UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - S-07534

Type - Supplemental Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G32673 Block - 325 Walker Ridge Area

Operator - Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.

Subsea Wells A, B, C, and D

DP SEMISUBMERSIBLE

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

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

Michelle Griffitt
Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: October 12, 2012

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Plan Contents (§§ 250.211 and 250.241) (a) Plan Information Form. (b) Location Map. (c) Safety and pollution prevention features. (d) Storage tanks and production vessels. (e) Pollution prevention measures (f) Additional measures.

General Information (§§ 250.213 and 250.243) (a) Applications and permits. (b) Drilling fluids. (c) Production. (d) Oils characteristics. (e) New or unusual technology. (f) Bonding statement. (g) Oil spill financial responsibility (OSFR). (h) Deepwater well control statement. (i) Suspensions of production. (j) Blowout scenario. [3 (b), (c) and (i) proprietary] (k) Chemical products.

Geological Information (§§ 250.214 and 250.244) (a) Geological descriptio n. (b) Structure contour maps. (c) Interpreted two -dimensional (2- D) and/or three -dimensional (3- D) seismic lines. (d) Geological structure cross -sections. Provide interpreted geological structure may be (e) Shallow hazards report. (f) Shallow hazards assessment. (g) High

- resolution seismic lines. (h) Stratigraphic column. (i) Time vs. depth tables. (j) Geochemical information. (k) Future G&G activities.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 

### S) Information (§§ 250.215 and 250.245) a) Concentration. (b) Classific ation. (c) H 2 

### S Contingency Plan.

Mineral Resource Conservation Information (§ 250.246) (a) Technology and reservoir engineering practices and procedures. (b) Technology and recovery practices and procedures. (c) Reservoir development.

### Biological, Physical, and Socioeconomic Information (§§ 250.216 and 250.247) (a) Chemosynthetic communities report. (b) Topographic features map. (c) Topographic features statement (shunting). Not applicable. (d) Live bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) map. (e) Live bottoms (lo w relief) map. (f) Potentially sensitive biological features. (g) Remotely operated vehicle (ROV) monitoring survey plan. (h) Threatened and endangered species information. (i) Archaeological report. (j) Air and water quality information. (k) Socioeconomic information.

Waste and Discharge Information (§§ 250.217 and 250.248) (a) Projected generated wastes. (b) Projected ocean discharges. (c) Modeling report. (d) NPDES permits. (e) Cooling water intakes.

Air Emissions Information (§§ 250.218 and 250.249) (a) Emissions worksheets and screening questions

Oil Spills Information (§§ 250.219 and 250.250) (a) Oil spill response planning. ( i) Regional or subregional OSRP information. (ii) Spill response sites. (iii)OSRO information. (iv) Worst

- cas e scenario determination. (b) Oil spill response discussion. (c) Modeling report.

Environmental Monitoring Information (§§ 250.221 and 250.252) (a) Monitoring systems. (b) Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.

Lease Stipulations Information (§§ 250.222 and 250.253)

Environmental Mitigation Measures Information (§§ 250.223 and 250.254)

Decommissioning Information (§ 250.255)

Related Facilities and Operations Information (§ 250.256) (a) Related OCS facilities and operations. (b) Transporta tion system. (c) Produced liquid hydrocarbons transportation vessels.

### Support Vessels and Aircraft Information (§§ 250.224 and 250.257) (a) General. (b) Diesel oil supply vessels. (c) Drilling fluids transportation (d) Solid and liquid wastes transportation. (e) Vicinity map.

Onshore Support Facilities Information (§§ 250.225 and 250.258) (a) General. (b) Support base construction or expansion. (c) Support base construction or expansion timetable. (d) Waste disposal. (e) Air emissions. (f) Un usual solid and liquid wastes.

Sulphur Operations Information (§ 250.259)

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information (§§ 250.226 and 250.260) (a) Consistency certification. (b) Other information

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) (§§ 250.227 and 250.261) (a) IPF’s from the proposed activities. (b) Affected environment. (c) Impact analysis. (d) Environmental hazards. (e) Alternatives. (f) Mitigation measures. (g) Consultation. (h) Preparers. (i) References.

Administrative Information (§§ 250.228 and 250.262) (a) Exempted information description (public information copies only). (b) Bibliography.

Appendix A
Plan Information Form

Appendix B
Location Plat Bathemetry Map

Appendix C
Blowout Scenario WCD Assumptions and Calculations

### Appendix D Interpreted 2- D or 3

- D Seismic Lines Geological Structure Cross

- Sections High Resolution Seismic Lines Stratigraphic Column Time VS. Depth Tables
Geochemical Information

Appendix E Vicinity Map Shallow Hazard and Archaeologi cal Assessments High Resolution Seismic Lines

Appendix F Air Quality Review

Appendix G Oil Spill Response Discussion Oil Spill Response Certification

Appendix H Consistency Certification

Appendix I Environmental Impact Analysis

## Revised Exploration Pl an Woodside Energy (USA) , Inc. Walker Ridge Block 325
Location s “A-D”
Lease OCS

- G 32673

Plan Contents (§§ 250.211 and 250.241)

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. ( Woodside ), as designated Operator of the subject lease, hereby submits t his pr oposed Supplemental E xploration P lan in acco rdance w ith t he r egulations
contained in Title 30 C FR 250.200

- 204 and more specifically defined in the Bureau of Safety and E nvironmental E nforcement (BSEE) [ formerly Bureau o f O cean Energy M anagement, Regulation and Enforcement ( BOE M RE )] NTL’s 2008

- G04, 2009

- G27 and 2009

- N06. Under
this E xploration P lan (EP), Woodside plans to drill and temporarily abandon four (4 ) well s

. The Initial Exploration Plan for Locations A- C, Control No. N

- 9414, was approved September 23,
2009. A supplem ental L ocation D was submitted on November 17, 2011 and was given Control
No. S

- 7534. Woodside pr oposes t o r evise C ontrol N o. S-7534 by add ing Locations A -C to comply w ith N TL 201 0

- N06 , r evising Location D an d revising t he Worst C ase D ischarge
Scenario s a s well as commencement dates

.

Woodside ’s Plan, as detailed in this EP, is to use a single dynamic position ing semi submersible (DPSS) M obile O ffshore D rilling U nit ( MODU), th e M a ersk D eveloper or e quivalent r ig ( the “Rig”), to d rill one exploration w ell i n t he Walker R idge Block 3 25 ( WR 325) , l ocated approximately 165 miles from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

, 185 miles from the supply base

at Fourchon, LA and 195 miles from the helicopter terminal at Amelia, LA. The initial drilling
activities ar e ten tatively planned t o c ommence on or a bout January 1, 201 3 and l ast approximately 150 days. T he timeframe to complete the initial drilling activities is an estimate based on the best available information regarding downhole conditions likely to be encounter ed while drilling the well and not intended to be a limitation.

The rig to be utilized will be a DPSS and will be equipped with state -of-the- art drilling and well control equipment. It is a largely self

- contained drilling vessel with accommodations for a crew up t o 138 persons on b oard i ncluding qua rters, g alley a nd s anitation f acilities. T he R ig w ill comply w ith t he requirements i n N TL 2010

- N05 a nd t he Interim F inal R ules. T he dr illing activities w ill be s upported b y t he s upport ve ssels a nd a ircraft as w ell as ex isting o nshore
facilities. Woodside has e mployed or c ontracted w ith t rained pe rsonnel t o c arry out i ts exploration activities. Woodside employees and contractors are experienced at operating in the
Gulf o f M exico an d are w ell v ersed i n all F e deral a nd S tate l aws regulating ope rations.
Woodside ’s em ployees an d co ntractors s hare Woodside ’s d eep c ommitment to o perating in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

Woodside , t hrough i ts pa rent and a ffiliate c orporations, ha s e xtensive e xperi ence s afely exploring for oil and gas. Woodside will draw upon this experience in organizing and carrying out i ts pl anned dr illing program. Woodside believes t he b est w ay to m anage bl owouts i s t o prevent them from occurring. Significant effort goes into the design and execution of wells and into bui lding a nd m aintaining s taff c ompetence. In t he unl ike e vent of a s pill, Woodside Regional Oil S pill R esponse P lan i s de signed t o c ontain a nd r espond t o a s pill t hat m eets o r

### exceeds t he w orst cas e discharge ( WCD) s cenario d etailed i n Appendix C of t his P lan. T he WCD d oes n ot ta ke in to a ccount p otential f low mitig ating f actors s uch a s w ell b ridging, obstructions in wellbore, reservoir barriers or early intervention. Woodside continues to invest in i mprovements to th e s afety and r eliability o f o ur w ell s ystems. A ll o perations w ill b e conducted i n ac cordance w ith ap plicable F ederal an d S tate l aws, r egulations, an d l ease an d permit requirements. Woodside will have trained personnel and monitoring pr o grams in pla ce to ensure such compliance.

(a) Plan Information Form

An OCS Information Form with details of the proposed drilling operations as provided for in this Plan along with a tentative activity schedule is included as Appendix A

.

(b) Bathymetry Map, Loc ation Plat , Anchor Pattern, and Anchor Site Clearance

A Well Location Plat and a Bathymetry Map are included as Appendix B . There are no anchors associated with this plan

.

(c) Safety and Pollution Prevention Features

Safety features on the MODU will inclu de well control, pollution prevention, welding procedure, and blowout prevention equipment as described in Title 30 C FR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, G and O ; an d as f urther cl arified b y Bureau of S afety and E nvironmental E nforcement ( BSEE )
Notice t o Lessees , a nd c urrent pol icy m aking i nvoked b y t he Bureau o f S afety and Environmental E nforcement ( BSEE ) , E nvironmental P rotection A gency a nd t he U .S. C oast Guard. T he appropriate life boats, life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescribed by the
U.S. C oast Guard will be maintained on the facility at all times.

In a ccordance w ith T itle 30 C FR P art 250, S ubpart O , a n ope rator i s t o e nsure W ell C ontrol Training is provided for lessee and contractor personnel engaged in well control operations in the
OCS G ulf of M exico. F urther, t he ope rator i s charged w ith t he r esponsibility t o not c reate conditions t hat w ill pos e unr easonable r isk t o t he publ ic he alth, l ife, p roperty, aquatic l ife, wildlife, recreation, navigation, commercial fishing, or other uses of th e ocean.

Supervisory and c ertain designated pe rsonnel on

- board th e f acility are to b e f amiliar w ith th e effluent limitations and guidelines for overboard discharges into the receiving waters, as outlined
in the latest NPDES General Permit GMG290000. Some of these pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on dr illing deck areas to collect all
contaminants and debris.

Bureau of S afety and Environmental E nforcement ( BSEE) is required t o c onduct ons ite inspec tions o f o ffshore facilities to c onfirm o perators a re complying with le ase s tipulations, operating r egulations, a pproved pl ans, and ot her c onditions; a s w ell as t o a ssure s afety and pollution pr evention r equirements are be ing m et. T he N ational Potential Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) List serves as the baseline for these inspections. The BSEE also inspects the stockpiles of equipment listed in the operator's approved Oil Spill Response Plan that would be used for the containment and cleanup of hydrocarbon spills.

### The Rig Woodside plan s to use will comply with all of the regulations of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). All drilling operations will be conducted under the provisions of 30 CFR, Part 250, Subpart D, and other applicable regulations and notices, 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 Woodside’s primary safety measures. Primary pollution prevention measures are contaminated and non- contaminated drain system, mud drain system, and oily water processing.

(d ) Storage Tanks and Production Vessels

Tanks on the Maersk Developer , a typical DP semi, with a capacity of 25 bbls or more of oil as
defined in 30 CFR 254.6 are listed below:

Type of Storage

Tank Type of Facility Tank Capacity (bbls) Number
of Tanks Tot al Capacity

(bbls) Fluid Gravity

(API)

Hull tanks 1&2 Fuel oil (Diesel) 8204 2 16408 32 o
Hull tanks 3&4 Fuel oil (Diesel) 5500 2 11000 32 o Engine day tank P Fuel oil (Diesel) 305 1 305 32 o Engine day tank S Fuel oil (Diesel) 356 1 356 32 o Settling ta nk P Fuel oil (Diesel) 213 1 213 32 o Settling tank S Fuel oil (Diesel) 219 1 219 32 o
Base oil 1 Lube oil 4838 1 4838 30 o
Lubrication oil Lube oil 55 1 55 32 o
Waste oil 1&2 Waste oil 226 2 452 31 o



### (e) Pollution Prevention Measures

Not applicable. Flor ida is not an affected State.

(f) Additional Measures

No additional measures are proposed.

## General Information (§§ 250.213 and 250.243)

(a) Applications and Permits

Application / Permit Issuing Agency Status

APD B SEE District To be submitted
General NP DES Permit U.S. EPA To be submitted Emergency Evacuation Plan U.S. Coast Guard To be submitted

(b) Drilling Fluids

Type of Drilling Fluid Est. Vol. of Drilling Fluid per Well

Water

- based 15 ,000 bbls Synthetic

- based 10 ,000 bbls
Oil

- Based 0 bbls

(c ) Peak Production Rates / Life of Reserves

Not applicable for Exploration P lans.

(d) Oil Characteristics

Not applicable for Exploration P lans.

(e) New or Unusual Technology

Woodside does not propose the use of any new or unusual technology in the activities proposed under this plan. Bests and safest technologies as referenced in 30 CF 250 will be incorporated as standard operating procedure.

(f) Bonding Information

The bond r equirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this Plan are satisfied by an

area

- wide bond furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR Part 256, subpart I and 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 (OSFR)

Woodside ( BOEM Oper ator No. 02407) will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the
activities proposed in this Plan according to 30 CFR Part 253, and NTL 2008

- N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) for Covered Facilities”.

### (h) Deepwater Well Control Statement

Woodside ( BOEM Operator N o. 02407) ha s t he f inancial c apability t o drill a r elief w ell a nd conduct other emergency well control operations if required.

(i) Suspensions of Production

Not applicable for Exploration P lans.

(j) Blowout Scenario

A blowout scenario for the proposed operations is outlined in Appendix C.

(k) Chemical Products

This information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan in the BOEM GOMR.

## Geological Information (§§ 250.214 and 250.244)

In accordance with 43 C FR 2.13 ( c) (9), those items considered proprietary have been omitted from the Public Information copy and have been referenced accordingly.

(a) Geo logical Description

The Ivan locations are designed to test the Lower Tertiary Wilcox 1, 2, and 3 zones in WR 325. These Paleogene age intervals showed good reservoir quality sand development 6.5 miles to the ESE in the nearby Green Bay #1 well (WR 372-1 ). The Ivan complex is a salt cored anticline that extends in a NW to SE fashion beginning in WR 324 in the NW and continuing into WR 414 and 415 in the SE. The trap consists of 3 way dip closure truncating against the sides of a salt keel on the NE side of the structure. The Tucker #1 well (WR 544- 1) demonstrates oil bearing Wilcox sand development and is approximately 10 miles SW from the location

.

(b) Structure Contour Maps

Enclosed as Appendix D are cu rrent s tructure m ap (s) drawn t o t he t op of t he proposed hydrocarbon z one(s). T he s urface a nd bot tomhole l ocation(s) a long w ith t he l ocations of t he geologic cross -sections of the well(s) to be drilled under this EP are included.

(c) Interpreted 2

- D or 3

- D Seismic Lines

Enclosed as Appendix D are c opies of the migrated and annotated deep seismic line within 500 feet of each of the proposed surface locations.

(d) Geological Structure Cross

- Sections

An interpreted geological cross

- section showing the location and depth of each of the proposed
wel l(s) with at least one key horizon and the objective sand labeled is enclosed as Appendix D

.

(e) Shallow Hazards Report

The Shallow Hazard Report was submitted previously with the Initial Exploration Plan.

(f) Site Specific Shallow Hazards Assessment

Please refer to Appendix E

.

(g) High Resolution Seismic Lines

Please refer to Appendix D

.

(h) Stratigraphic Column

A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic c olumn from the seafloor to the total depth of each of the proposed well(s) is included as Appendix D

.

### (i) Time Versus Depth Tables

Time versus depth tables are included as Appendix D.

(j ) Geochemical Information

This information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan in the BOEM GOMR.

(k ) Future G&G Activitie s

This information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan in the BOEMRE GOMR.

## Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Information (§§ 250.215 and 250.245)

(a) Concentration

Woodside does not a nticipate encountering H 2 

### S w hile c onducting our proposed exploratory
activities.

(b) Classification Request

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), Woodside requests Walker Ridge Block 325, Lease
OCS

- G 32673, be classified by the BOEM as an area where the “absence” of hydrogen sulfide
has been confirmed b ased upon the following:

• T he f ollowing w ells w ere dr illed i n l eases n ear W R 325. N one of the w ells e ncountered hydrogen sulfide gas as determined from the available drilling/scout reports and well logs :

WR -372 #1 OCS-G 18701 Anadarko

WR -278 #1 OCS -G 18675 Devon

WR -285 #1 OCS-G 16971 Conoco

WR -456 #1 OCS-G 16993 Texaco E&P

WR -456 #1 BP1 OCS-G 16993 Texaco E&P

WR -456 #1 BP2 OCS-G 16993 Texaco E&P

WR -544 #1 OCS-G 17003 BP E&P

WR -508 #1 OCS-G 17001 BP E&P

WR -508 #2 OCS-G 17001 Shell Offshore

WR -508 #3 OCS-G 17001 Shell Offshore

WR -508 #3 BP1 OCS-G 17001 Shell Offshore

WR -508 #3 BP2 OCS-G 17001 Shell Offshore

A request for reclassification will be made if additional data indicate th at a different
classification is needed.

(c) Contingency Plan

Woodside does not a nticipate encountering H 2 

### S w hile c onducting our proposed e xploratory activities therefore a contingency plan is not required at this time.

(d) Modeling Report

Woodside does not a nticipate encountering H 2 

### S while c onducting our proposed e xploratory activities therefore a modeling report is not required at this time.

## Mineral Resource Conservation Information (§ 250.246)

(a) Technology and Reservoir Engineering Practices and Procedures

Not Required for Exploration Plans

(b) Technology and Recovery Practices and Procedures

Not Required for Exploration Plans

(c) Reservoir Development

Not Required for Exploration Plans

## Biological, P hysical, a nd So cioeconomic I nformation ( §§ 2 50.216 and 250.247)

(a) High De nsity Deepwater Benthic Communities Information

GEMS performed a geohazards assessment for the “Ivan” Prospect located in Block 325 (OCSG-32673) and vicinity, Walker Ridge Area, Gulf of Mexico using a 3D seismic data volume provided by Woodside in November 2008. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2000 feet of the proposed wellsite. Water depths of the study area are greater than 300 meters ( 984 feet). No high density benthic communities have been reported in the area according to the BOEMRE (NTL No. 2009-G4 0). The closest feature with potential for supporting chemosynthetic and other deepwater benthic communities is approximately 8,700 ft from the proposed WR 325- D
lo cation.

Features or areas that could support high- density chemosynthetic communities are not located
within 2000 feet of each proposed muds and cuttings discharge location. No anchors will be
used.

A S ite C learance Letter can be f ound w ith the S hallow H azards A ssessment i n Appendix E

. Woodside doe s not a nticipate a ny s eafloor c onditions t hat m ay i mpact e xploratory dr illing operations within 2000 feet of the proposed wellsite.

(b) Topographic Features Map

There are no proposed bottom- disturbing activities within 1000 feet of the “No Activity Zone” of an identified topographic feature.

(c) Topographic Features Statement (shunting)

The activities proposed in this Plan are in water depths greater than 300 meters so NTL 2009

- G39 is not applicable.

