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

L EASE OCS-G 24060

PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY

S ubmitted 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 InformationEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 1

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

### SECTION A

P LAN 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

B OEM-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

D ominion 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

0 5/30/2013 and consists of G24059, G24060. In addition, a Unit Suspension of Production (SOP) was approved from June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013.

D rilling 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

S torage 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 NAEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 1

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

S torage 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 req uire 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 L atitude

28° 47’ 40.531

Longitude

-88° 01’ 25.082”

Water Depth (Feet): 6,000’

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 1 2,295’

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 L atitude

28 47’ 36.170”

Longitude

88 02’ 32.676”

Water Depth (Feet): 6,000’

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 1 2,295’

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 

### Page 1 of 1 Pay.gov

- Online Payment

7/12/2013 https://www.pay.gov/paygov/payments/authorizePlasticCardPayment.htmlEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 2

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

### SECTION B

G ENERAL 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 25 6, 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 Explor ation 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 0 2782, 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. P age 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. P age 4

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

### SECTION C

G EOLOGICAL 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 LettersE

ni US Operating Co. Inc. Page 5 Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy 

### SECTION D

H YDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

(a) Concentration Eni does not anticipate encountering any H 2 S 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 H 2 S 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. P age 6

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

### SECTION E

B IOLOGICAL, 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)

A t tached 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”

An chor 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 ftfrom 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. P age 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 wi thin 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

M ississippi Canyon Block 215 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any live-b ottom (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 pro visions 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

B ureau 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. P age 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. P age 

### 9

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

### SECTION F

W ASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

P rojected 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.Page10Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 

### 11

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

### SECTION G

A IR 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 = 3400D 2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants ( where D = distance to shore in miles)? X

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified

emission factors? X

Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87.5° W longitude? X Do you expect to encounter H 2 S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours from any proposed well? X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

