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-07638

Type - Supplemental Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G08484 Block - 84 Mississippi Canyon Area OCS-G08797 Block - 85 Mississippi Canyon Area

Operator - Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

Wells A&B & Subsea Trees

Drillship

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

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

Ronald O'Connor
Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: May 12, 2014Record of Changes-PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY S-7638, Supplemental EP, Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, OCS-G 08484/08797/10977 (Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84/85/129)

Date Section Page Remarks
10/18/2013 All All Plan received by BOEM 1/23/2014 All All Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G) and Operator number

03280 1/23/2014 1 p. 1 Added FM O&G became Designated Operator of Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84. 85 & 129
on November 29, 2014. 1/23/2014 1 Attachment 1-A, p. 1 Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Operator number 03280)

1/23/2014 8 pp. 18-19 Oil Spill Response Planning and Worst Case Scenario Determination amended to show FM O&G OSRP submitted with a certification statement on January 10, 2014 (Control number
O-713)
1/23/2014 8 Attachment 8-A Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC 1/23/2014 14 Attachment 14-A CZM Consistency Certification company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC
and date following merger 1/23/2014 15 Attachment 15-A Company amended to Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC
1/23/2014 16 p.28 Bibliography amended to FM O&G Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (Control Number O713)
1/24/2014 Cover Letter Cover Letter Area/block reference amended.
2/12/2014 7 Attachment 7-A Daily fuel usage for 6 months period added. 2/12/2014 8 pp. 18-19 Oil Spill Response Planning ans Worst Case Scenario Determination amended to include
FM O&G OSRP submitted January 10, 2014, revised January 31, 2014, and approved on
February 4, 2014. 2/12/2014 8 p. 18 OSRO Information amended to include Marine Spill Response Corporation equipment.

3/6/2014 1 Attachement 1-A, p. 1 Amended to correct area and blocks 3/6/2014 2 pp. 5-6 Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) and Deepwater Well Control Statement amended
Operator Number to 03280 3/6/2014 8 p. 18 Oil Spill Response Planning amended to include Operator Number 03280 and plan
referred to as Supplemental EP 3/6/2014 8 p. 19 Worst Case Scenario Determination comparison table total volumes moved to total

volumes row. 3/27/2014 8 p. 19 Worst Case Scenario Determination amended to refer to plan as EP. 3/27/2014 4 p. 11 H2S Classification request amended to area of proposed activity. 3/27/2014 10 p. 21 Protection of Archaeological Resources added.Record of Changes-PUBLIC INFORMATION COPY S-7638, Supplemental EP, Freeport-McMoRan Oil Gas LLC, OCS-G 08484/08797/10977 (Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84/85/129)

3/27/2014 2 p. 5 Volume of synthetic -based drilling fluids amended to 10,000 bbls/well.
3/27/2014 12 Attachment 12-A Volume of cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid amended to 300 bbbls/well.

4/21/2014 8 p. 19 Reference to "DOCD" amended to "EP."PUBLIC COPY
October 17

, 2 013
Amended April 21, 2014

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN

Lease Number s : OCS

- G 08484 / 08797 / 10977

Area/Block s : Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 / 85 / 129

Unit Number: 754396002

Prospect Name: King

Offshore: Alabama

Submit ted by: Freeport

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

Paul Landry
Office: ( 337 ) 354

- 5065 Mobile: (337) 349

- 7781 paul_landry@fmi.com

Estimated start

- up date: January 21, 2015

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

- 3388 Plan No. jean.martin@jccteam.com Assigned to:TOC Pg 1 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ..................... 1

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ............................ 1

1.2 LOCATION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

................................ ....... 2

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS

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

1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES

................................ ............................. 4

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

................................ ................................ .................... 4

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE

................................ ................................ ........................ 4

SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

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

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS

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

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS

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

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

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

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT

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

2.5 OIL SPIL L FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)

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

2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT

................................ .................... 6

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS

..... 6

SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

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

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

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

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP

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

3.3 IN TERPRETED SEISMIC LINES

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

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS

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

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

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

3.6 SH ALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

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

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

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

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

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

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES

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

SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

................................ .................. 11TOC Pg 2 of 3 4.1 CONCENTRATION

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

4.2 CLASSIFICATION

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

SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

.... 12

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES

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

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS)

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

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)

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

5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES)

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

5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF)

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

5. 6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP

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

5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS

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

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND

MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION

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

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

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

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

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

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

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

SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

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

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES

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

6.2 MODELING REPORT

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

SECTION 7 A IR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

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

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

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

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION

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

SECTION 8 OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

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

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

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

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES

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

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION

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

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

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

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

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

SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

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

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS

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

9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

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

9.3 FLOWER G ARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

....................... 20TOC Pg 3 of 3 SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

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

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA)

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

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES

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

10 .3 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEOURCES

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

SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

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

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS

.......... 22

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

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

SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

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

12.1 GENERAL

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

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

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

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION

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

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION

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

12.5 VICINITY MAP

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

SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

............................ 25

13.1 GENERAL

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CO NSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION

................................ ..... 25

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

................ 25

13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL

................................ ................................ ........................... 25

SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

........ 26

SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

................................ ....................... 28

16 .1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION

................................ .................... 28

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................ ................................ ................................ 28Attachment Pg 1 of 1 SECTION ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Plan Contents

1

- A OCS Plan Information Form

1

- B Well Location Plat

1

- C Bathymetry Map

1

- D Pay.gov Receipt

Section 3 Geological, Geophysical Information

3

- D Shallow Hazard Assessmen t

Section 5 Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

5

- A Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas Map

Section 6 Wastes and Discharges Information

6

- A Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the GOM

Section 7 Air Emissions Information

7

- A Emissions Worksheets

Section 8 Oil Spill Information

8

- A Oil Spill Response Discussion

Section 12 Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

12

- A Waste You Will Transport and/or Dispose Onshore

12

- B Vicinity Map

Section 14 Coastal Zone Management Act Information

14

- A Coastal Zone Consistency Certification

Section 15 Environmental Impact Analysis

15

- A Environmental Impact AnalysisFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 1 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 1

PLAN CONTENTS

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION In Initial EP (N

- 4208), the drilling of four (4) wells in Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 127 and 129 was approved on January 24, 1992. A Supplemental EP (S

- 3630) was approved on May 31, 1995 and included the drilling of one (1) well in Mississippi Canyon B lock 84. Three exploratory wells have been drilled. Two were plugged and abandoned and one was completed and is producing.

Mississippi Canyon Block 084 Unit (King) was amended on April 1, 2003 to include portions of Mississippi Canyon Block 84 (OCS

- G 0848 4), Mississippi Canyon Block 85 (OCS

- G 08797) and Mississippi Canyon Block 129 (OCS

- G 10977). All three King Unit blocks have been placed on continuous production, are 100% owned by FM O&G Offshore LLC (03263)

. On November 29, 2013, FM O&G (Operator Number 03280) became Designated Operator of Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 and 129.

Under this Supplemental EP, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( FM O&G ) proposes to drill and complete two (2) wells and install two subsea trees with surface locations in

Mississi ppi Canyon Block 85 and bottom hole locations in Mississippi Canyon Block 84; all being in the Mississippi Canyon Block 084 Unit (King). The proposed activities will be conducted in approximately 5,370 feet of water, approximately 90 miles from the

Alabam a coastline and approximately 66 miles from the Louisiana coastline. The proposed wells will be drilled with a dynamically positioned drillship similar to the Transocean Deepwat er Champion with a subsea BOP. On January 10, 2014, FM O&G submitted a Regiona l Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) with a certification statement (Control Number O

- 713).

The OCS Plan I nformation Form BOEM

- 137 is included as Attachment 1

- A

.

1.2 LOCATION

A Well Location Plat depicting the proposed surface and bottom hole locations of the proposed well s , measured depth/t rue vertical depth and water depth for each location is

included as Attachment 1

- B

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

- C

.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 2 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) No anchors are associated with the proposed activities in this plan.

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES Safety of personnel and protection of the environment during the proposed operations is one of the primary concerns of FM O&G

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

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

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

BSEE conducts periodic announced and unannounced onsite inspections of offshore facilities to confirm operators are complying with lease stipulations, operating regulatory regulations, approved plans, and other conditions; as well as to assure safety and pollution prevention requirements are being met. The National Potential Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) List serves as the baseline for these inspections.

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

times.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations contained in the NPDES General Permit GMG290000 mandate that supervisory and certain designated personnel on

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

FM O&G will drill these wells with a dynamically positioned drillship which is equipped

with a Subsea BOP

. O nce a rig is contracted, BOP information and schematics will be included as a part of the Application for Permit to Drill.

Safety features on the drilling unit will include well control, pollution prevention, and blowout prevention equipment as described in BSEE regulations 30 CFR 250 C, D, E, O and S; and as further clarified by BSEE Notices to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the BSEE, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. Appropriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., will be maintained on the facilit y at all

times.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 3 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris.

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS

All facility tanks with capacity of 25 barrels or more.

Type of

Storage

Tank Type

of

Facility Tank Capacity (bbls) Number

of

Tanks Total Capacity (bbls) Fluid Gravity

(API)

Fuel Oil DPDS 4,135.6 2 8,271.2 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 9,340.4 2 18,680.8 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 9,048.5 1 9,048.5 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 9,043.5 1 9,043.5 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 445.3 2 830.6 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 320.2 2 640.3 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 359.8 1 359.8 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 435.3 1 435.3 33 ̊

Fuel Oil DPDS 59.8 1 59.8 33 ̊

Base Oil DPDS 3,683.9 1 3,683.9 31 ̊

Base Oil DPDS 3,687.1 1 3,687.1 31 ̊

Lube Oil DPDS 429.6 1 429.6 22.3o

Waste Oil DPDS 132.1 1 132.1 20o

Waste Oil DPDS 44 1 44 .0 20o

Waste Oil DPDS 143.4 1 143.4 20oFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1

– Pg. 4 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797)

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

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

state.

