UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - N-09751

Type - Initial Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G34998 Block - 599 Green Canyon Area OCS-G35001 Block - 643 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

Wells A, B, E, F, G, H, I, 001ST

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.

Michelle Griffitt
Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: February 27, 2014Record of Changes-PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY N-9751, Initial EP, Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, (OCS-G 349998 / 35001, Green Canyon Blocks 599 / 643)

Date Section Page Remarks 9/17/2013 All All Plan received by BOEM 9/27/2013 Attachments

List Attachments List Attachment 5-A Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas Map included.

9/30/2013 5 p. 12 The "Color Shaded Bathymetry Map showing the 2,000 foot radius around the well site" amended to Attachment 5-A, "Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas Maps." 9/30/2013 5 Attachment 5-A Attachment 5-A, "Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas Maps" included.

1/21/2014 All All Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G) and Operator number

03280 1/21/2014 1 p. 1 Added FM O&G became Designated Operator of Keathley Canyon Blocks 627 and 671 on
November 29, 2014. 1/21/2014 1 Attachment 1-A, p. 1 Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Operator number 03280)

1/21/2014 8 pp. 18-19 Oil Spill Response Planning and Worst Case Scenario Determiniation amended to show FM O&G OSRP submitted with a certification statement on January 10, 2014 (Control number O-713) 1/21/2014 8 Attachment 8-A Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC 1/21/2014 14 Attachement 14-A CZM Consistency Certification company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC and date following merger 1/21/2014 15 Attachment 15-A Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC 1/21/2014 16 p. 27 Bibliography amended to FM O&G Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (Control Number O713) 2/6/2014 8 pp. 18-19 Oil Spill Response Planning and Worst Case Scenario Determination amended to include FM O&G OSRP submitted January 10, 2014, revised January 30, 2014 and approved on February 4, 2014. 2/6/2014 8 p. 18 OSRO Information amended to include Marine Spill Response Corporation equipment.

2/12/2014 12 Attachment 12-A The projected generated wastes labeled as cuttings wetted with oil-based fluids moved to the row labeled cuttings wetted with synthetic-based muds.

### 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 499 A.J. Estay Rd

C Port 1 - 106 9th Street

C Port 2 – 130 4th Street

GOL Dock – 341 A.T. Gisclair Rd

Port Fourchon, LA 70357 23,750 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

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 165,000 lbs/Well Recycled if possible, transported to

landfill otherwise

Used Engine Oil Proper DOT containers on supply boat Univar
Carencro, LA

Wash water Chemical product wastes 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

145 17th St
Port Fourchon, LA N/A N/A

1,500 BBLS/Well

N/A N/A

Recycled

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recycled or

Incinerated

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 195 bbl/WellPUBLIC C OPY September 16, 2013 Amended February 6 , 2014

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN

Lease Numbe r s: OCS

- G 34998 / 35001

Area/Block: Green Canyon Block s 599 / 643

Prospect Name: Holstein Deep

Offsh ore: Louisiana

Submitted by: Freeport

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

Paul Landry Office: ( 337 ) 354

- 5065 Mobile: (337) 349

- 7781 paul_landry@fmi .com

Estimated start

- up date: July 15, 2014

Auth orized Representative: No. Copies Being Submitted: Jean Martin Proprietary: 1 Copy & CD J. Connor Consulting, Inc. Public Info: 1 Copy & CD 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77084 For BOEM : (281) 578

- 3388 Plan No. jean.martin@jcct eam.com Assigned to:Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC TOC Pg. 1 of 3 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 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

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

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

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

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

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

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS

..... 5

SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

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

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

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

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP

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

3.3 INTE RPRETED SEISMIC LINES

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

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS

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

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

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

3.6 SH ALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

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

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

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

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

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

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES

................................ ......................................... 10Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC TOC Pg. 2 of 3 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

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

4.1 CONCENTRATION

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

4.2 CLASSIFICATION

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

SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

.... 12

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES

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

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS)

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

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)

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

5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES)

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

5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF)

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

5. 6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP

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

5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS

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

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND
MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION

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

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

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

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

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

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

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

SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

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

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES

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

6.2 MODELING REPORT

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

SECTION 7 A IR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

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

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

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

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION

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

SECTION 8 OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

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

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

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

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES

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

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION

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

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

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

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

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

SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

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

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS

................................ .................................................... 20Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC TOC Pg. 3 of 3 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

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

9.3 FLOWER G ARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY.

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

SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

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

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA)

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

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES

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

SE CTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

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

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS

.......... 22

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

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

SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

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

12.1 GENERAL

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

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

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

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION

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

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION

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

12.5 VICINITY MAP

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

SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

............................ 24

13.1 GENERAL

................................ ................................ .......................................... 24

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION

..................................... 24

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

................ 24

13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL

................................ ........................................................... 24

SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

........ 25

SECTION 15

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

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRA TIVE INFORMATION

....................................................... 27

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION

.................................................... 27

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................ ................................ ................................ 27Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Attachment – Pg. 1 of 1 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) SECTION ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Plan Contents

1

- A OCS Plan Information Form

1

- B Well Location Plat

1

- C Bathymetry Map

1

- D 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 Certification

Section 15 Environmental Impact Analysis

15

- A Environmental Impact AnalysisFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 – Pg. 1 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECT ION 1
PLAN CONTENTS

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION Under this Exploration Plan, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( FM O&G ) proposes to drill and complete seven (7) wells, two of which will be injection wells. FM O&G also proposes to reenter and sidetrack Well ST02BP00, expired Lease OCS

- G 16772, which was terminated on May 28, 2011. Well ST02BP00 was previously approved in Supplemental EP Plan Number S

- 7211, approved on June 5, 2008, and in Revised EP
Plan Numb er R

- 4918, approved on February 25, 2009. All wells will be drilled with a dynamically positioned (DP) drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion , and are located in 3,755

- 3,885 feet of water in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643

. FM O&G proposes to install subsea trees with the drillship on all proposed wells. On November 29, 2013, FM O&G (Operator Number 03280) became Designated Operator of Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643.

The OCS Plan I nformation Form BOEM

- 137 is included as Attachment 1 -A

.

1.2 LOCATION

A Well Location Plat depicting the proposed surface and bottom hole locations of the proposed well s , measured depth/total 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 B athymetry M ap 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 Safety of personnel and protection of the environment during the proposed operations is one of the primary concerns of FM O&G

. FM O&G mandates regulatory compliance with the contractors and vendors associated with the proposed operations as follows:

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) mandates that the operations

described in this Initial EP comply with well control, pollution prevention, construction, welding procedures, and training described in BSEE regulations 30 CFR 250 C, D, E, O and S; and as further clarified by The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement ( BSEE ) Notices to Lessees.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 – Pg. 2 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) BSEE conducts periodic announced and unannounced onsite inspections of offshore facilities to confirm operators are complying with lease stipulations, operating regulatory

re quirements , approved plans, and other conditions, as well as pollution prevention requirements. The National Potential Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) List serves as the baseline for these inspections.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) reg ulations contained in Title 33 CFR Part 144 mandate the appropriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc. be maintained on the facilities at all
times.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) General Permit GMG290000 mandate that supervisory and certain designated personnel on

- board the facility be familiar with the effluent limitations and guidelines for overboard discharges into the receiving waters.

FM O&G propos es to drill these wells with a DP drillship which is equipped with a Subsea BOP. Once a rig is contracted, BOP information and schematics will be included as a part of the Application for Permit to Drill.

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 and S; and as further clarified by BSEE Notices to Lessees, and current policy mak ing invoked by the BSEE, EPA and the U SCG . Appropriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., will be maintained on the facility at all times.

Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris.

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS All facility tanks with capacity of 25 barrels or more.

Type of

Storage

Tank Type
of

Facility Tank Capacity (bbls) Number

of

Tanks Total Capacity (bbls) 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 ̊Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 – Pg. 3 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) Fuel Oil DPDS 9,043.5 1 9,043.5 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 445.3 2 830.6 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 320.2 2 640.3 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 22.3o

Waste Oil DPDS 132.1 1 132.1 20o

Waste Oil DPDS 44 1 44 .0 20o

Waste Oil DPDS 143.4 1 143.4 20o

Waste Oil DPDS 1,366.2 1 1,366.2 6.5o

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 does not propose any additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE A pay.gov receipt in the amount o f $29,384.00 to cover the cost recovery fee associated with this plan is included as Attachment 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

Drill & complete Location B, install subsea tree 0 7/15/2014 0 1/3 1 /2015 200
Drill & complete Location F, install subsea tree 02/01/2015 0 8/18/2015 200
Drill & complete Location E, install subsea tree 0 8/19/2015 0 3/06/2016 200
Drill & complete Location A, install subsea tree (injector) 03/07/2016 09/23/2016 200

Sidetrack & complete Location J, install subsea tree 09/24/2016 04/12/2017 200
Drill & complete Location G, install subsea tree 04/13/2017 10/30/2017 200
Drill & complete Location H, install subsea tree 10/31/2017 05/19/2018 200
Drill & complete Location I, install subsea tree (injector) 05/20/2018 12/6/2018 200

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):
Description of Lease Term Pipelines

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

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 BO EM Operator Number: 0 3280

Address: 400 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 3500 Contact Person: Paul Landry

Lafayette, LA 70508 Phone Number: (0ffice) 337

- 354

- 5065, (Mobile) 337

- 349

- 7781

E- Mail Address: p aul_landry @ fmi .com

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid $29,384.00 Receipt No. 74499797543 Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Lease(s): OCS

- G 34998 / 35001 Area: Green Canyon Blocks: 599 / 643 Project Name (If Applicable): Holstein Deep

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

Platform / Well Name: NA Total Volume of WCD: 17,906,070 bbls API Gravity: 29.3 o

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 117 Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 85,267 bbls/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 Loc A 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls) : API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 35001 OCS

- G 35001 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 643 643

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,800.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 3,850.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 2,419.670.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,925,880.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 19’ 58.102” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 35’ 57.798” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,885’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM - 0137 (December 2011 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 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 Loc. B 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 35001 OCS

- G 35001 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 643 643

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,800.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 3,775.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y coordinates X: 2,419,745.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,925,880.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 19’ 58.088” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 35’ 56.967” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,885’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM - 0137 (December 2011 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 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 Loc. 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 35001 OCS

- G 35001 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 643 643

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,650.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 3,850.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 2,419,670.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,926 ,030.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 19’ 59.587” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 35’ 57.766” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3, 885’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM - 0137 (December 2011 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 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 Loc. 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.