This information was calculated by: Brenda Montalvo (713) 393-6259 brenda.montalvo@enipetroleum.comEXPLORATION PLAN (EP)AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLISTOMB Control No. 1010-0151OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/2011(under renewal at OMB)COMPANYEni US Operating Co. Inc.AREAMississippi CanyonBLOCK215LEASEG24060PLATFORM--WELLA and BCOMPANY CONTACTBrenda MontalvoTELEPHONE NO.713-393-6259REMARKSDrill and completeFORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 1EMISSIONS FACTORSFuel Usage Conversion FactorsNatural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATESCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84Equipment/Emission Factorsunits PM SOx NOx VOC CO REF. DATENG Turbinesgms/hp-hr0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83AP42 3.2-1& 3.1-1 10/96NG 2-cycle leangms/hp-hr0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle leangms/hp-hr0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle richgms/hp-hr0.00185 10 0.14 8.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96Diesel Recip. < 600 hp.gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03AP42 3.3-1 10/96Diesel Recip. > 600 hp.gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4AP42 3.4-1 10/96Diesel Boilerlbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84AP42 1.4-1, 14-2, & 14-37/98NG Flareslbs/mmscf0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5AP42 11.5-1 9/91Liquid Flaringlbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21AP42 1.3-1 & 1.3-3 9/98Tank Vaporslbs/bbl0.03E&P Forum 1/93Fugitiveslbs/hr/comp.0.0005API Study 12/93Glycol Dehydrator Ventlbs/mmscf6.6La. DEQ1991Gas Ventinglbs/scf0.0034Sulphur Content Source Value UnitsFuel Gas3.33 ppmDiesel Fuel0.4 % weightProduced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppmProduced Oil (Liquid Flaring)1% weightFORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 2EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEARCOMPANYAREABLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLCONTACTPHONE REMARKSEni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon 215 G24060-- A and BBrenda Montalvo713-393-6259OPERATIONSEQUIPMENTRATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIMEMAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOURESTIMATED TONSDiesel EnginesHP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas EnginesHP SCF/HR SCF/DBurnersMMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24 31 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 6.92 31.76 237.95 7.14 51.92Semi-SubmersiblePRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00BURNER diesel00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10 4 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.03 0.13 1.00 0.03 0.22VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12 9 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.08 0.36 2.70 0.08 0.59VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24 12 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3.91 29.31 0.88 6.39FACILITYDERRICK BARGE diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MISC.BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK-00 00.000.00DRILLINGOIL BURN00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE00 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002013 YEAR TOTAL27.44 125.88 943.24 28.30 205.80 7.88 36.16 270.96 8.13 59.12EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.9764.5FORM BOEM-0138(Octoer 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 3EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEARCOMPANYAREABLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLCONTACTPHONE REMARKSEni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon215 G24060-- A and BBrenda Montalvo713-393-6259OPERATIONSEQUIPMENTRATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIMEMAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOURESTIMATED TONSDiesel EnginesHP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas EnginesHP SCF/HR SCF/DBurnersMMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24.00 180.00 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 40.19 184.39 1381.64 41.45 301.45Semi-SubmersiblePRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00BURNER diesel000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10.00 26.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.19 0.87 6.50 0.20 1.42VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12.00 51.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.45 2.04 15.31 0.46 3.34VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24.00 12.00 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3.91 29.31 0.88 6.39FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MISC.BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK-0000.000.00DRILLING OIL BURN000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002014 YEAR TOTAL27.44 125.88 943.24 28.30 205.80 41.68 191.21 1432.76 42.98 312.60EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.9764.5FORM BOEM-0138(October 2011- Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 4SUMMARYCOMPANY AREABLOCKLEASEPLATFORM WELLEni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon 215G24060--A and BEmittedSubstanceYearPMSOxNOxVOCCO20137.8836.16270.968.1359.12201441.6836.161432.7642.98312.60Allowable2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.97FORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 5EXPLORATION PLAN (EP)AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLISTOMB Control No. 1010-0151OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/2011(under renewal at OMB)COMPANYEni US Operating Co. Inc.AREAMississippi CanyonBLOCK215LEASEG24060PLATFORM--WELLA and BCOMPANY CONTACTBrenda MontalvoTELEPHONE NO.713-393-6259REMARKSDrill and complete using DrillshipFORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 1EMISSIONS FACTORSFuel Usage Conversion FactorsNatural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATESCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84Equipment/Emission Factorsunits PM SOx NOx VOC CO REF. DATENG Turbinesgms/hp-hr0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83AP42 3.2-1& 3.1-1 10/96NG 2-cycle leangms/hp-hr0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle leangms/hp-hr0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96NG 4-cycle richgms/hp-hr0.00185 10 0.14 8.6AP42 3.2-1 10/96Diesel Recip. < 600 hp.gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03AP42 3.3-1 10/96Diesel Recip. > 600 hp.gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4AP42 3.4-1 10/96Diesel Boilerlbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84AP42 1.4-1, 14-2, & 14-37/98NG Flareslbs/mmscf0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5AP42 11.5-1 9/91Liquid Flaringlbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21AP42 1.3-1 & 1.3-3 9/98Tank Vaporslbs/bbl0.03E&P Forum 1/93Fugitiveslbs/hr/comp.0.0005API Study 12/93Glycol Dehydrator Ventlbs/mmscf6.6La. DEQ1991Gas Ventinglbs/scf0.0034Sulphur Content Source Value UnitsFuel Gas3.33 ppmDiesel Fuel0.4 % weightProduced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppmProduced Oil (Liquid Flaring)1% weightFORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 2EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEARCOMPANYAREABLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLCONTACTPHONE REMARKSEni US Operating Co. Inc. Mississippi Canyon215 G24060-- A and BBrenda Montalvo713-393-6259OPERATIONSEQUIPMENTRATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIMEMAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOURESTIMATED TONSDiesel EnginesHP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas EnginesHP SCF/HR SCF/DBurnersMMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLINGPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 29556 1427.5548 34261.32 24 31 20.83 95.57 716.11 21.48 156.24 7.75 35.55 266.39 7.99 58.12DrillshipPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00BURNER diesel00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10 4 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.03 0.13 1.00 0.03 0.22VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12 9 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.08 0.36 2.70 0.08 0.59VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24 12 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3.91 29.31 0.88 6.39FACILITYDERRICK BARGE diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MISC.BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK-00 00.000.00DRILLINGOIL BURN00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE00 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002013 YEAR TOTAL29.66 136.08 1019.70 30.59 222.48 8.71 39.96 299.40 8.98 65.32EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.9764.5FORM BOEM-0138(Octoer 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 3EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEARCOMPANYAREABLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLCONTACTPHONE REMARKSEni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon215 G24060-- A and BBrenda Montalvo713-393-6259OPERATIONSEQUIPMENTRATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIMEMAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOURESTIMATED TONSDiesel EnginesHP GAL/HR GAL/DNat. Gas EnginesHP SCF/HR SCF/DBurnersMMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CODRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 29556 1427.5548 34261.32 24.00 180.00 20.83 95.57 716.11 21.48 156.24 45.00 206.43 1546.81 46.40 337.49DrillshipPRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00BURNER diesel000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10.00 26.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.19 0.87 6.50 0.20 1.42VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 12.00 51.00 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.45 2.04 15.31 0.46 3.34VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 8400 405.72 9737.28 24.00 12.00 5.92 27.16 203.52 6.11 44.41 0.85 3.91 29.31 0.88 6.39FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MISC.BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK-0000.000.00DRILLING OIL BURN000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WELL TEST GAS FLARE0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002014 YEAR TOTAL29.66 136.08 1019.70 30.59 222.48 46.49 213.25 1597.93 47.94 348.64EXEMPTIONCALCULATIONDISTANCE FROM LAND INMILES2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.9764.5FORM BOEM-0138(October 2011- Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 4SUMMARYCOMPANY AREABLOCKLEASEPLATFORM WELLEni US Operating Co. Inc.Mississippi Canyon 215G24060--A and BEmittedSubstanceYearPMSOxNOxVOCCO20138.7139.96299.408.9865.32201446.4939.961597.9347.94348.64Allowable2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 2147.85 54682.97FORM BOEM-0138(October 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of form BOEM-0138 which may not be used).Page 5Eni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 12