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

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

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE

A pay.gov receipt in the amount o f $ 7346 t o cover the cost recovery fee associated with this plan is included as Attachment 1

- D

.U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

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

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

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

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

Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes X No
Description of Proposed Activities and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply)

Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days

Drill, complete, install subsea tree Well Location A 1/21/2015 4/27/2015 96 days

Drill, complete, install subsea tree Well Location B 4/28/2015 9/5/2015 130 days

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure

Jackup X Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach description) Floating production
system Other (Attach description) Drilling Rig Name (If known):
Description of Lease Term Pipelines

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

Form BOEM

- 0137 (December 2011

– Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 4 General Information

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

Company Name: Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC BOEM Operator Number: 0 3280

Address: 400 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 1100 Contact Person: Paul Landry

Lafayette, LA 70508 Phone Number: (office) 337

- 354

- 5065 (mobile) 337

- 349

- 7781

E

- Mail Address: paul_landry@fmi.com

If a service fee is re quired under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid $7346 Receipt No. 74511125329
Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information

Lease(s): OCS

- G 08484 Area: Mississippi Canyon Block(s) 84 Project Name (If Applicable): King

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

Platform / Well Name: MC 84 Location B Total Volume of WCD: 23,345,850 bbls API Gravity: 33.2 o

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): ~66.0 miles Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 155,639 bbls OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM OMB Control Number: 1010

- 0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

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

Is this an existing well or

structure? Yes X No If this is an existing well or structure, list the Complex ID

or API No.

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

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 155,639 bbls For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls) : NA API Gravity of fluid 33.2 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 0 8797 OCS

- G 08484 OCS
OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. Block 85 Block 84

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,474.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 462.00’ FWL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 1,331,022.00’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,496,446.00’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 55’ 11.719” N Latitude Latitude
Latitude
Latitude

Longitude 87 o 58’ 02.725” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,160’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM

- 0137 (December 2011

– Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

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

Is this an existing well or

structure? Yes X No If this is an existing well or structure, list the Complex ID

or API No. Is this an existing well or structure?

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

WCD Info For wells, volume of uncontrolled blowout (Bbls/Day): 155,639 bbls For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): NA API Gravity of fluid 33.2 o

Surface Location Bottom

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

Lease No. OCS

- G 08797 OCS

- G 08484 OCS
OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon Mississippi Canyon

Block No. Block 85 Block 84

Blockline Departures (in feet) N/S Departure 5,874.00’ FNL N/S Departure N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure F __ L

E/W Departure 862.00’ FWL E/W Departure E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure F __ L

Lambert X

- Y
coordinates X: 1,331,422.00’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,496,046.00’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude 28 o 55’ 07.791” N Latitude Latitude
Latitude
Latitude

Longitude 87 o 57’ 58.183” W Longitude Longitude Longitude Longitude

Water Depth (Feet): 5,175’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: NA

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

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

NA NA NA X: NA Y: NA NA

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

X: Y:

Form BOEM

- 0137 (December 2011

– Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Sep. 24, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Bathymetric information based on seafloor horizon pick from 3D

data set

Contour interval = 25 feet

Zero datum = Sea level

Applied acoustic velocity using Advocate and Hood (1993)



### COLOR SHADED BATHYMETRY MAP Color shaded image

6XQD]LPXWK 

6XQHOHYDWLRQ 

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)

GRADIENT

Gradient is the first order derivative of the multibeam data.

Bin size = 20 meters (65.62 feet) SLOPE IN DEGREES191817161514131211109876543210



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Sep. 24, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Seafloor surface location of well



### SEAFLOOR GRADIENT MAP

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH175001700016500160001550015000145001400013500130001250012000115001100010500100009500900085008000750070006500600055005000450040003500300025002000150010005000- 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000- 500

SEAFLOOR AMPLITUDE



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Sep. 24, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET



### SEAFLOOR AMPLITUDE MAP

## MC84

MC85 -3140'

-633' -567' OCS-G-08797

Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP -4400' X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Sep. 24, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side)

Amplitude anomaly within Unit B (2.102 to 2.652 sec/BSL)

15-1,080 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML Ridge

Subsurface fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) -750' NOTE: All pipelines shown are from public information obtained from the Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

- 2818.

Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan

- BF Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25CJB2QF Agency Tracking ID: 74511125329 Transaction Type: Sale Transaction Date: Oct 1,
2013 11:52:47 AM

Account Holder Name: Paul Landry Transaction Amount: $7,346.00 Billing Address: 700 Milam, Suite 3100 City: Houston
State/Province: TX Zip/Postal Code: 77002 Country: USA Card Type: MasterCard
Card Number: ************4211

Region: Gulf of Mexico Contact: Paul Landry 337

- 354

- 5065 Company Name/No: Plains Exploration Production Company, 02702 Lease Number(s): 08484, 08797, , ,
Area

- Block: Mississippi Canyon MC, 84: Mississippi Canyon MC, 85: , : , : , Surface
Locations: 2

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

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 5 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Bloc ks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 2

GENERAL INFORMATION

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

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status

Application for Permit to
Drill BSEE To Be Submitted

Application for Permit to Modify BSEE To Be Submitted

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS The following table provide s informatio n o n the types and estimated amounts of the drilling fluids that FM O&G plan s to use to drill the proposed wells.

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

- based 50,000 bbls/well
Oil

- based (diesel, minerals) 0 bbls/well Synthetic

- based 10 ,000 bbls/well

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

PROPRIETARY

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by an areawide bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 256 Subpart I;
NTL No. 2000

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

- approved deferment from providing additional security under 30 CFR 256.53 and
National NTL 2008

- N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures.” If, at any point, FM O&G no longer qualifies for a supplemental bonding deferment, FM O&G will either provide the required additional security or a third party guarantee within 60 days after such disqualification.

2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

, BOEM Company number 0 3280

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

- N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Respon sibility for

Covered Facilities " prio r to conducting operations covered in this EP.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 6 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Bloc ks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

, Operator number 0 3280

, has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS The Worst Case Discharge is defined as an uncontrolled blowout through the drilling string during drilling operations on Mississippi Canyon Block 84 Well Locatio n B

.

Estimated Initial Flow R ate (bbls/d ay): 155,639 bbls/day

Maximum D uration of Potential Blowout (Days): 150 days

Total Volume (bbls) (Flow Rate X Duration): 23,345,850 bbls

Discussion of potential for well to bridge over: While the sands to be encountered by the wells in this EP are expected to be slightly consolidated, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil

& Gas LLC ( FM O&G ) does NOT assume that the proposed well would bridge over in a blowout scenario. The basis for this assumption comes from work done in association with Society of Petroleum Engineers (SP E) Paper #163438 on the analysis of potential bridging scenarios during blowout events in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. FM O&G agrees with the conclusions of this SPE paper that the only instances in which a deepwater well could potentially bridge over is a complete loss of the marine riser hydrostatic column resulting in a sharp pressure reduction downhole leading to wellbore collapse before a blowout can fully develop. This bridging would occur quickly before large volumes of hydrocarbons could escape. As FM O&G does not consider this bridging method to cover all potential blowout scenarios in the proposed well all Worst Case Discharge calculations will be based upon a well blowing out unimpeded until a relief well can be completed.

Discussion of likeli hood for surface intervention to stop blowout: Well Location “B” will be drilled in the Mississippi Canyon (G C) Block s 84 and 85 as a subsea well in approximately 5,175 ’ of water with the wellhead and BOP equipment located on the

seabed. Surface interven tion would be the preferred method of intervention pending an uncontrolled blowout, however the technique used would be contingent upon the condition of the rig, marine riser system and BOP equipment. Surface intervention is a quicker solution than drillin g a relief well, but actual methodology of controlling the blowout would have to be determined pending an analysis of the site

‐ specific conditions

at the location.

Prior to any surface intervention operations a team of specialists would be mobilized immediately to assess the situation and determine a corrective course of action toFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 7 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Bloc ks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) control the blowout. Well control specialists would perform either a fly

‐ by via helicopter

and/or surface vessel to assess conditions at the site. FM O&G has Master Service Agreements with both Wild Well Control (a Superior Energy Services company) and Boots and Coots (a Halliburton company). Additionally an ROV capable of manipulating the rig’s BOP hot

‐ stab functions would be mobilized to location and, if appropriate, an

at tempt would be made to shut in the well by closing the blind shear rams if not done previously. These actions would take place within 24

‐ 48 hours of the incident. Initial assessment activities are projected to take 3

– 5 days. During this period, the wel l control team would analyze the blowout situation, devise an intervention strategy and mobilize additional service company specialists, supplies and equipment. FM O&G would establish a field support base and secondary command center in the company

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

Relief Well

Discussion of Drilling a Relief Well: FM O&G has the financial capability to drill a

relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations. Should a relief well be necessary, there are deepwater rigs rated and equipped to drill in water depth of 5,000' or greater actively working in the Gulf of Mexico. Since all rigs proposed for drilling a

relief well are dynamically positioned Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs), the time necessary to mobilize the rig to location is minimal. The time required to drill the relief well is dependent on many factors, chief among them is the required depth of the relief well. The deepest anticipated depth of the relief well would be when an intersection is required with the blown

‐ out well at its final target depth (TD). The total days estimated to drill an example well to potential target depth (PTD) is 150 days. The prob able directional nature of the relief well could nominally increase its measured depth compared to the blown

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

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

‐ out well.

Rig type capable of drilling relief well at water depth and to TD: There are more than 10 drilling rigs currently working or slated to begin work in the Gulf of Mexico that

are c apable of drilling a relief well at these locations.

Rig package constraints: The rig chosen to drill the relief well must:Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 8 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Bloc ks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) • Be rated and equipped to work in water depths of greater than 5,000’ due to Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 and 85 deepwater location.

• Dynamically

‐ positioned to eliminate anchoring issues caused by potential subsea

debris.

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

Ti me to acquire rig, move onsite and drill relief well (days):

Activity Duration (days) Assess the situation and obtain the optimum MODU 5
Secure the well at current location of MODU 14
Mobilization time to relief well location 3
Drill relief well 100 Wellbore intersection (of blown out well) 21 Dynamic kill operations 7
Total Anticipated Time 150

Statement whether possibility of using nearby platform was considered: There

are no facilities within the area of MC 84 and 85 ; therefore, no relief well can be drilled from a nearby platform.

Other

Measures to enhance ability to p revent a blowout:

• FM O&G will verify with the contractor that all BOPs have been certified, maintained and are capable of operating in the anticipated conditions required for operations.

• FM O&G representatives will review and witness the installation, tes ting, function testing and operation of the diverter system and diverter outlets.

