UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - S-07724

Type - Supplemental Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G08484 Block - 84 Mississippi Canyon Area OCS-G08797 Block - 85 Mississippi Canyon Area OCS-G10977 Block - 129 Mississippi Canyon Area

Operator - Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

Drill,complete,test,flare and install subsea wells C,D,E,F,G

Not Found

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.

Tommy Hoke

Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: March 3, 2015Record of Changes-PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY S-7724, Exploration Plan, Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, (OCS-G 08484 / 08797 / 10977, Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 / 129)

Date Section Page Remarks
12/16/2014 All All Plan received by BOEM
12/29/2014 1 p. 2 Storage tank table line 7 total capacity amended to 640.4 bbl.

1/6/2015 1 p. 2 Storage tank table line 6 total capacity amended to 890.6 BBLS.
1/6/2015 6 Attachment 6-A Water-based drilling fluid amended to 50,000 BBLS/WELL at discharge rate of 7,143
BBLS/DAY.
1/6/2015 12 Attachment 12-A Synthetic-based drilling fluid amended to 24,500 BLS/SWELL transported in tanks in

support vessels to MI-Swaco in Fourchon, LA and Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based
fluid amended to 1,700 BBLS/WELL transported in cuttings boxes on supply boat to

Newpark Environmental Services in Fourchon, LA.
1/14/2015 1 p. 1 Amended Plan Information section to use of "two dynamically positioned drillships, both
similar to Transocean Deepwater Champion".
1/14/2015 7 Attachment 7-A Amended to show horsepower for two drillships.
2/19/2015 1 p. 1 Plan Information amended to two drillships, both similar to Noble Sam Croft.
2/19/2015 1 Attachment 1-A Drilling Rig Names amended to two drillships, both similar to Noble Sam Croft.
2/19/2015 7 Attachment 7-A Amended to two drillships, both similar to Noble Sam Croft with Noble Sam Croft actual
horsepower and highest monthly average fuel use (including transit from Korea to GOM).
Noble Sam Croft and sister ship, Noble Tom Madden, both under contract 2015-2020 by

FM O&G.

### P UBLIC INFORMATION COPY

December 15 , 2014



## SUPPLEMENTAL UNIT

EXPLORATION PLAN

Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129
OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 Mississippi Canyon Block 84 Unit (Unit Agreement # 754396002 ) King Prospect
Affected State: Alabama

Est imated Startup Date: September 24, 2015

SUBMITTED BY : Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC 400 E. Kaliste Saloom, Suite 1100 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508

Paul Landry Office: (337) 354

- 5065 Mobile: (337) 349

- 7781

AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE:

Jean Martin
J. Conn or Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77084 (281) 698

- 8544 jean.martin@jccteam.comTOC Pg 1 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ . 1

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

1.2 LOCATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

................................ .................. 1

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS

................................ ......................... 2

1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES

................................ ................................ ........ 2

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

................................ ................................ .................... 4

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS

................................ ................................ ...................... 4

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

................................ ................................ ............... 4

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4

2.5 OIL SPIL L FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)

................................ .......................... 4

2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT

................................ ................................ 4

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS

................. 5

SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

................................ .......... 8

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

................................ ................................ ......................... 8

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS

................................ ................................ ...................... 8

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS

................................ .......................... 8

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

................................ ................................ ...................... 8

3.6 SH ALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENTS

................................ ................................ ........... 8

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

................................ ................................ ............. 8

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

................................ ................................ ............................ 8

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLE

................................ ................................ ........................ 8

SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

................................ ................................ 9

4.1 CONCENTRATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9

4.2 CLASSIFICATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9TOC Pg 2 of 3 4.3 H2S CONTINGENCY PLAN

................................ ................................ ............................. 9

4.4 MODELING REPORT

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9

SECTION 5 BIO LOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

................. 10

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES

................................ ................................ ....... 10

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS)

................................ ................................ ........... 10

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)

................................ .............. 10

5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES)

................................ ........................ 10

5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF)

................................ ................................ ..................... 10

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP

................................ .......... 10

5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS

................................ ................... 10

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE

MAMMAL INFORMATION

................................ ................................ .............................. 11

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

................................ ................................ ........................ 12

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

................................ ................................ 12

SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

................................ ................... 13

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES

................................ ................................ ............ 13

6.2 MODELING REPORT

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13

SECTION 7 AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ........ 14

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

................................ ...... 14

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ............................ 14

SECTION 8 OIL SPILL INFORMATION

................................ ................................ .................. 15

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

................................ ................................ ................ 15

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES

................................ ................................ ............................... 15

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

................................ ............................... 15

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

................................ ................................ ............ 16

8.6 MODELING REPORT

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16

SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

................................ ............ 17

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS

................................ ................................ ............................... 17

9.2 INCIDE NTAL TAKES

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17

9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

................................ .... 17

SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

................................ .......................... 18

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA)

................................ ................................ ............. 18TOC Pg 3 of 3 10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES

................................ ................................ ................. 18

10.3 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

................................ ................ 19

SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES IN FORMATION

....................... 20

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS

...................... 20

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20

SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

................................ ... 21

12.1 GENERAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 21

2.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

................................ ................................ ..................... 21

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION

................................ ................................ ......... 21

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION

................................ ....................... 21

12.5 VICINITY MAP

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21

SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

................................ ......... 22

13.1 GENERAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 22

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CO NSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION

................................ ................. 22

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

............................. 22

13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22

SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

..................... 23

SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ........................... 25

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ... 26

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION

................................ ................................ 26

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 26Attachments Pg 1 of 1 SECTION ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Plan Contents

1

- A OCS Plan Information Form

1

- B Well Location Plat

1

- C Bathymetry Map

1

- E Pay.gov Receipt
Section 3 Geological, Geophysical Information

3

- D Shallow Hazard Assessment

Section 5 Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

5

- A Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas Map

Section 6 Wastes and Discharges Information

6

- A Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to
the GOM
Section 7 Air Emissions Information

7

- A Emissions Worksheets
Section 8 Oil Spill Information

8

- A Oil Spill Response Discussion

Section 12 Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

12

- A Waste You Will Transport and/or Dispose Onshore

12

- B Vicinity Map
Section 14 Coastal Zone Management Act Information

14

- A Coastal Zone Consistency Certificat ion , Alabama
Section 15 Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

15

- A Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 1 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 1

PLAN CONTENTS

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION The drilling of four wells in Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 127 and 129 was approved in Initial EP (Control No. N

- 4208) on January 24, 1992. The drilling of one well in Mississippi Canyon Block 84 was approved in Supplemental EP (Control No. S

- 3630) on May 31, 1995. The drilling, completion and installation of subsea trees for two wells was approved in Supplemental EP (Control No. S

- 7638) on June 11, 2014. Three exploratory wells have been drilled. Two were plugged and abandoned and one was completed and is producing. Currently, Well Location B, provided for in EP (Control No. S

- 7638)

, is being drilled.

Mississippi Canyon Block 84 Unit (Kin g), Unit Agreement No. 754396002, was amended on April 1, 2003 to include portions of Mississippi Canyon Block 84 (OCS

- G 08484), Mississippi Canyon Block 85 (OCS

- G 08797) and Mississippi Canyon Block 129 (OCS

- G 10977). All three
King Unit blocks have been placed on continuous production. On November 29, 2013, Freeport

McMoran Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G), Operator No. 03280, was designated Operator of Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129.

Under this Supplemental EP, FM O&G proposes to drill, complete, test, flare and install subsea

wellheads for five additional well locations in 5,365 feet o f water in Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 (OCS

- G Leases 08484, 08 797 and 10977) using two dynamically positioned
drillship s, both similar to the N oble Sam Croft

, with a subsea BOP.

The OCS Plan Information Form BOEM

- 137 is included as Attachment 1

- A

.

1.2 LOCATION

A Well Location Plat depicting the proposed surface and bo ttom hole location s of the proposed

well s , measured depth/t rue vertical depth and water depth for each location is included as

Attachment 1

- B

.

No anchors are associated with the proposed activities in this plan.

A Bathymetry Map depicting the proposed surface locations and water depth of each proposed

well is included as Attachment 1

- C

.

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

FM O&G proposes to drill the well s with a dynamically positioned drillship which is equipped

with a Subsea BOP . Once a rig is determined , BOP information and schematics will be
included as a part of the Application for Permit to Drill.

The rig will be equipped with safety and fire

- fighting equipment required to comply with United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations. Appropriate life saving equipment such as life rafts, life
jackets, ring buoys, etc. as prescribed by the USCG, will be maintained on the rig at all times.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 2 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) Safety features on the drilling unit will include well control, pollution prevention, and blowout prevention equipment as described in BSEE regulations 30 CFR 250 C, D, E, O, Q and S; and as further clarified by BSEE Notices to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the BSEE, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

.

Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. Compliance will be maintained with the EPA NPDES Permit. The rig will be monitored daily and any waste or fuel resulting in pollution of the Gulf waters will be reported to the representative i n charge for immediate isolation and correction of the problem. Any spill will be reported to the appropriate governmental agencies.

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS
The table below provides storage tanks with capacity of 25 barrels or more that w ill store fuels

, oil and lubricants.

Type of Storage Tank Type of Facility Tank Capacit y (bbl ) Number
of Tanks Total Capacity ( bbl ) Fluid Gravity

(API)

Fuel oil DPDS 4,135.6 2 8,271.2 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 9,340.4 2 18,680.8 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 9,048.5 1 9,048.5 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 9,043.5 1 9,043.5 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 445.3 2 89 0.6 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 320.2 2 640. 4 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 359.8 1 359.8 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 435.3 1 435.3 33  ̊

Fuel oil DPDS 59.8 1 59.8 33  ̊

Base oil DPDS 3,683.9 1 3,683.9 31  ̊

Base oil DPDS 3,687.1 1 3,687.1 31  ̊

Lube oil DPDS 429.6 1 429.6 22.3  ̊

Waste oil DPDS 132.1 1 132.1 20  ̊

Waste oil DPDS 44 1 44.0 20  ̊

Waste oil DPDS 143.4 1 143.4 20  ̊

Waste oil DPDS 1,366.2 1 1,366.2 6.5  ̊



### 1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES

These operations do not propose activities for which the State of Florida is an affected state.

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

FM O&G do es not propose any additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Sec tion 1

– Pg. 3 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 1.7 COST RECOVERY FE E
Documentation of the $ 7346 cost recovery fee payment is included as Attachme nt 1

- D

.U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

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

Well Loc. C: Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellhead 9/24 /2016 1/13 /2016 111

Well Loc. D: Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellhead 1/13 /2016 4/17 /2016 95

Well Loc. E: Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellhead 10/18/2016 1/21/2016 95

Well Loc. G: Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellhead 1/21/2017 4/26/2017 95

Well Loc. F: Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellhead 12/28/2016 4/18/2017 111

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure

Jackup X Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach description) Floating production

system Other (Attach description) Drilling Rig Name (If known): Two dp drillships, both s imilar to Noble Sam Croft

Description of Lease Term Pipelines

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

NA NA NA NA

Form BOEM

- 0137 (December 2011

– Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 4 General Information

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

Company Name: Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC BOEM Operator Number: 03280

Address: 400 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 1100 Contact Person: Paul Landry

Lafayette, LA 70508 Phone Number: (Office) 37

- 354

- 5065. (Mobile) 337

- 349

- 7781

E

- Mail Address: paul_landry@fmi.com

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), prov ide the Amount paid $7,346 Receipt No. 25IQMIBN

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Leases : OCS

- G 08484/08797/10977 Area: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84/85/129 Project Name (If Applicable): King

Objective(s) X Oil X Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Support Bases : Fourchon, LA; Houma, LA

Platform / Well Name: Well Location C Total Volume of WCD: 54,570,025 bbl API Gravity: 32.8 o

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 67 mi. Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 376,345 bbl/day 

### OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM OMB Control Number: 1010

- 0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14OCS 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): Well Location C 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. NA

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): 376,345 bbl/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls) : NA API Gravity of fluid 32.8 o

Surface Location Bottom

- Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS

- G 08484 OCS

- G 08484 OCS

OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 84 84

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 697’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 4,809’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 1,325, 751.24’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,486,776.42’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 53’ 35.531” N Latitude Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Longitude 87 o 59’ 01.142” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,403’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

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 4OCS 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): Well Location D 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): 376,345 bbl/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): NA API Gravity of fluid 32.8 o

Surface Location Bottom

- Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS

- G 08484 OCS

- G 08484 OCS

OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 84 84

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 619’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 4,886’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 1,325,673.45’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,486,698.63’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 53’ 34.754” N Latitude Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Longitude 87 o 59’ 02.010” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,404’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

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 4OCS 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): Well Location E 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): 376,345 bbl/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): NA API Gravity of fluid 32.8 o

Surface Location Bottom

- Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS

- G 10977 OCS

- G 08797 OCS

OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 129 85

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 820’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 7,480’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 1,338,920.00” X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,485,260.00’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 53’ 21.573” N Latitude Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Longitude 87 o 56’ 32.826” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,304’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

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 4OCS 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): Well Location F 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. Is this an existing well or structure?

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): 376,345 bbl/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): NA API Gravity of fluid 32.8 o

Surface Location Bottom

- Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS

- G 08484 OCS

- G 08484 OCS

OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 84 84

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 591’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 4,774’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 1,325,786.59’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,486,670.35’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 53’ 34.483” N Latitude Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Longitude 87 o 59’ 00.734” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,409’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

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)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): Well Location G 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): 376,345 bbl/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): NA API Gravity of fluid 32.8 o

Surface Location Bottom

- Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS

- G 10977 OCS

- G 10977 OCS

OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 129 129

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 820’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 7,480’ FEL E/W Depa rture E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 1,338,920.00’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,485,260.00’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 53’ 21.573” N Latitude Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Longitude 87 o 56’ 32.826” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,304’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

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 4OCS-G-08484FM O&GSHEET 1 of 1SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLANOCS-G-08484BLOCK 84, MISSISSIPPI CANYON AREAPROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONSBLOCKWELLCALLSX COORDINATEY COORDINATELATITUDELONGITUDEMC84"C"697.00' FSL4,809.00' FEL1,325,751.24'10,486,776.42'
1
:DATE:REVISED:JOB No:FILENAME:140310Oct. 15, 2014PREPAREDBY:730 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD.LAFAYETTE, LA 70508(337) 210-0000LA Reg. No. 330OCS-G-08484FM O&GMC128 

### MC83MC84



### MC85MC40OCS-G-08484Well No. SS-1OCS-G-08484Well No. 1WELL "C"OCS-G-08484020002000SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNAD27ZONE 16 NORTHUTM GRID NORTHWATERDEPTH5,403'OCS-G-08484FM O&GSHEET 1 of 1SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLANOCS-G-08484BLOCK 84, MISSISSIPPI CANYON AREAPROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONSBLOCKWELLCALLSX COORDINATEY COORDINATELATITUDELONGITUDEMC84"D"619' FSL4,886' FEL1,325,673.45'10,486,698.63'
1
:DATE:REVISED:JOB No:FILENAME:140310Oct. 15, 2014PREPAREDBY:730 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD.LAFAYETTE, LA 70508(337) 210-0000LA Reg. No. 330OCS-G-08484FM O&GMC128 

### MC83MC84



### MC85MC40OCS-G-08484Well No. SS-1OCS-G-08484Well No. 1WELL "D"OCS-G-08484020002000SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNAD27ZONE 16 NORTHUTM GRID NORTHWATERDEPTH5,404'SHEET 1 of 1SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLANOCS-G-08797BLOCK 129, MISSISSIPPI CANYON AREAPROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONSBLOCKWELLCALLSX COORDINATEY COORDINATELATITUDELONGITUDEMC129"E"820' FNL7,480' FEL1,338,920.00'10,485,260.00'
1
:DATE:REVISED:JOB No:FILENAME:140310Oct. 15, 2014PREPAREDBY:730 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD.LAFAYETTE, LA 70508(337) 210-0000LA Reg. No. 330WELL "E"OCS-G-08797020002000SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNAD27ZONE 16 NORTHUTM GRID NORTHOCS-G-08797FM O&GOCS-G-10977FM O&GMC129 

### MC84MC85



### DC45OCS-G-08797Well No. SS-3OCS-G-08797Well No. 1OCS-G-10977Well No. 1OCS-G-08797Well No. SS-2OCS-G-10977Well No. 3WATERDEPTH5,304'OCS-G-08484FM O&GSHEET 1 of 1SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLANOCS-G-08484BLOCK 84, MISSISSIPPI CANYON AREAPROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONSBLOCKWELLCALLSX COORDINATEY COORDINATELATITUDELONGITUDEMC84"F"591' FSL4,774' FEL1,325,786.59'10,486,670.35'
1
:DATE:REVISED:JOB No:FILENAME:140310Oct. 15, 2014PREPAREDBY:730 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD.LAFAYETTE, LA 70508(337) 210-0000LA Reg. No. 330OCS-G-08484FM O&GMC128 

### MC83MC84



### MC85MC40OCS-G-08484Well No. SS-1OCS-G-08484Well No. 1WELL "F"OCS-G-08484020002000SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNAD27ZONE 16 NORTHUTM GRID NORTHWATERDEPTH5,409'SHEET 1 of 1SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLANOCS-G-10977BLOCK 129, MISSISSIPPI CANYON AREAPROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONSBLOCKWELLCALLSX COORDINATEY COORDINATELATITUDELONGITUDEMC129"G"820' FNL7,480' FEL1,338,920.00'10,485,260.00'
1
:DATE:REVISED:JOB No:FILENAME:140310Oct. 15, 2014PREPAREDBY:730 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD.LAFAYETTE, LA 70508(337) 210-0000LA Reg. No. 330WELL "G"OCS-G-10977020002000SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNAD27ZONE 16 NORTHUTM GRID NORTHOCS-G-10977FM O&GMC173 

### MC128MC129



### DC89MC85OCS-G-08797Well No. SS-3OCS-G-10977Well No. 3WATERDEPTH5,304'1 

### Favaloro, Katharine

From: pay.gov.clev@clev.frb.org

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:44 AM

To: Favaloro, Katharine Subject: Pay.gov Payment Confirmation: BOEM Exploration Pla n - BF

Your payment has been submitted to Pay.gov and the details are below. If you have any questions regar ding this payment, please contact Brenda Dickerson at (703) 7 87-1617 or by email at BseeAccountsReceivable@bsee.gov

.

Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF
Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25IQMIBN
Agency Tracking ID: 74720178818
Transaction Type: Sale Transaction Date: 12/10/2014 10:43:53 AM EST

Account Holder Name: Paul Landry

Transaction Amount: $7,346.00
Billing Address: 700 Milam, Suite 3100
City: Houston State/Province: TX Zip/Postal Code: 77002

Country: USA Card Type: MasterCard

Card Number: ************4211

Region: Gulf of Mexico
Contact: Paul Landry 337-354-5065 Company Name/No: Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, 0 3280 Lease Number(s): 08484, 08797, 10977, ,
Area-Block: Mississippi Canyon MC, 84: Mississipp i Canyon MC, 85: Mississippi Canyon MC, 129: , : ,

Surface Locations: 2

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 4 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 2

GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS

The t able below provides all additional applications t o be filed covering operations proposed in

this EP

.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status Application s for Permit to Drill BSEE To be submitted Application s for Permit to Modify BSEE To be submitted Emergency Evacuation Plan s USCG To be submitted

2.2 DRILLING F LUIDS

The table below provide s t he types and estimated volumes of the drilling fluids FM O&G plan s
to use to drill the proposed well s

.

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be Used per Well (bbl )

Water

- based (seawater, freshwater, barite) 50,000
Oil

- based (diesel, mineral oil ) 0 Synthetic

- based (internal olefin, ester) 31,000

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY
[PROPRIETARY]

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT
The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by an

area

- wide bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 5 56, S ubpart I; NTL No. 2000

- G16, "Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds;" and a current BOEM

- a pproved deferment from providing additional security under 30 CFR 5 56.53(d) and National NTL No. 2008

- N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures .” If at any point Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC no longer qualifies for a supplemental bonding deferment, Freeport

- McM oRan Oil & Gas LLC will either provide the required additional security or a third party guarantee within 60 days after such disqualification.

2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)
Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Company N o. 03280 ) will demonstrate oi l spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR 5 53; and NTL No. 2008

- N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities" prior to conducting
operations covered in this EP.

2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT
Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Company No. 03280 ) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 5 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS The Worst Case Discharge is defined as an uncontrolled blowout through the drilling string
during drilling operations.

The highest Worst Case Discharge in this Exploration Plan is for MC 84 Well Location C.

Estimated Initial Flow Rate (bbls/d ay): 376,345 bbl/day

Maximum duration of potential blowout (days): 1 45 days

Total Volume (bbls) (flow rate x duration): 54,570,025 bbl

Discussion of potential for well to bridge over: While the sands to be encountered by the
wells in this EP are expected to be slightly consolidated

, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G) does NOT assume that the proposed well would bridge over in a blowout scenario. The basis for this assumption comes from work done in association with Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE ) Paper # 163438 on the analysis of potential bridging scenarios during blowout events in the deepwater GOM. FM O&G agrees with the conclusions of this SPE paper that the
only instances in which a deepwater well could potentially bridge over is a complete loss of the marine riser hydrostatic column resulting in a sharp pressure reduction downhole leading to wellbore collapse before a blowout can fully develop. This bridging would occur quickly before large volumes of hydrocarbons could escape. As FM O&G does not consider this bridging method to cover all potential blowout scenarios in the proposed well all Worst Case Discharge calculations will be based upon a well blowing out unimpeded until a relief well can be
completed.

Discussion of likelihood for su rface intervention to stop blowout: Prior to any surface
intervention operations a team of specialists would be mobilized immediately to assess the

situation and determine a corrective course of action to control the blowout. Well control
specialists would perform either a fly

‐ by via helicopter and/or surface vessel to assess conditions at the site. FM O&G has Master Service Agreements with both Wild Well Control (a Superior Energy Services company) and Boots and Coots (a Halliburton company). Additionally an ROV capable of manipulating the rig’s BOP hot

‐ stab functions would be mobilized to location and, if appropriate, an attempt would be made to shut in the well by closing the blind shear rams
if not done previously. These actions would take place within 24

‐ 48 hours of the incident. Initial
assessment activities are projected to take 3

– 5 days. During this period, the well control team would analyze the blowout situation, devise an intervention strategy and mobilize additional service company specialist s, supplies and equipment. FM O&G would establish a field support base and secondary command center in the company owned shore base facility in Fourchon, LA. Communication would simultaneously be established with the support base and command

center.

Surface intervention would be the preferred method of intervention pending an uncontrolled blowout; however, the technique used would be contingent upon the condition of the rig, marine riser system and BOP equipment. Surface intervention is a quicker solu tion than drilling a reliefFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 6 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) well, but actual methodology of controlling the blowout would have to be determined pending an analysis of the site

- specific conditions at the location.

Relief Well

Discussion of Drilling a Relief Well: FM O&G has the financi al capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations. Should a relief well be necessary, there are deepwater rigs rated and equipped to drill in water depth of 10,000 feet or greater actively working in the Gulf of Mexic o. Since all rigs proposed for drilling a relief well are dynamically positioned MODUs the time necessary to mobilize the rig to location is minimal. The time required to drill the relief well is dependent on many factors, chief among them is the required
depth of the relief well. The deepest anticipated depth of the relief well would be when an
intersection is required with the blown

‐ out well at its final target d epth (TD). The total days estimated to drill an example well to potential target depth (PTD) i s 95 da ys. The probably directional nature of the relief well could nominally increase its measu red depth compared to the

blow out well. In order to intersect the blow out well , numerous ranging runs would be required which will add approximately three week s to the drilling program. The steps and time required to accomplish the dynamic kill are also dependent on the particular circumstances of the blowout

well.

Rig type capable of drilling relief well at water depth and to TD: There are more than 10

drilli ng rigs currently working or slated to begin work in the Gulf of Mexico that are capable of drilling a relief well at these locations.

Rig package constraints: The rig chosen to drill the relief well must:

• Be rated and equip ped to work in water depths of 1 0 ,000’ due to Mississippi Canyon

Block s 84, 85 and 129 deepwater locations

.

• Dynamically

‐ positioned to eliminate anchoring issues due to nearby subsea

infrastructure.

• Have a BOP package acceptable and certified under current BSEE regulations.

Ti me to acquire rig, move onsite and drill relief well (days):

Activity Duration (days) Assess the situation and obtain the optimum MODU 5
Secure the well at current location of MODU 14

Mobilization time to relief well location 3

Drill relief well 95 Wellbore intersection (of blown out well) 21 Dynamic kill operations 7 Total Anticipated Time 1 45

Statement whether possibility of using nearby platform was considered: The re are no facilities within the surrounding blocks of Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 that could

be used to drill a relief well.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 7 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) Other Measures to enhance ability to prevent a blowout:

• FM O&G will verify with the contractor that all BOPs have been certified, maintained and are capable of operating in the anticipated condit ions required for operations.

• FM O&G representatives will review and witness the installation, testing, function testing and operation of the diverter system and diverter outlets.

• Key personnel on the rig will have a valid well control certificate.

• Wiper trips will be performed as hole conditions dictate in order to quantify the stability of the wellbore and to determine whether sufficient mud weights are being utilized.

• Connections will be simulated as needed while drilling into pressure transition areas in order to properly assess the current wellbore conditions.

Measures to reduce the likelihood of a blowout:

• A liner top packer or equivalent expandable will be run on all liner laps as an additional barrier for well safety.

• Lost circulation material will be added to the mud system in order to assist the mud system’s ability to prevent lost circulation. Sweeps and concentrated pills will be used to
prevent uncontrolled mud losses.

• Every effort will be made to review all offset and seismic data in order to prepare a mud weight schedule that will allow for safe drilling margin without putting excess hydrostatics
pressures on known zones previously encountered.

• Mudloggers may be utilized during critical drilling operations to monitor gas content of

mud returns , formation characteristics and abnormalities of cuttings and to estimate paleo aging of cuttings.

• Logging While Drilling (LWD) tools will be utilized as much as possible to evaluate
formations, formation pressures and fluid content in the critical section s of the well.

• Log data will be continuously reviewed by FM O&G’s drilling and geological
departments.

Measures to enhance ability to conduct effective and early intervention in event of a

blowout: FM O&G is a member of the Helix Well Containment Group (HW CG) and has full access to a subsea capping stack and a complete suite of oil recovery equipment as required. This subsea capping stack has been deployed successfully to a well location with cooperation

from BSEE.

Arrangements for drilling relief wells: F M O&G has Master Service Agreements with both Wild Well Control (a Superior Energy Services company) and Boots and Coots (a Halliburton company) who would assist in detailed relief well planning including the identification of required
equipment and servic es.

Any other measures: NoFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 3

– Pg. 8 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 3

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
[PROPRIETARY]

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP S
[PROPRIETARY]

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LIN E S
[ PROPRIETARY]

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIO NS
[PROPRIETARY]

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

S hallow hazards survey s w ere condu cted over Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85 and 129.

In accordance with NTL No. 2008

- G05, “Shallow Hazards Program” (Extended by NTL No.

2014

- G05 , “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees” ), shallow hazards survey s evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations, w ere conducted by C&C Technologies

. The shallow hazards report for Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 and 85 were provided with EP (Control No. S

- 7638) approved June 11, 2014 and for Mississippi Canyon Block 129 with EP (Control No. S

- 7147) approved September 24, 2009.

3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT S

In accordance with NTL No. 2008

- G05, “ Shallow Hazards Program

, ” (Extended by NTL N o.

2014

- G05 , “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees” ), a shallow hazards assessment has been prepared f or each p roposed surface location evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling op erations. The shallow

hazards assessments are included as Attachment 3

- D

.

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES
[PROPRIETARY]

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
[PROPRIETARY ]

3.9 TIME V ERSUS DEPTH TABLE
[ PROPRIETARY]Project No. 1 40310



### 1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### July 23 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “EP C”

Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “EP C” location in Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter i s based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG and a high

resolution geophysical dataset collected with C&C’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

C

- Surveyor III

TM. C&C com pleted three assessment s which were utili zed for this letter. The first, titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field , Block 84, 85 , and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area

, ” was completed in July 2013 . The second, titled “ Archaeological and Hazard Study, Blocks 85 and 129, Mississippi Canyon Area, Blocks 45 and 89, Desoto Canyon Area ,” was completed in October 2007. The third, titled “ Archaeological Assessment Report, King Field, Blocks 84 and 128, Mississippi Canyon Area ,” was completed in July 2013

. This site

clearance letter is based on t he findings provi ded within those report s

.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately 1.6 second s of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided

in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of OCS

Leas e Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS AUV Survey Data

C&C’ s C

- Surveyor III TM AUV provided multibeam bathymetric mapping, high

- resolution side scan sonar imagery, and subb ottom profiles. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech DF4500 Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz with dynamic focusing ), and an EdgeTech Chirp DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5

– 4.5 kHz). All the raw d igital data were logged utilizing proprietary software developed by C&C.Project No. 1 40310



### 2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The multibeam system delivered a 3

- meter gridded dataset with relative vertical accuracies

within 20 centimeters.

The survey grid consisted of 50 north

- south primary survey lines wi th 200 meter line spacing (Lines BPUSAUV07KS

- 0101

- 0150) and ten east

- west tie lines spaced at 900 meters (Lines

BPUSAUV07KS

- 0201

- 0210). Navigation fixes (event marks) were recorded continuously and

annotated at 125

- meter (410 foot) intervals along all sur vey lines. The survey grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems.

3D Seismic Data

The 3D seismic data used for this assessment w as provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the

3D data volume run nort hwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero phase , and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallow

g eologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “EP C” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed Well “EP C”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 84

, Mississippi Canyon Area

“EP C” 1,325

, 751.24 10,486

, 776.42 28  53 ’ 3 5 .5 31 ” N 87  59 ’ 01

. 142 ” W 697 ’ FS L 4,809 ’ FE L



### A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is required for assessing deepwat er benthic communities for proposed Well “EP C” (Sheet 1 , Figure 2)

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) , Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of 1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e st udy map (Sheet

1 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.Project No. 1 40310



### 3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper

continen tal slope offshore Mississippi

- Louisiana. M C 84 is situated on the northe rn most portion

of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the fan

consists of basin

- like t opography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional

sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections.

Condensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS

The wat er depth at the proposed Well “EP C” surface l ocation is 5,403 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “EP C” location, the seafloor dep th ranges from 5,3 60 feet in the north to 5,4 32 feet in the south (Sheet 1 , Panel 1

, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the pr oposed well location (Figure 2), and slopes southeast at a gradient o f less than 1 °.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image ( Sheet 1, Panel 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate fine ly textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay. The side scan sonar mosaic and multibeam backscatter images agree with these findings ( Sheet 1, Panel 2)

.

One sonar contact was identified 1 ,042 feet southeast of the propo sed well location, and measures 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, and has no measurable height off the seafloor.

There were no other naturally occurring potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BE NTHIC COMMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “EP C” and surrounding 2,000

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplit ude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic communities (Sheet 1, Panel 3 ).

The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 28 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “EP C” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE databases shows one well and 2 pipelines within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. The S

- 14089 BP 6” with S

- 14090 BP 10” Casing and S

- 14091 BP 4”Project No. 1 40310



### 4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### Umbilical are located 43 feet and 137 feet to the northwest, respectively. Well No. SS

- 1 is located 146 feet northwest of the proposed Well “ EP C .” A PLET and UTA exist in proximity to the proposed drill center as well ( See Detail, Sheet 1, Panel 4).

S UBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY

Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts o f each of the

successive units. Two (2 ) buried faults intersect the prop osed wellbore at approximately 1,5 00

feet and 4,600 feet BML.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical D epth (TVD) (feet) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths

below the seafloor:

D = 312.76 T 2 

### + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.

A detaile d description of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moder ate amplitude, parallel, continuous reflectors that are 220 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP C” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consist s of low to moderate amplitude, continuous reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The u nit is 701 feet thick at the proposed well location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape

de posit, while the bottom of the u nit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass

movemen t deposits and sandy channel fill. The coarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying

the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, cont inuous

chaotic reflectors and is 406 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP C” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D con sists of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 981 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP C” location. These reflection

patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High ampli tude anomalies indicative of shallow gas we re identified throughout Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 330 feet south of the proposed wellbore. The coarser

- grainedProject No. 1 40310



### 5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP C” location 1,500 feet BML.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1,257 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP C” locatio n. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1,054 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP C” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded

channel fills

. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP C” location 4,600 feet BML.

SHALLOW GAS

Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas 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 one of four leve ls. These are:

 Negligible

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  background level) and phase reversal. This may also include diffuse areas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes ind icative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

- down and masking of underlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strengt h of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified

within Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 330 feet sou th of the proposed well.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 53

miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet b elow mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconsolidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with

overburden causin g a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profiles at the proposed Well “EP C” location suggests that medium to high ampli tude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within portions of Units B, C, and D exhibit

a moderate risk of SWF. Units E and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits aProject No. 1 40310



### 6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### negligible risk of SWF. Due to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised tha t caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments where the conditions of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydr ate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabed soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast c aused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all b e found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the drill center.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “EP C” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant

seaf loor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP C” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

The water depth at the proposed Well “EP C” surface location is 5, 403 feet with a seafloor which slopes less than 1 ° to the south eas t

.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP C” surface location.

Two pipelin es (S

- 14091 BP 4” Umbilical and S

- 14089 BP 6” with S

- 14090 BP10” Casing) and one well (OCS

- G

- 08484 Well No. SS

- 1) exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP C”

location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fil ls o ccur in Units B, C, and D

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjunction with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of

shallow water flow in Units E and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within

Unit D (1,327

– 2,308 feet BML ). The closest anomaly is located 330 feet south of the proposed

borehole location. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.Project No. 1 40310



### 7

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

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

Sincerely,

___ ________________________ 

### Christopher Baker Marine Geologist

E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “EP C”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “EP C”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 739 2 through the proposed Well “EP C”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6420 through the proposed Well “EP C”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “EP C”

.

Sheet 1. Well Site Clearance Map Panel 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry

Panel 2. S ide Scan Sonar Mosaic Panel 3. Seafloor Amplitude

Panel 4. Seafloor and Subsurface HazardProject No. 1 40310



### 1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### July 23 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “EP D”

Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “EP D” location in Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter i s based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG and a high

resolution geophysical dataset collected with C&C’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

C

- Surveyor III

TM. C&C completed three assessments which were utili zed for this letter. The first, titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field, Block 84, 85, and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area

, ” was completed in July 2013. The second, titled “ Archaeological and Hazard Study, Blocks 85 and 129, Mississippi Canyon Area, Blocks 45 and 89, Desoto Canyon Area ,” was completed in October 2007. The third, titled “ Archaeological Assessment Report, King Field, Blocks 84 and 128, Mississippi Canyon Area ,” was completed in July 2013

. This site

clearance letter is based on t he findings provided within those reports.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately 1.6 second s of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided

in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of OCS

Leas e Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS AUV Survey Data

C&C’ s C

- Surveyor III TM AUV provided multibeam bathymetric mapping, high

- resolution side scan sonar imagery, and subb ottom profiles. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech DF4500 Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz with dynamic focusing ), and an EdgeTech Chirp DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5

– 4.5 kHz). All the raw d igital data were logged utilizing proprietary software developed by C&C.Project No. 1 40310



### 2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The multibeam system delivered a 3

- meter gridded dataset with relative vertical accuracies

within 20 centimeters.

