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-09735

Type - Initial Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G24060 Block - 215 Mississippi Canyon Area

Operator - Eni US Operating Co. Inc.

Wells A, B, C, and D

Semisubmersible and Drillship

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

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

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

Chiquita Hill

Plan Coordinator

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

November 22, 2013
INITIAL 

EXPLORATION PLAN 

MISSISSIPPI CANYON BLOCK 215 

LEASE OCS-G 24060 

PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY 

Submitted by: 

eni us operating co. inc. 
ENI US OPERATING CO. INC. 

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN 

LEASE OCS-G 24060 

 MISSISSIPPI CANYON BLOCK 215 

SECTION A Plan Contents 

SECTION B General Information

SECTION C Geological, Geophysical Information

SECTION D H2S Information 

SECTION E Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

SECTION F Wastes and Discharge Information 

SECTION G Air Emissions Information

SECTION H Oil Spills Information

SECTION I Environmental Monitoring Information 

SECTION J Lease Stipulations Information 

SECTION K Environmental Mitigation Measures Information 

SECTION L Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 

SECTION M Onshore Support Facilities Information 

SECTION N Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information 

SECTION O Environmental Impact Analysis

SECTION P Administrative Information 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 1 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION A 

PLAN CONTENTS 

(a) Plan Information Form

This proposed Initial Exploration Plan is for the drilling and completion of Well Locations “A” and “B”, 

in Lease OCS-G 24060, Mississippi Canyon Block 215. An OCS Plan Information Form – “Form 

BOEM-0137” is included under this section with further activity description. 

Dominion acquired this lease on June 1, 2002 and in July 2007 Eni US Operating Co. Inc., purchased 

Dominion and its assets including this lease. Lease OCS-G 24060 has an expected expiration date of May 

31, 2013 and has not been drilled nor developed to date; therefore there are no existing approved permits. 

On May 30, 2013, BSEE approved Unit Contract No. 754313006, in which became effective 

05/30/2013 and consists of G24059, G24060. In addition, a Unit Suspension of Production 

(SOP) was approved from June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013. 

Drilling activities being proposed under this plan are scheduled to commence on or before December 1, 

2013 dependant on rig availability. 

(b) Bathymetry Map

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is located approximately 64.5 statute miles southwest of the Louisiana 

shoreline. A map (1”= 2000’), showing surface location and water depth of the proposed wells is being 

included under this section. 

(c) Description of the Important Safety and Pollution Prevention Features for Drilling Unit

Eni will use either a semisubmersible or drillship with subsea BOP’s, and will comply with all of the 

regulations of the ABS, IMO and USCG. All drilling operations will be conducted under the provisions of 

30 CFR, Part 250, Subpart D, and other applicable regulations and notice to lessees, including those 

regarding the avoidance of potential drilling hazards and safety and pollution prevention control. Such 

measures as inflow detection and well control, monitoring for loss of circulation and seepage loss, and 

casing design will be our primary safety measures. 

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

areas to collect all contaminants and debris. All discharges will be in accordance with applicable EPA 

NPDES permits. 

(d) Storage Tanks and/or Production Vessels for both Semi-Submersible and DP Drillship

Type of 

Storage Tank 

Type of 

Facility 

Tank Capacity 

(bbls) 

Number 

of Tanks 

Total 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Fluid 

Gravity 

(API) 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) Semi-submersible 16,700 1 16,700 36° 

Active Mud Pits Semi-submersible 4,500 1 4,500 NA 

Reserve Liquid Mud 

Storage Semi-submersible 11,750 1 11,750 NA 

Drill Water Semi-submersible 14,000 1 14,000 NA 

Potable Water Semi-submersible 1,570 1 1,570 NA 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 1 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Type of 

Storage Tank 

Type of 

Facility 

Tank Capacity 

(bbls) 

Number 

of Tanks 

Total 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Fluid 

Gravity 

(API) 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 901 4 3604 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 19,386.8 2 38,773.6 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 988 2 1976 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 4,400 1 4,400 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 1.26 4 5.04 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 1.58 1 1.58 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 4.76 1 4.76 0.35 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) DP Drillship 225 2 450 0.35 

Liquid Mud DP Drillship 51.3 1 51.3 -- 

Drill Water DP Drillship 559 1 559 -- 

Potable Water DP Drillship 199.6 1 199.6 -- 

(e) Processing Fee: 

A Pay.gov receipt is being included in this plan in the amount of $ 14,692.00 to cover the cost and 

processing fee for the proposed operations being conducted under this plan.

(f) Pollution Prevention Measures

Pursuant to NTL 2008-G04 the proposed operations covered by this EP do not require Eni to specifically 

address the discharges of oils and greases from the rig during rainfall or routine operations. Nevertheless, 

Eni has provided this information as part of its response to (c) above. 

(g) Additional Measures

Health, safety, and environment are the primary topics in pre-tour and pre-job safety meetings. The 

discussion around no harm to people or environment is a key mindset. All personnel are reminded daily to 

inspect work areas for safety issues as well as potential pollution issues. 
U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/2014 

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM 

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

5

9

GENERAL INFORMATION 

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

Company Name: Eni US Operating Co., Inc. BOEM Operator Number: 02782 

Address: 1200 Smith, Suite 1700 Contact Person: Brenda Montalvo 

Houston, Texas 77002 Phone Number: (713) 393-6259 

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a) provide the Amount paid $ 14,692.00 Receipt No. 25BHF18Q 

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Lease: G24060 Area: MC Block: 215 Project Name (If Applicable): Odd Job 

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

Platform/Well Name: A Total Volume of WCD: 309,470 API Gravity: 34 

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 64.5 Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 33.7 MMBOPD 

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

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

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

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

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

Description of Proposed Activities Scheduled (Mark all that apply) 

Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days 

Exploration drilling Well Location A 12/01/2013 01/29/2014 60 

Well completion Well Location A 01/30/2014 02/28/2014 60 

Exploration drilling Well Location B 03/01/2014 04/29/2014 60 

Well completion Well Location B 04/30/2014 06/28/2014 60 

Well text flaring (for more than 48 hours) --- --- --- 

Installation of subsea wellheads and/or manifolds --- --- --- 

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure 

Jackup X Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform 

Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower 

X Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed Tower 

DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach Description) Floating Production 

System Other (Attach Description) 

Drilling Rig Name (If Known): 

Description of Lease Term Pipelines 

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

 
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

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

MMS Form MMS-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form MMS-137, which may not be used.) 

Proposed Well/Structure Location 

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, 

reference previous name): Well Location 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 surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your proposed 

activities? X YES NO 

WCD info 

For wells, volume of 

uncontrolled blowout 

(Bbls/day): 309,470

For structures, volume of all storage and 

pipelines (Bbls): --- 

API Gravity 

of fluid: 34° 

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

separate lines)

Lease No. OCS-G 24060 

Area Name Mississippi Canyon 

Block No. 215 

Blockline 

Departures 

(in feet)

N/S Departure: 

3,360.17’ FNL 

E/W Departure: 

2,068.97’ FEL 

Lambert 

X-Y 

Coordinates

X: 

1,312,651.03’ 

Y: 

10,451,039.83 

Latitude/ 

Longitude

Latitude 

28° 47’ 40.531 

Longitude 

-88° 01’ 25.082” 

Water Depth (Feet): 6,000’ 

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 12,295’ 

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

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain or Seafloor 

 X= Y= 

 X= Y=

 

 
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

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

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

Proposed Well/Structure Location 

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, 

reference previous name): Location 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 surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your proposed 

activities? X YES NO 

WCD info 

For wells, volume of 

uncontrolled blowout 

(Bbls/day): 309,470

For structures, volume of all storage and 

pipelines (Bbls): --- 

API Gravity 

of fluid: 34 

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

separate lines)

Lease No. OCS-G 24060 

Area Name Mississippi Canyon 

Block No. 215 

Blockline 

Departures 

(in feet) 

N/S Departure: 

3748.31’ FNL 

E/W Departure: 

7754.75’ FWL 

Lambert 

X-Y 

Coordinates

X: 

1,306,634.75’ 

Y: 

10, 450,651.69’ 

Latitude/ 

Longitude

Latitude 

28 47’ 36.170” 

Longitude 

88 02’ 32.676” 

Water Depth (Feet): 6,000’ 

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 12,295’ 

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

Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain or Seafloor 

 X= Y= 

 X= Y=

 

 




Online Payment

Step 3: Confirm Payment 1 | 2 | 3

Thank you.

Your transaction has been successfully completed.

Pay.gov Tracking Information

Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF

Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25BHF18Q

Agency Tracking ID: 74475603228

Transaction Date and Time: 07/12/2013 14:09 EDT

Payment Summary

Address Information

Account Holder 

Name:

Eni Petroleum 

No3 

Billing Address: 1200 Smith St. 

Billing Address 2: Suite 1700 

City: Houston 

State / Province: TX 

Zip / Postal Code: 77002 

Country: USA 

Account Information

Card Type: American Express 

Card 

Number: ************1002 

Region: Gulf of Mexico 

Contact: 

Brenda Montalvo 

713-393-6259 

Company 

Name/No: 

Eni US Operating 

Co. Inc., 2782 

Lease 

Number(s): 24060, , , , 

Area-Block: 

Mississippi Canyon 

MC, 215: , : , : , : , 

Surface 

Locations: 4 

Payment Information

Payment Amount: $14,692.00

Transaction Date 

and Time:

07/12/2013 

14:09 EDT

Pay.gov - Online Payment Page 1 of 1

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/payments/authorizePlasticCardPayment.html 7/12/2013
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 2

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION B 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

(a) Applications and Permits

No additional applications or permits from other agencies are required at this time to be submitted and 

approved other than an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) to the appropriate BSEE District. 

(b) Drilling Fluids 

Drilling fluids to be used for this well are described in Table 1 under Section F of this plan. 

(e) New or Unusual Technology

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

activities. 

(f) Bonding Statement

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

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

2000-G16, "Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds;" and additional security under 30 CFR 256.53(d) 

and National NTL No. 2008-N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures.” 

(g) Oil Spill Financial Responsibility

Oil Spill Financial Responsibility coverage will be obtained under Eni US Operating Co. Inc., 

BOEM/BSEE company number 02782 for the activities proposed under this Initial Exploration Plan 

according to 30 CFR Part 253; and NTL No. 2008-N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility 

for Covered Facilities". 

(h) Deepwater Well Control Statement

Eni US Operating Co. Inc., BSEE/BOEM company number 02782, has the financial capability to drill a 

relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations. 