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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 35001 OCS

- G 35001 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 643 643

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,650.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 3,775.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 2,419,745.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,926 ,030.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 19’ 59.572” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 35’ 56.935” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3, 885’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM - 0137 (December 2011 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 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 Loc. 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 34998 OCS

- G 34998 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 599 599

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 6,236.00’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,670.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 2,417,850.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,937,916.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 21’ 57.582” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 36’ 15.404” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,755’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM - 0137 (December 2011 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or
structure, reference previous name): Well Loc. H 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 34998 OCS

- G 34998 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 599 599

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 6,150.00’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,620.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y coordinates X: 2,417,900.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,937,830.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 21’ 56.722” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 36” 14.868” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,755’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, reference previous name): Well Loc. I 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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 34998 OCS

- G 34998 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 599 599

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 6,150.00’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,720.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y coordinates X: 2,417,800.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,937,830.00’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 21’ 56.741” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 36’ 15.977” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,755’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, reference previous name): Well Loc. J Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD? Yes X No

Is this an existing well or
structure? X Yes No If this is an existing well or structure, list the Complex ID
or API No. 608114051902 ST02 BP00

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): 85,267 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): API Gravity of fluid 29.3 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 35001 OCS

- G 34998 OCS
OCS

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 643 599

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 1, 914.00 ’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,771.00’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y coordinates X: 2,417,749.00’ X: X:
X:
X:

Y: 9,929,766.00 ’ Y: Y:
Y:
Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27 o 20 ’ 36.932 ” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90 o 36 ’ 18.260 ” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 3,875’ 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

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,423,520.00' Y= 9,915,840.00' 27°18'17.990"N 90°35'17.282"W BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,407,680.00' Y= 9,915,840.00' 27°18'20.989"N 90°38'12.787"W BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,407,680.00' Y= 9,947,520.00' 27°23'34.569"N 90°38'06.127"W BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,423,520.00' Y= 9,947,520.00' 27°23'31.559"N 90°35'10.484"W

BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,423,520.00' Y= 9,931,680.00' 27°20'54.775"N 90°35'13.887"W BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,407,680.00' Y= 9,931,680.00' 27°20'57.780"N 90°38'09.460"W 

### OCS-G-33845

BHP



### OCS-G-33847

BHP



### OCS-G-33848

BHP 

### OCS-G-34998

PXP 

### OCS-G-34999

PXP



### OCS-G-35001

PXP



### (Expired) OCS-G-18423

PXP 

### OCS-G-11080

PXP 

### OCS-G-25169

BHP 

### (Expired)
(Expired)



# MILITARY
WARNING
AREA W-92

INLINE 3992 PROFILECROSSLINE 5672PROFILE AUV SURVEY AREA

AUV SURVEY AREA



# GC687 GC686

GC688

GC644 GC643 GC642 GC600 GC599 GC598 GC556

GC555 GC554

DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUE DRAWN INTERP CHECKED

JOB NO. DATE:

FILENAME: 130276

130276A.DWG July 19, 2013 1 June 18, 2013 Preliminary PDF with report T. Badeaux, J. Guidry J. Cox D. Pierrottie NOTE: 3D data acquired December 2003 - February 2004. Survey vessel: M/V Alize NADCON version 2.1 utilized for WGS84-NAD27 conversions.

GEODETIC DATUM: NAD27 ELLIPSOID: CLARKE 1866 GRID UNITS: U.S. SURVEY FEET PROJECTION: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE: 15N CENTRAL MERIDIAN: 93° 00' W FALSE EASTING: 1,640,416.67 FEET at C.M. FALSE NORTHING: 0.00 FEET at 00° 00' N TEXAS

BRAZOS
AREA

EAST BREAKS AREA

ALAMINOS CANYON AREA GALVESTON
AREA HIGH ISLAND
AREA

GARDEN BANKS AREA

KEATHLEY CANYON AREA SABINE
PASS
AREA (TX) SABINE
PASS
AREA (LA)

WEST
CAMERON
AREA EAST
CAMERON
AREA VERMILION
AREA SOUTH
MARSH
ISLAND
AREA

WALKER RIDGE AREA GREEN CANYON AREA EUGENE
ISLAND AREA

EWING BANK AREA SHIP
SHOAL
AREA SOUTH
TIMBALIER
AREA SOUTH
PELTO
AREA BAY
MARCHAND
AREA

GRAND
ISLE
AREA

EWING
BANK
AREA LOUISIANA

2 July 19, 2013 Original issue with report T. Badeaux, J. Guidry J. Cox D. Pierrottie



# 5*''6QH

2.#08+'9

Bathymetric information based on seafloor horizon pick from 3D data set
Contour interval = 10 feet Bin size = 75 meters (246.06 feet)
Zero datum = Sea level Applied acoustic velocity using Advocate and Hood (1993) for data
between sea level and seafloor.

Color shaded image Sun azimuth = 0°
Sun elevation = 30° Inline number for 3D seismic data

Crossline number for 3D seismic data

-3450 -3460 -3470 -3480 -3490 -3500 -3510 -3520 -3530 -3540 -3550 -3560 -3570 -3580 -3590 -3600 -3610 -3620 -3630 -3640 -3650 -3660 -3670 -3680 -3690 -3700 -3710 -3720 -3730 -3740 -3750 -3760 -3770 -3780 -3790 -3800 -3810 -3820 -3830 -3840 -3850 -3860 -3870 -3880 -3890 -3900 -3910 -3920 -3930 -3940 -3950 -3960 -3970 -3980 -3990 -4000 -4010 -4020 -4030 -4040 -4050 -4060 -4070 -4080

DEPTH IN FEET Bathymetric contours (in feet)



# COLOR SHADED BATHYMETRY MAP

BLOCKS 599 (OCS-G-34998) & 643 (OCS-G-35001)

GREEN CANYON AREA

0 2,000 4,000 2,000

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET SHEET
AREA----- Original Message

----- From: paygovadmin@mail.doc.twai.gov [mailto:paygovadmin@mail.doc.twai.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:18 PM To: Favaloro, Katharine Subject: Pay.gov Payment Confirmation: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF

Your payment has been submitted to Pay.gov and the details are below. If you have any questions or you wish to cancel this payment, please contact Wendy Yanez at (504) 736

- 2818.

Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25C8HCH6 Ag ency Tracking ID: 74499797543 Transaction Type: Sale Transaction Date: Sep 5, 2013 4:17:33 PM

Account Holder Name: Katharine Favaloro Transaction Amount: $29,384.00 Billing Address: 700 Milam, Suite 3100 City: Houston State/Province: TX Zip/Postal Code: 7 7002 Country: USA Card Type: MasterCard Card Number: ************6901

Region: Gulf of Mexico Contact: Paul Landry 337

- 354

- 5065 Company Name/No: Plains Exploration Production Company, 02702 Lease Number(s): 35001, 34998, , , Area

- Block: Green Canyon GC, 643: Green Canyon GC, 599: , : , : , Surface Locations: 8

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

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 4 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 2
GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS Listed in the table below are the additional applications to be filed covering operations proposed under this EP.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status

APD BSEE To be Submitted
APM BSEE To be Submitted

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS

T he following table provide s informatio n on the types and estimated amounts of the drilling fluids that FM O&G plan s to use to drill the proposed wells.

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be Used per Well
Water

- based 50,000 bbls Oil

- based (diesel, minerals) None Synthetic

- based 30,000 bbls

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 areawide bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 256 Subpart I; NTL No. 2000

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

- approved deferment from providing additional security under 30 CFR 256.53 and National NTL 20 08

- N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures.” If, at any point, FM O&G no longer qualifies for a supplemental bonding deferment, FM O&G 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, BOEM Company number 03280

, will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR Part 553; andNTL 2008

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

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 5 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

, Operator number 03280

, has the f inancial capabil ity to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS Estimated Initial Flow Rate (bbls/day): 85,267 bbls /day

Maximum duration of potential blowout (days): 210 days

Total Volume (bbls) (flow rate x duration): 17,906,070 bbls

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 ass ume 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 Gulf of Mexico

. 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 surface intervention to stop blowout: Well Location
“A” will be drilled in the Green Canyon (GC) Block 643 as a subsea well in approximately 3,885’ of water with the wellhead and BOP equipment located on the seabed. 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 solution than drilling a relief well, but actual methodology of controlling the blowout would have to be determined pending an analysis of the site

‐ specific conditions

at the location.

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) andFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 6 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 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 specialists, supplies and equipment. FM O&G

would establish a field support base and secondary command center in the company owned shore base facility in Port Fourchon, LA. Communication would simultaneously be established with the support base and command center.

Relief Well

Discussion of Drilling a Relief Well: FM O&G has the financial 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 5,000 ' or greater actively working in the Gulf of Mexico. Since all rigs proposed for drilling a relief well are dynamically positioned Mobile Offshore Drilling Units ( 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 depth (TD). The total days estimated to

dri ll an example well to potential target depth (PTD) is 210 days. The probable directional nature of the relief well could nominally increase its measured depth compared to the blown

‐ out well. The time required to drill this extra distance is anticipated to be more than offset by the better understanding of the optimum drilling parameters learned while drilling the blown

‐ out well. In order to intersect the blowout well, numerous ranging runs will be required which will add approximately three weeks
to the dri lling program. The steps and time required to accomplish the dynamic kill are also dependent on the particular circumstances of the blown

‐ out well.

Rig type capable of drilling relief well at water depth and to TD: There are more than 10 drilling rigs cu rrently 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 equipped to work in water depths of 5,000 ’ due to Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 deepwater location.

• Dynamically

‐ positioned to eliminate anchoring issues caused by potential subsea
debris.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 7 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) • 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 160 Wellbore intersection (of blown out well) 21 Dynamic kill operations 7 Total Anticipated Time 210

Statement whether possibility of using nearby platform was considered: The Holstein Spar is located in Green Canyon Block 645 and is owned and operated by FM
O&G . The Holstein Spar has a permanent drilling rig installed and will be commissioned for duty in early 2014. The drilling rig is equipped with a derrick rated to 1.0 MMlbs and 3 x 1,600 hp mud pumps. Combining the step out required to reach the potential re lief well targets and their extreme depths makes the use of the Holstein Spar rig not practical for relief well operations. All relief wells will be based upon mobilizing a dynamically positioned drilling rig to Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643.

Other

Meas ures 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 conditions 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 quantif y 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.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 8 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) • Lost circulation material will be added to the mud system in order to assist the mud system’s abilit y 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 sections
of the well.

• Log data will be continuously reviewed by FM O&G ’s dril ling 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 (HWCG) 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: FM 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 services.

Any other measures: NoFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 3 – Pg. 9 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 3
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
PROPRIETARY

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP
PROPRIETARY

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINE S
PROPRIETARY

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS
PROPRIETARY

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT A shallow hazards survey was conducted over Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643. In accordance with NTL 2008

- G05 , “Shallow Hazards Program” (Extended by NTL BOEM 2013

- G02

, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”), a shallow hazards survey evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations, was conducted by C&C Technologies. The shallow hazards report is provided with this plan.

The proposed operations for Well Location “J,” a sidetrack of Well ST02BP00, will be conducted from a previously approved surface location as provided for in Supplemental EP (Control No. S

- 7211) and Revised EP (Control No. R

- 4918 ) ; therefore, in accordance with NTL 2008

- G05, “Shallow Hazards Program,” (Extended by NTL BOEM 2013

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”), 3D Seismic Inline and Crossline and Top

- Hole Prognosis exhibits are not provided in the shallow hazards report.

3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
In accordance with NTL 2008

- G05, “Shallow Hazards Program” (Extended by NTL
BOEM 2013

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”), a shallow hazards assessment has been prepared for each proposed surface l ocation

, evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations. The shallow hazards assessments are included as Attachment 3 -D

.

