial Response Considerations

Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors to include but not 

be limited to:

 Weather

 Equipment and materials availability

 Ocean currents and tides

 Location of the spill 

 Product spilled 

 Amount spilled

 Environmental risk assessments 

 Trajectory and product analysis

 Well status, i.e., shut in or continual release

ERT will take action to provide a safe, aggressive response to contain and recover as much of the 

spilled oil as quickly as it is safe to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response 

actions will be designed to provide an “in-depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much 

oil as possible as far from environmentally sensitive areas as possible. Safety will take 

precedence over all other considerations during these operations. 

Upon notification of a spill, the following actions will be taken:

 Information will be confirmed

 An assessment will be made and initial objectives set

 OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified 

 ICS 201, Initial Report Form completed 

 Initial Safety plan will be written and published

 Unified Command will be established

o Overall safety plan developed to reflect the operational situation and coordinated 

objectives

o Areas of responsibility established for Source Control and each surface operational 

site

o On-site command and control established
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-5

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment

Surveillance

 Surveillance Aircraft: within two hours of QI notification, or at first light

 Provide trained observer to provide on site status reports

 Provide command and control platform at the site if needed

 Continual surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography 

and visual confirmation 

 Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems 

Dispersant application assets

 Put ASI on standby

 With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determine appropriateness of dispersant application

 Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface

 Deploy aircraft in accordance with a plan developed for the actual situation

 Coordinate movement of dispersants, aircraft, and support equipment and personnel

 Confirm dispersant availability for current and long range operations

 Start ordering dispersant stocks required for expected operations 

Containment boom

 Call out early and expedite deployment to be on scene ASAP

 Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom

 Provide continuing reports to vessels to expedite their arrival at sites that will provide for 

their most effective containment 

 Use Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) to deploy and maintain boom 

Dedicated off-shore skimming systems

General

 Deployed to the highest concentration of oil

 Assets deployed at safe distance from aerial dispersant and in-situ burn operations

CGA HOSS Barge

 Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

 Consider for use in areas of known debris (seaweed, and other floating materials)

CGA FRUs

 To the area of the thickest oil

 Use as far off-shore as allowed

T&T Koseq Skimming Systems

 To the area of the thickest oil

 Use as far off-shore as allowed
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-6

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

 VOOs with a minimum of 2,000 bbls storage capacity

Storage Vessels

 Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

 Early call out (to allow for tug boat acquisition and deployment speeds)

 Phase mobilization to allow storage vessels to arrive at the same time as skimming 

systems

 Position as closely as possible to skimming assets to minimize offloading time

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)

 Use ERT’s contracted resources as applicable

 Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming 

Systems (VOSS)

 Acquire additional resources as needed 

 Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft

 Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

 Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

In-situ Burn assets

 Determine appropriateness of in-situ burn operation in coordination with the FOSC and 

affected SOSC

 Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

 Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

 Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

 Determine assets to perform on water operation

 Build operations into safety plan

 Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-7

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

 Put near shore assets on standby and deployment in accordance with planning based on 

the actual situation, actual trajectories and oil budgets

 VOO identification and training in advance of spill nearing shoreline if possible

 Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

 Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil 

Considerations

 Water depth, vessel draft

 Shoreline gradient

 State of the oil 

 Use of VOOs

 Distance of surf zone from shoreline 

Equipment Deployment

Surveillance

 Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

 Continual surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography 

and visual confirmation 

 Continual monitoring of vessel assets 

Dispersant Use

 Generally will not be approved within 3 miles of shore or with less than 10 meters of 

water depth 

 Approval would be at Regional Response Team level (Region 6) 

Vessel Deployment

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

 FRVs 

 Egmopol and Marco SWS 

 Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

 Use ERT’s contracted resources as applicable

 Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming 

Systems (VOSS)

 Acquire additional resources as needed 

 Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft

 Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

 Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

 Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-8

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Shoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations

 Environmental risk assessments (ERA) to determine priorities for area protection

 Time to acquire personnel and equipment and their availability

 Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate Area Contingency Plan, and 

currently for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep 

Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

Actions

Placement of boom

 Position boom in accordance with the ERA based on the actual situation or the 

appropriate ACP 

 Assess timing of booming operations to ensure it is where it needs to be at time of 

impact. Consider:

o Trajectories

o Weather forecast

o Oil Impact forecast

o Verified spill movement

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability

o Near shore boom and support material, (stakes, anchors, line)

