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-09847 Type - Initial Exploration Plan Lease(s) - OCS-G11080 Block - 644 Green Canyon Area OCS-G11081 Block - 645 Green Canyon Area OCS-G34999 Block - 600 Green Canyon Area Operator - Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Drill,test,and complete Wells A&B (G11080), Wells C&D (G11081), and Wells E&F (G34999)
Not Found

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

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

Tommy Hoke Plan Coordinator Description -
Rig Type - Subject: From: December 16, 2014PUBLIC COPY November 20, 2014



## JOINT INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN

Green Canyon Blocks 600 / 644 / 645 OCS-G 34999 / 11080 / 11081 Holstein Deep Prospect Affected State: Louisiana

Estimated Startup Date: March 8, 2017

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

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Sayre J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77084 (281) 578-3388 kim.sayre@jccteam.comTOC Pg 1 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 LOCATION .................................................................................................................. ........ 1
1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES .................................................... 1

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS ........................................................... 2

1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES .......................................................................... 2

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES .................................................................................................. 2

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE ..................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 3

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS ......................................................................................... 3

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS ............................................................................................................. 3
2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 3
2.4 BONDING STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 3 2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) ........................................................... 3
2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT ................................................................. 3
2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS ................ 4
SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION .......................................... 7

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 7

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS ........................................................................................ 7

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES ........................................................................................ 7

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS ............................................................ 7

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT ......................................................................................... 7

3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 7

3.7 HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES ................................................................................ 7

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN ............................................................................................... 7

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES ........................................................................................ 7

SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SU LFIDE INFORMATION ................................................................. 8

4.1 CONCENTRATION ............................................................................................................. 8
4.2 CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................ ... 8TOC Pg 2 of 3 SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION ................... 9

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 9 5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS) .............................................................................. 9 5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) ................................................. 9 5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) ........................................................... 9 5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) ......................................................................................... 9

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP ............................................. 9
5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VE HICLE (ROV) SURVEYS ...................................................... 9 5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 10
5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ........................................................................................ 11
5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ................................................................ 11
SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION ................................................... 12

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES ............................................................................. 12

6.2 MODELING REPORT ....................................................................................................... 12

SECTION 7 AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION ......................................................................... 13
7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS ....................................... 13

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 13

SECTION 8 OIL SPILL INFORMATION ................................................................................... 14

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING ................................................................................. 14

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES ................................................................................................ 14

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 14

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION ................................................................ 14

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 15

8.6 MODELING REPORT ....................................................................................................... 15

SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MO NITORING INFORMATION ............................................. 16

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 16

9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES ........................................................................................................ 1 6
9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATION AL MARINE SANCTUARY .................................... 16

SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION ........................................................... 17 10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA) .............................................................................. 17

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................... 17

SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITI GATION MEASURES INFORMATION ........................ 19TOC Pg 3 of 3 11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS ...................... 19

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES ...................................................................................................... 19

SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION ................................... 20

12.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................. ..... 20
12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS .................................................................................... 20

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................... 20
12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION ........................................................ 20

12.5 VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................................. ... 20
SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPOR T FACILITIES INFORMATION ......................................... 21

13.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................. ..... 21
13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION .................................................. 21

13.3 WASTE DISPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 2 1 SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION ..................... 22

SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................ 23

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION .................................................................... 24

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 24

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. . 24Attachments Pg 1 of 1 SECTION ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Plan Contents 1-A OCS Plan Information Form 1-B Well Location Plat 1-C Bathymetry Map 1-D Pay.gov Receipt Section 3 Geological, Geophysical Information 3-A 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 6-B Wastes and Discharges Modeling Report 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 Certifications Section 15 Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) 15-A Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 – Pg. 1 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION Under this Initial Joint Exploration Plan, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G) proposes to drill, test, complete, flare and install subsea trees for two wells in Green Canyon Block 600, two wells in Green Canyon Block 644, and two wells in Green Canyon Block 645 with a dynamically positioned drillship simi lar to the Deepwater Champion.

Per DOCD (Control No. R-5914) FM O&G estab lished production from Leases OCS-G 11080 (Green Canyon Block 644) and OCS-G 11081 (Green Canyon Block 645) effective February 20, 2014. FM O&G was designated operator of Lease OCS-G 34999 (Green Canyon Block 600) effective November 29, 2013.

The OCS Plan Information Form BOEM-137 is included as Attachment 1-A

.
1.2 LOCATION A Well Location Plat depicting the proposed surface locations of the proposed wells, measured depth/true vertical depth and water depth for each location is included as Attachment 1-B

. A Bathymetry Map depicting the proposed surface locations and water depth of each proposed well is included as Attachment 1-C

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

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES FM O&G proposes to drill the wells with a dynamically positioned drillship which is equipped with a Subsea BOP. Once a rig is determined, BOP information and schematics will be included as a part of the Application for Permit to Drill.

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

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

Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. Compliance will be maintained with the EPA NPDES Permit. The rig will be monitored daily and any waste or fuel resulting in pollution of the Gulf waters will be reported to the representative in charge for immediate isolation and correction of the problem. Any spill will be reported to the appropriate governmental agencies.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 – Pg. 2 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS The table below provides storage tanks with capacity of 25 barrels or more that will store fuels, oil and lubricants.

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

(API) Fuel oil DPDS 4,135.6 2 8,271.2 33° Fuel oil DPDS 9,340.4 2 18,680.8 33° Fuel Oil DPDS 9,048.5 1 9,048.5 33° Fuel Oil DPDS 9,043.5 1 9,043.5 33° Fuel Oil DPDS 445.3 2 830.6 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 22.3° Waste Oil DPDS 132.1 1 132.1 20° Waste Oil DPDS 44 1 44 20° Waste Oil DPDS 143.4 1 143.4 20° Waste Oil DPDS 1,366.2 1 1,366.2 6.5°

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

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES FM O&G does not propose any additional safety, po llution prevention, or early spill detection measures beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE Documentation of the $14,692.00 cost recovery fee payment is included as Attachment 1-D.U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

Have you previously provided informati on 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 tec hnology 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 f acility 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 and Complete Well Location A, inst all subsea tree 03/08/2017 09/04/2017 180
Drill and Complete Well Location B, inst all subsea tree 09/05/2017 03/04/2018 180
Drill and Complete Well Location C, inst all subsea tree 03/05/2018 09/11/2018 190
Drill and Complete Well Location D, inst all subsea tree 09/12/2018 03/21/2019 190
Drill and Complete Well Location E, install subsea tree 03/22/2019 09/08/2019 170
Drill and Complete Well Location F, inst all subsea tree 09/09/2019 02/26/2020 170

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): Similar to Deepwater Champion Description of Lease Term Pipelines

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

Type of OCS Plan: X Exploration Plan (EP) De velopment Operations Coordination Document (DOCD)
Company Name: Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC BOEM Operator Number: 03280

Address: 400 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 1100 Contact Person: Paul Landry
Lafayette, LA 70508 Phone Number: (Office) 337-354-5065; (Mobile) 337-349-7781
E-Mail Address: paul_landry@fmi.com
If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid $14,692 Receipt No. 25IGTOU7 Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Lease(s): OCS-G 34999/11080/11081 Area: Green Cany on Block(s) 600/644/645 Project Name: 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: 10,057,060 bbls API Gravity: 25.8°
Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 118 miles Volu me from uncontrolled blowout: 77,362 bbls/day OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM 

# ATTACHMENT 1- AOCS 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): 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 floa ting facility to conduct your proposed activities? X Yes No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 11080 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 644

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 4,400’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,799’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,433,561’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,920,240’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 18’ 59.608” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 33’ 25.078” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,205’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, reference previous name): 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 floa ting facility to conduct your proposed activities? X Yes No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 11080 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 644

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 6,000’ FSL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 2,999’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,436,361’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,921,840’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 19’ 14.901” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 32’ 53.705” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,255’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137OCS 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): C Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD? Yes X No
Is this an existing well or structure? Yes X No If this is an existing well or structure, list the Complex ID or API No.

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

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 11081 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 645

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 1,587’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,280’ FWL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,444,640’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,930,093’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 20’ 34.967” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 31’ 20.151” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,460’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137OCS 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): D Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD? Yes X No
Is this an existing well or structure? Yes X No If this is an existing well or structure, list the Complex ID or API No.

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

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 11081 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 645

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 1,501’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 5,341’ FWL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,444,701’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,930,179’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 20’ 35.806” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 31’ 19.456” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,460’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137OCS 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): 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 floa ting facility to conduct your proposed activities? X Yes No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 34999 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 600

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 4,290’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 730’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,438.630’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,943,230’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 22’ 46.170” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 32’ 23.884” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,485’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137OCS 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): 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 floa ting facility to conduct your proposed activities? X Yes No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 77,362 bbls/day For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): N/A API Gravity of fluid 25.8°

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

Lease No. OCS-G 34999 OCS OCS

Area Name Green Canyon

Block No. 600

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 4,370’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 660’ FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X-Y coordinates X: 2,438,700’ X: X: X: X:

Y: 9,943,150’ Y: Y: Y: Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 27° 22’ 45.364” N Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude

Longitude 90° 32’ 23.126” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 4,485’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y C oordinate Length of Anch or Chain on Seafloor

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137

### OCS-G-11080
FREEPORT-McMoRan



### GC688GC645 

## GC644GC643 

### GC600

OCS-G-11080

Well #1



### OCS-G-11080 BLOCK 644, GREEN CANYON AREA GC644 "A" 4,400' FSL 5,799' FEL 2,433,561' 9,920,240' 
1 
: PROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONS

BLOCK WELL CALLS X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Jul. 11, 2014 GC644 "B" 6,000' FSL 2,999' FEL 2,436,361' 9,921,840' 
1 
:

WELL "A" LOCATION OCS-G-11080 WELL "B" LOCATION OCS-G-11080

0 2000 2000

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET NAD27 ZONE 15 NORTH

4,255' 4,205'

### OCS-G-11081
FREEPORT-McMoRanGC644



### OCS-G-11081 BLOCK 645, GREEN CANYON AREA GC645 "C" 1,587' FNL 5,280' FWL 2,444,640' 9,930,093' 
1 
: PROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONS

BLOCK WELL CALLS X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Jul. 11, 2014 GC645 "D" 1,501' FNL 5,341' FWL 2,444,701' 9,930,179' 
1 
: WELL "C" LOCATION OCS-G-11081 WELL "D" LOCATION OCS-G-11081

0 2000 2000

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET NAD27 ZONE 15 NORTH



### GC689 

## GC645 GC601GC646

4,460' 4,460'

### OCS-G-34999
FREEPORT-McMoRanGC599



### GC644



### OCS-G-34999 BLOCK 600, GREEN CANYON AREA GC600 "E" 4,290' FNL 730' FEL 2,438,630' 9,943,230' 
1 
: PROPOSED SURFACE LOCATIONS

BLOCK WELL CALLS X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE LATITUDE LONGITUDE

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Jul. 11, 2014 GC600 "F" 4,370' FNL 660' FEL 2,438,700' 9,943,150' 
1 
:

WELL "E" LOCATION OCS-G-34999

WELL "F" LOCATION OCS-G-34999

0 2000 2000

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET NAD27 ZONE 15 NORTH 

### GC556GC601 

## GC600

4,485' 4,485'...\600_644_Bathy.dgn...\GC\Holstein Deep\645_Bathy.dgn1 Favaloro, Katharine

From: pay.gov.clev@clev.frb.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:55 AM To: Favaloro, Katharine Subject: Pay.gov Payment Confirmation: BOEM Exploration Pla n - BF

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

.
Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25IGTOU7 Agency Tracking ID: 74709945340 Transaction Type: Sale Transaction Date: 11/19/2014 11:55:09 AM EST

Account Holder Name: Katharine Favaloro

Transaction Amount: $14,692.00 Billing Address: 700 Milam, Suite 3100 City: Houston State/Province: TX Zip/Postal Code: 77002 Country: USA Card Type: MasterCard Card Number: ************6901

Region: Gulf of Mexico Contact: Paul Landry 337-354-5065 Company Name/No: Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, 0 3280 Lease Number(s): 34999, 11080, 11081, , Area-Block: Green Canyon GC, 600: Green Canyon GC , 644: Green Canyon GC, 645: , : , Surface Locations: 4

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 3 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS The table below provides all additional applications to be filed covering operations proposed in this EP.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status Application for Permit to Drill BSEE To Be Submitted Application for Permit to Modify BSEE To Be Submitted Emergency Evacuation Plan USCG To Be Submitted

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS The table below provides the types and estimated volumes of the drilling fluids FM O&G plans to use to drill the proposed wells.

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be Used per Well (bbl) Water-based (seawater, freshwater, barite) 60,000 Oil-based (diesel, mineral oil) NA Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 20,000

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY No new or unusual technology is proposed to carry out activities in this Initial Exploration Plan.