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES
PROPRIETARYFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 3 – Pg. 10 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
PROPRIETARY

3.9 TIME V ERSUS DEPTH TABLES
PROPRIETARYWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “A”

Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “A” in Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is base d on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is b eing proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “A” location. The depth limit of this investigation is approximately 4

, 000 feet b elow seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 200 8

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to February 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter) intervals, while the crosslines are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided were adequate for regiona l screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SEG

- Y format. The data

we re loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum generated at the wellsite pr oposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “A” surface location is tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed GC 643 Well “A”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 643 , Green Canyon Area

“ A ” 2,419,670.00 ’ 9,925,880.00 ’ 27 ° 19’58

. 102 ” N 90 ° 35 ’ 57

. 798 ” W 3,850 ’ FEL 5,800 ’ F N L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 through 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “A” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloor Gradient Map (Sheet 2) , Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 1 0

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “A” location is 3,885 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,870 feet B SL in the north east to 3, 910
feet B SL in th e south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “A” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay

.

There a re no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic community h abitats. The seafloor at the proposed Well “A” location and surrounding 2,000

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic communities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C dat a base shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “A” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or mor e distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). PXP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC643 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (TWT) using the time

- dep th values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 201 3 Geophysical R ep ort. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoustic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed Well “A” location

, the clay sequence is 369 feet th ick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 386 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns are likely comprised of h emipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “A” location, Unit C is 971 feet thick of variable amplitude , semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 ) . Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): U nit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 301 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with interlayered muds and
thin m ud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “A” location, Unit E is 2,520 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude
reflec tors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- cont inuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 2,466 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may conta in sands.

FAULTS Buried faults occur within the study area . One buried fault is located 1,460 feet north of the proposed Well “A” location and buried 4,934 feet BSF. T he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRA TES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attribu tes 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.

Several subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within Unit E at depth s ran ging from 4,699 to 5,174 feet BSF . These anomalies are located 558 feet west and greater than 593 feet east of the proposed well bore path (Sheet 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 4 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “A” . The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM database does not indicate the re were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292
feet BSL and ex perienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “A”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E

, and F are comprised of chaotic reflectors showing hi gh impedance contrast , suggesting a moderate potential for SWF

. Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recommended when drilling
thro ugh the potential SWF units.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “A” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location that could
interfere with drillin g activities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exi sts with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location.

The proposed well will not intersect any major faults along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk ( Units B, E

, and F ) for SWF and a negligible to low ( Units E and F ) potential for gas at the Well “A” drill site.

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

Sincerely yours,

James C ox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “A”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3712 ) from Well “A”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5700 ) from Well “A”

. Figure No. 4 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “A”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “B”

Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “B” in Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “B” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “B” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC643 Well “B”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 643 , Green Canyon Area

“B” 2,419, 745 .00 ’ 9,925,880.00 ’ 27 ° 19’58

. 088 ” N 90 ° 35 ’ 56

. 967 ” W 3,775 ’ FEL 5,800 ’ F N L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “B” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “B” location is 3,885 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,870 feet B SL in the north east to 3, 910
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “B” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hem ipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic com munities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “B” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). P XP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC643 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime ( TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in t he 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoust ic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “B” location

, the clay sequence is 250 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 364 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns ar e likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “B” location, Unit C is 997 feet thic k of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 ). Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( E vent 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 319 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with interl ayered muds and
thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “B” location, Unit E is 2,51 0 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to moderat e amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 2, 521 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

prone mass movement deposits and cha nneling that may contain sands.

FAULTS Buried faults occur within the study area . O ne buried fault is located 1,477 feet north of the proposed Well “B” location and buried 4,934 feet BSF. T he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

SHA LLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

- 3x background level) and phase reversal. This may also include diffuse a reas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a combin ation 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.

Several subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted withi n Unit E at depth s ranging from 4,699 to 5,174 feet BSF . These anomalies are located 638 feet west and greater than 532 feet east of the proposed well bore path (Sheet 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 4 ) exists along the shallow se ction of the well bore for Well “B” . The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM database does not indicate there were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “B”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of
chaotic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recommen ded when drilling through the potential SWF units.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “B” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” location that could
int erfere with drilling activities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” location.

The proposed well will not intersect any major faults along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to mode rate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible to low (Units E and F) potential for gas at the Well “B” drill site

.

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

Sincere ly yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “B”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3712 ) from Well “B”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5701 ) from Well “B”

. Figure No. 4

. Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “B”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 September 6 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “E”

Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “E” in Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “E” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter ) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “E” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC643 Well “E”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 643 , Green Canyon Area

“E” 2,419, 670 .00 ’ 9,92 6 ,030 .00 ’ 27 ° 19’59

. 587 ” N 90 ° 35 ’ 5 7

. 766 ” W 3, 850 ’ FEL 5,65 0 ’ F N L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “E” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “E” location is 3,885 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,870 feet B SL in the north east to 3, 910
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “E” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hem ipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic com munities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “E” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). P XP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC643 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime ( TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in t he 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoust ic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “E” location

, the clay sequence is 273 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 362 feet thick at the proposed Well “E” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns ar e likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit

.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “E” location, Unit C is 98 7 feet th ick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 296 feet thick at the proposed Well “E” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with inte rlayered muds and
thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “E” location, Unit E is 2,536 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolat ed high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to moder ate amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 2, 497 feet thick at the proposed Well “E” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

prone mass movement deposits and c hanneling that may contain sands.

FAULTS Buried faults occur within the study area . One buried fault is located 1, 317 feet north of the proposed Well “E” location and buried 4,934 feet BSF. T he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

S HALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assesse d as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a comb ination 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.

Several subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted wit hin Unit E at depth s ranging from 4,699 to 5,174 feet BSF . These anomalies are located 6 43 feet west and greater than 5 88 feet east of the proposed well bore path (Sheet 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 4 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “E” . The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM databa se does not indicate there were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “E” location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of
chaot ic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recomm ended when drilling through the potential SWF units

.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “E” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “E” location that coul d interfere with drilling activities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “E” location.

The proposed well will not intersect any major faults along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible to low ( Units E and F ) potential for gas at the
Well “E” drill site.

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

Si ncerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “E”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3714 ) from Well “E”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5701 ) from Well “E”

. Figure No. 4 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “E”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 September 6 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “F”

Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “F” in Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “F” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter ) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “F” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC643 Well “F”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 643 , Green Canyon Area

“F” 2,419, 745 .00 ’ 9,92 6 ,030 .00 ’ 27 ° 19’59

. 572 ” N 90 ° 35 ’ 5 6

. 935 ” W 3, 775 ’ FEL 5,65 0 ’ F N L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “F” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “F” location is 3,885 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,870 feet B SL in the north east to 3, 910
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “F” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hem ipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic com munities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “F” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). P XP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC643 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime ( TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in t he 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoust ic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “F” location

, the clay sequence is 273 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 3 55 feet thick at the proposed Well “F” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns ar e likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit

.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “F” location, Unit C is 99 0 feet th ick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 3 16 feet thick at the proposed Well “F” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with inte rlayered muds and
thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “F” location, Unit E is 2,5 1 0 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolat ed high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to moder ate amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 2, 512 feet thick at the proposed Well “F” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

prone mass movement deposits and c hanneling that may contain sands.

FAULTS Buried faults occur within the study area . One buried fault is located 1, 3 46 feet north of the proposed Well “F” location and buried 4,934 feet BSF. T he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

S HALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assesse d as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a comb ination 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.

Several subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted wit hin Unit E at depth s ranging from 4,699 to 5,174 feet BSF . These anomalies are located 705 feet west and greater than 5 08 feet east of the proposed well bore path (Sheet 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 4 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “F” . The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM databa se does not indicate there were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “F”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of
chaot ic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recomm ended when drilling through the potential SWF units

.

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

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “F” location.

The proposed well will not intersect any major faults along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible to low ( Units E and F ) potential for gas at the
Well “F” drill site.

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

Si ncerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “F”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3714 ) from Well “F”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5701 ) from Well “F”

. Figure No. 4 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “F”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “G”

Block 599 ( OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “G” in Block 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “G” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “G” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC599 Well “G”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 599 , Green Canyon Area

“G” 2,41 7

, 850 .00 ’ 9,9 37

, 916 .00 ’ 27 ° 21 ’ 57.582 ” N 90 ° 36 ’ 15.404 ” W 5

, 670 ’ FEL 6

, 236 ’ F S L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “G” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “G” location is 3,755 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3, 675 feet B SL in the north east to 3,810
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “G” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hem ipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic com munities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “G” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). PXP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC599 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime (TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acous tic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “G” location

, the clay sequence is 182 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 345 feet thick at the proposed Well “G” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit

.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “G” location, Unit C is 1,099 feet t hick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 54 5 feet thick at the proposed Well “G” location . The sediments in
Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with int erlayered muds and
thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands

.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “G” location, Unit E is 2,03 8 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isola ted high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3) . Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to mode rate amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 609 feet thick at the proposed Well “G” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and ch anneling that may contain sands.

FAULTS

Buried faults occur within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Wel l “G” location. T he buried faults are noted greater than 900 feet from the proposed well location and trend northeast to
southwest

. The proposed well is located on the downthrown side of two (2) faults buried 1, 743 and 3,715 feet BSF. T he proposed well bore path crosses these faults at a depth of 4,587 and 5,472 feet BS F

.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are inte rpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplit ude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularl y velocity pull

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

No subsurface amplitude anomalies are detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “G” location. The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM database does not indicate there were Shall ow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and experienced a m inor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “G”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of chaotic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recommended when drilling through the poten tial SWF units

.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “G” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “G” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “G” location.

The proposed well does intersect two (2) faults at a depth of approximately 4,587 and 5,472 feet
BSF along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a neg ligible to moderate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible potential for gas at the Well “G” drill site.

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

Sincerely yours

,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “G”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3896 ) from Well “G”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5 678 ) from Well “G”

. Figure No. 4 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “G”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Lette r Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “H”

Block 599 ( OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “H” in Block 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “H” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The inlines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter ) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Lette r Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “H” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC599 Well “H”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 599 , Green Canyon Area

“H” 2,41 7

, 90 0 .00 ’ 9,9 37

, 830 .00 ’ 27 ° 21 ’ 56

. 722 ” N 90 ° 36 ’ 1 4

. 868 ” W 5

, 62 0 ’ FEL 6

, 150 ’ F S L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “H” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “H” location is 3,755 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,675 feet B SL in the north east to 3,810
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “H” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemi pelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Lette r Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic comm unities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “H” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each c onsisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). PXP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC599 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime ( TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in t he 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoust ic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “H” location

, the clay sequence is 202 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 335 feet thick at the proposed Well “H” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns ar e likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit

.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “H” location, Unit C is 1,104 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 542 feet thick at the proposed Well “H” location . The sediments in
Unit D sediments are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and san ds with interlayered
muds and thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands

.Wellsite Lette r Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “H” location, Unit E is 2,045 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of l ow to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 590 feet thick at the proposed Well “H” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

- prone mass movement depos its and channeling that may contain sands.