Beach Preparation

Considerations and Actions

 Use of a 10 mile go/no go line to determine timing of beach cleaning

 Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

 Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter 

 Monitoring of tide tables and weather to determine extent of high tides

 Pre cleaning of beaches by moving waste above high time lines to minimize waste

 Staging of equipment and housing of response personnel as close to the job site as 

possible to maximize on-site work time

 Boom tending, repair, replacement and security (use of local assets may be advantageous) 

 Constant awareness of weather and oil movement for resource redeployment as necessary 

 In-situ burn may be considered when marshes have been impacted 

 Passive clean up of marshes should considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom 

and/or sweep obtained

 Earthen berms and shoreline protection boom may be considered to protect sensitive 

inland areas 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-9

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Decanting Strategy

Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a 

quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or 

decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases 

the effective on-site oil storage capacity and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval 

will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill 

recovery.

CGA Equipment Limitations

The capability for any spill response equipment, whether a dedicated or portable system, to 

operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in relation to the capabilities of the vessel 

the system in placed on. Most importantly, however, the decision to operate will be based on the 

judgment of the Unified Command and/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the 

final say in terminating operations. Skimming equipment listed below may have operational 

limits which exceed those safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil 

spill response, vessel skimming operations ceased when seas reached 5-6 feet and vessels were 

often recalled to port when those conditions were exceeded. Systems below are some of the 

most up-to-date systems available and were employed during the DWH spill. 

Boom 3 foot seas, 20 knot winds

Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots

Visibility less than 3 nautical miles

Ceiling less than 1,000 feet.

FRU 8 foot seas

HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas

Koseq Arms 8 foot seas

OSRV 4 foot seas
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-10

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

\

Environmental Conditions in the GOM

Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences 

westerly winds during the winter and easterly winds in the summer. Average wind speed is 

generally 14-15 mph along the coast. Wave heights average 4 and 5 feet. However, during 

hurricane season, Louisiana has recorded wave heights ranging from 40 to 50 feet high and 

winds reaching speeds of 100 mph. Because much of southern Louisiana lies below sea level, 

flooding is prominent. 

Surface water temperature ranges between 70 and 80 ̊F during the summer months. During the 

winter, the average temperature will range from 50 and 60 ̊F. 

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 November. 

97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The Atlantic basin shows a very peaked 

season from August through October, with 78% of the tropical storm days, 87% of the minor 

(Saffir-Simpson Scale categories 1 and 2) hurricane days, and 96% of the major (Saffir-Simpson 

categories 3, 4 and 5) hurricane days occurring then. Maximum activity is in early to mid 

September. Once in a few years there may be a hurricane occurring "out of season" - primarily in

May or December. Globally, September is the most active month and May is the least active n

month.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-11

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

FIGURE 1

TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected 

utilizing ERT’s WCD and information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model 

(OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website 

using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS-G

Launch

Area

Land Segment and/or 

Resource

Conditional 

Probability (%) 

within 30 days

Green Canyon 237, 

SS Well No. 005

91 miles from shore

G15563 C43 Matagorda County, TX

Brazoria County, TX

Galveston County, TX

Jefferson County, TX

Cameron Parish, LA

Vermilion Parish, LA

Iberia Parish, LA

Terrebonne Parish, LA

Lafourche Parish, LA

Plaquemines Parish, LA

2

1

3

2

7

3

1

3

1

2
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-13

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (91 miles from shore)

174,571 bbls of crude oil (volume considering natural weathering)

API Gravity 33° FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to GC 237, SS Well No. 005

Dispersants/Surveillance

Dispersant/Surveillance Dispersant 

Capacity (gal)

Storage 

Capacity

Persons 

Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout

Travel to 

site Total Hrs

CGA

Basler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.7 2.7

ASI

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.7 2.7

Offshore Response

Offshore Equipment 

No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Hrs to 

GOM

Travel to 

Spill Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 8 Harvey 7 0 5 11.3 1 24.3