 

(j) Blowout Scenario

Should a blow-out occur, the formation types in this area tend to bridge over of their own accord. Eni will 

use sub-surface BOPs with accumulator bottles attached to the BOP skid package. Sufficient accumulator 

bottles to activate the BOPs are located on the BOP skid package. The control lines are fed from the rig to 

the sub-surface control system which activates the BOP. Two activation systems exist to allow rig floor 

activation or remote activation of the BOPs. 

If the BOP and wellhead remain intact but do not close upon activation from the rig, ROVs located either 

on the rig or a stand-by boat shall be launched to attempt to close the BOPs by pumping into the 

secondary intervention devices located on the BOP within twelve (12) hours, unless the area is deemed 

unsafe. Once the area is deemed safe to enter, ships will launch ROVs to perform the intervention actions. 

The present calculated release from the wellbore is 309,470 Bbls of oil per day and 247.6 MM cubic feet 

of gas per day. If a relief well to kill the original well was required; it would be expected to take 109 days 

to complete kill of the original well.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 3

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

An approximate breakdown of this time using only DP rigs would include: 

Time of obtain rig, rig to temporarily abandon well they are presently on, and move to location of blowout: 10 days 

Drill to depth 69 days 

Drill to intersect point 20 days 

Drill Intersection 7 days 

Kill with downhole kill procedure 3 days

Flow Rate per Day Duration of Blowout Total Volumes

Oil – 309,470 BOPD 109 Days 33,732,230 BBL 

Gas – 247.6 MMCF per day 109 Days 26,988.4 MMCF 

Therefore a total release if the well did not bridge over would be 33.7 million barrels of oil and 27 Bcf of 

gas. The closest structure to the location is the British Petroleum Horm Mountain spar approximately 10 

miles from well center. Use of the spar to drill a relief well would not be feasible due to distance from the 

well to the spar. Eni would use only Dynamically Positioned (DP) rigs for the relief well operations. Eni 

would use two (2) to possibly three (3) rigs to ensure the blow-out well could be brought under control 

even if one relief well encountered problems while drilling. 

Eni follows the BSEE schedule for BOP tests and expects and demands that BOPs are kept functional by 

the contractors. Eni will shut down operations for any repairs needed on well control devices anytime 

they are not considered functional and safe. Eni uses Company Representatives with many years of 

experience in drilling operations. The Company Representatives constantly communicate with the OIM 

on the rig to ensure the safety of all personnel and equipment. All Company representatives are trained in 

well control and maintain Well Control Certificates. 

Eni uses multiple liners to cover potential production zones to reduce the risk of loss of well integrity. 

Eni foresees no restrictions for DP rigs to work in the area to perform well intervention and control. Eni 

would review and hire DP rigs for relief well operations to prevent usage of mooring systems therefore 

saving time to bring the well under control. Since the original well bore would be considered un-usable; 

Eni would drill from some distance to prevent either oil or gas from the damaged well, from affecting the 

intervention activities. Flammable meters on the intervention rigs would be supplemented with additional 

detectors on the rig to ensure protection of personnel and equipment. If detectors registered high levels of 

LELs, the rigs would be shut down during that time to protect personnel and the equipment. 

Eni maintains additional materials on board the rig in order to “weight-up” the mud system to control any 

upsets or well control issues. Mud pits are monitored constantly by personnel when operations are 

ongoing. In addition, automatic alarms are located in the pits and will sound if pits receive abnormal 

amounts of return fluids to alert of possible flow control problems. Personnel on the rig floor are trained 

to monitor the systems and respond immediately if a problem is noted or if alarms sound and will take all 

necessary steps including operating the BOPs to maintain control of the well. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 4

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION C 

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION 

(e) Shallow Hazards Report

A shallow hazards survey was conducted over Mississippi Canyon Block 215. Three copies of the 

shallow hazard report are being submitted and are being included with this plan. 

(f) Shallow Hazards Assessment

A shallow hazards assessment that has been prepared for the proposed surface location, evaluating 

seafloor and subsurface geological and man-made features and conditions that may adversely affect 

drilling operations, is included in this plan. 

Attachments 

Site Clearance Letters 




Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 5

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION D 

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION 

(a) Concentration

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

(b) Classification

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), Eni requests that Mississippi Canyon Block 215 be 

classified by BOEM as H2S absent. 

(c) H2S Contingency Plan 

Eni does not anticipate encountering H2S while conducting the proposed exploratory activities. 

(d) Modeling Report 

Eni does not anticipate encountering H2S while conducting the proposed exploratory activities; therefore 

a modeling report is not required at this time. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 6 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION E 

BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION 

(a) High-Density Deepwater Benthic Communities Information 

Activities proposed in this plan will disturb seafloor in water depths greater the 300 meters (984 feet), 

therefore, a report as described in Attachment A of NTL No. 2009-G40 "Deepwater Benthic 

Communities" has been conducted using 3-D seismic information. All seafloor features and areas that 

could be disturbed by the activities proposed in this plan have been identified. 

Map(s) 

Attached to one copy of this EP are maps prepared using high resolution seismic information depicting 

bathymetry, seafloor and shallow geological features, surface location of proposed wells, positions of 

anchors and chains relative to the proposed operations. 

Anchor Assessment – Well Location “A” 

Anchor touchdown area is between 3,000 and 11,295 ft from the proposed wellsite. An additional 1,000-

foot buffer area beyond the approximate maximum anchor radius occurs between 

11,295 ft and 12,295 ft from the proposed wellsite. There are no interpreted features that are expected to 

be able to support high-density deepwater benthic communities in the area; therefore, the potential for 

high-density benthic communities is negligible. 

Anchor and anchor chain touchdown points should avoid the existing pipelines (cables) by at least 500 ft. 

A 2” fiber optic cable reported in the Fugro GIS database (segment 17364) is located about 1,685 ft 

northwest of the site and a 2” pipeline (segment 17851) is located about 12,280 ft west-northwest of the 

site as reported in the Fugro GIS database. No wells are reported in this area. There are five SSS 

contacts in the anchor touchdown area and no contacts lie in the 1,000 ft buffer area beyond the 

approximate maximum anchor radius of 11,295 ft. Tesla suggests avoiding these contacts because the 

identity of these features is unknown. 

Anchor Assessment – Well Location “B” 

Anchor touchdown area is between 3,000 and 12,377 ft from the proposed wellsite. An additional 1,000-

foot buffer area beyond the approximate maximum anchor radius occurs between 12,377 ft and 13,377 ft 

from the proposed wellsite. There are no interpreted features that are expected to be able to support highdensity deepwater benthic communities in the area; therefore, the potential for high-density benthic 

communities is negligible. 

Anchor and anchor chain touchdown points should avoid the existing pipelines (cables) by at least 500 ft. 

A 2” fiber optic cable reported in the Fugro GIS database (segment 17364) is located about 1,729 ft 

southeast of the site and a 2” pipeline (segment 17851) is located about 6,683 ft west-northwest of the site 

as reported in the Fugro GIS database. No wells are reported in this area. There are eight SSS contacts 

in the anchor touchdown area and one contact lies in the 1,000 ft buffer area beyond the approximate 

maximum anchor radius of 12,377 ft. Tesla suggests avoiding these contacts because the identity of these 

features is unknown. 

 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 7 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

(b) Topographic Features Map

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

activity zone”. 

(c) Topographic Features Statement

All activities proposed under this Initial EP will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature Protective 

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

(d) Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) Map

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any live-bottom (pinnacle 

trend) features. 

(e) Live Bottoms (Low Relief) 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is not located within 100 feet of any live-bottom (low-relief) features. 

(f) Potentially Sensitive Biological Features

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive 

biological features. 

(g) Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Surveys

Eni is familiar with the ROV Survey and reporting provisions of NTL 2008-G06. Mississippi Canyon 

Block 215 is located in Grid 16 in the Grid EA and ROV Status Report. The report indicates that Grid 16 

has Adequate ROV survey coverage, therefore Eni is not required to submit a plan for an ROV 

monitoring survey per NTL 2008-G04. 

(h)Threatened and Endangered Species, Critical Habitat, and Marine Mammal Information 

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

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

destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. 

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

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

presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat designated under the 

ESA and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of 

proposes activities under this plan. 

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

and the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle as endangered and the Loggerhead Turtle and Gulf Sturgeon as threatened. 

Currently there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species in the Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf, however, it is possible that one or more of these species could be seen in the area of 

our operations. 

(i) Archaeological Report

The proposed drilling location in Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is located in an area classified by the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as having a high probability for historic shipwrecks and 

is subject to guidelines established in NTL 2005-G07 "Archaeological Surveys and Reports", and NTL 

2006-G07 "Revisions to the Lost of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resources Surveys and 

Reports" and is being submitted under separate cover. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 8 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

(j) Air and Water Quality Information

Pursuant to NTL 2008-G04 the proposed operations covered by this Initial EP do not require Eni to 

provide additional information relating to air and water quality information.

(k) Socioeconomic Information 

Pursuant to NTL 2008-G04 the proposed operations covered by this Initial EP do not require Eni to 

provide additional information relating to socioeconomic. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 9

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION F 

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION 

Projected Generated Wastes and Projected Ocean Discharges

TABLE 1. 

WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE 

GOM 

(c) Modeling Report

Not required by EPA under the OCS General Permit.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 10

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 11

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION G 

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION 

(a) Emissions Worksheets and Screening Questions

Screen Procedures for EP’s Yes No 

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

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

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

(where D = distance to shore in miles)? 

 X 

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified 

emission factors? 

 X 

Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87.5° W longitude? X 

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

Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours from any 

proposed well? 