Woodside does not propose to drill more than two wells from the same surface location which is
outside t he 1

- mile Zone but w ithin t he P rotective Zone o f a n i dentified t opographic f eature; therefore a statement for shunting described in Attachment 2, Section A, Item No. 2 of NTL No. 2009-G39 “Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico” is not required.

(d) Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Map

The activities proposed in this plan are not affected by a live bottom (pinnacle trend) stipulation
attached to the lease.

### (e) Live Bottom (Low Relief) Map

The a ctivities p roposed in th is p lan a re n ot a ffected b y a liv e b ottom ( low r elief) s tipulation
attached to the lease.

(f) Potentially Sensitive Biological Features

The activities proposed in this Plan are in water depths greater than 300 meters so NTL 2009

- G39 is not applicable.

Woodside does not pr opose bot to m- disturbing a ctivities w ithin 6 1 meters ( 200 feet) o f potentially sensitive biological features; therefore

, the map described in Attachment 8, S e ction A, of NTL No. 2009- G39 “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features & Areas ” is not required.

(g) ROV Monitoring Survey Plan

The activities proposed in this plan do not require an ROV Survey Plan since the Deepwater Grid (Grid N o. 1 1) accessed t hro ugh N TL 2008

- G06 s hows s ufficient R OV information ha s b een gathered for this block.

(h ) Threatened and Endangered Species Information

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) established a moratorium on the taking of marine
mammals in U.S. waters. It defines “take” to mean “to hunt, harass, capture, or kill” any marine mammal, or attempt to do so. Marine mammals protected under the MMAP that m a y be found in the location of the activities proposed include:

S perm W hales, B lue W hales, S ei W hales, Fin W hales, Humpback W hales and N orth A tlantic

R ight W hales
- of these six whales, only S perm W hales are considered to commonly occur in the
Gulf of M exico. Non

- endagered s pecies i nclude the B ryde’s w hale, m inke w hale, p ygmy and dwarf sperm whale and beaked whales . The West Indian manatee is the only sirenian occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. Bottlenose, Atlantic Spotted, Clymene, Fraser’s, rough

- toothed, spinner and striped dolphins as well as false killer, killer, pygmy killer, melon

- headed and short -finned pil ot whales.

The pur pose of t he E ndangered S pecies A ct ( ESA) i s t o c onserve t hreatened a nd e ndangered species and their ecosystems. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout a ll or a s ignificant por tion of i ts r ange. A s pecies i s co nsidered t hreatened i f i t i s likely t o become endangered in the future. The l ocation of the activities proposed in this plan does not i nclude a ny c ritical ha bitats de signated unde r t he E SA. Threatened an d en dangered
turtles that may be found in the location of the activities proposed include:

### Green Sea T urtles, Hawk’s Bill S ea T urtles, Kemp’s Ridley S ea T urtles, Lea therback S ea Turtles, and Loggerhead S ea Turtles.

Other threatened or endangered species or “species of concern” (i.e., a candidate for Federal listing under the ESA) that have been identified by the NMFS as potentially sensitive to OCS
activities within the Gulf of Mexico include:

Gulf sturgeon, s malltooth s awfish , southern bald eagle, eastern brown pelican, Eskimo curlew, piping plover, southeastern snowy plover, roseate tern, whooping crane and wood stork as well as four subspecies of beach mice

Threatened nearshore marine invertebrates species include:

Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral

P lease refer to our Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) contained in this plan for detailed
information on how Woodside plans to mitigate harm to these threatened and endangered species.

(i) Archaeological Report

Woodside will perform an ROV /AUV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by Woodside to be clear of seafloor archaeological resou rces, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEMRE. Should a resource be encountered, Woodside will contact the BOEMRE immediately.

(j) Air and Water Quality Information

The location of the activities proposed in this plan do es not affect the State of Florida; therefore this information is not required in this plan.

(k) Socioeconomic Information

The location of the activities proposed in this plan do es not aff ect the State of Florida; therefore this information is not required in this plan.

## Waste and Discharge Information (§§ 250.217 and 250.248)

(a) Projected Ocean Discharges See Table 1 below. There will be do downhole disposal. These discharges will be covered by a general NPDES discharge permit. (b) Projected Generated Wastes See Table 2 below

Table 1. Wastes Generated, Treated and Downhole Disposed or Discharged to the Gulf of
Mexico ( Discharges Per Well Unless Otherwise Noted) Projected Generated Waste P rojected Ocean Discharges Type of Waste and Composition Composition Projected
Amount Maximum Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Water

- Based Drilling Fluid Barite,
additives 1 50 00 bbls 3000 bbls/ mo Discharged Overboard

Synthetic

- based Drilling fluid Este rs, polyalpha
olefins NA NA NA

Cuttings Wetted with Synthetic
based Fluid Esters, polyalpha
olefins 57 00 bbls 1140 bbls /mo. Cleaned & Discharged
Overboard

Cuttings Wetted
with Water

- Based
Fluid Barite,
additives 5 3 0 bbls 16 bbls /mo. Discharg ed Overboard

Cuttings Wetted
with Oil

- based Fluid Diesel 0 NA NA

Domestic Waste Grey water 730,000 gal. 35 gal/person/day Treated and Discharged
Overboard Sanitary Waste Treated Sanitary

Waste 5 1 7, 5 00 gal. 25 gal/day/person “ “

Deck Drainage Rai n/Wash

Water 0

- 100,000
bbls /
rainfall NA “ “

Well Treat

. , W/O or Completion Fluids NA NA Discharged Overboard

Desalinization unit Brine 16,500 bbls 110 bbls/day “ “
BOP fluid BOP Fluid 

### 35 bbls/yr 3 bbls/mo. Discharged at seafloor
Ballast Water NA NA Discharged Overboard Bilge water NA NA “ “

Excess cement at
seafloor Cement 7 00 bbls 140 bbls /mo. Discharged at seafloor

Fire water NA NA Discharged Overboard Cooling water NA NA “ “
Produced Water NA NA “ “ NA=Not Applicabl e

### Table 2. Wastes Transported and/or Disposed of Onshore ( Discharges Per Well Unless Otherwise Noted) Projected Generated

Waste Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation Waste Disposal

Type of

Waste Composition Transport
Method Name/Location
of Facili ty Amount Disposal

Method
Oil

- Based
Fluid NA

Synthetic

based
Fluid Used SBF
and additives Tanks on supply boat US Liquids, Fouchon, LA 10,0 00
bbls /well Recycled

Cuttings
Wetted
with Oil

Based Mud NA

Produced
Sand NA

Trash and
Debris Steel, cables

, paper, cardboard, plastic Storage bins on supply boat Waste Management Galliano, LA 23.3 cu. meter/yr Landfill

Used Oil Used oil Drums on supply boat New Park Fourchon, LA 20
bbls /yr Recycled

Wash

Water NA

Chemical

Wastes NA

NA=Not Applicable

(c) Modeling Report

Not required by EPA under the OCS General Permit.

(d) NPDES Permits

This information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan in the BOEM GOMR. Any discharges will be performed in accordance with GMG 290,000.

( e) Cooling Water Intakes

This information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan in the BOEM GOMR.

## Air Emissions Information (§§ 250.218 and 250.249)

(a) Screening Checklist

Included in this section is the Projected Air Emissions Wo rksheet prepared in accordance with
NTL No. 2008-G04.

For th is p lan, th ere are n o existing f acilities o r activities co

- located w ith t he c urrent pr oposed activities; therefore, the Complex Total Emissions are the same as the Plan Emissions.

Screening Que stions 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 othe r 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 o 

### W longitude? x Do you expe ct 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

Air Pollu tant Plan
Emission
Amounts 1


### (tons) Calculated Exemption
Amounts 2


### (tons) Calculated Complex Total
Emission Amounts 3


### (tons) Carbon monoxide (CO)

SEE ATTACHED APPENDIX F NA Particulate matter (PM) NA Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) NA Nitrogen oxides (N O

x 

### ) NA Volatile organic compounds (VOC) NA

1 For activities proposed in your EP or DOCD, list the projected emissions calculated from the worksheets.

2 List the exemption amounts for your proposed activities calculated by using the formulas in 30 C FR 250.303(d).

3 List the complex total emissions associated with your proposed activities calculated from the worksheets 

### Calculations of the projected Plan Emission, Complex Total Emission and Exemption Amounts were performed by Debra K. Benoit, ( 713 ) 401-0083, Debra.benoit@Woodside energy.com

## Oil Spills Information (§§ 250.219 and 250.250)

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning

(1) Site

- Specific OSRP

Not applicable. This Plan is not for the Eastern Planning Area and Florida is not an
affected state.

(2)(i) Regional or Subregional OSRP Information

Woodside ’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) ( BOEMRE Operator No. 02407) has been revised and submitted for approval on May 19 , 2011. The Regional OSRP will cover activities proposed in this P lan. OSRP Certification is detailed in Appendix G

.

(ii) Spill Response Sites

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location(s)

Lake Charles and Fourchon, LA Fourchon, LA

(iii) OSRO Info rmation

Woodside ’s p rimary response providers, Clean Gu lf As sociates ( CGA) , N ational Response C orporation ( NRC) Helix W ell C ontainment G roup ( HWCG) and O’Brien’s Response Management (ORM)

, will provide closest available personnel and equipment

, as well a s supervisory personnel.

(iv) Worst Case Scenario Determination

Category Regional OS RP EP Type of Activity Exploratory Drilling Exploratory Drilling Facility Location (area/block) AT 187 * WR 325 Facility Designation 2 

### Wellbore Wellbore
Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 79 165

Volume 3 

### Storage tanks (total) Flowlines (on facility) Lease term pipelines Uncontrolled blowout (volume per day)
Total Volume NA
NA
NA 199,028 bbls

199,028 bbls NA
NA
NA 31,190 bbls

31,190 bbls Type of Oil(s) (crude oil, condensate, diesel) Crude Oil Crude Oil

API Gravity(s) 4 

### 28o 2 4 o

* 

### (BOEM Control No. N-9534)1 Types of activities include pipeline, platform, caisson, subsea completion or manifold, and mobile drilling rig.

2 E.g., Well No. 2, Platform JA, Pipeli ne Segment No. 6373.

3 Take your regional OSRP worst

- case scenario volume from the appropriate section of your regional OSRP. For EP’s, the worst

- case scenario volume is the daily volume possible from an uncontrolled blowout. Determine this volume using the provisions of 30 CFR 254.47(b). For DOCD’s, determine the volume of your worst

- case scenario using the provisions of 30 CFR 254.47(a), (b), and (c), as appropriate.

4 Provide API gravity of all oils given under “Type of Oil(s)” above. Estimate for EP’s.



### Since Woodside has the ability to respond to the appropriate worst

- case spill scenario included in its regional OSRP submitte d May 19, 2011 and since the worst

- case scenario determined for this Plan does not replace the worst- case scenario in our re gional OSRP, I hereby certify that Woodside has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst- case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in
this Plan.

The a ssumptions a nd calculations f or t he W CD f or t he pr oposed ope rations a re de tailed i n Appendix C

.

(b) Oil Spill Response Discussion

The oil spill response discussion for the proposed operations is detailed in Appendix G.

(c) Modeling Report

Not applicable. Florida is not an affected State . No installation of surface facilities is planned
located in water depths greater than 400 meters.

## Environmental Monitoring Information (§§ 250.221 and 250.252)

(a) Monitoring Systems

Woodside is aware of the requirements of NTL No. 2009

- G02 whereby BOEM established and implemented a program to monitor ocean currents and require operators to share the data for all floating MODU’s and production facilities operating or installed in water depths greater than 400 meters (1,312 feet). Woodside will report ocean current data to the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Internet website as required.

(b) Incidental Takes

Woodside does not anticipate the incidental taking of any protected species or marine mammal
as a result of the activ ities proposed in this Plan based on the implementation of, and adherence
to, NTL No . 2012-Joint- G02 “Implementation o f S eismic S urvey M itigation M easures a nd Protected S pecies O bserver P rogram, NTL No . 2012- BSEE

- G01 “Marine T rash an d D ebris
Awareness Trai ning and Elimination” and NTL No. 2012-Joint- G01 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”.

(c) Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

Woodside ’s activities under this Supplemental EP are not located within the Protect ive Zones of
the Flower Garden Banks or Stetson Bank ; t herefore

, are not required to monitor the impacts of an oil spill that may affect these areas

.

## Lease Stipulations Information (§§ 250.222 and 250.253)

Oil a nd gas e xploration a nd d evelopment activities on t he OCS a re s ubject t o s tipulations developed before the lease sale and would be attached to the lease instrument, as necessary, in the form o f mitigating measures. The BOEM is responsible for ensuring full compliance with stipulations.

BOEM (Mine rals M anagement S ervice ) invoked The P rotected S pecies S tipulation for L ease
OCS

- G 32673, Walker Ridge Block 325.

The Protected Species Stipulation was invoked to reduce the potential taking of federally protected s pecies ( e.g., sea t urtles, m arine m ammals an d o ther l isted s pecies in t he Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA ).

Bureau of S afety and Environmental E nforcement ( BSEE) [ BOEMRE ] issued N TL
2012-Joint- G01 and N TL 2012-Joint- G02 pursuant t o 30 C FR 250.103, 250.23( o) a nd 250.204(s) to explain how Op erators must implement measures to minimize the risk of vessel s trikes t o pr otected s pecies a nd report obs ervations of i njured o r d ead pr otected species e ffective F ebruary 7, 2007. Woodside will e nsure t hat our c ontract ve ssel operators ar e aw are o f t heir requirement t o r eport s ightings of a ny i njured or de ad protected species immediately to the BOEM Protected Species Biologist by telephone.

The Bureau of S afety and E nvironmental E nforcement ( BSEE) (formerly BOEMRE )
issued NTL 2012- BSEE

- G01 pursuant to 30 CFR 150.103 to provide guidance and assist the operators in preventing intentional and / or accidental introduction of trash and debris
into th e ma rine e nvironment. W ith th is a ssistance a nd with la ws s uch a s M ARPOL

Annex V , t he M arine Plastic P ollution Research a nd C ontrol A ct, and r egulations imposed by various agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection A gency, ou r e mployees w ill e nsure t hat a ll of fshore pe rsonnel, i ncluding contractors and other support services

- relate d personnel have complete understanding of the r equirement t hat O perators be pr oactive i n avoiding a ccidental l oss of s olid w aste
items on the OCS.

## Environmental Mitigation Measures Information (§§ 250.223 and 250.254)

(a) Mitigation of Impacts.

Not applicable. Florida is not an affected State

.

(b) Incidental Takes

Woodside does not anticipate the incidental taking of any protected species or marine mammal as a result of the activities proposed in this Plan based on the implementation of, and ad herence to, N TL N o. 2012-Joint- G02 “Implementation o f S eismic S urvey M itigation M easures a nd Protected S pecies O bserver P rogram, N TL No. 2012- BSEE

- G01 “Marine T rash an d D ebris Awareness Training and Elimination” and NTL No. 2012-Joint- G01 “Vessel Strike Av oidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”.



## Decommissioning Information (§ 250.255)

Not applicable. The information at § 250.255 regarding decommissioning is not required to accompany EP’s and DOCD’s submitted in the MMS GOMR.



## Related Fac ilities and Operations Information (§ 250.256)

(a) Related OCS Facilities and Operations

This discussion is not required for EP’s.

(b) Transportation System

This discussion is not required for EP’s.

(c) Produced Liquid Hydrocarbons Transportation Vessels

There will be no produced liquid hydrocarbons, including well test fluids, transported by means other than a pipeline for the activities proposed in this plan.

## Support Vessels and Aircraft Information (§§ 250.224 and 250.257)

(a) General

The following list provides information regarding the vessels and aircraft Woodside will use to support our proposed activities.

Type of Vessel Maximum Fuel Tank Storage Capacity Maximum No. in Area at Any
Time Trip Frequency or
Duration

Tug boat(s) N/A N/A N/A Supply boa t(s) 250,000 gals 2 3 times / week Anchor boat(s) NA NA NA Crew boat(s) 34,000 gals 1 6 times / week Helicopter 280 gals 1 6 times / week

(b) Diesel Oil Supply Vessels

Not a pplicable. Florida is n ot a n affected s tate; n o a ctivities a re p roposed w ithin P rotective

z ones; no surface facility is planned in water depths greater than 400 meters or a surface facility in any water depth that supports a subsea development in water depths greater than 400 m eters (1,312 feet); this is not a DOCD for which Alaba ma is an affected state or a D OCD proposing
new multiwell structures for which Louisiana is an affected state.

Size of Fuel Supply

vessel Capacity of fuel supply vessel Frequency of fuel
transfers Route fuel supply
vessel will take
285 ’ 203,000 gal. Wee kly Fourchon to MODU

(c) Drilling Fluids Transportation

Type of Material Quantity Being Transported Quantity Being Transported Transportation Method

Dry Bulk (Cement, Barite, Gel) 12,000 sx max combined Below deck dry bulk tanks
onboard OSV

Synt hetic

- base drilling
fluids 11,000 bbls max per

voyage Drums on supply boat

Water Based drilling
fluids 12,000 bbls max per

voyage Below deck liquid mud
tanks onboard OSV

(d) Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation

See Table 2 of Waste and Discharge Section

.

### (e) Vicinity Map

A Vicinity Plat showing the location of Walker Ridge Block 325 relative to the shoreline and the
onshore base is included as Appendix E.

## Onshore Support Facilities Information (§§ 250.225 and 250.258)

(a) General

Woodside proposes to utilize the following existing onshore base for support:

Name Location Existing, New or
Modified Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids Fourchon, LA Existing

C- Port Fourchon, LA Existing

(b) Support Base Construction or Expansion

The pr oposed ope rations do not m andate a ny immediate m easures f or l and a cquisition or expansion of the existing onshore base facilities.

(c) Support Base Construction or Expansion Timetable

No known shore base construction is planned for the time period of this operation.

(d) Waste Disposal

See Table 2 of Waste and Discharge Section

.

(e) Air Emissions

This discussion is not required to accompany EP’s submitted in the BOEM GOMR.

(f) Unusual Solid and Liquid Wastes

This discussion is not required to accompan y EP’s submitted in the BOEM GOMR.



## Sulf ur Operations Information (§ 250.259)

Woodside is not proposing to conduct sulfur operations in this P lan.

## Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information (§§ 250.226 and 250.260)

The S tates o f T exas, L ouisiana , M ississippi, A labama, a nd F lorida ha ve f ederally a pproved coastal z one m anagement pr ograms ( CZMP). Applicants f or an O CS plan s ubmitted t o t he
BOEM must provide a certification with necessary data and information for the affected State to
determine t hat the p roposed act ivity(s) co mplies w ith t he en forceable p olicies o f each S tates’ approved p rogram, and that s uch a ctivity will be c onducted i n a m anner c onsistent w ith t he

program.

(a) Consistency Certification

A Coastal Zone Management Consistency Certif ication for the State of Louisiana is required for the initial exploratory activities proposed in this plan and is included in Appendix H

.

Consistency certification is not required because when a Plan is not (1) Initial EP or DOCD (2) Supplemental EP or DOCD for which Florida and Alabama are affected States (3) Supplemental DOCD proposing new multi-well structures for which Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas are affected States (4) Revised EP or DOCD for which the MMS GOMR determines that the revisions could result in a significant change in the impacts previously identified and evaluated (refer to 30 CFR 250.285).

(b) Other Information

The enforceable policies for the State of Louisiana were considered in making the certification of consistency abo ve.



## Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) (§§ 250.227 and 250.261)

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Appendix H.