• Key personnel on the rig will have a valid well control certificate.

• Wiper trips will be performed as hole conditions dictate in order to quantify the stability of the wellb ore and to determine whether sufficient mud weights are being utilized.

• Connections will be simulated as needed while drilling into pressure transition areas in order to properly assess the current wellbore conditions.

Measures to reduce the likelihood of a blowout:

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

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 2

– Pg. 9 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Bloc ks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) • Lost circulation material will be added to the mud system in order to assist the mud system’s ability to prevent lost circulatio n. Sweeps and concentrated pills will be used to prevent uncontrolled mud losses.

• Every effort will be made to review all offset and seismic data in order to prepare a mud weight schedule that will allow for safe drilling margin without putting excess hydr ostatics pressures on known zones previously encountered.

• Mudloggers may be utilized during critical drilling operations to monitor gas content of mud returns, formation characteristics and abnormalities of cuttings and to estimate paleo aging of cuttings.

• Logging While Drilling (LWD) tools will be utilized as much as possible to evaluate formations, formation pressures and fluid content in the critical sections

of the well.

• Log data will be continuously reviewed by FM O&G ’s drilling and geological departments.

Measures to enhance ability to conduct effective and early intervention in event

of a blowout: FM O&G is a member of the Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG) and has full access to a subsea capping stack and a complete suite of oil recovery equipment as required. This subsea capping stack has been deployed successfully to a well location with cooperation from BSEE.

Arrangements for drilling relief wells: FM O&G has Master Service Agreements with both Wild Well Control (a Superior Energy Services company) and Boots and Coots (a Halliburton company) who would assist in detailed relief well planning including the identification of required equipment and services.

Any other measures: NoFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 3

– Pg. 10 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 3

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

PROPRIETARY

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP

PROPRIETARY

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINE S

PROPRIETARY

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS

PROPRIETARY

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT A shallow hazards survey was conducted over Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 and 85

.

In accordance with NTL 2008

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

BOEM 2013

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices for Lessees”), a shallow hazards survey evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may ad versely affect drilling operations, was conducted by C&C Technologies . The shallow hazards report is provided with this plan.

3.6 SHALLOW H AZARDS ASSESSMENT

In accordance with NTL 2008

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

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”), a 3

- D seismic shallow hazards assessment has been prepare d for each proposed surface location s

, evalua ting seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations. The shallow hazards assessment s are included at Attachment 3

- D

.

3.7 HIGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

PROPRIETARY

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COL UMN

PROPRIETARY

3.9 TIME V ERSUS DEPTH TABLES

PROPRIETARYProj ect No. 130295

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 October 3 , 201 3

Plains Exploration & Production Co.
400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “ A ”

Block 85 (OCS

- G

- 08797 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTROD UCTION
Plains Exploration & Production Co. ( PXP ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to

prepare a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “A” location in Block 85 (OCS

- G

08797 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site cleara nce letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by PXP

. C&C

com pleted the geohazard assessment s titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field

, Block 84, 85, and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area ” in July 20 13 . This site clearance letter is based on the findings provi ded within that report

.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of th e investigation is approximately 1.6 seconds of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided
in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS The 3D seismic data used for this assessment was provided in SEG

- Y format. The data wer e loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the
3D data volume run northwest to southeast while the crosslines ru n southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01

- foot (12.5

- meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero phase, and the seafloor reflector is represente d by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohaz ards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)Proj ect No. 130295

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “A” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed MC85 Well “A”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitud e Longitude Calls From Block 85
, Mississippi Canyon Area

“A” 1,331,022.00 10,496,446.00 28  55’ 11.719 ” N 87  58’ 02.725 ” W 462 ’ FW L 5,474 ’ FNL

A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is p roposed for the proposed Well “A”

.

The geodetic datum used for this projec t is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of
1,640,416.67 feet at the centra l meridian, and a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e study maps (Sheets 1 through 4 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper
continen tal slope offshore Louisiana. M C85 is situated on the northe rn most portion of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the fan consists
of basin

- like topography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and sa lt diapiric uplift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated,

coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS
The wat er depth at the proposed Well “A” surfac e lo cation is 5,160 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “A” location, the seafloor depth ranges from 5,101 feet in the north west to 5,227 feet in the east (Sheet 1, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The sea floor is smooth to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location (Figure 2). The seafloor at the proposed well site slopes southeast at a gradient of

1 .7 ° (Sheet 2, Seafloor Gradient Map).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude im age (Sheet 3 , Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay.

There were no other potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.Proj ect No. 130295

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High

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

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic com munities (Sheet 3 ).

The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 25 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “A” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE dat abases shows eight (8) pipelines and two (2) wells
occur within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. Table 2 lists the existing infrastructure near the
well.

Table 2. Existing infrastructure near proposed Well “A”

Wells

Name Block(s)

OCS

- G

- 08484 Well No. 1 MC84

OCS

- G

- 08797 Well No. SS

- 2 MC85

Pipelines

Name Block(s)

S

- 13884 PXP 2” Umbilical MC84, 85

S

- 13388 PXP 4” Umbilical MC84, 85

S

- 13386 PXP 8”

S

- 13387 PXP 12” (Casing) MC84, 85

S

- 16085 PXP 6” (Umbilical) MC85

S

- 16086 PXP 5” (Umbilical) MC85

S

- 133 85 PXP 12” MC85

S

- 13384 PXP 8” MC85

S

- 16166 BP 6”

S

- 16167 BP 10” (Casing) MC85

SUBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the
successive units.

Three (3 ) buried faults were mapped in the study area (Sheet 4, Figure 4 ). T he se buried faults
are located further than 400 feet southwest of the proposed well location, tre nd northwest to southeast, and are buried greater than 600 feet

.

PXP provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (feet) and the

corr esponding two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths
below the seafloor:Proj ect No. 130295

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 D = 312.76 T 2 + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units, beginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moderate amplitude, parallel, conti nuous reflectors that are 221 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, c ontinuous reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 363 feet thick at the prop osed well location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, while the bottom of the Unit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and sandy channel fill . The coarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying
the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous
chaotic reflectors and is 343 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amplitude, semi

- co ntinuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 1,251 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location. These reflection
patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude anomalies indicative of shallow gas were identified throughout Unit D, with three located in close proximity to the proposed well location

. The coarser

- grained channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to
chaotic reflectors and is 1,273 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Uni t F (Horizon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to
chaotic reflectors and is 1,348 feet thick at the proposed Well “A” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass transport de posits with interbedded
channel fills

.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of four levels. These are:Proj ect No. 130295

5

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

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

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

 Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  background l evel), phase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

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

Gas seeping from de pth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strength of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identif ied
within Unit D, with an isolated high risk of gas located within Unit D at approximately 1,420
feet BM L. The well is located X feet from the amplitude anomaly.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/B SEE, is located 50
miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that preven ts dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconsolidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profiles at the proposed Well “A” location suggests that medium to high amplitude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within Units B and D exhibit a moderate risk
of SWF. Units C, E, and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits a negligible risk of SWF. Due to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised that caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form o f gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments where the conditions of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydrate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form.
The the rmal gradient of the seabed soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for dril ling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the dr ill center.Proj ect No. 130295

6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “A” surface location is clear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

T he water depth at the proposed Well “A” surface location is 5,16 0 feet with a seafloor which slopes 1 .7 ° to the south e a st.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or pot ential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” surface location.

Eight (8) pipelines and two (2) wells exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “A” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e ch annel fills occur in Units B
and D

. The information from the BOEM/BSEE in conjunction with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of
shallow water flow in Units C, E, and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anomalies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within
Unit D (927

– 2,178 feet BML ). Additionally, a high risk of gas was identified at approximately 1,420 feet BML. Mov ing the well to the northwest would avoid the amplitude anomaly. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.

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

Sincerely,

___________________________ Christopher Baker Marine Geologist

E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “A”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymet ry surrounding the proposed Well “A”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 7650 through the proposed Well “A”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6495 through the proposed Well “A”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “A”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shade d Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map
Sheet 3 . Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4

. Seafloor and Shallow Subsurface Hazards MapProject No. 130295

1

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 October 3 , 201 3

Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas
400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd. Lafayette, La, 70508

Attn: Mr. Brian Brennan

Site Clearance Letter Proposed Well “B”

Block 85 (OCS

- G

- 08797 ) Mississippi Canyon Area

Dear Mr. Brennan

,

INTRODUCTION Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas ( FMOG ) contrac ted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C& C) to prepare

a well site clearance letter for the propose d Well “B” location in Block 85 (OCS

- G

- 08797 ), Mississippi Canyon (M C) Area. The data used for the site clearance letter is based on the interpretation of an exploration

- quality 3D seismic volume pr ovided by FMOG

. C&C

com pleted the geohazard assessment titled “ 3D Seismic Shallow Hazard Report, King Field

, Block 84, 85, and 128

, Mississippi Canyon Area ” in July 2013 . This site clearance letter is based on the findings provi ded within that report

.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2

, 000

- foot radius of the proposed surface location. The depth limit of the investigatio n is approximately 1.6 seconds of two

- way traveltime (~4,000 feet) below the mud line (BML) . The reporting and mapping presented in this letter comply with the BOEM/BSEE guidelines provided
in NTL No. 2008

- G05 (Shallow Hazards Program), No. 2008

- G20 (Revi sions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports) and No. 2009

- G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities).

METHODS The 3D seismic data used for this assessment was provided in SEG

- Y format. The data were
loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) 2d/3dPAK for interpretation. The seismic data

volume star ts at 0 seconds and extends to 5 .0 seconds of two

- way traveltime. The inlines of the
3D data volume run northwest to southeast while the crosslines run southwest to northeast, respectively. The inlines and crosslines are both spaced at 41.01 foot (12.5 meter) intervals

. The processed output sample interval is 2 milliseconds.

The 3D seismic data are zero phase, and the seafloor reflector is represented by a strong, positive amplitude peak flanked by troughs with absolute amplitude values of less than one

- half of the peak value

. The seismic data provided adequate screening of the regional seafloor and shallow geologic conditions, and large scale geohazards (faults, salt, high acoustic impedance

, stratigraphic horizons, etc.)Project No. 130295

2

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls for the proposed Well “B” surface location are tabulated below:

Table 1. Proposed MC85 Well “B”

Well Easting

(feet) Northing

(feet) Latitude Longitude Ca lls From Block 85
, Mississippi Canyon Area

“B” 1,331,422.00 10,496,0 46.00 28  55’ 07.791 ” N 87  57’ 58.183 ” W 862 ’ FW L 5,874 ’ FNL

A 2 ,000

- foot clearance radius is p roposed for the proposed Well “B”

.