 X 

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X 

This information was calculated by: Brenda Montalvo 

 (713) 393-6259 

 brenda.montalvo@enipetroleum.com
EXPLORATION PLAN (EP)

AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST

OMB Approval Expires: 12/31

COMPANY Eni US Operating Co. Inc.AREA Mississippi CanyonBLOCK 215LEASE G24060PLATFORM -- WELL A and BCOMPANY CONTACT Brenda MontalvoTELEPHONE NO. 713-393-6259REMARKS Drill and complete

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 1
EMISSIONS FACTORS

Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine RE

SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3

Equipment/Emission Factors units PM SOx NOx VOC CO RE

NG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83 AP42 3.2-NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5 AP42 3NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6 AP42 3NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3

Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3

NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84 AP42 1.4-1, 1

NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5 AP42 1

Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21 AP42 1.3-Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03 E&P FFugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005 API SGlycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6 La. D

Gas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034

Sulphur Content Source Value Units

Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm

Diesel Fuel 0.4 % weight

Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm

Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weight

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 2
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B Brenda Montalvo 713-393-6259 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D

Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM 

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24 31 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 6.92 Semi-Submersible PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10 4 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.03 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12 9 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.08 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24 12 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WELL TEST GAS FLARE 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2013 YEAR TOTAL 27.44 125.88 943.24 28.30 205.80 7.88 

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2147.85 

64.5

FORM BOEM-0138 (Octoer 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 3
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Eni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B Brenda Montalvo 713-393-6259 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D

Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM S

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24.00 180.00 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 40.19 18Semi-Submersible PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10.00 26.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.19 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12.00 51.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.45 2VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24.00 12.00 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

WELL TEST GAS FLARE 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

2014 YEAR TOTAL 27.44 125.88 943.24 28.30 205.80 41.68 19

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2147.85 21

64.5

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011- Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 4 
SUMMARY

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLEni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2013 7.88 36.16 270.96 8.13 59.12

2014 41.68 36.16 1432.76 42.98 312.60

Allowable 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.97

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 5
EXPLORATION PLAN (EP)

AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST

OMB Approval Expires: 12/31

COMPANY Eni US Operating Co. Inc.AREA Mississippi CanyonBLOCK 215LEASE G24060PLATFORM -- WELL A and BCOMPANY CONTACT Brenda MontalvoTELEPHONE NO. 713-393-6259REMARKS Drill and complete using Drillship

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 1
EMISSIONS FACTORS

Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine RE

SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3

Equipment/Emission Factors units PM SOx NOx VOC CO RE

NG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83 AP42 3.2-NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5 AP42 3NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6 AP42 3NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3

Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3

NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84 AP42 1.4-1, 1

NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5 AP42 1

Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21 AP42 1.3-Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03 E&P FFugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005 API SGlycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6 La. D

Gas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034

Sulphur Content Source Value Units

Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm

Diesel Fuel 0.4 % weight

Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm

Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weight

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 2
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B Brenda Montalvo 713-393-6259 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D

Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM 

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 29556 1427.5548 34261.32 24 31 20.83 95.57 716.11 21.48 156.24 7.75 Drillship PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10 4 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.03 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12 9 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.08 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24 12 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WELL TEST GAS FLARE 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2013 YEAR TOTAL 29.66 136.08 1019.70 30.59 222.48 8.71 

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2147.85 

64.5

FORM BOEM-0138 (Octoer 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 3
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Eni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B Brenda Montalvo 713-393-6259 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D

Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM S

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 29556 1427.5548 34261.32 24.00 180.00 20.83 95.57 716.11 21.48 156.24 45.00 20Drillship PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10.00 26.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.19 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12.00 51.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.45 2VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24.00 12.00 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

WELL TEST GAS FLARE 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

2014 YEAR TOTAL 29.66 136.08 1019.70 30.59 222.48 46.49 21

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2147.85 21

64.5

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011- Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 4 
SUMMARY

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLEni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060 -- A and B

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2013 8.71 39.96 299.40 8.98 65.32

2014 46.49 39.96 1597.93 47.94 348.64

Allowable 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.97

FORM BOEM-0138 (October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used). Page 5
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 12 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION H 

OIL SPILLS INFORMATION 

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning 

(2)(i) All proposed activities in this Initial EP will be covered under Eni US Operating Co. Inc.’s Regional OSRP 

filed by Eni US Operating Co. Inc., BOEM/BSEE GOM Number 02782, and approved on September 12, 2012 in 

accordance with 30 CFR 254 with last modification submitted on January 30, 2013 to reflect the highest worst case 

spill volume being submitted under this plan. BOEM accepted Eni’s worst case certification on February 21, 2013. 

(a)(2)(ii) Spill Response Sites 

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location(s) 

Clean Gulf Associates - Venice, Louisiana Clean Gulf Associates – Galveston, Ingleside, 

and Houston, Texas, Intracoastal City, Venice, 

Lake Charles, Leeville, Houma, and Fort 

Jackson, Louisiana 

(a)(2)(iii) OSRO INFORMATION 

Eni’s primary equipment provider is Clean Gulf Associates (CGA). 

(a)(2)(iv) WORST-CASE SCENARIO COMPARISON 

Category Regional OSRP 

WCD 

EP 

WCD 

Type of Activity Drilling Drilling 

Facility Location 

(Area/Block) MC 546 MC 215 

Facility Designation Well Location G Well Location A 

Distance to Nearest Shoreline 

(miles) 38 64.5 

Volume 

 Storage tanks (total) 

 Uncontrolled blowout 

Total Volume 

156,816 309,470 

Type of Oil(s) 

(crude, condensate, diesel) Oil Oil 

API Gravity 41.3 ° 34° 

Eni has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP do supersede the worst-case 

scenario from our approved OSRP dated September 12, 2012, most recently modified and pending BSEE approval. 

Therefore, Eni plans to submit a modification to the approved OSRP on or before July 22, 2013 to include the new 

worst-case that will replace the current volume of 156,816 under MC546. 

Per NTL2010-N06, Worst Case Discharge Calculations/Assumptions for this plan are included in this section. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 13 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

(b) Spill Response Discussion for NEPA Analysis

Worst Case Discharge scenario for MC 215 

1) Worst Case Summary 

Eni Petroleum has estimated its worst case discharge scenario for exploratory operations may 

occur from MC 215. Given the anticipated reservoir thickness and historical productivity index 

the worst case discharge is estimated to be 309,470 barrels of crude oil per day. Calculations are 

based on formulas defined by BSEE regulations. 

This individual summary includes the following maps and information: 

1. Overview Map 

2. Offset Operators Map 

3. Land Impact Probability Map 

4. Aerial Surveillance Response Equipment Status Boards 

5. Equipment Location Map 

6. In-Situ Burn Equipment Status Boards 

7. Dispersant Application Map 

8. Dispersant Application Status Boards 

9. Spill Containment Equipment Status Boards 

10. On-Water Recovery Response Equipment Status Boards 

11. Storage Equipment Status Boards 

12. Nearshore Recovery Equipment Status Boards 

13. Shoreline Protection & Wildlife Support Status Boards 

2) Facility Information 

• Type of Operation: Production 

• Area and Block: Mississippi Canyon Block 215 

• Latitude: 28° 47’ 36.2” 

• Longitude: 88° 02’ 32.4” 

• Distance to Shore: 64.5 Miles 

• Water Depth: 6,008’ 

• API Gravity: 34° 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 14 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

3) Worst Case Discharge Volume 

An ADIOS 2 model was run on a similar product based on the oil that would reach the surface. The 

results indicate 20% of the product would be evaporated / naturally dispersed into the water column 

within 24 hours. Below is a table outlining the estimated applicable subsea and surface evaporation and 

dispersion quantities.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 15

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 16

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 17 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 18

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 19 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 20 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 21 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 22

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 23 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 24

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 25 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 26 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 27 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 28 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 29 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 30 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 31 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 32 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 33 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 34 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 35 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

6) Response 

Eni has contracted with Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) as the primary Oil Spill Removal Organization. 

Contact information and procedures for requesting OSRO’s resources can be found in Section 7. 

Upon notification of the spill, procedures in Section 6 will be followed with the partial or full 

mobilization of the resources identified in Appendix E, depending on the incident complexity. The status 

boards, located in this Appendix, outline equipment as well as temporary storage equipment to be 

considered in order to cope with an initial spill. The status boards outline on-water containment, on-water 

recovery, temporary storage, aerial and vessel dispersant application, in-situ burning and shoreline 

protection equipment identified as most relevant in addressing any oil that remains present on the surface 

of the water. These status boards estimate times needed for procurement, load out, travel to the site and 

deployment. 

The Qualified Individual, Person in Charge, Incident Commander or designee may contact other service 

companies if the Unified Command deems such services necessary to the response effort. The status 

boards above outline recovery equipment as well as temporary storage equipment to be considered in 

order to cope with an initial worst case discharge at the source. The status board list estimates individual 

times needed for procurement, load-out, travel time to the site, and deployment. In addition, either a fixed 

wing aircraft or helicopter would be dispatched for aerial surveillance at the spill location. The dispatch of 

aerial support will be 

dependent on available daylight hours, weather conditions, and other safety considerations. Aerial support 

may also be used to coordinate and survey response efforts (such as in-situ burning, dispersant application 

and mechanical recovery). The effectiveness of these response efforts can be enhanced will the use of airbased spotters, who can guide these systems to the different oil concentrations and assist will the 

coordination of simultaneous operations. Air-based spotters may be equipped with air to marine/ground 

communication equipment. 

Simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) may involve different companies working in close proximity on 

identical and/or different tactical objectives. SIMOPS can be either subsea operations, surface operations 

or a combination of both. These operations must be well planned and coordinated. SIMOPS will be 

evaluated daily and coordinated based on the response efforts needs, as well as, additional criteria’s (e.g. 

meteorological conditions, sea state, etc.). Regular communications will be established and maintained 

during all SIMOPS activities. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 36 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

6) Response (Cont’d) 

Vessel locations may also be monitored with real-time vessel tracking technologies, such as Automated 

Identification Systems (AIS), GPS tracking, cell phone data, etc. These technologies may be used to 

direct vessels to the appropriate areas of oil concentration to enhance encounter rates. 

The company will maintain an effective and well-coordinated response effort for the duration of the 

response effort to control the source of the spill and to the point when the Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

deems the response effort complete. 

Response Technologies Discussion 

This section discusses various response technologies (in no prioritized order) that might be employed 

during a response to a discharge of oil. The particular response technologies applied during a spill event 

will be coordinated based on the most accurate and up-to-date knowledge of the situation, which will 

determine the types of technology to be used, the locations at which particular technologies are applied, 

and the implementation of simultaneous operations (SIMOPS). 

Eni will work with their OSRO(s) to establish a remote sensing program during an incident. The goal of 

the remote sensing program is to integrate a common operating picture for the entire response. Remote 

sensing capabilities will be used on aircraft, vessels, and other platforms as appropriate. The following 

table outlines some of the goals of a remote sensing program.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 37 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

6) Response (Cont’d) 

Extended Response Operations 

For an extended response to an uncontrolled well blowout of up to 120 days, additional provisions for 

sustained operations and source control will be implemented by the Unified Command as necessary. 

These options may include but are not limited to the following:

a) Offshore Response 

Offshore response strategies may include skimming with Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRVs), Oil Spill 

Response Barges (OSRBs), and Quick Strike OSRVs. 