FAULTS
Buried faults occur within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “H” location. The buried faults are noted greater than 900 feet from the proposed well location and trend northeast to
southwest. Th e proposed well is located on the downthrown side of two (2) faults buried 1, 743 and 3,715 feet BSF. The proposed well bore path crosses these faults at a d epth of 4,587 and 5,472 feet BSF

.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalie s are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicat ed by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, p articularly velocity pull

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

No subsurface amplitude anomalies are detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foo t radius of the proposed Well “H ” location. The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW

BOEM database does not indicate there were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) issues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and exper ienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.Wellsite Lette r Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “H”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of chaotic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recommended when drilling through the potential SWF units

.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “H” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “H” location that could interfere with drilling a ctivities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “H” location.

The proposed well does intersect two (2) faults at a depth of approximately 4,587 and 5,472 feet BSF along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exh ibit a negligible to moderate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible potential for gas at the Well “H” drill site.

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

Since rely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “H”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3712 ) from Well “H”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5701 ) from Well “H”

. Figure No. 4

. Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “H”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Production Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “I”

Block 599 ( OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCT ION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “I” in Block 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the sit e clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter provides a top

- hole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “I” location. The depth limit of this investigation is

a pproximately 4

, 000 feet below seafloor (BSF) . This assessment and enclosures presented with
th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to Februar y 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter) intervals, while the crossline s are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines are depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a str ong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided w ere adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SE G

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum gene rated at the wellsite proposed location indicated the seismic data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “I” surface location is tabulated below :

Table 1. Proposed GC599 Well “I”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 599 , Green Canyon Area

“I” 2,41 7

, 8 0 0 .00 ’ 9,9 37

, 830 .00 ’ 27 ° 21 ’ 56

. 741 ” N 90 ° 36 ’ 1 5

. 977 ” W 5

, 7 2 0 ’ FEL 6

, 150 ’ F S L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 thro ugh 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “I” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloo r Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3), and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathy metry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “I” location is 3,755 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,675 feet B SL in the north east to 3,810 feet
B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seafloor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “I” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hem ipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic com munities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C database shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “I” location (Sheet 4).

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 2
and 3 ). P XP provided C&C with a check shot dataset consisting of time

- depth pairs for the
sediment column at the GC599 Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 16772) . The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) and the corresponding two

- way traveltime ( TWT) using the time

- depth values to cal culate depths below the sea level :

Y = 516.29 T 2 + 1570.4T

W here Y = depth below seafloor in feet and T = two

- way travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in t he 201 3 Geophysical R eport. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 4) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Event 1 ): Unit A consists of continuous, low to moderate amplitude seismic reflectors (Figure No s

. 2 and 3 ). Amplitudes and acoust ic impedance contrasts tend to be moderate to low. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, and interbedded with fine

- grained turbidites and some sands. At the proposed
Well “I” location

, the clay sequence is 192 feet thick.

Unit B ( Event 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to
chaotic reflectors that are 392 feet thick at the proposed Well “I” location (Figure No s

. 2 and 3). These reflection patterns ar e likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit
with interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and turbidite channels at the base of the
unit

.

Unit C ( Event 2 to Event 3 ): At the proposed Well “I” location, Unit C is 1,079 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 2 to 3 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit D ( Event 3 to Event 4 ): Unit D consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuous to chaotic reflectors and is 1, 610 feet thick at the proposed Well “I” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpreted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with in terlayered muds and
thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “I” location, Unit E is 2, 019 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with is olated high amplitude
reflectors (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin
mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

Unit F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ) : Unit F consists of low to mo derate amplitude, semi

- continuous
to chaotic reflectors that are 9 16 feet thick at the proposed Well “I” location (Figure Nos. 2 and 3). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channeling that may contain sands.

FAULTS
Buried faults occur within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “I” location. The buried faults are noted greater than 900 feet from the proposed well location and trend northeast to southwest. The propos ed well is located on the downth rown side of one fault buried 1, 743 feet BSF. The proposed well bore path crosses these fau lts at a depth of 5,163 feet BSF

.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential re gions of fluid / gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with the seismic amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of the following four levels.

 Negligible

- No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

- Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x backgr ound level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

- Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

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

No subsurface amplitude anomalies are detected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “I” location. The well bore path wil l not penetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 4).

T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
BOEM database does not indicate there were Shallow Water Flow (SWF) iss ues with the drilling of the two (2) existing wells (Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16762 and Well No. 1, OCS

- G

- 16772) in the study area. However, the BOEM database does show a well in GC644 at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL and experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BS F.Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “I”
location. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E, and F are comprised of chaotic reflectors showing high impedance contrast, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF.
Unit C and D exhibit a low risk of SWF, and Unit A shows a negligible risk of SWF. At present there is no method of quantifying the risk of SWFs, so caution is recommended when drilling through the potential SWF units

.

CONC LUSIONS The proposed surface Well “I” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “I” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

No high or lo w sea floor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

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

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the propo sed Well “I” location.

The proposed well does intersect one fault at a depth of approximately 5,163 feet BSF along the well bore path.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk (Units B, E, and F) for SWF and a negligible potential for gas at the Well “I” drill site.

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

Sincerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “I”

. Figure No. 2

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3894 ) from Well “I”

. Figure No. 3

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5677 ) from Well “I”

. Figure No. 4 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for Proposed Well “I”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard MapWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 August 1 , 2013

Plains Exploration & Productio n Company
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road
Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter
Proposed Well “J”

Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Plains Exploration & Production Company ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “J” in Block 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. For Well “J”, PXP proposes to reenter Well No. 1 ( OCS

- G

- 16762) and side track the well

. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by PXP

. C&C completed the report titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report , Blocks 59 9 (OCS

- G

- 34998 )
and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), Green Canyon Area ” in July 201 3

. A drill ship is being proposed for drilling this well.

This letter addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed Well “J”
location. This assessment and enclosures presented with th is letter comply with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am) and NTL No . 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.

METHODS

PXP provided an exploration

- quality 3D seismic data volume in SEG

- Y format. The 3D data were acquired by CGG in December 2003 to February 2004

. The time volume dataset was processed at a 4

- millisecond sample rate. The inlines and crosslines of the 3D data volume run east to west and north to south, respectively. The in lines are spaced 65.62

- foot (20

- meter) intervals, while the crosslines are spaced 82.02 feet (25 meters). The inlines and crosslines a re depicted on the Seafloor and Subsurface Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ). The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute ampl itude values of approximately

one

- half of the peak value. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32

- bit floating

- point numbers, identified during data loading. The seismic data provided were adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow ge ologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).Wellsite Letter Project No. 130276

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 The 3D seismic data used for this wellsite assessment were provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were loaded into IHS’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.8 for interpretation. Spectral whitening was applied to the 3D seismic dataset to amplify the higher frequencies. After applying the spectral whitening, a power spectrum generated at the wellsite proposed location
indicated the seismic dat a volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION

The coordinates and calls for Well “J” surface location is tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed GC643 Well “J”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordin ate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 643 , Green Canyon Area

“J” 2,417,749 .00 ’ 9,92 9,766 .00 ’ 27 ° 20 ’ 36

. 932 ” N 90 ° 3 6 ’ 18.260 ” W 5

, 771 ’ FEL 1

, 914 ’ F N L

The geodetic datum used to generate the study maps is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in this projection on the study maps (Sheets 1 through 4 ) and included with this letter. All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet. The proposed surface hole location of Well “J” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloor Gradient Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 3) , and the Seafloor and Subsurface
Hazard Map (Sheet 4 ).

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry processed (using Advocate and Hood) from the 3D seafloor pick is shown on the Color Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1 ) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bat hymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “J” location is 3,87 5 feet below sea level ( B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 3,838 feet B SL in the north east to 3, 908
feet B SL in the south west (Sheet 1). The seaflo or is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location. The seafloor at the proposed Well “J” location slopes to the
southwest at an average gradient of 2.6° (Sheet 2).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The 3D seafloor amplitude image (Sheet 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay

.

There are no seafloor drilling hazards de tected on the 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed wellsite location

.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

- amplitude seismic seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonates and benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the prop osed Well “J” location and surrounding 2,000

- footWellsite Letter Project No. 130276

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 radius contains no low or high positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential benthic communities (Sheets 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS

A review of the C&C data base shows no wells, pipelines, or umbilicals within the vicinity of the proposed Well “J” location (Sheet 4).

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface Well “J” location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor
features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “J” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

No high or lo w seafloor amplitude anomalies indicating the occurrence of hardground s , carbonates, benthic communities

, or potential expulsion s , ar e found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “J” surface location.

No infrastructure exists with the 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “J” location.

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

Sincerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at Well “J”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4 . Sea floor and Subsurface Hazard MapFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 4 – Pg. 11 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS -G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 4
HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

4.1 CONCENTRATION
FM O&G does not anticipate encountering any H 2 S during the proposed operations.

4.2 CLASSIFICATION
In accordance with Title 30 CFR 550.215

, FM O&G requests that Green Canyon Block s 599 and 643 be classified by the BOEM as H 2 S absent

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 12 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### 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 sites

. 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
2009

- G40, “Deepwater Benthic Communities,” a map , Color Shaded Bathymetry 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 “no activity zone ”; therefore, no map is required per NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically
Sensitive Underwater Feature s and Areas. ”

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) All activities proposed under this EP will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature
Protective Zones; therefore shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required per NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Feature s and Areas. ”

5.4 LIVE BOTTOM S (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 ar e not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; therefore

, a separate bathymetric map is not required per NTL
2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Feature s and Areas. ”

5.5 LIVE BOTTOM S (LOW RELIEF) Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 ar e not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required per NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive
Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP Green Canyon Block s 599 and 643 are not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features; therefore, biologically sensitive area maps are not required.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 13 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS BOEM has determined there is enough data gathered in Grid A rea 10 ; t herefore, FM
O&G will not be conducting any ROV surveys either pre

- spud or post

- dril operations per NTL No. 2008

- G06, “Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater” (Extended by
NTL BOEM 2013

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”)

.

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND

MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION Under Section 7 of the Endange red Species Act (ESA) all federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated
critical habitat.

In ac cordan ce with 30 CFR 550 , Subpart B, and further outlined in NTL 2008

- G04

,

“ Information requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations
Coordination Documents” (Extended by NTL BOEM 2013

- G02 , “Extension of Prior
Notices to Lessees” ), and NTL 2012 -J OINT

- G01

, ”Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting,” lessees/operators are required to address

site

- specific information on the presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat designated under the ESA and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of proposed activities under this plan.

There are five (5) species of sea turtles that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico (see table below). NOAA fisheries currently list all five of these turtles as endangered (E) or threatened (T).

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in

the Gulf of Mexico Lease
Area Coastal

Sea Turtles Loggerhead Carettsa caretta T x x None Green Chelonia mydas T,E x x None
Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E x x None
Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata E x x None

Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempli E x x NoneFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 14 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) In addition, there are 28 species of marine mammals that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. The table provided below identifies the seven (7) species of marine mammals that are listed as endangered or threatened. Currently, there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf; however, it is possible that one or more of these species could be seen in the area during operations.