The geodetic datum used for this project is the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) with the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 16 North (16 N) with a central meridian at 93  00’W, a false easting of
1,640,416.67 feet at the central meridian, an d a false northing of 0.00 feet at 00  00’N

. All coordinates given are presented in this projection within this letter and on th e study maps (Sheets 1 through 4 ). All grid units, as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. survey feet.

REGIONAL GEO LOGY The study area is located in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the northeastern corner of the Mississippi Canyon Area (designated by the BOEM), on the upper
continen tal slope offshore Louisiana. M C85 is situated on the northe rn m ost portion of the Mississippi Fan , 134 miles east

- southeast of Fourchon, Louisiana . This area of the fan consists
of basin

- like topography, with undulating seafloor, mass was ting depositional sequences, channel flow systems , canyons, and salt diapiric up lift . Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region, referred to as condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea level stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded secti ons are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated,

coarse

- grained clastic deposits (sands and gravels) of variable thickness.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFL OOR GRADIENTS
The wat er depth at the proposed Well “B” surface l ocation is 5,1 65 feet below sea level (B SL). Within the 2,000

- foot radius area centered at the proposed Well “B” location, the seafloor depth ranges from 5,120 feet in the north west to 5,2 51 feet in the east (Sheet 1, Color Shaded Bathymetry Map). The seafloor is smoot h to slightly undulating in the vicinity of the proposed well location (Figure 2). The seafloor at the proposed well site slopes southeast at a gradient of

1 .7 ° (Sheet 2, Seafloor Gradient Map).

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS

T he 3D se afloor amplitude image (Sheets 3

, Seafloor Amplitude Map) displays a range of low to moderate acoustic amplitudes within the 2,000

- foot radius area. These low to moderate seafloor amplitudes indicate finely textured seafloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay.

Ther e were no other potential seafloor hazards identified at the proposed well location or within the 2,000

- foot radius area.Project No. 130295

3

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High

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

- foot radius contains no high or low positive seafloor amplitude anomalies associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potent ial benthic communities (She et 3 ).

The nearest reported benthic community is located in Block 8 26, Viosca Knoll Area, 25 miles

nort h of the proposed Well “B” location according to the BOEM/BSEE (NTL No. 2009

- G40).

MAN

- MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEM/BSEE databases shows that eight (8) pipelines and two (2)
wells occur within 2,000 feet of the proposed well. Table 2 lists the existing infrastructure near
the well.

Table 2. Existing infrastructure near proposed Well “B”

Wells

Name Block(s)

OCS

- G

- 08484 Well No. 1 MC84

OC S

- G

- 08797 Well No. SS

- 2 MC85

Pipelines

Name Block(s)

S

- 13884 PXP 2” Umbilical MC84, 85

S

- 13388 PXP 4” Umbilical MC84, 85

S

- 13386 PXP 8”

S

- 13387 PXP 12” (Casing) MC84, 85

S

- 16085 PXP 6” (Umbilical) MC85

S

- 16086 PXP 5” (Umbilical) MC85

S

- 13385 PXP 12 ” MC85

S

- 13384 PXP 8” MC85

S

- 16166 BP 6”

S

- 16167 BP 10” (Casing) MC85

SUBSURF ACE GEOHAZARDS AND S TRATIGRAPHY
Six (6) stratigraphic units (Units A to F), each consisting of one or more distinctive sequences,

were assessed (Figures 3

- 5 ). Six horizons mark the upper and / or lower contacts of each of the
successive units.

Three (3 ) buried faults were mapped in the study area (Sheet 4, Figure 4 ). T he se buried faults
are located further than 5 00 feet southwest of the proposed well location, trend northw est to southeast, and are buried greater than 600 feet

.

FMOG provided C& C with a check shot dataset of time

- depth pairs for the sediment column. The following polynomial equation was derived from Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (feet) and the correspondin g two

- way traveltime (seconds) using the time

- depth values to calculate depths
below the seafloor:Project No. 130295

4

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 D = 312.76 T 2 + 1,651.4 T

where D = depth below seafloor in feet and T = time below seafloor in seconds.

A detailed description of the sequence units, b eginning at the se afloor, can be found in the 2013 Geohazard Report. The To p

- Hole Prognosis Chart (Figure 5 ) summarizes the stratigraphy.

Unit A (Seafloor to Horizon 1): Unit A consists predominantly of low to moderate amplitude, parallel, continuous re flectors that are 218 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location. These reflection patterns are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay laid down as a drape deposit.

Unit B (Horizon 1 to Horizon 2): Unit B consists of low to moderate amplitude, continuou s reflectors overlying low to moderate semi

- continuous to chaotic reflectors. The center of the unit is characterized by a moderate to high amplitude continuous reflector indicative of a possible sand sheet

. The unit is 382 feet thick at the proposed wel l location

. The reflection patterns at the top of Unit B are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay, laid down as a drape deposit, while the bottom of the Unit is comprised of thick interbedded mud

- prone mass movement deposits and sandy channel fill. The c oarser

- grained possible sand sheet overlaying
the low

- amplitude mass movement deposits may indicate a risk of shallow water flow.

Unit C (Horizon 2 to Horizon 3): Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude

, continuous
chaotic reflectors and is 322 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location. Unit C is interpreted as mostly channel fill with some interbedded channel/overbank deposits of varying acoustic impedance.

Unit D (Horizon 3 to Horizon 4): Unit D consists of variable amplitude, semi

- continuous to

c haotic reflectors and is 1, 269 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location. These reflection
patterns are interpreted as clay

- prone mass transport deposits with interbedded sandy channel fill. High amplitude anomalies indicative of shallow gas were identified throughout Unit D, with three located in close proximity to the proposed well location

. The coarser

- grained channel fills occurring within Unit D may also represent possible shallow water flow hazards.

Unit E (Horizon 4 to Horizon 5): Unit E consists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to
chaotic reflectors and is 1, 257 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location. The sediments in Unit E are interpreted as interbedded channel fills and clay

- prone mass transport deposits.

Unit F (Hor izon 5 to Horizon 6 ): Unit F con sists of low to moderate amplitude, sub

- parallel to
chaotic reflectors and is 1,3 57 feet thick at the proposed Well “B” location. The sediments within the unit are interpreted as mostly clay

- prone mass transport deposits w ith interbedded
channel fills

.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential areas of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sands. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude levels a nd the gas risk is assessed as being at one of four levels. These are:Project No. 130295

5

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

– No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

 Low risk of gas

– Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2

– 3  background level) and phase reversal. This m ay also include diffuse areas of gas blanking.

 Moderate risk of gas

– Generally indicated by high amplitude (3

– 4  background level) and phase reversal.

 High risk of gas

– Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4  background level), p hase reversal, and a combination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull

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

Gas seeping from depth can be hazardous by significantly reducing the shear strength of sediment that may undermine seabed installations. Unit A has a negligib le risk of gas. Unit s B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a low risk of gas. A moderate risk of gas was identified
with in Unit D, with an isolated high risk of gas located within Unit D at approximately 1,420
feet BM L.

SHALLOW WATER FLOW
The nearest reported s hallow water flow (SWF), according to the BOEM/BSEE, is located 50
miles southeast of the study area with in Block 177

, Desoto Canyon Area. The shallow water flow occurred at 1, 915 feet below mudline and was classified as a low severity flow.

Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition and form in unconso lidated and overpressured sands. The pressure rises with overburden causing a potentially hazardous condition for drilling operations. Some SWF intervals have proven difficult or impossible to detect on seismic profiles.

The assessment of seismic profi les at the proposed Well “B” location suggests medium to high amplitude, potentially s and

- prone sequences within Units B and D exhibit a moderate risk of
SWF. Units C, E, and F exhibit a low risk of SWF, while Unit A exhibits a negligible risk of
SWF. D ue to the unpredictable nature of SWF it is advised that caution be executed for any drilling operations through these sediments.

GAS HYDRATES Gas hydrates are an ice crystalline form of gas hydrocarbons in deepwater marine environments
where the conditio ns of pressure and temperature are favorable. The hydrate stability zone is the depth interval between the seafloor and the point where the hydrate is no longer stable in form. The thermal gradient of the seabed soils determines the depth of the hydrate stability zone base. The acoustic impedance contrast caused between the hydrate and free gas trapped at the base of the hydrate stability zone forms a Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on seismic profiles. This
BSR reflector cross cuts the normal seismic stratigraphy, much like a bottom multiple.

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the near

- surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations. Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimne ys, seafloor hydrates and benthic communities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of gas hydrates, associated geologic feature s , or any obvious BSRs at the drill center.Project No. 130295

6

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 CONCLUSIONS The proposed Well “B” surface location is cl ear of geological constraints. No significant seafloor features are located at or within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

The water depth at the proposed Well “B” surface location is 5,1 65 feet with a seafloor which slopes 1 .7 ° to the south e a st.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes anomalies that may indicate the occurrence of hardgrounds, carbonates, benthic communities or potential expulsions are found within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” surface location.

Eight (8) pipelines and two (2) wells exist within 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests coarser, sand

- pron e channel fills occur in Units B
and D

. The information from the BOEM/BSE E in conjunction with the presence of the sand

prone units infers a moderate risk of shallow water flow in the se sand

- prone units. Potential of
shallow water flow in Units C, E, and F i s considered low while Unit A is negligible.

Interval amplitude anoma lies which portray a moderate risk of shallow gas were observed within
Unit D (922

– 2,191 feet BML ). Additionally, a high risk of gas was identified at approximately 1,420 feet BML. Units B, C, E, and F are assessed as having a lo w risk of gas, while Unit A is assessed as having a negligible risk of gas.