The survey grid consisted of 50 north

- south primary survey lines wi th 200 meter line spacing (Lines BPUSAUV07KS

- 0101

- 0150) and ten east

- west tie lines spaced at 900 meters (Lines

BPUSAUV07KS

- 0201

- 0210). Navigation fixes (event marks) were recorded continuously and

annotated at 125

- meter (410 foot) intervals along all sur vey lines. The survey grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems.

3D Seismic Data

The 3D seismic data used for this assessment w as provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the

3D data volume run nort hwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero phase , and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallow

g eologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “EP D” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed Well “EP D”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 84

, Mississippi Canyon Area

“EP D” 1,325

, 673.45 10,486

, 698.63 28  53 ’ 3 4.754 ” N 87  59 ’ 02

. 010 ” W 619 ’ FS L 4,886 ’ FE L



### A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is required for assessing deepwat er benthic communities for proposed Well “EP D” (Sheet 1 , Figure 2)

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) , Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of 1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e st udy map (Sheet

1 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.Project No. 1 40310



### 3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper

continen tal slope offshore Mississippi

- Louisiana. M C 84 is situated on the northe rn most portion

of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the fan

consists of basin

- like t opography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional

sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections.

Condensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS

The wat er depth at the proposed Well “EP D” surface l ocation is 5,404 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “EP D” location, the seafloor dep th ranges from 5,3 61 feet in the north to 5,4 33 feet in the south (Sheet 1 , Panel 1

, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the pr oposed well location (Figure 2), and slopes southeast at a gradient o f less than 1 °.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image ( Sheet 1, Panel 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate fine ly textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay. The side scan sonar mosaic and multibeam backscatter images agree with these findings ( Sheet 1, Panel 2)

.

One sonar contact was identified 1,103 feet southeast of the propo sed well location, and measures 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, and has no measurable height off the seafloor.

There were no other naturally occurring potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BE NTHIC COMMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “EP D” and surrounding 2,000

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplit ude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic communities (Sheet 1, Panel 3 ).

The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 28 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “EP D” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE databases shows one well and 2 pipelines within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. The S

- 14089 BP 6” with S

- 14090 BP 10” Casing and S

- 14091 BP 4”Project No. 1 40310



### 4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### Umbilical are located 65 feet and 183 feet to the north, respectivel y. Well No. SS

- 1 is located

132 feet north of the proposed Wel l “ EP D .” A PLET and UTA exist in proximity to the proposed drill center as well (See Detail, Sheet 1, Panel 4).

SUBSURF AC E GEOHAZARDS AND STR ATIGRAPHY

Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts o f each of the

successive units. Two (2 ) buri ed faults intersect the prop osed wellbore at approximately 1,5 00

feet and 4,1 00 feet BML.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TV D) (feet) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths

below the seafloor:

D = 312.76 T 2 

### + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.

A detailed descri ption of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moderate ampl itude, parallel, continuous reflectors that are 220 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP D” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 7 04 feet thick at the proposed well location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape

de posit, while the bottom of the u nit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposi ts and sandy channel fill. The coarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying

the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous

c haotic reflectors and is 410 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP D” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 995 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP D” location. These reflection

patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude ano malies indicative of shallow gas we re identified throughout Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 266 feet south of the proposed wellbore. The coarser

- grainedProject No. 1 40310



### 5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP D” location 1,500 feet BML.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1,2 33 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP D” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 973 feet thick at the propos ed Well “EP D” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded

channel fills

. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP D” location 4,53 0 feet BML.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas 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 one of four levels. These are:

 Negligible

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  background level) and phase reversal. This may also include diffuse areas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of ga s

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  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.

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strength of

sedim ent that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified within Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 266 feet south of the proposed well.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 53

miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudlin e and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconsolidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potenti ally hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profiles at the proposed Well “EP D” location suggests that medium to high amplitude, poten tially s and

- prone sequences within portions of Units B, C, and D exhibit

a moderate risk of SWF. Units E and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits aProject No. 1 40310



### 6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### negligible risk of SWF. Due to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised that caution b e executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments where the conditions of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydrate stabili ty zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabed soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused betwe en the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafl oor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the drill center.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “EP D” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant

seafloor featur es are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP D” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

The water depth at the proposed Well “EP D” surface location is 5, 404 feet with a seafloor which slopes less than 1 ° to the south e as t

.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP D” surface location.

Two pipelines (S

- 14091 BP 4” Umbilical and S

- 14089 BP 6” with S

- 14090 BP10” Casing) and one well (OCS

- G

- 08484 Well No. SS

- 1) exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP D”

location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fil ls occur in Uni ts B, C, and D

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjunction with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of

shallow water flow in Units E and F i s considered low while U nit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within

Unit D ( 1,334

– 2, 329 feet BML ). The closest anomaly is located 266 feet south of the proposed

borehole location. Units B, C, E, and F ar e assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.Project No. 1 40310



### 7

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

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

Sincerely,

______________

_____________ 

### Christopher Baker Marine Geologist

E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “EP D”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “EP D”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 73 90 through t he proposed Well “EP D”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6420 through the proposed Well “EP D”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “EP D”

.

Sheet 1. Well Site Clearance Map Panel 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry

Panel 2. Side Scan So nar Mosaic Panel 3. Seafloor Amplitude

Panel 4. Seafloor and Subsurface HazardProject No. 1 40310



### 1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### July 23 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “EP E”

Block 129 (OCS

- G

- 10977 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “EP E” location in Block 129 (OCS

- G

- 10977 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG and a high

resolution geophysical dataset collected with C&C’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

C

- Surveyor III

TM. C&C completed three assessments which were uti lized for this letter. The first, titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field, Block 84, 85, and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area

, ” was completed in July 2013. The second, titled “ Archaeological and Hazard Study, Blocks 85 and 129, Mississippi Canyo n Area, Blocks 45 and 89, Desoto Canyon Area ,” was completed in October 2007. The third, titled “ Archaeological Assessment Report, King Field, Blocks 84 and 128, Mississippi Canyon Area ,” was completed in July 2013

. This site

clearance letter is based on the findings provided within those reports.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately 1.6 seco nds of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided

in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of OCS

Le ase Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS AUV Survey Data

C&C’ s C

- Surveyor III TM AUV provided multibeam bathymetric mapping, high

- resolution side scan sonar imagery, and su bbottom profiles. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech DF4500 Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz with dynamic focusing ), and an EdgeTech Chirp DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5

– 4.5 kHz). All the raw digital data were logged utilizing proprietary software developed by C&C.Project No. 1 40310



### 2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The multibeam system delivered a 3

- meter gridded dataset with relative vertical accuracies

within 20 centimeters.

The survey grid consisted of 50 north

- south primary survey lines with 200 meter line spacing (Lines BPUSAUV07KS

- 0101

- 0150) and ten east

- west tie lines spaced at 900 meters (Lines

BPUSAUV07KS

- 0201

- 0210). Navigation fixes (event marks) were recorded continuously and

annotated at 125

- meter (410 foot) intervals along all s urvey lines. The survey grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems.

3D Seismic Data

The 3D seismic data used for this assessmen t was provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the

3D data volume run n orthwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero ph ase, and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallo w geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “EP E” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed Well “EP E”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 129

, Mississippi Canyon Area

“EP E” 1,338

, 920.00 10,485

, 260.00 28  53 ’ 21.573 ” N 87  56 ’ 32

. 826 ” W 820’ FN L 7, 480 ’ FE L



### A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is required for assessing dee pwater benthic communities for proposed Well “EP E” (Sheet 1 , Figure 2)

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator
( UTM), Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of 1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e study map (Sheet

1 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.Project No. 1 40310



### 3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper

continen tal slope offshore Mississippi

- Louisiana. M C 129 is situated on the northe rn most portion of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the

fan consists of basin

- l ike topography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional

sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections.

Cond ensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and grav els) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS

The wat er depth at the proposed Well “EP E” surface l ocation is 5,3 04 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “EP E” location, the

seafloo r depth ranges from 4,980 feet in the south to 5,4 15 feet in the northeast (Sheet 1 , Panel 1

, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smooth in the vicinity of the pr oposed well location (Figure 2), and slopes northeast at a gradient of 4 °. The dri ll center lies 1,000 feet north

of a 400

- foot high escarpment which marks the bounds of a shallow salt body.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image ( Sheet 1, Panel 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitude s within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay. The side scan sonar mosaic and multibeam backscatter images agree with these finding s ( Sheet 1, Panel 2)

.

Two sonar contact s were identified near the proposed well location. Contact No. 26 is located 603 feet to the south, and Contact No. 24 is located 1,797 feet to the northwest. Both contacts measure 3 feet in length, 3 feet wide , and have no measurable height off the seafloor.

The base of an escarpment is located 930 feet southwest of the proposed well location. This escarpment occurs along the edge of the Uchupi Salt Dome located south

- southwest of the

wellsite.

There were no other naturally occurring potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic

commun ity habitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “EP E” and surrounding 2,000

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic communities (Sheet 1, Panel 3 ).Project No. 1 40310



### 4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 28 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “EP E” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE databa ses shows one well and 7 pipelines within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. A list of pipeline segments which occur in the vicinity can be found in

Table 1. OCS

- G

- 08797 Well No. SS

- 3 is located 98 feet north west of the proposed Well “ EP

E .” PLETs and oth er infrastructure associated with the Well No. SS

- 3 exist in proximity to the proposed drill center as well (Sheet 1, Panel 4).

Table 1. Existing pipeli nes near the proposed Well “EP E .”

Segment Distance from proposed Well “EP

E”

S

- 13388 FMOG 4” Umbilic al with

S

- 13387 FMOG 12” Casing 112 feet northwest

S

- 13386 FMOG 8” 134 feet northwest

S

- 16086 FMOG 5” Umbilical 271 feet northwest

S

- 13384 FMOG 8” 134 feet northwest

S

- 13385 PXP 12” 134 feet northwest

S

- 16168 FMOG 4” Umbilical 311 feet northwest

S

- 1 6166 FMOG 6” with

S

- 16167 FMOG 10” Casing 161 feet northwest



### SUBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY

Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the uppe r and / or lower contacts o f each of the

successive units.

The proposed wellbore intersects two shallow buried mass transport deposits identified in the subbottom profiler data. These deposits are located 9 feet and 55 feet below the seafloor and

repres ent a periodic downslope transportation of unstable slope sediments by gravity flows. These acoustically amorphous units are composed of chaotic and mixed sequences of primarily soft clay with occasional coarser components. No blocks of intact material w ere observed within these sediment gravity flows.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (feet) and the corresponding two

- wa y traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths

below the seafloor:

D = 312.76 T 2 

### + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.Project No. 1 40310



### 5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### A detailed description of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moderate amplitude, parallel, continuous reflectors that are 224 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP E” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous

ref lectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 417 feet thick at the proposed well loc ation

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape

de posit, while the bottom of the u nit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and sandy channel fill. The coarse r

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying

the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous

chaotic reflectors and is 269 feet thic k at the proposed Well “EP E” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous t o

c haotic reflectors and is 880 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP E” location. These reflection

patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude anomalies indicative of shallow gas we re identified throughout Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 926 feet northeast of the proposed wellbore. The coarser

- grained channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5) : Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1, 234 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP E” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1,355 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP E” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass trans port deposits with interbedded

channel fills

.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with amp litude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of four levels. These are:

 Negligible

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  background level) and phase re versal. This may also include diffuse areas of gas blanking.Project No. 1 40310



### 6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

###  Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  backg round 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.

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strength of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified within Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 926 feet northeast of the proposed well.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 53

miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconsol idated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profil es at the proposed Well “EP E” location suggests that medium to high amplitude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within portions of Units B, D, and E exhibit

a moderate risk of SWF. Units C and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits a negligi ble risk of SWF. Due to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised that caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments where the conditions of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydrate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabed soils determines the de pth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This

BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, ga s seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the drill center.Project No. 1 40310



### 7

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “EP E” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant

natural seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP E” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

The water depth at the proposed Well “EP E” surface location is 5, 304 feet with a seafloor which slopes 4 ° to the north eas t

.

Surface conductor jetting operations should encounter low resistance at the soils within the mass

movement bodies at 9 and 55 feet below the mudline.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP E” surface location.

Seven pipelines and one well (OCS

- G

- 08797 W ell No. SS

- 3 ) exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP E” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fil ls occur in Units B,

D , and E

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjunction with the presence of t he sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of

shallow water flow in Units C and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shall ow gas were observed within

Unit D ( 910

– 1,789 feet BML ). The closest anomaly is located 926 feet northeast of the proposed borehole location. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while

Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.

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

Sincerely,

___________________________ 

### Christopher Baker Marine GeologistProject No. 1 40310



### 8

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extract ed wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “EP E”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “EP E”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 7593 through the proposed Well “EP E”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6166 through the proposed Well “EP E”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “EP E”

.

Sheet 1. Well Site Clearance Map Panel 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry

Panel 2. Side Scan Sonar Mosaic Panel 3. Seafloor Amplitude

Panel 4. Seafloor and Subsurface HazardProject No. 140310



### 1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### July 23 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “EP F”

Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “EP F” location in Block 84 (OCS

- G

- 08484 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter i s based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG and a high

resolution geophysical dataset collected with C&C’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

C

- Surveyor III

TM. C&C com pleted three assessment s which were utili zed for this letter. The first, titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field , Block 84, 85 , and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area

, ” was completed in July 2013 . The second, titled “ Archaeological and Hazard Study, Blocks 85 and 129, Mississippi Canyon Area, Blocks 45 and 89, Desoto Canyon Area ,” was completed in October 2007. The third, titled “ Archaeological Assessment Report, King Field, Blocks 84 and 128, Mississippi Canyon Area ,” was completed in July 2013

. This site

clearance letter is based on t he findings provi ded within those report s

.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately 1.6 second s of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided

in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of OCS

Leas e Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS AUV Survey Data

C&C’s C

- Surveyor IIITM AUV provided multibeam bathymetric mapping, high

- resolution side scan sonar imagery, and subb ottom profiles. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech DF4500 Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz with dynamic focusing), and an EdgeTech Chirp DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5

– 4.5 kHz). All the raw d igital data were logged utilizing proprietary software developed by C&C.Project No. 140310



### 2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The multibeam system delivered a 3

- meter gridded dataset with relative vertical accuracies

within 20 centimeters.

The survey grid consisted of 50 north

- south primary survey lines wi th 200 meter line spacing (Lines BPUSAUV07KS

- 0101

- 0150) and ten east

- west tie lines spaced at 900 meters (Lines

BPUSAUV07KS

- 0201

- 0210). Navigation fixes (event marks) were recorded continuously and

annotated at 125

- meter (410 foot) intervals along all sur vey lines. The survey grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems.

3D Seismic Data

The 3D seismic data used for this assessment w as provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the

3D data volume run nort hwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero phase , and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallow

g eologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)

.

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “EP F” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed Well “EP F”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 84

, Mississippi Canyon Area

“EP F” 1,325

, 786.59 10,486

, 670.35 28  53 ’ 3 4.483 ” N

- 87  59 ’ 00

. 734 ” W 591 ’ FS L 4,774 ’ FE L



### A 2,000

- foot clearance radius is required for assessing deepw ater benthic communities for proposed Well “EP F” (Sheet 1 , Figure 2)

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UT M), Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of 1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e study map (Sheet

1 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.Project No. 140310



### 3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico wi thin the

northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Are a (designated by the BOEM), on the upper

continen tal slope offshore Mississippi

- Louisiana. M C 84 is situated on the northe rn most portion of the Mississippi Fan, 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the fan

consists of basin

- like topography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional

sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections.

Condense d sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS

The wat er depth at the proposed Well “EP F” surface l ocation is 5,409 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “EP F” location, the

seafloor de pth ranges from 5,3 60 feet in the north to 5,4 33 feet in the south (Sheet 1 , Panel 1

, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the pr oposed well location (Figure 2), and slopes southeast at a gradient of less than 1 °.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image ( Sheet 1, Panel 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate fin ely textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay. The side scan sonar mosaic and multibeam backscatter images agree with these findings ( Sheet 1, Panel 2)

.

On e sonar contact was identified 992 feet southeast of the proposed w ell location, and measures 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, and has no measurable height off the seafloor.

There were no other naturally occurring potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.

POTENTI AL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “EP F” and surrounding 2,000

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic communities (Sheet 1, Panel 3 ).

The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 28 miles

nort h of the pro posed Well “EP F” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE databases shows one well and 2 pipelines within 2,000

feet of th e propo sed well. The S

- 14089 Freeport

- M cMoran 6” with S

- 14090 Fr eeport

- McMoranProject No. 140310



### 4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### 10” Casing and S

- 1409 1 BP 4” Umbilical are located 169 feet and 251 feet to the northwest, respective ly. Well No. SS

- 1 is located 19 6 feet nort hwest of the proposed Well “ EP F .” A

PLET and UTA exist in proximity to the proposed drill cente r as well ( See Detail, Sheet 1, Panel 4).

SUBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY

Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower con tacts o f each of the

successive units. Two (2 ) buried faults intersect the prop osed wellbore at approximately 1,5 00

feet and 4,600 feet BML.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomia l equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (feet) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths

below the seafloor:

D = 312.76 T 2 

### + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): U nit A consists predominantly of low to moderate amplitude, parallel, continuous reflectors that are 217 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP F” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 714 feet thick at the proposed well location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape

de posit, while the bottom of the u nit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and sandy channel fill. The coarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying

the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous

chaotic reflectors and is 410 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP F” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 992 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP F” location. These reflection

patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude anomalies indicative of shallow gas we re identified throughout Unit D, withProject No. 140310



### 5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### the nearest anomaly located 229 feet south of the proposed wellbore. The coarser

- grained channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP F” location 1, 45 0 feet BML.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1, 278 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP F” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chao tic reflectors and is 623 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP F” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded

channel fills

. A fault intersects the proposed Well “EP F” location 4,2 3 0 feet BML.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas 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 one of four levels. These are:

 Negligible

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  background level) and phase reversal. This may also include di ffuse areas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  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.

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by si gnificantly reducing the shear strength of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified

within Unit D, with th e nearest anoma ly located 229 feet south of the proposed well.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 53

miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallo w water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconsolidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profiles at the proposed Well “EP F” locatio n suggests that medium to high amplitude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within portions of Units B, C, and D exhibit aProject No. 140310



### 6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### moderate risk of SWF. Units E and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits a negligible risk of SWF. Due to the unpredicta ble nature of SWF it is advised that caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments where the conditions of pressure and t emperature are favorable. The hydrate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabed soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrate s and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obv ious BSRs at the drill center.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “EP F” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP F” location that

could inter fere with drilling activities.

The water depth at the proposed Well “EP F” surface location is 5, 40 9 feet with a seaflo or which slopes less than 1 ° to the south eas t

.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP F” su rface location.

Two pipelines (S

- 14091 Freeport

- McMoran 4” Umbilical and S

- 14089 Freeport

- McMoran 6”

with S

- 14090 Freeport

- McMoran 10” Casing) and one well (OCS

- G

- 08484 Well No. SS

- 1) exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP F” location.

The asse ssment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fil ls occur in Units B, C, and D

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjunction with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of

shallow water flow in Units E and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within

Unit D (1,341

– 2,333 feet BML ). Th e closest anomaly is located 229 feet south of the proposed

borehole location. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.Project No. 140310



### 7

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

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

Sincerely,

___________________________ 

### Christopher Baker Marine Geologist

E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “EP F”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “EP F”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 7391 through the proposed Well “EP F”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6417 through the proposed Well “EP F”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “EP F”

.

Sheet 1. W ell Site Clearance Map Panel 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry

Panel 2. Side Scan Sonar Mosaic Panel 3. Seafloor Amplitude

Panel 4. Seafloor and Subsurface HazardProject No. 1 40310



### 1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### October 14 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “EP G”

Block 129 (OCS

- G

- 10977 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODU CTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “EP G” location in Block 129 (OCS

- G

- 10977 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance l etter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG and a high

resolution geophysical dataset collected with C&C’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

C

- Surveyor III

TM. C&C completed three assessments which wer e utilized for this letter. The first, titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field, Block 84, 85, and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area

, ” was completed in July 2013. The second, titled “ Archaeological and Hazard Study, Blocks 85 and 129, Mississippi Canyon Area, Blocks 45 and 89, Desoto Canyon Area ,” was completed in October 2007. The third, titled “ Archaeological Assessment Report, King Field, Blocks 84 and 128, Mississippi Canyon Area ,” was completed in July 2013

. This site

clearance letter is bas ed on the findings provided within those reports.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately 1.6 seconds of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided

in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of O CS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS AUV Survey Data

C&C’ s C

- Surveyor III TM AUV provided multibeam bathymetric mapping, high

- resolution side scan sonar imagery, a nd subbottom profiles. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech DF4500 Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz with dynamic focusing ), and an EdgeTech Chirp DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5

– 4.5 kHz). All th e raw digital data were logged utilizing proprietary software developed by C&C.Project No. 1 40310



### 2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The multibeam system delivered a 3

- meter gridded dataset with relative vertical accuracies

within 20 centimeters.

The survey grid consisted of 50 north

- south primary survey l ines with 200 meter line spacing (Lines BPUSAUV07KS

- 0101

- 0150) and ten east

- west tie lines spaced at 900 meters (Lines

BPUSAUV07KS

- 0201

- 0210). Navigation fixes (event marks) were recorded continuously and

annotated at 125

- meter (410 foot) intervals along all survey lines. The survey grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems.

3D Seismic Data

The 3D seismic data used for this asse ssment was provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the

3D data volume run northwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are ze ro phase, and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and s hallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “EP G” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed Well “EP G”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 129

, Mississippi Canyon Area

“EP G” 1,338

, 920.00 10,485

, 260.00 28  53 ’ 21.573 ” N 87  56 ’ 32

. 826 ” W 820’ FN L 7, 480 ’ FE L



### A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is required for assessin g deepwater benthic communities for proposed Well “EP G” (Sheet 1 , Figure 2)

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Merca tor (UTM), Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of 1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e study map (Sheet

1 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.Project No. 1 40310



### 3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Ca nyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper

continen tal slope offshore Mississippi

- Louisiana. M C 129 is situated on the northe rn most portion of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the

fan consists of ba sin

- like topography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional

sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS

The wat er depth at the proposed Well “EP G” surface l ocation is 5,3 04 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “EP G” location, the

se afloor depth ranges from 4,980 feet in the south to 5,4 15 feet in the northeast (Sheet 1 , Panel 1

, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smooth in the vicinity of the pr oposed well location (Figure 2), and slopes northeast at a gradient of 4 °. Th e drill center lies 1,000 feet north

of a 400

- foot high escarpment which marks the bounds of a shallow salt body.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image ( Sheet 1, Panel 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic ampl itudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay. The side scan sonar mosaic and multibeam backscatter images agree with

these fi ndings ( Sheet 1, Panel 2)

.

Two sonar contact s were identified near the proposed well location. Contact No. 26 is located 603 feet to the south, and Contact No. 24 is located 1,797 feet to the northwest. Both contacts measure 3 feet in length, 3 feet wide, and have no measurable height off the seafloor.

The base of an escarpment is located 930 feet southwest of the proposed well location. This escarpment occurs along the edge of the Uchupi Salt Dome located south

- southwest of the

wellsite.

There were no other naturally occurring potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carb onates and benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “EP G” and surrounding 2,000

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial be nthic communities (Sheet 1, Panel 3 ).Project No. 1 40310



### 4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 28 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “EP G” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of com pany and BOEM/BSEE databases shows one well and 7 pipelines within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. A list of pipeline segments which occur in the vicinity can be found in

Table 1. OCS

- G

- 08797 Well No. SS

- 3 is located 98 feet north west of the proposed We ll “ EP

E .” PLETs and other infrastructure associated with the Well No. SS

- 3 exist in proximity to the proposed drill center as well (Sheet 1, Panel 4).

Table 1. Existing pipeli nes near the proposed Well “EP E .”

Segment Distance from proposed Well “EP G”

S

- 13388 FMOG 4” Umbilical with

S

- 13387 FMOG 12” Casing 112 feet northwest

S

- 13386 FMOG 8” 134 feet northwest

S

- 16086 FMOG 5” Umbilical 271 feet northwest

S

- 13384 FMOG 8” 134 feet northwest

S

- 13385 PXP 12” 134 feet northwest

S

- 16168 FMOG 4” Umbilica l 311 feet northwest

S

- 16166 FMOG 6” with

S

- 16167 FMOG 10” Casing 161 feet northwest



### SUBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY

Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). S ix horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts o f each of the

successive units.

The proposed wellbore intersects two shallow buried mass transport deposits identified in the subbottom profiler data. These deposits are located 9 feet and 55 feet belo w the seafloor and represent a periodic downslope transportation of unstable slope sediments by gravity flows. These acoustically amorphous units are composed of chaotic and mixed sequences of primarily soft clay with occasional coarser components. No bl ocks of intact material were observed within these sediment gravity flows.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (feet) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths

below the seafloor:

D = 312.76 T 2 

### + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.Project No. 1 40310



### 5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### A detailed description of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moderate amplitude, parall el, continuous reflectors that are 224 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP G” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 417 feet thick at the proposed well location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape

de posit, while the bottom of the u nit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and sandy channel fill. The coarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying

the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous

chaotic reflec tors and is 269 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP G” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amp litude, semi

- continuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 880 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP G” location. These reflection

patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude anomalies indica tive of shallow gas we re identified throughout Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 926 feet northeast of the proposed wellbore. The coarser

- grained channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1, 234 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP G” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to

chaotic reflectors and is 1,355 feet thick at the proposed Well “EP G” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mos tly clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded

channel fills

.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow ga s is interpreted with amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of four levels. These are:

 Negligible

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  backg round level) and phase reversal. This may also include diffuse areas of gas blanking.Project No. 1 40310



### 6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

###  Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitud es (in excess of 4  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 in to account.

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strength of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified within Unit D, with the nearest anomaly located 926 feet northeast of the proposed well.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 53

miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposi tion and form in unconsolidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The ass essment of seismic profiles at the proposed Well “EP G” location suggests that medium to high amplitude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within portions of Units B, D, and E exhibit

a moderate risk of SWF. Units C and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits a negligible risk of SWF. Due to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised that caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deep water marine environments where the conditions of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydrate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabe d soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregula r seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the drill center.Project No. 1 40310



### 7

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “EP G” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant

natural seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP G” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

The water de pth at the proposed Well “EP G” surface location is 5, 304 feet with a seafloor which slopes 4 ° to the north eas t

.

Surface conductor jetting operations should encounter low resistance at the soils within the mass

movement bodies at 9 and 55 feet below the m udline.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP G” surface location.

Seven pipelines an d one well (OCS

- G

- 08797 Well No. SS

- 3 ) exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “EP G” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fil ls occur in Units B,

D , and E

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjuncti on with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of

shallow water flow in Units C and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within

Unit D ( 910

– 1,789 feet BML ). The closest anomaly is located 926 feet northeast of the proposed borehole location. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while

Unit A is assess ed as having a negligible risk of gas.

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

Sincerely,

___________________________ 

### Christopher Baker Marine GeologistProject No. 1 40310



### 8

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

### E NCLO SURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “EP G”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “EP G”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 7593 through the proposed Well “EP G”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6166 through the proposed Well “EP G”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “EP G”

.

Sheet 1. Well Site Clearance Map Panel 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry

Panel 2. Side Scan Sonar Mosaic Panel 3. Seafloor Amplitude

Panel 4. Seafl oor and Subsurface HazardFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 4

– Pg. 9 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 4

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

4.1 CONCENTRATION

FM O&G anticipates encountering 0 ppm H 2 S during the proposed operations.

4.2 CLASSIFICATION

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.49 0(c)

, FM O&G requests that the area of proposed
operations be classified by the BOEM as H 2 S absent

.

4.3 H2S CONTINGENCY PLAN

An H 2 S Contingency Plan is not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

4.4 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5

– Pg. 10 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 5
BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
The seafloor disturbing activities proposed in this plan are in water depths greater than 300 meters (984’). C &C Technologies was contracted to provide an assessment of the shallow conditions at the proposed surface locations. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2,000 feet of the
proposed well si tes. FM O&G will avoid all high

- density deepwater benthic communities by 2,000 feet from each proposed mud and cuttings discharge location and 250 feet from the

location of all other seafloor disturbances. A s per NTL No. 2009

- G40, “Deepwater Benthic

Commun ities,” a map showing the 2,000 foot radius around the well site is included as

Attachment 5

- A

.

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES ( BANKS)
Activities proposed in this EP do not fall within 305 meters (1000 feet) of a topographic “N o Activity Z one ; ” therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive

Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)
All activities proposed under this EP will be conducted outside all Topog raphic Feature

Protective Zo nes; therefore shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required per NTL

No. 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.4 LIVE BOTTOM S (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85 and 129 are n ot located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; therefore

, a separate bathymetric map is not required per NTL No. 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.5 LIVE BOTTOM S (LOW RELIEF) Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are n ot located within 30 meters (100 feet) of any live bottom (low relief) feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required per NTL No. 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive

Underw ater Features and Areas.”

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are n ot located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features; therefore, biologically sensitive area maps are n ot required.

5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS BOEM has determined there is enough data gathered in Grid Area 16 ; therefore, FM O&G will not be conducting any ROV surveys either pre

- spud or post

- drill operations per NTL No. 2008

- G06, “Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater” (Extended b y NTL No. 2014

- N01,Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5

– Pg. 11 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) “Elimination of Expiration Dates on Certain Notices to Lessees and Operators Pending Review and Reissuance”).

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HAB ITAT, AND MARINE

MAMMAL INFORMATION The federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the Gulf Coast are provided in the table below.

Species Scientific Name Status Potential

Presence Critical Habi tat Designated
in the Gulf of Mexico

Lease

Area Coastal

Marine Mammals
Manatee, West

Indian Trichechus manatus latirostris E

-- X Florida (p eninsular)

Whale, Blue Balaenoptera masculus E X *

-- None

Whale , Finback Balaenoptera physalus E X *

-- None

Whale

, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae E X *

-- None

Whale , North Atlantic Right Eubalaena glacialis E X *

-- None

Whale , Sei Balaenopiera borealis E X *

-- None Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon (= macrocephalus ) E X

-- None

Terrestrial Mammals
Mouse, Beach (Alabama, Choctawatchee, Perdido Key, St. Andrew) Peromyscus polionotus E

- X Alabama, Florida (p anhandle) beaches

Birds
Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus T

- X Coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and

Florida (p anhandle) Crane, Whooping Grus Americana E

- X Coastal Texas Reptiles Sea Turtle,
Green Chelonia mydas T,E ** X X None

Sea Turtle,

Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None

Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempli E X X None

Sea Turtle,

Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E X X None

Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Carett a caretta T X X Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,

Florida

Fish Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi T X X Coastal Louisiana,

Mis sissippi, Alabama and

Florida (p panhandle )

Coral s Coral, Elkhorn Acopora palmate T

- X Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas
Coral, Staghorn Acopora cervicornis T

- X FloridaFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5

– Pg. 12 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) Abbreviations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened

* The Blue Fin, Humpback, North Atlantic Right, and Sei Whales are r are or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are

unlikely to be present in the lease area.

** Green Sea turtle is threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered.

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 have been determined to have a high potential for

conta ining archaeological resources

. In accordance with NTL No. 2005

- G07 “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL No. 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” archaeological survey r eport s

w ere provided for Mississippi Canyon Block 84 with EP (Control No. S

- 7638) approved on June
11, 2014 and for Mi ssissippi Canyon Blocks 85 and 129 with EP (Control No. S

- 7147) approved on September 24, 2009.

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Air and water quality information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL No. 2008

- G04, “Information require ments for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents” (Extended by NTL No. BOEM 2014

- G05 , “Extension of Prior Notices

to Lessees” ).

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Socioeconomic Information is not required to be included in this pl an per NTL No. 2008

- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration P lans and Development Operations Coordination

Documents ” (Extended by NTL No. BOEM 2014

- G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”).Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 072372)

Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 40 meters (131.20 feet)

Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet) Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130270)

-50' -110' Salt diapir

Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side) Subsurface fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) -750'

Amplitude anomaly within Unit B (2.102 to 2.652 sec/BSL) 5-1,080 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit C (2.258 to 2.766 sec/BSL) 287-1,408 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML

Escarpment boundary

First generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor

Second generation mass movement deposits with depth below

seafloor Sonar contact & reference number



### SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE

22 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,326,763' 10,486,529'

23 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,615' 10,486,721'

25 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,535' 10,485,069'



## HAZARD MAP

PROPOSED WELL EP C LOCATION Block 84 (OCS-G-08484) Mississippi Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only.

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140310 Aug. 14, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNavigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 072372)

Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 40 meters (131.20 feet)

Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet) Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130270)

-50' -110' Salt diapir

Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side) Subsurface fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) -750'

Amplitude anomaly within Unit B (2.102 to 2.652 sec/BSL) 5-1,080 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit C (2.258 to 2.766 sec/BSL) 287-1,408 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML

Escarpment boundary

First generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor

Second generation mass movement deposits with depth below

seafloor Sonar contact & reference number



### SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE

22 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,326,763' 10,486,529'

23 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,615' 10,486,721'

25 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,535' 10,485,069'



## HAZARD MAP

PROPOSED WELL EP D LOCATION Block 84 (OCS-G-08484) Mississippi Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only.

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140310 Aug. 14, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNavigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 072372)
Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 40 meters (131.20 feet)

Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)

-50' -110' Salt diapir

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML

Escarpment boundary

First generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor

Second generation mass movement deposits with depth below

seafloor Sonar contact & reference number



### SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE



### All infrastructure shown is from company file information only.

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140310 Aug. 14, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Expulsion features with 250' avoidance area Multiple fault zone

Fifth generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor -10' 21 7.0'x7.0'x0.0' 1,335,475' 10,487,746'

24 3.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,337,768' 10,486,633'

26 3.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,338,713' 10,484,691'



## HAZARD MAP

PROPOSED WELL EP E LOCATION Block 129 (OCS-G-10977) Mississippi Canyon AreaNavigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 072372)

Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 40 meters (131.20 feet)

Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet) Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130270)

-50' -110' Salt diapir

Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side) Subsurface fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) -750'

Amplitude anomaly within Unit B (2.102 to 2.652 sec/BSL) 5-1,080 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit C (2.258 to 2.766 sec/BSL) 287-1,408 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML

Escarpment boundary

First generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor

Second generation mass movement deposits with depth below

seafloor Sonar contact & reference number



### SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE

22 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,326,763' 10,486,529'

23 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,615' 10,486,721'

25 10.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,329,535' 10,485,069'



## HAZARD MAP

PROPOSED WELL EP F LOCATION Block 84 (OCS-G-08484) Mississippi Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only.