Species S cientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in

the Gulf of Mexico Lease
Area C oastal

Marine Mammals Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus E x

-- None

WesIndian Manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E

-- x Florida (Peninsular)
Blue Whale Balaenoptera masculus E x

-- None

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus E x

-- None

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae E x

-- None

NorthAtlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis E x

-- None

Sei Whale Balaenopiera borealis E x

-- None

There is one (1) species of fish that NOAA fisheries currently list as threatened (T) that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf sturgeon, also known as the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, is an anadromous (breeding in freshwater after migrating up rivers from marine and estuarine environments) fish overwintering in estuaries, bays, and the Gulf of Mexico (see table below).

Species Scientific Name Status Potential
Presence Critical

Habitat Designated
in the Gulf of
Mexico Lease
Area Coastal

Fish Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus T X X NoneFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 15 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) (=oxyrhynchus)

desotoi

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 have been determined as potentially containing prehistoric archaeological propert ies. In accordance with NTL 2005

- G07 “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” an Archaeological Survey Report is being submitted with this pl an.

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Air and water quality information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL
2008

- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents.”

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Socioeconomic Information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL 2008

- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations
Coordination Documents.”

# MILITARY WARNING
AREA W-92 S-15603 DISCOVERY 12"-16"

OCS-G-16772
Well No. 1

Well No. 1 OCS-G-16762



# GC644

GC643 GC600 GC599

WELL LOCATION "J"

X= 2,417,749.00'
Y= 9,929,766.00' 
1 
: BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,423,520.00'
Y= 9,931,680.00' 
1 
: 

## OCS-G-34998

PXP



## OCS-G-34999

PXP



## OCS-G-35001

PXP 

## OCS-G-11080

PXP WELL LOCATION "I"

X= 2,417,800.00'
Y= 9,937,830.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "H"

X= 2,417,900.00'
Y= 9,937,830.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "G"

X= 2,417,850.00'
Y= 9,937,916.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "F"

X= 2,419,745.00'
Y= 9,926,030.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "E"

X= 2,419,670.00'
Y= 9,926,030.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "B"

X= 2,419,745.00'
Y= 9,925,880.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "A"

X= 2,419,670.00'
Y= 9,925,880.00' 
1 
: TEXAS

BRAZOS
AREA

EAST BREAKS AREA

ALAMINOS CANYON AREA GALVESTON
AREA HIGH ISLAND
AREA

GARDEN BANKS AREA

KEATHLEY CANYON AREA SABINE
PASS
AREA (TX) SABINE
PASS
AREA (LA)

WEST
CAMERON
AREA EAST
CAMERON
AREA VERMILION
AREA SOUTH
MARSH
ISLAND
AREA

WALKER RIDGE AREA GREEN CANYON AREA EUGENE
ISLAND AREA

EWING BANK AREA SHIP
SHOAL
AREA SOUTH
TIMBALIER
AREA SOUTH
PELTO
AREA BAY MARCHAND
AREA

GRAND
ISLE
AREA

EWING
BANK
AREA LOUISIANA



# 5*''6QH 2.#08+'9

Bathymetric information based on seafloor horizon pick from 3D data set Contour interval = 10 feet Bin size = 25 meters (82.02 feet) Zero datum = Sea level Applied acoustic velocity using Advocate and Hood (1993) for data
between sea level and seafloor.

Color shaded image 6XQD]LPXWK 
6XQHOHYDWLRQ 

DEPTH IN FEET Bathymetric contours (in feet)

0' 1,000' 2,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET SHEET
AREA



# PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS "A", "B", "E" to "J"

COLOR SHADED BATHYMETRY MAP

BLOCKS 599 (OCS-G-34998) & 643 (OCS-G-35001)

GREEN CANYON AREA

DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUE DRAWN INTERP CHECKED

JOB NO. DATE:

FILENAME: 130276

130276A_WELLS.DWG Aug. 1, 2013 1 July 19, 2013 Preliminary PDF with report J. Guidry J. Cox D. Pierrottie NOTE: 3D data acquired December 2003 - February 2004.

Survey vessel: M/V Alize NADCON version 2.1 utilized for WGS84-NAD27 conversions.

GEODETIC DATUM: NAD27 ELLIPSOID: CLARKE 1866 GRID UNITS: U.S. SURVEY FEET PROJECTION: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE: 15N &(175$/0(5,',$1
: FALSE EASTING: 1,640,416.67 FEET at C.M. )$/6(1257+,1*)((7DW
1 Seafloor surface location of well

-3980 -3970 -3960 -3950 -3940 -3930 -3920 -3910 -3900 -3890 -3880 -3870 -3860 -3850 -3840 -3830 -3820 -3810 -3800 -3790 -3780 -3770 -3760 -3750 -3740 -3730 -3720 -3710 -3700 -3690 -3680 -3670 -3660 -3650 -3640 -3630 -3620 -3610 -3600 -3590 -3580 -3570 -3560 -3550 -3540 -3530 -3520 -3510 -3500 -3490 -3480 -3470 -3460 -3450 Inline and inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet)

Crossline and crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.02 feet)

2 Aug. 1, 2013 Original issue with report J. Guidry J. Cox D. Pierrottie

# MILITARY WARNING
AREA W-92 -1015' -925' -190'

-1990' -575' -50'

-815' -225' -520'

-135' -510'

-425' -710' -175'

-1981'

-2346'

-2800'

-3773'

-4211' -3980' -3254'

-4119' -2036' -3875' -2755' -3900'

-2685' -300'

-220'

-3927'

-200' -195' -3715' -1743'

-205' -280'

-4326' -2920'

-4212' -3420' -3767'

-4934' -45'

-731'

-2449' -275'

-2942' -2755'

-3785'

-3775'

-1326'

-2228' S-15603 DISCOVERY 12"-16"

OCS-G-16772

Well No. 1

Well No. 1 OCS-G-16762



# GC644

GC643 GC600 GC599

WELL LOCATION "J"

X= 2,417,749.00'
Y= 9,929,766.00' 
1 
: BLOCK CORNER

X= 2,423,520.00'
Y= 9,931,680.00' 
1 
: 

## OCS-G-34998

PXP



## OCS-G-34999

PXP



## OCS-G-35001

PXP 

## OCS-G-11080

PXP WELL LOCATION "I"

X= 2,417,800.00'
Y= 9,937,830.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "H"

X= 2,417,900.00'
Y= 9,937,830.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "G"

X= 2,417,850.00'
Y= 9,937,916.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "F"

X= 2,419,745.00'
Y= 9,926,030.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "E"

X= 2,419,670.00'
Y= 9,926,030.00' 
1 
:

WELL LOCATION "B"

X= 2,419,745.00'
Y= 9,925,880.00' 
1 
: WELL LOCATION "A"

X= 2,419,670.00'
Y= 9,925,880.00' 
1 
: TEXAS

BRAZOS
AREA

EAST BREAKS AREA

ALAMINOS CANYON AREA GALVESTON
AREA HIGH ISLAND
AREA

GARDEN BANKS AREA

KEATHLEY CANYON AREA SABINE
PASS
AREA (TX) SABINE
PASS
AREA (LA)

WEST
CAMERON
AREA EAST
CAMERON
AREA VERMILION
AREA SOUTH
MARSH
ISLAND
AREA

WALKER RIDGE AREA GREEN CANYON AREA EUGENE
ISLAND AREA

EWING BANK AREA SHIP
SHOAL
AREA SOUTH
TIMBALIER
AREA SOUTH
PELTO
AREA BAY MARCHAND
AREA

GRAND
ISLE
AREA

EWING
BANK
AREA LOUISIANA



# 5*''6QH 2.#08+'9

0' 1,000' 2,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET SHEET
AREA



# PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS "A", "B", "E" to "J"

SEAFLOOR and SUBSURFACE HAZARD MAP

BLOCKS 599 (OCS-G-34998) & 643 (OCS-G-35001)

GREEN CANYON AREA

DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUE DRAWN INTERP CHECKED

JOB NO. DATE:

FILENAME: 130276

130276A_WELLS.DWG Aug. 1, 2013 1 July 19, 2013 Preliminary PDF with report J. Guidry J. Cox D. Pierrottie NOTE: 3D data acquired December 2003 - February 2004.

Survey vessel: M/V Alize NADCON version 2.1 utilized for WGS84-NAD27 conversions.

GEODETIC DATUM: NAD27 ELLIPSOID: CLARKE 1866 GRID UNITS: U.S. SURVEY FEET PROJECTION: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE: 15N &(175$/0(5,',$1
: FALSE EASTING: 1,640,416.67 FEET at C.M. )$/6(1257+,1*)((7DW
1 Normal fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side)

-210'

Amplitude anomalies within Unit B (1.462 to 2.402 sec/BSL) Depth below seafloor = 0 - 2,770 feet

Amplitude anomalies within Unit E (2.019 to 3.998 sec/BSL) Depth below seafloor = 1,825 - 10,550 feet Amplitude anomalies within Unit D (1.720 to 3.520 sec/BSL) Depth below seafloor = 778 - 7,944 feet

Amplitude anomalies within Unit F (2.478 to 3.997 sec/BSL) Depth below seafloor = 3,611 - 10,545 feet Amplitude anomalies at the seafloor

Amplitude anomalies within Unit A (1.412 to 1.792 sec/BSL) Depth below seafloor = 0 - 492 feet

All infrastructure shown is from company file information only. Seafloor surface location of well Inline and inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet)

Crossline and crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.02 feet)

2 Aug. 1, 2013 Original issue with report J. Guidry J. Cox D. PierrottieFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 6 – Pg. 16 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### 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.N/A N/A N/A N/A No Potable Water with 4% Stack-Magic ECO-Fv2 1,080 BBLS/WELL 7 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at the seafloor or with deck drainage when tested

at surface No

Uncontaminated seawater used to maintainproper draft 27,000 BBLS/WELL 186 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard. Based upon 5 major ballast operations, with rig at operating draft minimal ballast change is required No

Sea Water with no additional chemicals 290 BBLS/WE.. 2 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No Cement Slurry 50,388 BBLS/WELL 347.5 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at seafloor during riserless operations. Dicharge rate based upon 2 days (28" & 22" cement returns) No Hull discharge overboard No N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit? General NPDES Permit 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 85,890,605 BBLS/WELL 592,349 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No N/A

N/A

N/A

Rejected water from the watermaker. 218,950 BBLS/WELL 1510 BBLS/DAY/WELL Gray water from living quarters 50,170 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?