T&T Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

Koseq Skimming Arms (3) 53487 6000 3 Utility 18 Leeville 4 12 2 9.2 2 29.2

Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Venice 4 12 2 10.8 2 30.8

Koseq Skimming Arms (1) 17829 2000 1 Utility 6 Fourchon 4 12 2 9.2 2 29.2

Koseq Skimming Arms (5) 89145 10000 5 Utility 30 Galveston 4 12 2 20.8 2 40.8

Recovered Oil Storage 

No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Hrs to 

GOM

Travel to 

Spill Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

K-Sea Operating (available through contract with CGA)

PACIFIC 996165 NA 80000 1 Tug 6 Houma 4 12 4 11.25 1 32.25

DBL 76 1212984 NA 83937 1 Tug 6 Houma 4 12 4 11.25 1 32.25
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-14

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-15

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Staging Area: Fourchon

Offshore Equipment With 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Belle Chasse 1 2 2.5 9.2 1 15.7

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 7 9.2 1 20.2

FRU (3) + 100 bbl Tank (5) 11310 500 1 Utility 6 Houma 1 2 1 9.2 1 14.2

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 9.2 1 22.7

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 7540 400 1 Utility 6 Venice 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

T&T Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston 4 12 7 9.2 2 34.2

Offshore Equipment With 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Belle Chasse 1 2 2.5 9.2 1 15.7

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Galveston 1 2 7 9.2 1 20.2

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Houma 1 2 1 9.2 1 14.2

42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 9.2 1 22.7

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Lake Charles 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Pascagoula 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

1000’ Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 20 Harvey 1 4 2.5 9.2 6 22.7
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-16

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Nearshore Response

Nearshore Equipment No 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Hrs to 

GOM

Travel to 

Spill Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Galveston 1 0 0 3.2 0 4.2

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Houma 1 0 2 6 0 9

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 1 0 1 2 0 4

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 9 0 11

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 1 2 2 4.4 1 10.4

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

Staging Area: Cameron

Nearshore and Inland 

Skimmers With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Load 

Out

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Deployment 

Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6

Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 2 0 9.5

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Venice 1 2 6.5 2 0 11.5
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-17

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Staging Area: Cameron Shoreline Protection

Shoreline 

Protection Boom VOO Persons Req. 

Storage/Warehouse

Location

Hrs to 

Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Deployment Site

Hrs to 

Deploy Total Hrs

Oil Mop (available through Letter of Intent)

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 1 2 3 8

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 4 2 3 11

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 3 2 3 10

Beach Boom EDRC Storage 

Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Deployment 

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5

Beach Boom (1000’) NA NA NA 4 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12

Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5

Wildlife Response EDRC Storage 

Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Loadout

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Deployment 

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

Wildlife Support Trailer NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 1 2 10.5

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 1 1 2 7

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5

Response Asset Total

Offshore EDRC 318,609

Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 336,637

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 54,753

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 61,761
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page J-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX J

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(A) MONITORING SYSTEMS

There are no environmental monitoring systems currently in place or planned for the proposed 

activities.

(B) INCIDENTAL TAKES

There is no reason to believe that any of the endangered species or marine mammals as listed in 

the ESA will be “taken” as a result of the operations proposed under this plan. 

To date, it has been documented that the use of explosives and/or seismic devices can affect 

marine life. Operations proposed in this plan will not be utilizing either of these devices.

(C) FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Green Canyon Block 237 is not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; 

therefore, the requested information is not required in this DOCD.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page K-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX K

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

The BOEM did not invoke lease stipulations for Lease OCS-G 15563. Green Canyon Block 237.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page L-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX L

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

(A) MITIGATION MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO MARINE AND 

COASTAL ENVIRONMENT 

Not applicable for the operations proposed in this Plan. 

(B) INCIDENTAL TAKES

ERT will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to 

avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the ESA as a result of the operations 

conducted herein:

 NTL 2007-G04, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting

 NTL 2007-G03, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

 NTL 2007-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program”
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page M-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX M

RELATED FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION

(A) RELATED OCS FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Full well stream production from the subject subsea well will flow to the existing Green Canyon 

Block 237 HP1 FPU platform via proposed 4-inch lease term pipelines totaling approximately 

2100 feet in length. The maximum flow rate is approximately 6000 BOPD. 