## Administrative Information (§§ 250.228 and 250.262)

NTL 2010

- N10 S tatement of C ompliance w ith A pplicable R egulations a nd Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources

NTL 2010- N06 Information Requirements for EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs on the OCS.

3D GeoHazard Study of Block 325, Walker Ridge Area, OCS

- G 32673 prepared for Woodside.

NTL 2009- G40 Benthic Communities

NTL 2009-G39 Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features & Areas

NTL 2009

- G27 & 20 10

- N06 Submitting E xploration P lans & D evelopment O perations
Coordination Documents

NTL 2009- G06 Military Warning and Water Test Area s.

NTL 2009-G02 Ocean Current Monitoring

NTL 2008 -G20 & 201 2 -Joint- G01 Revisions t o t he List of O CS Lease Blocks R equiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.

NTL 2008-N07 Supplemental Bond Procedures.

NTL 2008- N05 Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) for Covered Facilities.

NTL 2008- G06 Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater.

NTL 2008

- G04 Information R equirements f or E xploration Plans a nd D evelopment O perations
Coordination Documents.

NTL 2012-Joint- G0 1 Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting.

NTL 20 12- BSEE

- G0 1 Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination.

NTL 2012-Joint- G0 1 Implementation of S eismic S urvey M itigation M easures a nd P rotected Species Observer Program

NTL 2005-G07 Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.

NTL 2001- G10 Clarification of Eastern Gulf of Mexico Sale 181 Military Areas Stipulation.

NTL 2000-G16 Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds.

Current Code of Federal Regulations 30 Parts 250, 254 and 256.

### ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(a) Exempted Information Description (Public Information Copies Only)

In accordance with 43 CFR Part 2, Appendix E, sections (4) and (9), the following information is exempt from disclosure and has been omitted from the Public Information copy of this plan:

**•** The geologic objectives, BHL, TVD, and MD information on form BOEM -137 (OCS Plan Information Form) in Appendix A

**•** All items under Geological and Geophysical Information, except for the non-proprietary
version of shallow hazards assessment

**•** Correlative well information used to justify H2S classification request under Hydrogen
Sulfide Information

**•** Geological section of Worst Case Discharge Scenario calculations and assumptions.

(b) Bibliography

**•** Shallow Hazard Survey

**•** Woodside Oil Spill Response Plan

**•** Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007 -2012, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2007-03

**•** Initial Exploration Plan N -9414

# Appendix A
Plan Information FormU.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Type of OCS Plan: X Exploration Plan Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD)
Company Name: Woodside Energy (USA), Inc. BOEM Operator Number: 02407

Address: 5151 San Felipe Street Contact Person: Ann Hebert

Suite 1200 Phone Number: (713) 401-00 19

Houston, Texas 77056 Email Address: Ann.Hebert @WoodsideEnergy.com
If a service fee is required under Amount Paid Receipt No. 30 CFR 250.125 (a) provide the NA

Lease(s): Area Block(s) Project Name (if applicable)

WR 325 Ivan

Objective(s) X Oil Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Support Base(s): Fourchon, LA Platform/Well Name: B Total Volume of WCD: 13205 stbbls API Gravity: 24 ° Distance Closest to Land (Miles): 165 Volume from Uncontrolled Blowout: 1.5MMstb

Have you previously provided information to verify the calculations and assumptions for your WCD? Yes No X 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 No x Do you propose to use a vessel with anchors to install or modify a structure? Yes No x Do you propose any facility that will service as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes No x

Jack Up Drill Ship Caisson Tension Leg Platform
Gorilla Jack Up Platform Rig Fixed Platform Compliant Tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed Tower

DP Semisubmersible X Other Floating Other

(Attach description) Production System (Attach description) Drilling Rig Name (If Known):



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 7 Description of Proposed Activites and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply)

From (Facility /Area/Block) To (Facility /Area/Block) Diameter Length (feet) OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

General Information

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Description of Lease Term Pipelines Proposed Activity End Date No. of Days

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure OCS-G-32673

1/1/2013 5/31/2013 151 Exploration Drilling #A
Exploration Drilling #B Start Date

1/1/2014 5/31/2014 151 Exploration Drilling #C 1/1/2015 5/31/2015 151 Exploration Drilling #D 1/1/2016 5/31/2016 152Well or Structure Name/Number (if renaming Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD?

well or structure, reference previous name) A Yes X No Is this an existing well or If this is an existing well or structure,

structure? Yes No X list the Complex ID or API No.
Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your
proposed activities? Yes X No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled For structures, volume of all storage and API Gravity of blowout (bbls/day): 12154 stb/d pipelines: fluid 24

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

Lease No. OCS G-32673 OCS OCS

OCS

Area Name WR

Block No. 325 N/S Departure F___L

Blockline N/S Departure 1479' FSL N/S Departure F___L
Departures E/W Departure 1202' FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F___L (in feet) F___L (in feet) X: 2,263,918' X: X:

Lambert X:

X-Y Y: 9,663,879' Y: Y:

Coordinates Y: Latitude/ Latitude: 26° 37' 10.539" Latitude: Latitude:
Longitude Latitide:

Longitude: -91° 05' 28.180" Longitude: Longitude:
Longitude: Water Depth (feet): MD (feet): TVD (feet): MD (feet): TVD (Feet):

6343' MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

Anchor Name

or Number



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 7 X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= X= Y= Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (if anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor Area Block

Y=

X= Y= X= Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)Well or Structure Name/Number (if renaming Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD?

well or structure, reference previous name) B Yes X No Is this an existing well or If this is an existing well or structure,

structure? Yes No X list the Complex ID or API No.
Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your
proposed activities? Yes X No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled For structures, volume of all storage and API Gravity of blowout (bbls/day): 13205 stb/d pipelines: fluid 24

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

Lease No. OCS G-32673 OCS OCS

OCS

Area Name WR

Block No. 325 N/S Departure F___L

Blockline N/S Departure 2186' FSL N/S Departure F___L
Departures E/W Departure 1909' FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F___L (in feet) F___L (in feet) X: 2,263,211' X: X:

Lambert X:

X-Y Y: 9,664,586' Y: Y:

Coordinates Y: Latitude/ Latitude: 26° 37' 17.644" Latitude: Latitude:
Longitude Latitide:

Longitude: -91° 05' 35.852" Longitude: Longitude:
Longitude: Water Depth (feet): MD (feet): TVD (feet): MD (feet): TVD (Feet):

6334' MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

Anchor Name

or Number



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 3 of 7 Y=

X= Y=

X= Y= X= Y=

X= X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y= X= Y=

X= Y= Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (if anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=Well or Structure Name/Number (if renaming Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD?

well or structure, reference previous name) C Yes X No Is this an existing well or If this is an existing well or structure,

structure? Yes No X list the Complex ID or API No.
Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your
proposed activities? Yes X No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled For structures, volume of all storage and API Gravity of blowout (bbls/day): 12821 stb/d pipelines: fluid 24

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

Lease No. OCS G-32673 OCS G-32673 OCS

OCS

Area Name WR WR

Block No. 325 325 N/S Departure F___L

Blockline N/S Departure 2445' FSL N/S Departure F___L
Departures E/W Departure 943' FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F___L (in feet) F___L (in feet) X: 2,264,177' X: X:

Lambert X:

X-Y Y: 9,664,845' Y: Y:

Coordinates Y: Latitude/ Latitude: 26° 37' 20.066" Latitude: Latitude:
Longitude Latitide:

Longitude: -91° 05' 25.167" Longitude: Longitude:
Longitude: Water Depth (feet): MD (feet): TVD (feet): MD (feet): TVD (Feet):

6350' MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

Anchor Name

or Number



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 4 of 7 Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor

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

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (if anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=Well or Structure Name/Number (if renaming Previously reviewed under an approved EP or DOCD?

well or structure, reference previous name) D Yes No X Is this an existing well or If this is an existing well or structure,

structure? Yes No X list the Complex ID or API No.
Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your
proposed activities? Yes X No

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled For structures, volume of all storage and API Gravity of blowout (bbls/day): 11760 stb/d pipelines: fluid 24

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

Lease No. OCS G-32673 OCS OCS

OCS

Area Name WR

Block No. 325 N/S Departure F___L

Blockline N/S Departure 1683' FSL N/S Departure F___L
Departures E/W Departure 736' FEL E/W Departure E/W Departure F___L (in feet) F___L (in feet) X: 2,264,384' X: X:

Lambert X:

X-Y Y: 9,664,083' Y: Y:

Coordinates Y: Latitude/ Latitude: 26° 37' 12" Latitude: Latitude:
Longitude Latitide:

Longitude: -91° 05' 23" Longitude: Longitude:
Longitude: Water Depth (feet): MD (feet): TVD (feet): MD (feet): TVD (Feet):

6346' MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

Anchor Name

or Number



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 5 of 7 OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (if anchor radius supplied above, not necessary)

Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y=

X= Y= X= Y=

X= Y=Analog Wells

GEOLOGIC DATA FOR WCD

Hole Interval for WCD

T op (TVD in feet)

Formation Data Sand 5

Sand Name
Estimated Top TVD

Estimated Base TVD
Estimated Net Sand Height MD (Net Pay if Hydrocarbon)
Estimated Net Sand Height TVD (Net Pay if Hydrocarbon)
Fluid Type Used in WCD? (Yes/No)

Seismic Survey Used

NA

ENGINE ERING DATA FOR WCD

WCD Engineering Items WCD (STB/Day)

WCD Calculated at Mudline Yes No Yes No

Flow Correlation Outlet Pressure (psia)

Gas Turbulence Factor

Software Model Used

Formation Data Sand 5

Sand Name Permeability (mD) Initial Pressure (psia)



### Form BOEM-0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 6 of 7 Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 6 Atmosphere Base (TVD in feet)

Sand 6 Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)Formation Data Sand 5

Reservoir Temperature (F) Porosity (0.00)
Water Saturation (0.00) Rock Compressability (microsips) Water Salinity (ppm)

Drive Mechanism Drainage Area (acres)

Oil Reservoir Data Sand 5
Bubble Point Pressure (psia) Initial Bo (RB/STB) Bo (RB/STB) @ Bubble Point Rsi (SCF/STB)
Initial Oil Viscosity (Cp) Oil Viscosity (Cp) @ Bubble Point Oil Compressability (1 psia) Oil API Gravity (API) Specific Gas Gravity (0.00)

Gas Reservoir Data Sand 5
Condensate API Gravity (API) Specific Gas Gravity (0.00) Yield (STB/MMCF

Source of Permeability Used
Permeability from MDT
Permeability from Core Anlaysis

Pressure Transient Analysis
Permeability from CMR or NMR log analysis

Permeability from other source.
Provide Model Input Values for Relative Permeability
Residual Oil to Gas Fraction (=1-Slc-Swe)
Residual Oil to Water Fraction (=Soc) Critical Gas Fraction (Sge. Gas/Oil-Water Systems Residual Gas to Water Fraction (Sge, Gas/Gas-Water Systems)

Kro Oil Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability) Krg Gas Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability) Krw Water Curve Endpoint (fraction of absolute permeability)

Form BOEM- 0137 (December 2011- Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 7 of 7 Percussion Core Rotary Sidewall Core Conventional Core Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 6 Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 6 Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 Sand 6 OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) requires us to inform you that BOEM collects this
information as part of an applicant’s Exploration Plan or Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for BOEM approval. We use the information to
facilitate our review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 550.197. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
Control Number. Responses are mandatory (43 U.S.C. 1334). The public reporting burden for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and
Development Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that burden to average 600 hours with an accompanying EP, or 700 hours with an accompanying DPP
or DOCD, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the forms associated with subpart B. Direct
comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 381
Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170.

# Appendix B Vicinity Map
Location /

Ba th y metry Map

# Appendix C
Blowout Scenario WCD Assumptions and Calculations

### Blowout Scenario

1) Purpose.

Pursuant with 30 CFR 250.213(g), 250.219, 250.250 and NTL No. 2010-N06, this provides a blowout scenario description, further information regarding any potential oil spill, the assumptions and calculations used to determine the worst case discharge and the measures taken to firstly enhance the ability to prevent a blowout and secondly to respond and manage a blowout scenario if it occurred.

2) Background.

This attachment has been developed to document the additional information requirements for Exploration Plans as requested by NTL No. 2010-N06 in response to the explosion and sinking of the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) ‘Deepwater Horizon’ and the resulting sub-sea well blowout and recovery operations of the expl oration well at the MC -252 ‘Macondo’ location.

3) Information Requirements.

a) Blowout scenario.

The exploration well is drilled to the objective sands as outlined in the Geological and Geophysical Information Section of this Plan utilizing a typic al sub

- sea wellhead system, conductor, surface and intermediate casing program, and using a MODU rig with a marine riser and sub-sea BOP. A hydrocarbon influx and a well control event occurred from the objective sands during a trip out of the hole (ie drill pipe in the hole but not at the total depth of the well) followed by failure of the sub- sea BOP and
marine riser and a blow -out to the seabed.

b) Estimated flow rate of the potential blowout

.

Category Revised EP Type of Activity Exploratory Drilli ng Facility Location (area/block) WR 325 Well Location “ B ” Facility Designation MODU Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 1 65 Uncontrolled blowout (volume per day) 31,190 bbl s Type of Fluid(s) Crude

c) Total volume and maximum duration of the potential blowout.

Category Initial EP Duration of flow (days) 21 days to contract/mob rig
159 days to drill relief well 180 days total duration Total volume of spill (bbls) 5,614, 200

### d) Potential for the well to bridge over.

Mechanical failure/collapse of the borehole in a blowout scenario is influenced by several factors including in -situ stress, rock strength and fluid velocities at the
sandface. Given the fluid velocities inherent in a blowout, it is possible that the borehole may fail/collapse/brid ge over within the span of a week.

e) Likelihood and measures taken for intervention to stop the blowout.

The likelihood of surface intervention to stop a blowout is high and is based on the following equipment specific to the MODU - Maersk Developer that has been contracted to do this drilling program:

• Acoustic Secondary BOP Control System: The rig has a Kongsberg acoustic BOP control system fitted to the BOP. This system has the ability to communicate with the
BOP from surface in the event of failure of the primary umbilical control system from the rig under a scenario such as a loss of the rig or marine riser. Control can be established either from the surface acoustic package on the rig or by deploying a second acoustic control package on the back of a supply boat. The system is configured to provide control over the following functions: Blind / shear ram close - Pipe ram close - LMRP disconnect

• ROV Secondary BOP Control System: The rig has two secondary ROV interface BOP control panels, one located on the lower BOP and a second located on the LMRP. This system is designed for an ROV hot stab to interface with the control panel and operate a specific function by direct hydraulic supply from the ROV.

The system is configured to provide control over the following functions: - Blind / shear ram open and close - Casing (super) shear ram open and close - Auto shear

sequence - Pipe rams open and close - LMRP disconnect - Wellhead disconnect The rig is equipped with two ROV’s which provides additional redundancy. The panels could also be operated by an ROV from independent supply boat in the event of a loss of rig scenario. The ROV panel has been tested using the rig based ROV with the
BOP on a wellhead on the seabed and the actual hot stab. A close of the blind shear rams was successfully achieved in 13 minutes using the ROV’s direct hydraulic supply.

• Deadman / autoshear function: The rig is equipped with an automated sequence that closes the blind shear rams in the event of any of the following scenarios: - Inadvertent disconnect of the LMRP - Loss of both hydraulic pressure and electrical supply from the surface BOP control system No human interface is required once these systems are armed. These systems were satisfactorily te sted during rig commissioning and periodically during pre- drill operations

.

f) Availability of a rig to drill a relief well.

Woodside currently has one deepwater MODU (Maersk Developer) on contract and located in the US GOM for exploration drilling. If the blowout scenario does not involve the loss or damage of the rig (eg: marine riser failure only), then the existing

### contracted rig may be available for drilling the relief well. Maersk Drilling owns and maintains spare riser joints and a spare BOP in the US GOM.

If the blowout scenario involves significant damage or total loss of this rig then a replacement rig will be required to be contracted.

The US GOM activity level currently supports a deepwater operating fleet of between
25 to 40 MODU’s with the majority of those rigs being dynamically positioned vessels. The GOM is considered a mature operating environment with a significant local rig fleet capable of conducting relief well operations. The ability to negotiate and contract a rig of similar capability under the scenario of a requirement to drill a relief well is considered high.

Woodside has also established and signed mutual aid agreements both with the Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG) and with the Global Rig Share Solutions Group (GRSS) to provide the framework and guiding principles for gaining access to another members rig or providing Woodside’s own contracted rig to another member operator in need of a rig to respond to a blowout scenario.

Contracting strategy:

• Request rig avail ability from existing strategic partners and mutual aid agreement
partners in the US GOM. • Request rig availability from the wider GOM fleet through direct contact and negotiation and by utilizing the established communication network between the US
GOM o perator drilling organizations.

g) Rig constraints.

The US GOM deepwater rig fleet consists of mainly 4th to 6th generation dynamically positioned MODU’s which are capable of performing equivalent relief well operations at the Ivan location. The sma ller US GOM fleet of anchored MODU’s that can work in deepwater would have time and equipment constraints of mobilizing and setting up a deepwater anchoring spread at the location and would not be the preferred option for the drilling of a relief well.

h) Time taken to contract a rig, move it onsite and drill a relief well

.

Between 2008 and 2010 the US GOM rig fleet has typically been close to 95% utilization on deepwater exploration and development projects for multiple US GOM operators. This high u tilization means that any rig that is contracted for a relief well will likely have to suspend current operations on an existing well before moving to prepare for drilling a relief well. It is estimated that 14 days is typically required to suspend a well and pull the BOP and be ready to move to a new location. It is estimated a further 7 days is then required to mobilize and be ready to spud at the
relief well location.

i) Assumptions and calculations used in determining the worst case discharge as we ll as directional survey and wellbore schematic are listed in Appendix A (proprietary information).

### k) Measures taken to enhance ability to prevent a blowout.

• Well design: Woodside uses a systematic well design process for the planning and construction of a well operation. This process involves an assurance plan covering each step of the well design and an independent peer review of the well design and of the shallow hazards and formation pressure hazards expected during d rilling. These are the critical design steps required to minimize the potential for an unplanned well control event that could lead to a blowout. This process will also include a Professional Engineer review and approval of the final casing design.

Woodside’s drilling philosophy is to provide a detailed pre- drill assessment of formation pressure and provide an overbalanced mud weight for the safe drilling of the well. For an exploration well this may also include taking formation pressures to
confirm t he actual formation pressure during the well construction process and
minimize the risk of an unplanned well control event.

The well construction process also requires a systematic review and management acceptance of the start -up preparation work for the rig and crews and the third party technical audit work on the rig and the rig’s well control equipment. This measures the rig’s ability to handle an unplanned well control event and provide assurance that the rig can successfully mitigate a loss of well control event and prevent it from becoming a blowout scenario.

• Barrier Philosophy: For the exploration well design Woodside will require and use two independent barriers for both internal and external flow paths and conduct positive and negative testing to confirm integrity of those barriers in accordance with
NTL No. 2010-N05.

• Management of change protocol: Woodside uses a ‘Management of Change’ system for monitoring and approving changes in the well design or well construction that require a deviation from the approved Drilling Program. Where an unplanned result in the offshore operation requires a change or deviation from the approved drilling plan, a risk based decision with formal onshore management approval is required before continuing the operation.

• BOP and well control equipment: The Maersk Developer has a 15k psi (6 ram / 2 annular) Hydril BOP with primary and secondary BOP control systems. The BOP was delivered new in 2008. The BOP and well control equipment was audited dur ing the rig construction and commissioning process by an independent third party. Prior to commencement of operations at the location, a BOP certification package will be submitted as part of the APD process that details the compliance with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and applicable federal regulations including NTL
No. 2010-N05.