Micellaneous 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 725 BBLS/WELL 5 BBLS/DAY/WELL No drillfloor drainage routed to sea. All retained on board and processed to <15ppm or sent to shore for disposal No No

N/A Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

22,910 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 6,353 BBLS/WELL 95 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to surface. Treated cutting will be discharged overboard during drilling of the SBM intervals. Discharge rate is based upon 67 days of drilling. Cuttings will be processed through a cuttings dryer, substantially reducing the ROC percentage. No

Domestic waste

Sanitary Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid Cuttings coated while drilling with WBM 2,829 BBLS/WELL 352 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to mudline prior to riser installation. Based on 8 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 3,333 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 6 days of drilling with WBM. No 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 MethodFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 7 – Pg. 17 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 7
AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

Screen Procedures 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 any proposed well? X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION
Included as Attachment 7

- A are Air Emission Worksheets which show the emissions
calculations for the Plan Emissions. There are no co

- located facilities; therefore, plan
emissions are the same as c omplex total emissions.

This information was calculated by: Jean Martin (281) 578

- 3388 Jean.martin @jccteam.comEXPLORATION PLAN (EP) AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST OMB Control No. 1010-0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 1 of 8 COMPANY Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

AREA Green Canyon
BLOCKS 599 / 643
LEASE OCS-G 34998 / 35001
PLATFORM NA

WELL Locations A, B, E, F, G, H, I, J

COMPANY CONTACT Jean Martin
TELEPHONE NO. 281-578-3388

REMARKS FM O&G will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fule usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS FACTORS

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form 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 1ST YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 3 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, G, H, I, J Jean Martin 281-578-3388 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 (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 169 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 17.49 80.25 601.32 18.04 131.20

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 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 72 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.32 1.45 10.87 0.33 2.37 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 72 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 1.12 5.15 38.61 1.16 8.42 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 72 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 1.12 5.15 38.61 1.16 8.42

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 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2014 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 20.06 92.01 689.76 20.98 152.36

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN
MILES 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51
117.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 4 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, G, H, I, J Jean Martin 281-578-3388 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 (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 364.00 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.68 172.84 1295.15 38.85 282.58

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 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 0.00 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 0.00 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 0.00 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 6 156.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.68 3.12 23.42 0.70 5.11 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156.00 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.42 11.10 83.15 2.49 18.14 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156.00 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.42 11.10 83.15 2.49 18.14

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 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 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 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2015 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.20 198.17 1485.23 44.85 325.92

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN
MILES 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51
117.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 3RD YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form 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, G, H, I, J Jean Martin 281-578-3388 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 (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 365 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.78 173.32 1298.71 38.96 283.36

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 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 6 156 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.68 3.13 23.48 0.70 5.12 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19

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 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2016 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.32 198.71 1489.31 44.97 326.81

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN
MILES 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51
117.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 4TH YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form 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, G, H, I, J Jean Martin 281-578-3388 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 (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 364 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.68 172.84 1295.15 38.85 282.58

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 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 6 156 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.68 3.12 23.42 0.70 5.11 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19

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 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2017 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.21 198.23 1485.69 44.86 326.02

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN
MILES 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51
117.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 5TH YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 7 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, G, H, I, J Jean Martin 281-578-3388 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 (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 364 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.68 172.84 1295.15 38.85 282.58

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 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 6 156 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.68 3.13 23.48 0.70 5.12 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 156 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.43 11.13 83.38 2.50 18.19

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 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2018 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN
MILES 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51
117.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.SUMMARY

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 8 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL

Freeport-McMoR Green Canyon 599 / 643 OCS-G 34998 / 35001 NA Locations A, B, E, F, G, H, I, J

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2014 20.06 92.01 689.76 20.98 152.36
2015 43.20 198.17 1485.23 44.85 325.92

2016 43.32 198.71 1489.31 44.97 326.81
2017 43.21 198.23 1485.69 44.86 326.02
2018 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03
2019 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03
2020 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03
2021 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03
2022 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03

2023 43.21 198.24 1485.75 44.86 326.03
Allowable 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 3896.10 81333.51Day 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 11,174 gal 16,299 gal 11,042 gal 17,594 gal 13,605 gal 17,383 gal

2 14,133 gal 8,321 gal 11,095 gal 20,843 gal 12,786 gal 20,658 gal

3 17,409 gal 13,816 gal 11,941 gal 15,296 gal 8,612 gal 14,318 gal

4 5,733 gal 12,073 gal 14,529 gal 14,292 gal 12,231 gal 22,032 gal

5 34,818 gal 13,658 gal 11,359 gal 23,353 gal 12,231 gal 12,443 gal

6 16,775 gal 11,386 gal 9,510 gal 31,886 gal 12,469 gal 20,658 gal

7 14,662 gal 12,865 gal 10,223 gal 10,725 gal 13,103 gal 11,016 gal

8 16,167 gal 17,726 gal 11,016 gal 12,495 gal 11,174 gal 15,824 gal

9 14,133 gal 18,043 gal 10,567 gal 14,741 gal 14,556 gal 10,699 gal

10 12,046 gal 13,209 gal 10,514 gal 12,627 gal 18,017 gal 6,789 gal

11 12,733 gal 14,952 gal 13,182 gal 12,760 gal 17,752 gal 11,280 gal

12 12,812 gal 9,880 gal 10,567 gal 12,390 gal 13,895 gal 12,944 gal

13 15,190 gal 23,141 gal 10,752 gal 10,857 gal 12,046 gal 9,722 gal

14 14,001 gal 9,801 gal 11,359 gal 9,695 gal 11,412 gal 13,763 gal

15 10,223 gal 7,819 gal 10,910 gal 8,638 gal 12,073 gal 16,114 gal

16 7,661 gal 5,072 gal 11,069 gal 12,575 gal 10,039 gal 14,080 gal

17 14,635 gal 10,540 gal 12,786 gal 12,099 gal 14,397 gal 15,613 gal

18 11,650 gal 14,107 gal 10,884 gal 7,661 gal 13,314 gal 15,771 gal

19 15,005 gal 18,334 gal 15,692 gal 9,537 gal 14,080 gal 15,401 gal

20 14,899 gal 14,450 gal 7,899 gal 9,827 gal 11,650 gal 14,160 gal

21 13,473 gal 12,495 gal 10,646 gal 18,386 gal 11,967 gal 10,620 gal

22 12,575 gal 19,364 gal 8,189 gal 11,095 gal 14,979 gal 18,439 gal

23 10,778 gal 16,854 gal 11,174 gal 10,778 gal 13,552 gal 15,375 gal

24 10,857 gal 6,234 gal 9,642 gal 10,250 gal 10,725 gal 18,862 gal

25 12,786 gal 12,944 gal 12,443 gal 16,009 gal 10,250 gal 14,477 gal

26 10,805 gal 8,586 gal 11,069 gal 12,786 gal 12,944 gal 10,963 gal

27 12,469 gal 12,760 gal 14,899 gal 12,284 gal 9,589 gal 11,597 gal

28 11,148 gal 14,556 gal 10,673 gal 12,231 gal 11,016 gal 12,125 gal

29 13,684 gal 9,193 gal 9,827 gal 11,148 gal 11,359 gal

30 13,552 gal 13,869 gal 15,375 gal 14,688 gal 11,307 gal

31 13,499 gal 15,507 gal 13,763 gal
Average 13,596 gal 12,734 gal 11,290 gal 13,691 gal 12,677 gal 14,179 gal

Transit Days 

## Daily Fuel Usage for a 6 month period

MonthFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 8

– Pg. 18 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 8
OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING All the proposed activities and facilities in the RDOCD will be covered by the Freeport

McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G) Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP), submitted on January 10, 2014, revised on January 31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Contro l Number O

- 713).

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location

Houma, LA Harvey, LA Leeville, LA Houma, LA Harvey, LA Fourchon, LA

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION FM O&G’s primary equipment providers are Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) and Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), and National Response Corporation (NRCC). Clean Gulf Associates Services, LLC (CGAS) will provide clos est available personnel, as well as a CGAS supervisor to operate the equipment. MSRC personnel are responsible for operating MSRC response 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 SC ENARIO DETERMINATION

Category Regional OSRP WCD EP WCD

Type of Activity >10 mile Drilling >10 mile Drilling

Facility Location (Area/Block) GC 393 GC 643

Facility Designation Well Location B Well Location A

Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 96.5 mi. 117.0 mi.

Volume Storage Tanks (Total) Uncontrolled blowout Total Volume 400,000 bbls 85,267 bblsFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 8

– Pg. 19 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) Type of Oil Crude Crude

API Gravity 25 o 29.3 o

The modified Regional OSRP WCD of 400,000 bbls was verified by BOEM in Plan N

9739 (per NTL 2010

- N06).

FM O&G has determined that the worst

- case scenario from t he activities proposed in this DOCD does not supersede the worst

- case scenario from our Regional OSRP.

Since FM O&G has the capability to respond to the worst

- case spill scenario included in our Regional OSRP, submitted on January 10, 2014, revised on Janu ary 31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control Number O

- 713), and since the worst

case scenario determined for our DOCD does not replace the worst

- case scenario in our Regional OSRP, FM O&G hereby certifies that FM O&G has the capability to

r espond, 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 DOCD.

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION The Oil Spill Response Discussion is included as Attachment 8

- A.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 85,267 barrels of crude oil wit h an API gravity of 29.3 °

.

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 BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BSEE website . Th e results are shown in Fi gure 1

. The
BSEE OSRAM identifies a 3 % probability of impact to the shorelines of Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana within 30 days

. Cameron Parish includes the eas t side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake. Cameron Parish also includes the area along the coastline from Sabine Pass to Big Constance Lake in Rockefeller Wildlife Re fuge. This region is composed of open public beaches, marshlands and swamps. It serves as a habitat for numerous birds, finfish and other animals, including several rare, threatened and endangered species

. Plaquemines Parish includes Barataria Bay, the M ississippi 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 grain 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 description o f the response equipment under contract to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2

.

Using the estimated chemical and physical characteristics of crude oil , an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADIOS oil da tabase. The results indicate 13 % or approximately 11,085 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 74,182 barrels remaining.

Spill Response GC 643 , Location A Barrels of Oil

WCD Volume 85,267

Less 13 % na tural evaporation/dispersion 11,085
Remaining volume 74,182

Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to a spill of approximately 74,182 barrels. The volume

account s 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 Spil l Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants and in

- situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified Command based on the size of the spill, weather and potential impacts. If aerial disper sants 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 approvals have been obtained an d 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 utilizing CGA’s response equipm ent , with a total derated skimming capacity of 162,477 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 13,700 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a n 80,000 barrel storage barge

, a 25,000 barrel storage barge , and three 20,000
barrel storage barge s may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible

. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe pr ior to any containment/skimming attempts.

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the
use of CGA’s near shore an d shallow water skimmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity
of 100,626 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 1,667 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 47,000 barrel storage barge and three 2,000 barrel storage b arges may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent b oom on vegetated

areas. Master Service Agreements with AMPOL, Miller Environmental, and OMI Environmental will ensure access to more than 161,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom

. Figure 2 outlines
individual times needed for procurement, load out, tr avel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given actual sea and weather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for Cameron Parish and Plaquemines Parish and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that environmental and special economic resources would be correctly identified and prioritized to ensure optimal protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protecti on 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 Lo uisiana’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 d eployment and operation of equipment 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 dis charge 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
63 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 which include but

are not limited to:

• Weather

• Equipment and materials availabilit y

• Ocean currents and tides

• Location of the spill

• Product spilled

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments

• Trajectory and product analysis

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

FM O&G will take action to provide a safe, aggressive respons e 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 f rom environmentally sensitive areas 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 ves sel response activities. Most often, 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 coordinat ion and support of each other. This 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 activit ies will be monitored by the spill 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 will be completed

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published

• Unified Command will be established

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

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

o On

- site command and control establishedDecanting Strategy
R ecovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decan ting 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.