(B) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The measured gas production will depart the Green Canyon Block 237 HP1 platform via the 

existing 08-12 pipeline (Segment No. 16124) to a subsea tie-in point on the Enterprise-operated 

18-20-inch pipeline (Segment No. 12749) to the Ship Shoal Block 207 DWPF platform into the 

Manta Ray/Nautilus/Anacondo System (Operations System No. H00). 

The liquid hydrocarbons from the Green Canyon Block 237 HP1 platform will be transported to 

the Shell-operated Green Canyon Block 19 A Boxer platform via the proposed 8-inch oil 

pipeline (Segment No. 16123) where it will enter into the Phoenix Field dedicated LACT unit 

meter skid and be measured, for sales and royalty purposes. The measured liquid hydrocarbons 

will depart the Green Canyon Block 19 A Boxer platform via the existing 12-inch, 16-inch or 20-

inch pipelines (Segment Nos. 11472, 7867 or 10610, respectively) for ultimate delivery to shore 

via Operations System No. 29.5 and/or Operations System No. 36.5. 

No new nearshore or onshore pipelines or facilities will be constructed.

(C) PRODUCED LIQUID HYDROCARBONS TRANSPORTATION VESSELS

There will not be any transfers of liquid hydrocarbons other than via pipeline.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page N-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX N

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

(A) GENERAL

Type Maximum Fuel 

Tank Capacity

Maximum 

Number in Area at 

Any Time

Trip 

Frequency or 

Duration

Tug Boats 100,000 gallons 3 2 trips/wk

Anchor Handling Boat NA NA NA

Crew Boat 27,000 gallons 1 Daily

Supply Boat 159,000 gallons 1 Daily

Helicopter 380 gallons 1 Daily

The most practical, direct route from the shorebase as permitted by weather and traffic 

conditions will be utilized.

(B) DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

Diesel oil supply vessels information is not required by BOEMRE to be included in this plan. 

(C) DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION

Drilling fluid transportation information is not required by BOEMRE to be included in this plan. 

(D) SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION

Solid and liquid waste transportation information is not required by BOEMRE to be included in 

this plan. 

(E) VICINITY MAP

Enclosed as Attachment N-1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the activities proposed 

herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of the proposed activities from the shoreline and 

the primary route(s) of the support vessels and aircraft that will be used when traveling between 

the onshore support facilities and the Green Canyon Block 237 SSWell No. 006. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX O

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

(A) GENERAL

Name Location Existing/New/Modified

Halliburton Dock Fourchon, LA Existing

(B) SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION

There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing 

shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this DOCD.

(C) SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing 

shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this DOCD.

(D) WASTE DISPOSAL
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX P

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana. A certificate of 

Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is enclosed as Attachment P-1. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX Q

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) 

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

Resources

Impact Producing Factors (IPFs)

Categories and Examples

Refer to recent GOM OCS Lease Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs

Emissions 

(air, noise, 

light, etc.)

Effluents 

(muds, 

cutting, other 

discharges to 

the water 

column or 

seafloor)

Physical 

disturbances to the 

seafloor (rig or 

anchor 

emplacements, 

etc.)

Wastes sent 

to shore for 

treatment 

or disposal

Accidents 

(e.g., oil 

spills, 

chemical 

spills, H2S 

releases)

Discarded

Trash &

Debris

Site-specific at Offshore 

Location

Designated topographic features (1) (1) (1)

Pinnacle Trend area live bottoms (2) (2) (2)

Eastern Gulf live bottoms (3) (3) (3)

Benthic communities (4)

Water quality X X

Fisheries X X

Marine Mammals X(8) X X(8) X

Sea Turtles X(8) X X(8) X

Air quality X(9)

Shipwreck sites (known or 

potential)

(7)

Prehistoric archaeological sites (7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X X(6)

Marine and pelagic birds X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(6) X

Wetlands X(6)

Shore birds and coastal nesting 

birds

X6)

Coastal wildlife refuges

Wilderness areas

Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well or platform site or any 

anchors will be on the seafloor within the:
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-2

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

o 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3-mile zone of Stetson Bank;

o 1000-m, 1-mile or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic 

Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease;

o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft. from any no-activity zone; or

o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the 

Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) 

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low-Relief) 

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater.