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by a an area-wide bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 556, Subpart I; NTL No. 2000- G16, "Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bo nds;" and a current BOEM-approved deferment from providing additional security under 30 CFR 556.53(d) and National NTL No. 2008-N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures.” If at any point Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC no longer qualifies for a supplemental bonding deferment, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC will either provide the required additional security or a third party guarantee within 60 days after such disqualification.

2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Company No . 03280) has demonstrated oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR 553; and NTL No. 2008- N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities" prior to conducting operations covered in this EP.

2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Company No. 03280) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 4 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS The Worst Case Discharge is defined as an uncontrolled blowout through the drilling string during drilling operations.

Estimated initial flow rate: The calculated Worst Case Discharge estimate for Green Canyon Block 645 Well Location C is 77,362 bbl of crude.

Maximum duration/total volume that could occur if the Green Canyon Block 645 Well Location C sustained a blowout:

Scenario Maximum Discharge Rate (bbl/day) Discharge Duration (days) Total Volume Condensate (bbl) Relief well 77,362 130 10,057,060

Potential of wellbore to bridge over during a blowout:

While the sands anticipated to be encountered by the wells listed in this EP are expected to be somewhat consolidated FM O&G does NOT assume that the proposed wells would bridge over in a blowout scenario. This assumption is based on work in association with SPE Paper # 163438 on the analysis of potential bridging scenarios during blowout events in the deep water GoM. FM O&G agrees with the conclusions of this SPE paper that the only instances in which a deep water 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 event to cover all blowout scenarios. The Worst Case Discharge calculations for this proposed well will be based upon a well flowing until a relief well can be completed.

Likelihood for surface intervention to stop blowout:

Location “A” will be drilled in the Green Canyon Block 644 as a subsea well in 4,205 ft of water with the wellhead and BOP equipment located on the seabed. Surface intervention would be the preferred method in an uncontrolled blowout; however, the technique used is contingent upon the rig condition, marine riser system and BOP equipment. Surface intervention is quicker than a relief well but actual well control operations would be determined based on site

‐ specific conditions.

Prior to surface intervention operations, a team of specialists would be mobilized immediately to assess the situation and determine a course of action. Well control specialists would assess the on-site conditions either by helicopter and/or surface vessel. FM O&G has Master Service Agreements with both Wild Well Control (a Super ior Energy Services company) and Boots and Coots (a Halliburton company). Additionally a 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 service co mpany specialists, supplies and equipment. FM O&G would establish a field support base and secondary command center in the companyFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 5 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) shore base facility in Port Fourchon, LA. Communications would be established with the support base and command center.

Relief Well Rig type capable of drilling relief well at water depth and to TD:
There are more than 10 drilling rigs currently working in the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 that are capable of drilling a relief well at these locations.

The rig chosen to drill the relief well must be:

 Rated and equipped for water depths > 5,000 ft due to Green Canyon Block locations.

 Dynamically

‐ positioned to eliminate anchoring issues due to nearby subsea infrastructure.

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

Time to acquired rig, move onsite and drill relief well:

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 the relief well 80 Wellbore intersection (of blown out well) 21 Dynamic kill operations 7 Total anticipated time 130

Statement whether possibility of using nearby platform was considered:

The Holstein Spar is located in GC Block 645 and is owned and operated by FM O&G. The Holstein Spar has a permanent drilling rig installed and has been commissioned for duty. The drilling rig is equipped with a derrick rated to 1.0 MM lbs and 3 x 1,600hp mud pumps. However, considering the distance required to drill relief well targets, the Holstein Spar rig was not deemed practical for relief well operations. All relief well operations will be completed by mobilizing a dynamically positioned drilling rig to GC 600/644/645.

Other measures to enhance ability to prevent a blowout:

 FM O&G will verify with 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 quantify the stability of the wellbore and to determine whether sufficient mud weights are being utilized.

 Connections will be simulated as needed while drilling into pressure transition areas in order to properly assess the current wellbore conditions.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2 – Pg. 6 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) Measures to reduce the likelihood of a blowout:

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

 Lost circulation material will be added to the mud system in order to assist the mud system’s ability to prevent lost circulat ion. 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 know n 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 drilling and geological departments

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

 FM O&G is a member of the Helix Well Containment Group (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 oversight 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 C oots (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. 7 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOP HYSICAL INFORMATION

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION [PROPRIETARY]

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS [PROPRIETARY]

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES [PROPRIETARY]

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS [PROPRIETARY]

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT A shallow hazards survey was conducted over Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645.

In accordance with NTL No. 2008-G05, “Shallow Hazards Program” (Extended by NTL No. 2014-G05, “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 Survey Services. The shallow hazards report is provided with this plan.

3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT In accordance with NTL No. 2008-G05, “Shallow Hazards Program,” (Extended by NTL No. 2014-G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”), a shallow hazards assessment has been prepared for each proposed surface location eval uating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adve rsely affect drilling operations. The shallow hazards survey and archaeological assessment is included as Attachment 3-A

.

3.7 HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES [PROPRIETARY]

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN [PROPRIETARY]

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES [PROPRIETARY]Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 201 4

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “A”
Block 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “A” in Block 64 4 (OCS

- G

11080 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 ra dius of the proposed Well “A” location. The depth limit of this investigation is approximately 4

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

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resoluti on AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 200 meters (656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters (2,952.75 feet).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . 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

- h alf 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 geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 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 GC644 Well “A”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From B lock 644 , Green Canyon Area

“ A ” 2, 433,561 9,92 0

, 240 ’ 27 ° 1 8 ’ 59.608 ” N 90 ° 3 3 ’ 25.078 ” W 5 ,799 ’ F E L 4

, 400 ’ 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 t he Universal Tr ansverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 15 North (1 5 N). All coordinates given are presented in t his projection on the study
map 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 study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymet ry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “A” location is 4

, 205 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 125 feet MSL in the north west to 4,260 feet MSL in the east ( Panel 1). The seafloor is smoo th with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “A” location slopes to the southeast at an average gradient of 1.8 °.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low t o moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate f inely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well. The side scan so nar images (Figure No. 2) show an anchor scar or fishing trawl crossing the proposed Well “A” location.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communities (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MA DE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C dat a base shows an existing well, a permitted pipeline, several proposed pipelines and several mooring lines within the vicinity of the proposed Well “A” location. Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 1108 0 ) is located 6,800 feet northeast of t he proposed well

. The permitted S

18958 Enbridge 20

- Inch Pipeline is located greater than 4,000 feet north of the proposed well. The proposed FMOG Production Flowline and Riser are located greater than 2,700 feet north of the proposed well. The existing Holstein m ooring l ines are greater than 4,00 0 feet east of the proposed well.

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 se ismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units (Figure Nos. 3, 4 and 5 ). FMOG 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 the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summariz es the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, and 5 ). 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. Additionally,Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 the AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried mass transport depo sits (Figure No. 3) and are greater than 81 feet BSF. At the proposed Well “A” location

, the clay sequence is 429 feet thick.

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

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 52 5 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). 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 “A” location, Unit C is 949 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

. Unit C sediments are interpreted as sediments of muds interbe dded 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 929 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 mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “A” location, Unit E is 1,90 9 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5 ). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits and channel ing that may contain sands.

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

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 4,340 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location (Figure Nos. 4 and 5 ). 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 Several buried faults are located within the proposed Well “A” 2,000

- feet radius

. T he proposed well bore path does c ross a fault at 6,743 BSL (2,538 BSF)

.
SHALLOW 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 ampl itude 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 backg round level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributesWellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 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.

Within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location, s everal subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within Unit E at depth s ranging from 5

, 334 to 10,199 feet BSF . These anomalies are located greater than 300 feet west and greater than 1,600 feet north east of the pr oposed well bore path ( Panel 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) 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 o f the study (Figure No. 6 ).

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

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC644 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080) at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall r isk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “A” location (Figure No. 6) . An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E
, and F are comprised of chaotic reflectors showing high impedance contrast , suggesting a mo derate 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.

CONCLU SIONS The proposed Well “A” surface location has a water depth of 4,205 MSL and is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed well 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 “A” location.

No infrastructure exists, permitted, or propo sed with in 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location.

At the proposed well location

, the well bore path will intersect a fault plane at 6,743 feet BSF (2,538 feet BSF)

. The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negl igible to moderate (Units B, E, and F) risk 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 assess ment.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Sincerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

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

. Figure No. 2. Nearest side scan sonar image (Line 140) from the proposed Well “A” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest subbottom profile record (Line 140) from the proposed Well “A” location. Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3622 ) from the proposed Well “A” location. Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5869 ) from the proposed Well “A” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “A” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “A” & “B” LocationsWellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

1

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 2014

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “B”
Block 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “B” in Block 64 4 (OCS

- G

11080 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 ra dius of the proposed Well “B” location. The depth limit of this investigation is approximately 4

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

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resoluti on AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 200 meters (656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters (2,952.75 feet).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

2

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . 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

- h alf 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 geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 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 GC644 Well “B”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From B lock 644 , Green Canyon Area
“B” 2, 436,361’ 9,92 1

, 840 ’ 27 ° 19 ’ 14

. 901 ” N 90 ° 3 2 ’ 53

. 705 ” W 2

, 999 ’ F E L 6,000 ’ 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 t his projection on the study
map 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 study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathyme try indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “B” location is 4

, 255 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 205 feet MSL in the north west to 4, 315 feet MSL in the east ( Panel 1). The seafloor is smo oth with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “B” location slopes to the southeast at an average gradient of 1.7 °.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

3

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low to moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well.

POTENTIAL BENT HIC COMMUNITIES 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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplit ude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communities (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C database shows an existing well, a permitted pipeline, several proposed pipelines and s everal mooring lines within the vicinity of the proposed Well “B” location. Well No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080 ) is located 4

, 6 00 feet northeast of the proposed well

. The permitted S

18958 Enbridge 20

- Inch Pipeline is located greater than 5,8 00 feet north of the pr oposed well. The proposed FMOG Production Flowline and Riser are located greater than 600 feet north of the proposed well. The existing Holstein m ooring l ines are greater than 4,00 0 feet east of the proposed well.

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 success ive units (Figure Nos. 3, 4 and 5 ). FMOG 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 the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, and 5 ). 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 a nd some sands. Additionally, the AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried massWellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

4

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 transport deposits (Figure No. 3) and are buried greater than 81 feet BSF

. At the proposed Well “B” location

, the clay sequence is 4 80 feet thick.

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

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 590 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). These reflection patterns are likely comp rised 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 1,000 feet thick of variab le amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

. 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 1,102 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location

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

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E ( Event 4 to Event 5 ): At the proposed Well “B” location, Unit E is 1,853 feet thick of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high ampl itude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5 ). 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 amplitud e, semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 4,850 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location (Figure Nos. 4 and 5 ). The sediments in Unit F are interpreted as interbedded silts and clays with thin mud

prone mass movement deposits and channeling th at may contain sands.

FAULTS Several buried faults are located within the proposed Well “B” 2,000

- feet radius

. However, t he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are i nterpreted 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 amp litude 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 h igh 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, particul arly velocity pull

- down and masking ofWellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

5

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 underlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.

Within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” location, s everal subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within Unit E at dept h s ranging from 5

, 334 to 10,199 feet BSF . These anomalies are located greater than 300 feet west and greater than 1,600 feet north east of the proposed well bore path ( Panel 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) exists along the shall ow section (Units A to D) of the well bore for Well “B”

. The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6) shows the bottom of Unit D has a moderate risk of shallow gas due to channeling at the base of the unit. The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- a mplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 6 ).

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

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC644 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080) at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL e xperienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “B” location (Figure No. 6) . An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B, E
, and F are comprised of chaotic refle ctors 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 wh en drilling through the potential SWF units.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “B” surface location has a water depth of 4,255 MSL and is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed well 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 “B” loc ation.

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

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

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests strati graphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate (Units B, E, and F) risk for SWF and a negligible to moderate ( Unit D ) potential for gas at the Well “B” drill site.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

6

730 E. KALISTE SA LOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if you have any ques tions concerning this assessment.

Sincerely yours,

James Cox Geophysicist

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

. Figure No. 2. Nearest side scan sonar image (Line 1 79 ) from the proposed Well “ B” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest subbottom profile record (Line 1 79 ) from the proposed Well “B” location. Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 36 51 ) from the proposed Well “B” location. Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5 903 ) from the pr oposed Well “B” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “B” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “A” & “B” LocationsWellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

1

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 2014

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “C”
Block 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “C” in Block 645 (OCS

- G

11081 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 ra dius of the proposed Well “C” location. The depth limit of this investigation is approximately 4

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

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resoluti on AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 200 meters (656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters (2

, 952.75 feet).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

2

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . 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

- h alf 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 geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION
The coordinates and calls for Well “C” surface location is tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed GC 645 Well “C”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From B lock 645 , Green Canyon Area
“C” 2, 4 44

, 640 ’ 9,9 30

, 093 ’ 27 ° 20 ’ 34

. 967 ” N 90 ° 3 1 ’ 20

. 151 ” W 5

, 280 ’ F W L 1,587 ’ 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 t his projection on the study
map 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 “C” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathyme try indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “C” location is 4

, 460 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 435 feet MSL in the south west to 4, 475 feet MSL in the north ( Panel 1). The seafloor is sm ooth with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “C” location slopes to the south at an average gradient of 0 .7 °.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

3

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low to moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate fin ely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well. The side scan sona r images (Figure No. 2) show an anchor scar or fishing trawl north of the proposed Well “C” location.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communities (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C database shows two existing pipelines , a permitted pipeline, and several mooring lines within the vicinity of the proposed Well “C” location. The S

- 13677 BP 24 to 28

- Inch and S

- 13676 BP 16

- 20

- Inch Pipelines are located greater than 4,600 feet south of the proposed well

. The permitted S

- 18958 Enbridge 20

- Inch Pipeline is located greater than 3,500 feet north of the proposed well. The existing Holstein m ooring l ines are greater than 3,40 0 feet southwest of the proposed well.