• Gas Handler: The Maersk Developer has an operational gas handler marine riser joint which is normally installed near the top of the marine riser below the moon pool. The purpose of the gas handler is to provide another means for closing an annular element near surface and capturing any gas that has found its way above the BOP and into the marine riser. The gas handler has the means to circulate this gas from under

### the closed annular in a controlled manner and back through conventional surface well control equipment. This item of well control equipment is relatively unique in the industry and has a direct application for deepwater operations.

• BOP and well control equipment testing. To ensure effectiveness of the BOP and well control equipment, a testing program will be conducted prior to running the BOP and then during the well operations at the GC- 451 well. This testing program will provide compliance with current federal regulations for pressure and function testing and will also provide periodic assurance on the performance of both primary and secondary BOP control systems including actual interface operations with the ROV and the ROV panel.

• Well con trol training and drills. Woodside’s Well Control Manual requires that key nominated onshore and offshore positions including rig contractor personnel hold an IWCF, WELLCAP or equivalent well control training certificate, renewable every two years for the type of floating drilling operation being conducted. Woodside also monitors compliance for its personnel with the federal regulations and Sub- Part O for well control training. A comprehensive program of well control drills will be conducted offshore to ensure readiness to identify and then manage a well control situation and thereby minimize the potential for a well control event to lead to a
blowout scenario.

l) Arrangements for drilling a relief well

Woodside maintains a master agreement with ‘Wi ld Well Control’ for advice, management, engineering, well kick pre and post modelling and resource support for an unplanned loss of well control event. In the event of any well control event, Wild Well Control would be contacted and mobilized if required to support Woodside’s operational team both in the onshore and offshore locations. During a significant loss of well control event, Woodside would mobilize up from a standard drilling support organization in Houston, Texas to a 24 hr / 7 days a week onshore capability utilizing both local operations resources within the Woodside USA organization and the wider Woodside Energy organization in Australia. A conceptual relief well design will be prepared ahead of time and issued with the Application to Drill. This conceptual well design would be finalized based on the exact circumstance of the loss
of well control event.

Back -up long lead equipment equivalent to the original well design will be carried in stock to allow a rapid response. This includes a spare deepwater sub

- sea wellhead system and the large OD casing (36”, 28” 22”, 18” and 16”) and the connectors required for the first part of the well. Smaller OD casing is considered widely available on the ground in the GOM and would be resourced out of existing inventory or from suppliers as required.

Existing service agreements will be in place for support services including drilling fluids, casing running, cementing, ROV’s, solids control, mud logging, directional drilling, LWD/MWD, logging, boats and helicopters.

Specialist services for range finding to drill the relief well in close proximity to the original wellbore at the reservoir depth will be provided through Vector Magnetics

### LLC as a sub -contractor to Baker Hughes Inteq under our existin g directional drilling
agreement.

The WR -325 block has three well locations identified and cleared for shallow hazards as part of Exploration Plan N-9414. A fourth location in this block has been
identified and cleared for shallow hazards and will be s ubmitted as a Supplemental

EP . Depending on the nature of the blowout scenario and the total depth required to intersect the blowout zone, these previously cleared areas would be reviewed for best suitability for the location of the relief well. After selecting the most suitable surface location a directional plan would be prepared and issued within a 48 hour period. There are no adjacent platforms which could be used to drill the relief well.

m) Mutual aid support and the Well Containment Plan

.

Woodsi de has entered into a membership agreement with the Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG). The HWCG is a consortium of deepwater operators in the Gulf of Mexico that has joined together to form a collective response capability for the management of a subsea well control incident and/or blowout. This membership provides access for the member companies to each others assets, people and equipment via a mutual aid agreement. It is anticipated that a response organization would be progressively established during an emergency using resources from the HWCG membership group and from Woodside in Australia to support the existing Woodside USA operations capability based in Houston, Texas, USA. Woodside’s response plan for a subsea blowout will be documented in a We ll Containment Plan (WCP) specific for each well and submitted as required with the Application to Drill.

Woodside, through membership of the Clean Gulf Association (CGA) has entered
into a contract with the Helix Energy Solutions Group for use of the Hel ix Fast Response System (HFRS) which provides the core equipment and services required to support the WCP. Woodside has also established separate master service agreements with a range of service providers who would also provide equipment, people and

serv ices to support the WCP.

# Appendix D Interpreted 2

- D or 3

- D Seismic Lines

Geological Structure Cross

- Sections High Resolution Seismic Lines Stratigraphic Column
Time vs

. Depth Tables

# Appendix E Shallow Hazard and Archaeological Assessments (Submitted Previously) High Resolution Seismic Lines (See Appendix D)10615 SHADOW WOOD DRIVE
SUITE 200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043 Phone: (713) 468

- 1410 Fax: (713) 468

- 1438

E- mail: gems@gemsinc.com

February 17 , 2011 Project No. 0211

- 1878

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 830 Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attention: 

### Mr. Douglas Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Wellsite A

Block 325 (OCS -G-32673) Walker Ridge Area
Gulf of Mexico

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) proposes an exploration wellsite in Walker Ridge Block 325. The Proposed Wellsite A location in Walker Ridge area, Block 325 appears favorable for exploration drilling operations relevant to the shallow geologic and stratigraphic conditions. The original geohazard
report (GEMS , 0608-1503) and this letter comply with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforc ement (BOEMRE) Notice

- to

- Lessees (NTL’s) , 2008- G04, 2008

- G05 , and 2009

- G40 ( MMS , 200 8a,b, and 2009b ).

Walker Ridge (WR) Block 325 is not in an area of archaeological potential. Therefore, the NTL's 2005-
G07 and 2008- G20 do not apply (MMS, 2005, 2008d). L ikewise WR 325 is not in a Military Warning area; therefore, requirements in NTL -2009-G06 are not applicable (MMS, 2009a).



### Introduction

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) contracted Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc

. ®

, (GEMS) to prepare a geohazard analysis of Block 325 of the Walker Ridge (WR) Area , Gulf of Mexico. The geohazard report discusses the seafloor an d subsurface conditions within WR 325 and surrounding
blocks based on 3- D geophysical data.

Woodside has designated several p ossible drilling locations within the study area. This Site Clearance Letter addresses the specific conditions at Proposed Wellsite WR 325- A (OCS -G-32673 ). This proposed location is plotted on the maps referenced in the main text of this report and is the subject of individual plat maps included with this letter . The seismic figures included with this letter are taken from the 3

- D data volume used for the geohazard assessment of the study area.

The Proposed Wellsite WR 325- A surface location is located in the southeastern corner of Block 325

, Walker Ridge area, Gulf of Mexico. Woodside provided the following coordinates:

Proposed Wellsite WR 325

- A Spheroid & Datum: Clarke 1866, NAD27 Projection: UTM Zone 15 North Block Calls Inline/Crossline

X: 2,263,918 ft Latitude: 26.619594139o N 1,479 ft FSL IN 10951 Y: 9,663,879 ft Longitude: 91.091161036o W 1,202 ft FEL XL 12045Project No. 0 211

- 1878

- 2
- Proposed Well WR 325 -A 

### Attachments

The figures accompanying this letter were extracted from the 3

- D data volume. The figures (listed below) are centered on the proposed well location.

Figure A -1: Tophole Prognosis Chart, Proposed Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure A

- 2: Inline 10951 and Crossline 12045 Showing Conditions Beneath Proposed Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure A -3: Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3-D Data Volume Within 500-ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 3 25.

The page- sized plat maps are taken from the full -scale (1:12,000) maps included in the report. The plat maps are centered on the Proposed Wellsite WR 325-A . The maps included in this letter are as follows:

Map A-1: Bathymetry Map, Proposed Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map A -2 : Enhanced Seafloor Rendering, Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map A -3: Amplitude- Enhanced Seafloor Rendering Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map A

- 4 Geologic Features Map, Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325



### Water Depth and Seafloor Conditions

The water depth at the proposed location is -6,343 ft ( Map A

- 1 and Figure A

- 1). The seafloor slopes to the

east at a gr adient of 1.1 **°** (1.9%).

WR 325

- A is situated above a shallow salt sheet . The overburden above the top of salt is approximately 1,528 ft t hick ( Figures A

- 1 and A

- 2). The seafloor topography mimics the folded and faulted salt surface.
Several f aults affect the seafloor east of the proposed location ( Figure A

- 2 and Maps A- 1 t hrough A -4). The closest offset is approximately 120 ft to t he east. The possible fault is downthrown away from the proposed location

, and therefore , will not cross the wellbore. The slope along the fault “scarp” is 3° to 7°.



### Deepwater Benthic Communiti es

There is no evidence of hydrocarbon seepage within 2,000 ft of the proposed location. Therefore, the potential for high

- density chemosynthetic or other deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed location is negligible. The Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering ( Map A- 3) shows normal or
ambient am plitudes along the seabed near the proposed wellsite.

The Enhanced Surface Rendering and Amplitude

- Enhanced S urface Rendering show few indications of

seepage

- related features within the area examined for this evaluation. A cluster of small mud mounds occur in the southwest corner of WR 325 ( GEMS report, Maps 2 thr ough 4). The small mounds may be seepage rela ted and therefore have the potential for supporting chemosynthetic communities. However, the closest feature is approximately 11,000 ft from the proposed location. These mounds will not be affected by the planned dynamically positioned drill rig at the Proposed Wellsite WR 325-A.



### Man

- Made Features

No wells or oilfield infrastructure occur within WR 325. In addition, no shipwrecks or other man

- made debris are reported in the vicinity. The nearest exploration well is in WR 371 approximately 6 miles to the
southeast of the Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -A.



### Stratigraphy

Inline 10951 and Crossline 12045 are the closest lines to the Proposed Wellsite WR 325-A ( Figure A -2). The Tophole Prognosis Chart ( Figure A

- 1) shows the crossline annotated with calculated depths to the
various ho rizons and predicted lithology of the sequences, along with their potential for shallow water flow and shallow gas.Project No. 0 211

- 1878

- 3
- Proposed Well WR 325 -A The top of salt is estimated to be approximately 1

, 528 ft below the mudline (bml) at this location. The relatively thin overburden is divided into five units or sequences. The sequenc es represent variations in depositional environments and possible changes in soil strength and composition.

The surficial unit, Unit 1 (Seafloor to Horizon A), to approximately 137 ft bml, will consist of mud

- rich hemipelagic and thin mass

- transport depos its. The soils at the seabed are likely to be soft high water content silty clays. The shear strength of the sediments will increase with depth corresponding to a decrease in water content. Stiff, overconsolidated sediments have been encountered in some areas along the lower continental slope above shallow salt sheets. Some of these areas generally have experienced erosion from strong bottom currents. No evidence of furrows or other erosional seabed features are identified around the proposed wellsite. However, overconsolidated sediments have occurred near the seafloor because of uplift and erosion of the section caused by the emplacement of the salt mass. Scout tickets indicate the surface casing in the offset well WR 285

- 1 was set at ~251 ft while t he surface casing
for the WR 372

- 1 well was 324 ft. It is not known whether the difference in casing depths were the result
of variable soil conditions or the engineering parameters of the different rigs and drilling programs.

The base of the surficial sequence (Unit 1) is Horizon 10 which is a continuous prominent reflecting horizon mappe d throughout the study area ( Figure A

- 1 a nd A -2)

. Units 2 and 3, between Horizons 10 and
20 and Hor izons 20 and 30 respectively, generally consist of relatively continuous stratified reflections.
These unit s will also be mud

- rich and consist of hemipelagic, turbidite, and mass

- transport deposits. Slightly higher amplitudes in Unit 3 suggest the presence of thin sand seams.

Unit 4, betw een Horizons 30 and 40, generally consists of low

- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections. This is predominantly a mud

- rich

, mass

- transport complex. Occasional sand pockets or seams are possible within this unit but are not likely beneath proposed location WR 325- A.

U nit 5 occurs between Horizon 40 and the top of salt ( Figures A

- 1 and A

- 2). Reflections within this

sequence are layered and are of moderate amplitude. Reflection continuity varies from parallel and continuous to discontinuous to chaotic. The deterioration in continuity reflects distortion of the section by faulting and folding of the unit above the shallow salt sheet and not a change in depositional environment. Unit 5 probably consists of turbidites interlayered with thin mass

- transport deposits. The sequence may have been part of a slope

- fan complex. The turbidites will consist of alternating layers of clay, silt

, and sand. The relatively high

- amplitude of the reflections in general and the distribution of bright spots within the sequence suggest th at thin sand layers are possible. The unit is highly fractured by faulting , indicating that high pore water pressures are not likely to be encountered. No high

- amplitude events occur beneath the proposed location within this unit.

The top of s alt at Pro posed Wellsite WR 325-A is at -7, 871 ft subsea (1,528 ft bml). The salt surface dips to the southwest at approximately 9.0°.



### Faults

Several seafloor faults occur to the east of Proposed Wellsite WR 325-A ( Map A- 4). The closest fault is
120 ft to t he east. The fault is downthrown away from the wellsite. The “scarp” created by this fault only amounts to an increase in seafloor slope of 3° to 7° which is a gentle flexure of the seabed. The fault is probably inactive and covered by a Holocene- aged pelagic drape.

At depth the wellbore will intersect two fault planes at 767 ft bml and 1

, 229 ft bml ( Figures A

- 1 and A -2).
These faults do not extend to the seafloor and are buried by approximately 700 ft of sediment. Therefore,
these faul ts have been inactive for a considerable amount of time. No shallow gas anomalies are associated with these fault planes; however, engineers should be aware that

, on occasion

, fault planes can be zones of lost circulation. The shallow fault (767 ft bml) will be encountered in Unit 4 which is a mud

- rich mass

transport sequence. The deeper fault at 1,229 ft bml will be crossed in the turbidites of Unit 5. Thin sands are possible in the turbidites.Project No. 0 211

- 1878

- 4
- Proposed Well WR 325 -A 

### Shallow Water Flow

The sedimentary section above the salt surface is 1,528 ft thick. Unit 5, between 1,093 ft to 1,528 ft bml, is a turbidite sequence possibly containing thin sand layers. However, the unit is highly faulted and fractured and possibly experienced erosion caused by uplift during emplacement of the salt sheet. High pore water pressures existing within this unit after deposition has likely dissipated during the period of active salt
tectonics.

In general, shallow water flow incidents have not been reported in the Walker Ridge area ( BOEMRE, 2011).



### Shallow Gas

T he well path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude events between the seafloor and top of salt ( Figure s A1 and A-2 ). The potential for shallow gas accumulations beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -A is minimal

. 

### Power Spectrum

In accordance with NTL 2008

- G04 and NTL 2008

- G05 (MMS 2008a,b), w e have extracted the power spectrum diagram ( Figure A

- 3) from the 3

- D seismic d ata cube

. The extraction was generated within a
500- ft radius of the intersection of the inlines and crosslines at the proposed wellsite. We converted the amplitude vs. frequency spectrum, generated by the SMT software, to power vs. frequency by squaring the amplitude values as described by J. A. Coffeen, 1978.

Figure A -3 Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3

- D Data Volume Within 500

- ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite A, Walker Ridge Block 325.Project No. 0 211

- 1878

- 5
- Proposed Well WR 325 -A 

### Closing

The seafloor at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-A , Walker Ridge Block 325 (OCS -G- 32673), appears suitable for exploration drilling operations. No major hazards or constraints are defined by the 3

- D da ta a t the proposed location.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Woodside Energy (USA) Inc ., and look forward to working closely with you on other projects.

Sincerely,

GEOSCIENCE EARTH & MARINE SERVICES, INC. ®

Thomas W. Neurauter Ph . D. Daniel Lanier Senior Marine Geologist Vice

- President/Marine Geologist

Attachments (3 Figures, 4 Maps)
Distribution: Mr. Doug las Lumpkin Mandeville , LA ( 3)

References: Coffeen, J. A., 1978, Seismic Exploration Fundamentals: Tulsa, the Petroleum Publishing Co., p. 125.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, 2011, ASCII Data Files, published on the BOEMRE Gulf of Mexic o Region Homepage, <http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/freedesc.html>, Accessed February, 2 011.

Minerals Management Service, 2005, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; archaeological resource surveys and reports, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2005

- G07. Effective Date July 1, 2005.

Minerals Management Service, 2008a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holder s in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; information requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G04. Eff ective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; shallow hazards program, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G05. Effective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008c, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases in the outer continental shelf , Gulf of Mexico OCS region; remotely operated vehicle surveys in deepwater, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G06. Effective Date May 26, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008d, Notice to lessees an d operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Revisions to the list of OCS lease blocks requiring archaeological resource sur veys and reports: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G20. Effective Date October 20, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2009a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer
contine ntal shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Military Warning and Water Test Areas: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Man agement Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G06. Effective Date April 22, 2009.

Minerals Management Service, 2009b, Notice to lessee s and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, deepwater benthic communities: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G40. Effective Date: January 27 , 2010.10615 SHADOW WOOD DRIVE
SUITE 200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043 Phone: (713) 468

- 1410 Fax: (713) 468

- 1438

E- mail: gems@gemsinc.com

February 17 , 2011 Project No. 0211

- 1878

Woodside Energy (USA), Inc., 830 Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attention: 

### Mr. Douglas Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Wellsite B
Block 325 (OCS -G-32673) Walker Ridge Area
Gulf of Mexico

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) proposes an exploration wellsite in Walker Ridge Block 325. The Proposed Wellsite B location in Walker Ridge area, Block 325 appears favorable for exploration drilling operations relevant to the shallow geologic and stratigraphic conditions. The original geohazard
report (GEMS, 0608 -1503) and this letter comply with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Notice

- to

- Lessees (NTL’s) , 2008- G04, 2008

- G05 , and 2009

- G40 ( MMS , 200 8a,b, and 2009b ).

Walker Ridge (WR) Block 325 is not in an area of archaeological potential. Therefore, the NTL's 2005-
G07 and 2008- G20 do not apply (MMS, 2005, 2008d). Likewise WR 325 is not in a Military Warning area; therefore, requirements in NTL -2009-G06 are not applicable (MMS, 2009a).



### Introduction

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) contracted Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc

. ®

, (GEMS) to prepare a geohazard analysis of Block 325 of the Walker Ridge (WR) Area , Gulf of Mexico. The geohazard report discusses the seafloor an d subsurface conditions within WR 325 and surrounding
blocks based on 3- D geophysical data.

Woodside has designated several possible drilling locations within the study area. This Site Clearance Letter addresses the specific conditions at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B (OCS -G-32673 ). This proposed location is plotted on the maps referenced in the main text of this report and in the plat maps included with
this letter . The seismic figures included with this letter are taken from the 3

- D data volume used for the geohazard assessment of the study area.

The Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B surface locatio n is located in the southeastern corner of Block 325

, Walker Ridge area, Gulf of Mexico. Woodside provided the following coordinates:

Proposed Wellsite WR 325

- B Spheroid & Datum: Clarke 1866, NAD27 Projection: UTM Zone 15 North Block Calls Inline/Crossline

X: 2,263,211 ft Latitude: 26.621567874o N 2,186 ft FSL IN 10956 Y: 9,664,586 ft Longitude: 91.093292269o W 1,909 ft FEL XL 12068Project No. 0 211 -1 878

- 2
- Proposed Well WR 325 -B 

### Attachments

The figures accompanying this letter were extracted from the 3

- D data volume. The figures (listed below) are centered on the proposed well location.