Offshore Response Actions

Equipm ent Deployment Surveillance

• Surveillance Aircraft will be deployed within two hours of Q ualified I ndividual (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 A irborne S upport I nc. (ASI) on s tandby

• With the Federal On

- Scene Coordinator ( FOSC ) , conduct analysis to determine appropriateness of dispersant application

• Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface

• Deploy aircraft in accordance with a plan developed for the actual situati on

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

• Confirm dispersant availability for current and long range operations

• Start ordering dispersant stocks required for expected operations

Containment boom

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

• Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom

• Provide continuing reports to vessels to expedite their arrival at sites that will provide for
their most effective containment

• Use Vessels of Op portunity (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 operationsCGA HOSS Barge

• Use in areas with h eaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA FRUs

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

• VOOs 140’

– 180’ in length

• VOOs with minimum of 18’ x 38’ or 23’ x 50’ of optimum deck space

• VOOs in shallow water should have a draft of <10 feet when fully loaded

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

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

• Phase mobilization to allo w 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 applicable

• Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard fo r vessel inspections

In

- situ Burn assets

• Determine appropriateness of in

- situ burn operation in coordination with the FOSC and
affected State On

- Scene Coordinator (SOSC)

• Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

• Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

• Determine assets to perform on water operation

• Build operations into safety plan

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan

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 overriding 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.Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

• P lace near shore assets on standby and deploy in accordance with planning based on the actual situation, actual tr ajectories and oil budgets

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

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

Considerations

• Water depth, vessel draft

• Shoreline gradient

• State of the oil

• Use of VOOs

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

• Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

• Continual surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography
and visual confirmation

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets

Dispersant Use

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

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

Vessel Deployment Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• F ast R esponse V essel s (FRV)

• Egmopol and Marco S hallow Water Skimmer (SWS)

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

• Use FM O&G ’s contracted resources as applicable

• Industry vessels are u sually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Co ast Guard for vessel inspections

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patchesShoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations

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

• Time to acquir e personnel and equipment and their availability

• Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate Area Contingency Plan, and currently for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

Ac tions

Placement of boom

• Position boom in accordance with the ERA based on the actual situation or the appropriate ACP

• Assess timing of booming operations to ensure it is where it needs to be at time of impact. Consider:

o Trajectories

o Weather forecast

o Oil Impact forecast

o Verified spill movement

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability

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

Beach Preparation

Considerations and Actions

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

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

• Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter

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

• Pre cleaning of beaches by movi ng waste above high ti d e lines to minimize waste

• Staging of equipment and housing of response personnel as close to the job site as possible to maximize on

- site work time

• Boom tending, repair, replacement and security (use of local assets may be advantageo us)

• 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 be considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom and/or sweep obtained

• Earthen berms and shoreline protection boom may be considered to protect sensitive
inland areasDecanting Strategy Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation o ccurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases
the effective on

- site oil storage capacity and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval
will be r equested 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 w ill be directly in relation to the capabilities of the vessel the system in placed on. Most importantly, however, the decision to operate will be based on the judgment of the Unified Command and/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the
f inal say in terminating operations. Skimming equipment listed below may have operational limits which exceed those safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill response, vessel skimming operations ceased when seas reached 5

- 6 fee t and vessels were often recalled to port when those conditions were exceeded. Systems below are some of the most up

- to

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

Boom 3 foot seas, 20 knot winds Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots Visibility less than 3 nautical miles Ceiling less than 1,000 feet.
FRU 8 foot seas HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas Koseq Arms 8 foot seas
OSRV 4 foot seasEnvironmental Conditions in the GOM Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences westerly winds during the winter and easterly winds in the summer. Average wind speed is generally 14

- 15 mph along the coast. Wave heights average 4 and 5 feet. However, during hurricane season, Louisiana has recorded wav e heights ranging from 40 to 50 feet high and winds reaching speeds of 100 mph. Because much of southern Louisiana lies below sea level, flooding is prominent.

Surface water temperature ranges between 70 and 80  ̊ F during the summer months. During the winter, the average temperature will range from 50 and 60  ̊ F.

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 November. 97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The 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 BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico a vailable on the BSEE website using 3 0 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS

- G Launch
Area Land Segment and/or
Resource Conditional Probability (%)
within 30 days

Drill, complete and
install subsea tree at 8 locations, two of which

will be injector wells

GC 643, Location A

117 miles from shore G35001 C46 Matagorda, TX Brazoria, TX Galveston, TX Jefferson, TX Cameron, LA Vermilion, LA Terrebonne, LA Lafourche, LA Plaquemines, LA 1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3WCD Scenario

– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS ( 117 miles from shore) 74,182 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering)
API Gravity 29.3 °
FIGURE 2

– Equipment Response Time to GC 643, Location A

Dispersants/Surveillance

Dispersant/Surveillance Dispers ant Capacity (gal) Storage Capacity Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Travel to
site Total Hrs

ASI

Basler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 2.8

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 1 3

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 3

Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 2.8

Offshore Response

Offshore Equipment No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Hrs to GOM Travel to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

CGA
HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 5 Harvey 7 0 5 14.4 1 27.4 Boom Barg e (CGA

- 300)
4 2 ” Auto Boom ( 2 5000’) NA NA 1 Tug
50 Crew 4 (Barge) 2 (Per Crew) Leeville 4 0 6 15.63 1.5 27.13

T&T Marine (available through contract with CGA) Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Harvey 24 24 2 10.8 2 62.8 Recovered Oil Storag e No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Hrs to GOM Travel to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

K

- Sea Operating (available through contract with CGA)

PACIFIC 996165 NA 80000 1 Tug 6 Venice 4 12 2 16.25 1 35.25 Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13

CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13

CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13Staging Area: Fourchon Offshore Equipment With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Load o ut Travel to Staging Travel to Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

T&T Marine (availa ble through contract with CGA)

Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston 4 12 6 10 2 34

CGA

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 7 10 1 21

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Utility 6 Harvey 1 2 2 10 1 16

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 10 1 23.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 4 10 1 18

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Leeville 1 2 0.25 10 1 14.3

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2 ) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Morgan City 1 2 2 10 1 16

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice 1 2 4 10 1 18

Hydro

- Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey 1 4 2 10 6 23Nearshore Response Nearshore Equipment No Staging EDRC Storage Capa city VOO Persons Required From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Hrs to GOM Travel to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

CGA

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Morgan City 1 0 2 3 0 6

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

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 2 0 4 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Leeville 1 2 2 3 0 8 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 1 2 2 4 0 9 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Venice 1 2 2 2 0 7 Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.3 8 1 35.38

CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38

CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38

CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38

Staging Area: Cameron

Nearshore and Inland Skimmers With Staging EDRC Stora ge Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Load o ut Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

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

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

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 1 2 4.75 2 0 9.75 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 8 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8 4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 8
2 Drum Skimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 8

Staging Area: Venice

Nearshore and Inland Skimmers With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Load o ut Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

CG A SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Morgan City 1 2 3.25 2 0 8.25

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Venice 1 2 0 2 0 5
Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Harvey 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Harvey 1 2 4.5 2 0 11 4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 H arvey 1 2 4.5 2 0 11Shoreline Protection Staging Area: Venice

Shoreline Protection
Boom VOO Persons Req. Storage/Warehouse
Location Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Site Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

AMPOL (available thro ugh MSA)

42,000’ 18” Boom 16 Crew 40 New Iberia, LA 2 2 4 2 12 22

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 New Orleans, LA 2 2 2 2 6 14

Miller (available through MSA)

14,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 12 Sulphur, LA .5 1 5.5 2 2 11

OMI Environmental (available through MSA)

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 Belle Chasse, LA 1 1 1.75 2 6 11.75

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Allen, LA 1 1 3.5 2 3 10.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houma, LA 1 1 3.5 2 3 10.5

15,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 14 Gretna, LA (Warehouse) 2 2 2 2 4 12

Staging Area : Cameron

Shoreline Protection
Boom VOO Persons Req. Storage/Warehouse
Location Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Site Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

OMI Environmental (available through MSA)

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Ib eria, LA 1 1 2.5 2 3 9.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 2.5 2 3 9.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 1.25 2 3 8.25Staging Area: Cameron

Wildlife Response EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Lo adout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

CGA

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

Bird Scare Guns (48) NA NA NA 2 Harvey 1 2 4 1 2 10

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.1 1 2 9.1

Bird Scare G uns (12) NA NA NA 2 Aransas Pass 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 1.1 1 2 7.1

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Venice 1 2 5.4 1 2 11.4

Response Asset Total

Offshore EDRC 162,477

Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 178,700

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 100,626

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 117,667Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 9 – Pg. 20 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 9
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS There are no environmental monitoring systems currently in place or planned for the proposed activities.

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 requ irements 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 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIO NAL MARINE SANCTUARY

. Green Canyon Block s 599 and 643 are not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; therefore, the requested information is not required in this

EP.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 0 – Pg. 21 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 10
LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Exploration activities are subject to the following stipulations attached to Lease s OCS

- G 34998 and OCS

- G 35001, Green Canyon Block s 599 and 643

.

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA) Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are located within designated MW

- 92

. The Fleet Area Control Surveillance Facility in Jacksonville, Florida

, will be contacted in order to coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions during the proposed operations.

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES The Marine Protected Species lease stipulation is meant to reduce the potential taking

o f marine protected species. 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 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protect ed Species Observer Program”Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 1 – Pg. 22 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 11
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are not located within Florida; therefore, mitigation information is not required for the activities proposed in this EP

.

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 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Pro tected Species Observer Program”Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 2 – Pg. 23 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 12
SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

12.1 GENERAL The most practical, direct route from the shore base as permitted by weather and traffic
conditions will be utilized.