S UBSURFACE GEOHAZARDS AND STRATIGRAPHY
Five (6) units (Units A to E ), 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. Figure Nos. 3, 4, and 5 show five ( 5) horizons mark ing the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units ( Units A to E ). FMOG 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 p olynomial 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

- w ay travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, and 5 ). 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. Additionally,Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

4

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 the AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried mass transport deposits (Figure No. 3) and are buried greater than 14 fe et BSF

. At the proposed Well “C” location

, the clay sequence is 1,503 feet thick.

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

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 1, 5 05 feet thick at the proposed Well “C” loca tion (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). 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 ): A t the proposed Well “C” location, Unit C is 1, 682 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

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

- prone mass movement d eposits 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 2

, 232 feet thick at the proposed Well “C” location

. The sediments in Unit D are interpre ted as thin sequences of turbidite mud and sands with interlayered muds and thin mud

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E (Event 4 to Event 5): At the proposed Well “ C ” location, Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, parall el continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin mud

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

FAULTS
Several buri ed faults are located south of the proposed Well “C” 2,000

- foo t radius

. However,
t he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW 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 areas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of gas

- Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

- 4x background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

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

- down and masking of

un derlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

5

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “C” location, s everal subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within Unit E at depth s ranging from 5

, 334 to 10,199 feet BSF

. These anomalies are located greater than 3,400 feet southwest of the proposed well bore path ( Panel 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “C” . The well bore path will not p enetrate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 6 ).

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

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC 645 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080) at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “C” location (Figure No. 6) . An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B and E are comprised o f 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 Well “C” surface location has a water depth of 4,460 feet MSL and is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 f eet of the proposed well 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
p roposed Well “C” location.

No infrastructure exists, permitted, or proposed with in 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “C” location.

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

The assessment of seismic prof iles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk ( Units B and E ) for SWF and a negligible to low ( Unit E ) potential for gas at the Well “C” 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 GeophysicistWellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

6

730 E. KA LISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “C” location

. Figure No. 2. Nearest side scan sonar image (Line 1 57 ) from the propose d Well “C” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest su bbottom profile record (Line 157 ) from the proposed Well “C” location. Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3777 ) from the proposed Well “C” location. Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 6005 ) fro m the proposed Well “C” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “C” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “C ” & “ D ” LocationsWellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

1

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 2014

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “D”
Block 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “D” in Block 645 (OCS

- G

11081 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 ra dius of the proposed Well “D” location. The depth limit of this investigation is approximately 4

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

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Progr am)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resoluti on AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instruments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 200 meters (656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters (2

, 952.75 feet).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

2

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . 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

- h alf 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 geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 data volume contains sufficiently high frequency content for a shallow hazards assessment (Figure No. 1).

WELL LOCATION
The coordinates and calls for Well “D” surface location is tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed GC 645 Well “D”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From B lock 645 , Green Canyon Area
“D” 2, 4 44

, 701 ’ 9,9 30

, 179 ’ 27 ° 20 ’ 35.806 ” N 90 ° 3 1 ’ 19

. 456 ” W 5

, 341 ’ F W L 1,501 ’ 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 t his projection on the study
map 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 “D” and the 2,000

- foot radius are displayed on the study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathyme try indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “D” location is 4

, 460 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 435 feet MSL in the south west to 4, 475 feet MSL in the north ( Panel 1). The seafloor is sm ooth with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “D” location slopes to the south at an average gradient of 0 .7 °.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

3

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low to moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate fin ely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well. The side scan sona r images (Figure No. 2) show an anchor scar or fishing trawl north of the proposed Well “D” location.

POTENTIAL BENTHIC CO MMUNITIES High

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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communities (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C database shows two existing pipelines , a permitted pipeline, and several mooring lines within the vicinity of the proposed Well “D” location. The S

- 13677 BP 24 to 28

- Inch and S

- 13676 BP 16

- 20

- Inch Pipelines are located greater than 4,600 feet south of the proposed well

. The permitted S

- 18958 Enbridge 20

- Inch Pipeline is located greater than 3,500 feet north of the proposed well. The existing Holstein m ooring l ines are greater than 3,40 0 feet southwest of the proposed well.

S UBSURFACE GEOHAZARDS AND STRATIGRAPHY Five (5 ) units (Units A to E ), 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. Figure Nos. 3, 4, and 5 show five ( 5) horizons mark ing the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units ( Units A to E ). FMOG 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 p olynomial 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

- w ay travel time below sea level in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, and 5 ). 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. Additionally,Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

4

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 the AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried mass transport deposits (Figure No. 3) and buried greater than 20 feet B SF

. At the proposed Well “D” location

, the clay sequence is 1,503 feet thick.

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

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 1, 5 05 feet thick at the proposed Well “D” location (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). 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 th e proposed Well “D” location, Unit C is 1, 682 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

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

- prone mass movement depos its 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 2

, 232 feet thick at the proposed Well “D” location

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

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E (Event 4 to Event 5): At the proposed Well “D ” location, Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, parallel c ontinuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin mud

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

FAULTS
Several buried f

aults are located south of the proposed Well “D” 2,000

- f oo t radius

. However,
t he proposed well bore path does not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW GAS AND GAS HYDRATES Very high

- amplitude seismic anomalies are interpreted as potential regions of fluid / ga s 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 pres ent.

 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 pha se reversal.

 High risk of gas

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

- down and masking of underl ying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

5

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “D” location, s everal subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within Unit E at depth s ranging from 5

, 334 to 10,199 feet BSF . Th ese anomalies are located greater than 3,400 feet southwest of the proposed well bore path ( Panel 4 ). A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “D” . The well bore path will not penet rate any high

- amplitude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 6 ).

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

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC 645 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080) at a water depth of 4 ,292 feet BSL experienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “D” location (Figure No. 6) . An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B and E are comprised of ch aotic 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

rec ommended when drilling through the potential SWF units.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “D” surface location has a water depth of 4,460 feet MSL and is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed well 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
propo sed Well “D” location.

No infrastructure exists, permitted, or proposed with in 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “D” location.

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

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate (Units B and E) risk for SWF and a negligible to low ( Unit E ) potential for gas at the Well “D” 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 GeophysicistWellsite Report C&C Project No. 1 40501

6

730 E. KALIST E SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Enclosures Figure No. 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “D” location

. Figure No. 2. Nearest side scan sonar image (Line 1 57 ) from the proposed We ll “D” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest su bbottom profile record (Line 157 ) from the proposed Well “D” location. Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3777 ) from the proposed Well “D” location. Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 6005 ) from th e proposed Well “D” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “D” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “C ” & “ D ” LocationsWellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 2014

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “E”
Block 600 (OCS

- G

- 34999 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “E” in Block 600 (OCS

- G

34999 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. The AUV data sets do not provide coverage in the eastern portion of the 2,000

- foot radius but the 3D seismic dataset does provide complete c overage. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 approximately 4

, 000 feet below the 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)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resolution AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instr uments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 200 meters (656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters (2

, 952.75 feet).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation an d 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 d uring data loading. The seismic data provided were adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 apply ing the spectral whitening, a power spectrum generated 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 GC 600 Well “E”

Well X

- Coordinate Y

- Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 600 , Green Canyon Area
“E” 2, 4 38

, 630 ’ 9, 943

, 230 ’ 27 ° 2 2 ’ 46

. 170 ” N 90 ° 3 2 ’ 23

. 884 ” W 730 ’ F E L 4

, 290 ’ 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 t his pr ojection on the study
map 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 study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “E” location is 4

, 485 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 440 feet MSL in the south west to 4, 4 90 feet MSL in the east ( Panel 1). The seafloor is smooth with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “E” location slopes to the n ortheast at an average gradient of 1

. 3 °.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low to moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well.

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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communitie s (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C database shows no existing infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed Well “E” location

.
SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Five ( 5 ) units (Units A to E ), each consisting of one or mo re distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Figure Nos. 3, 4, and 5 show four ( 4 ) horizons mark ing the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units ( Units A to E ). FMOG 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 trav eltime (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 fo und in the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, a nd 5 ). 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. Additionally,
t he AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried mass transport deposits (Figure No. 3) and are greater than 14 feet BSF

. At the proposed Well “E” location

, the clay sequence is 1, 894 feet thick.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit B ( Event 1 t o Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 1, 655 feet thick at the proposed Well “E” location (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid do wn 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 2,031 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to c haotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

. 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 2

, 477 feet thick at the proposed Well “E” location

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

- prone mass movement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E (Event 4 to Event 5): At the proposed Well “E ” location, Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5). Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin mud

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

FAULTS
No buried faults are located within the vicinity of the proposed Well “E” location

. Th e proposed well bore path doe s not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW 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 lev els 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 lev el), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

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

No subsurface amplitu de anomalies are noted within the vicinity of the proposed Well “E” location, A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) 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. 6 ).Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC 644 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 1108 0 ) at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL experience d a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “E” location (Figure No. 6)

. The 3D seismic dataset shows transgressive marine sediments are present at the base of Unit A, suggesting a moderate potential for SWF. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B and E 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 Well “E” surface location has a water depth of 4,485 MSL and is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed well that could interfere with drilling activities.

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

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

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

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

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests stratigraphic units exhibit a negligible to moderate (Units A, B
, and E) risk for SWF and a negligible to low ( Unit E ) potential for gas at th e Well “E” 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 the proposed Well “E” location

. Figure No. 2. Neare st side scan sonar image (Line 302) from the proposed Well “E” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest su bbottom profile record (Line 302 ) from the proposed Well “E” location.Wellsite Report C&C Project No. 140501

6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 397 6 ) from the proposed Well “E” location. Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5931 ) from the proposed Well “E” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “E” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “E ” & “ F ” Locati onsWells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 July 9 , 2014

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road Suite 1100 Lafayette, LA 70508

Attn: Ms. Mary Broussard

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “F”
Block 600 (OCS

- G

- 34999 ), Green Canyon Area

Dear Ms. Broussard,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- Mc MoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare a wellsite clearance letter for the proposed drilling location of Well “F” in Block 6 00 (OCS

- G

34999 ), Green Canyon ( G C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of high

- resolution AUV datasets collected by C&C and an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume licensed by FMOG

. C&C completed the report s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report

, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) and 643 ( OCS

- G

- 35001 ), G reen Canyon Area ” in July 201 3 and “

Archaeological Assessment, Blocks 599 (OCS

- G

- 34998 ) , 60 0 (OCS

- G

- 34999), 643 (OCS

- G

- 35001), 644 (OCS

- G

- 11080), 645 (OCS

- G

- 11081), 689 (OCS

- G

- 35002), 733 (OCS

- G

- 35004 ) , and 777 (OCS

- G

- 35007 ), Green Canyon Area ” in August, 2013. The AUV datasets do not provide coverage in the eastern portion of the 2,000

- foot radius but the 3D seismic dataset does provide complete coverage. This site clearance letter is based on the findings provided within these reports. 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 approximately 4

, 000 feet below the 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)

, NTL No. 2005

- G07 (Archaeology), and NTL No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

.
METHODS The high

- resolution AUV datasets were collected using C & C Technologies’ C

- Surveyor III TM AUV. The AUV remote

- sensing instr uments include a Simrad EM2000 Swath Bathymetric Mapping System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech Dynamically

- Focused Side Scan Sonar (230 kHz), and an EdgeTech Subbottom Profiler System (1.5 to 4.5 kHz). In general, the AUV survey grid pattern consisted of parallel north

- south primary tracklines and parallel east

- west tie lines. The primary trackline spacing was 2 00 meters ( 656.17 feet) and the tie lines were spaced at 900 meters ( 2

, 952.75 feet)

.Wells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 FMOG 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 in panel 4 on the study map . The 3D seismic dataset is a zero phase wavelet with a zero phase rotation an d 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 d uring data loading. The seismic data provided were adequate for regional screening of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance, stratigraphic horizons, etc.).