5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered.

6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine 

would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that 

no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two.

7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the 

BOEM as having high-probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will 

be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are 

located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in 

a sentence or two.

8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or sea 

turtles or their critical habitats.

9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

(B) ANALYSIS

Site-Specific at Green Canyon Block 237

Proposed operations consist of the drilling, completion, and production of Subsea Well No.006.

The operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned semisubmersible.

1. Designated Topographic Features

Potential IPFs on topographic features include effluents, and accidents. 

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 237 is 164 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features 

Stipulation Block (Ewing-1 Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed 

activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic organisms 

only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; 

measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only 

at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on corals. 

Because the crests of topographic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found below 10 m, no 

oil from a surface spill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due 

to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. The activities proposed in this plan will be 

covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-3

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for disposal) from the proposed activities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include effluents and accidents. 

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 237 is 189 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; 

therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed 

activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills have the potential to foul benthic 

communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oil from a surface spill 

can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m 

depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the 

amount shown to have an effect on marine organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due 

to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. The activities proposed in this 

plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. 

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 237 is not located in an area characterized by the existence of live 

bottoms; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed 

activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to live bottom 

organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water 

column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is 

found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an 

effect on marine invertebrates. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these 

blocks from a live bottom area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional 

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live bottom area. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-4

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

4. Benthic Communities 

There are no IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for 

disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to benthic communities.

A Dynamically Positioned Semisubmersible is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only 

an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor 

will be minimized by the use of a Dynamically Positioned Semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed 

operations in Green Canyon Block 237 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.

5. Water Quality

IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Green Canyon 

Block 237 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, 

discharge-rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES 

permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges 

are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offshore water quality; however, it is unlikely that an 

accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities. Between 1980 and 

2000, OCS operations produced 4.7 billion barrels of oil and spilled only 0.001 percent of this oil, or 1 

bbl for every 81,000 bbl produced. The spill risk related to a diesel spill from drilling operations is 

even less. Between 1976 and 1985, (years for which data were collected), there were 80 reported 

diesel spills greater than one barrel associated with drilling activities. Considering that there were 

11,944 wells drilled, this is a 0.7 percent probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occur, the 

water quality of marine waters would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small 

oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water 

column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality 

from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to several months afterwards. 

Most of the components of oil are insoluble in water and therefore float. The activities proposed in this 

plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in 

Appendix I).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and wastes sent to 

shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries

IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon 

Block 237 include effluents and accidents. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-5

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components and properties 

which are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum and metal contamination of sediments 

and the water column can occur out to several hundred meters down-current from the discharge point. 

Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water 

column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have negligible 

effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on fisheries; 

however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the 

extent of damage would be reduced to the capacity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the spill, to 

metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. The activities 

proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in 

Appendix I). 

There are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for 

disposal from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to fisheries.

7. Marine Mammals

GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf-edge were almost 

exclusively bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Squid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy 

killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, and Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most 

frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to 

marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 237 include emissions, 

effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. 

Emissions: Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction 

from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to disruption of marine mammals’ normal activities. 

Stress may make them more vulnerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, and/or 

predation (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long-term displacements 

and population trends for marine mammals relative to noise.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components which may be detrimental to 

marine mammals. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential 

impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly 

through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989). 

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of debris have caused the death or 

serious injury of marine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The limited amount of marine debris, if 

any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. 

Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-6

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies 

including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items 

by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions 

such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be 

exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those 

made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation 

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however 

should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid 

marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine mammals and 

maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help 

identify the twenty-eight species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be 

encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead 

protected marine mammal species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by 

their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404-3922, the NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312, or the Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (305) 862-

2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM 

must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@boemre.gov. If the vessel 

is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding 

network as needed. 