Type Maximum Fuel Tank Capacit y Maximum Number in Area at Any Time Trip Frequency or Duration

Crew Boat 1,800 bbls 1 3 /week
Supply Boat 9,000 bbls 1 3/week Supply Boat 5,800 bbls 1 3/week

Helicopters 760 gal s 1 2 /day

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS
Size of Fuel Supply Vessel Capacity of Fuel Supply Vessel Frequency of Fuel Transfers Route Fuel Supply Vessel Will Take 265 ’ 9,000 bbls Bi

- weekly Shortest route from Shore base to block. 312’ 5,800 bbls Bi

- weekly Shortest route from Shore base 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 M ap 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

routes of the support vessels from Fourchon . LA and aircraft from Houma , LA th at will be used when traveling between the on shore 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 499 A.J. Estay Rd

C Port 1 - 106 9th Street

C Port 2 – 130 4th Street

GOL Dock – 341 A.T. Gisclair Rd

Port Fourchon, LA 70357 23,750 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

Recycled

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 Cuttings Boxes on Supply Boat Newpark Environmental Services

145 17th St
Port Fourchon, LA

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 165,000 lbs/Well Recycled if possible, transported to

landfill otherwise

Used Engine Oil Proper DOT containers on supply boat Univar
Carencro, LA

Wash water Chemical product wastes N/A

SBM/Cuttings N/A

Cuttings wetted with oil-based fluids

Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in produced sand. Cuttings wetted with Synthetic-based

fluid N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

1,500 BBLS/Well N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recycled or

Incinerated

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 195 bbl/Well! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

G r e e n C a n y o n S h i p S h o a l

A t w a t e r V a l l e y S o u t h T i m b a l i e r

E w i n g B a n k M i s s i s s i p p i C a n y o n W e s t D e l t a

G r a n d I s l e

S h i p S h o a l S o u t h S o u t h T i m b a l i e r S o u t h W e s t D e l t a S o u t h S o u t h P e l t o

H o u m a

D u l a c

F o u r c h o n G a l l i a n o

C o c o d r i e

G r a n d I s l e R i v e r R i d g e H o u m a

T e r

r e b o n n e L a f o u r c h e S t

. M a r

y

P l a q u e m i n e s 

# P l a i n s E x p l o r a t i o n & P r o d u c t i o n C o m p a n y V i c i n i t y M a p G r e e n C a n y o n 5 9 9 & 6 4 3

G C 5 9 9

~ 1 1 7 M

i l e s

t o S h o

r e ~ 1 2 0 M i l e s t o F o u r c h o n

, L A S h o r e b a s e

~ 1 5 2 M i l e s t o H o u m a A i r c r a f t S h o r e b a s e

G C 6 4 3Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 3 – Pg. 24 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 13
ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

13.1 GENERAL

Name of Shore base Location Existing/New/Modified Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Shorebase Port Fourchon, LA Existing

MI

- Swaco Mud Plants Port Fourchon, La Existing

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing shore base as a result of the operations proposed in this EP

.

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

A support base construction or expansion timetable is not required for 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 1 4 – Pg. 25 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 14
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana.
A c ertificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is

in cluded as Attachment 14 -A.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 5 – Pg. 26 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 15 -A

.

## Freeport McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( FM O&G )

Initial Exploration Plan Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643
OCS

- G 34998/35001

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FAC TORS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

Resources Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) Categories and E xamples 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 emplaceme nts, 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 (4)

Water quality X X

Fisheries X X

Marine Mammals X(8) X X(8) X

Sea Turtles X(8) X X(8) X

Air quality X(9)

Shipwreck sites (known or potential) (7)

Prehistoric archaeological sites (7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X X(6)

Marine and pelagic birds X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beach es X(6) X

Wetlands X (6)

Shore birds and coastal nesting
birds X 6)

Coastal wildlife refuges

Wilderness areasFootnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topogr aphic 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 ba nk) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease;

o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft. from any no

- activity zone; or

o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 meters that is n ot 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 E astern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low

Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 5) Exploration or production activiti es where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed act ion is located a sufficient distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the BOEM as having high

- probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient distan ce from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or
sea turtles or their critical hab itats. 9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

### ( B ) Analysis

Site

- Specific at Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643
Proposed operations consist of the drilling, completion and installation o f subsea tree 8 locations, two of which will be injector wells (Locations A

- injector, B, E, F, G, H, I

- injector, J).
The operations will be conducted with a drillship

.

1. Designated T opographic F eatures
Potential IPFs on topographic features include efflu ents, and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are 50 mil es from the closest designated
T opographic F eature s Stipulation Block ( Diaphus 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 several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on corals. Because the crests of topographic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found below 10 m, no oil from a surface spill co uld reach their
sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions , physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle T rend A rea L ive B ottoms
Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are 183 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 severalorders 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 Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions , physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities whic h could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area.

3. Eastern Gulf Live B ottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are not located in an area characterized by the
exi stence 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 found only at concentrations several or ders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine invertebrates. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O &G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions , physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live
bottom area.

4. Benthic C ommunities There are no IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to benthic
communities.

A dri llship is being used for the proposed activities ; therefore

, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by
the use of a drillship

, FM O&G ’s proposed operations in Green Canyo n Blocks 599 and 643 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.5. Water Q uality
IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, discharge

- rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Oper ational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offshore water quality; however, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from t he 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 di lute 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 Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and was tes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries
IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon
Blocks 599 and 643 include effluents an d accidents.

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components and properties which are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum and metal
contamination of sediments and the water column can occur out to several hundred meters down

current from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have ne gligible effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimen tal 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 e ffects 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 co mpounds. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).

There are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to fisheries.

7. Marine 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, includi ng 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 propose d operations in Green Canyon
Blocks 599 and 643 include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents.

Emissions : Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle
reaction from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to disruption of marine mammals’ normal activities. Stress may make them more vulnerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, and/or predati on (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long

- term di splacements 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 ingestion of debris have caused the death or serious injury of marine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. Operators are prohibited from deliberately dis charging 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 as covering outside trash bins to prevent ac cidental l oss 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 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
indo ctrinated 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 vesse ls and cetaceans would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine
mammals and mainta ining 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 strike by email to protectedspecies@boemre.gov . If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding
network as needed.

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal o il

- 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 th e area, which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil dispersant chemicals included in FM O&G ’s OS RP 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 accordance with Appendix H ).

There ar e 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 operations include emissions, effluen ts, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. GulfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles over shelf waters. Historically thesespecies have been sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant e ast 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 vessels, 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 potent ial 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 o r 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 turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandate d 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 as covering outside trash bins to prevent ac cidental loss of
solid waste. Specia l 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 glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vesse ls 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 procedur es, 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 a lso 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 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, reg ardless 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 RegionalOffice at (727) 824

- 5312, or the Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (305) 862

- 2850. In

a ddition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@boemre.gov

. If the vessel is the respon sible 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 traf fic 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 Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality
Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are located 167 miles from the Breton Wilderness Area and
117 miles from shore. A pplicable emissions data is included in Appendix G 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 exemptio n levels as set forth by BOEM . Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, e mission height, emission rates, and the distance of Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 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 Sites (known or potential)
Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 include disturbances to the sea floor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a d rillship

, FM O&G ’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 would not cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

Additionally, Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probabil ity for occurrence of shipwrecks, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.FM O&G will perform an AUV/ ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon

comm encement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by FM O&G to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the su rvey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, 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, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a r esult of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor wi ll be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a drillship

, FM O&G ’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 would not cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites.

FM O&G will perform a n AUV/ ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by FM O&G to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, FM O&G will contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.

Additionally, Green Canyon Blocks 599 and 643 are located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability line, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities which could impact prehistoric archeological
sites.Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential F ish H abitat (EFH)

IPFs that c ould cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon
Blocks 599 and 643 include effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and marine
waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relie f 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 operational waste discharges. Levels of
contaminants in drillin g muds and cuttings and produced

- water discharges, discharge

- rate restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are

not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil spills that contact coastal bays and estuaries, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs and
larvae are present, have the greatest potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Q uality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSR P (refer to information
submitted in Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seaflo or and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact essential
fish habita t.

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 i nto the atmosphere from these activities are far below
concentrations 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 woul d occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5

, Water Q uality). Marine and pelagic birds feeding at the spill location may experience chronic, nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected that few, if any, coastal and marine birds would actually be affected to that extent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM
O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).Discarded trash and debris : Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared in
discarde d trash and debris, or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and death. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and re gulations 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 w aste 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. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass. Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore

pers onnel, 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 man agement that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 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 o ther IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact marine and pelagic birds.

3. Public H ealth and S afety D ue to A ccidents.

There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to
sho re for treatment or disposal or accidents, incl uding an accidental H 2 S release ) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In acc ordance with
NTL No.’s 2008

- G04

, 2009

- G27, and 2009

- G31, sufficient information is included in Appendix
D to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H 2 S absent.

Coastal and Onshore

1. Beaches
IPFs from the proposed acti vities 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 ( 117 miles) and the responsecapabilities 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 Appendix H ).

Disca rded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the enjoyment and use of beaches. There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberate ly 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 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 covering outside trash bins to prevent ac ciden tal 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 pla cards 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 b e 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 ann ually. 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, ef fluents, 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 accident s (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 ( 117 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 Appendix H ).

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 andControl Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the Unit ed 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, a nd using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
service s

- 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 mana gement 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 irds 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 Quality). Given the distance from shor e ( 117 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 Appendix H ).

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 supportservices

- 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 m anagement 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 f or treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds.

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to coastal
wildlife refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore ( 117 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. Th e activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix
H ).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V, the Mari ne 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 a ccidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised whe n 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 sle eping 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 f rom 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

sen t to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to coastal wildlife refuges.5. Wilderness Areas

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to
Item 5 , Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated Wilderness Area ( 167 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 Appendix H ).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as

man dated by MARPOL

- Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 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 trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Spec ial 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 vessel s and every facility that has 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 disturbanc es to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to
wilderness areas.

6. Other Envi ronmental Resources Identified

There are no other environmental resources identified for this im pact 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 mphwinds)

. Due to their location in the gulf, Green Cany on Blocks 599 and 643 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, damage exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and pose a threat to local species.

The fo llowing 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 operations during Tropical Storm or
Hurricane threat.

( E ) ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impact s.

( 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 po tential impacts associated with the proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.

(H) PREPARER(S)

Trinity Howell J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578

- 3388 Trinity.howel l @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. Impa ct 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. Dept. of C ommerce. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NOAA

- TM

- N MFS

- 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 dischar ge 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 relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLM

YK

- ES

- 81

- 006

- 1792.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive lis t of species w ith 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 fo r 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 S ea 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 utilize d in preparing this EIA:

• Hazard Surveys

• BOEM EIS’s:

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environmental Assessment. BOEM 2000

- 001

o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM 96

- 0058

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 6

– Pg. 27 of 27 Initial Exploration Plan September, 2013 Green Canyon Blocks 599/643 (OCS

- G 34998/35001) 

### SECTION 16
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION The proposed bottom

- hole locations of the planned w ells have been removed from the

Public I nformation copy of the 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. 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report: “Holstein” Prospect Block 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998) and Bloc k 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001) Green Canyon Area July, 2013, C & C Project 130276.
2. C & C Technologies Survey Services. Archaeological Assessment Report: Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998), 600 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 3 5002), 733 (OCS

- G

35004), and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007) Green Canyon Area August, 2013, C & C Project #130227.
3. C & C Technologies Survey Services. Well Site Clearance Proposed Well Locations “A”, “B”, “E” to “J” Block 599 & Block 643 Green Canyon Area August,
2013 , C & C Project #130276.
4. Initial Exploration Plan (Control Number N

- 9739).
5. Regional Oil Spill Response Plan, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Control Number O

- 713).
6. Revised Exploration Plan (Control Number R

- 4918).
7. Supplemental Exploration Plan (Control Nu mber S

- 7211).
8. Wilson, S.M., Nagoo, A.S. & Sharma, M.M. “Analysis of Potential Bridging Scenarios During Blowout Events,” paper SPE/IADC 163438, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5

- 7 March 2013.