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 apply ing the spectral whitening, a power spectrum generated 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 GC 600 Well “F”

Well X

Coordinate Y

Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 600 , Green Canyon Area
“F” 2, 4 38

, 700 ’ 9, 943

, 150 ’ 27 ° 2 2 ’ 4 5

. 364 ” N 90 ° 3 2 ’ 23

. 126 ” W 660 ’ F E L 4

, 370 ’ 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 t his pr ojection on the study
map 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 study map

.
BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS Bathymetry was processed using the AUV multibeam and shown on the study map (Panel 1) at 10

- foot contour intervals. The bathymetry indicates the water depth at the proposed Well “F” location is 4

, 485 feet Mean Seal Level ( M SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius, the seafloor depth ranges from 4, 440 feet MSL in the south west to 4, 4 90 feet MSL in the east ( Panel 1). The seafloor is smooth with in the vicinity of the proposed well. The seafloor at the proposed Well “F” location slopes to the n ortheast at an average gradient of 1

. 3 °.Wells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 SEAFLOOR SEDIMENTS AND HAZARDS The side scan sonar images (Panel 2; Figure No. 2) exhibit primarily low to moderate acoustic reflectivity. Additionally, t he 3D seafloor amplitude image ( Panel 3 ) display s a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius. These low to moderate acoustic reflectivity and seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments likely comprise d of hemipelagic clay (very soft silty clay).

There are no seafloor drilling hazards detected on the side scan sonar images and 3D data within the 2,000

- foot radius of the proposed well.

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

- foot radius contains no high negative or positive amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing poten tial benthic communitie s (Panels 3 and 4 ).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS
A review of the C&C database shows no existing infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed Well “F” location

.
SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARD S AND STRATIGRAPHY
Five ( 5 ) units (Units A to E ), each consisting of one or mo re distinctive sequences, were interpreted within the study area from the 3D seismic data to approximately 4,000 feet BSF. Figure Nos. 3, 4, and 5 show four ( 4 ) horizons mark ing the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the successive units ( Units A to E ). FMOG 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 trav eltime (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 fo und in the 201 3 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report . The Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure No. 6 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

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

. 3 , 4, a nd 5 ). 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. Additionally,
t he AUV subbottom profiler shows the drape deposits are interbedded with shallow buried mass transport deposits (Figure No. 3) and are buried greater than 14 feet BSF

. At the proposed Well “F” location

, the clay sequence is 1, 921 feet thick.Wells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Unit B ( Ev ent 1 to Event 2 ): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors that are 1, 655 feet thick at the proposed Well “F” location (Figure No s

. 4 and 5 ). 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 “F” location, Unit C is 2,03 3 feet thick of variable amplitude, semi

- continuo us to chaotic acoustic reflections (Figure Nos. 4 to 5 )

. 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 2

, 736 feet thick at the proposed Well “F” location

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

- prone mass m ovement deposits that may contain sands.

Unit E (Event 4 to Event 5): At the proposed Well “F ” location, Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, parallel continuous to chaotic reflectors with isolated high amplitude reflectors (Figure Nos. 4 and 5) . Unit E sediments are interpreted as muds interbedded with thin mud

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

FAULTS
No buried faults are located within the vicinity of the proposed Well “F” location

. Th e proposed well bore p ath does not cross any major faults.

SHALLOW 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 amplit ude 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 re versal. 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 backgro und level), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

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

No subsurface amplitude anomalies are noted within the vicinity of the proposed Well “F” location, A negligible to low risk of shallow gas ( Figure No. 6 ) exists along the shallow section of the well bore for Well “F” . The well bore path will not penetrate any high

- amp litude anomalies between the seafloor and the base of the study (Figure No. 6 ).Wells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

5

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 T here is no indication of BSRs within the study area.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
T he BOEM database does indicate GC 64 4 W ell No. 1 (OCS

- G

- 11080 ) at a water depth of 4,292 feet BSL exp erienced a minor SWF at 638 feet BSF.

The overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate at the proposed Well “F” location (Figure No. 6)

. The 3D seismic dataset shows transgressive marine sediments are present at the base of Unit A, sugges ting a moderate potential for SWF. An examination of the 3D seismic dataset indicates Units B and E 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. 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 Well “F” surface location has a water depth of 4,485 feet MSL and is clear of geological constr aints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed well that could interfere with drilling activities.

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

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

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

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

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

T hank 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 the proposed Well “F” loca tion

. Figure No. 2. Neare st side scan sonar image (Line 302) from the proposed Well “F” location. Figure No. 3. Nearest su bbottom profile record (Line 302 ) from the proposed Well “F” location. Figure No. 4

. Nearest 3D s eismic Inline ( 3975 ) from the prop osed Well “F” location.Wells ite Report C&C Project No. 140501

6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Figure No. 5

. Nearest 3D seismic Crossline ( 5932 ) from the proposed Well “F” location. Figure No. 6 . Top

- hole P rognosis C hart for the proposed Well “F” location

.

Sheet 1. Proposed Well “E ” & “ F ” LocationsFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 4 – Pg. 8 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

4.1 CONCENTRATION FM O&G anticipates encountering 0 ppm H 2 S during the proposed operations.

4.2 CLASSIFICATION In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), FM O&G requests that the area of proposed operations be classified by the BOEM as H 2 S absent.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 9 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SO CIOECONOMIC 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 Survey Services 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. As per NTL No. 2009-G40, “Deepwater Benthic Communities,” a map showing the 2,000 foot radius around the well site is included as Attachment 5-A.

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS) Activities proposed in this EP do not fall within 305 meters (1000 feet) of a topographic “No Activity Zone;” therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) All activities proposed under this EP will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature Protective Zones; therefore shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; therefore, a separate bathymetric map is not required per NTL No. 2009- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of any live bottom (low relief) feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features; theref ore, biologically sensitive area maps are not required.

5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS BOEM has determined there is enough data gathered in Grid Area Number 10; therefore, we will not be conducting any ROV surveys either pre-spud or post-drill operations per NTL No. 2008-G06, “Remotely Operated Vehicle Surv eys in Deepwater” (Extended by NTL No. 2014-Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 10 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) N01, “Elimination of Expiration Dates on Certain Notices to Lessees and Operators Pending Review and Reissuance”).

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION The federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the Gulf Coast are provided in the table below.

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in the Gulf of Mexico Lease Area Coastal

Marine Mammals Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus latirostris E -- X Florida (peninsular)

Whale, Blue Balaenoptera masculus E X a -- None Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus E X a -- None Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae E X a -- None

Whale, North Atlantic Right Eubalaena glacialis E X a -- None

Whale, Sei Balaenopiera borealis E X a -- None Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus) E X -- None

Terrestrial Mammals Mouse, Beach (Alabama, Choctawatchee, Perdido Key, St. Andrew) Peromyscus polionotus E - X Alabama, Florida (panhandle) beaches

Birds Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus T - X Coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida (panhandle) Crane, Whooping Grus Americana E - X Coastal Texas Reptiles Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas T,E b X X None

Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None

Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempli E X X None

Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E X X None

Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta T X X Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Fish Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi T X X Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida (p anhandle) Corals Coral, Elkhorn Acopora palmate T - X Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas Coral, Staghorn Acopora cervicornis T ‐ X Florida

Abbreviations: E = Endangered; T = ThreatenedFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 5 – Pg. 11 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) a The Blue Fin, Humpback, North Atlantic Right, and Sei Whales are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are

unlikely to be present in the lease area.
b Green Sea turtle is threatened, exc ept for the Florida breeding populati on, which is listed as endangered.

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 have been deter mined as potentially containing historic or prehistoric cultural resources. In accordance with NTL No. 2005-G07 “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL No. 2011-Joint-G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Su rveys and Reports,” an Archaeological Survey Report was provided with EP (Control No. N-9750).

FM O&G, as a prudent operator, will avoid all sites, structures, or objects of historical or archaeological significance. Such findings will be reported and every reasonable effort will be made to preserve and protect the cultural or archaeological resource.

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Air and water quality information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL No. 2008- G04, “Information requirements for Explor ation Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents” (Extended by NTL No. BOEM 2014-G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”).

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Socioeconomic Information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL No. 2008-G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents” (Extended by NTL No. BOEM 2014-G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”).-80'

-81' -7600' -8525' -8250' -8100'

-8000'

-475'

-525' -600' -575' -900' HOLSTEIN MOORING LINES

PROP. FLEXIBLE PROD. RISER 2

-600' 

### MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92

X= 2,433,561.00' Y= 9,920,240.00' 
1 
: 

# GC644

OCS-G-11080
FREEPORT-McMoRan

HOLSTEIN

MOORING LINES 104 99 UTM15N

GRID NORTH

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Normal fault with depth of burial below seafloor (Hachures on downthrown side) -177' Fault scarp with seafloor displacement in feet (Hachures on downthrown side) Sonar contact & reference number 99 Amplitude anomalies within Unit E (2.035 to 3.988 sec/BSL)

Depth below seafloor = 5,334 - 10,199 feet Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80'

Drag scar Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "A" LOCATION Block 644 (OCS-G-11080) Green Canyon Area 104 16.9'x1.0'x0.0' 2,432,443' 9,918,999' 99 6.0'x4.1'x0.4' 2,431,909' 9,919,582' SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE PROP. FLEXIBLE PROD. F/L 2-80'

-81' -8525' -8250' -8100'

-8000' -4600'

-475' -275'

P14

P13

OCS-G-11080 Well No. 1 HOLSTEIN MOORING LINES HOLSTEIN MOORING LINES PROP. FLEXIBLE PROD. RISER 1

PROP. FLEXIBLE PROD. RISER 2

X= 2,436,361.00' Y= 9,921,840.00' 
1 
: 

# GC644

OCS-G-11080
FREEPORT-McMoRan

104 90 88

87 UTM15N GRID NORTH
PROP. FLEXIBLE PROD. F/L 2



### MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92

DATE:

REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Normal fault with depth of burial below seafloor (Hachures on downthrown side) -177' Fault scarp with seafloor displacement in feet (Hachures on downthrown side)

Sonar contact & reference number 79 Amplitude anomalies within Unit E (2.035 to 3.988 sec/BSL)

Depth below seafloor = 5,334 - 10,199 feet Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80'

Drag scar Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "B" LOCATION Block 644 (OCS-G-11080) Green Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only. Amplitude anomalies within Unit D (1.840 to 3.828 sec/BSL)

Depth below seafloor = 4,637 - 8,828 feet

Seafloor surface location of well

Debris zone
104 16.9'x1.0'x0.0' 2,432,443' 9,918,999'

90 6.3'x3.1'x0.9' 2,437,791' 9,921,833' 88 7.7'x2.9'x0.5' 2,438,356' 9,922,155' 87 8.7'x3.9'x0.0' 2,437,977' 9,922,473' SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE-17'

-20' -153'

P1

P2 

# GC601

GC645 S-18958 ENBRIDGE 20" (Permitted)



## MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92 OCS-G-33846

BHP



### OCS-G-11081
FREEPORT-McMoRan

X= 2,444,640.00' Y= 9,930,093.00' 
1 
:

HOLSTEIN MOORING LINES S-13677

BP 24"-28" 59 58 51 50 48 43

UTM15N

GRID NORTH

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Sonar contact & reference number 43 Amplitude anomalies within Unit E (2.035 to 3.988 sec/BSL)

Depth below seafloor = 5,334 - 10,199 feet Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80'

Drag scar Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "C" LOCATION Block 645 (OCS-G-11081) Green Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only. 59 8.4'x4.1'x0.5' 2,443,236' 9,927,860'

58 6.0'x5.0'x1.8' 2,447,195' 9,927,957' 51 5.1'x4.0'x0.0' 2,442,117' 9,930,606' 50 7.3'x5.0'x0.0' 2,441,843' 9,930,798' 48 6.7'x2.2'x0.0' 2,443,927' 9,931,094' 43 7.2'x4.2'x0.0' 2,442,864' 9,932,078' SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE Buried Mass Transport Deposit 1 with depth below seafloor -17'

Existing pipeline or umbilical

Permitted pipeline or umbilical-17'

-20' -153'

P1

P2 

# GC601

GC645 S-18958 ENBRIDGE 20" (Permitted)



## MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92 OCS-G-33846

BHP



### OCS-G-11081
FREEPORT-McMoRan X= 2,444,701.00' Y= 9,930,179.00' 
1 
:

HOLSTEIN MOORING LINES S-13677

BP 24"-28" 59 58 51 50 48 43

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Sonar contact & reference number 43 Amplitude anomalies within Unit E (2.035 to 3.988 sec/BSL)

Depth below seafloor = 5,334 - 10,199 feet Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80'

Drag scar Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "D" LOCATION Block 645 (OCS-G-11081) Green Canyon Area Buried Mass Transport Deposit 1 with depth below seafloor -17'

59 8.4'x4.1'x0.5' 2,443,236' 9,927,860' 58 6.0'x5.0'x1.8' 2,447,195' 9,927,957' 51 5.1'x4.0'x0.0' 2,442,117' 9,930,606' 50 7.3'x5.0'x0.0' 2,441,843' 9,930,798' 48 6.7'x2.2'x0.0' 2,443,927' 9,931,094' 43 7.2'x4.2'x0.0' 2,442,864' 9,932,078' SONAR CONTACTS

NUM. DESCRIPTION X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE Existing pipeline or umbilical