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140310 Aug. 14, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETNavigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 072372)
Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 40 meters (131.20 feet)

Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)

-50' -110' Salt diapir

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML

Escarpment boundary

First generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor

Second generation mass movement deposits with depth below

seafloor Sonar contact & reference number



### SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE



## HAZARD MAP

PROPOSED WELL EP G LOCATION Block 129 (OCS-G-10977) Mississippi Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only.

DATE:

REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140310 Sep. 29, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Expulsion features with 250' avoidance area Multiple fault zone

Fifth generation mass movement deposits with depth below seafloor -10' 21 7.0'x7.0'x0.0' 1,335,475' 10,487,746'

24 3.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,337,768' 10,486,633'

26 3.0'x3.0'x0.0' 1,338,713' 10,484,691'Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 6

– Pg. 13 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 6

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES “Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the Gulf of Mexico” is

included as Attachment 6

- A

**.**

6.2 MODELING REPORT

Mod eling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.Attachment 6-A. WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE GOM

Projected
Downhole Disposal Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid Cuttings coated while drilling with WBM 2,200 BBLS/WELL 314 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to mudline prior to riser installation. Based on seven total

days of drilling with WBM. No Answer yes or no

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

Water-based drilling fluid Water, NaCI (salt), PHPA polymer and Barium

Sulfate (Barite) 50,000 BBLS/WELL 7,143 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at the mudline prior to the riser installation.

Nominal amount of unused fluid may be discharged at the

surface. Based on seven days of drilling with WBM. No

Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

30,020 BBLS/WELL 158 BBLS/DAY/WELL USCG approved MSD with chlorination Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling fluids,

including drilled out cement 7,500 BBLS/WELL 77 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to surface. Treated cutting will be discharged

overboard during drilling of the SBM intervals. Discharge rate is based

upon 98 days of drilling. Cuttings will

be processed through a cuttings dryer, substantially reducing

the ROC percentage. No

Domestic waste

Sanitary Gray water from living quarters 65,740 BBLS/WELL 346 BBLS/DAY/WELL Chlorinate and discharge overboard No

Sanitary waste from living quarters, control

rooms and change rooms.

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover?

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

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

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

Deck Drainage Deck drainage from drilling floor 950 BBLS/WELL 5 BBLS/DAY/WELL No drill floor drainage routed to sea. All retained on board and

processed to <15ppm or sent to shore for disposal No No

Brines, NaCl, KCl, CaBr 2 , CaCl 2

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit? General NPDES Permit # GMG290534 Well treatment fluids

Well completion fluids

Workover fluids

Desalinization unit discharge

Blowout prevent fluid

Ballast water

Bilge water

Excess cement at seafloor

Fire water
Cooling water Sea Water with no additional chemicals 112,546,310 BBLS/WELL 592,349 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No No

No

N/A

Rejected water from the watermaker. 286,900 BBLS/WELL 1,510 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No 333 BBLS/DAY/WELL

833 BBLS/DAY/WELL

N/A Overboard upon samples passing the Static Sheen Test per Region 6

GOM GMG 290000 regulations.

Overboard upon samples passing the Static Sheen Test per Region 6

GOM GMG 290000 regulations.

N/A Brines, NaCl, KCl, CaBr 2 , CaCl 2

N/A 2,000 BBLS/WELL

5,000 BBLS/WELL

N/A

Sea Water with no additional chemicals 380 BBLS/WELL 2 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No Cement Slurry 495 BBLS/WELL 495 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at seafloor during riserless operations. Discharge rate based
upon 1 day (22" cement returns) No N/A N/A N/A N/A No Potable Water with

4% Stack-Magic ECO-Fv2 1,200 BBLS/WELL 6 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at the seafloor or with deck drainage when tested

at surface No

Uncontaminated seawater used to maintain

proper draft 27,000 BBLS/WELL 142 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard. Based upon 5 major ballast operations, with

rig at operating draft minimal ballast change is required NoFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 7

– Pg. 14 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 7

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

Screen Questions for EP’s Yes No Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (tons) associated with your proposed exploration activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the following formulas: CT = 3400D 2/3 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

Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87.5° W longitude? X Do you expect to encounter H 2 S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X

Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours
from an y proposed well? X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION There are no existing facilities or activities co

- located with the proposed activities. The Plan Emissions are the same as the Complex Total Emissions and are i ncluded as Attachment 7

- A

.

This information was calculated by:

Jean Martin

281

- 698

- 8544 jean.martin @jccteam.comEXPLORATION PLAN (EP)

AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST OMB Control No. 1010-0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/2011



### MMS FORM MMS-138 (December 2008 - Supersedes all previous versions of form MMS-138 which may not be used). Page 1 of 8 COMPANY Freeport -McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

AREA Mississippi Canyon

BLOCK 84/85/129

LEASE OCS-G 08484/08797/10977

PLATFORM NA

WELL Locations A, B, E, F, 001 ST, G, H, and I

COMPANY CONTACT Jean Martin

TELEPHONE NO. 281-698-8544

REMARKS Drill, complete, test, flare & install subsea wellheads using two drillships,

both similar to the Noble Sam Croft. Emissions calculations use actual horsepower rating of 64,369 and highest monthly average of actual fuel consumed, 18,377 gal/day, based on Noble Sam Croft 2014 fuel consumption records.EMISSIONS FACTORS



### MMS FORM MMS-138 (December 2008 - Supersedes all previous versions of form MMS-138 which may not be used). Page 2 of 8 Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATE SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84

Equipment/Emission Factors units PM SOx NOx VOC CO REF. DATE

NG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83 AP42 3.2-1& 3.1-1 10/96 NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5 AP42 3.2-1 10/96 NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6 AP42 3.2-1 10/96 NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6 AP42 3.2-1 10/96

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3.3-1 10/96 Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3.4-1 10/96

Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98

NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84 P42 1.4-1, 14-2, & 14 7/98
NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5 AP42 11.5-1 9/91 Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21 AP42 1.3-1 & 1.3-3 9/98 Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03 E&P Forum 1/93 Fugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005 API Study 12/93 Glycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6 La. DEQ 1991 Gas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034

Sulphur Content Source Value Units

Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm
Diesel Fuel 0.4 % weight Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weightEMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 3RD YEAR

MMS FORM MMS-138 (December 2008 - Supersedes all previous versions of form MMS-138 which may not be used). Page 5 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Freeport -McMoRan Oil & Green Canyon 599 / 643 OCS-G 34998 / NA Locations A, B, E, F, 001 ST, G, H, and I Jean Martin 281-698-8544

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel (Drillship #1 similar to Noble Sam Croft) 64,369 3109.0227 18377.00 24 183 45.37 208.14 1559.60 46.79 340.28 24.54 112.57 843.50 25.31 184.04

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel (Drillship #2 similar to Noble Sam Croft) 64369 3109.0227 18377.00 24 4 45.37 208.14 1559.60 46.79 340.28 0.54 2.46 18.44 0.55 4.02

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 6 53 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.23 1.06 7.96 0.24 1.74 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 27 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 0.42 1.92 14.39 0.43 3.14 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2016 YEAR TOTAL 95.30 437.30 3290.72 110.84 795.67 25.72 118.01 884.64 26.83 194.88

EXEMPTION

CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 56086.99

67.0EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 4TH YEAR

MMS FORM MMS-138 (December 2008 - Supersedes all previous versions of form MMS-138 which may not be used). Page 6 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Freeport -McMoRan Oil & Green Canyon 599 / 643 OCS-G 34998 / NA Locations A, B, E, F, 001 ST, G, H, and I Jean Martin 281-698-8544

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel (Drillship #2 similar to Noble Sam Croft) 64369 3109.0227 18377.00 24 116 45.37 208.14 1559.60 46.79 340.28 15.55 71.36 534.68 16.04 116.66

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel (Drillship #2) 64369 3109.0227 18377.00 24 107 45.37 208.14 1559.60 46.79 340.28 14.35 65.82 493.19 14.80 107.61

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 6 64 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.28 1.28 9.61 0.29 2.10 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 32 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 0.50 2.28 17.06 0.51 3.72 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2017 YEAR TOTAL 95.30 437.30 3290.72 110.84 795.67 30.68 140.74 1054.89 31.94 232.02

EXEMPTION

CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 56086.99

67.0SUMMARY



### MMS FORM MMS-138 (December 2008 - Supersedes all previous versions of form MMS-138 which may not be used). Page 8 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL

Freeport -

McMoRan Oil

& Gas LLC Green Canyon 599 / 643 OCS-G 34998 / 35001 NA Locations A, B, E, F, 001 ST, G, H, and I

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2016 25.72 118.01 884.64 26.83 194.88

2017 30.68 140.74 1054.89 31.94 232.02

Allowable 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 2231.10 56086.99Fuel Consumption Noble Sam Croft (6 months)
7/1/2014-12/31/2014

Day Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 27,474 12,918 18,357 15,243 14,477 16,432

2 26,998 12,971 13,473 15,243 14,820 18,096

3 23,511 13,895 14,979 15,771 14,345 18,413

4 10,725 14,609 15,982 15,507 14,979 17,911

5 36,297 20,605 16,854 15,243 14,001 18,413

6 30,565 13,288 18,228 14,873 16,854 16,379

7 28,927 15,613 15,428 14,054 18,783 16,564

8 28,134 15,269 17,884 13,261 12,575 15,745

9 33,154 16,458 25,942 15,798 14,080 14,054

10 30,486 17,039 18,360 12,337 16,669 11,201

11 14,218 16,405 16,088 15,137 14,160 13,578

12 13,890 16,115 17,515 14,001 18,730 18,516

13 13,895 20,183 18,202 16,511 14,397 18,122

14 13,948 20,315 18,651 15,296 11,307 12,495

15 10,382 15,428 14,873 5,072 16,722 12,707

16 13,367 17,330 16,881 16,141 14,265 12,997

17 12,152 14,550 16,907 16,326 14,133 11,095

18 12,971 15,956 17,700 12,971 13,129 12,284

19 15,507 14,714 20,605 13,578 16,326 13,287

20 12,363 15,454 15,058 13,869 14,530 12,310

21 15,216 15,164 18,809 12,812 17,911 13,235

22 19,337 18,281 16,907 14,582 15,084 13,446

23 17,303 14,794 14,530 13,895 17,673 16,801

24 11,941 14,767 16,405 13,103 16,590 17,277

25 12,944 14,952 17,171 12,099 19,707 15,005

26 20,368 13,552 19,628 13,103 16,986 13,922

27 10,699 14,873 14,477 13,552 17,911 13,446

28 11,941 14,873 13,499 14,318 16,643 12,892

29 12,707 14,873 13,895 16,141 16,247 14,820

30 13,394 14,873 14,280 17,752 16,801 15,692

31 14,873 13,687 16,379 18,096

TOTAL FUEL

CONSUMED (GAL/MONTH) 569,687 483,804 507,568 443,968 470,835 465,231

AVG FUEL

CONSUMED (GAL/DAY) 18,377 15,607 16,919 14,322 15,695 15,007 Month

Transit DaysFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 8

– Pg. 15 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 8

OIL SPILL INFORMATION

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING
All the proposed activities and facilities in this EP will be covered by the Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) submitted by Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( Company N o. 03280 ) on January 10, 2014, revised on January 31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control No. O

713).

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES
Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location
Houma, LA Harvey, LA Venice, LA Houma, LA Harvey, LA Venice, LA

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION

FM O&G ’s primary equipment provider s are Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) and National Response Corporation (NRCC). Clean Gulf Associates Services, LLC (CGAS) will provide closest available personnel, as well as a CGAS superviso r to operate the equipment. Through its Independent Contractor Network (ICN), NRCC will also provide closest available personnel, as well as an NRCC ICN supervisor to operate the equipment.

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

Category Regional OSRP
WCD

- Drilling EP
WCD

- Drilling Type of a ctivity Exploratory Drilling

> 10 miles Exploratory Drilling

> 10 miles Facility l o cation (area/b lock) GC 393 MC 84 Facility d esignation Well Location B Well Location C

Distance to nearest s horeline (mi) 96.5 mi 67 mi Storage t anks (bbl) 0 0

Uncontrolled b lowout (bbl) 400,000 bbl 376,345

Total v olume (bbl) 400,000 376,345 Type of o il(s) (crude, condensate, diesel) Crude Crude

API g ravity 25 o 32.8 o

Calculations and Assumptions for the Regional OSRP WCD drilling scenario were submitted and found acceptable in Exploration Plan (Control No. N

- 9739).

FM O&G has determined that the worst

- case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP
does not super sede the worst

- case scenario from our approved Regional OSRP.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 8

– Pg. 16 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) Since Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC has the capability to respond to the worst

- case spill scenario included in our Regional OSRP submitted on January 10, 2014, revised on January
31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control No. O

- 713) , and since the worst

case scenario determined for our EP does not replace the worst

- case scenario in our Regional
OSRP, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC hereby certifies that Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas

LL C has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst

- case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in

this EP

.

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION The Oil Spill Response Discussi on is included as Attachment 8

- A.

8.6 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

### 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 376,345 barrels of crude oil wi th an API gravity of 32.8 °

.

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 an d

Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website . Th e results are shown in Fi gure 1

. The BOEM OSRAM identifies a 21 % probability of impact to the shorelines of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana within 30 days

. Plaquemines Parish includes Barataria Bay, the Mississippi River Delta, Breton Sound and the affiliated islands and bays. This region is an extremely sensitive habitat and serves as a migratory, breeding, feeding and nursery habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Beaches in this area vary in g rain particle size and can be classified as fine sand, shell or perched shell beaches. Sandy and muddy tidal flats are also abundant

.

Response

FM O&G will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as

p racticable . A descrip tion 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 ADI OS oil da tabase. The results indicate 14 % or approximately 52,688 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 323,657 barrels remaining.

Spill Response MC 84, Well Location C Barrels of Oil

WCD Volume 376,345

Less 14 % natural evaporation/dispersion 52,688

Remaining volume 323,657



### Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to the worst case discharge

. 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.

FM O&G ’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 an operations safety analysis, the size of the spill, weather and potential impacts. If aerial disper sant s are utilized, 8 sorties (9

, 6 00 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 ap provals have been obtained and the proper planning is in place, in

- situ burning of oil may be attempted. S lick containment boom would be immediately called out and on

- scene as soon as possible. Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim ut ilizing CGA’s, MSRC’s, and NRCC’s spill response equipment, with a total derated skimming capacity of 1,0 22 ,754 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 296,795 barrels. If additional storage is needed, various tank barges with a total of 1.4 million+ barrels may be mobilized and centrally

located to provide temporary storage and minimize off

- loading time

. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming a ttempts.

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the use of CGA’s

and NRCC’s near shore and shallow water skimmers with a total ed derated skimming capacity of 147,605 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 2,393 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 47,000 barrel storage barge, a 25,000 barrel storage barge, three 20,000 barrel storage barges, a nd three 23,000 barrel storage barges may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage and minimize off

- loading time . Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent boom

on vegetat ed areas. Master Service Agreements with AMPOL and OMI Environmental will ensure access to 147,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom

. Figure 2 outlines individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategi es 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

, applicable Area Contingency and Geographical Response Plan s a nd 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 e quipment allowing a more effective response to site

- specific circumstances. FM O&G ’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan.

Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, FM O&G 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

86 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)).

### 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

• Locat ion of the spill

• Product spilled

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments

• Trajectory and product analysis

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

FM O&G 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 ar eas as possible. Safety will take precedence over all other considerations during these operations.

Coordination of response assets will be supervised by the designation of a SIMOPS group as necessary for close quarter vessel response activities. Most of ten, this group will be used during source control events that require a significant number of large vessels operating independently, but in coordination to complete a common objective, in a small area and in close coordination and support of each other. T his group must also monitor the subsurface activities of each vessel (ROV, dispersant application, well control support, etc.). The SIMOPS group leader reports to

the Source Control Section Chief.

In addition, these activities will be monitored by the spi ll management team (SMT) and Unified Command via a structured Common Operating Picture (COP) established to track resource and

slick movement in real time.

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 develope d 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

### Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment

Surveillan ce

• 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 aerial dispersant providers on standby

• With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determine appropriatene ss of dispersant application (refer to Section 18)

• 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 moori ng 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 (seawee d, and other floating materials)

CGA 95’ Fast Response Vessels (FRVs)

• Designed to be a first vessel on scene

• Capable of maintaining the initial Command and Control function for on water recovery operations

• 24 hour oil spill detection capability

### • Highly mob ile and efficient skimming capability

• Use as far off

- shore as safely possible

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

MSRC PSV

- VO O Skimming Systems

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as near

- shore as allowed by draft of vessel

• Use as far off

- shore as needed

• Expected 24

- hour mobilization

• Expected length of 200 foot or greater

• PSV

- VOO with deck space of 150’ x 40’ to provide space fo r skimmer, marine storage

tanks and boom

• PSV

- VOO with 2,000

- 20,000 bbl below deck storage supplemented with 2 or more 500 bbl marine portable tanks, if necessary, depending on below deck storage

MSRC Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRV)

• Use in areas with hea viest oil concentrations

• Use as near

- shore as allowed by draft of vessel

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

• Use as far off

- shore as needed

MSRC Fast Response Vessels (FRV)

• Use in areas with heaviest oil conc entrations

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

MSRC Responders

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

NRCC Oil Spill Response Barge (OSRB)

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

NRCC Oil Spill Response Vessel (OSRV)

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

### NRCC Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System (VOSS)

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

• VOOs minimum 110’ in l ength

• VOOs with minimum of 8x15 of optimum deck space

• VOOs with 200

- 400 ft of boom

• Storage tanks of 100 bbls or more

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of contracted assets (See Appendix E)

• Early call out (to allow for tug boat acquisition and deploym ent 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 FM O&G ’s contracted resources as applica ble

• Industry vessels are ideal 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/ABS for vessel inspections

• 

### Place VOOs in Division or Groups as needed

• 

### Use organic on

- board storage if appropriate

• 

### Maximize non

- organic storage appropriate to vessel limitations

• 

### Decant as appropriate after approval to do so has been granted

• 

### Assign bulk storage barges to each Division/Group

• 

### Position bulk storage barges as close to skimming units as possible

• 

### Utilize large skimming vessel (e.g. barges) storage for smaller vessel offloading

• 

### Maximize skimming area (swath) to the opti mum width given sea conditions and available equipment

• 

### Maximize use of oleophilic skimmers in all operations, but especially offshore

• 

### Nearshore, use shallow water barges and shuttle to skimming units to minimize offloading time

• 

### Plan and equip to use all of floading capabilities of the storage vessel to minimize offloading time

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 syst ems

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

• Ensure VOO crew members are trained prior to operations

### • Determine assets to perform on water operation

• Build operations into safety plan

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan

• Initial test burn to ensure effectiveness

Adverse Weather Operations: In adverse weather, when seas are > 3 feet, the use of larger recovery and storage vessels, oleophilic skimmers, and large offshore boom will be maximized. Safety will be the ove rriding factor in all operations and will cease at the order of the Unified Command, vessel captain, or in an emergency, ”stop work” may be directed by any crew member.