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil-related injuries and spill-related deaths to marine 

mammals. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities 

(refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, 

which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress 

to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil 

dispersant chemicals included in ERT’s OSRP is considered to be low when compared with the 

constituents and fractions of crude oils and diesel products. The activities proposed in this plan will be 

covered by ERT’s OSRP (refer to information submitted in accordance with Appendix I).
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-7

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities 

which could impact marine mammals.

8. Sea Turtles

IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, 

effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. GulfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles over shelf waters. Historically these species have been 

sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than 

they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all 

species as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activities, support vessels, and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction 

from sea turtles, but this is a temporary disturbance.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not known to be lethal to sea turtles. Most 

operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling 

fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the 

food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of, debris have caused the death or 

serious injury of sea turtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from 

the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from 

deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution 

Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in 

accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining 

waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as 

covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised 

when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation 

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-8

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and sea turtles would be unusual events, however 

should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid sea 

turtles and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a 

safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the 

five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must 

report sightings of any injured or dead protected sea turtle species immediately, regardless of whether 

the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline 

at (888) 404-3922, the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312, or the Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network at (305) 862-2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with 

a contract vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to 

protectedspecies@boemre.gov. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available 

to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed. 

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerable to the harmful effects of oil through direct 

contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fatal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. 

However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to 

Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could 

add to the possibility of collisions with sea turtles. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered 

by ERT’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with 

Appendix I).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities 

which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality

The projected air emissions identified in Appendix H are not expected to affect the OCS air quality 

primarily due to distance to the shore or to any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I air 

quality area such as the Breton Wilderness Area. Green Canyon Block 237 is beyond the 200 

kilometer (124 mile) buffer for the Breton Wilderness Area and is 91 miles from the coastline. 

Therefore, no special mitigation, monitoring, or reporting requirements apply with respect to air 

emissions. 

Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air 

pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing 

atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Green Canyon Block 237 

from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, 

wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact air 

quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)

Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed 

operations in Green Canyon Block 237 include disturbances to the seafloor.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-9

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A Dynamically Positioned Semisubmersible is being used for 

the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because 

physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a Dynamically Positioned 

Semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 237 would not cause impacts to 

shipwreck sites.

Additionally, Green Canyon Block 237 is not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by 

BOEM as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks, therefore, no adverse impacts are 

expected.

ERT will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar 

within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of 

operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by ERT to be 

clear of seafloor archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications 

and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be 

encountered, ERT will contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve 

and protect that cultural resource.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, 

or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed 

operations in Green Canyon Block 237 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A Dynamically Positioned Semisubmersible is being used for 

the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because 

physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a Dynamically Positioned 

Semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 237 would not cause impacts to 

prehistoric archaeological sites.

ERT will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar 

within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of 

operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by ERT to be 

clear of seafloor archaeological resources. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the 

survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, ERT will contact the 

BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-10

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Additionally, Green Canyon Block 237 is located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high 

probability line, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, 

or accidents) from the proposed activities which could impact prehistoric archeological sites.

Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 

237 include effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, 

and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on livebottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling 

muds and cuttings and produced-water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions, and monitoring and 

toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant 

biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse 

impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil 

spills that contact coastal bays and estuaries, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs and larvae are 

present, have the greatest potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would 

occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan 

will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact essential fish habitat.

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds 

IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, 

accidental oil spills, and discarded trash and debris from vessels and the facilities.

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are far below 

concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-11

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Accidents: An oil spill would cause localized, low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. 

However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feeding at the spill location may experience chronic, 

nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected that few, if any, coastal and marine birds would actually 

be affected to that extent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional 

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I).

Discarded trash and debris: Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared in 

discarded trash and debris, or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and 

death. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex 

V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various 

agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid 

waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special 

precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special 

caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, 

particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or 

glass. Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food 

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from ERT management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. Debris, if any, from these 

proposed activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be 

negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact marine and pelagic 

birds.

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents.

There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for 

treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H2S release) from the proposed activities 

which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G04, 

2009-G27, and 2009-G31, sufficient information is included in Appendix D to justify our request that 

our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H2S absent. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-12

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Coastal and Onshore

1. Beaches

IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to beaches include accidents (oil spills) and 

discarded trash and debris. 