Permitted pipeline or umbilical UTM15N GRID NORTH-16' -14' -11'



# GC601
GC600 OCS-G-33846

BHP


### OCS-G-34999
FREEPORT-McMoRan UTM15N

GRID NORTH

X= 2,438,630.00' Y= 9,943,230.00' 
1 
:



## MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80' Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "E" LOCATION Block 600 (OCS-G-34999) Green Canyon Area Buried Mass Transport Deposit 1 with depth below seafloor -17'-16' -14' -11'



# GC601
GC600 OCS-G-33846

BHP


### OCS-G-34999
FREEPORT-McMoRan UTM15N

GRID NORTH

X= 2,438,700.00' Y= 9,943,150.00' 
1 
:



## MILITARY WARNING AREA W-92

Navigation trackline with name, direction run, fix, and fix number (Job No. 130277)

Buried Mass Transport Deposit 2 with depth below seafloor -80' Inline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 20 meters (65.62 feet) Crossline number for 3D seismic data Spacing = 25 meters (82.01 feet)



### HAZARD MAP PROPOSED WELL "F" LOCATION Block 600 (OCS-G-34999) Green Canyon Area All infrastructure shown is from company file information only. Buried Mass Transport Deposit 1 with depth below seafloor -17'

DATE:

REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 140501 Aug. 13, 2014 0' 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEETFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 6 – Pg. 12 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARG ES 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 Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.Attachment 6-A. WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE GOM Projected Downhole Disposal Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid Cuttings coated while drilling with WBM 2,200 BBLS/WELL 314 BBLS/DAY Discharged to mudline prior to riser installation. Based on seven total days of drilling with WBM. No Answer yes or no

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

Water-based drilling fluid Water, NaCI (salt), PHPA polymer and Barium Sulfate (Barite) 60,000 BBLS/WELL 8,571 BBLS/DAY Discharge at the mudline prior to the riser installation. Nominal amount of unused fluid may be discharged at the surface. Based on seven days of drilling with WBM. No

Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

30,020 BBLS/WELL 158 BBLS/DAY USCG approved MSD with chlorination Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling fluids, including drilled out cement 7,500 BBLS/WELL 77 BBLS/DAY Discharged to surface. Treated cutting will be discharged overboard during drilling of the SBM intervals. Discharge rate is based upon 98 days of drilling. Cuttings will be processed through a cuttings dryer, substantially reducing the ROC percentage. No

Domestic waste

Sanitary Gray water from living quarters 65,740 BBLS/WELL 346 BBLS/DAY Chlorinate and discharge overboard No
Sanitary waste from living quarters, control rooms and change rooms.

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover?

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

Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in for produced water.
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Is there a deck? If yes, there will be Deck Drainage

Deck Drainage Deck drainage from drilling floor 950 BBLS/WELL 5 BBLS/DAY No drill floor drainage routed to sea. All retained on board and processed to <15ppm or sent to shore for disposal No No

N/A

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit? General NPDES Permit # GMG290534 Well treatment fluids Well completion fluids

Workover fluids

Desalinization unit discharge

Blowout prevent fluid

Ballast water

Bilge water

Excess cement at seafloor

Fire water Cooling water Sea Water with no additional chemicals 112,546,310 BBLS/WELL 592,349 BBLS/DAY Hull discharge overboard No N/A
N/A
N/A

Rejected water from the watermaker. 286,900 BBLS/WELL 1,510 BBLS/DAY 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

Sea Water with no additional chemicals 380 BBLS/WELL 2 BBLS/DAY Hull discharge overboard No Cement Slurry 495 BBLS/WELL 495 BBLS/DAY Discharge at seafloor during riserless operations. Discharge rate based upon 1 day (22" cement returns) No N/A N/A N/A N/A No Potable Water with 4% Stack-Magic ECO-Fv2 1,200 BBLS/WELL 6 BBLS/DAY Discharge at the seafloor or with deck drainage when tested at surface No

Uncontaminated seawater used to maintain proper draft 27,000 BBLS/WELL 142 BBLS/DAY Hull discharge overboard. Based upon 5 major ballast operations, with rig at operating draft minimal ballast change is required NoFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 7 – Pg. 13 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 7 AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

Screen Questions for EP’s Yes No Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (tons) associated with your proposed exploration activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the following formulas: CT = 3400D 2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants (where D = distance to shore in miles)? X

Do your emission calculations includ e 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 and if different, a set of worksheets showing the emissions calculations for the Complex Total emissions.

This information was calculated by: Kim Sayre 281-578-3388 kim.sayre@jccteam.comATTACHMENT 7-AEXPLORATION PLAN (EP)AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLISTOMB Control No. 1010-0151OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14COMPANYFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLCAREAGreen CanyonBLOCKS600/644/645LEASEOCS-G 34999/11080/11081PLATFORMNAWELLLocations A, B, C, D, E, FCOMPANY CONTACTKim SayreTELEPHONE NO.281-578-3388REMARKSFM O&G will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Totalhorsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of DeepwaterChampion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated athighest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for DeepwaterChampion.FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 1 of 8EMISSIONS FACTORSFuel Usage Conversion FactorsNatural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATESCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84Equipment/Emission Factorsunits PM SOx NOx VOC CO REF. DATENG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83AP42 3.2-1& 3.1-1 10/96NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03AP42 3.3-1 10/96Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4AP42 3.4-1 10/96Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84P42 1.4-1, 14-2, & 147/98NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5AP42 11.5-1 9/91Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21AP42 1.3-1 & 1.3-3 9/98Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03E&P Forum 1/93Fugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005API Study 12/93Glycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6La. DEQ 1991Gas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034Sulphur Content Source Value UnitsFuel Gas 3.33 ppmDiesel Fuel 0.4 % weightProduced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppmProduced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weightFORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 2 of 8EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEARCOMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKSFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Green Canyon 600/644/645 OCS-G 34999/1 NA Locations A, B, C, D, E, F Kim Sayre 281-578-3388OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONSDiesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/DBurners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel(Drill Rig - 82%) DeepwaterChampion49486 2390.1738 14179.00 24 298 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 30.83 141.43 1059.79 31.79 231.23PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY 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 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 6 129 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.56 2.58 19.36 0.58 4.22VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 129 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.00 9.18 68.76 2.06 15.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 129 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 2.00 9.18 68.76 2.06 15.00FACILITY 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 0.00INSTALLATION 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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.942017 YEAR TOTAL42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 35.39 162.37 1217.04 36.80 267.40EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 81796.29118.0PXP 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 fuelusage data for Deepwater Champion.FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 3 of 8EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEARCOMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKSFreeport-McMoRan Oil&Green Canyon 600/644/645 OCS-G 34999/1NA Locations A, B, C, D, E, F Kim Sayre 281-578-3388OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONSDiesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/DBurners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel(Drill Rig - 82%) DeepwaterChampion49486 2390.1738 14179.00 24 365.00 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.76 173.23 1298.07 38.94 283.22PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY 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 0.00VESSELS>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 5.11VESSELS>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 18.14VESSELS>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 18.14FACILITY 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 0.00INSTALLATION 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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.942018 YEAR TOTAL42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.28 198.56 1488.15 44.94 326.55EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 81796.29118.0PXP 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 fuelusage data for Deepwater Champion.FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 4 of 8EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 3RD YEARCOMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKSFreeport-McMoRan Oil&Green Canyon 600/644/645 OCS-G 34999/1NA Locations A, B, C, D, E, F Kim Sayre 281-578-3388OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONSDiesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/DBurners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel(Drill Rig - 82%) DeepwaterChampion49486 2390.1738 14179.00 24 365 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 37.76 173.23 1298.07 38.94 283.22PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY 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 0.00VESSELS>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 5.12VESSELS>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 18.19VESSELS>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 18.19FACILITY 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 0.00INSTALLATION 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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.942019 YEAR TOTAL42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 43.30 198.63 1488.67 44.95 326.67EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 81796.29118.0PXP 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 fuelusage data for Deepwater Champion.FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 5 of 8EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 4TH YEARCOMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKSFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Green Canyon 600/644/645 OCS-G 34999/1 NA Locations A, B, C, D, E, F Kim Sayre 281-578-3388OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONSDiesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/DBurners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel(Drill Rig - 82%) DeepwaterChampion49486 2390.1738 14179.00 24 56 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 5.79 26.58 199.16 5.97 43.45PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00PRIME 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 0.00BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY 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 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 6 24 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.10 0.48 3.60 0.11 0.79VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 24 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 0.37 1.71 12.79 0.38 2.79VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 24 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 0.37 1.71 12.79 0.38 2.79FACILITY 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 0.00INSTALLATION 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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00VESSELS>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 0.00MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.942020 YEAR TOTAL42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 6.64 30.48 228.70 7.15 51.76EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 81796.29118.0PXP 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 usagedata for Deepwater Champion.FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 6 of 8SUMMARYCOMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLFreeport-McMoRGreen Canyon 600/644/645 OCS-G 34999/11080/1NALocations A, B, C, D,E, FEmitted SubstanceYearPM SOx NOx VOC CO2017 35.39 162.37 1217.04 36.80 267.402018 43.28 198.56 1488.15 44.94 326.552019 43.30 198.63 1488.67 44.95 326.672020 6.64 30.48 228.70 7.15 51.76Allowable3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 3929.40 81796.29FORM BOEM-0138(December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used).Page 8 of 8Day 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. 14 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 8 OIL SPILL INFORMATION

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING All the proposed activities and facilities in this EP will be covered by the Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) filed by Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Company No. 03280) dated January 2014 and last approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control No. O-713).

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location Houma, LA Houma, LA Harvey, LA Harvey, LA Leeville, 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 closest 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 SCENARIO DETERMINATION

Category Regional OSRP WCD - Drilling EP WCD - Drilling Type of activity Exploratory Drilling Exploratory Drilling Facility location (area/block) GC 393 GC 645 Facility designation Well Location B Well Location C Distance to nearest shoreline (miles) 96.5 mi. 118 mi. Storage tanks (bbl) 0 0 Uncontrolled blowout (bbl) 400,000 77,362 Total volume (bbl) 400,000 77,362 Type of oil(s) (crude, condensate, diesel) Crude Crude

API gravity 25° 25.8°

The Regional OSRP Drilling WCD calculations of 400,000 bbls were accepted under Plan Control No. N-9739 approved March 31, 2014.

FM O&G has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP does not supersede the worst-case scenario from our approved Regional OSRP.

Since Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC has the capability to respond to the worst-case spill scenario included in our Regional OSRP approved on February 4, 2014, and since the worst-Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 8 – Pg. 15 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) case scenario determined for our DOCD does not replace the worst-case scenario in our Regional OSRP, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC hereby certifies that Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in this DOCD.

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION The Oil Spill Response Discussion is included as Attachment 8-A.

8.6 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

# ATTACHMENT 8-A

SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION
For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Mana gement Act analysis, the largest spill volume originating from the proposed activity would be a well bl owout during drilling operations, estimated to be 77,362 barrels of crud e oil with an API gravity of 25.8°.
Land Segment and Resource Identification Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BO EM website. The results are shown in Figure 1. The BOEM OSRAM identifies a 3% probability of impact to the shorelines of Cameron Parish and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana within 30 days. Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake. Cameron Parish also includes th e area along the coastline from Sabine Pass to Big Constance La ke in Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge . This region is composed of open public beaches, marshlands and swamps. It serv es as a habitat for nu merous birds, finfish and other animals, including seve ral rare, threatened and endangere d species. Plaquemines Parish includes Barataria Bay, the Mississippi River De lta, Breton Sound and the affiliated islands and bays. This region is an extremely sensitive hab itat 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 sh ell 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 practicable. A description of the response equipment under contra ct to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2.
Using the estimated chemical and physical charact eristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADIO S oil database. The results indicate 12% or approximately 9,283 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 68,079 barrels remaining.