### Surface Oil Recovery Considerations and Tactics (Offshore and Near

- shore Operations)

Maximization of skimmer

- oil encounter rate

• Place barges in skimming task forces, groups, etc., to reduce recovered oil offloading

time

• Place barges alongside skimming systems for immediate offloading of recovered oil when practicable

• Use two vessels, ea ch with heavy sea boom, in an open

- ended “V” configuration to funnel surface oil into a trailing skimming unit’s organic, V

- shaped boom and skimmer (see page 7, CGA Equipment Guide Book and Tactic Manual (CGATM)

• Use secondary vessels and heavy sea boom to widen boom swath beyond normal skimming system limits (see page 15, CGATM)

• Consider night

- time operations, first considering safety issues

• Utilize all available advanced technology systems ( IR, X

- Band Radar, etc.) to determine the location of, and move t o, recoverable oil

• Confirm the presence of recoverable oil prior to moving to a new location

Maximize skimmer system efficiency

• Place weir skimming systems in areas of calm seas and thick oil

• Maximize the use of oleophilic skimming systems in heavier seas

• Place less mobile, high EDRC skimming systems (e.g. HOSS Barge) in the largest pockets of the heaviest oil

• Maximize onboard recovered oil storage for vessels.

• Obtain authorization for decanting of recovered water as soon as possible

• Use smaller, more a gile skimming systems to recover streamers of oil normally found farther from the source. Place recovered oil barges nearby

Recovered Oil Storage

• Smaller barges in larger quantities will increase flexibility for multi

- location skimming operations

• Place ba rges in skimming task forces, groups, etc., to reduce recovered oil offloading

time

• Procure and deploy the maximum number of portable tanks to support Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems if onboard storage is not available

• Maximize use of the organic re covered oil storage capacity of the skimming vessel

Command, Control, and Communications (C 3 

### )

• Publish, implement, and fully test an appropriate communications plan

• Design an operational scheme, maintaining a manageable span of control

• Designate and mark C 3 

### vessels for easy aerial identification

• Designate and employ C 3 

### aircraft for task forces, groups, etc.

• Use reconnaissance air craft and Rapid Response Teams (RAT) to confirm the presence

of recoverable oil

### On Water Recovery Group When the first skimming vessel arrives on scene, a complete site assessment will be conducted before recovery operations begin. Once it is confirmed that the air monitoring readings for O2, LEL, H2S, CO, VOC, and Benzene are all within the permissible limits, oil recovery opera tions may begin.

As skimming vessels arrive, they will be organized to work in areas that allow for the most efficient vessel operation and free vessel movement in the recovery of oil. Vessel groups will vary in structure as determined by the Operations Section of the Unified Command, but will generally consist, at a minimum, of the following dedicated assets:

• 3 to 5

– Offshore skimming vessels (recovery)

• 1

– Tank barge (temporary storage)

• 1

– Air asset (tactical direction)

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/util ity for supply)

• 6 to 10

– Boom vessels (enhanced booming )

Example ( Note: Actual organization of TFs will be dependent on several factors including, asset availability, weather, spilled oil migration, currents, etc.)

The 95’ FRV Breton Island out of Ve nice arrives on scene and conducts an initial site assessment. Air monitoring levels are acceptable and no other visual threats have been observed. The area is cleared for safe skimming operations. The Breton Island assumes command and control (CoC) of on

- water recovery operations until a dedicated non

- skimming vessel arrives to

relieve it of those duties.

A second 95’ FRV arrives and begins recovery operations alongside the Breton Island. Several more vessels begin to arrive, including a third 95’ FRV out of Galveston, the HOSS Barge (High Volume Open Sea Skimming System) out of Harvey, a boom barge (CGA 300) with 25,000’ of 42” auto boom out of Leeville, and 9 Fast Response Units (FRUs) from the load

- out location at

C

- Port in Port Fourchon.

As thes e vessels set up and begin skimming, they are grouped into task forces (TFs) as directed by the Operations Section of the Unified Command located at the command post.

Initial set

- up and potential actions:

• A 1,000 meter safety zone has been established around the incident location for vessels

involved in Source Control

• The HOSS Barge is positioned facing the incident location just outside of this safety zone or at the point where the freshest oil is reaching the surface

• The HOSS Barge engages its Oil Spill Detection (OSD) system to locate the heaviest oil and maintains that ability for 24

- hour operations

### • The HOSS Barge deploys 1,320’ of 67” Sea Sentry boom on each side, creating a swath

width of 800’

• The Breton Island and H.I. Rich skim nearby, util izing the same OSD systems as the HOSS Barge to locate and recover oil

• Two FRUs join this group and it becomes TF1

• The remaining 7 FRUs are split into a 2 and 3 vessel task force numbered TF2 and TF3

• A 95’ FRV is placed in each TF

• The boom barge (CGA 300) is positioned nearby and begins deploying auto boom in sections between two utility vessels (1,000’ to 3,000’ of boom, depending on conditions)

with chain

- link gates in the middle to funnel oil to the skimmers

• The initial boom support vessels position in front of TF2 and TF3

• A 100,000+ barrel offshore tank barge is placed with each task force as necessary to facilitate the immediate offload of skimming vessels

The initial task forces (36 hours in) may be structured as follows:

TF 1

• 1

– 95’ FRV

• 1

– HOSS Barge with 3 tugs

• 2

– FRUs

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 8

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 8

– Boom

- towing vessels

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 2

• 1

– 95’ FRV

• 4

– FRU s

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 10

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 10

– Boom

- towing vessels

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 3

• 1

– 95’ FRV

• 3

– FRUs

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tan k barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 8

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 8

– Boom

- towing vessels

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

### Offshore skimming equipment continues to arrive in accordance with the ETA d ata listed in figure H.3a; this equipment includes 2 AquaGuard skimmers and 11 sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms. These high volume heavy weather capable systems will be divided into functional groups and assigned to specific areas by the Operations Secti on of the Unified

Command.

At this point of the response, the additional TFs may assume the following configurations:

TF 4

• 2

– Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

• 1

– AquaGuard Skimmer

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associat ed tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

• 6

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 6

– Boom

- towing vessels

TF 5

• 3

– Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

• 1

– AquaGuard Skimmer

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

• 8

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 8

– Boom

- towing vessels

TF 6

• 3

– Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

• 6

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 6

– Boom

- towing vessels

TF 7

• 3

– Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming A rms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

• 1

– 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

• 1

– Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

• 2

– Support vessels (crew/utility)

• 6

– 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

• 6

– Boom

- towing vessels

### CGA Minimum Acceptable C apabilities for Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) Minimum acceptable capabilities of Petroleum Industry Designed Vessels (PIDV) for conducting Vessel of Opportunity (VOO) skimming operations are shown in the table below. PIDVs are “purpose

- built” to provide nor mal support to offshore oil and gas operators. They include but are not limited to utility boats, offshore supply vessels, etc. They become VOOs when tasked with oil spill response duties.

Capability FRU KOSEQ AquaGuard

Type of Vessel Utility Boat Offs hore Supply

Vessel Utility Boat

Operating parameters

Sea State 3

- 5 ft max 9.8 ft max 3

- 5 ft max

Skimming speed ≤1 kt ≤3 kts ≤1 kt

Vessel size

Minimum Length 100 ft 200 ft 100 ft
Deck space for:

• 

### Tank(s)

• 

### Crane(s)

• 

### Boom Reels

• 

### Hydraulic Power Units

• 

### Equipment Boxes 18x32 ft 100x40 ft 18x32 ft

Communication Assets Marine Band

Radio Marine Band Radio Marine Band

Rad io

Tactical use of Vessels of Opportunity (VOO): FM O&G will take all possible measures to

maximize the oil

- to

- skimmer encounter rate of all skimming systems, to include VOOs, as discussed in this section. VOOs will normally be placed within an On

- water recovery unit as shown in figures below.

Skimming Operations: PIDVs are the preferred VOO skimming platform. OSROs are more versed in operating on these platforms and the vessels are generally large enough with crews more likely versed in spill response operations. They also have a greater possibility of having

on

- board storage capacity and the most likely vessels to be under contract, and therefore more readily available to the operator. These vessels would normally be assigned to an on

- water

recovery group/division (see figure below) and outfitted with a VOSS suited for their size and capabilities. Specific tactics used for skimming operations would be dependent upon many parameters which include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, weather, typ e VOSS on board, product being recovered, and area of oil coverage. Planners would deploy these assets with the objective of safely maximizing oil

- to

- skimmer encounter rate by taking actions to minimize

non

- skimming time and maximizing boom swath. Speci fic tactical configurations are shown in figures below.

The Fast Response Unit (FRU) : A self

- contained, skid based, skimming system that is deployed from the right side of a vessel of opportunity (VOO). An outrigger holds a 75’ long

### section of air inflata ble boom in place that directs oil to an apex for recovery via a Foilex 250 weir skimmer. The outrigger creates roughly a 40’ swath width dependent on the VOO beam. The lip of the collection bowl on the skimmer is placed as close to the oil and water int erface as possible to maximize oil recovery and minimize water retention. The skimmer then pumps all fluids recovered to the storage tank where it is allowed to settle, and with the approval of the Coast Guard, the water is decanted from the bottom of the tank back into the water ahead of the containment boom to be recycled through the system. Once the tank is full of as much pure recovered oil as possible it is offloaded to a storage barge for disposal in accordance with an approved disposal plan. A sec ond 100 barrel storage tank can be added if the appropriate amount of deck space is available to use as secondary storage.

### Tactical Overview

Mechanical Recovery

– The FRU is designed to provide fast response skimming capability in the

offshore and nears hore environment in a stationary or advancing mode. It provides a rated daily recovery capacity of 4,100 barrels. An additional boom reel with 440’ of offshore boom can be deployed along with the FRU, and a second support vessel for boom towing, to exten d the swath width when attached to the end of the fixed boom. The range and sustainability offshore is dependent on the VOO that the unit is placed on, but generally these can stay offshore for extended periods. The FRU works well independently or assign ed with other on

- water recovery assets in a task force. In either case, it is most effective when a designated aircraft is assigned to provide tactical direction to ensure the best placement in recoverable oil.

Maximum Sea Conditions

– Under most circum stances the FRU can maintain standard oil spill recovery operations in 2’ to 4’ seas. Ultimately, the Coast Guard licensed Captain in charge of the VOO (with input from the CGAS Supervisor assigned) will be responsible to determine when

the sea conditions have surpassed the vessel’s safe operating capabilities.

Possible Task Force Configuration (Multiple VOOs can be deployed in a task force)

1

– VOO (100’ to 165’ Utility or Supply Vessel)

1

– Boom reel w/support vessel for towing

1

– Tank barge (offshore ) for temporary storage

1

– Utility/Crewboat (supply)

1

– Designated spotter aircraft

The VOSS (yellow) is being deployed and connected to an out

- rigged arm. This is suitable for collection in both large pockets of oil and for recovery of streaming oil

. The oil

- to

- skimmer encounter rate is limited by the length of the arm. Skimming pace is < 1 knot.

### Through the use of an additional VOO, and using extended sea boom, the swath of the VOSS is increased therefore maximizing the oil

- to

- skimmer encounter rate. Skimming pace is < 1 knot.

### The Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arm: A skimming system deployed on a vessel of opportunity. It requires a large Offshore or Platform Supply Vessel (OSV/PSV), greater than 200’ with at least 100’ x 50’ of free deck space. On e ach side of the vessel, a 50’ long rigid framed Arm is deployed that consists of pontoon chambers to provide buoyancy, a smooth nylon face, and a hydraulically adjustable mounted weir skimmer. The Arm floats independently of the vessel and is attached by a tow bridle and a lead line. The movement of the vessel forward draws the rubber end seal of the arm against the hull to create a collection point for free oil directed to the weir by the Arm face. The collection weir is adjusted to keep the lip as clos e to the oil water interface as possible to maximize oil recovery while attempting to minimize excess water collection. A transfer pump (combination of positive displacement, screw type and centrifuge suited for highly viscous oils) pump the recovered liqu id to portable tanks and/or dedicated fixed storage tanks onboard the vessel. After being allowed to sit and separate, with approval from the Coast Guard, the water can be decanted (pumped off) in front of the collection arm to be reprocessed through

the system. Once full with as much pure recovered oil as possible, the oil is transferred to a temporary storage barge where it can be disposed of in accordance with an approved disposal plan.

Tactical Overview

Mechanical Recovery

– Deployed on large vesse ls of opportunity (VOO) the Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms are high volume surge capacity deployed to increase recovery capacity at the source of a large oil spill in the offshore and outer nearshore environment of the Gulf of Mexico. They are highly mobile an d sustainable in rougher sea conditions than normal skimming vessels (9.8’ seas). The large Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV) required to deploy the Arms are able to remain on scene for extended periods, even when sea conditions pick up. Temporary storage on deck in portable tanks usually provides between 1,000 and 3,000 bbls. In most cases, the OSV will be able to pump 20% of its deadweight into the liquid mud tanks in accordance with the vessels Certificate of Inspection (COI). All storage can be offloade d utilizing the vessels liquid transfer system.

Maximum Sea Conditions

- Under most circumstances the larger OSVs are capable of remaining on scene well past the Skimming Arms maximum sea state of 9.8’. Ultimately it will be the decision of the VOO Capta in, with input from the T&T Supervisor onboard, to determine when the sea conditions have exceeded the safe operating conditions of the vessel.

Command and Control

– The large OSVs in many cases have state of the art communication and electronic systems, as well as the accommodations to support the function of directing all skimming operations offshore and reporting back to the command post. Possible Task Force Configuration (Multiple Koseq VOOs can be deployed in a task force)

1

– > 200’ Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV) with set of Koseq Arms 2 to 4 portable storage tanks (500 bbl)

1

– Modular Crane Pedestal System set (MCPS) or 30 cherry picker (crane) for deployment

1

– Tank barge (offshore) for temporary storage

1

– Utility/Crewboat (supply)

1

– Designa ted spotter aircraft

4

– Personnel (4 T&T OSRO)

### Scattered oil is “caught” by two VOO and collected at the apex of the towed sea boom. The oil moves thought a “gate” at that apex, forming a larger stream of oil which moves into the boom of the skimming vessel. Operations are paced at >1. A recovered oil barge stationed nearby to minimize time taken to offload recovered

oil.

This is a depiction of the same operation as above but using KOSEQ Arms. In this configuration, the collecting boom speed dictates the operational pace at > 1 knot to

minimize entrainment of the oil.

### Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) Procedure for Accessing Member

- Contracted and other Vessels of Opportunity (VOOs) for Spill Response

• 

### CGA has procedures in place for CGA member com panies to acquire vessels of opportunity (VOOs) from an existing CGA member’s contracted fleet or other sources for the deployment of CGA portable skimming equipment including Koseq Arms, Fast Response Units (FRUs) and any other portable skimming system(s) deemed appropriate for the response for a potential or actual oil spill, WCD oil spill or a Spill of National Significance (SONS).

• 

### CGA uses Port Vision, a web

- based vessel and terminal interface that empowers CGA to track vessels through Automatic Iden tification System ( AIS) and terminal activities using a Geographic Information System (GIS). It provides live AIS/GIS views of waterways showing current vessel positions, terminals, created vessel fleets, and points

- of

- interest. Through this system, CGA h as the ability to get instant snapshots of the location and status of all vessels contracted to CGA members, day or night, from any web

- enabled PC.

### Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

• Put near shore assets on standby and deployment in accordance with pla nning 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

Consi derations

• 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 r emote 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 Respo nse Team level (Region 6)

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• FRVs

• Egmopol and Marco SWS

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

• Use FM O&G ’s contracted resources as applicable

• Industry vessel are usually best for de ployment 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 vess el inspections

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches

### Shoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations

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

• Time to acquire personnel and e quipment and their availability

• Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate ACP, 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 b oom 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 mov ement

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 m inimize 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

### 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 phas e 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 cap abilities 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. Sk imming 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 p ort 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

### Environmental Conditions in the GOM Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences

wes terly 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 h igh 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 At lantic 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

month.