Accidents: Oil spills contacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreational beaches and 

associated resources. Due to the distance from shore (91 miles) and the response capabilities that 

would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this 

plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the enjoyment and 

use of beaches. There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the 

proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by 

MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations 

imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid 

accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to 

shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of 

solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and 

packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent 

materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation 

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands

IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to wetlands include accidents (oil spills) and 

discarded trash and debris. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-13

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Accidents: It is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (91 miles) and the response capabilities that would be 

implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s 

Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 

Discarded trash and debris: There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting 

from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and 

regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and also 

avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash 

sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental 

loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and 

packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent 

materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation 

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact wetlands.

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds

Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds. However, it is 

unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). 

Given the distance from shore (91 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no 

impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP 

(refer to information submitted in Appendix I). 

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and marine birds are highly susceptible to entanglement in 

floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics. Operators are prohibited from 

deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution 

Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in 

accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining 

waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-14

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised 

when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food 

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from ERT management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shore birds 

and coastal nesting birds.

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to coastal wildlife 

refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 

5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (91 miles) and the response capabilities that would 

be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by 

ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix I).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and 

regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and 

also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent 

accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small 

items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally 

persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food 

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from ERT management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-15

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to coastal 

wildlife refuges.

5. Wilderness Areas

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness 

areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated Wilderness Area (164 miles) and the 

response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The 

activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information 

submitted in Appendix I).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and 

regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT will operate in accordance with the regulations and 

also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent 

accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small 

items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally 

persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food 

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from ERT management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to wilderness 

areas.

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified

There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment.

(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The site–specific environmental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed activities. 

No impacts are expected on the proposed activities from site-specific environmental conditions.
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-16

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

During the hurricane season, June through November, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of 

ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which six become hurricanes ( > 74 mph winds). Due to its 

location in the gulf, Green Canyon Block 237 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force 

winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations 

covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, 

damage exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including 

hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and 

pose a threat to local species.

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these 

impacts:

1. Drilling & completion

a. Secure well

b. Secure rig / platform

c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09, 2009-G10, and 2010-

N10.

2. Platform / Strucure Installation

Operator will not conduct platform / structure installation operations during Tropical 

Storm or Hurricane threat.

3. Pipeline Installation

Operator will not conduct pipeline installation operations during Tropical Storm or 

Hurricane threat.

(E) ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impacts.

(F) MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation will be employed to avoid, diminish, or 

eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources. 

(G) CONSULTATION

No agencies or persons were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed 

activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided. 
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-17

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

(H) PREPARER(S)

Evan Connolly

J. Connor Consulting, Inc.

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700

Houston, TX 77084

(281) 578-3388

Evan.connolly@jccteam.com

(I) REFERENCES

Authors: 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water 

marine mammals: a literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, 

R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-

29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429.

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benefits from regulatory consideration of synthetic drilling 

muds. Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-43.

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluid contaminated cuttings in 

waters of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, 

June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLM-YK-ES-81-

006-1792.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. 

Rogers, eds. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 

99-139.

Majors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed 

to seal bombs in the eastern tropical Pacific purse-seine fishery–an annotated bibliography. NOAA 

Administrative Report LJ-90-06.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. Annual report to Congress – 1998.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact 

of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387-397
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page Q-18

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk-Hentzelt. 1989. Losses of seabirds by oil pollution 

at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros, J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2-

3): 749-754.

Vermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian 

Field-Naturalist. 89:278-298.

Although not cited, the following were utilized in preparing this EIA:

 Hazard Surveys

 BOEM EIS’s:

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environmental Assessment. BOEM 2000-001 

GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

BOEM
Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page R-1

Supplemental DOCD April 1, 2012

Green Canyon Block 237 (OCS-G 15563)

APPENDIX R

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(A) EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION

The proposed bottom-hole locations of the planned well(s) have been removed from the public information 

copy of the DOCD as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and any 

interpreted geology.

(B) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Not applicable.