Spill Response GC 645, Well Location C Barrels of Oil
WCD Volume 77,362
Less 12% natural evaporation/dispersion 9,283 Remaining volume 68,079
Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to the worst case discharge. The volume accounts for the amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates individual times needed for procurement, load out, tr avel time to the site and deployment. Figure 2 also indicates how operations will be supported.FM O&G’s Oil Spill Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants and in-situ burn. St rategies will be decided by Un ified Command based on the size of the spill, weather and potential impacts. If aerial dispersants ar e utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from two of the DC-3 ai rcrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gall ons) 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 obt ained and the proper planning is in place, insitu burning of oil may be attempted. Slick co ntainment boom would be immediately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. Offshore respons e strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing CGA spill response equipment, with a total derated skimming capacity of 126,819 barrels. Temporary storage asso ciated with skimming equipm ent equals 9,700 barrels. If additional storage is needed, va rious tank barges with a tota l of 245,000+ barrels of storage capacity may be mobilized and centrally locate d to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming attempts.
If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the use of CGA’s near shore and shallow water ski mmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity of 100,626 barrels. Temporary storage associ ated with skimming equipment equals 1,667 barrels. If additional storage is needed, various tank barges with a to tal of 116,000+ barrels of storage capacity may be mobilized and centrally located to provide tem porary 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 b each areas, or protection and sorbent boom 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 procurem ent, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would be based upon survei llance and real time traj ectories that depict areas of potential impact given actual sea and w eather conditions. The Stat e of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for Cameron Parish a nd 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. S horeline protection strategies depict the protection response m odes applicable for oil spill clean-up operations. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spil l Response Plan provides detailed shorel ine protection strategies for this area, and it describes necessary action to keep the oil spill from ente ring Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, based on the assumption that removal of th e released oil will be much easier and less damaging to fragile coastal ecosystems if done in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment and operation of equipment allowing a more effective response to site-s pecific circumstances. FM O&G’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial O il Spill Response Plan.
Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scen ario, FM O&G can be onsite with contracted oil spill recovery equipment with adequate re sponse capacity to contain and recover surface hydrocarbons, and prevent land impact, to the maximum extent practicable, within an estimated 60 hours (based on the equipment’s Effectiv e Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)).Initial Response Considerations Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors to include but not be limited to:

 Weather

 Equipment and materials availability

 Ocean currents and tides

 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, aggre ssive response to contain and recover as much of the spilled oil as quickly as it is safe to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response actions will be designed to provide an “in-depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much oil as possible as far from environmentally se nsitive areas as possible. Safety will take precedence over all other considerations during these operations.

Coordination of response assets will normally be supervised by the Operations Section as necessary for close quarter vesse l response activities. A Simu ltaneous Operations (SIMOPS) unit may be established in the Source Control Sec tion to control operations if events require a significant number of large vessels to operate in dependently, but in coordination with each other. This unit would normally monitor the subsurfa ce activities of each vessel (ROV, dispersant application, well control s upport, etc.), as well.

In addition, these activities will be monitored by the spill mana gement 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 agen cies will be notified

 ICS 201, Initial Report Form completed

 Initial Safety plan will be written and published

 Unified Command will be established

o Overall safety plan developed to reflect the operational situa tion and coordinated objectives

o Areas of responsibility established for S ource Control and each surface operational site

o On-site command and control establishedOffshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment Surveillance

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

 Provide trained observer to pr ovide on site status reports

 Provide command and control platfo rm at the site if needed

 Continual surveillance of oil movement by re mote sensing systems, aerial photography and visual confirmation

 Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems

Dispersant application assets

 Put ASI on standby

 With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determin e appropriateness of di spersant application (refer to Section 18)

 Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface

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

 Coordinate movement of dispersants, ai rcraft, and support equipment and personnel

 Confirm dispersant availability fo r current and long range operations

 Start ordering dispersa nt 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 situational st atus reports to vessels to e xpedite their arrival at sites that will provide for their mo st effective containment

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

Oceangoing Boom Barge

 Containment at the source

 Increased/enhanced skimmer encounter rate

 Protection booming

In-situ Burn assets

 Determine appropriateness of in-situ burn ope ration in coordination with the FOSC and affected SOSC

 Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

 Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

 Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

 Determine assets to perform on water operation

 Build operations into safety plan

 Conduct operations in accordance with an approved planDedicated off-shore skimming systems General

 Deployed to the highest concentration of oil

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

CGA HOSS Barge

 Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA 95’ Fast Response Vessels (FRVs)

 Designed to be a first vessel on scene

 Capable of maintaining the initial Command and Control function for on water recovery operations

 24 hour oil spill detection capability

 Highly mobile and efficient skimming capability

 Use as far off-shore as safely possible

CGA FRUs

 To the area of the thickest oil

 Use as far off-shore as allowed

 VOOs 100’ minimum in length

 VOOs with minimum of 18’ x 38’ or 23’ x 50’ of optimum deck space

 VOOs in shallow water should have a dr aft of <10 feet when fully loaded

T&T Koseq Skimming Systems

 To the area of the thickest oil

 Use as far off-shore as allowed

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

 VOOs at least 200’ in length

 VOOs with deck space of 100’ x 40’ to provide space for arms, tanks, and crane

 VOOs for shallow water should be deck barges wi th a draft of <10 feet when fully loaded

Storage Vessels

 Establish availability of CGA c ontracted assets (See Appendix E)

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

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

 Position as closely as possible to ski mming assets to minimize offloading time

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)

 Use FM O&G’s contracted resources as applicable

 Industry vessels are ideal for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS) Acquire additional resources as needed

 Consider use of local assets , i.e. fishing and pleasure cr aft for ISB operations or boom tending

 Expect mission specific and sa fety training to be required

 Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

 Place VOOs in Division or Groups as needed

 Use organic on-board st orage if appropriate

 Maximize non-organic storage approp riate to vessel limitations

 Decant as appropriate after approv al to do so has been granted

 Assign bulk storage barges to each Division/Group

 Position bulk storage barges as close to skimming units as possible

 Utilize large skimming vessel (e.g. barges) storage for smaller vessel offloading

 Maximize skimming area (swath) to the optimum width given sea conditions and available equipment

 Maximize use of oleophilic skimmers in all operations, but especially offshore

 Nearshore, use shallow water barges a nd shuttle to skimming units to minimize offloading time

 Plan and equip to use all offloading capabilities of the storage vessel to minimize offloading time

Adverse Weather Operations:

In adverse weather, when seas are > 3 feet, th e use of larger recovery and storage vessels, oleophilic skimmers, and large offshore boom will be maximized. KOSEQ Arm systems are built for rough conditions, and they should be used until their operational limit (9.8’ seas) is met. Safety will be the overriding factor in all operati ons and will cease at the order of the Unified Command, vessel captain, or in an emergency, ”stop work” may be directed by any crew member.

Surface Oil Recovery Considerations and Tactics (Offshore and Near-shore Operations)

Maximization of skimmer-oil encounter rate

 Place barges in skimming task forces, groups , etc., to reduce recovered oil offloading time

 Place barges alongside skimming systems for immediate offloading of recovered oil when practicable

 Use two vessels, each with heavy sea boom, in an open-ended “V” configuration to funnel surface oil into a tra iling skimming unit’s organic, V-shaped boom and skimmer (see page 7, CGA Equipment Guide Book and Tactic Manual (CGATM)

 Use secondary vessels and heavy sea boom to widen boom swath beyond normal skimming system limits (see page 15, CGATM)

 Consider night-time operations, fi rst considering safety issues Utilize all available advanced technology syst ems ( IR, X-Band Radar, etc.) to determine the location of, and move to, recoverable oil

 Confirm the presence of recoverable oil prior to moving to a new location

Maximize skimmer system efficiency

 Place weir skimming systems in ar eas of calm seas and thick oil

 Maximize the use of oleophilic sk imming systems in heavier seas

 Place less mobile, high EDRC skimming systems (e.g. HOSS Barge) in the largest pockets of the heaviest oil

 Maximize onboard recovered oi l storage for vessels.

 Obtain authorization for decanting of recovered water as soon as possible

 Use smaller, more agile skimming systems to recover streamers of oil normally found farther from the source. Place recovered oil barges nearby

Recovered Oil Storage

 Smaller barges in larger quantities will in crease flexibility for multi-location skimming operations

 Place barges in skimming task forces, groups , etc., to reduce recovered oil offloading time

 Procure and deploy the maximum number of portable tanks to support Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems if o nboard storage is not available

 Maximize use of the organic recovered o il storage capacity of the skimming vessel

Command, Control, and Communications (C 3 )

 Publish, implement, and fully test an appropriate communications plan

 Design an operational scheme, maintain ing a manageable span of control

 Designate and mark C 3 vessels for easy aerial identification

 Designate and employ C 3 aircraft for task forces, groups, etc.

 Use reconnaissance air craft and Rapid Res ponse Teams (RAT) to c onfirm the presence of recoverable oilOn Water Recovery Group When the first skimming vessel arrives on scene, a complete si te assessment will be conducted before recovery operations begin. Once it is co nfirmed that the air mon itoring readings for O2, LEL, H2S, CO, VOC, and Benzene are all within the permissible limits, oil recovery operations may begin.

As skimming vessels arrive, they will be organized to work in areas that allow for the most efficient vessel operation and free vessel movement in the recovery of o il. Vessel groups will vary in structure as determined by the Operat ions Section of the Unified Command, but will generally consist, at a minimum, of the following dedicated assets:

 3 to 5 – Offshore skimming vessels (recovery)

 1 – Tank barge (temporary storage)

 1 – Air asset (tactical direction)

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility for supply)

 6 to 10 – Boom vessels (enhanced booming )

Example ( Note: Actual organization of TFs will be de pendent on several factors including, asset availability, weather, spilled o il migration, currents, etc.)

The 95’ FRV Breton Island out of Venice arri ves on scene and conducts an initial site assessment. Air monitoring levels are acceptable a nd no other visual threats have been observed. The area is cleared for safe skimming operati ons. The Breton Island assumes command and control (CoC) of on-water rec overy operations until a dedicate d non-skimming vessel arrives to relieve it of those duties.

A second 95’ FRV arrives and begins recovery operations alongside the Breton Island. Several more vessels begin to arrive, including a thir d 95’ FRV out of Galveston, the HOSS Barge (High Volume Open Sea Skimming System) out of Harvey, a boom barge (CGA 300) with 25,000’ of 42” auto boom out of Leeville, and 9 Fast Resp onse Units (FRUs) from the load-out location at C-Port in Port Fourchon.

As these vessels set up and begin skimming, they ar e grouped into task for ces (TFs) as directed by the Operations Section of the Unified Command located at the command post.

Initial set-up a nd potential actions:

 A 1,000 meter safety zone has been establis hed around the incident location for vessels involved in Source Control

 The HOSS Barge is positioned facing the incident location just outside of this safety zone or at the point where the freshe st oil is reaching the surface

 The HOSS Barge engages its Oil Spill Detection (OSD) system to locate the heaviest oil and maintains that ability for 24-hour operations The HOSS Barge deploys 1,320’ of 67” Sea Se ntry boom on each side, creating a swath width of 800’

 The Breton Island and H.I. Rich skim near by, utilizing the same OSD systems as the HOSS Barge to locate and recover oil

 Two FRUs join this group and it becomes TF1

 The remaining 7 FRUs are split into a 2 a nd 3 vessel task force numbered TF2 and TF3

 A 95’ FRV is placed in each TF

 The boom barge (CGA 300) is positioned nearby and begins deploying auto boom in sections between two utility vessels (1,000’ to 3,000’ of boom, depending on conditions) with chain-link gates in the middle to funnel oil to the skimmers

 The initial boom support vessels po sition in front of TF2 and TF3

 A 100,000+ barrel offshore tank barge is placed with each task force as necessary to facilitate the immediate offload of skimming vessels

The initial task forces (36 hours in ) may be structured as follows:

TF 1

 1 – 95’ FRV

 1 – HOSS Barge with 3 tugs

 2 – FRUs

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 8 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

 8 – Boom-towing vessels

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 2

 1 – 95’ FRV

 4 – FRUs

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 10 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

 10 – Boom-towing vessels

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 3

 1 – 95’ FRV

 3 – FRUs

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 8 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

 8 – Boom-towing vessels

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)Offshore skimming equipment continues to arrive in accordance with the ETA data listed in figure H.3a; this equipment includes 2 AquaGu ard skimmers and 11 sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms. These high volume heavy weat her capable systems will be divided into functional groups and assigned to specific areas by the Operati ons Section of the Unified Command.

At this point of the response, the additional TFs may assume the following configurations:

TF 4

 2 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

 1 – AquaGuard Skimmer

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

 6 – 500’ sections of au to boom with gates

 6 – Boom-towing vessels

TF 5

 3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

 1 – AquaGuard Skimmer

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

 8 – 500’ sections of au to boom with gates

 8 – Boom-towing vessels

TF 6

 3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

 6 – 500’ sections of au to boom with gates

 6 – Boom-towing vessels

TF 7

 3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ PIDVs

 1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)

 1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction

 2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

 6 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates

 6 – Boom-towing vesselsNear Shore Response Actions Timing

 Put near shore assets on standby and deploym ent in accordance with planning based on the actual situation, actual trajectories a nd oil budgets

 VOO identification and training in advance of spill nearing sh oreline 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

 Sea state

 Tides

 Currents
Surveillance

 Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

 Continual surveillance of oil movement by re mote sensing systems, aerial photography and visual confirmation

 Continual monitoring of vessel assets Dispersant Use

 Dispersants are pre-approved with FOSC a pproval outside of 3 miles and the 10 meter depth curve and requires RRT VI approval inside 3 mile and/or 10 meter curve

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

 Approval would be at Regional Re sponse Team level (Region 6) Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

 FRVs

 56’ shallow water skimmers

 Egmopol and Marco SWS (protected waters)

 Operate with aerial spotter directi ng systems to observed oil slicks
VOO

 Use FM O&G’s contracted resources as applicable

 Industry vessels are usually best for depl oyment 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 sa fety training to be required

 Plan with the US Coast 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

 Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team (SCAT) assessments

 Time to acquire personnel and eq uipment and their availability

 Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate ACP, Geographic Response Plan (GRP), and currently for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

Actions

Placement of boom

 Position boom in accordance with the ERA based on the actual situation or the appropriate ACP or GRP.