### FIGURE 1

TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing FM O&G ’s WCD and information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico a vailable 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

Well Locations C

- G: Drill, complete, test,

flare and install subsea wellheads using a dynamically positioned drillship

MC 84,

Well Location C

67 miles from shore G08484 C57 Cameron, LA Vermilion, LA Terrebonne, LA Lafourche, LA Plaquemines, LA

St. Bernard, LA Hancock & Harrison, MS Jackson, MS Mobile, AL Baldwin, AL Escambia, AL Okaloosa, FL

Walton, FL

Bay, FL 1

1

2

2

21

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

### WCD Scenario

– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS ( 67 miles from shore) 323,657 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering)

API Gravity 32.8 °

FIGURE 2

– Equipment Response Time to MC 84, Well Location C

Dispersants/Surveillance

Dispersant/Surveillance Dispersant Capacity (gal) Persons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to site Total Hrs

ASI

Basler 67T 2000 2 Houma, LA 2 2 0.8 4.8

DC 3 12 00 2 Houma, LA 2 2 1.1 5.1

DC 3 1200 2 Houma, LA 2 2 1.1 5.1

Aero Commander NA 2 Houma, LA 2 2 0.8 4.8

MSRC

C

- 130 Spray AC 3,250 2 Kiln, MS 3 0.2 0.4 3.6

King Air BE90 Spray AC 250 2 Kiln, MS 3 0.3 0.7 4

Offshore Response
Offshore Equipment

Pre

- Det ermined 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

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Venice, LA 2 2 1 4.25 1 6.25

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Leeville, LA 2 0 2 6.5 0 10.5

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Galveston, TX 2 0 1 20.5 0 23.5

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 8 Harvey, LA 7 0 5 12 1 2 5
Boom Barge (CGA

- 300) 42” Auto Boom (25000’) NA NA 1 Tug

50 Crew 4 (Barge) 2 (Per Crew) Leeville, LA 4 0 6 18.5 1.5 30Recovered Oil Storage Pre

Determined 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
Kirby Offshore (available through contract with CGA)

RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 110000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 130000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 140000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 150000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60

RO Barge NA 150000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 46 0 2 12 0 60Offshore Equipment

Pre

- determined Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Hrs to

GOM Travel to Spi ll Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

NRCC OSRV Energy

Vikoma Sea 50 1509 300 NA 4

- 6 Grand Isle, LA 2 2 1 14.5 1 20.5

OSRV Admiral

Marco Class XI AB 8 Band Rope Mop 24000

2283 300 NA 4

- 6 Galveston, TX 2 2 1 45.5 1 51.5

OSRB Defender

Marco Class XI AB

Vikoma Cascade 24000

5520 16500 2 Tugs 4

- 6 Bayou La Batre, AL 4 2 3 18.5 1 28.5

OSRB Valor N/A 19000 2 Tugs 4

- 6 Tampa, FL 4 2 7 57 1 71Offshore Equipment

Pre

- determined 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

MSRC

Louisiana Responder

Transrec 350 + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 4000 NA 14 Fort Jackson, LA 2 0 4.5 7 1 14.5

MSRC 452 Offshore Barge

1 Crucial Disk 88/30

1 Desmi Ocean
2,640‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 11122

3017 45000 3 Tugs 6 Fort Jackson, LA 2.5 0 6 13 1 22.5

Mississippi Responder

Transrec 350 + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 4000 NA 14 Pascagoula, MS 2 0 2 8 1 13

MSRC 402 Offshore Barge

2 Crucial Disk 88/30

2 ,640‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 22244 40300 3 Tugs 6 Pascagoula, MS 2.5 0 3 14 1 20.5

Deep Blue Responder

LFF 100 Brush + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 18086 4000 NA 14 Fourchon, LA 2 0 1 10 1 14

Gulf Coast Responder

Transrec 350 + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 4000 NA 14 Lake Charles, LA 2 0 4 25 1 32

Texas Responder

Transrec 350 + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 4000 NA 14 Galveston, TX 2 0 1 32 1 36

MSRC 570 Offshore Barge

2 Crucial Disk 88/30
2,640’ 67” Curtain P ressure Boom 22244 56900 3 Tugs 6 Galveston, TX 2.5 0 2 58.5 1 64

Southern Responder

Transrec 350 + OSRV
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 4000 NA 14 Ingleside, TX 2 0 1 43 1 47

MSRC 403 Offshore Barge

1 Crucial Disk 88/30
2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressu re Boom 11122 40300 3 Tugs 6 Ingleside, TX 2.5 0 2 80 1 85.5Staging Area: Venice
Offshore Equipment

Preferred 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

T& T Marine (available through direct contract with CGA)

Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston, TX 4 12 13 7.5 2 38.5

Koseq Skimming Arms (6) 106974 12000 6 Utility 36 Galveston, TX 24 24 13 7.5 2 70.5

Koseq Skimming Arms (3) 53487 60 00 3 Utility 18 Galliano, LA 24 24 1 7.5 2 58.5

Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Harvey, LA 24 24 2 7.5 2 59.5

CGA

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Morgan City, LA 2 2 5 7.5 1 17.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Uti lity 6 Harvey, LA 2 2 2 7.5 1 14.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston, TX 2 2 13 7.5 1 25.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Aransas Pass, TX 2 2 18 7.5 1 30.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Ch arles, LA 2 2 8 7.5 1 20.5

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Leeville, LA 2 2 5 7.5 1 17.5

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice, LA 2 2 0 7.5 1 12.5

Offshore Equipment Preferred Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Person s Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to

Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

MSRC

WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Ingleside, TX 1 2 18 7.5 1 29.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Ingleside, TX 1 2 18 7.5 1 29.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Ingleside, TX 1 2 18 7.5 1 29.5

Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1

ili 6 Ingleside, TX 1 2 18 7.5 1 29.5

Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 400 1

ili 6 Ingleside, TX 1 2 18 7.5 1 29.5

GT

- 185 Skimme r w Adaptor (2) 2742 400 2

ili 12 Galveston, TX 1 2 13 7.5 1 24.5

Walosep 4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Galveston, TX 1 2 13 7.5 1 24.5

Queensboro Skimmer (1) 905 400 1

ili 6 Galveston, TX 1 2 13 7.5 1 24.5

Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1

ili 6 Galveston, TX 1 2 13 7.5 1 24.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Galveston, TX 1 2 13 7.5 1 24.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Port Arthur, TX 1 2 10 7.5 1 21.5

Queensboro Skimmer (5) 4525 400 5

ili 30 Lake C harles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Desmi Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5Offshore Equipment Preferred Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons

R eq. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to

Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

MSRC

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7 .5 1 19.5

AardVac Skimmer (1) 3840 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Transrec 350 Skimmer (1) 10567 400 1

ili 6 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 11122 400 1 PSV 14 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1)
1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 11122 400 1 PSV 14 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

Transrec 350 Skimmer (1)
1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 11122 400 1 PSV 14 Lake Charles, LA 1 2 8 7.5 1 1 9.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Baton Rouge, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

Transrec 350 Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 10567 400 1 PSV 14 Houma, LA 1 2 4 7.5 1 15.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Port Fourchon, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 18086 400 1 PSV 14 Port Fourchon, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 18086 400 1 PSV 14 Port Fourchon, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

LFF 100 Bru sh Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 18086 400 1 PSV 14 Port Fourchon, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom 18086 400 1 PSV 14 Port Fourchon, LA 1 2 5 7.5 1 16.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Walosep W4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Belle Cha sse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Queensboro Skimmer (1) 905 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Foilex 200 Skimmer (1) 1989 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 400 1

ili 6 Belle Chasse, LA 1 2 2 7.5 1 13.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5Offshore Equipment Preferred 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

MSRC

AardVac Skimmer (1) 3840 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5

WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5

Queensboro Skimmer (1) 9 05 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5

Stress II Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Pascagoula, MS 1 2 6 7.5 1 17.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Tampa, FL 1 2 21 7.5 1 32.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

ili 6 Tampa, FL 1 2 21 7.5 1 32.5

WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Tampa, FL 1 2 21 7.5 1 32.5

Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 400 1

ili 6 Tampa, FL 1 2 21 7.5 1 32.5

GT

- 185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1

U ili 6 Miami, FL 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5

Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1

ili 6 Miami, FL 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5

Walosep W4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

U ili 6 Miami, FL 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5

AardVac Skimmer (2) 7680 400 2

U ili 12 Miami, FL 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5

WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

ili 6 Miami, F L 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5

Desmi Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1

U ili 6 Miami, FL 1 2 27 7.5 1 38.5Offshore Equipment Preferred 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

NRCC

Marco Class XI AB 24000 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 4 4 26 17.2 1 52.2

Marco Class XI AB 24000 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Belle Chasse, LA 4 4 2 17.2 1 28.2

Marco Class XI AB 24000 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 New Iberia, LA 4 4 6 17.2 1 32.2

Action 48 Skimmer 2414 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Key West, FL 4 4 31 17.2 1 57.2

Hoyle Disc Skimmer 1632 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Tampa, FL 4 4 21 17.2 1 47.2

4

- Band Rope Mop Skimmer 1509 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 4 4 26 17.2 1 52.2

4

- Band Rope Mop Skimmer 1509 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Mobile, AL 4 4 7 17.2 1 33.2

4

- Band Rope Mop Skimmer (2) 3018 200 1 Offshore

Vessel 8

- 16 New Iberia, LA 4 4 6 17.2 1 32.2

4

- Band Rope Mop Skimmer (2) 3018 200 1 Offshore

Vessel 8

- 16 Cor pus Christi, TX 4 4 18 17.2 1 44.2

Vikoma Cascade Skimmer 5520 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Baytown, TX 4 4 12 17.2 1 38.2

Vikoma Cascade Skimmer 5520 100 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Sulphur, LA 4 4 9 17.2 1 35.2

VTU w/weir head skimmer 6857 24 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Port Arthur, TX 4 4 10 17.2 1 36.2

VTU w/weir head skimmer 6857 24 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 La Porte, TX 4 4 12 17.2 1 38.2Offshore Equipment Preferred Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to Stag ing Travel to

Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

CGA

1000’ Hydro

- Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey, LA 1 4 2.1 7.5 6 20.6

MSRC

67” Curtain Pressure Boom (18480’) NA NA 14* 7 Lake Charles 1 2 8 7.1 1 19.1

67” Curtain Pressure Boom (8895’) NA NA 12* 6 Pasca goula 1 2 5.5 7.1 1 16.6

2000’ Hydro Fire Boom NA NA 8* 8 Lake Charles 1 4 8 7.1 6 19.1

NRCC

42” Boom (1000’) NA NA 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Bayou La Batre, AL 4 4 6 7.5 1 22.5

42” Boom (3300’) NA NA 2 Offshore

Vessels 8

- 16 Tampa, FL 4 4 21 7.5 1 37.5

42 ” Boom (2000’) NA NA 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Baytown, TX 4 4 12 7.5 1 28.5

42” Boom (1000’) NA NA 1 Offshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Port Arthur, TX 4 4 10 7.5 1 26.5

42” Boom (4000’) NA NA 2 Offshore

Vessels 8

- 16 Corpus Christi, TX 4 4 18 7.5 1 34.5

1000’ Hydro

- Fire Boom NA NA 6 Utility 20 New Iberia, LA 4 4 6 7.5 1 22.5

* Utility Boats, Crew Boats, Supply Boats, or Fishing VesselsNearshore Response
Nearshore Equipment

Pre

- determined 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

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Galveston 2 6 N/A 48 1 57

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 2 6 N/A 48 1 57

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Leeville 2 6 N/A 48 1 57

Trinity SWS 21500 249 N A 4 Venice 2 6 N/A 48 1 57

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Aransas Pass 2 0 3 24 0 29

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Morgan City 2 0 3 6 0 11

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 2 0 3 12 0 17

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 2 0 3 3 0 8

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (Available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 A melia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36Staging Area: Venice

Nearshore Equipment With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Pe rsons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Load Out Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

CGA

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 2 2 12.7 2 0 18.7

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Morgan City 2 2 4.9 2 0 10.9

SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 0 14

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 2 2 4.4 2 0 10.4

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Venice 2 2 0 2 0 6

Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1

Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 0 14

Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Galveston 2 2 12.7 2 0 18.7

Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1

4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 0 14

4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1

2 Drum S kimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 0 14

2 Drum Skimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1

NRCC

Action 24 Skimmer 823 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Baytown, TX 4 4 12 2 1 23

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Tampa, FL 4 4 21 2 1 32

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 4 4 26 2 1 37

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 New Iberia, LA 4 4 6 2 1 17

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Corp us Christi, TX 4 4 18 2 1 29

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 La Porte, TX 4 4 12 2 1 23

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Port Arthur, TX 4 4 10 2 1 21

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Cocoa, F L 4 4 22 2 1 33

NRC Weir Disk Skimmer 1371 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Pensacola, FL 4 4 8 2 1 19

Vikoma Fasflo Skimmer 2112 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Belle Chasse, LA 4 4 2 2 1 13

Vikoma Fasflo Skimmer 2112 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 New Iberia, LA 4 4 6 2 1 17

Vikoma Fasflo Skimmer 2112 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Sulphur, LA 4 4 8 2 1 19

Vikoma Fasflo Skimmer 2112 24 1 Nearshore

Vessel 4

- 8 Atlantic Beach, FL 4 4 18 2 1 29Shoreline Protection Staging Area: Venice

Shoreline

Protection Boom VOO Person s Req. Storage/Warehouse

Location Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to

Venice Travel to Deployment Site Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

AMPOL (Available through MSA)

42,000’ 18” Boom 16 Crew 40 New Iberia, LA 2 2 6 2 12 24

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 New Orl eans, LA 2 2 2 2 6 14

OMI Environmental (Available through MSA)

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 6 2 3 13

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 12 2 3 19

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 9.6 2 3 16.6

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 Belle Chasse, LA 1 1 2 2 6 12

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Allen, LA 1 1 4.5 2 3 11.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houma, LA 1 1 4 2 3 11

15,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 14 Gretna, LA (Warehouse) 2 2 2 2 4 12

Wildlife Response EDRC Storage Capacity V OO 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 Harvey 2 2 2.1 1 2 9.1

Bird Scare Guns (48) NA NA NA 2 Harvey 2 2 2.1 1 2 9.1

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 2 2 12.7 1 2 19.7

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Aransas Pass 2 2 17.7 1 2 24.7

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 2 2 8 1 2 15

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Leeville 2 2 4.4 1 2 11.4

Response Ass et Total

Offshore EDRC 1,0 22

, 754

Offshore Recovered Oil Capacity 1, 696

, 795 +

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 147,605

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Capacity 203,393Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 9

– Pg. 17 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 9

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS

FM O&G will monitor loop currents per the requirements as set forth in NTL No. 2009

- G02

, “Ocean Current Monitoring ” (Extended by NTL No. 2014

- G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to

Lessees” ).

9.2 INCID ENTAL 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.

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.

FM O&G 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 Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL No. 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Deb ris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are n ot located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; therefore, relevant information is not required in this EP.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 10

– Pg. 18 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 10

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Exploration activities are subject to the following stipulations attached to Mississippi Canyon

Block s 84, 85 and 129 (OCS

- G Leases 08484, 08797 and 10977 ).

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA) Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are located within design ated M ilitary Warning Area

W

- 155C. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance in Pensacola, Florida, was contacted May 29,

2014 in order to coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions use of vessels and

aircraft during the proposed operations.

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES

In accordance with t he Federal Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection

Act

, FM O&G will:

(a) C ollect and remove flotsam resulting from activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease;

(b) P ost signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms used as a result of activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease detailing the reasons (legal and ecological) why release of debris must be eliminated;

(c) O bs erve for marine mammals and sea turtles while on vessels, reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when assemblages of cetaceans are observed, and maintain a distance of 90 meters or greater from whales, and a distance of 45 meters or greater from small cet aceans and
sea turtles;

(d) E mploy mitigation measures prescribed by BOEM/BSEE or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for all seismic surveys, including the use of an “exclusion zone” based upon the
appropriate water depth, ramp

- up and shutdown p rocedures, visual monitoring, and reporting;

(e) Id entify important habitats, including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g., sea turtle nesting beaches, piping plover critical habitat), in oil spill contingency planning and
require t he strategic placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained

in less

- intrusive cleanup techniques on beaches and bay shores; and

(f) I mmediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected species (e.g.,

marin e mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animal (e.g., because of a vessel strike), the
responsible parties should remain available to assist the stranding netw ork. If the injury or death was caused by a collision with the lessee’s vessel, the lessee must notify BOEM within 24 hours

of the strike.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 10

– Pg. 19 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) BOEM and BSEE issue Notices to Lessees (NTLs), which more fully describe measures implemented in support of the abov e

- mentioned implementing statutes and regulations, as well as measures identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS arising from, among
others, conservation recommendations, rulemakings pursuant to the MMPA, or consultation.

The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors, while undertaking activities authorized under this lease, must implement and comply with the specific mitigation measures

outlined in NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Spe cies Reporting;” NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program;” and NTL No. 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine
Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination.” At the lessee’s option, the lessee, its operators, personnel, and contractors may comply with the most current measures to protect species in place at the time an activity is undertaken under this lease, including but not limited to new or updated versions of the NTLs identified in this paragra ph. The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors will be required to comply with the mitigation measures, identified in the above referenced NTLs, and additional measures in the conditions of approvals for their
plans or permits.

10.3 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84,85 and 129 have been determined to be located in an area where
archaeological resources may exist. In accordance with NTL 2005

- G07, “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL 2001

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” archaeological survey reports were
submitted for M ississippi Canyon Block 84 with EP (Control No. S

- 7638) approved June 11,

2014 and for Mississippi Ca nyon Block s 85 and 129 with EP (Control No. S

- 7147) approved on September 24, 2009.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 11

– Pg. 20 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 11

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are not loc ated within Florida; therefor e, mitigation

information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan

.