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

Sincerely,

___________________________ Christopher Baker Marine Geologist

E NCLOSURES Figure 1. Extracted wavelet and power spectrum at the proposed Well “B”

. Figure 2. 3D seafloor bathymetry surrounding the proposed Well “B”

. Figure 3 . 3D seismic Inline 7650 through the proposed Well “B”

. Figure 4 . 3D seismic Crossline 6482 through the proposed Well “B”

. Figure 5 . Top

- Hole Prognosis Chart for the proposed Well “B”

.

Sheet 1. Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Gradient Map
Sheet 3 . Seafloor Amplitude Map
Sheet 4

. Seafloor and Shallow Subsurface Hazards MapFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 4

– Pg. 11 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 4

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

4.1 CONCENTRATION

FM O&G does not anticipate encountering any H 2 S during the proposed operations.

4.2 CLASSIFICATION In accordance with Title 30 CFR 550.215, FM O&G requests that the area of proposed

act ivities be classified by the BOEM as H 2 S absent.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 5

– Pg. 12 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES The seafloor disturbing activities proposed in this plan are in water depths greater than 300 meters (984’). C &C Technologies Survey Services was contracted to provide an assessment of the shallow conditions at the proposed surface locations. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2, 000 feet of the proposed well sites. FM O&G will avoid all high

- density deepwater benthic communities by 2,000 feet from each proposed mud and cuttings discharge location and 250 feet from the location of all other seafloor

disturbances. A s per NTL 2009

- G4 0, “Deepwater Benthic Communities,” a map showing the 2,000 foot radius around the well site is included as Attachment 5

- A

.

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES ( BANKS) Activities proposed in this EP do not fall within 305 meters (1000 feet) of a topographic

“no activity zone ; ” therefore, no map is required per NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically

Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) All activities proposed under this EP will be conducted outside all Topog raphic Feature

Pr otective Zones; therefore shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required per
NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.4 LIVE BOTTOM S (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 and 85 a re not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; therefore

, a separate bathymetric map is not required per NTL

2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.5 LIVE BOTTOM S (LOW RELIEF) Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 and 85 a re not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required per NTL 2009

- G39, “Biologically Sensitive

Underwater Featu res and Areas.”

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 and 85 are n ot located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features; therefore, biologically sensitive area maps are not required.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 5

– Pg. 13 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 5.7 REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS

BOEM has determined there is en ough data gathered in Grid Area 16 ; therefore, FM

O&G will not be conducting any ROV surveys either pre

- spud or post

- dril l operations per NTL No. 2008

- G06, “Remotely Operated Vehic le Surveys in Deepwater” (Extended by NTL BOEM 2013

- G02, “Extension of Prior Notices to Lessees”)

.

5.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND

MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all federal agenc ies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated

critical habitat.

In ac cordance with 30 CFR 550 , Subpart B, and furt her outlined in NTL 2008

- G04

,

“ Information requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations

Coordination Documents” (Extended by NTL BOEM 2013

- G02 , “Extension of Prior

Notices to Lessees” )

, and NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01

, ”Vessel Strike Avoidance and

I njured/Dead Protected Species Reporting,” lessees/operators are required to address

site

- specific information on the presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat designated under the ESA and marine mammals protected

un der the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of proposed activities under this plan.

There are five (5) species of sea turtles that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico (see table below). NOAA fisheries currently list all five of these turtles as endangered (E) or threatened (T).

Species Scientific Name Status Potential
Presence Critical
Habitat Designated in

the Gulf of
Mexico Lease

Area Coastal

Sea Turtles Loggerhead Carettsa caretta T x x None
Green Chelonia mydas T,E x x None
Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E x x None
Hawksbill Eretmochelys
imbricata E x x None

Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempli E x x NoneFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 5

– Pg. 14 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) In addition, there are 28 species of marine mammals that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. The table provided below identifies the seven (7) species of marine mammals that are listed as endangered or threatened. Currently, there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf; however, it is possible that o ne or more of these species could be seen in the area during operations.

Species S cientific Name Status Potential
Presence Critical
Habitat Designated in

the Gulf of
Mexico Lease

Area C oastal

Marine Mammals Sperm
Whale Physeter macrocephalus E x

-- None

Wes t Indian
Manatee Trichechus manatus
latirostris E

-- x Florida (Peninsular)
Blue Whale Balaenoptera
masculus E x

-- None

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus E x

-- None

Humpback
Whale Megaptera novaeangliae E x

-- None

North
Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis E x

-- None

Sei Whale Balaenopiera borealis E x

-- None

There is one (1) species of fish that NOAA fisheries currently list as threatened (T) that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf sturgeon, also known as the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, is an anadromous (breeding in freshwater after migrating up rivers from marine and estuarine environments) fish overwintering in estuaries, bays, and the Gulf of Mexico (see table below).

Species Scientific Name Status Potential

Presence Critical

Habitat Designated

in the Gulf of

Mexico Lease

Area CoastalFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 5

– Pg. 15 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797)

Fish

Gulf S turgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus)

desotoi T X X None

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Mississippi Canyon Block 84 has been determined to be located in an area where historic shipwrecks may exist. In accordance with NTL 2005

- G07 “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” an Archaeological Survey Rep ort is provided with this plan.

The proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 85 will be conducted from previously approved surface locations as provided for in the Supplemental Exploration

Plan approved on September 24, 2009 (Control No. S

- 7147 ); therefore, in accordance

with NTL 2005

- G07, “Archaeologica l Surveys and Reports,” and NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” an archaeological survey report is not provided.

5.10 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Air and water quality information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL

2008

- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents.”

5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Socioeconomic Information is not required to be in cluded in this plan per NTL 2008

- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations

Coordination Documents.”

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Oct. 3, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Bathymetric information based on seafloor horizon pick from 3D

data set

Contour interval = 25 feet

Zero datum = Sea level

Applied acoustic velocity using Advocate and Hood (1993)



### COLOR SHADED BATHYMETRY MAP Color shaded image

6XQD]LPXWK 

6XQHOHYDWLRQ 

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)

GRADIENT

Gradient is the first order derivative of the multibeam data.

Bin size = 20 meters (65.62 feet) SLOPE IN DEGREES191817161514131211109876543210



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Oct. 3, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Seafloor surface location of well



### SEAFLOOR GRADIENT MAP

## MC84

MC85

OCS-G-08797
Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH175001700016500160001550015000145001400013500130001250012000115001100010500100009500900085008000750070006500600055005000450040003500300025002000150010005000- 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000- 500

SEAFLOOR AMPLITUDE



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Oct. 3, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET



### SEAFLOOR AMPLITUDE MAP

## MC84

MC85 -3140'

-633' -567' OCS-G-08797

Well No. SS-2

OCS-G-08484
Well No. 1 OCS-G-08484

PXP

OCS-G-08797

PXP -4400' X= 1,331,022.00'
Y= 10,496,446.00'

1

:

X= 1,331,422.00'
Y= 10,496,046.00'

1

: UTM16N GRID NORTH S-13384 PXP 8" S-13385 PXP 12" S-13884 PXP 2" (Umbilical) S-13388 PXP 4" (Umbilical)

S-14090 BP 10" (Casing) S-14089 BP 6" S-14091 BP 4" (Umbilical) S-13386 PXP 8" S-13387 PXP 12" (Casing)

S-16086 PXP 5" (Umbilical)



### PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS A and B

DATE: REVISED: JOB No:

FILENAME: 130295 Oct. 3, 2013 0 1,000' 1,000'

SCALE IN US SURVEY FEET Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side)

Amplitude anomaly within Unit B (2.102 to 2.652 sec/BSL)

15-1,080 feet BML

Amplitude anomaly within Unit D (2.329 to 3.152 sec/BSL) 539-2,934 feet BML Ridge

Subsurface fault with depth of burial (Hachures on downthrown side) -750' NOTE: All pipelines shown are from public information obtained from the Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management (BOEM).Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 6

– Pg. 16 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 6

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES “Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the Gulf of

Mexico” is included as Attachment 6

- A

**.**

6.2 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.N/A

Rejected water from the watermaker. 143,450 BBLS/WELL 1,510 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Potable Water with
4% Stack-Magic ECO-Fv2 95 BBLS/WELL 1 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at the seafloor or with deck drainage when tested

at surface No

Uncontaminated seawater used to
maintainproper draft 57,550 BBLS/WELL 11,510 BBLS/DAY/WELL

Sea Water with no additional chemicals 3,040 BBLS/WELL 32 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No Cement Slurry 695 BBLS/WELL 347.5 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at seafloor during riserless operations. Dicharge rate based
upon 2 days (28" & 22" cement returns) No Hull discharge overboard. Based upon 5 major ballast operations, with
rig at operating draft minimal ballast change is required No

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

Well completion fluids

Workover fluids

Desalinization unit discharge

Blowout prevent fluid

Ballast water

Bilge water

Excess cement at seafloor

Fire water Cooling water Sea Water with no additional chemicals 56,273,200 BBLS/WELL 592,349 BBLS/DAY/WELL Hull discharge overboard No N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A No Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

15,010 BBLS/WELL 158 BBLS/DAY/WELL USCG approved MSD with chlorination Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling fluids,

i l di d ill d t t 2,841 BBLS/WELL 130 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to surface. Treated cutting will be discharged

b d d i d illi f th SBM i t l Di h t i b d No

Domestic waste

Sanitary No Gray water from living quarters 32,870 BBLS/ WELL 346 BBLS/DAY/WELL Chlorinate and discharge overboard No

Sanitary waste from living quarters, control
rooms and change rooms.

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover?

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

Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in for produced water.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Is there a deck? If yes, there will be Deck Drainage

Deck Drainage Deck drainage from drilling floor 475 BBLS/WELL 5 BBLS/DAY/WELL No drillfloor drainage routed to sea. All retained on board and
processed to <15ppm or sent to shore for disposal No

N/A

N/A ATTACHMENT 6-A WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE GOM

Projected
Downhole Disposal Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid Cuttings coated while drilling with WBM 2,197 BBLS/WELL 366 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharged to mudline prior to riser installation. Based on 6 total days
of drilling with WBM. No Answer yes or no

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

Water-based drilling fluid Water, NaCI (salt), PHPA polymer and Barium
Sulfate (Barite) 50,000 BBLS/WELL 5,833 BBLS/DAY/WELL Discharge at the mudline prior to the riser installation.
Nominal amount of unused fluid may be discharged at the
surface. Based on 8 days of drilling with WBM. NoFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 7

– Pg. 17 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 7

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

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

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures
or modified emission factors? X

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

Do you expect to encounter H 2 S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X

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

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Included as Attachment 7

- A are Air Emission Worksheets which show the emissions
calculations for the Plan Emissions . There are no co

- located facilities; therefore, plan emissions are the same as complex total emissions.