 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 site s and gaining authority to enter

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

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

 Staging of equipment and housing of respons e personnel as close to the job site as possible to maximize on-site work time

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

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

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

 Passive clean up of marshes should considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom and/or sweep obtained

 Earthen berms and shoreline protection boom may be considered to protect sensitive inland areasDecanting Strategy Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically se parate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separati on occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minima l, if any, impact. Decan ting therefore increases the effective on-site oil storage capacity a nd equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill
recovery.
CGA Equipment Limitations The capability for any spill response equipment, whether a dedicated or portable system, to operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in rela tion 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 a nd/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the final say in terminating operations. Skimming equipment listed below may have operational limits which exceed those safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill response, vessel skimming opera tions ceased when seas reache d 5-6 feet and vessels were often recalled to port when those conditions were exceeded. Systems below are some of the most up-to-date systems available and were employed during the DWH spill.

Boom 3 foot seas, 20 knot winds Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots Visibility less than 3 nautical miles Ceiling less than 1,000 feet. FRU 8 foot seas HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas Koseq Arms 8 foot seas OSRV 4 foot seasEnvironmental Conditions in the GOM Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences westerly winds during the wint er and easterly winds in the summer. Average wind speed is generally 14-15 mph along the coast. Wave he ights average 4 and 5 feet. However, during hurricane season, Louisiana has recorded wave heights ranging from 40 to 50 feet high and winds reaching speeds of 100 mph. Because much of southern Louisiana lies below sea level, flooding is prominent.

Surface water temperature ranges between 70 and 80  ̊ F during the summer months. During the winter, the average temperatur e will range from 50 and 60  ̊ F.

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane seas on is officially from 1 June to 30 November. 97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The Atlant ic 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 occurri ng then. Maximum activity is in early to mid September. Once in a few years there may be a hurri cane occurring "out of season" - primarily in May or December. Globally, September is the mo st active month and May is the least active month.FIGURE 1 TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing FM O&G’s WCD and information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS-G Launch Area Land Segment and/or Resource Conditional Probability (%) within 30 days

Drill, test, complete, flare and install subsea trees for 2 wells in GC600, 2 wells in GC644 and 2 wells in GC645

GC 645, Well Location C

118 miles from shore G11081 C46 Matagorda County, TX Brazoria County, TX Galveston County, TX Jefferson County, TX Cameron Parish, LA Vermilion Parish, LA Terrebonne Parish, LA Lafourche Parish, LA Plaquemines Parish, LA 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELLBLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (118 miles from shore)68,079 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering)API Gravity 25.8°FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to GC 645, Well Location CDispersants/SurveillanceDispersant/SurveillanceDispersantCapacity (gal)StorageCapacityPersons Req.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel tositeTotal HrsASIBasler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 2 2 0.8 4.8DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 2 2 1 5DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 2 2 1 5Aero Commander NA NA2 Houma 2 2 0.8 4.8Offshore ResponseOffshore Equipment NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGAHOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 5 Harvey 7 0 5 14.4 1 27.4Boom Barge (CGA-300)42” Auto Boom (25000’)NA NA1 Tug50 Crew4 (Barge)2 (Per Crew)Leeville 4 0 6 15.63 1.5 27.13Recovered Oil Storage NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsKirby Offshore (available through contract with CGA)RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 41.75 2 0 16.25 0 60RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 41.75 2 0 16.25 0 60Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 18.13 1 39.13Staging Area: FourchonOffshore Equipment WithStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toSiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsT&T Marine (available through contract with CGA)Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston 4 12 11.4 10 1 38.4CGAFRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 2 2 11.4 10 1 26.4FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Utility 6 Harvey 2 2 2.7 10 1 17.7FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Aransas Pass 2 2 16.5 10 1 31.5FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 2 2 6.8 10 1 21.8FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Leeville 2 2 0.4 10 1 15.4FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Morgan City 2 2 2.7 10 1 17.7FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice 2 2 4.7 10 1 19.7Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey 2 4 2.7 10 6 24.7Nearshore ResponseNearshore Equipment NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGA46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Morgan City 2 0 2 3.5 0 7.546’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 2 0 1 2.5 0 5.546’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 2 0 1 2.5 0 5.5Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Leeville 6 2 N/A 48 1 57Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 6 2 N/A 48 1 57Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Venice 6 2 N/A 48 1 57Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 14.38 1 35.38Staging Area: CameronNearshore and Inland SkimmersWith StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotal HrsCGASWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 2 2 3.6 2 0 9.6SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 LakeCharles 2 2 1.5 2 0 7.5SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 2 2 6.8 2 0 12.8Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA3 Lake Charles 2 2 1.5 2 0 7.5Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Galveston 2 2 3.6 2 0 9.64 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 1.5 2 0 7.52 Drum Skimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 1.5 2 0 7.5Staging Area: VeniceNearshore and Inland SkimmersWith StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotal HrsCGASWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Morgan City 2 2 4.9 2 0 10.9SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Venice 2 2 0 2 0 6Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 891 45 NA 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.14 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 686 100 1 Crew 3 Harvey 2 2 2.1 2 0 8.1Shoreline ProtectionStaging Area: VeniceShoreline ProtectionBoomVOOPersonsReq.Storage/WarehouseLocationHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeployment SiteHrs toDeployTotal HrsAMPOL (available through MSA)42,000’ 18” Boom 16 Crew 40 New Iberia, LA 2 2 6 2 12 2420,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 New Orleans, LA 2 2 2.2 2 6 14.2Miller (available through MSA)14,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 12 Sulphur, LA 1 1 8.3 2 2 14.3OMI Environmental (available through MSA)20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 Belle Chasse, LA 1 1 1.9 2 6 11.910,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Allen, LA 1 1 4.5 2 3 11.510,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houma, LA 1 1 3.8 2 3 10.815,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 14 Gretna, LA (Warehouse) 2 2 2.1 2 4 12.1Staging Area: CameronShoreline ProtectionBoomVOOPersonsReq.Storage/WarehouseLocationHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeployment SiteHrs toDeployTotal HrsOMI Environmental (available through MSA)10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 4 2 3 1110,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 3.8 2 3 10.710,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 1.4 2 3 8.4Staging Area: CameronWildlife ResponseEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotal HrsCGAWildlife Support Trailer NA NANA 2 Harvey 2 2 7 1 2 14Bird Scare Guns (48) NA NA NA 2 Harvey 2 2 7 1 2 14Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 2 2 3.6 1 2 10.6Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA2 Aransas Pass 2 2 9.9 1 2 16.9Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA2 Lake Charles 2 2 1.5 1 2 8.5Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Leeville 2 2 6.8 1 2 13.8Response AssetTotalOffshore EDRC 126,819Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 254,700+Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 100,626Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 117,667Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 9 – Pg. 16 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS FM O&G will monitor loop currents per the requirements as set forth in NTL No. 2009-G02, “Ocean Current Monitoring” (Extended by NTL No. 2014-G05, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”). FM O&G subscribes to Wilkens Weather Technologies for weather forecasts and monitoring. Horizon Marine, Inc. provides Gulf of Mexico loop and eddy current forecasts.

9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES There is no reason to believe that any of the endangered species or marine mammals as listed in the ESA will be “taken” as a result of the operations proposed under this plan.

It has been documented that the use of explosives and or seismic devices can affect marine life. Operations proposed in this plan will not be utilizing either of these devices.

FM O&G will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

 NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

 NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

 NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; therefore, relevant information is not required in this EP.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 10 – Pg. 17 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA)Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are located within designated Military Warning Area W92. The Fleet Area Control Surveillance Facility in Jacksonville, Florida, was contacted on May 29, 2014 in order to coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions use of vessels and aircraft during the proposed operations.

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES In accordance with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, FM O&G will:

(a) Collect and remove flotsam resulting from activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease;

(b) Post signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms used as a result of activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease detailing the reasons (legal and ecological) why release of debris must be eliminated;

(c) Observe for marine mammals and sea turtles while on vessels, reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when assemblages of cetaceans are observed, and maintain a distance of 90 meters or greater from whales, and a distance of 45 meters or greater from small cetaceans and sea turtles;
(d) Employ mitigation measures prescribed by BOEM/BSEE or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for all seismic surveys, including the use of an “exclusion zone” based upon the appropriate water depth, ramp-up and shutdown procedures, visual monitoring, and reporting;

(e) Identify important habitats, including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g., sea turtle nesting beaches, piping plover crit ical habitat), in oil spill contingency planning and require the strategic placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less-intrusive cleanup techniques on beaches and bay shores; and

(f) Immediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected species (e.g., marine mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animal (e.g., because of a vessel strike), the responsible parties should remain available to assist the stranding network. If the injury or death was caused by a collision with the lessee’s vessel, the lessee must notify BOEM within 24 hours of the strike.

BOEM and BSEE issue Notices to Lessees (NTLs ), which more fully describe measures implemented in support of the above-mentioned im plementing statutes and regulations, as wellFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 10 – Pg. 18 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) as measures identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS arising from, among others, conservation recommendations, rulemakings pursuant to the MMPA, or consultation. The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors, while undertaking activities authorized under this lease, must implement and co mply with the specific mitigation measures outlined in NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting;” NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G02, “Imp lementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program;” and NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination.” At the lessee’s option, the lessee, its operators, personnel, and contractors may comply with the most current measures to protect species in place at the time an activity is undertaken under this lease, including but not limited to new or updated versions of the NTLs identified in this paragraph. The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors will be required to comply with the mitigation measures, identified in the above referenced NTLs, and additional measures in the conditions of approvals for their plans or permits.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 11 – Pg. 19 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644 and 645 are not located within Florida; therefore, mitigation information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES FM O&G will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

 NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

 NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

 NTL No. 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 12 – Pg. 20 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

12.1 GENERAL The most practical, direct route from the shorebase as permitted by weather and traffic conditions will be utilized. Information regarding the vessels and aircraft to be used to support the proposed activities is provided in the table below.

Type Maximum Fuel Tank Capacity 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

Helicopter 1050 gal 1 2/Day

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS Information regarding vessels to be used to supply diesel oil for fuel and other purposes is provided in the table below.

Size of Fuel Supply Vessel (ft) Capacity of Fuel Supply Vessel Frequency of Fuel Transfers Route Fuel Supply Vessel Will Take 245 9,000 Bi-weekly Shortest route from Shorebase to block 312 5,800 Bi-weekly Shortest route from Shorebase to block

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION Drilling fluid transportation information is not required to be submitted with this plan.

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION A table, “Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore,” is included as Attachment 12- A.

12.5 VICINITY MAP A vicinity map showing the location of the activities proposed herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of the proposed activities from the shoreline and the primary routes of the support vessels and aircraft that will be used when traveling between the onshore support facilities and the drilling unit is included as Attachment 12-B.OBM/ZnBr 2 /CaBr 2 & KCl/ZnBr 2 /CaBr 2 Vessel to truck or MPT tanks Newpark Environmental Services 145 17th St Port Fourchon, LA 500 bbl All will go to a disposal well 

### 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 Recycled

N/A N/A

SBM Cuttings Boxes on Supply Boat Newpark Environmental Services 145 17th St Port Fourchon, LA 1,700 BBLS/Well Will drilling occur? If yes, fill in the muds and cuttings. Composition Projected Generated
Wastes

Oil-based drilling fluid or mud N/A N/A N/A N/A

Produced sand Will you have additional wastes that are not permitted for discharge? If yes, fill in the appropriate rows.

Trash and debris

Used oil N/A N/A

No production is proposed under this Initial Exploration Plan

Refuse generated during operations: paper, cardboard, metal, and glass Compactor bags in storage bins on Supply/Crew Boat Gulf Offshore Logistics Fourchon, LA 350,000 lbs/Well Recycled if possible, transported to landfill otherwise

Used Engine Oil Proper DOT containers on supply boat Univar Carencro, LA 115 bbl/Well N/A

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 N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Well completion fluids

Recycled or Incinerated
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wash water Chemical product wastes! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Houma

Dulac

Venice Lafitte

Fourchon Galliano

Cocodrie

Grand Isle River Ridge Morgan City

Fort Jackson

Green Canyon Ship Shoal

Atwater Valley South Timbalier

Mississippi Canyon West Delta

Ewing Bank Grand Isle

Ship Shoal South South Timbalier South West Delta South Main Pass

South Pelto New Orleans

Houma

Terrebonne St. Mary Lafourche

Plaquemines St. Charles St. Martin 

# Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Vicinity Map Green Canyon 600/644/645

~ 1 53.9 Miles t o H o u m a, L A A i r c r af t S h o r eb as e

~ 1 2 3 . 4 M i l e s t o F o u r c h o n , L A V e s s e l S h o r e b a s e ! ! Leeville

GC600-644-645

~ 1 1 8 M i l e s t o S h o r eFreeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 13 – Pg. 21 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

13.1 GENERAL The onshore facilities that will be used to provide supply and service support for the proposed activities are provided in the table below.