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

### SECTION H

O IL SPILLS INFORMATION

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning
(2)(i) A ll 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

P rimary 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 R egional 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

s cenario 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. P age 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. P age 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.Page15Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc.Page16Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 17

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc.Page18Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 19

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 20

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 21

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc.Page22Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 23

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc.Page24Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 25

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 26

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 27

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 28

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 29

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 30

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 31

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 32

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 33

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 34

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 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 applicationand 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. P age 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. P age 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. P age 38

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 39

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

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. P age 40

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 41

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy Cu rrent 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. P age 42

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy Pr iorities 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. P age 43

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

F or 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. P age 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. P age 45

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

F or 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. P age 46

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public Copy Di spersant 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. P age 47

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

F or 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. P age 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. Pa ge 49

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

### SECTION I

E NVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(a) Monitoring Systems

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

(b) Incidental Takes

N o 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”



### S ECTION J

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

L ease 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.



### S ECTION K

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

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

T he proposed action will implement mitigation measure s 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. P age 50

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

### SECTION L

S UPPORT 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 M aximum 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 M aximum 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.Page51Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public Copy\Eni US Operating Co. Inc. Pa ge 52

Initial Exploration Plan JULY 12, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060) Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. Pa ge 53

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

### SECTION M

O NSHORE 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 L ocation 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 ONSHOREEni US Operating Co. Inc.Page54Initial Exploration PlanJULY 12, 2013Mississippi Canyon Block 215 (OCS-G 24060)Public CopyEni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 57

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

### SECTION O

E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA)

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

i s attached.

Attachments: Environmental Report30 July 2013 Page 1 7/31/2013

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 O uter C ontinental S helf L ease 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, H 2 S 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 identify30 July 2013 Page 2 7/31/2013

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 (H 2 S) 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 7/31/2013

(B) ANALYSIS

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

1. Designated Topographic Features Potential Impact Producing Factors (IPF s) 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; USDO I

, M MS , 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 201 3) ; 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 7/31/2013

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 pinnacl e 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 pi pelines or blowouts will rise in the water column

— s urfacing 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 7/31/2013

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 7/31/2013

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 expected30 July 2013 Page 7 7/31/2013

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 fish es and
shellfish es 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 7/31/2013

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 s ensitivity 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 7/31/2013

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 couldhave 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 7/31/2013

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 A rchaeological 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 of30 July 2013 Page 11 7/31/2013

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 wil l 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 7/31/2013

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 H 2 S 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 H 2 S gases. As stated in the H 2 S 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 “H 2 S 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. Be cause 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 from30 July 2013 Page 13 7/31/2013

the proposed activities is not expected to significantly affect beaches. ENI U.S. Operating Co., Inc. w ill 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 are30 July 2013 Page 14 7/31/2013

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/ 21 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 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/ 21 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 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. Operati ng 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 7/31/2013

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 t he 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 7/31/2013

(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 12 th 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 7/31/2013

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

B locks 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 2013Eni US Operating Co. Inc. P age 58

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

### SECTION P

A DMINISTRATIVE 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.