This information was calculated by: Jean Martin (281) 578

- 3388
Jean.martin @jccteam.comEXPLORATION PLAN (EP)
AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST OMB Control No. 1010-0151 OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 1 of 8 COMPANY Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC

AREA Mississippi Canyon

BLOCKS 84 / 85 / 129

LEASE OCS-G 08484 / 08797 / 03263

PLATFORM NA

WELL Locations A and B

COMPANY CONTACT Jean Martin

TELEPHONE NO. 281-578-3388

REMARKS FM O&G will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fule usage data for Deepwater Champion.EMISSIONS FACTORS

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 2 of 8 Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATE SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84

Equipment/Emission Factors units PM SOx NOx VOC CO REF. DATE

NG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83 AP42 3.2-1& 3.1-1 10/96 NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5 AP42 3.2-1 10/96 NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6 AP42 3.2-1 10/96 NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6 AP42 3.2-1 10/96

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3.3-1 10/96 Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3.4-1 10/96
Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98

NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84 P42 1.4-1, 14-2, & 14 7/98
NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5 AP42 11.5-1 9/91 Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21 AP42 1.3-1 & 1.3-3 9/98 Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03 E&P Forum 1/93 Fugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005 API Study 12/93 Glycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6 La. DEQ 1991 Gas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034

Sulphur Content Source Value Units
Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm Diesel Fuel 0.4 % weight Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weightEMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 3 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS
Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Mississippi Canyon 84 / 85 / 129 OCS-G 08484 / NA Locations A and B Jean Martin 281-578-3388
OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

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

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel (Drill Rig - 82%) Deepwater Champion 49486 2390.1738 14186.00 24 226 34.88 160.01 1199.00 35.97 261.60 23.39 107.32 804.13 24.12 175.45

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 6 97 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.42 1.94 14.54 0.44 3.17 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 97 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 1.50 6.89 51.63 1.55 11.26 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 4400 212.52 5100.48 10 97 3.10 14.23 106.61 3.20 23.26 1.50 6.89 51.63 1.55 11.26

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WELL TEST GAS FLARE 208,333.33 24 2 0.12 14.87 12.56 80.94 0.00 0.36 0.30 1.94

2015 YEAR TOTAL 42.54 195.27 1477.12 56.43 399.97 26.82 123.04 922.29 27.96 203.09

EXEMPTION
CALCULATION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN

MILES 2197.80 2197.80 2197.80 2197.80 55527.51

66.0 PXP will use a drillship similar to the Deepwater Champion. Total horsepower is calculated at 82% of actual horsepower of Deepwater Champion (Total horsepower = 60,348 hp). Actual fuel usage calculated at highest monthly average in 6 month fuel usage data for Deepwater Champion.SUMMARY

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 8 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL

Freeport-McMoR Mississippi Canyon 84 / 85 / 129 OCS-G 08484 / 08797 NA Locations A and B

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2015 26.82 123.04 922.29 27.96 203.09
Allowable 2197.80 2197.80 2197.80 2197.80 55527.51Day 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 11,174 gal 16,299 gal 11,042 gal 17,594 gal 13,605 gal 17,383 gal

2 14,133 gal 8,321 gal 11,095 gal 20,843 gal 12,786 gal 20,658 gal

3 17,409 gal 13,816 gal 11,941 gal 15,296 gal 8,612 gal 14,318 gal

4 5,733 gal 12,073 gal 14,529 gal 14,292 gal 12,231 gal 22,032 gal

5 34,818 gal 13,658 gal 11,359 gal 23,353 gal 12,231 gal 12,443 gal

6 16,775 gal 11,386 gal 9,510 gal 31,886 gal 12,469 gal 20,658 gal

7 14,662 gal 12,865 gal 10,223 gal 10,725 gal 13,103 gal 11,016 gal

8 16,167 gal 17,726 gal 11,016 gal 12,495 gal 11,174 gal 15,824 gal

9 14,133 gal 18,043 gal 10,567 gal 14,741 gal 14,556 gal 10,699 gal

10 12,046 gal 13,209 gal 10,514 gal 12,627 gal 18,017 gal 6,789 gal

11 12,733 gal 14,952 gal 13,182 gal 12,760 gal 17,752 gal 11,280 gal

12 12,812 gal 9,880 gal 10,567 gal 12,390 gal 13,895 gal 12,944 gal

13 15,190 gal 23,141 gal 10,752 gal 10,857 gal 12,046 gal 9,722 gal

14 14,001 gal 9,801 gal 11,359 gal 9,695 gal 11,412 gal 13,763 gal

15 10,223 gal 7,819 gal 10,910 gal 8,638 gal 12,073 gal 16,114 gal

16 7,661 gal 5,072 gal 11,069 gal 12,575 gal 10,039 gal 14,080 gal

17 14,635 gal 10,540 gal 12,786 gal 12,099 gal 14,397 gal 15,613 gal

18 11,650 gal 14,107 gal 10,884 gal 7,661 gal 13,314 gal 15,771 gal

19 15,005 gal 18,334 gal 15,692 gal 9,537 gal 14,080 gal 15,401 gal

20 14,899 gal 14,450 gal 7,899 gal 9,827 gal 11,650 gal 14,160 gal

21 13,473 gal 12,495 gal 10,646 gal 18,386 gal 11,967 gal 10,620 gal

22 12,575 gal 19,364 gal 8,189 gal 11,095 gal 14,979 gal 18,439 gal

23 10,778 gal 16,854 gal 11,174 gal 10,778 gal 13,552 gal 15,375 gal

24 10,857 gal 6,234 gal 9,642 gal 10,250 gal 10,725 gal 18,862 gal

25 12,786 gal 12,944 gal 12,443 gal 16,009 gal 10,250 gal 14,477 gal

26 10,805 gal 8,586 gal 11,069 gal 12,786 gal 12,944 gal 10,963 gal

27 12,469 gal 12,760 gal 14,899 gal 12,284 gal 9,589 gal 11,597 gal

28 11,148 gal 14,556 gal 10,673 gal 12,231 gal 11,016 gal 12,125 gal

29 13,684 gal 9,193 gal 9,827 gal 11,148 gal 11,359 gal

30 13,552 gal 13,869 gal 15,375 gal 14,688 gal 11,307 gal

31 13,499 gal 15,507 gal 13,763 gal
Average 13,596 gal 12,734 gal 11,290 gal 13,691 gal 12,677 gal 14,179 gal

Transit Days 

## Daily Fuel Usage for a 6 month period

MonthFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 8

– Pg. 18 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 8

OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING All the proposed activities and facilities in the Supplemental EP will be covered by the Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G ; Operator Number 03280 ) Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP), submitted on January 10, 2014, revised on January 31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control Number O

- 713).

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES Primary Response Equipment

Location Preplanned Staging Location

Houma, LA Harvey, LA
Venice, LA Houma, LA Harvey, LA
Venice, LA

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION

FM O& G’s primary equipment providers are Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) and Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), and National Response Corporation (NRCC). Clean Gulf Associates Services, LLC (CGAS) will provide closest available personnel,

as well as a CGAS supervisor to operate the equipment. MSRC personnel are responsible for operating MSRC response equipment. Through its Independent Contractor Network (ICN), NRCC will also provide closest available personnel, as well as an NRCC ICN supervisor to operate t he equipment.

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION

Category Regional OSRP

WCD EP

WCD

Type of Activity  10 miles Drilling Exploratory Drilling

Facility Location (Area/Block) GC 393 MC 84

Facility Designation Well Location B Well Location B

Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 96.5 mi. 66.0 miles

Volume Storage Tanks (Total)Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 8

– Pg. 19 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797)

Uncontrolled blowout

Total Volume 400,000 bbls 155,639 bbls Type of Oil Crude Crude

API Gravity 25 o 33.2 o

The Regional OSRP WCD was verified and accepted by BOEM in Plan N

- 9739 (per

NTL 2010

- N06).

FM O&G has determined that the worst

- case scenario from the activities proposed in

this EP does not supersede the worst

- case scenario from our Regional OSRP.

Since FM O& G has the capability to respond to the worst

- case spill scenario included in our Regional OSRP, submitted on January 10, 2014, revised on January 31, 2014, and approved on February 4, 2014 (OSRP Control Number O

- 713), and since the worst

case scenario dete rmined for our DOCD does not replace the worst

- case scenario in our Regional OSRP, FM O&G hereby certifies that FM O&G has the capability to 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 EP

.

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

- A.SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Management Act analysis, the largest spill volume originating from the proposed activity would be a well blowout during drilling operations

, estimated to be 155,639 barrels of crude oil wi th an API gravity of 33.2 °

.

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing information in the BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central an d
Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BSEE website . Th e results are shown in Fi gure 1

. The
BSEE OSRAM identifies a 21 % probability of impact to the shorelines of Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana within 30 days

. Plaquemines Parish includes Barataria Bay, the Mississippi River Delta, Breton Sound and the affiliated islands and bays. This region is an extremely sensitive habitat and serves as a migratory, breeding, feeding and nursery habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Beaches in this area vary in g rain particle size and can be classified as fine sand, shell or perched shell beaches. Sandy and muddy tidal flats are also abundant

.

Response

FM O&G will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as

p racticable

. A descrip tion of the response equipment under contract to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2

.

Using the estimated chemical and physical characteristics of crude oil

, an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADI OS oil da tabase. The results indicate 15 % or approximately 23,346 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 132,293 barrels remaining.

Spill Response MC 85, Location B Barrels of Oil

WCD Volume 155,639

Less 15 % natural evaporation/dispersion 23,346
Remaining volume 132,293

Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to a spill of approximately 132,293 barrels. The volum e accounts for the amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment

. Figure
2 also indicates how operations will be supported.