Initial response will likely consist of an Oil Spill Response Vessel (OSRV) due to quick mobilization and 

response time of these dedicated vessels. All estimated response times are captured in the Status Boards 

above. Additional response equipment and resources will begin cascading in to the site or staging area(s). 

An offshore response will consist of simultaneous operations of containment booming and skimming 

operations. Dispersant application and in-situ burn operations will be evaluated by Unified Command, 

and if approved, these techniques will be used in the simultaneous operations. The equipment maybe used 

in the following offshore response strategies.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 38 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 39 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Surveillance 

Upon notification of a release and mobilization of the response, either a fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter 

would be dispatched as promptly as possible (considering available daylight hours, weather conditions 

and other safety factors) to conduct visual surveillance at the spill source. If necessary and safe, this 

surveillance could be supplemented through use of vessels as well. The effectiveness of many response 

technologies (such as in-situ burning, dispersant application and mechanical recovery) can be enhanced 

through collaboration with air-based spotters, who can guide these systems to the oil concentrations and 

coordinate simultaneous operations (SIMOPS). Air-based spotters may be equipped with air to 

marine/ground communication equipment to facilitate communications with marine- and land-based 

response assets. Vessel locations may also be monitored in real-time using vesseltracking technologies 

(such as Automated Identification Systems (AIS) data, GPSbased tracking, cell phone data, etc.), which 

can facilitate vessels being deployed for optimal recovery. Additional information regarding methods of 

identifying and tracking a spill on water are discussed in Section 10.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. 

Page 40 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 41 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Current proven and available sensing technology for tracking oil at night includes hand held, boat 

mounted and aircraft mounted infrared sensing. Multiple new oil sensing technologies (radar, satellite 

imagery, fluorometry, etc.) are being reviewed and developed by the industry and as they become more 

mature, proven and available to the industry, The Unified Command will work with the OSROs for 

improving the response capability. These and any other new oil sensing technologies that become 

available will be deployed with the purpose of improving the ability of keeping deployed oil skimming 

platforms in the most highly concentrated areas of spilled oil and may be used to potentially improve the 

capabilities to skim beyond traditional daylight hours. However the latter capability can only be 

implemented taking all aspects of safe operations in account and ensuring that there is no additional risk 

to human life. 

Mechanical oil spill response uses physical barriers (boom) and mechanical devices (skimmers) to 

redirect and remove oil from the surface of the water. 

Dispersant Application 

Applying dispersant from aerial, vessel, and subsea applications may be a viable response option and will 

require the appropriate approvals as outlined in Section 18, Dispersant Use Plan. All dispersant 

application methods must be approved by the appropriate RRT and will be in compliance with RRT IV 

and VI guidelines. 

A listing of the Aerial Dispersant Equipment is located on the status boards within this Section. 

Aerial Dispersant Application 

Dispersants from aerial and vessel applications may be viable response options and will require the 

appropriate approvals as outlined in Section 18, Dispersant Use Plan. If deemed appropriate and with 

approval, aerial dispersant application can be utilized with ASI’s three DC-3s. Assuming a 1:20 

application rate, 90% effectiveness, and 4-5 sorties per day. 

Vessel Based Dispersant Application 

Vessel-based dispersant application is another available response option. In previous responses, boatspray systems were used for both dispersing oil and suppressing vapors near the spill source on the water 

surface Vessel-based dispersants are also applied under the direction and approval of a designated Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), and in a manner consistent with the National Contingency Plan and the 

applicable Regional Response Plan(s) and/or Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). 

If appropriate, vessel spray systems can be installed on offshore vessels of opportunity to apply 

dispersants at the source or at other areas where there are significant concentrations of oil. Using inductor 

nozzles installed on fire-water monitors, skid mounted systems, or purpose-built boom-arm spray 

systems, vessels can initially apply dispersant within the first 12 to 24 hours of the response, and 

thereafter as needed. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 42 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Priorities for dispersant use and rationing of existing supplies will be determined on an incident specific 

basis to allow for maximum effectiveness of dispersants. Dispersant use will be dictated by approval, 

safety, weather, and sea states before application and coordinated with Unified Command. In addition, 

after assessing the situation and notifications will be made within 48 hours of the initial spill to begin 

ramping up dispersant production through Nalco, as discussed in Section 18, Dispersant Use Plan. 

All dispersant application will be in compliance with RRT IV and VI guidelines. 

For additional information regarding dispersant response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual edition 

Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook and the National Response Corporation’s Spill 

Response Guidebook. 

In-situ Burning 

Open-water in-situ burning (ISB) also may be used as a response strategy,depending on the circumstances 

of the release. ISB services may be provided by the primary OSRO contractors. If appropriate conditions 

exist and approvals are granted, one or multiple ISB task forces could be deployed offshore. 

Task forces typically consist of two to four fire teams, each with two vessels capableof towing fire boom, 

guide boom or tow line with either a handheld or aeriallydeployed oil ignition system. At least one 

support/safety boat would be present during active burning operations to provide logistics, safety and 

monitoring support. Depending upon a number of factors, up to 4 burns per 12-hour day could 

becompleted per ISB fire team. Most fire boom systems can be used for approximately 8-12 burns before 

being replaced. Fire intensity and weather will be the main determining factors for actual burns per 

system. Although the actual amount of oil that will be removed per burn is dependent on many factors, 

recent data suggests that a typical burn might eliminate approximately 750 barrels. For planning purposes 

and based on the above assumptions, a single task force of four fire teams with the appropriate weather 

and safety conditions could complete four burns per day and remove up to ~12,000 bbls/day. 

After assessing the situation and notification should be made within the 48 hours of the initial spill to 

begin ramping up fire boom production through contracted OSRO(s) as discussed in Section 19, In-situ 

Burn Plan. 

Considerations and limitations to ISB include atmospheric and sea conditions, oil weathering, air quality 

impacts, safety of response workers, and risk of secondary fires. All safety considerations will be 

evaluated. Additional information on ISB is presented in Section 19, In-situ Burn Plan. 

For additional information regarding in-situ burning response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual 

edition Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 43 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Well Containment 

The initial response to a well blowout would be an attempt to activate the blowout preventers and close 

the well. The Source Control team will be stood up immediatelyith notifications to the primary well 

control provider, Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG) in the event of a blowout. The first step will 

be determining the method for source control (ie. capped and killed or captured and flow). These options 

will bedetermined prior to drilling using the Well Containment Screening Tool. 

Subsea containment resources would be mobilized in the event of an uncontrolled well blowout. Subsea 

containment incorporates simultaneous operations to cap or contain the flow of oil within the well, 

contain the oil outside of the well and collect at surface facilities or vessels and chemically disperse the 

oil at the well head. HWCG has been contracted to supply the subsea dispersant applications. 

Subsea containment activities, including Source Control are addressed in Appendix I.

For additional detailed information on these systems, their components, and deployment times, refer to 

the current Marine Well Containment Company Interim Containment Response System Functional 

Specifications USWC-ED-BPFEP-000001 provided to BSEE by HWCG. Information on how these 

systems will be deployed to respond to a specific well, can be found in the NTL 2010-N10 information 

submitted as a supplement to the individual “Application for Permit to Drill.”
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 44 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

b) Nearshore and Shoreline Protection 

If a nearshore spill were to occur, shoreline impact would depend upon existing environmental conditions. 

Nearshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and 

sorbent boom on vegetated areas, as well as shallow water response strategies. Sorbent boom is a readily 

available resource and can be acquired as needed. OSRO’s have resources which can be deployed for a 

shoreline cleanup effort (equipment locations are depicted on the Equipment Location map), as well as 

the contractor Shoreline Protection & Wildlife Support Status Board in this section. 

Strategies would be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories provided by The Response Group 

that depict areas of potential impact given actual sea and weather conditions. Strategies from the Area 

Contingency Plan, The Response Group and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that 

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

optimal protection. The deployment of nearshore resources with night sensing capabilities to enhance 

slick tracking may be used during night time operations. The use of night sensing capabilities (e.g. x-band 

radar systems, infrared cameras, etc.) will assist deployment of assets to areas consisting of the thickest 

oil to enhance the encounter and recovery rates. 

For additional information regarding Nearshore and Shoreline response strategies, refer to the 

MSRC/CGA dual edition Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook, the National 

Response Corporation’s Spill Response Guidebook, the Area Contingency Plans, and the appropriate 

Shoreline Response Strategy Guidebook developed by The Response Group. 

Surveillance 

Either a fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter will conduct visual surveillance to assess the situation and assist 

in coordinating Nearshore and Shoreline response activities. If necessary and safe, this surveillance could 

be supplemented through use of vessels as well. The effectiveness of many response technologies (such as 

in-situ burning, dispersant application and mechanical recovery) can be enhanced through collaboration 

with air-based spotters, who can guide these systems to the oil concentrations and coordinate 

simultaneous operations (SIMOPS). Air-based spotters may be equipped with air to marine/ground 

communication equipment to facilitate communications with marine- and land-based response assets. 

Vessel locations may also be monitored in real-time using vessel-tracking technologies (such as 

Automated Identification Systems (AIS) data, GPS-based tracking, cell phone data, etc.), which can 

facilitate vessels being deployed for optimal recovery. Additional information regarding methods of 

identifying and tracking a spill on water are discussed in Section 10.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 45 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Mechanical Cleanup Methods 

In order to minimize shoreline impact, mechanical recovery resources will be deployed to contain and 

collect oil. In shallow water areas, it may be possible to collect and corral oil with ocean boom and move 

it to deeper water or low-current areas that allow for better skimmer access and higher encounter and 

recovery rates. Skimmers will also be deployed in natural collection points along the shoreline.

For additional information regarding mechanical response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual 

edition Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook and the National Response Corporation’s 

Spill Response Guidebook.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 46 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Dispersant Applications 

Dispersant use within 10 miles of shore will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Consideration will be 

given according to the location of the spill material, distance from shore, water depth, trajectory 

modeling, and environmental impacts of a non-dispersed spill. The Near Shore Environmental Dispersant 

Expedited Approval Process (NSE EAP) Initial Call and Minimum Criteria Checklists are located in 

Figure 18-11 and Figure 18-12. If deemed appropriate and with approval, aerial dispersant application can 

be utilized aerial dispersants denoted in the Status Boards above. It is assumed there will be a 1:20 

application rate, 90% effectiveness with the ability to conduct 4-5 sorties per day. 