Figure B-1: Tophole Prognosis Chart, Proposed Wellsite B , Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure B- 2: Inline 10956 and Crossline 12068 Showing Conditions Beneath Proposed Wellsite B, Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure B -3: Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3-D Data Volume Within 500-ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite B, Walker Ridge Block 3 25.

The page- sized plat maps are taken from the full -scale (1:12,000) maps included in the report. The plat maps are centered on the proposed WR 325- B location. The maps included in this letter are as follows:

Map B -1: Bathymetry Map, Proposed Wellsite B , Walker Ridge Block 325 Map B -2 : Enhanced Seafloor Rendering, Wellsite B, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map B -3: Amplitude- Enhanced Seafloor Rendering Wellsite B, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map B -4 Geologic Features Map, Wellsite B, Walker Ridge Block 325



### Water Depth and Seafloor Conditions

The water depth at the proposed location is -6,334 ft ( Map B

- 1 and Figure B- 1). The se afloor slopes to the

south east a t a gradient of 0.7 **°** (1.2 %).

Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -B is situated above a shallow salt sheet. The overb urden above the top of salt is approximately 1,650 ft thick ( Figures B

- 1 and B- 2). The seafloor topography mimics the folded and
faulted s alt surface. Several faults affect the seafloor east of the proposed location ( Figure B- 2 and Maps

B- 1 through B -4). The closest offset is approximately 565 ft to the south east. The second closest fault is approxima tely 900 ft to the northeast. The seafloor faults are all downthrown away from the proposed location, and therefore , will not cross the wellbore. The seafloor along the fault “scarp s ” range in gradients
from 2 ° to 7°.



### Deepwater Benthic Communities

There is no evidence of hydrocarbon seepage within 2,000 ft of the proposed location. Therefore, the potential for high

- density chemosynthetic or other bent hic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed location is negligible. The Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering ( Map B- 3) shows normal or ambient amplitude s along the seabed near the proposed wellsite.

The Enhanced Surface Rendering and Amplitude -Enhan ced S urface Rendering show few indications of

seepage

- related features within the area examined for this evaluation. A cluster of small mud mounds occur in the southwest corner of WR 325 ( GEMS report Maps 2 t hrough 4). The small mounds may be seepage rela ted and therefore have the potential for supporting chemosynthetic communities. However, the closest feature is approximately 1 0,5 00 ft from Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -B . These mounds will not be affected by the planned dynamically positioned drill rig at the proposed B location.



### Man

- Made Features

No wells or oilfield infrastructure occur within WR 325. In addition, no shipwrecks or other man

- made debris are reported in the vicinity. The surface location of the nearest exploration well is in WR 371 approximately 6 miles to the southeast of Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -B.



### Stratigraphy

Inline 109 56 and Crossline 12 068 are the closest lines to Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B ( Figure B- 2). The Tophole Pr ognosis Chart ( Figure B- 1) shows the crossline annotated with calculated depths to the various horizons and pr edicted lithology of the sequences, along with their potential for shallow water flow and shallow gas.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

- 3
- Proposed Well WR 325 -B The top of salt is es timated to be approximately 1 ,650 ft below the mudline (bml) at this location. The relatively thin overburden is divided into five units or sequences. The sequences represent variations in depositional environments and possible changes in soil strength a nd composition.

The surficial unit, Unit 1 (Seafloor to Horizon A), to approximately 138 ft bml, will consist of mud

- rich hemipelagic and thin mass

- transport deposits. The soils at the seabed are likely to be soft high water content silty clays. The she ar strength of the sediments will increase with depth corresponding to a decrease in water content. Stiff, overconsolidated sediments have been encountered in some areas along the lower continental slope above shallow salt sheets. Some of these areas gen erally have experienced erosion from strong bottom currents. No evidence of furrows or other erosional seabed features are identified around the proposed wellsite. However, overconsolidated sediments have occurred near the seafloor because of uplift and erosion of the section caused by the emplacement of the salt mass. Scout tickets indicate the surface casing in the offset well, WR 285

- 1, was set at ~251 ft while the surface casing
at WR 372-1 was 324 ft. It is not known whether the difference in casin g depths were the result of variable soil conditions or the engineering parameters of the different rigs and drilling programs.

The base of the surficial sequence (Unit 1) is Horizon 10 which is a continuous prominent reflecting horizon mappe d throughout the study area ( Figure B

- 1 a nd B -2)

. Units 2 and 3, between Horizons 10 and
20 and Hor izons 20 and 30 respectively, generally consist of relatively continuous stratified reflections.
These unit s will also be mud

- rich and consist of hemipelagic, turbidite , and mass

- transport deposits. Slightly higher amplitudes in Unit 3 suggest the presence of thin sand seams.

Unit 4, betw een Horizons 30 and 40, generally consists of low

- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections. This is predominantly a mud

- rich

, mass

- transport complex. Occasional sand pockets or seams are possible within this unit but are not likely beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B.

Unit 5 occurs between Horizon 40 and the top of salt ( Figures B- 1 and B- 2). Reflections within this

sequence ar e lay ered and are of moderate amplitude. Reflection continuity varies from parallel and continuous to discontinuous to chaotic. The deterioration in continuity reflects distortion of the section by faulting and folding of the unit above the shallow salt sheet and not a change in depositional environment. Unit 5 probably consists of turbidites interlayered with thin mass

- transport deposits. The sequence may have been part of a slope

- fan complex. The turbidites will consist of alternating layers of clay, silt

, and sand. The relatively high

- amplitude of the reflections in general and the distribution of bright spots within the sequence suggest that thin sand layers are possible. The unit is highly fractured by faulting , indicating that high pore water pressures are not likely to be encountered. No high

- amplitude events occur beneath the proposed location within this unit.

The top of s alt at WR 325 -B is at -7,984 ft subsea ( 1,650 ft bml). A northwest

- southeast trending escarpment occurs along the salt surface beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B. The salt surface along this
escarpment dips to the southwest at approximately 30 °.



### Faults

Several seafloor faults occur to the east of Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B ( Map B- 4). The closest fault is
565 ft to the southeast . The fault is downthrown away from the wellsite. The “scarp” created by this fault only amounts to an increase in seafloor slope of 3° to 7° which is a gentle flexure of the seabed. The fault is probably inactive and covered by a Holocene- aged pelagic drape.

T he wellbore will intersect one fault plane at ~468 ft bml ( Figures B-1 and B-2). The fault inters ection w ill be near the top of Unit 3, a mixture of hemipelagic and mud

- rich turbidite deposits. The fault do es not extend to the seafloor a nd is buried by approximately 400 ft of sediment. Therefore, this fault ha s been inactive for a considerable amount of time. No shallow gas anomalies are associated with th is fault plane ; however, engineers should be aware that , on occasion, fault plan es can be zones of lost circulation.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

- 4
- Proposed Well WR 325 -B The steep escarpment along the top of salt may be a fault plane. Offsets in the sedimentary section immediately above the top of salt are not apparent. This is not an active fault; however, it does create a steep surface.



### Shallow Water Flow

The sedimentary section above the salt surface is 1, 650 ft thick. Unit 5, between 1,140 ft to 1 ,650 ft bml

, is a turbidite sequence possibly containing thin sand layers. However, the unit is highly faulted and fractured and possibly experienced erosion caused by uplift during emplacement of the salt sheet. High pore water pressures existing within this unit a fter deposition has likely dissipated during the period of active salt
tectonics.

In general, shallow water flow incidents have not been reported in the Walker Ridge area ( BOEMRE

, 2011).



### Shallow Gas

The well path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude events between the seafloor and top of salt (Figure s B1 and B-2 ). The potential for shallow gas accumulations beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -B is minimal

. 

### Power Spectrum

In accordance with NTL 2008

- G04 and NTL 2008

- G05 (MMS 2008a,b), w e have extrac ted the power spectrum diagram ( Figure B -3 ) from the 3

- D seismic d ata cube

. The extraction was generated within a
500- ft radius of the intersection of the inlines and crosslines at the proposed wellsite. We converted the amplitude vs. frequency spectrum, generated by the SMT software, to power vs. frequency by squaring the amplitude values as described by J. A. Coffeen, 1978.

Figure B-3 Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3

- D Data Volume Within 500

- ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite B , Walker Ridge Block 325.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

- 5
- Proposed Well WR 325 -B 

### Closing

The seafloor at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-B , Walker Ridge Block 325 (OCS -G- 32673), appears suitable for exploration drilling operations. No major hazards or constraints are defined by the 3

- D da ta at the proposed location. The well bore will encou nter a salt surface dips with a relatively high gradient (~30o).

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Woodside Energy (USA) Inc ., and look forward to working closely with you on other projects.

Sincerely,

GEOSCIENCE EARTH & MARINE SERVICES, INC. ®

Thomas W. Neurauter Ph. D. Daniel Lanier Senior Marine Geologist Vice

- President/Marine Geologist

Attachments (3 Figures, 4 Maps)
Distribution: Mr. Doug las Lumpkin Mandeville , LA ( 3)

References: Coffeen, J. A., 1978, Seismic Exploration Fundamentals: Tulsa, the Petroleum Publishing Co., p. 125.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, 2011, ASCII Data Files, published on the BOEMRE Gulf of Mexic o Region Homepage, <http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/f reedesc.html>, Accessed February, 2011.

Minerals Management Service, 2005, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; archaeological r esource surveys and reports, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2005

- G07. Effective Date July 1, 2005.

Minerals Management Service, 2008a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leas es and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; information requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G04. Effective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS reg ion; shallow hazards program, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G05. Effective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008c, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur le ases in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; remotely operated vehicle surveys in deepwater, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G06. Effective Date May 26, 2008.

Minerals Management S ervice, 2008d, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Revisions to the list of OCS lease blocks requiring archaeological resource sur veys an d reports: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G20. Effective Date October 20, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2009a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Military Warning and Water Test Areas: U. S. Department of the Interior, Miner als Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G06. Effective Date April 22, 2009.

Minerals Manageme nt Service, 2009b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexi co OCS region, deepwater benthic communities: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G40. Effective Date: January 27, 2010.10615 SHADOW WOOD DRIVE
SUITE 200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043 Phone: (713) 468

- 1410 Fax: (713) 468

- 1438

E- mail: gems@gemsinc.com

February 17 , 2011 Project No.0 211 -1 878

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 830 Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attention: 

### Mr. Douglas Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Wellsite C

Block 325 (OCS -G-32673) Walker Ridge Area
Gulf of Mexico

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) proposes an exploration wellsite in Walker Ridge Block 325.
The Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C location in Walker Ridge area, Block 325 appears favorable for exploration drilling operations relevant to the shallow geologic and stratigraphic conditions. The original geohazard report (GEMS, 0608 -1503) and this letter comply with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Notice

- to

- Lessees (NTL’s) , 2008- G04, 2008

- G05

, and 2009-G40 ( MMS , 2008a,b, and 2009b ).

Walker Ridge (WR) Block 325 is not in an area of archaeological potential. Therefore, the NTL's 2005-
G07 and 2008- G20 do not apply (MMS, 2005, 2008d). Likewise WR 325 is not in a Military Warning area; therefore, requirements in NTL -2009-G06 are not appl icable (MMS, 2009a).



### Introduction

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside ) contracted Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc

. ®

, (GEMS) to prepare a geohazard analysis of Block 325 of the Walker Ridge (WR) Area , Gulf of Mexico. The geohazard report discuss es the seafloor an d subsurface conditions within WR 325 and surrounding
blocks based on 3- D geophysical data.

Woodside has designated several possible drilling locations within the study area. This Site Clearance Letter addresses the specific conditions at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C (OCS -G-32673 ). This proposed location is plotted on the maps referenced in the main text of this report and is the subject of individual plat maps included with this letter . The seismic figures included with this letter are taken from the 3

- D data volume used for the geohazard assessment of the study area.

The Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C surface location is located in the southeastern corner of Block 325

, Walker Ridge area, Gulf of Mexico. Woodside provided the following coordinates:

Proposed Wellsite WR 325

- C Spheroid & Datum: Clarke 1866, NAD27 Projection: UTM Zone 15 North Block Calls Inline/Crossline

X: 2,264,177 ft Latitude: 26. 622240624 o N 2,445 ft FSL IN 10941

Y: 9,664,845 ft Longitude: 91. 090324301 o W 943 ft FEL XL 12064Project No. 0 211 -1 878

2 Proposed Well WR 325 -C 

### Attachments

The figures accompanying this letter were extracted from the 3

- D data volume. The figures (listed below) are centered on the proposed well location.

Figure C -1: Tophole Prognosis Chart, Proposed Wellsite C , Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure C

- 2: Inline 10941 and Crossline 12064 Showing Conditions Benea th Proposed Wellsite C

, Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure C -3: Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3-D Data Volume Within 500-ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite C, Walker Ridge Block 325.

The page- sized plat maps are taken from the full -scale (1:12,000) maps included in the report. The plat maps are centered on the proposed WR 325

- C location. The maps included in this letter are as follows:

Map C -1: Bathymetry Map, Proposed Wellsite C, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map C -2 : Enhanced Seafloor Rendering, Wellsite C, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map C -3: Amplitude- Enhanced Seafloor Rendering Wellsite C, Walker Ridge Block 325 Map C -4: Geologic Features Map, Wellsite C, Walker Ridge Block 325



### Water Depth and Seafloor Conditions

The water depth at the proposed location is -6,350 ft ( Map C

- 1 and Fi gure C

- 1). The seafloor slopes to

the n ort h at a gradient of 1.5 **°** (2.6 %).

Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -C is situa ted above a shallow salt sheet. The overburden above the top of salt is approxi mately 1,448 ft thick ( Figures C

- 1 and C

- 2). The seafloor topogr aphy mimi cs the folded and
faulted salt surface. Several faults affect the seafloor east of the proposed location ( Figure C

- 2 and Maps
C-2 through C -4 ). The closest offset is approximately 250 ft to the e ast. The fault is downthrown away from the propos ed location

, and therefore

, will not cross the wellbore. The slope along the fault “scarp”
is 2 ° to 5 °.



### Deepwater Benthic Communities

There is no evidence of hydrocarbon seepage within 2,000 ft of the proposed location. Therefore, the potential for high

- density chemosynthetic or other deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed location is negligible. The Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering ( Map C- 3) shows normal
or ambie nt amplitudes along the seabed near the proposed wellsite.

The Enhanc ed Surface Rendering and Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering show few indications of

seepage

- related features within the area examined for this evaluation. A cluster of small mud mounds occur in the southwest corner of WR 325 ( GEMS report Maps 2 and 3). The small mounds may be seepage related and therefore have the potential for supporting chemosynthetic comm uniti es. However, the closest feature is approximately 11, 500 ft from the Pr oposed Wellsite WR 325 -C . These mounds will not be affected by the planned dynamically positi oned drill rig at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C.



### Man

- Made Features

No wells or oilfield infrastructure occur within WR 325. In addition, no shipwrecks or other man

- made debris are reported in the vicinity. The surface location for the nearest exploration well is in WR 371, approximately 6 miles to the southeast of Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -C.



### Stratigraphy

Inline 10941 and Crossline 12064 are the closest lines to the Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C ( Figure C -2). The Tophole Prog nosis Cha rt ( Figure C

- 1) shows the crossline annotated with calculated depths to the
various hor izons and predicted lithology of the sequences, along wi th their potential for shallow water flow and shallow gas.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

3 Proposed Well WR 325 -C The top of salt is estimated to be approximately 1 ,448 ft below the mudline (bml) at this location. The relatively thin overburden is divided into five units or sequences. The sequences represe nt variations in depositional environments and possible changes in soil strength and composition.

The surficial unit, Unit 1 (Seafloor to Horizon A), to approximately 140 ft bml, will consist of mud

- rich hemipelagic and thin mass

- transport deposits. The soils at the seabed are likely to be soft high water content silty clays. The shear strength of the sediments will increase with depth corresponding to a decrease in water content. Stiff, overconsolidated sediments have been encountered in some areas along the lower continental slope above shallow salt sheets. Some of these areas generally have experienced erosion from strong bottom currents. No evidence of furrows or o ther erosional seabed features are identified around the proposed wellsite. However, overconsolidated sediments have occurred near the seafloor because of uplift and erosion of the section caused by the emplacement of the salt mass. Scout tickets indicate the surface casing in the offset well WR 285 -1 was set at ~251 ft while the surface casing
at WR 372

- 1 was 324 ft. It is not known whether the difference in casing depths were the result of
variable soil conditions or the engineering parameters of the d ifferent rigs and drilling programs.

The base of the surficial sequence (Unit 1) is Horizon 10 which is a continuous prominent reflecting horizon mappe d throughout the study area ( Figure C -1 a nd C-2). Units 2 and 3, between Horizons 10 and
20 and Horizon s 20 and 30 respectively, generally consist of relatively continuous stratified reflections.
These unit s will also be mud

- rich and consist of hemipelagic, turbidite, and mass -transport deposits. Slightly higher amplitudes in Unit 3 suggest the presence of thin sand seams.

Unit 4, bet ween Horizons 30 and 40, generally consists of low

- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections. This is predominantly a mud

- rich

, mass

- transport complex. Occasional sand pockets or seams are possible within this unit but are not likely be neath Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C.

Unit 5 occurs between Horizon 40 and the top of salt ( Figures C

- 1 and C

- 2). Reflections within this sequence are lay ered and are of moderate amplitude. Reflection continuity varies from parallel and

co ntinuous to discontinuous to chaotic. The deterioration in continuity reflects distortion of the section by faulting and folding of the unit above the shallow salt sheet and not a change in depositional environment. Unit 5 probably consists of turbidites interlayered with thin mass

- transport deposits. The sequence may have been part of a slope

- fan complex. The turbidites will consist of alternating layers of clay, silt

, and sand. The relatively high

- amplitude of the reflections in general and the distr ibution of bright spots within the sequence suggest that thin sand layers are possible. The unit is highly fractured by faulting

, indicating that high pore water pressures are not likely to be encountered. No high

- amplitude events occur beneath the proposed location within this unit.

The top of salt at WR 325-C is at -7,798 ft subsea ( 1,448 ft bml). The salt surface dips to the southwest at approximately 4.0°.



### Faults

Several seafloor faul ts occur to the east of Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C ( Map C- 4). The closest fault is
250 ft to t he east. The fault is downthrown away from the wellsite. The “scarp” created by this fault only amounts to an increase in seafloor slope of 2 ° to 5 ° which is a gentle flexure of the seabed. The fault is probably inactive and covered by a Holocene- aged pelagic drape.

T he wellbore will intersect two fault planes at depth ( Figures C

- 1 and C -2)

. The shallowest fault will be

encoun ter ed at 660 ft bml while the deeper fault will be at 1,024 ft bml. These faults do not e xtend to the seafloor and are buried by over 400 ft of sediment. Therefore, these faults have been inactive for a considerable amount of time. No shallow gas anomalies are associated with these fault planes; however, engineers should be aware that

, on oc casion

, fault planes can be zones of lost circulation. The shallow fault (660 ft bml) will be encountered along the base of Unit 3 which is primarily a mud

- rich turbidite sequence. The deeper fault, at 1,024 ft bml, will be crossed in along the base of Unit 4. Unit 4 consists
of discontinuous to chaotic mass

- transport sediments. Unit 4 is considered to have mud

- rich sediments.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

4 Proposed Well WR 325 -C 

### Shallow Water Flow

The sedimentary section above the salt surface is 1, 448 ft thick. Unit 5, between 1 ,034 ft to 1 ,428 ft bml

, is a turbidite sequence possibly containing thin sand layers. However, the unit is highly faulted and fractured and possibly experienced erosion caused by uplift during emplacement of the salt sheet. High pore water pressures existing within this unit af ter deposition has likely dissipated during the period of
active salt tectonics.