FM O&G ’s Oil Spill Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants and in

- situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified Command based on the size of the spill, weather and potential impacts. If aerial disper sants are utilized, 8 so rties (9

, 6 00 gallons) from two of the DC

- 3 aircrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraftwould provide a daily dispersant capability of 7,540 barrels . If the conditions are favorable for

in

- situ burning, the proper approvals have been ob tained and the proper planning is in place, in

situ burning of oil may be attempted. S lick containment boom would be immediately called out
and on

- scene as soon as possible. Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing CGA’s spill response equipment , with a total derated skimming capacity of 270,819 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 22,447 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 107,285 barrel storage barge , a 25,000 barrel storage barge , a 20, 000 barrel storage barge , three 23,000 barrel storage barge s, and a 47,000 barrel storage barge may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible

. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming attempts.

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Sho reline protection would include the use of CGA’s near shore and shallow water skimmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity of 40,341 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 504 barrels. If additional storage is needed, two 20,000 barrel storage barge s may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. Master Service Agreemen t s with AMPOL and
OMI Environmental will ensure access to 147,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom. Figure
2 outlines individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given actual sea and weather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for Plaquemines Paris h and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that environmental and special economic resources would be correctly identified and prioritized to ensure optimal protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protection response modes applicable for oil spill clean

- up operations. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan provides detailed shoreline protection strategies for this area, and it describes necessary action to keep the oil spill from entering Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, based on the assumption that removal of the released oil will be much easier and less damaging to fragile coastal ecosystems if done in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment and operation of e quipment allowing a more effective response to site

- specific circumstances. FM O&G ’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan.

Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, FM O&G can be onsite with contracted
oil spill recovery equipment with adequate response capacity to contain and recover surface hydrocarbons, and prevent land impact, to the maximum extent practicable , within an estimated
64 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)).Initial Response Considerations Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors which include but

are not limited to:

• Weather

• Equipment and materials availability

• Ocean currents and tides

• L ocation of the spill

• Product spilled

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments

• Trajectory and product analysis

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

FM O&G will take action to provide a safe, aggressive response to contain and recover as much of the spilled oil as quickly as it is safe to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response actions will be designed to provide an “in

- depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much oil as possible as far from environmentally sensitiv e areas as possible. Safety will take precedence over all other considerations during these operations.

Coordination of response assets will be supervised by the designation of a SIMOPS group as necessary for close quarter vessel response activities. Mos t often, this group will be used during source control events that require a significant number of large vessels operating independently, but in coordination to complete a common objective, in a small area and in close coordination and support of each othe r. This group must also monitor the subsurface activities of each vessel (ROV, dispersant application, well control support, etc.). The SIMOPS group leader reports to
the Source Control Section Chief.

In addition, these activities will be monitored by the spill management team (SMT) and Unified Command via a structured Common Operating Picture (COP) established to track resource and
slick movement in real time.

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

• Information will be confirme d

• An assessment will be made and initial objectives set

• OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified

• ICS 201, Initial Report Form will be completed

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published

• Unified Command will be established

o Overall safety p lan developed to reflect the operational situation and coordinated objectives

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

o On

- site command and control establishedDecanting Strategy
Recovered oil and water mixtu res will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases
the effective on

- site oil storage capacity and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill

recovery.

Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

• Surveillance Aircraft will be deployed within two hours of Q ualified I ndividual (QI) notification, or at first light

• Provide trained observer to provide on site status reports

• Provide command and control platform at the site if needed

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

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems

Dispersant application assets

• Put A irborne S upport I nc. (ASI) on standby

• With the Federal On

- S cene Coordinator ( FOSC ) , conduct analysis to determine appropriateness of dispersant application

• Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface

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

• Coordinate movement of d ispersants, aircraft, and support equipment and personnel

• Confirm dispersant availability for current and long range operations

• Start ordering dispersant stocks required for expected operations

Containment boom

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

• Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom

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

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

Dedicated off

- shore skimming systems
General

• Deployed to the highest concentration of oil

• Assets deployed at safe distance from aerial dispersant and in

- situ burn operationsCGA HOSS Barge

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA FRUs

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

• VOOs 140’

– 180’ in length

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

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

T&T Koseq Skimming Systems

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as allowed

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

• VOOs at least 200’ in length

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

• VOOs for shallow water should be deck barges with a draft of <10 feet when fully loaded

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

• Early call out (to allow for tug boat acquis ition and deployment speeds)

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

• Position as closely as possible to skimming assets to minimize offloading time

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)

• Use FM O&G ’s contracted res ources as applicable

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

• Acquire additional resources as needed

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspectionsIn

- situ Burn assets

• Determine appropriateness of in

- situ burn operation in coordination with the FOSC and
affected State On

- Scene Coordinator (SOSC)

• Determine availability of fir e 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 operati ons in accordance with an approved plan

Adverse Weather Operations:

In adverse weather, when seas are > 3 feet, the use of larger recovery and storage vessels, oleophilic skimmers, and large offshore boom will be maximized. Safety will be the overriding factor in all operations and will cease at the order of the Unified Command, vessel captain, or in an emergency, ”stop work” may be directed by any crew member.Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

• P lace near shore assets on standby and deploy in accordan ce 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 mo vement 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 Reg ional Response Team level (Region 6)

Vessel Deployment Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• F ast R esponse V essel s (FRV)

• Egmopol and Marco S hallow Water Skimmer (SWS)

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

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

• Industry vessel s 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 specif ic and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patchesShoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations

• Environmental risk assessments (ERA) t o determine priorities for area protection

• Time to acquire personnel and equipment and their availability

• Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate Area Contingency Plan, and currently for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spil l Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

Actions

Placement of boom

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

• Assess timing of booming operations to ensure it is where it needs to be at tim e 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 Ac tions

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

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

• Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter

• Monitoring of tide tables and weather to deter mine extent of high tides

• Pre cleaning of beaches by moving waste above high ti d e lines to minimize waste

• Staging of equipment and housing of response personnel as close to the job site as possible to maximize on

- site work time

• Boom tending, repair, replac ement and security (use of local assets may be advantageous)

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

• In

- situ burn may be considered when marshes have been impacted

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

• Earthen berms and shoreline protection boom may be considered to protect sensitive
inland areasDecanting Strategy Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases
the effective on

- site oil storage capacity a nd equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill

recovery.

CGA Equipment Limitations The capability for any spill response equipment, whether a dedicated or port able system, to operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in relation to the capabilities of the vessel the system in placed on. Most importantly, however, the decision to operate will be based on the judgment of the Unified Command and/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the final say in terminating operations. Skimming equipment listed below may have operational limits which exceed those safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill response, ve ssel skimming operations ceased when seas reached 5

- 6 feet and vessels were often recalled to port when those conditions were exceeded. Systems below are some of the
most up

- to

- date systems available and were employed during the DWH spill.

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

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

OSRV 4 foot seasEnvironmental Conditions in the GOM

Lou isiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences westerly winds during the winter and easterly winds in the summer. Average wind speed is generally 14

- 15 mph along the coast. Wave heights average 4 and 5 feet. How ever, 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 betw een 70 and 80  ̊ F during the summer months. During the winter, the average temperature will range from 50 and 60  ̊ F.

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 November. 97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The At lantic basin shows a very peaked season from August through October, with 78% of the tropical storm days, 87% of the minor (Saffir

- Simpson Scale categories 1 and 2) hurricane days, and 96% of the major (Saffir

- Simpson categories 3, 4 and 5) hurricane days occurring then. Maximum activity is in early to mid September. Once in a few years there may be a hurricane occurring "out of season"

- primarily in May or December. Globally, September is the most active month and May is the least active
month.FIGURE 1
TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing FM O&G ’s WCD and information in the BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico a vailable on the BSEE website using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS

- G Launch

Area Land Segment and/or

Resource Conditional Probability (%)
within 30 days

Drill and Complete two wells, Locations A

& B, both of which
have SL in MC 85 and
BHL in MC 84.
Install two subsea

trees

MC 85, Location B

66 miles from shore G08797 C57 Cameron, LA Vermilion, LA Terrebonne, LA Lafourche, LA Plaquemines, LA

St. Bernard, LA Hancock & Harrison, MS Jackson, MS Mobile, AL Baldwin, AL

Es cambia, AL Okaloosa, FL

Walton, FL

Bay, FL 1

1

2

2

21
3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1WCD Scenario

– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS ( 66 miles from shore) 132,293 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering)

API Gravity 33.2 °
FIGURE 2

– Equipment Response Time to MC 85, Location B

Dispersants/Surveillance

Dispersant/Surveillance Dispersant Capacity (gal) Storage Capacity Persons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to
site Total Hrs

ASI

Basler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 1.1 3.1

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 1.1 3.1

Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

Offshore Response

Offshore Equipment No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Hrs to
GOM Trave l to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

CGA

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 5 Harvey 7 0 5 11.3 1 24.3

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Venice 1 0 2 3.6 0 6.6

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Leeville 1 0 2 5.6 0 8.6

95’ FRV 12342 249 NA 4 Galveston 1 0 1 16.4 0 18.4

Boom Barge (CGA

- 300) 42” Auto Boom (25000’) NA NA 1 Tug
50 Crew 4 (Barge) 2 (Per Crew) Leeville 4 0 6 20 1.5 31.5

T&T Marine (available through contract with CGA)

Koseq Skimming Arms (4) 71316 8000 4 Utility 24 Galliano 24 24 2 11.7 2 63.7

Koseq Skimming Arm s (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Harvey 24 24 2 7.5 2 59.5Recovered Oil Storage No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Hrs to
GOM Travel to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

K

- Sea Operating (available th rough contract with CGA)

DBL 101 1119760 NA 107285 1 Tug 6 Venice 4 12 2 12.8 1 31.8

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 27.5 1 48.5

Staging Area: Venice
Offshore Equipment With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to
Site Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

CGA

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 8 7.5 1 19.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Utility 6 Harvey 1 2 1.75 7.5 1 13.3

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Ingleside 1 2 11 7.5 1 22.5

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 5.5 7.5 1 17

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 8502 4 00 2 Utility 12 Leeville 1 2 3.5 7.5 1 15

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Morgan City 1 2 3.25 7.5 1 14.8

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice 1 2 0 7.5 1 11.5

Hydro

- Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey 1 4 1.75 7.5 6 2 0.3

T&T Marine (available through contract with CGA)

Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston 4 12 8 7.5 1 32.5Nearshore Response

Nearshore Equipment No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Hrs to
GOM Travel to Spill Site Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