Vessel dispersant application may be another available response option. If appropriate, vessel spray 

systems can be installed on offshore vessels of opportunity using inductor nozzles (installed on fire-water 

monitors), skid mounted systems, or purpose-built boom arm spray systems. Vessels can apply dispersant 

within the first 12-24 hours of the response and continually as directed. 

All dispersant applications will be in compliance with the RRT IV and VI guidelines. For additional 

information regarding dispersant response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual edition Gulf of 

Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook and the National Response Corporation’s Spill Response 

Guidebook. 

In-situ Burning 

In-situ burning nearshore and along shorelines may be a possible option based on several conditions and 

with appropriate approvals from the RRT, as outlined in Section 19, In-situ Burn Plan. In-situ burning 

along certain types of shorelines may be used to minimize physical damage where access is limited or if it 

is determined that mechanical/manual removal may cause a substantial negative impact on the 

environment. All safety considerations will be evaluated. 

Additional information on ISB is presented in Section 19, the In-Situ Burn Plan. In addition, after 

assessing the situation and notifications will be made within 48 hours of the initial spill to begin ramping 

up fire boom production through contracted OSRO(s) as discussed in Section 19, the In-situ Burn Plan. 

For additional information regarding in-situ burning response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual 

edition Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook and the National Response Corporation’s 

Spill Response Guidebook.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 47 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

Shoreline Protection 

The Response Group’s Shoreline Response Guides depict the protection response modes 

applicable for oil spill clean-up operations. Each response mode is schematically represented 

to show optimum deployment and operation of the equipment in areas of environmental 

concern. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment and operation of 

equipment, allowing a more effective response to site-specific circumstances. The following 

are various types of boom that may be deployed to protect the shoreline.

For more information on resource identification and protection methods, see Section 11, Resource 

Identification. A time frame for the mobilization of equipment is outlined in Section 14, Mobilization & 

Deployment Methods, based on equipment locations. See Section 15, Oil & Debris Removal for 

additional shoreline cleanup and protection methods. 

For additional information regarding shoreline response strategies, refer to the MSRC/CGA dual edition 

Gulf of Mexico Deep Blue Response Tactics Guidebook, the National Response Corporation’s Spill 

Response Guidebook, the Area Contingency Plans, and the appropriate Shoreline Response Strategy 

Guidebook developed by The Response Group. 

Wildlife Support 

If wildlife is threatened due to a spill, the OSRO’s have resources available that can be utilized to protect 

and rehabilitate wildlife. See Appendix E, Response Equipment, for details on the available resources, 

and Section 17, Wildlife Rehabilitation Procedures, for further details on the protection and rehabilitation 

of affected wildlife and contacts for available wildlife protection and rehabilitation providers 

.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 48 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

(c) Modeling Report 

Not required for the location of the activities proposed in this plan. 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 49

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION I 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(a) Monitoring Systems 

There are no environmental monitoring systems currently in place or planned for the proposed activities.

(b) Incidental Takes 

No incidental takes are anticipated. Eni implements the mitigation measures and monitors for incidental 

takes of protected species according to the following notices to lessees and operators from BOEM/BSEE: 

• NTL 2012-G01 “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination” 

• NTL 2012-Joint-G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting” 

• NTL 2012-Joint G02 “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measure & Protect Species 

Observer Program” 

SECTION J 

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Lease OCS-G 24059, Mississippi Canyon Block 215 is subject to the following lease stipulations 

• Marine Protected Species

Eni will operate in accordance with NTL 2012-Joint-G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting” and NTL 2012-Joint G02 “Implementation of Seismic 

Survey Mitigation Measure & Protect Species Observer Program”, to minimize the risk of vessel 

strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species, and the 

prevention of intentional and/or accidental introduction of debris into the marine environment. 

SECTION K 

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

(a) Measures Taken to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Impacts 

The proposed action will implement mitigation measures required by laws and regulations, including all 

applicable Federal & State requirements concerning air emissions, discharges to water, and solid waste 

disposal, as well as any additional permit requirements and Eni policies. Project activities will be 

conducted in accordance with the Regional OSRP. 

(b) Incidental Takes

Eni US Operating Co. Inc. does not anticipate any incidental takes related to the proposed operations. Eni 

implements the mitigation measures and monitors for incidental takes of protected species according to 

the following notices to lessees and operators from BOEM/BSEE: 

• NTL 2012-G01 “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination” 

• NTL 2012-Joint-G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting” 

• NTL 2012-Joint G02 “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measure & Protect Species 

Observer Program” 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 50 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION L 

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION 

(a) General 

The most practical, direct route from the shorebase as permitted by weather and traffic conditions will be 

utilized. 

Semisubmersible 

Type of Vessel Maximum Fuel Tank Storage 

Capacity 

Maximum Number of 

Vessels in Area at Any 

Time 

Trip Frequency or 

Duration 

Anchor Handling Boat 1500 bbls 2 6 days 

Crew Boat 1500 bbls 1 1 per week 

Supply Boat 2500 bbls 2 2 per vessel per week 

Helicopter 286 gallons 1 1 per day 

Drillship 

Type of Vessel Maximum Fuel Tank Storage 

Capacity 

Maximum Number of 

Vessels in Area at Any 

Time 

Trip Frequency or 

Duration 

Crew Boat 1500 bbls 1 1 per week 

Supply Boat 2500 bbls 2 2 per vessel per week 

Helicopter 286 gallons 1 1 per day 

(b) Diesel Oil Supply Vessels

Size of Fuel Supply 

Vessel 

Capacity of Fuel 

Supply Vessel 

Frequency of Fuel 

Transfers 

Route Fuel Supply 

Vessel Will Take 

240 Foot 2500 Barrels 3 per month Port Fourchon to 

MC215

 

(c) Drilling Fluid Transportation

This table is required for operations in the State of Florida and is not required in this plan. 

(d) Solid and Liquid Waste Transportation

TABLE 2: WASTES YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND /OR DISPOSE OF ONSHORE 

 (e) Vicinity Map

A map showing the location of the activities proposed herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of 

the proposed activities from the shoreline and the primary route(s) of the support vessels and aircraft that 

will be used when traveling between the onshore support facilities and the drilling unit is included under 

this section.
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 51

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

\
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 52

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 53

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION M 

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION 

(a) General 

The table below is the onshore facilities that will be used to provide supply and service support for the 

proposed activities under this plan:

Name of Shorebase Location Existing/New/Modified 

Fourchon, LA – Gulf Offshore 

Logistics 

300 AT Gisclair Road 

Fourchon, LA 70357 

Existing 

PHI Heliport Houma, LA Existing 

(b) Support Base Construction or Expansion

There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing shorebase 

as a result of the operations proposed in this plan. 

(c) Support Base Construction or Expansion Timetable 

Not applicable, Eni will not be constructing a support base for the proposed operations under this plan. 

(d) Waste Disposal

TABLE 2: 

WASTES YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND /OR DISPOSE OF ONSHORE 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 54

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy


Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 57 

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION O 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) 

In accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 250.227 and 250.261 an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) 

is attached. 

Attachments:

Environmental Report 
30 July 2013 

Page 1 

Appendix 19 

Environmental Impact Analysis 

(A) Impact Producing Factors 

Environmental Impact Analysis Worksheet 

Environmental 

Resources

Impact Producing Factors (IPFs)

Categories and Examples

Refer to a recent Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Lease 

Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs

Emissions 

(air, noise, 

light, etc.)

Effluents 

(muds, 

cuttings, 

other 

discharges 

to the water 

column or 

seafloor)

Physical 

disturbances 

to the seafloor 

(drilling rig or 

anchor 

emplacements, 

etc.)

Wastes 

sent to 

shore for 

treatment 

or disposal

Accidents 

(e.g., oil 

spills, 

chemical 

spills, H2S 

releases)

Discarded 

Trash and 

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)

Chemosynthetic 

communities (4)

Water quality X X X X

Fisheries X X X

Marine mammals X(8) X X(8) X

Sea turtles X(8) X X(8) X

Air quality X(9)

Shipwreck sites (known 

or potential (7)

Prehistoric 

archaeological sites X(7)

Vicinity of Offshore 

Location

Essential fish habitat X X X(6)

Marine and pelagic 

birds X X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(6) X

Wetlands X(6)

Shore birds and coastal 

nesting birds X X(6) X

Coastal wildlife refuges X

Wilderness areas X

Other Resources you 

identify
30 July 2013 

Page 2 

Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix 

1. Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well 

or platform site or any anchors will be installed on the seafloor within the: 

(a) The 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks or the 3-mile zone of Stetson 

Bank; 

(b) The 1000-m, 1-mile, or 3 mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine 

bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) lease; 

(c) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft from any no activity zone; or 

(d) Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 

meters that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached 

to an OCS lease. 

2. Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live 

Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease 

3. Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the 

Live Bottom (Low-Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 

4. Activities on blocks designated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as 

being in water depths 400 meters or greater. 

5. Exploration or production activities where Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) concentrations greater 

than 500 part per million (ppm) may occur. 

6. All activities potentially resulting in an accidental spill of produced liquid polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that may potentially impact these environmental resources. The EIA 

may denote If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource, thus resulting 

in no impact. 

7. All activities involving seafloor disturbances (e.g. anchor placements) in any OCS block with 

a high-probability of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites occurrence (as designated by the BOEM), 

including such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which the 

planned activity will occur. The EIA may denote If the proposed activities are located a 

sufficient distance from a shipwreck or prehistoric site, thus resulting in no impact. 

8. All activities that might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine 

mammals or sea turtles or their critical habitats. 

9. Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle 

tankers or barges. 
30 July 2013 

Page 3 

(B) ANALYSIS 

Site-Specific at Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D 

1. Designated Topographic Features 

Potential Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) on topographic features include physical 

disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & 

D are located approximately 93 miles northeast of Sackett Bank, the nearest known 

topographic feature therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

93 miles northeast of Sackett Bank, the nearest known topographic feature therefore, no 

adverse impacts are expected. 

Accidents: The following discussion of topographic features is summarized from the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; USDOI, MMS, 2002). The Topographic Features 

Stipulation (TFS) has been used on offshore energy leases located in close proximity to 

biotic communities since 1973. The TFS provides protection of biota on in these areas from 

damage occurring as a result of routine oil and gas activities (Schmahl et al. 2012). In the 

unlikely event of an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill, concentrated oil is not 

expected to impact sessile biota on designated topographic features within regional 

proximity. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, a majority of topographic features occur within 150 

to 200 feet of the water’s surface (http:oceanexplorer.noaa.gov, last accessed April 2013); 

therefore, concentrated oil from a surface spill is not likely to reach sessile biota. While 

unlikely, subsurface spills may result in formation and settling of oil-saturated material with 

particles potentially reaching organisms and resulting in adverse impacts; however a 

subsurface spill is expected to disperse and stay suspended or slowly rise to the surface 

(NOAA 2010). ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities 

proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, wastes sent to shore for disposal, and 

discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities potentially impacting topographic 

features. 