In general, shallow water flow incidents have not been reported in the Walker Ridge area ( BOEMRE

, 2011).



### Shallow Gas

The well path will not penetrate any high

- amplitude events between the seafloor and top of salt ( Figure s C-1 and C -2 ). The potential for shallow gas accumulations beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C is
minimal

. 

### Power Spectrum

In accordance with NTL 2008

- G04 and NTL 2008

- G05 (MMS 2008a,b), w e have extract ed the power spectrum diagram ( Figure C -3 ) from the 3

- D seismic dat a cube

. The extraction was generated within a
500- ft radius of the intersection of the inlines and crosslines at the proposed wellsite. We converted the amplitude vs. frequency spectrum, generated by the SMT software, to power vs. frequency by squaring the amplitude values as described by J. A. Coffeen, 1978.

Figure C-3 Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3

- D Data Volume Within 500

- ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite C , Walker Ridge Block 325.Project No. 0 211 -1 878

5 Proposed Well WR 325 -C 

### Closing

The sea floor at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-C , Walker Ridge Block 325 (OCS -G- 32673), appears suitable for exploration drilling operations. No major hazards or constraints are defined by the 3

- D da ta at the proposed location.

We appreciate the oppor tunity to be of service to Woodside Energy (USA) Inc ., and look forward to working closely with you on other projects.

Sincerely,

GEOSCIENCE EARTH & MARINE SERVICES, INC. ®

Thomas W. Neurauter Ph. D. Daniel Lanier Senior Marine Geologist Vice

- President/Marine Geologist

Attachments (3 Figures, 4 Maps)
Distribution: Mr. Doug las Lumpkin Mandeville , LA ( 3)

References: Coffeen, J. A., 1978, Seismic Exploration Fundamentals: Tulsa, the Petroleum Publishing Co., p. 125.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Manage ment, Regulation, and Enforcement, 2011, ASCII Data Files, published on the BOEMRE Gulf of Mexico Region Homepage, <http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/freedesc.html>, Accessed February, 2011.

Minerals Management Service, 2005, Notice to l essees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; archaeological resource surveys and reports, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Ser vice, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2005

- G07. Effective Date July 1, 2005.

Minerals Management Service, 2008a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; information requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G04. Effective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Servi ce, 2008b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulfur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; shallow hazards program, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Se rvice, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G05. Effective Date May 01, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008c, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases in the outer cont inental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; remotely operated vehicle surveys in deepwater, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G06. Effective Date May 26, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2008d, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipel ine right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Revisions to the list of OCS lease blocks requiring archaeological resource sur veys and reports: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mex ico, NTL 2008

- G20. Effective Date October 20, 2008.

Minerals Management Service, 2009a, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Military War ning and Water Test Areas: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G06. Effective Date April 22, 2009.

Minerals Management Service, 2009b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases in th e outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, deepwater benthic communities: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G40. Effective Date: January 27, 2010.10615 SHADOW WOOD DRIVE
SUITE 200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043 Phone: (713) 468

- 1410 Fax: (713) 468

- 1438

E- mail: gems@gemsinc.com

April 2, 2012 Project No. 0312

- 2069

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. Sage Plaza, Suite 1300 5151 San Felipe Houston, TX 77056

Attention: 

### Mr. Douglas Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Wellsite D
Block 325 (OCS -G-32673) Walker Ridge Area
Gulf of Mexico

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., (Woodside) proposes an exploration wellsite in Walker Ridge Block 325 (OCS G -32673)

. This letter addresses specific seafloor and subsurface geologic and stratigraphic conditions to the top of salt at approximately 1,464 ft below the mudline (bml) at the Proposed Wellsite
WR 325

- D location. The following discussion is based on findings provided within the geohazard report “Geologic and Stratigraphic As sessment, Block 325 (OCS G

- 32673), Walker Ridge Area, Gulf of Mexico” (GEMS Report No. 0 608-1503 ). Woodside provided the following coordinates:

Proposed Wellsite WR 325

- D Spheroid & Datum: Clarke 1866, NAD27 Projection: UTM Zone 15 North Block Calls Inline/Crossline

X: 2,264,384 ft Latitude: 26. 6201361226557 o N 1,683 ft FSL IN 10943

Y: 9,664,083 ft Longitude: 91. 0897256932603 o W 736 ft FEL XL 12045

Woodside plans to drill this well using a dynamically positioned drilling vessel. Our assessment addresses the seafloor conditions within a 2,000 ft radius around the proposed well location.

Attachments

The 1:12,000 scale maps accompanying this letter were extracted from the main report’s original maps and 3-D data volume. The maps and figures (listed below) are centered on the proposed well location.

Map WR 325-D-1: Bathymetry Map Map WR 325-D-2: Enhanced Seafloor Rendering Map WR 325-D-3: Amplitude -Enhanced Seafloor Rendering Map WR 325-D-4: Geologic Features Map Figure D-1: Tophole Prognosis Chart, Proposed Wellsite D, Walker Ridge Block 325 Figure D-2: Inline 10943and Crossline 12045 Showing Conditions Beneath Proposed
Wellsite D, Walker Ridge Block 325Project No. 0312

- 2069

2 Proposed Well WR 325 -D 

### NTL Requirements

The following report complies with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, formerly MMS)
Notice to Lessees (NTL’s) 2008

- G04, 2008

- G05, and 2009

- G40 (MMS, 2008a,b and 2010). The operator will be required to follow NTL’s 2008

- G04 and

- G06 with respect to an ROV monitoring survey as well as

pre- and post

- spud ROV visual inspection surveys (MMS, 2008b and 2008c). The Federal lease block

WR 325 is not considered archaeologically significant (NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, BOEM, 2011); therefore, requirements set forth in NTL 2005

- G07 (MMS, 2005) are not applicable in terms of surveys and
assessments in high -probability areas . However, pursuant to the Pre

- Seabed Disturbance Survey Mitigation issued by BOEMRE (BOEMRE, 2011), an archaeological assessment of the site must be performed prior to any bottom disturbing activities.



### Power Spectrum. According to NTL 2008

- G05 (MMS, 2008a), 3

- D seismic reflection data may be used for shallow hazard assessments with approval from the BOEM, Gulf of Mexico Region. A power spectrum analysis was conducted from the 3

- D seismic data cube provided by Woodside to illustrate the data parameters. The power spectrum curve (below) was generated within a 500

- ft radius of the intersection of the inline and crossline at the proposed wellsite location. We converted the amplitude vs. frequency spectrum, generated by th e SMT software, to power vs. frequency by squaring the amplitude values as described by J. A. Coffeen, 1978.

Figure D -3 Power Spectrum Chart Based on 3

- D Data Volume Within 500

- ft Radius of Proposed Wellsite D , Walker Ridge Block 325. 

### Water Depth and Se afloor Conditions

The water depth at the proposed location is -6,346 ft ( Map D- 1 and Figure D- 1). The seafloor slopes to the

southwest at a gradient of 2.5 **°** ( 4.4 %).

WR 325 -D is situated above a shallow salt sheet. The overburden above the top of salt is approximately 1,464 ft thick (Figures D- 1 and D- 2). The seafloor topography mimics the folded and faulted salt surface.

F aults affect the seafloor east and west of the prop osed location (Figure D- 2 and Maps D- 1 through D- 4). The closest offset is approximately 400 ft to the southwest . The fault is downthrown toward the proposedProject No. 0312

- 2069

3 Proposed Well WR 325 -D location. The well bore will intersect a branch of the fault just above Horizon 20, approximately 396 ft bml (Figure D

- 1). A second fault that extends to the seafloor occurs approximately 435 ft to the northeast of the proposed location. This fault is downthrown away from the proposed wellsite; therefore, the wellbore
will not intersect the fault plane.



### Deepwater Benthic Communities

There is no evidence of hydrocarbon seepage within 2,000 ft of the proposed location. Therefore, the potential for high

- density chemosynthetic or other deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed lo cation is negligible. The Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering (Map D- 3) shows normal or ambient amplitudes along the seabed near the proposed wellsite.

The Enhanced Surface Rendering and Amplitude

- Enhanced Surface Rendering show few indications of

seep age

- related features within the area examined for this evaluation. A cluster of small mud mounds occur in the southwest corner of WR 325 ( GEMS report, Maps 2 through 4). The small mounds may be seepage related and therefore have the potential for supporting chemosynthetic communities. However, the
close st feature is approximately 11,500 ft from the proposed location. These mounds will not be affected by the planned dynamically positioned drill rig at the Proposed WR 325 -D wellsite

.


### Man

- Made Feat ures

At this time, n o wells or oilfield infrastructure occur within WR 325. In addition, no shipwrecks or other

man

- made debris are reported in the vicinity. The nearest exploration well is in WR 371 approximately 6
miles to the southeast of the Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -D.



### Stratigraphy

Inline 10943 and Crossline 12045 are the closest lines to the Proposed Wellsite WR 325-D (Figure D-2). The Tophole Prognosis Chart (Figure D- 1) shows the crossline annotated with calculated depths to the various horizons and predicted lithology of the sequences, along with their potential for shallow water flow and shallow gas.

The top of salt is estimated to be approximately 1 ,464 ft below the mudline (bml) at this location. The relatively thin overburden is divided in to five units or sequences. The sequences represent variations in depositional environments and possible changes in soil strength and composition.

The surficial unit, Unit 1 (Seafloor to Horizon A), to approximately 13 5 ft bml, will consist of mud

- rich
h emipelagic and thin mass

- transport deposits. The soils at the seabed are likely to be soft high water content silty clays. The shear strength of the sediments will increase with depth corresponding to a decrease in water content. Stiff, overconsolidated sediments have been encountered in some areas along the lower continental slope above shallow salt sheets. Some of these areas generally have experienced erosion from strong bottom currents. No evidence of furrows or other erosional seabed features are identified around the proposed wellsite. However, overconsolidated sediments have occurred near the seafloor because of uplift and erosion of the section caused by the emplacement of the salt mass. Scout tickets indicate the surface casing in the offset well WR 285

- 1 was set at ~251 ft while the surface casing
for the WR 372

- 1 well was 324 ft. It is not known whether the difference in casing depths were the result
of variable soil conditions or the engineering parameters of the different rigs and drilling programs.

The base of the surficial sequence (Unit 1) is Horizon 10 which is a continuous prominent reflecting horizon mapped throughout the study area (Figure D- 1 and D-2) . Units 2 and 3, between Horizons 10 and 20 and Horizons 20 and 30 respectively, generally consist of relatively continuous stratified reflections.
These unit s will also be mud

- rich and consist of hemipelagic, turbidite, and mass

- transport deposits. Slightly higher amplitudes i n Unit 3 suggest the presence of thin sand seams.Project No. 0312

- 2069

4 Proposed Well WR 325 -D Unit 4, between Horizon 30 and Horizon 40, generally consists of low

- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections. This is predominantly a mud

- rich

, mass

- transport complex. Occasional sand pockets or s eams are possible within this unit but are not likely beneath proposed location WR 325-D.

Unit 5 occurs between Horizon 40 and the top of salt (Figures D- 1 and D- 2). Reflections within this sequence are layered and are of moderate amplitude. Reflection continuity varies from parallel and continuous to discontinuous to chaotic. The deterioration in continuity reflects distortion of the section by faulting and folding of the unit above the shallow salt sheet and not a change in depositional environment. Unit 5 probably consists of turbidites interlayered with thin mass

- transport deposits. The sequence may have been part of a slope

- fan complex. The turbidites will consist of alternating layers of clay, silt

, and sand. The relatively high

- amplitude of th e reflections and the distribution of bright spots within the sequence suggest that thin sand layers are possible. The unit is highly fractured by faulting

, indicating that high pore water pressures are not likely to be encountered. No high

- amplitude eve nts occur beneath the proposed location within this unit.

The top of salt at Proposed Wellsite WR 325-D is at -7,810 ft subsea ( 1,464 ft bml). The salt surface dips to the south at approximately 7.5 °.



### Faults

As mentioned previously, the proposed wellsite occurs between two faults that extend to the seabed ( Figure

D- 1 and Map D- 4). The closest fault is approximately 400 ft to the southwest. The second fault is approximately 435 ft to the northeast. The “ esca rpments ” created by th ese fault s amount to an increase in seafloor slope of 3° to 7° which is a gentle flexure of the seabed. The fault s are probably inactive and covered by a Holocene

- aged pelagic drape.

At depth the wellbore will intersect two fault p lanes at 396 ft bml and 810 ft bml (Figures D- 1 and D-2).
These faults do not extend to the seafloor but a branch of one offset is the fault that extends to the seafloor
to the southwest of the location. The low seafloor gradient of the seafloor faults a nd the burial of the other
fault indicate that fault motion is extremely slow or has been inactive for a considerable amount of time. No shallow gas anomalies are associated with these fault planes; however, engineers should be aware that, on occasion, fa ult planes can be zones of lost circulation. The shallow fault will be encountered near the base of Unit 2 a sequence of mud

- rich hemipelagic and mass

- transport deposits. The deeper fault ( 810 ft bml) will be encountered in Unit 4 which is a mud

- rich mas s- transport sequence.



### Shallow Water Flow

The sedimentary section above the salt surface is 1, 464 ft thick. Unit 5, between 997 ft to 1,464 ft bml

, is a turbidite sequence possibly containing thin sand layers. However, the unit is highly faulted and fractured and possibly experienced erosion caused by uplift during emplacement of the salt sheet. High pore water pressures existing within this unit a fter deposition has likely dissipated during the period of active salt
tectonics.

In general, shallow water flow incidents have not been reported in the Walker Ridge area ( BOEM, 2012).



### Shallow Gas

The well path will not penetrate any high -amplitude e vents between the seafloor and top of salt (Figure s D1 and D-2 ). The potential for shallow gas accumulations beneath Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -D is minimal

. 

### Closing

The seafloor at Proposed Wellsite WR 325 -D , Walker Ridge Block 325 (OCS -G- 32673), appear s suitable for exploration drilling operations. No major hazards or constraints are defined by the 3

- D data at the proposed location.Project No. 0312

- 2069

5 Proposed Well WR 325 -D We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Woodside Energy (USA) Inc., and look forward to working closely with you on other projects. Sincerely,

GEOSCIENCE EARTH & MARINE SERVICES, INC. ®

Thomas W. Neurauter Ph. D. Daniel Lanier Senior Marine Geologist Vice

- President/Marine Geologist

Attachments (3 Figures, 4 Maps)
Distribution: Mr. Doug las Lumpkin Houston, TX (3)

References:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) , 2011, Pre

- seabed disturbance survey mitigation, released by BOEMRE in March 2011.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) , 2011, Notice to lessees and ope rators (NTL) of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way (ROW) holders on the outer continental shelf (OCS); Revisions to the list of OCS lease blocks requiring archaeological resource surveys and reports: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bur eau of Ocean Energy, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (GOMR), NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01. Effective Date December 29, 2011.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) , 2012, ASCII data files, published on the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region homepage, <http://www.gomr.boem.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/freedesc.html>, accessed January, 2012.

Coffeen, J. A., 1978, Seismic Exploration Fundamentals: Tulsa, the Petroleum Publishing Co., p. 125.

Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc.® (GEMS), 200 8 , Geologic and stratigraphic assessment, Block 325

, Walker Ridge Area, Gulf of Mexico, Project No. 0 608 -1 503

. Minerals Management Service, 2005, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Archaeological resource surveys and reports: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2005

- G07.

Minerals Management Service, 2008a, Notice to les sees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, shallow hazards requirements: U. S. Department of the Inte rior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mex ico, NTL 2008

- G05.

Minerals Management Service, 2008b, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases and pipeline righ t- of

- way holders in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, information requirements for exploration plans and development operations coordination documents: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G04.

Minerals Management Service, 2008c, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil, gas, and sulphur leases in the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region; remotely operated vehicle surveys in deepwater, U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2008

- G06.

Minerals Management Service, 2009, Notice to less ees and operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right

- of

- way holders on the outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, Military Warning and Water Test Areas: U. S. Department of the In terior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexi co, NTL 2009

- G06. Effective Date April 22, 2009.

Minerals Management Service, 2010, Notice to lessees and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the outer continental she lf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region, deepwater benthic communities: U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico, NTL 2009

- G40. Effective Date January 27, 2010.

# Appendix F Air Quality ReviewEXPLORATION PLAN (EP)

AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST COMPANY Woodside Energy

AREA WR
BLOCK 325
LEASE 32673
PLATFORM

WELL A-D

COMPANY CONTACT Debra K. Benoit
TELEPHONE NO. 713-401-0083
REMARKS debra.benoit@WoodsideEnergy.comEMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS
Woodside Energy WR 325 32673 A-D Debra K. Benoit 713-401-0083

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D DAYS PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO
DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 61200 2955.96 70943.04 24 151 43.14 197.89 1482.82 44.48 323.52 78.16 358.57 2686.87 80.61 586.23 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 1800 86.94 2086.56 8 129 1.27 5.82 43.61 1.31 9.52 0.66 3.01 22.58 0.68 4.93 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 No Tugs Required VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs-2) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2013 YEAR TOTAL 47.37 217.29 1628.19 48.85 355.24 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 102282.55

165.0COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Woodside Energy WR 325 32673 A-D Debra K. Benoit 713-401-0083

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

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

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 61200 2955.96 70943.04 24 151 43.14 197.89 1482.82 44.48 323.52 78.16 358.57 2686.87 80.61 586.23 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 1800 86.94 2086.56 8 129 1.27 5.82 43.61 1.31 9.52 0.66 3.01 22.58 0.68 4.93 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 No Tugs Required VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs-2) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2014 YEAR TOTAL 47.37 217.29 1628.19 48.85 355.24 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 102282.55

165.0COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Woodside Energy WR 325 32673 A-D Debra K. Benoit 713-401-0083

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

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

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 61200 2955.96 70943.04 24 151 43.14 197.89 1482.82 44.48 323.52 78.16 358.57 2686.87 80.61 586.23 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 1800 86.94 2086.56 8 129 1.27 5.82 43.61 1.31 9.52 0.66 3.01 22.58 0.68 4.93 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.57 2.64 19.76 0.59 4.31 No Tugs Required VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs-2) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2015 YEAR TOTAL 47.37 217.29 1628.19 48.85 355.24 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 102282.55

165.0COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Woodside Energy WR 325 32673 A-D Debra K. Benoit 713-401-0083

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

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

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 61200 2955.96 70943.04 24 152 43.14 197.89 1482.82 44.48 323.52 78.68 360.95 2704.66 81.14 590.11 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 1800 86.94 2086.56 8 130 1.27 5.82 43.61 1.31 9.52 0.66 3.03 22.73 0.68 4.96 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.58 2.65 19.89 0.60 4.34 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2100 101.43 2434.32 12 65 1.48 6.79 50.88 1.53 11.10 0.58 2.65 19.89 0.60 4.34 No Tugs Required VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs-2) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2016 YEAR TOTAL 47.37 217.29 1628.19 48.85 355.24 80.50 369.29 2767.17 83.01 603.75

EXEMPTION

CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 102282.55

165.0SUMMARY

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL

Woodside Energ WR 325 32673 A-D

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2013 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

2014 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

2015 79.97 366.86 2748.96 82.47 599.77

2016 80.50 369.29 2767.17 83.01 603.75

2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2018 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2019 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Allowable 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 5494.50 102282.55

# Appendix G Oil Spill Response Discussion Oil Spill Response Certification

### SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Mana gement Act analysis, the largest spill volum e originating from the proposed activity would be a well b l owout during drilling operations,
estimated to be 31,190 barrels of crud e oil with an API gravity of 23.9°.