Name Location Existing/New/Modified Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Shorebase Fourchon, Louisiana Existing

MI-Swaco Mud Plants Fourchon, Louisiana Existing

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this EP.

13.3 WASTE DISPOSAL The Table, “Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore, “is included as Attachment 12-A.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 14 – Pg. 22 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Under direction of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the state of Louisiana developed a Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZMP) to allow for the supervision of significant land and water use activities that take place within or that could significantly affect their respective coastal zones.

Proposed activities are 118 miles from the Louisiana shore. Measures will be taken to avoid or mitigate the probable impacts. FM O&G will operate in compliance with existing federal and state laws, regulations, and resultant enforceable program policies in Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Management Program.
The OCS related oil and gas exploratory and development activities having potential impact on the Louisiana Coastal Zone are based on the location of the proposed facilities, access to those sites, best practical techniques for drilling locations, drilling equipment guidelines for the prevention of adverse environmental effects, effective environmental protection, emergency plans and contingency plans.

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana. A certificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is included as Attachment 14-A.Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 15 – Pg. 23 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 15-A.

# ATTACHMENT 15-A

Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, LLC (FM O&G) Joint Initial Exploration Plan Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, & 645 OCS-G 34999, 110800, & 11081

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

Resources Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) Categories and Examples Refer to recent GOM OCS Lease Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs

Emissions (air, noise, light, etc.) Effluents (muds, cutting, other discharges to

the water column or seafloor) Physical disturbances to the

seafloor (rig or anchor emplacements, etc.) Wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal Accidents (e.g., oil spills, chemical spills, 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 Beaches X(6) X Wetlands X(6) Shore birds and coastal nesting birds X6)

Coastal wildlife refuges

Wilderness areasFootnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if th e well or platform site or any anchors will be on the seafloor within the:

o 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3-mile zone of Stetson Bank;

o 1000-m, 1-mile or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease;

o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft. from any no-activity zone; or

o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) w ith relief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipul ation attached to an OCS lease. 2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS l ease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seaflo or habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (LowRelief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentr ations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydr ocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is lo cated 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 leas e block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or sea turtles or their critical habitats. 9) Production activities that involve trans portation of produced fluids to shor e using shuttle tankers or barges.

### (B) Analysis

Site-Specific at Green Ca nyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 Proposed operations consist of th e drilling, testing, completion, flar ing, and installation of subsea trees for 2 wells in Green Canyon Block 600, 2 we lls in Green Canyon Block 644, and 2 wells in Green Canyon Block 645. The operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned drillship.

1. Designated Topographic Features Potential IPFs on topographic features include effluents, and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 are 53 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Diaph us Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surf ace or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic organisms only if the oil contacts the organi sms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of ma gnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on corals. Becau se the crests of topogr aphic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found below 10 m, no oil from a surface sp ill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not app licable 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 (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed act ivities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bo ttoms include effluent s and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 are 181 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surf ace or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spill s have the potential to foul benthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be dr iven into the water column; measurable amounts have beendocumented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not a pplicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) 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 (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area.

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms
Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live botto ms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 are not located in an area characterized by the existence of live bottoms; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surf ace or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to live bottom organisms only if the oil contacts the organi sms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of ma gnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine inve rtebrates. 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 (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed ac tivities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live bottom area.

4. Benthic Communities There are no IPFs (including emissions, physical di sturbances to the seaf loor, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or a ccidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to benthic communities.

A dynamically positioned drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor w ill be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a dynamical ly positioned drillship, FM O&G’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.5. Water Quality IPFs that could result in water quality degr adation from the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions a nd monitoring and toxicity testin g are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant bi ological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause si gnificant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter o ffshore water quality; how ever, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or s ubsurface spill would occur from th e 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 da ta were collected), there were 80 reported diesel spil ls greater than one barrel associ ated with drilling activities. Considering that there were 11,944 wells drille d, this is a 0.7 percen t probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occur, the water quality of marine waters would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to seve ral months afterwards. Most of the components of oil are insoluble in water and therefore floa t. 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 (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries
IPFs that could cause im pacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include ef fluents and 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 downcurrent from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have negligible effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potent ial to cause some detrimental effects on fisheries; however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities(refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage woul d be reduced to the cap acity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the spill, to metabolize hydr ocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. 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 disturba nces to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause imp acts to fisheries.

7. Marine Mammals
GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf-edge were almost exclusively bottlenose dolphin a nd Atlantic spotted dolphin. S quid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, a nd Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include emissi ons, 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 vul nerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, and/or predation (Majors and Myri ck, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long-term displacements and population tren ds for marine mammals relative to noise.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cutti ngs discharges contain components which may be detrimental to marine mammals. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling flui ds 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 inge stion 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 act ivities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Polluti on 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 regul ations 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 coveri ng outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handlin g and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biode gradable, 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 personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commi tment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine mammals and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the twenty-eight species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected marine mamma l species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is cau sed 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 Networ k 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 pr otectedspecies@bsee.gov. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist th e respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil-related injuries and spill-related deaths to marine mammals. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil dispersant chemicals included in FM O&G’s OSRP is considered to be low when compared with the c onstituents 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 are no other IPFs (including physical di sturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact marine mammals.

8. Sea Turtles IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, effluents, discarded tr ash and debris, and accidents. Gu lfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and le atherback sea turtles over shel f waters. Historically thesespecies have been sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all sp ecies as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activi ties, support vessels, and heli copters may elicit a startle reaction from sea turtles, but th is is a temporary disturbance.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not k nown to be lethal to sea turtles. Most operational discharges are dilu ted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect , either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and inge stion of, debris have caused the death or serious injury of sea tu rtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited am ount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activitie s is not expected to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging de bris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USC G) 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 manageme nt 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 wh en 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 personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and s ea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Cont ract vessel operators can avoid sea turtles and reduce potential deaths by main taining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighte d. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any inju red or dead protecte d sea turtle species immediately, regardless of whethe r 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 th e Marine Mammal Stranding Ne twork 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 th e strike by email to protectedspecies@bsee.gov. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerab le to the harmful e ffects of oil through direct contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fa tal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. However, it is un likely that an accidental oil sp ill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil sp ill response activities ma y increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to the possibility of collisions with sea turtles. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional O il Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical di sturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality The projected air emissions identified in Appendix G are not expected to affect the OCS air quality primarily due to distance to the shore or to any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I air quality area such as the Breton Wilderness Area. Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 are beyond the 200 kilometer (124 mile) buffer for the Breton Wilderness Area and are 118 miles from the coastline. Therefore, no speci al mitigation, monitoring, or reporting requirements apply with respect to air emissions.

Accidents and blowouts can rel ease hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air pollutants. However, these releases w ould not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height , emission rates, and the distance of Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential) Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a re sult of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dynamically positioned dri llship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignif icant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a dynamically positioned drillship, FM O&G’s proposed opera tions in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 would not cause impacts to shipwreck sites.Additionally, Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 are not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probab ility 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 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, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of th e certifications and a ci rcle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, FM O&G w ill contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activitie s that could cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to preh istoric archaeological site s as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dynamically positioned dri llship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignif icant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a dynamically positioned drillship, FM O&G’s proposed opera tions in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 would not cause impacts to preh istoric archaeological sites.

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 commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by FM O&G to be clear of seaf loor archaeological resour ces. 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 cont act the BOEM immediat ely and make every reasonable effort to preserve a nd protect that cu ltural resource.

Additionally, Green Canyon Bloc ks 600, 644, and 645 are located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability line, theref ore, no adverse impacts are expected.

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activitie s which could impact prehistoric archeological sites.Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a re sult of the proposed opera tions in Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 include effluents and accide nts. EFH includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulati on, 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 drilling muds and cuttings a nd produced-water discha rges, discharge-rate restrictions, and monitoring a nd toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significa nt biological or ecol ogical effects. Operat ional 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 a ffect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities whic h could impact essential fish habitat.

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, accidental oil spills, and discarded trash a nd debris from vessel s and the facilities.

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmo sphere from these activities are far below concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

Accidents: An oil spill woul d 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 Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feedi ng at the spill location may experience chronic, nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected th at few, if any, coastal and marine birds would actually be affected to that ex tent. 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 discarded trash and debris, or in gest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and death. Operators are prohibited from deliberat ely discharging debris as mandated by MARPOLAnnex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Resear ch 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. Special caution w ill be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, par ticularly 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 suppor t services-related pers onnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat cr ews) will be indoctrinated on wa ste 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 ma nagement that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No . 2012-G01. Debris, if any, from these proposed activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the pr oposed activities which could impact marine and pelagic birds.

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents. There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H 2 S release) from the proposed activities which could cau se impacts to public health a nd safety. In accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G04, 2009-G27, and 2009-G31, suffi cient 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 activities that could cause impacts to beaches include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: Oil spills contacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreational beaches and associated resources. Due to the dist ance from shore (118 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no si gnificant adverse impacts are expected. Theactivities proposed in this pl an will be covered by FM O& G’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H ).

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recogni zed 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 activ ities. Operators are prohibite d from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and th e Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by variou s agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoi d accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifes ting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non- biodegradable, environmentally pe rsistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands IPFs from the proposed activities that could ca use impacts to wetlands include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an oil spill would occu r from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Due to the distance from shor e (118 miles) and the response capab ilities 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 activ ities. Operators are prohibite d from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and th e Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by variou s agencies including the United States CoastGuard (USCG) and the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoi d accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifes ting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non- biodegradable, environmentally pe rsistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commi tment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) fr om the proposed activities which could impact wetlands.

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds
Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore bird s and coastal nesting birds. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Given the distance from shore (118 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activ ities 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 manda ted by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations imposed by va rious agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations a nd also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, mani festing trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to pr event accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non- biodegradable, environmentally pe rsistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will beindoctrinated 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commi tment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e 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 di stance from shore (118 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts ar e 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 de liberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plas tic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various ag encies including the United St ates Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accide ntal loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and us ing 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 packagi ng materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commi tment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e 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 (166 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 de liberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plas tic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various ag encies including the United St ates Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accide ntal loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and us ing 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 packagi ng materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains 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 debr is training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commi tment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities that could cause impacts to wilderness areas.

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified
There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment.

(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES The site–specific environmental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed activities. No impacts are expected on the propos ed activities from site-specific environmental conditions.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS During the hurricane season, June through November , the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which si x become hurricanes ( > 74 mphwinds). Due to their location in the gul f, Green Canyon Blocks 600, 644, and 645 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, and related se a currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to opera tors and vessels, damage explor ation or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materi als (including hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and pose a threat to local species.

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these impacts:

1. Drilling & completion

a. Secure well b. Secure rig / platform

c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09, 2009-G10, and 2010-N10.

2. Structure Installation Operator will not conduct structure instal lation operations duri ng Tropical Storm or Hurricane threat.

(E) ALTERNATIVES No alternatives to the proposed activities were cons idered to reduce environmental impacts.

(F) MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures other than those requ ired by regulation will be employed to avoid, diminish, or eliminate potential im pacts on environmental resources.

(G) CONSULTATION No agencies or persons were consulted regard ing potential impacts associ ated with the proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.

(H) PREPARER(S)

Jami Christley J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578-3388 jami.christley@jccteam.com(I) REFERENCES
Authors:

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Eff ects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water marine mammals: a literature revi ew. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on mari ne turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolu lu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429.

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benef its from regulatory cons ideration of synthetic drilling muds. Environmental Assessmen t Division, Argonne Na tional Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-43.

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluid contaminated cuttings in waters of the United States. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sens itivity of seabird populations in Al aska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mana gement, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLMYK-ES-81-006-1792.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: en tanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: s ources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 99-139.

Majors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed to seal bombs in the eastern tropi cal Pacific purse-sein e fishery–an annotated bibliography. NOAA Admini strative Report LJ-90-06.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. A nnual report to Congress – 1998.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Ke ndziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387-397

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk-Hentzelt. 1989. Losses of seabirds by oil pollution at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros, J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2-3): 749-754.

Vermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89:278-298.Although not cited, the following were utilized in prepar ing 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 16 – Pg. 24 of 24 Joint Initial Exploration Plan November 2014 Green Canyon Blocks 600/644/645 (OCS-G 34999/11080/11081) 

### SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION The proposed bottomhole locations of the planned wells have been removed from the Public Information copy of this EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and any interpreted geology.

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. C & C Technologies Survey Services . 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report: “Holstein” Prospect Block 600 (OCS -G-34999), Block 644 (OCS-G-11080) and Block 645 (OCS-G-11081) Green Canyon Area October, 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-35002), 733 (OCS-G35004), and 777 (OCS-G-35007) Green C anyon Area August, 2013, C & C Project #130227. 3. C & C Technologies Survey Servic es. Well Site Clearance Proposed Well Locations “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” a nd “F” Block 600, Block 644 & Block 645 Green Canyon Area July, 2014, C & C Project #140501. 4. Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Control Number O-713).