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

FM O&G 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 Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL No. 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL No. 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program ”Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 12

– Pg. 21 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 12

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

12.1 GENERAL The most practical, direct route from the shorebase as permitted by weather and traffic

conditions will be utilized. Information regarding the vessels and aircraft to be used to support the proposed activities is provided in the table below.

Type Maximum Fuel Tank Capacit y Maximum Number in Area at Any
Time Trip Frequency or

Duration

Crew boat 8 00 bbl 1 2/Week
Supply boat 2,0 00 bbl 1 1/Week

Helicopter 760 gal 1 10/week

2.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS
Information regarding vessels to be used to supply diesel oil for fuel and other purposes is
provided in the table below.

Size of Fuel Supply

Vessel (ft) Capacity of Fuel Supply Vessel Frequency of Fuel
Transfers Route Fuel Supply

Vessel Will Take

300 ft 850,000 gal 1/Month Shortest route from
Shorebase to block

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION Drilling fluid transportation information is not required to be submitted with this plan.

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION
A table, “ Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore

, ” is included as Attachment 12

- A.

12.5 VICINITY MAP

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 drilling unit is included as Attachment 12

- B

.

## Attachment 12-A. WASTE YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND/OR DISPOSE OF ONSHORE

Transport Method Name/Location of

Facility Amount Disposal

Method Solid and Liquid

Wastes
Transportation Waste Disposal

Synthetic-based drilling fluid

Cuttings wetted with Water-based fluid Re-used

N/A N/A

SBM Tanks in Support Vessels MI-Swaco Fourchon, LA 24,500 BBLS/WELL Will drilling occur? If yes, fill in the muds and cuttings. Composition Projected Generated

Wastes

Oil-based drilling fluid or mud N/A N/A N/A N/A

Produced sand
Will you have additional wastes that are not permitted for discharge? If yes, fill in the appropriate rows.

Trash and debris

Used oil N/A N/A

No production is proposed under this Initial Exploration Plan

Refuse generated during operations:
paper, cardboard, metal, and glass Compactor bags in storage bins on
Supply/Crew Boat Gulf Offshore Logistics

Fourchon, LA 350,000 LBS/WELL Recycled if possible,
transported to

landfill otherwise

Used Engine Oil Proper DOT containers on supply boat Univar

Carencro, LA 115 BBLS/WELL SBM/Cuttings

N/A N/A

Cuttings wetted with oil-based fluids
Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in produced sand. Cuttings wetted with Synthetic-based

fluid Cuttings Boxes on Supply Boat Newpark Environmental Services

Fourchon, LA N/A N/A

1,700 BBLS/Well

N/A N/A

Recycled

N/A

Recycled or

Incinerated

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wash water
Chemical product wastes...\POE DOCD\MC\King\Vicinity.dgnFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 13

– Pg. 22 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 13

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

13.1 GENERAL

T he onshore facilities that will be used to provide supply and service supp ort for the proposed
activities is provided in the table below.

Name Location Existing/New/Modified

F reeport

- McMoRan Oil &
Gas LLC Shorebase Fourchon, Louisiana Existing

MI

- Swaco Mud Plants Fourchon, Louisiana Existing

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, no r will FM O&G e xpand the existing shorebase as a result of the operations pro posed in this EP

.

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

A support base construction or expansion timetable is not required for the activities proposed in
this plan

.

13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL
The Table, “ Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore

, “is included as Attachment

12

- A

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 14

– Pg. 23 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 14

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Under direction of the Coastal Z one Management Act (CZMA), the s tate of Alabama developed

a Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) to allow for the supervision of significant land
and water use activities that take place within or that could significantly affec t the Alabama

coastal zone

.

Proposed activities are 92 miles from the Alabama shore. Measures will be taken t o avoid or mitigate the probable impacts. FM O&G will opera te in compliance with existing federal and

s tate laws, regulations, and resultant enforceable program policies in Alabama’s Coastal Zone
Management Program.

The OCS related oil and gas exploratory and development activities having potential impact on

the Alabama Coastal Zone are based on the location of the proposed facil ities, access to those
sites, best practical techniqu es for drilling locations, drilling equipment guidelines for the prevention of adverse environmental effects, effective environmental protection, emergency plans and contingency plans.

T he policies and corresponding sections within this Exploration Plan identified by the State of Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) as being related to OCS Plans are provided in the table below.

Enforceable Program Policies of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP)

Policy Plan
Section Comments

Coastal Resource Use Policies

Coastal Development Dock and port facilities in Louisiana will be used. There will be no new construction, dredging, or filling in Alabama state waters. There will be no new commercial development, capital improvements nor employment effects in Alabama’s

coastal zone.

Mineral Resource Exploration and

Extraction Commercial Fishing 8

Hazard Management 3 S hallow Hazards Report s w ere prepared and submitted to
BOEM for Mississippi Canyon Block 84 with EP (Control
No. S

- 7638) approved June 11, 201 4 and for Mississippi Canyon Blocks 85 and 129 with EP (Control No. S

- 7147) approved on September 24, 2009 in order to identify and
assess the seafloor and sha llow geologic conditions in

these block s

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 14

– Pg. 24 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 )

Policy Plan
Section Comments

Shoreline Erosion 8

Recreation 8 Transportation 12

Natural Resource Protection Policies Biological Productivity 8

Water Quality 8

Water Resources 8 Air Quality 7

Wetlands and Submerged
Grassbeds 8

Beach and Dune

Protection 8

Wildlife Habitat

Protection 8

Endangered Species 8
Cultural Resources

Protection 5 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129 are located in an area where historic shipwrecks may exist. A rchaeological report s w ere prepared by C&C Technologies and it was determined that there are no known historic shipwrecks located in the block. The report for Mississippi Canyon

Bloc k 84 was submitted with EP (Control No. S

- 7638) approved June 11, 2014 and for Mississippi Canyon Blocks 85 and 129 with EP (Control No. S

- 7147) approved on September 24, 2009.

A certificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Alabama is included as

Attachment 1 4

- A

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 15

– Pg. 25 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 15

- A.

# Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( FM O&G )

Supplemental Exploration Plan Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129

OCS

- G 08484, 08797, and 10977

(A) I MPACT PRODUCING FACT ORS

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, H 2 S 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 X (4)

Water quality X X X

Fisheries X 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 X (7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X X X(6)

Marine and pelagic birds X X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(6) X

Wetlands X (6)

Shore birds and coastal nesting

birds X (6) X

Coastal wildlife refuges X

Wilderness areas XFootnotes 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:

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

- ac tivity 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 th e BOEM as being in water depths 3 00 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 liqu id 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 tha t 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 suffici ent 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 cr itical habitats. 9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

## (B) ANALYSIS

Site

- Specific at Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129

Proposed operations consist of the drilling, completio n, testing, flaring and installation of subsea wellheads for 5 locations. For these operations, the following surface locations are proposed: Mississippi Canyon Block 84: C, D, and F; Mississippi Canyon Block 129: E and G

. ( Mississippi Canyon Block 85 is t he bottom

- hole site for location E. )

Operations will be conducted with a Dynamically Positioned Drillship

.

1. Designated T opographic F eatures

Potential IPFs on topographic features include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents,

and accidents.

Physical disturbanc es to the seafloor : Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are approximately 97 miles from the closes t designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block ( Sackett Bank ) and a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations ; therefore

, no adverse impacts are expected.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are approximately 97 miles from the closest designated T opographic F eature s Stipulation Block ( Sackett 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 Q uality). 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 d ocumented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations s everal 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 co uld reach their

sessile biota. Oil from a subs urface 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 FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including e missions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle T rend A rea L ive B ottoms

Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include physical disturbances to the seafloor,

ef

fluents, and accidents.

### Physical disturbanc es to the seafloor : Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are approximately 24 miles from the closest live bottom (pin nacle trend) area and a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations ; therefore

, no adverse impacts are expected.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are approximately 24 miles from the

closest live b ottom (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 Q uality). Oil spills have the potential to

foul b enthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal eff ects 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 concent rations 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 th is plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle t rend) area.

3. Eastern Gulf Live B ottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and accidents.

Physical disturbanc es to the seafloor : Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are not
located in area s characterized by the existence of live bottoms, and th e s e lease s do not contain

Live

- Bottom Stipulation s requiring p hoto documentation survey s and survey report s

.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are 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 Q uality). 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 foun d 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 i n this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in

Section 8 ).

### There are no other IPFs (including emissions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live bottom area.

4. Benthic C ommunities

Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are located in wate r depths 984 feet (300 meters) or greater. IPFs that could result in impacts to benthic communities from the proposed activities include physical disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are approximately 18 miles from a known benthic community site ( Benthic Viosca Knoll Block 826 ),

listed in NTL 2009

- G40

. This Supplemental Exploration Plan submittal includes the required maps, analyses, and statement(s). The proposed activities will be conducted in accordance with

NTL 2009

- G40 , which will ensure that features or areas tha t could support high

- density benthic communities will not be impacted. Additionally, a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations, which would minimize physical seafloor disturbances.

There are no other IPFs (including emis sions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities which could impact benthic communities.

5. Water Q uality

IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 include disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and accidents.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Bottom area disturbances resulting from the drilling of

wells and the installation of subsea wellheads would be minimized by the use of a Dynamically Positioned Drillship, but could still increase water

- column turbidity and re

- suspension of any accumulated pollutants, such as trace metals and excess nutrients. This would cause short

- lived impacts on water quality conditions in the immediate vicinity of the emplacement operations.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharg es, discharge

- rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA N PDES 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; h owever, 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 comp onents and small oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column and dilute the cons tituents 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 FM O&G’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in

Section 8 ).

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 re sult of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and

accidents.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: The emplacement of a structure results in minimal loss

of bottom trawling area t o commercial fishermen. Pipelines cause gear conflicts which result in

losses of trawls and shrimp catch, business downtime and vessel damage. Most financial losses from gear conflicts are covered by the Fisher men’s Contingency Fund (FCF). T he emplacement and removal of facilities are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to fisheries. Additionally, a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations, which would minimize physical seafloor disturbances.

E ffluents: 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 d etrimental effects on fisheries; however, it i s unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Q uality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the c apacity of adult fish and

shell fish to avoid the spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both met abolites and parent compounds. The act ivities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

### There are no IPFs from emissions, or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to fisher ies.

7. Marine M ammals

GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf

- edge were almost exclusively bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spo tted 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 Mississippi Canyon

Block s 84, 85, and 129 include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents.

Emissions : Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle

rea ction 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 predati on (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little concl usive 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 dilut ed 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 en tanglement in, and i ngestion 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 p rohibited 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 Protect ion Agency (EPA).

FM O&G 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 tra sh bins to prevent ac cidental 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 mater ials such as plastic or g lass.

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 captai ns 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 FM O&G 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 w atch for marine mammals and maintaining a safe d istance 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 st rike by email to protectedspecies@bsee.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 p otential 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 (ref er to Item 5 , Water Q uality). 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 chem icals included in FM O&G’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 FM O&G’s OSRP (refer to

information submitted in accordanc e with Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact marine mammals.

8. Sea T urtles

IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operation s 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., 1 983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all species as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activities, support v essels, and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction from sea turtles, but th is is a temporary disturbance.

### Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not know n 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 s ubstantially harm sea tu rtles. 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). FM O&G 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 a s covering outside trash bins to prevent ac cidental 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

mater ial s 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 FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance

with NTL No. 201 2

- G01

.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and sea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or inju ry 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 encounte red 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@ b see .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 Q uality). 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 FM O&G’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to

information submitted in accordance with Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Q uality

Mississ ippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are located approximately 83 miles from the Breton

Wilderness Area and 67 miles from shore. Applicable emissio ns data is included in Section 7 of

the Plan.

There would be a limited degree of air quality degradation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed activities. Plan Emissions for the proposed activities do not exceed the annual exemption levels as set forth by BOEM . Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which c ould cause the emission of a ir pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance s of Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 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 would impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck S ites (known or potential)

IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed operations

in Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 include disturbances to the seafloor and accidents (oil spill)

.

Physical Disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks. FM O&G will report to BOEM the discovery of any evidence of a shipwreck and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect th at cultural resource.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to shipwreck sites if the release were to occur subsea. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activ ities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to

information submitted in accordance with Section 8 ).

### According to BOEM’s Grid EA and ROV Survey Status Repo rt , Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85, and 129, which are located in Grid 16, have adequate ROV coverage and a complete EA. Additional surveys are not planned unless requested (per NTL 2008

- G04). Should a resource be encountered, FM O&G will contact the B OEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impa cts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric A rchaeological S ites
IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are physical disturbances to the

seafloor and accidents (oil spill s ).

Physical Disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 are located inside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability lines. FM O&G will report to BOEM the discovery of any object of prehistoric archaeological significance and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource. Additionally, a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations, which would minimize physical seafloor

disturbances.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to prehistoric archaeological sites if the release were to occur subsea . However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with Section 8 ).

According to BOEM’ s Grid EA and ROV Survey Status Report , Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85, and 129, which are located in Grid 16, have adequate ROV coverage and a complete EA. Additional surveys are not planned unless requested (per NTL 2008

- G04). Should a resource be

en countered, FM O&G 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) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological

sites.

### Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential F ish H abitat (EFH)

IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, an d 129 include physical disturbances t o the seafloor, effluents and

accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: 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 live

- bottom communities and EFH from bottom disturbing activities (e.g., anchoring, structure emplacement and removal). Additionally, a Dynamically Positioned Drillship is being utilized for drilling operations, which would minimize physical seafloor disturbances.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bo ttom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on live

- bottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and pr oduced

- 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 signifi cant 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 grea test potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Q uality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information

su bmitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact essential fish habitat.

2. Marine and P elagic B irds

IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, accidental oil spills, and discarded trash and debris fr om vessels and the facilities.

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are far below

concentr ations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

### 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 Q u ality). 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 pl an will be covered by FM

O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

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 ca use 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 State s Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G 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 usin g special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent

ac cidental 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,

environ mentally 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 v iew

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 FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to

waste ma nagement in accordance with NTL No. 2012

- G01

. Debris, if any, from these proposed

activities will seldom interact wit h marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbance s 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 H ealth and S afety D ue to A ccidents.

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 releases) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In accordance with

NTL No.’s 2008

- G 04

, 2009

- G27

, and 2009

- G31, sufficient information is included in Section 4 to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H 2 

### S absent.

### 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 ( 67 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 FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in

Section 8 ).

Discarded trash and debris: Tras h 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 man dated 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 Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in

accordance w ith 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 ac cidental loss of solid waste. Spe cial 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 pro cedures, 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 w ill also receive an explanation from FM O&G 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.

### 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 ( 67 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no imp acts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

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

Guar d (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G 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

pre cautions 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 pers istent 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 FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste ma nagement 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 B ird s and C oastal N esting B irds

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 Q uality). Given the distance from sh ore ( 67 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by

FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

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

### Po llution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental lo ss 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 a nd 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 foo d 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 Microsof t 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 FM O&G 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 W ildlife R efuges

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to coastal

wildlif e refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Q uality). Due to the distance from shore ( 67 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. T he activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section

8 ).

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 Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G 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 coverin g 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

services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilo ts, 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 FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance

with NTL No. 2012

- G0 1

.

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 A reas

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 Q uality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated W ilderness A rea ( 83 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 FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information su bmitted in Section 8 ).

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 th e United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G 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 s hore, 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

biodeg radable, 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 suppo rt
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 FM O&G 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

wildern ess areas

.

### 6. Other Envi ronmental Resources Identified
There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment.

(C) IMPAC TS ON PROPOSED ACTIV ITIES

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.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S
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, Mississippi Canyon Block s 84, 85, and 129 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, and related sea curr ents. 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 mate rials (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. Structure Installation Operator will not conduct structure installation oper ations during Tropical Storm or

Hurricane threat.

( E ) ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impacts.

( F ) MITIGATION M EASURES

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.

(H) PREPARER ( S )

Matt Harlan J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578

- 3388

matt.harlan @jccteam.com

( I ) REFERENCES

Authors:

American Pe troleum Institute (API). 1989. Eff ects 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 ma rine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In:

Shomur a, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedin gs, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26

- 29 November 1 984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. D ept. of C ommerce. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NOAA

- TM

- NMFS

- SWFC

- 54. Pp 387

- 429.

Bu rke, 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 Prote ction Agency, Office of

Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relativ e 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 mari ne debris including a comprehensive lis t 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. Kendziore k, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387

- 397

.

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. MMS 2000

- 001

o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Env ironmental Impact Statement. MMS 96

- 0058

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 16

– Pg. 26 of 26 Supplemental Unit EP December

, 2014 Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129 (OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977 ) 

## SECTION 16

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION
The proposed bot tom hole location s of the planned well s have been r emoved from the Public

I nformation copy of this EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and any interpreted geology

.

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. C& C Technologies Survey Services. Archaeological Assessment Report King Field, Blocks 84 (OCS

- G 08484) and 128 (OCS

- G 08797) Mississippi Canyon Area, July 2013 (C&C Project #130270).

2. C&C Technologies Survey Services. Archaeological & Hazard Study, “King So uth,” Block 85 (OCS

- G 08797) & Block 129 (OCS

- G 10977) Mississippi Canyon Area, Block 45 (Unleased) & Block 89 (OCS

- G 10441) Desoto Canyon Area, October, 2007 (C&C Project #072372

- 073019).

3. C&C Technologies Survey Services. Site Clearance Letters Proposed Wells EP C, EP D, & EP F Block 84 (OCS

- G 08484) & Proposed Wells EP E & EP G Block 129 (OCS

- G 10977) Mississippi Canyon Area, November, 2014. (C&C Project #140310).

4. Initial Exploration Plan (Control N o. N

- 4208 ).

5. Supplemental Exploration Plan (Control N o. S

- 3630).

6. Supplemental Exploration Plan (Control No. S

- 7638).