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill a nd the prob ability of it im pacting a land segm ent have bee n projec ted utilizing information in the BS EE Oil Spill R isk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BSEE website. The results are shown in Figure 1. The BSEE OSRAM identifies a 3% proba bility of im pact to the s horelines of Ca meron Parish, Louisiana within 30 days. Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine Nationa l Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake. Cameron Parish also includes the area along the coastline from Sabine Pass to Big Constance Lake in Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge. This region is co mposed of open public beaches, marshlands and swam ps. It serves as a habita t for num erous birds, finf ish and other anim als, including several rare, threat ened and endangered species.

Response

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will make every effort to respond to the Wo rst Case Discharge as effectively as practicable. A de scription of the response equipmen t under contract to contain and
recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2.

Using the estim ated chem ical and physical charact eristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADIO S oil database. The results indicate 28% or approximately 8,733 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 22,457 barrels remaining.

Spill Response WR 325 Barrels of Oil

WCD Volume 31,190

Less 28% natural evaporation/dispersion 8 ,733
Remaining volume 22,457
Daily dispersant capability 7,540



### Figure 2 o utlines equ ipment, pers onnel, m aterials and su pport ves sels as well as tem porary storage equipment available to respond to a spill of approx imately 22,457 barrels. The volum e accounts for the am ount remaining after evaporatio n/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estim ates individual times needed for proc urement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure
2 also indicates how operations will be supported.

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Oil Spill Response Plan incl udes alternative response technologies such as dispersants and in-situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified

### Command based on size of the spi ll, weath er and potential im pacts. If aerial d ispersants are utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from two of the DC-3 aircrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraf t would provide a dail y dispersan t capability o f 7,540 barrels. If the conditions are favorable for in-situ burning, the proper approvals have been obtained and the proper plan ning is in p lace, in -situ burning of oil m ay be attem pted. Slick containm ent boom would be immediately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing the HO SS Barge and three Fast Response Units, with a total derated skimming capacity of 55,753 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimm ing equipment equals 4,500 barrels. If additional stor age is needed, three 20,000 barrel storage barge may be mobilized and centrally located to provi de temporary storage allowing the skimm ers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe prio r to any containment/skimming attempts.

If the spill went unabated, s horeline impact in Ca meron Pa rish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environm ental conditions. Shoreline prot ection would include the use of CGA’s near
shore and shallow water skimm ers with a tota led derated skimm ing cap acity of 13,253 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 256 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 23,000 barrel s torage barge m ay be mobilized and centrally located to prov ide temporary storage a llowing the sk immers to stay in the area of operation s as m uch as possib le. Onshore response m ay include the d eployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, o r protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. A Mas ter Service Agreement with Oil Mop will ensure access to 3 0,000 feet of 18” shoreline p rotection boom . Figure 2 o utlines ind ividual tim es needed for procurem ent, load out, travel tim e to the site and deploym ent. Strategies would be based upon surveillance and real tim e trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given
actual sea and weather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil S pill Response Plan for
Cameron Parish and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that environm ental and special eco nomic reso urces would be correctly identified and prior itized to en sure optim al protection. Shoreline protect ion strategies depict the protecti on response modes applicable for oil spill clean-up operations. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan provides detailed shoreline protection strategies for this area, and it describes necessa ry action to keep the oil spi ll from entering Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, based on the assumption that re moval of the released oil will be much easier and less dam aging to fragile coastal ecosystem s if done in the open waters of the Gulf of M exico. Supervisory pers onnel have the option to modify the deploym ent and operation of equipm ent allowing a m ore eff ective respo nse to site-s pecific circu mstances. Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s cont ract Spill Managem ent Team holds a copy of the State of
Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan.

Based on the anticipated wors t cas e discharge scenario, Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. can be
onsite with contracted o il spill recovery equipm ent with ad equate response capacity to contain and recover surface hydrocarbons , and prevent land im pact to the m aximum extent practicab le, within 48 hours (based on the equipm ent’s Eff ective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)). Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will continue to co mmit additional on-water m echanical recovery resources as well as apply dispersants and in -situ burning needed and as approved, under the supervision of the USCG Captain of the Port (COTP) and the Regional Response Team (RRT).

### Initial Response Considerations Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors to include but not
be limited to:

• Weather

• Equipment and materials availability

• Ocean currents and tides

• Location of the spill

• Product spilled

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments

• Trajectory and product analysis

• Well status, i.e., shut in or continual release

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will take action to provide a safe, aggressi ve response to contain and recover as much of the spilled oil as quickly as it is saf e to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response actions wi ll be designed to provide an “in-depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much oil as possible as far from environmentally sensitive areas as possible. Safety will take precedence over all other considerations during these operations.

Upon notification of a spill, the following actions will be taken:

• Information will be confirmed

• An assessment will be made and initial objectives set

• OSROs and appropriate agen cies will be notified

• ICS 201, Initial Report Form completed

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published

• Unified Command will be established

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

o Areas of responsibility esta blished for Source Control a nd each surface operational
site

o On-site command and control established

Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

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

• Provide trained observer to pr ovide on site status reports

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

• Continual surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography
and visual confirmation

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems

### Dispersant application assets

• Put ASI on standby

• With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determin e appropriateness of dispersant application

• Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface

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

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

• Confirm dispersant availability fo r current and long range operations

• Start ordering dispersa nt stocks required for expected operations

Containment boom

• Call out early and expedite deployment to be on scene ASAP

• Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom

• Provide continuing reports to vessels to expedite their arrival at sites that will provide for
their most effective containment

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

Dedicated off-shore skimming systems
General

• Deployed to the highest concentration of oil

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

CGA HOSS Barge

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA FRUs

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off-shore as allowed

• VOOs 140’ – 180’ in length

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

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

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

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

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

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

### Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)

• Use Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s cont racted resources as applicable

• Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

• Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft

• Expect mission specific and sa fety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

In-situ Burn assets

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

• Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

• Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

• Determine assets to perform on water operation

• Build operations into safety plan

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan

### Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

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

• VOO identification and training in advance of spill nearing shoreline if possible

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

Considerations

• Water depth, vessel draft

• Shoreline gradient

• State of the oil

• Use of VOOs

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

• Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

• Continual surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography
and visual confirmation

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets

Dispersant Use

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

• Approval would be at Regional Re sponse Team level (Region 6)

Vessel Deployment Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• FRVs

• Egmopol and Marco SWS

• Operate with aerial spotter directi ng systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

• Use Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s cont racted resources as applicable

• Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

• Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft

• Expect mission specific and sa fety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches

### Shoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations

• Environmental risk assessments (ERA) to determine prioritie s for area protection

• Time to acquire personnel and eq uipment and their availability

• Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate Area Contingency Plan, and currently for Louisiana, The State of Loui siana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010 (La. OSRP)

Actions

Placement of boom

• Position boom in accordance with the ERA based on the actual situation or the appropriate ACP

• Assess timing of booming operations to ensure it is where it needs to be at time of impact. Consider:

o Trajectories

o Weather forecast

o Oil Impact forecast

o Verified spill movement

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability

o Near shore boom and support material, (stakes, anchors, line)

Beach Preparation

Considerations and Actions

• Use of a 10 mile go/no go line to determine timing of beach cleaning

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

• Determination of Archeological site s and gaining authority to enter

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

• Pre cleaning of beaches by moving waste above high time lines to minimize waste

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

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

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

• In-situ burn may be considered when marshes have been impacted

• Passive clean up of marshes should considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom and/or sweep obtained

• Earthen berms and shoreline protection boom may be considered to protect sensitive
inland areas

### Decanting Strategy Recovered oil and wa ter m ixtures will typic ally se parate into d istinct phase s when lef t in a quiescent state. W hen s eparati on occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with m inima l, if any, impact. Decan ting therefore increases the effective on-site oil storage c apacity a nd equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval will be req uested p rior to decan ting operation s. This pra ctice is rou tinely used f or oil spill

recovery.

CGA Equipment Limitations The capability f or any spill respon se equipm ent, whether a dedica ted or portab le system , to operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in rela tion to the capabilities of the vessel the system in placed on. Most importantly, however, the decision to operate will be based on the judgment of the Unified Command a nd/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the final say in te rminating opera tions. Skimm ing equipment listed below m ay have operational limits which exceed thos e safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill response, vessel skimming opera tions ceased when seas reache d 5-6 feet and vessels were often recalled to port when those conditions w ere exceeded. System s below are som e of the most up-to-date systems available and were employed during the DWH spill.

Boom 3 foot seas, 20 knot winds Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots Visibility less than 3 nautical miles Ceiling less than 1,000 feet.

FRU 8 foot seas HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas Koseq Arms 8 foot seas

OSRV 4 foot seas

### Environmental Conditions in the GOM Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experien ces westerly winds during the wint er and easterly winds in th e summ er. Average wind speed is generally 14-15 m ph a long the coast. W ave he ights average 4 and 5 feet. However, during hurricane season, Louisiana has recorded wave heights ranging from 40 to 50 feet high and winds reaching speeds of 100 mph. Because much of southern Louisiana lies below sea level, flooding is prominent.

Surface water temperature ranges between 70 and 80  ̊ F during the summ er months. During the winter, the average temperatur e will range from 50 and 60  ̊ F.

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane seas on is officially from 1 June to 30 Nove mber. 97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The Atlant ic basin shows a very peaked season from August through October, with 78% of the tropical storm days, 87% of the m inor (Saffir-Simpson Scale categories 1 and 2) hurricane days, and 96% of the m ajor (Saffir-Simpson categories 3, 4 and 5) hurricane days occurri ng then. Maxim um activity is in early to m id September. Once in a few years there may be a hurri cane occurring "out of season" - primarily in May or Decem ber. Globally, September is the mo st active month and May is the least active
month.

### FIGURE 1
TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s WC D and information in the BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Me xico available on the BSEE website using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS-G Launch
Area Land Segment and/or

Resource Conditional Probability (%) within 30 days

Exploratory Drilling

WR 325

165 miles from shore G32673 C47 Matagorda County, TX Brazoria County, TX Galveston County, TX Jefferson County, TX Cameron Parish, LA Vermilion Parish, LA Terrebonne Parish, LA Plaquemines Parish, LA 1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS(165 miles from shore)22,457bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering)API Gravity 23.9°FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to WR 325Dispersants/SurveillanceDispersant/SurveillanceDispersantCapacity (gal)StorageCapacityPersonsReq.From Hrs to ProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel tositeTotal HrsCGABasler 67T2000 NA2 Houma11 1.1 3.1ASIDC 31200 NA2 Houma11 1.4 3.4DC 31200 NA2 Houma11 1.4 3.4Aero CommanderNANA 2 Houma11 1.13.1Offshore ResponseOffshore Equipment NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGAHOSS Barge43000 4000 3 Tugs 8Harvey7 0 5 20.3 1 33.3Recovered Oil Storage NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsEnterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)CTCo 2604NA 20000 1 Tug 6Amelia4 12 4 22.5 1 43.5CTCo 2605NA 20000 1 Tug 6Amelia4 12 4 22.5 1 43.5CTCo 2606NA 20000 1 Tug 6Amelia4 12 4 22.5 1 43.5Staging Area: FourchonOffshore Equipment WithStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toSiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGAFRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Leeville 1 2 .5 14.6 1 19.1FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Utility 6Harvey1 2 2.75 14.6 1 21.3542” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Galveston 1 2 7 14.6 1 25.642” Auto Boom (10000’) NA NA 0 Crew 40Harvey1 2 2.75 14.6 1 21.3542” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 14.6 1 28.142” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Lake Charles 1 2 4 14.6 1 22.642” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Pascagoula 1 2 4 14.6 1 22.61000’ Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40Harvey1 4 2.75 14.6 6 28.35Nearshore ResponseNearshore Recovered OilStorage No StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsEnterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)CTCo 2607NA 23000 1 Tug 6Amelia4 23 4 13.75 1 34.75Staging Area: CameronNearshore and InlandSkimmers With StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGASWS Egmopol3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.520 8.5SWS Egmopol3000 100 NA 3Houma1 2420 9SWS Marco3588 34NA 3Houma1 2420 9SWS Marco3588 20NA 3Lake Charles 1 2120 6Rope Mop77 2 0 3 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.520 9.5Shoreline ProtectionStaging Area: CameronShoreline ProtectionBoomVOOPersonsReq.Storage/WarehouseLocationHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeployment SiteHrs toDeployTotal HrsOil Mop (available through MSA)10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10New Iberia, LA1 1 2.5239.510,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10Houston, TX1 1 2.5239.510,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10Port Arthur, TX1 1 1.25238.25Beach BoomEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGABeach Boom (2000’)NA NA NA 6 Galveston 1 2 3.512 9.5Beach Boom (1000’)NA NA NA 4 Ingleside 1 2612 12Beach Boom (2000’)NA NA NA 6 Pascagoula 1 2 5.512 11.5Wildlife Response EDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGAWildlife Support Trailer NA NA NA 2Houma1 2412 10Bird Scare Guns (24)NA NA NA 2 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.512 10.5Bird Scare Guns (12)NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.512 9.5Bird Scare Guns (24)NA NA NA 2Houma1 2412 10Bird Scare Guns (12)NA NA NA 2 Ingleside 1 2612 12Bird Scare Guns (24)NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2112 7Bird Scare Guns (24)NA NA NA 2 Pascagoula 1 2 5.512 11.5Response AssetTotalOffshore EDRC55,753Offshore Recovered Oil Storage64,500Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC13,253Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage23,256NATI(}HAL RESPONSE co'|poRATroN 6620 CYPRESSWOOD DRlvE. STE.201 SPRING, TEXAS 77379 (281) 899-4&18

. FAX {281i 89s-4849

a SEACORcompany



### Please be advised that Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. cunently has a memberchip agreernent with National Response

Corporation

(NRC) as equipment

provider and the follovying

contracts

or agreements

by way of NRC membership:

The subject

contracts

or membership

agreements

provide immediate

access to available

personnelandlor

eguipment

on a 24-hour

per day basis.

ou,/tAoro

COf, POEATE HEADQUAftTERS

3500 SUNHISE HIGHWAY. SUI?E 103 GREAT RIVER, NY 11739 (6811 224*9141

' FAX {631} 224-sa82 REGIOHAL OFFICES HOUSTON,TX SAN JUAN, PR MEMPHIS, TN SEATTLE, WA MORGAN

C'TY, LA SI CRO'X, USVI N€WYORK,

NY TAMPA,

FL

# Appendix H Consistency Cer tification

# Appendix I Environmental Impact Analysis

# Woodside Energy (USA), Inc. (Woodside)

Supplemental/Revised Exploration Plan Walker Ridge Block 325
OCS-G 32673

(A) Impact Producing Factors

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

Resources Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) Categories and Examples Refer to recent GOM OCS Lease Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs

Emissions (air, noise, light, etc.) Effluents (muds, cutting, other discharges to

the water

column or seafloor) Physical
disturbances to the

seafloor (rig or

anchor emplacements, etc.) Wastes sent
to shore for

treatment or disposal Accidents (e.g., oil spills,
chemical spills, H 2 S releases) Discarded
Trash &
Debris

Site-specific at Offshore
Location

Designated topographic features (1) (1)

Pinnacle Trend area live bottoms (2) (2)

Eastern Gulf live bottoms (3) (3)

Benthic communities (4)

Water quality X(5) X(5)

Fisheries X(6) X(6)

Marine Mammals X(7) X(7) X(7) X(7)

Sea Turtles X(8) X(8) X(8) X(8)

Air quality (9)

Shipwreck sites (known or potential) (10)

Prehistoric archaeological sites (11)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X(1) X(1)

Marine and pelagic birds (2) X(2) X(2)

Public health and safety

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(1) X(1)

Wetlands X(2) X(2)

Shore birds and coastal nesting
birds X(3) X(3)

Coastal wildlife refuge s X(4) X(4)

Wilderness areas X(5) X(5)Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if th e well or platform site or any anchors will be on the seafloor within the:

o 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3-mile zone of Stetson Bank;

o 1000-m, 1-mile or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease;

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

o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) w ith relief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipul ation attached to an OCS lease.
2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seaflo or habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (LowRelief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentr ations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 6) All activities t hat could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydr ocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would im pact these envi ronmental resources. If the proposed action is lo cated a sufficie nt distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the BOEM as h aving high-probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or p rehistoric sites, in cluding such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the leas e block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or
sea turtles or their critical habitats. 9) Production activities that involve trans portation of produced fluids to shor e using shuttle tankers or barges.

## (B) Analysis

Site-Specific at Walker Ridge Block 325
Proposed operations consist of the revision of previ ously approved Well Locations A, B and C,
the addition of Well Location D a nd the drilling of these wells.
The operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned semi-submersible.

1. Designated Topographic Features
Potential IPFs on topographic features include effluents, and accidents.

Effluents: Walker Ridge Block 325 is 93 m iles fr om the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Sweet Bank); ther efore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an acciden tal su rf ace or sub surface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , W ater Quality). Oil s pills cause dam age to benthic organisms only if the oil contacts the organi sms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water colum n; measurable amounts have been docum ented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of ma gnitude lower than the
amount shown to have an effect on corals. Becau se the crests of topogr aphic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are foun d below 10 m, no oil from a surface sp ill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not app licable due to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed act ivities, which could imp act topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms
Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bo ttoms include effluent s and accidents.

Effluents: Walker Ridge Block 325 is 239 m iles from the closest live botto m (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an acciden tal su rf ace or sub surface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spill s have the potential to foul benthic communities and caus e lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oil from a surface sp ill can be dr iven into the w ater colum n; m easurable am ounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on m arine organisms. Oil

### from a subsurface spill is not a pplicable due to the dis tance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. The activ ities proposed in this p lan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could im pact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area.

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Walker Ridge Block 325 is not located in an area characterized by the existence of live bottoms; therefore, no a dverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an acciden tal su rf ace or sub surface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause d amage to live bottom organisms only if the oil con tacts the organi sms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water colum n; measurable amounts have been docum ented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of ma gnitude lower than the
amount shown to have an effect on m arine inve rtebrates. Oil from a subsurface s pill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom area. The activities proposed in this p lan will be cover ed by W oodside’s Regi onal OSRP (ref er to inf ormation subm itted in Appendix G ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed ac tivities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live
bottom area.

4. Benthic Communities
Walker Ridge Block 325 is locate d in water depths 984 feet (300 meters) or greater. Potential IPFs that co uld resu lt in im pacts to benthic communities fro m the proposed activities includ e physical disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dy namically p ositioned se mi-submersible is being used for the proposed activ ities; therefore, only an insignificant am ount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because ph ysical distu rbances to the seafloor will be m inimized by the use of a dynamically positioned sem i-submersible, W oods ide’s proposed operations in W alker Ridge Block 325 would not cause im pacts to benthic co mmunities. Additionally, Walker Ridge Block 325 is approxim ately 71 m iles from the closes t known benthic community site (BenthicGreen Canyon Block 287), lis ted in NTL 2009-G40. The proposed activ ities will be conducted in

### accordance with NTL 2009-G40, which will en sure that features o r areas that cou ld support high-density benthic communities will not be impacted.

There are n o other IPF s (includ i ng e missions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities wh ich could impact benthic communities.