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include physical disturbances to the 

seafloor, effluents, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & 

D are located approximately 38.2 miles southwest of Destin Dome Block 661, the nearest 

block protected by the pinnacle trend live bottom stipulation; therefore, no adverse impacts 

are expected. The following discussion of pinnacle trend areas of live bottoms is 

summarized from the Final EIS (USDOI, MMS 2002). Upon identification of pinnacles 

present at the activity site, the lessee will be advised to avoid placement of the drilling rig 

and anchors on the identified area. Therefore, mechanical damage to the pinnacles is

avoided by following restrictions listed in the Final EIS for pinnacle trend area live bottoms. 
30 July 2013 

Page 4 

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

38.2 miles southwest of Destin Dome Block 661, the nearest block protected by the pinnacle 

trend live bottom stipulation; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. The stipulation 

does not address the discharge of effluents near the pinnacles because the pinnacle trend is 

subject to heavy natural sedimentation and is at considerable depths. The quick dilution of 

drill cuttings and muds will minimize the potential of significant concentration of effluents on 

the pinnacles (perf.org, last accessed April 2013). 

Accidents: In the unlikely event of an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill, 

concentrated oil is not expected to impact biota of the pinnacle trend. Any surface oil spill 

resulting from a proposed action would likely have no impact on the biota of the pinnacle 

trend because the crests of these features occur at a depth greater than 20 meters. All 

evidence to date indicates that accidental oil discharge occurring at the seafloor from 

pipelines or blowouts will rise in the water column—surfacing almost directly over the source 

location—without impacting pinnacles. In the unlikely event of an accident, adverse impacts 

to pinnacle trend area live bottoms are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill 

Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, wastes sent to shore for disposal, and 

discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities, which could impact pinnacle trend 

area live bottoms. 

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms Low Relief Area

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms low relief area include physical disturbances to 

the seafloor, effluents, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & 

D are located approximately 44 miles southwest of the nearest block (Destin Dome 573) 

protected by the gulf live bottom stipulation, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

The following discussion of eastern gulf live bottom is summarized from the Final EIS 

(USDOI, MMS 2002). Through detection and avoidance, the Eastern Gulf live bottom lease 

stipulation minimizes the likelihood of mechanical damage to the sessile and pelagic 

communities associated with the crest and flanks of such features as a result of OCS 

activities associated with drilling rig and anchor placement. 

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

44 miles southwest of the nearest block (Destin Dome 573) protected by the gulf live bottom 

stipulation, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. Since this area is subject to heavy 

natural sedimentation, this stipulation does not include any specific measures to protect the 

pinnacles from the discharge of effluents. 

Accidents: In the unlikely event of an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill, 

concentrated oil is not expected to impact Eastern Gulf live bottoms because of the features 

and dilution of spills by currents and/or quickly rising oil. However, in the unlikely event of 

an accident, adverse impacts to Eastern Gulf live bottoms are possible. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan 

(IEP) 
30 July 2013 

Page 5 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, wastes delivered to shore for disposal, and 

discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities, which could impact eastern Gulf 

live bottoms. 

4. High-Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

After careful review of the impact-producing factors (including effluents, physical 

disturbances to the seafloor, and accidents) that could result from the activities proposed 

under this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD), Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations 

A, B, C, & D are located approximately 27 miles southwest of the nearest block Vioska Knoll 

826 with known chemosynthetic communities, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Bottom-disturbing activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) will not impact any 

deepwater benthic chemosynthetic communities, as evidenced by the Fugro GeoConsulting 

Inc. Shallow Hazards Assessment Blocks 214 and 215 Mississippi Canyon (12 December 

2012) (Report # 27-2012-2574). The water depth at the surface location of the proposed 

Well A is approximately 6010 feet, Well B 6008 feet, Well C 6065 feet and Well D 6190 feet. 

The proposed activities are not located within the vicinity of any known chemosynthetic 

communities which typically occur in water depths from 300 meters down to the abyssal 

oceanic zone (NTL 2009-G40; www.gomr.boemre.gov, last accessed April 2013). 

The water depth at the surface location of the proposed Well A is approximately 6010 feet, 

Well B 6008 feet, Well C 6065 feet and Well D 6190 feet. Discharge of water-based drilling 

fluids and cuttings at the surface in such water depths will be spread across broad areas of 

the seafloor in thin accumulations with very low impact expected. 

A well site clearance assessment of the seafloor was prepared by Fugro GeoConsulting, 

Inc. using acquired high-resolution geophysical survey data collected by Tesla Offshore 

LLC, November 2012. The results of the seafloor assessment were that there were no high 

density deepwater benthic communities located within the proposed location. 

An accidental oil spill or chemical spill could have a detrimental impact on chemosynthetic 

communities; however, it is highly unlikely that this would occur. If it does occur, ENI U.S. 

Operating Co., Inc. has an approved Oil Spill Response Plan in place which would be 

immediately put into action. There are no other IPFs (including emissions and discarded 

trash and debris) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to chemosynthetic 

communities. 

5. Water Quality

Potential IPFs resulting in water quality degradation from the proposed activities of this Initial 

Exploration Plan (IEP) include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, wastes sent 

to shore for treatment or disposal, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Bottom area disturbances resulting from the 

placement of drill rigs, the drilling of wells and the installation of platforms and pipelines will 

increase water-column turbidity and re-suspension of any accumulated pollutants (e.g. trace 

metals and excess nutrients). Increased turbidity and potential re-suspension of pollutants 

will cause ephemeral impacts on water quality conditions in the immediate vicinity of the 

emplacement operations. 
30 July 2013 

Page 6 

Effluents: The discharge generated as a result of drilling and completion activities 

associated with this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) will be discharged upon successful 

bioassay tests, per NPDES discharge guidelines. All applicable Federal, State and local 

guidelines regarding water quality and discharge for the proposed activities, as well as any 

other permit conditions, will be followed. 

Wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal: Solid wastes—typically paper, plastic, 

cloth, and metal—will be collected and transported to shore for disposal at an approved 

facility. Solid wastes generated from the transportation vessels will be collected and 

returned to shore for disposal concurrent with the drilling rig refuse. Scrap metal and other 

metal wastes will be recycled or sold. Sanitary waste will be treated in approved marine 

sanitation devices as required by the Clean Water Act. All biodegradable wastes, such as 

kitchen food scraps, will be comminuted or ground and discharged in accordance with 

Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978). Hazardous waste from the drilling rig, 

such as paint and/or paint thinner, will be collected in sealed metal containers and 

transported to an approved disposal site in accordance with Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act guidelines. 

Accidents: The following discussion of potential impacts to water quality is summarized 

from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDOI, MMS 2002). In the unlikely event 

of a surface or subsurface oil spill, a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes 

are enacted to disperse the oil. These include as evaporation of the more volatile 

constituents, dissolution into the water column, emulsification of small droplets, 

agglomeration sinking, microbial modification, photochemical modification, biological 

ingestion and excretion, and more. The dissolved components and small oil droplets that do 

not rise to the surface or are mixed down by surface turbulence might temporarily affect the 

water quality. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation may remove the oil from the 

water column or dilute the constituents to background levels. Therefore, adverse impacts to 

water quality are possible, but are unlikely. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response 

Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions and discarded trash and debris) from the 

proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality. 

6. Fisheries

Potential IPFs resulting in impacts to fisheries from the Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) 

proposed activities include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Since the activities proposed under this Initial 

Exploration Plan (IEP)are located at a water depth of approximately 6010, 6008, 6065, and 

6190 feet for well sites A, B, C, and D respectively, the emplacement and removal of 

facilities are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to fisheries. 

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain some 

components and properties that are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum 

and metal contamination of sediments and the water column can occur out to several 

hundred meters down current from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected 
30 July 2013 

Page 7 

to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water column or on the seafloor 

within 3000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have negligible effect on fisheries. 

Accidents: The following discussion of potential impacts to water quality is summarized 

from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDOI, MMS 2002) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Gulf Sturgeon (Ancipenser Oxyrincus 

desotoi) and Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) are the only listed threatened or 

endangered fish species in the Gulf of Mexico (www.noaa.gov, last accessed November 

2012). The current distribution of the Smalltooth Sawfish is limited to peninsular Florida. 

The activities proposed in this plan are not expected to cause adverse effects to the 

Smalltooth Sawfish. The Gulf Sturgeon may potentially be impacted by a spill, if one were to 

occur. While unlikely, contact with spilled oil may cause sublethal to lethal effects in fishes, 

depending on the amount of exposure. The likelihood of spill occurrence and contact to the 

Gulf Sturgeon and other Gulf of Mexico fish is very low. 

Should a spill occur in the area of adult finfish or shellfish, the effects will likely be sublethal 

and the extent of the damage would be dependent on the ability of the adult fishes and 

shellfishes to avoid a spill, to metabolize polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and to excrete 

both metabolites and parent compounds. In the unlikely event of an accident, adverse 

impacts to fisheries are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will 

cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, wastes sent to shore for disposal, and 

discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to 

fisheries. 

7. Marine Mammals 

Potential IPFs potentially impacting marine mammals from the Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) 

proposed activities include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. 

Endangered or threatened marine mammal species occurring in the Gulf of Mexico are West 

Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Humpback 

Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm Whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (www.noaa.gov, last 

accessed September 2012). Several species of non-endangered and non-threatened 

mammal species of whales and dolphins also occur in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Emissions: Disturbances (e.g. noise) may stress marine mammals and weaken their 

immune systems making them more vulnerable to parasites, diseases, environmental 

contaminants, and predation; however, the effect of these stressors on marine mammals is 

dependent upon the intensity and amount of exposure (Wright and Weilgart 2011). There 

are multiple studies debating whether anthropogenic noise and other disturbances cause 

long-term displacement of or population reductions in marine mammal populations. 