5. Water Quality

IPFs that could result in wate r quality degradation from the pr oposed operations in Walker Ridge
Block 325 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions a nd monitoring and toxicity testin g are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby elim inating m any significant bi ological o r eco logical effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause si gnificant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil sp ills have the potential to alter o ffshore water quality; how ever, it is un likely
that an accidental surface or s ubsurface spill would occur from th e proposed activities. Between 1980 and 2000, OCS operations produced 4.7 billion barrels of oil and spilled only 0.001 percent of this oil, or 1 bbl for every 81,000 bbl produced. The spill risk related to a diesel spill from drilling operations is even less. Between 1976 and 1985, (years for which da ta were collected), there were 80 reported diesel spil ls greater than one barrel associ ated with dr illing activities . Considering that there were 11,944 wells drille d, this is a 0.7 percen t probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occu r, the water quality of m arine waters would be tem porarily affected by the disso lved com ponents and s mall oil d roplets. Disp ersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to seve ral months afterwards. Most of the components
of oil are insoluble in water and theref ore f loa t. The activities propo sed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional Oil Spill R espons e Plan (refer to infor mation subm itted in Appendix G ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause im pacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries
IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed opera tions in Walker Ridge
Block 325 include efflue nts and accidents.

Effluents: Effluents such as drillin g fluids and cutting s discharges co ntain com ponents and properties which are detrim ental to f ishery resources. Moderate petroleum and m etal

### contamination of sediments and the water column can occur out to several hundred meters downcurrent from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water colum n or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have negligible effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental o il sp ill has th e p otent ial to cause som e detrim ental effects on fisheries; however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). T he effects of oil on m obile adult finfish or she llfish would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage woul d be reduced to the cap acity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the s pill, to m etabolize hydr ocarbons, and to excrete both m etabolites and parent compounds. The activities pr oposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

There are no IPFs from em issions, physical disturba nces to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause imp acts to fisheries.

7. Marine Mammals

GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf-edge were alm ost exclusively bottlenose dolphin a nd Atlantic spotted dolphin. S quid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, a nd Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in W alker Ridge Block 325 include emissions, effluents, discarde d trash and debris, and accidents.

Emissions: Noises from drilling activ ities, support vessels and helico pters may elicit a startle
reaction from marine m ammals. This rea ction m ay lead to disruption of m arine m ammals’ normal activities. Stress m ay make them more vul nerable to parasites, disease, environm ental contaminants, and/or predation (Majors and Myri ck, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long-term displacements and population trends for marine mammals relative to noise.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cutti ngs discharges contain components which may be detrimental to marine mammals. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling flui ds would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and inge stion of debris have caused the death or serious injury of m arine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The lim ited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed act ivities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. Operators are pro hibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by
MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Polluti on Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various ag encies in cluding the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

### Woodside will operate in accordance with the regulations an d also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as coveri ng outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special cau tion will be exercised w hen handlin g and disposing of sm all item s and packaging materials, particularly those m ade of non-biode gradable, environm entally persistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational pla cards will be po sted on a ll vessels and f acilities h aving sleeping or f ood preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement that em phasizes their commi tment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by m aintaining a vigilant watch for m arine mammals and m aintaining a safe d istance when they are s ighted. Vess el crews sh ould use a reference guide to he lp identify the twenty-eigh t species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of m anatee that m ay be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews m ust report sightings of any injured or dead protected marine ma mma l species immediately, regardless of whether th e injury or death is cau sed by their vessel, to the Marine Mamm al and Sea Turtle S tranding Hotline at (888 ) 404-3922, the NMFS Southeast R egional Office at (727 ) 824-5312, or the Marine Mamm al Stranding N etwor k at (305) 862-2850. In addition, if the injury or de ath was cau sed by a co llision with a contract v essel, the BOEM m ust be notif ied within 24 h ours of the strik e by e mail to protectedspecies@BOEM.gov . If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist th e respective salvage and stranding
network as needed.

Oil spills h ave the potentia l to ca use suble thal oil-related injur ies an d spill-re lated deaths to marine m ammals. However, it is unlike ly th at an accid ental o il sp ill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil sp ill response activ ities may increas e vessel traffic in th e area, which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is no t known. The acute toxicity of oil dispersant chem icals included in W oodside’s OSRP is considered to be low when com pared with the c onstituents and fractions of crude oils and diesel products. T he activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s OSRP (refer to
information submitted in accordance with Appendix G ).

### There are no other IPF s (including physical di sturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact marine mammals.

8. Sea Turtles
IPFs that could cause im pacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, effluents, discarded tr ash and debris, and accidents. Gu lfCet II studies sighted m ost loggerhead, Kem p’s ridley and le atherback sea turtles over shel f waters. Historically these species have been sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; L ohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all sp ecies as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activi ties, support vessels, and heli copters may elicit a s tartle reaction from sea turtles, but th is is a temporary disturbance.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not k nown to be lethal to sea turtles. Most operational discharges are dilu ted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect , either as a res ult of im pacts on prey item s or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and inge stion of, debris have caused the death or serious injury of sea tu rtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited am ount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activitie s is not expected to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging de bris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and t he
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations imposed by various agencies including th e United States Coast Guard (USC G) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid was te items by m aintaining waste m anageme nt plans, m anifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to pr event accidental loss of solid waste. Special cau tion will be exercised w h en handling and disposing of sm all items and packaging m aterials, particularly those m ade of non-biodegradable, environm entally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be pos ted on all vessels and facilities h aving sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement th at em phasizes th eir co mmitment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

### Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and s ea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Cont ract vessel operators can avoid sea turtles and reduce potential deaths by m ain taining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighte d. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews m ust report sightings of any inju red or dead protecte d se a tu rtle spec ies immediately, regardless of whethe r the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Ma rine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404-3 922, the NMFS Southeast Region al Office at (727) 824-5312, or th e Marine Mamm al Stranding Ne twork at (305) 862-2850. In addition, if the injury o r death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM must
be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@BOEM.gov . If the vessel is the respo nsible pa rty, it is requ ired to rem ain availab le to assis t the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerab le to the harm ful e ffects of oil through direct contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fa tal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. However, it is un likely that an accidental oil sp ill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil sp ill response activities ma y increase vessel traffic in the area, which cou ld add to the possib ility of collisions with s ea tur tles. T he activitie s proposed in this plan will be covered by W oodsid e’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to
information submitted in accordance with Appendix G ).

There are no other IPF s (including physical di sturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality
The projected air em issions id entified in Appe ndix G are not expected to affect the OCS air quality primarily due to distance to the shore or to any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I air quality area such as the Breton W ilderness Area. Walker Ridge Block 325 is beyond the 200 kilom eter (124 m ile) buffer for the Bret on Wilderness Area and is 155 m iles from the coastline. Therefore, n o special mitig ation, monitoring, o r reporting requirem ents apply with respect to air emissions.

Accidents and blowouts can rel ease hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the em ission of air po llutants. However, these releases w ould not im pact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, em ission height , emission rates, and th e distance of W alker Ridge Block 325 from the coastline. There ar e no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wa stes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)
Potential IPFs that could im pact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a re sult of the proposed operations in Walker Ridge Block 325 in clude disturbances to the seafloor.

### Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dy namically p ositioned se mi-submersible is being used for the proposed activ ities; therefore, only an insignificant am ount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because ph ysical distu rbances to the seafloor will be m inimized by the use of a dynamically positioned sem i-submersible, W oods ide’s proposed operations in W alker Ridge Block 325 would not cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

Additionally, Walker Ridge Block 325 is not located in or adjacen t to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability for occu rrence o f shipwreck s, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Woodside will perform an ROV su rvey imaging 100% of the seafl oor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commence ment of operations. These location s will be certif ied by an authorized m arine archaeologist and b y
Woodside to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources, includi ng historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEMRE.
Should a resource be encountere d, Woodside will contact the BO EMRE immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve a nd protect that cultural resource. .

There are no other IPF s (includi ng em issions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activ ities which could impact shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Potential IP Fs that could cause im pacts to p reh istoric archaeological site s as a r esult of the proposed operations in Walker Ridge Block 32 5 include disturbances to the seafloor..

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dy namically p ositioned se mi-submersible is being used for the proposed activ ities; therefore, only an insignificant am ount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because ph ysical distu rbances to the seafloor will be m inimized by the use of a dynamically positioned sem i-submersible, W oods ide’s proposed operations in W alker Ridge Block 325 would not cause impacts to prehistoric archeological sites.

Additionally, W alker Ridge Bloc k 325 is located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability line, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Woodside will perform an ROV su rvey imaging 100% of the seafl oor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commence ment of operations. These location s will be certif ied by an authorized m arine archaeologist and b y
Woodside to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources, includi ng historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEMRE.
Should a resource be encountere d, Woodside will contact the BO EMRE immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve a nd protect that cultural resource. .

### There are no other IPF s (includi ng em issions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activitie s which could impact prehistoric archeological
sites.

Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Walker Ridge
Block 325 include effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and m arine waters and
substrates in the Gu lf of Mexico.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipula ti on, the Live Bottom (Pi nnacle Trend) Stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on live -bottom comm unities and EFH f rom operationa l waste disch arges. Levels of contaminants in drillin g m uds and cutting s a nd produced-water discha rges, d ischarge-rate restrictions, and m onitoring a nd toxicity testing are regu lated by th e EPA NPDES perm it, thereby eliminating many significa nt biological or ecol ogical effects. Operat ional discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accid ental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil spills th at contact coastal bays and estuar ies, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs an d larvae are p resent, have the g reatest potential to a ffect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be cov ered by W o odside’s Regional OSRP (refer to inform ation
submitted in Appendix G ).

There are no other IPFs (includi ng emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities whic h could impact essential
fish habitat.

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds
IPFs that could im pact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, accidental oil spills, and discarded trash a nd debris from vessel s and the facilities.

Emissions: Em issions of pollutants into the a tmo sphere from these activ ities ar e f ar below
concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

Accidents: An oil spill woul d cause localized, low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill woul d occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5

, Water Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feedi ng at the spill loca tion may experience chronic, nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected th at few, if any, coastal and m arine birds would

### actually be af fected to that exten t. The activ ities propo sed in th is plan will b e covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

Discarded trash and debris : Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared i n discarded trash and debris, or in gest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and death. Operators are prohibited from deliberat ely discharging debris as mandated by MARPOLAnnex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Resear ch and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various ag encies in cluding the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environm ental Protection Agency (EP A). W oodside will op erate in accordance with the regu lations and also
avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precau tions such as co vering outside trash b ins to preven t accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution w ill be exercised when handling and d isposing of small items and packaging m aterials, par ticularly those m ade of non-biodegradable, environmentally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or gla ss. Inf ormational plac ards will b e posted on all vessels an d facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other suppor t services-related pers onnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat cr ews) will be indoctrinated on wa ste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view th e marine trash and debris training vid eo annually. Offshore personnel w ill also receive an explanation fro m Woodside management or the designated lease operator m a nagement that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No . 2007-G03. Debris, if any, from these proposed
activities will s eldom intera ct with m arine an d pelagic b irds; th erefore, th e effects will b e negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) from the pr oposed activities which could im pact marine and pelagic birds.

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents.
There are no IPFs (em issions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal o r acciden ts, including an acciden tal H 2 

### S release ) f rom the proposed activities which could cau se impacts to public health a nd safety. In accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G04, 2009-G27, and 2009-G31, suffi cient information is included in Appendix
C to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BOEM as H 2 

### S absent.

Coastal and Onshore

1. Beaches
IPFs from t he proposed activities that could cause im pacts to beaches include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

### Accidents: Oil spills co ntacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreation al beaches
and associated resources. Due t o the dist ance from s hore (155 m iles) and the response capabilities that would be im plemented, no si gnificant ad verse im pacts are exp ected. The activities proposed in this plan will be c overed by W oodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to
information submitted in Appendix G ).

Discarded trash and debris: T rash on the beach is recogni zed as a m ajor th reat to the enjoyment and use of b eaches. Th ere will on ly be a lim ited amount of m arine debris, if any , resulting from the proposed activ ities. Operators are prohibite d from deliberately discharging debris as m andated by MARPOL- Annex V a nd th e Marine Plas tic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations im posed by variou s agencies includ ing the United State s Coas t Guard (USCG) and th e Environm ental Protecti on Agency (EPA). Woodside will op erate in accordance with the regulations and also avoi d acciden tal los s of solid waste item s by maintaining waste m anagement plans, m anifes ting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outs ide trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of sm all items and packaging m aterials, particularly those m ade of non- biodegradable, environm entally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be pos ted on all vessels and facilities h aving sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement th at em phasizes th eir co mmitment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPF s (em issions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands
IPFs from t he proposed activities that could ca use im pacts to wetlands include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debr is. However, it is un likely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , W ater Quality ). Due to the distance f rom shore (155 miles) and the response capabilities that woul d be im plemented, no im pacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be c overed by W oodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to
information submitted in Appendix G ).

Accidents: Oil spills contacting wetlands would have impacts on the salt m arshes and seagrass beds tha t f ringe the co astal are as of the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the distance from shore (155miles) and the response capab ilities that would be im plemented, no significant adverse

### impacts are expected. The activ ities propos ed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

Discarded trash and debris: There will only be a lim ited a mount of m arine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activ ities. Operators are prohibite d from deliberately discharging debris as m andated by MARPOL- Annex V a nd th e Marine Plas tic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations im posed by variou s agencies includ ing the United States Coas t Guard (USCG) and th e Environm ental Protecti on Agency (EPA). Woodside will op erate in accordance with the regulations and also avoi d acciden tal los s of solid waste item s by maintaining waste m anagement plans, m anifes ting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outs ide trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of sm all items and packaging m aterials, particularly those m ade of non- biodegradable, environm entally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be pos ted on all vessels and facilities h aving sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement th at em phasizes th eir co mmitment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPF s (em issions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) fr om the proposed activities which could im pact
wetlands.

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds
Potential IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause im p acts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nest ing birds. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , W ater Quality). Given the distance from shore (155 miles ) and the response capabilities th at would be implemented, no significant adverse im pacts are expect ed. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G ).

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and m arine birds are highly susceptible to entanglem ent in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris : specifically plastics. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as m anda ted by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic

### Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations im posed by va rious agencies in cluding the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside will op erate in acco rdance with th e regu lations a nd also avoid a ccidental los s of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, mani festing trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to pr event accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of sm all items and packaging m aterials, particularly those m ade of non- biodegradable, environm entally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational pla cards will be pos ted on vesse ls and eve ry f acility th at has sleeping or f ood preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement that em phasizes their commi tment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPF s (em issions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) from th e proposed activities that could cause im pacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds.

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges
Potential IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause im pacts to coastal wildlife refuges include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: An acciden tal oil spill from the proposed activities could cause im pacts to co astal wildlife refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Due to th e distance from shore (155 m iles) and the response capabilities that would be im plemented, no sign ificant adv erse im pacts are expec ted. The activities proposed in this plan will be c overed by W oodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to
information submitted in Appendix G ).

Discarded trash and debris: Entanglement in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics could impact inhabitants of coastal wildlife refuges. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as m anda ted by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations im posed by va rious agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside will op erate in acco rdance with th e regu lations a nd also avoid a ccidental los s of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, mani festing trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to pr event accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of sm all items and packaging m aterials,

### particularly those m ade of non- biodegradable, environm entally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational plac ards will be posted on vesse ls and ever y f acility th at has sle eping or f ood preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement that em phasizes their commi tment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPF s (em issions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) from th e proposed activities that could cause im pacts to coastal wildlife refuges.

5. Wilderness Areas
Potential IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause im pacts to wilderness areas include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

An accidental oil spill from the proposed activiti es could cause im pacts to wilderness areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill woul d occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5

, Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated wild erness area (> 100 m iles) and the response capabili ties that would be implem ented, no significant adverse im pacts are expected. T he activities proposed in this plan will b e covered by Woodside’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix G).

Discarded trash and debris: Entanglement in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics could im pact inhabitants of wilderness areas. Operators are proh ibited from deliberately discharging debr is as m andated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Ac t, and regulations im posed by va rious agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside will op erate in acco rdance with th e regu lations a nd also avoid a ccidental los s of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, mani festing trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to pr event accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and dispos ing of sm all items and packaging m aterials, particularly those m ade of non- biodegradable, environm entally pe rsistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.

Informational plac ards will be posted on vesse ls and ever y f acility th at has sle eping or f ood preparation capabilities. All offshore personne l, including contract ors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint

### presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside m anagement or the d esignated lease operator m anagement that em phasizes their commi tment to waste m anagement in acco rdance
with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPF s (em issions , effluents, physical disturbances to the seaflo or, or wastes sent to shore for treatm ent or disposal) from th e proposed activities that could cause im pacts to
wilderness areas.

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified

(C) Impacts on your proposed activities
The site–specific environm ental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed activities. No i mpacts are expected on the propos ed activities from site-specific environm ental
conditions.

(D) Environmental Hazards During the hurricane season, June through Novem ber , the Gulf of Mexico is im pacted by an average of ten tropical storm s (39-73 mph winds), of which si x become hurricanes ( > 74 m ph winds). Due to its location in the gulf, W alker Ridge Block 325 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force wi nds, and related sea curr ents. Thes e factors can adverse ly impact the integrity of the operations covered by this pla n. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, damage exploration or pr oduction equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including hydrocarbons). Add itionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat a nd pose a threat to local species.

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these impacts:

1. Drilling

a. Secure well
b. Secure rig / platform

c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09, 2009-G10, and
2010-N10.

2. Structure Installation Operator will not conduct structure instal lation operations duri ng Tropical Storm or
Hurrican e threat.

### (E) Alternatives
No alternatives to the proposed activities were cons idered to reduce environmental impacts.

(F) Mitigation Measures
No m itigation m easures other than those requ ired by regu lation will be em ployed to avoid, diminish, or eliminate potential im pacts on environmental resources.

(G) Consultation
No agencies or persons were consulted regard ing potential impacts associ ated with the proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.

(H) Preparer(s)

Matt Harlan J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578-3388 matt.harlan@jccteam.com

(I) References

Authors:

American Petro leum Institu te (API). 1989. Eff ects of offshore petroleum operatio ns on cold
water m arine m ammals: a literature revi ew. W ashington, DC: Am erican Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. I mpact of ocean debris on m ari ne turtles: entang lement and ingestion. In : Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceed ings, W orkshop on the Fate and Im pact of Marine Debris, 26-29 Nove mber 1984, Hono lu lu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Co mmerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429.

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benef its from regulatory cons ideration of synthetic drilling m uds. Environm ental Assessm en t Division, Argonne Na tional Laboratory,
ANL/EAD/TM-43

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluid contam inated cuttings in waters of th e United States. U. S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sens itivity of seabird populations in Al aska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mana gement, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLMYK-ES-81-006-1792.

### Laist, D.W . 1997. Im pacts of m arine debris: en tanglement of m arine life in m arine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: s ources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 99-139

Majors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed to seal bom bs in the eastern tropi cal Pacific purse-sein e fishery–an annotated bibliography. NOAA Admini strative Report LJ-90-06.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. A nnual report to Congress – 1998

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W . Butler, M. Ke ndziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Imm ediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387-397

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk-Hentzelt. 1989. L osses of seabirds by oil pollution at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros, J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2-3): 749-754

Vermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian
Field-Naturalist. 89:278-298.

Although not cited, the following were utilized in prepar ing this EIA:

• Hazard Surveys

• BOEM EIS’s:

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environm ental Assessm ent. BOEM 2000-
001

o GOM Central and W estern Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environm ental Impact Statement. BOEM 96-0058