Effluents: Contaminants in waste discharge and drilling muds might indirectly affect marine 

mammals through food-chain bioaccumulations. Although the scope of effects and their 

magnitude are not known, direct or indirect effects are not expected to be lethal. 
30 July 2013 

Page 8 

Discarded Trash and Debris: Both entanglement in and ingestion of debris have caused 

death or serious injury in marine mammals (Williams et al. 2011). The marine debris, if any, 

resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to significantly affect marine mammals. 

ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines set forth by the 

Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees and Operators 

(NTL; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement [BSEE]; NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01). 

Accidents: Small numbers of marine mammals may experience mortality or injury by 

chance collision with service vessels. Sperm whales are one of the 11 whale species that 

are hit commonly by ships (Wilson et al. 2007). Collisions between OCS vessels and 

cetaceans within the project area are unlikely. In the case of a vessel-marine mammal 

collision, chronic and or acute sublethal effects may occur and stress or weaken individuals 

making them more susceptible to infection. Few lethal effects are expected from collisions 

with service vessels. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and 

guidelines set forth by Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting Notices to Lessees and Operators (BSEE; NTL 2012-JOINT-G01). 

Oil spills may affect cetaceans. Oil spills may potentially cause sublethal effects and death 

to marine mammals. Additionally, oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in 

the area, adding to changes in marine mammal behavior and distribution. The effect of oil 

dispersants on marine mammals is highly debated, causing results to be inconclusive. 

While an oil spill is improbable, adverse impacts to marine mammals are possible. Oil-spillresponse planning and the habitat protection requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) should mitigate these threats. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan 

Document (IEPD) 

The net result of any disturbance depends on the numbers of cetaceans affected, the 

ecological importance of the disturbed area(s), environmental and biological parameters 

influencing an animal’s sensitivity to disturbance and stress, and various other factors 

(Geraci and St. Aubin 1980). 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could impact marine 

mammals. 

8. Sea Turtles

Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles from the proposed activities of this 

Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and 

accidents. 

Endangered or threatened sea turtle species that occur in the Gulf of Mexico are Kemp’s 

Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill Turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricate), Leatherback Turtle (Demochelys coriacea), and Loggerhead 

Turtle (Caretta caretta) (www.fws.gov, last accessed April 2013). 

Emissions: Brightly lit platforms and noise from drilling activities may affect sea turtle 

behavior temporarily and without lethal effects. 
30 July 2013 

Page 9 

Effluents: Contaminants in waste discharge and drilling muds might indirectly affect sea 

turtles via food-chain bioaccumulation, but there is uncertainty concerning the possible 

direct and indirect effects. Chronic sublethal stressors (e.g. stress) resulting in persistent 

physiological or behavioral changes and/or avoidance of impacted areas may cause 

declines in fecundity and survival of progeny resulting in population declines; however, such 

effects on sea turtles are not expected. 

Discarded Trash and Debris: Both entanglement in and digestion of debris have caused 

the death or serious injury of sea turtles (Schuyler et al. 2012). The limited amount of 

marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially 

harm sea turtles. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines 

set forth by the Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01). 

Accidents: Collisions between OCS vessels and sea turtles within the project area are 

unlikely. In the case of a vessel-sea turtle collision, chronic and or acute sublethal effects 

may occur and stress or weaken individuals making them more susceptible to infection. 

Few lethal effects are expected from collisions with service vessels. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines set forth by Vessel Strike Avoidance 

and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting Notices to Lessees and Operators (BSEE; 

NTL 2012-JOINT-G01). 

In the unlikely event of an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill, sea turtles could be 

adversely impacted. Oil spills and oil-spill-response activities are potential threats that could 

have lethal effects on turtles. Contact with oil, consumption of oil particles, and oilcontaminated prey could seriously affect individual sea turtles. Oil-spill-response planning 

and the habitat protection requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (EPA) should 

mitigate these threats. However, in the unlikely event of an accident, adverse impacts to 

sea turtles are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover 

activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes 

delivered to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could impact 

sea turtles. 

9. Air Quality

Air emissions—particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and 

carbon monoxide, and other compounds—have been estimated for the proposed activities 

and were determined to be below the BOEM exemption levels (www.boem.gov, last 

accessed April 2013). Accidents and blowouts may release polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons and other chemicals, potentially causing the discharge of air pollutants. There 

would be a limited degree of air quality degradation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

activities; however, the emissions associated with the proposed activities are not projected 

to have significant effects on onshore air quality. Atmospheric conditions, emission height, 

emission rates, and the distance to shore are expected to contribute to dilution and 

dispersion of pollutants near the emission source, if pollutants are released. 
30 July 2013 

Page 10 

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbance of the seafloor, wastes 

carried to shore for treatment or disposal, and discarded trash and debris) from the 

proposed activities that may impact air quality. 

10. Shipwreck Sites

After review of IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) resulting from activities 

proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD), there will be no adverse impacts 

to known or potential shipwreck sites. The Archaeological Deep Tow Survey report (January 

2013) performed by Tesla Offshore, LLC indicate that there are no shipwrecks within the 

Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment 

or disposal, accidents, and discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities that may 

impact shipwreck sites. Please refer to the Archaeological Deep Tow Survey report and 

Shallow Hazard report (January 2013 and December 2012 respectively) in this plan for 

further information. 

11. Pre-historic Archaeological Sites

Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are in an area of high-probability for 

prehistoric and archaeological sites as identified in the Notice to Lessees Archaeological 

Survey and Report Requirements (NTL 2011-Joint-G01; USDOI/BOEM/BSEE 2011; Coastal 

Environments Inc. [CEI], 1977). Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. performed a geophysical site 

specific shallow hazard analysis utilizing data collected by Tesla Offshore LLC., and data 

provided in Tesla Offshore LLC.’s Archaeological Deep Tow Survey report on Mississippi 

Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D dated January 2013. The survey data indicates 

that there are no intact prehistoric archaeological sites indicated within the Area of Potential 

Effect (APE). If ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc. observes man-made debris indicating a 

shipwreck or archaeological site during lease development activities, ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc. will cease operations and immediately contact the BOEM Regional Supervisor of 

Leasing and Environment. 

Vicinity of Offshore Location 

1. Essential Fish Habitat

Potential IPFs affecting essential fish habitat from the proposed activities of this Initial 

Exploration Plan (IEP) include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and 

accidents. 

Physical disturbance to the seafloor: The live bottom low relief stipulation, the live 

bottom pinnacle trend stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf live bottoms stipulation (BOEM, NTL 

2009-G39) prevents most of the potential impacts on live-bottom communities and essential 

fish habitat from bottom disturbing activities (anchoring, structure emplacement, and 

removal). 

Effluents: The live bottom low relief stipulation, the live bottom pinnacle trend stipulation, 

and the Eastern Gulf live bottoms stipulation prevents most of the potential impacts on livebottom communities and essential fish habitat from operational waste discharges. Levels of 
30 July 2013 

Page 11 

contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced-water discharges, discharge rate 

restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES; EPA 1972) permit, minimizing significant biological 

or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse 

impacts to essential fish habitat. 

Accidents: In the unlikely event of an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill, the 

potential exists for detrimental effects to essential fish habitat. The following discussion of 

potential impacts to marine mammals is summarized from the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDOI, MMS, 2002). Should a spill occur in the area of adult finfish or shellfish, 

the effects will likely be sublethal and the extent of the damage would be dependent on the 

ability of the adult fishes and shellfishes to avoid a spill, to metabolize polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. In the unlikely event 

of an accident, adverse impacts to essential fish habitats are possible. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan 

Document (IEPD) 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, wastes sent to shore for treatment or 

disposal, and discarded trash and debris) from the proposed activities that will impact 

essential fish habitat. 

2. Marine & Pelagic Birds 

Potential IPFs that may impact marine and pelagic birds from the proposed activities of this 

Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include emissions, accidents, and discarded trash and debris. 

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the proposed activities are 

below concentrations estimated to cause harm to marine and pelagic birds (www.boem.gov, 

last accessed April 2013). 

Accidents: Oil spills pose the greatest potential impacts to marine birds. Heavy oiling of 

birds generally results in mortality. If physical oiling of birds occurs, some degree of both 

acute and chronic physiological stress associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil is

expected. Lightly oiled birds can sustain tissues and organ damage from oil ingested or 

inhaled. Stress and shock enhance the effects of exposure and poisoning. Low levels of oil 

may stress birds by interfering with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, 

territory definition, homing of migratory species, susceptibility to physiological disorders, 

disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and respiration. Reproductive success is 

potentially affected with oil exposure. Indirect effects occur by disrupting nesting habitat and 

displacement of individuals, breeding pairs, or populations to less favorable habitats. 

Dispersant used in spill cleanup activity may have toxic effects similar to oil. 

Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 63 miles 

from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Because of the distance from shore and 

the available oil spill response capabilities, no adverse impacts to the marine and pelagic 

bird population are anticipated as a result of the proposed activities. In the unlikely event of 

an accident, adverse impacts to marine and pelagic birds are possible. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan 

(IEP) 
30 July 2013 

Page 12 

Discarded trash and debris: Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and 

snared in discarded trash and debris or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause 

permanent injuries and death. The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the 

proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm marine and pelagic birds. ENI 

U.S. Operating Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines set forth by the Marine 

Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL No. 

2012-BSEE-G01). 

The majority of effects on endangered/threatened and non-endangered/non-threatened 

marine birds are expected to be sublethal: behavioral effects, sublethal exposure to or 

intake of OCS-related contaminants or discharge debris, temporary disturbance, and 

displacement of localized groups from impacted habitats. Chronic sublethal stress, 

however, is often undetectable in birds. As a result of stress, individuals may become weak, 

facilitating infection and disease; then migratory species may not have the strength to reach 

their destination. No significant habitat impacts are expected to occur directly from routine 

activities resulting from proposed actions under this Initial Exploration Plan Document 

(IEPD). 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, and 

wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could impact 

marine and pelagic birds. 

3. Public Health & Safety 

After review of impact-producing factors (including an accidental H2S release) resulting from 

activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD), there is no potential for 

accidental release of a dangerous substance such as H2S gases. As stated in the H2S 

Information Section of the Plan, there is sufficient evidence from the drilling/production of 

previous wells to deem the proposed activity area as an area that is “H2S absent.” 

Coastal and Onshore 

1. Beaches

Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to beaches from the proposed activities of this Initial 

Exploration Plan (IEP) include accidents and discarded trash and debris. 

Accidents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

63 miles from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. An accidental oil spill from the 

proposed activities would have a 4/14/21 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from 

the date of the spill) of causing impacts to the beaches at the coast line of Plaquemines 

Parish, Louisiana, and a -/1/3 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from the date of 

the spill) of causing impacts to the beaches at the coast line of St. Bernard Parish, 

Louisiana. Because of the distance from shore of the proposed activities and the available 

oil spill response capabilities, no adverse impacts to beaches are anticipated. In the unlikely 

event of an accident, adverse impacts to beaches are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., 

Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) 

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the 

enjoyment and use of beaches. The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from 
30 July 2013 

Page 13 

the proposed activities is not expected to significantly affect beaches. ENI U.S. Operating 

Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines set forth by the Marine Trash and 

Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees and Operators (Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement [BSEE]; NTL No. 2012-BSEE-G01). 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, emissions, 

and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could 

impact beaches. 

2. Wetlands

Potential IPFs that could cause deleterious effects to wetlands from the proposed activities 

of this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include accidents. 

Accidents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

63 miles from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. An accidental oil spill from the 

proposed activities would have a 4/14/21 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from 

the date of the spill) of causing impacts to the wetlands at the coast line of Plaquemines 

Parish, Louisiana, a -/1/3 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from the date of the 

spill) of affecting the wetlands at the coast line of St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Because of 

the distance from shore of the proposed activities and the available oil spill response 

capabilities, no adverse impacts to the wetlands are anticipated. However, in the unlikely 

event of an accident, adverse effects to wetlands are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., 

Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, emissions, 

wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, and discarded trash and debris) from the 

proposed activities that could impact wetlands. 

3. Shore & Coastal Nesting Birds

Potential IPFs that could affect shore and coastal nesting bird species from the proposed 

activities of this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include accidents and discarded trash and 

debris. 

Accidents: Oil spills pose the greatest potential impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting 

birds. Heavy oiling of birds generally results in mortality. If physical oiling of birds occurs, 

some degree of both acute and chronic physiological stress associated with direct and 

secondary uptake of oil is expected. Lightly oiled birds can sustain tissues and organ 

damage from oil ingested or inhaled. Stress and shock enhance the effects of exposure and 

poisoning. Low levels of oil may stress birds by interfering with food detection, feeding 

impulses, predator avoidance, territory definition, homing of migratory species, susceptibility 

to physiological disorders, disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and respiration. 

Reproductive success is potentially affected with oil exposure. Indirect effects occur by 

disrupting nesting habitat and displacement of individuals, breeding pairs, or populations to 

less favorable habitats. Dispersant used in spill cleanup activity may have toxic effects 

similar to oil. No significant habitat impacts are expected to occur directly from routine 

activities resulting from a proposed action. Secondary impacts to coastal habitats will occur 

over the long-term and may ultimately displace species from traditional sites to alternative 

sites. In the unlikely event of an accident, adverse impacts to marine and pelagic birds are 
30 July 2013 

Page 14 

possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in 

this Initial Exploration Plan Document (IEPD) 

Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 63 miles 

from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. An accidental oil spill from the proposed 

activities would have a 4/14/21percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from the date of 

the spill) of causing impacts to the shore birds and coastal nesting birds that occur onshore 

in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and a -/1/3 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days 

from the date of the spill) of causing impacts to the shore birds and coastal nesting birds that 

occur onshore in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Because of the distance from shore of the 

proposed activities and the available oil spill response capabilities, no adverse impacts to 

the shore birds and coastal nesting birds are anticipated. In the unlikely event of an 

accident, adverse impacts to shore and coastal nesting birds are possible. ENI U.S. 

Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial 

Exploration Plan (IEP) 

Discarded trash and debris: If present, shore birds and coastal nesting birds may become 

entangled and snared in discarded trash and debris or ingest small plastic debris causing 

permanent injuries and death. The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the 

proposed activities is not expected to cause significant harm marine and pelagic birds. ENI 

U.S. Operating Co., Inc. will adhere to the information and guidelines set forth by the Marine 

Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL No. 

2012-BSEE-G01). 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, emissions, 

and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could 

impact shore and coastal nesting birds. 

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges

Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to coastal wildlife refuges from the proposed 

activities of this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include accidents. 

Accidents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

63 miles from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. An accidental oil spill from the 

proposed activities would have a 4/14/21percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from 

the date of the spill) of causing impacts to the coastal wildlife refuges that occur onshore in 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and a -/1/3 percent chance (based on 3, 10, or 30 days 

from the date of the spill) of causing impacts to the coastal wildlife refuges that occur 

onshore in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Because of the distance from this refuge of the 

proposed activities and the available oil spill response capabilities, no adverse impacts to 

coastal wildlife refuges are anticipated. In the unlikely event of an accident, adverse 

impacts to coastal wildlife refuges are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s Spill 

Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) 

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, emissions, 

wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, and discarded trash and debris) from the 

proposed activities that could impact coastal wildlife refuges. 
30 July 2013 

Page 15 

In regards to Louisiana resources, an accidental oil spill from the proposed activities would 

have the following probabilities (based on 3, 10, or 30 days from the date of the spill) of 

causing impacts to coastal wildlife refuges: 

 State of Louisiana WMA and Game Preserve in Vermilion Parish (-/-/1) 

 Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Vermilion Parish (-/-/1) 

 Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge in Vermilion Parish (-/-/1) Cameron Parish (-/-/1) 

 Atchafalaya WMA in Terrebonne Parish (-/1/2) 

 Breton National Wildlife Refuge in Terrebonne Parish (-/1/2) 

 Pass a Loutre WMA in Terrebonne Parish (-/1/2) 

 Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Terrebonne Parish (-/1/2) 

 Wisner WMA in Lafourche Parish (-/1/2) 

5. Wilderness Areas

Potential IPF’s that could cause impacts to wilderness areas from the proposed activities of 

this Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) include accidents. 

Accidents: Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D are located approximately 

63 miles from the coast of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Due to the distance from shore 

and the available oil spill response capabilities, no adverse impacts to wilderness areas are 

anticipated as a result of the proposed activities. However, in the unlikely event of an 

accident, adverse impacts to wilderness areas are possible. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.’s 

Spill Response Plan will cover activities proposed in this Initial Exploration Plan Document 

(IEPD) 

Texas has five areas designated by Congress as Wilderness Areas, namely the Big Slough 

Wilderness Area, Indian Mounds Wilderness Area, Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area, 

Turkey Hill Wilderness Area, and the Upland Island Wilderness Area, none of which are 

located along the coastal region of Texas; and the only wilderness area located along the 

coastal region of Louisiana is the Breton Wilderness Area, located on the eastern side of the 

Mississippi River, approximately 81 miles from Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, 

C, & D. Due to the distance from shore and the available oil spill response capabilities, no 

adverse impacts to wilderness areas are anticipated as a result of the proposed activities. 

There are no other IPF’s (including physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluents, 

emissions, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, and discarded trash and debris) 

from the proposed activities that could impact wilderness areas. 

(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 

A Shallow Hazards Assessment and Archaeological Statement (Report # 27.2012-2574, 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc.) was prepared for the proposed surface locations. The surface 

locations were evaluated for any seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features 

and conditions that may adversely affect operations. No impacts are expected on the 

proposed activities from site-specific environmental conditions. 
30 July 2013 

Page 16 

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 

During the hurricane season—June through November of each year—the Gulf of Mexico is 

potentially impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which six 

may become hurricanes (>74 mph winds). Because of the proposed location in the Gulf of 

Mexico, Mississippi Canyon 215, Well Locations A, B, C, & D may experience hurricane and 

tropical force winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the 

integrity of the operations covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical 

hazards to operators and vessels, damage exploration or production equipment, or result in 

the release of hazardous material (including polycyclic aromatic 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: 

 

Drilling and Completion 

 Secure well 

 Secure drilling rig/platform 

 Evacuate personnel 

1. Alternatives

No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental 

impacts. 

2. Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation will be employed to 

avoid, diminish, or eliminated potential impacts on environmental resources. 

3. Consultation

No agencies or persons were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the 

proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided. 

4. Preparer 

Matt Conn 

Ecological Services Supervisor 

John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. 

200 Dulles Drive 

Lafayette, Louisiana 70506 

5. References

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. 2010. Deep sea subsurface oil 

assessment. NOAA, National Incident Command, Unity of Effort. www.noaa.gov, last 

accessed 19 September 2012. 

Schmahl GP, Hickerson EL, Nuttall MF. 2012. Science-based design of coral protected 

areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the 12th Internation Coral Reef 

Symposium. 9-12 July 2012. Cairns, Australia. 

Schuyler Q, Hardesty BD, Wilcox C, Townsend K. 2012. To eat or not to eat? Debris 

selectivity by marine turtles. PLoS ONE 7:1-9.
30 July 2013 

Page 17 

USDOI. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and 

threatened species of the southeastern United States. Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. 

USDOI, MMS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2002. 

Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease sales: 2003-2007; Central Planning Area 

Sales 185, 190, 194, and 201; Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 

200—final environmental impact statement; Volumes I and II. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Mineral Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-052.

Williams R, Ashe E, O’Hara PD. 2011. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of 

British Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1303-1316. 

Wilson B, Batty RS, Daunt F, Carter C. 2007. Collision risks between marine renewable 

energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish 

Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 

Wright AJ and Weilgart L. 2011. Assessing cumulative impacts of underwater noise with 

other stressors on marine mammals. Acoustical Society of America 129:2394-2394.

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. Wellsite Clearance Letter, Proposed Wellsite A, Block 

215(OCS-G-24060), Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report No. 27.2012-

2574-215-A 17 APRIL 2013 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. Wellsite Clearance Letter, Proposed Wellsite B, Block 

215(OCS-G-24060), Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report No. 27.2012-

2574-215-B 17 APRIL 2013 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. Wellsite Clearance Letter, Proposed Wellsite C, Block 

215(OCS-G-24060), Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report No. 27.2012-

2574-215-C 17 APRIL 2013 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. Wellsite Clearance Letter, Proposed Wellsite D, Block 

215(OCS-G-24060), Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report No. 27.2012-

2574-215-D 17 APRIL 2013 

Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc.. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc.Shallow Hazards Assessment 

Blocks 214, 215, Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report no. 27.2012-2574-

215; December 2012 

ENI US OPERATION COMPANY, INC., Tesla Offshore LLC Archaeological Deep Tow 

Survey report Block 215 Mississippi Canyon (OCS-G-24060), , January 2013 
Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 58

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 

Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy

SECTION P 

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 

(a) Exempted Information Description

The proposed bottom-hole locations of the planned wells have been removed from the public information copy 

of the EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and any interpreted 

geology. 

(b) Bibliography

Not applicable.