CGA

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 2 0 4

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Venice 1 2 2 2 0 7

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 15 1 36

Staging Area: Venice

Nearshore and Inland Skimmers With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total
Hrs

CGA

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Morgan City 1 2 3.25 2 0 8.25

SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 5.5 2 0 10.5

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Venice 1 2 0 2 0 5

Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Harvey 1 2 8 2 0 13Shoreline Protection Staging Area: Venice

Shoreline Protection

Boom VOO Persons Req. Storage/Warehouse
Location Hrs to
Procure Hrs to
Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Site Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs

AMPOL (available through MSA)

42,000’ 18” Boom 16 Crew 40 New Iberia, LA 2 2 4 2 12 22

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 New Orleans, LA 2 2 2 2 6 14

OMI Environmental (available through MSA)

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 4 2 3 11

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 7.5 2 3 14.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 6.25 2 3 13.25

20,000’ 18” Boom 8 Crew 20 Belle Chasse, LA 1 1 1.75 2 6 11.75

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Allen, LA 1 1 3.5 2 3 10.5

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houma, LA 1 1 3.5 2 3 10.5

15,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 14 Gretna, LA (Warehouse) 2 2 2 2 4 12Wildlife Response EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to

Procure Hrs to

Loadout Travel to Staging Travel to Deployment Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

CGA

Wildlife Support Trailer N A NA NA 2 Harvey 1 2 1.5 1 2 7.5

Bird Scare Guns (48) NA NA NA 2 Harvey 1 2 1.5 1 2 7.5

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 7 1 2 13

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Aransas Pass 1 2 9.5 1 2 15.5

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 4.5 1 2 10.5

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Venice 1 2 0 1 2 6

Response Asset Total

Offshore EDRC 270,819

Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 290,732

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 40,341

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 40,504Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Secti on 9

– Pg. 20 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 9

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

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

9.2 INCID ENTAL TAKES There is no reason to believe that any of the endangered species or marine mammals as listed in the ESA will be “taken as a result of the operations proposed under this plan.

It has been documente d that the use of explosives and or seismic devices can affect marine life. Operations proposed in this plan will not be utilizing either of these devices.

FM O&G will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance a nd Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 and 85 are n ot loc ated in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; therefore, relevant information is not required in this EP.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 0

– Pg. 21 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 10

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Exploration activities are subject to the following stipulations attached to Lease OCS

- G
08484 and OCS

- G 08797

, Mississippi Canyon Block s 84 and 85, re s pectively

.

10.1 MILITARY WARNING AREA (MWA)

OCS

- G 08484 and OCS

- G 08797 are located within designated W

- 155C

. The Fleet

Area Control and Surveillance in Pensacola, Florida

, wi ll be contacted in order to

coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions during the proposed operations.

10.2 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES The Marine Protected Species lease stipulation is meant to reduce the potential taking of marine protected species. FM O&G will operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

G01

, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting,” to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species, and the prevention of intentional and/or accidenta l

introduction of debris into the marine environment.

10.3 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEOURCES Mississippi Canyon Block 84 has been determined to be located in an area where historic shipwrecks may exist. In accordance with NTL 2005

- G07 “Archaeologica l Surveys and Reports,” and NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” an Archaeological Survey Rep ort is provided with this plan.

The proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Blo ck 85 will be conducted from previously approved surface locations as provided for in the Supplemental Exploration

Plan approved on September 24, 2009 (Control No. S

- 7147); therefore, in accordance

with NTL 2005

- G07, “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” a nd NTL 2011

- JOINT

- G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports,” an archaeological survey report is not provided.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 1

– Pg. 22 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 11

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 and 85 are not located within Florida; therefore, mitigation information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan

.

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES

FM O&G will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01, “Mari ne Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

• NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 2

– Pg. 23 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 12

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

12.1 GENERAL The most practical, direct route from the shore base as permitted by weather and traffic

conditions will be utilized.

Type Maximum Fuel Tank Capacit y Maximum
Number in Area at Any Time Trip Frequency or
Duration

Crew Boat 1,800 bbls 1 3/week

Supply Boat 9,000 bbls 1 3/week

Supply Boat 5,800 bbls 1 3/week
Helicopters 760 gals 1 3/week

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

Size of Fuel Supply Vessel Capacity of Fuel Supply Vessel Frequency of Fuel
Transfers Route Fuel Supply
Vessel Will Take
265’ 9,000 bbls Bi

- weekly Shortest route from
Shore base to Mississippi Canyon
85
265’ 9,000 bbls Bi

- weekly Shortest route from
Shore base to Mississippi Canyon
85
312’ 5,800 bbls Bi

- weekly Shortest route from
Shore base to Mississippi Canyon
85

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION Drilling fluid transportation information is not required to be submitted with this plan.

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION
A table, “ Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore

, ” is included as

Attachment 12

- A.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 2

– Pg. 24 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 12.5 VICINITY MAP

A vicinity map showing the location of the activities proposed herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of the proposed activities from the shoreline and the primary route(s) of the support vessel s from Fourchon , LA and aircraft from Houma , LA that will be used when traveling between the onshore support facilities and the drilling unit is

included as Attachment 12

- B.

### ATTACHMENT 12-A WASTE YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND/OR DISPOSE OF ONSHORE

Transport Method Name/Location of
Facility Amount Disposal

Method Solid and Liquid

Wastes Transportation Waste Disposal

Will drilling occur? If yes, fill in the muds and cuttings. Composition Projected Generated

Wastes

Synthetic-based drilling fluid Recycled SBM Cuttings Boxes on Supply Boat Newpark Enviromental Services

145 17th St
Port Fourchon, LA 1,000 BBLS/Well

130,000 LBS/WELL Recycled if possible,
transported to

landfill otherwise

Used Engine Oil Proper DOT containers on supply boat Univar

Carencro, LA 215 BBLS/WELL Recycled or

Inceretated 2,841 BBLS/WELL

Wll you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in produced sand. Cuttings wetted with Synthetic-based

fluid Cuttings Boxes on Supply Boat Newpark Enviromental Services

145 17th St
Port Fourchon, LA 300 BBLS/Well Recycled

Produced sand
Will you have additional wastes that are not permitted for discharge? If yes, fill in the appropriate rows.

Trash and debris

Used oil No production is proposed under this Initial Exploration Plan

Refuse generated during operations:
paper, cardboard, metal, and glass Compactor bags in storage bins on Supply/Crew Boat Gulf Offshore Logistics
Fourchon, LA. . . \ P O E D O C D \ M C \ K i n g \ V i c i n i t y

. d g n 

## A p p r o x

. 6 6 M i l e s t o N e a r e s t S h o r e V e s s e l P a t h t o F o u r c h o n S h o r e B a s e

A p p r o x

. 1 3 4 M i l e sFreeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 3

– Pg. 25 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 13

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

13.1 GENERAL

Name of Shore base Location Existing/New/Modified Freeport

- McMoRan Oil &

Gas LLC Shorebase Port Fourchon, LA Existing

MI

- Swaco Mud Plants Port Fourchon, La Existing

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expand the existing shore base as a result of the operations proposed in this EP.

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE A support base construction or expansion timetable is not required for the activities proposed in this plan

.

13.4 WA STE DISPOSAL The Table, “Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore, “is included as

Attachment 12

- A.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 14

– Pg. 26 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 14

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

A certificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Alabama is

included as Attachment 14

- A.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 15

– Pg. 27 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 15

- A

.

## Freeport McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC ( FM O&G )

Supplemental Exploration Plan Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84, 85 & 129
OCS

- G 08484/08797/10977

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FAC TORS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

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

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

the water
column or seafloor) Physical
disturbances to the

seafloor (rig or

anchor emplacements, etc.) Wastes sent
to shore for

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

Site

- specific at Offshore
Location

Designated topographic features (1) (1) (1)

Pinnacle Trend area live bottoms (2) (2) (2)

Eastern Gulf live bottoms (3) (3) (3)

Benthic communities (4)

Water quality X X

Fisheries X X

Marine Mammals X(8) X X(8) X

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

Air quality X(9)

Shipwreck sites (known or potential) (7)

Prehistoric archaeological sites X(7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X X(6)

Marine and pelagic birds X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(6) X

Wetlands X(6)

Shore birds and coastal nesting
birds X6)

Coastal wildlife refuges

Wilderness areasFootnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

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

o 4

- mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3

- mile zone of Stetson Bank;

o 1000

- m, 1

- mile or 3

- mile zone of an y 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) with rel ief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low

Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environme ntal resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS blo ck designated by the BOEM as having high

- probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activit ies 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 o r sea turtles or their critical habitats. 9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

### (B) Analysis

Site

- Specific at Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129

Proposed operations consist of the drilling and completion of two locations A and B. Operations
also include installation of two subsea trees.

The operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned drillship.

1. Designated Topographic Features

Potential IPFs on topographic fe atures include effluents, and accidents.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are 95 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Sackett Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surfac e spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the
amount shown to have an effect on corals. Because t he crests of topographic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found below 10 m, no oil from a surface spill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. T he activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from t he proposed activities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms
Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are 22 miles f rom the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quali ty). Oil spills have the potential to foul benthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oilfrom a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacl e trend) area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes
sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area.

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are not located in an area characterized by the existence of live bottoms; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to live bottom organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth , the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine invertebrates. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom area. The acti vities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in
Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the prop osed activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live
bottom area.

4. Benthic Communities
There are no IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to benthic
communities.

A drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a drillship, FM O&G ’s proposed operations in Missis sippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.5. Water Quality

IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 include effluents and accident s.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, discharge

- rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or e cological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offshore water quality; however, it is unlikely
that an accidental surface or subsurface s pill would occur from the 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
dril ling operations is even less. Between 1976 and 1985, (years for which data were collected), there were 80 reported diesel spills greater than one barrel associated with drilling activities. Considering that there were 11,944 wells drilled, this is a 0.7 percent probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occur, the water quality of marine waters would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to several months afterwards. Most of the components
of oil are insoluble in water and therefore float. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in
Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries

IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components and properties which are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum and metal
contamination of sediments and th e water column can occur out to several hundred meters down

current from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge poi nt, and are expected to have negligible effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on fisheries; however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities(refer t o Item 5 , Water Quality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the capacity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent t o shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to fisheries.

7. Marine Mammals

GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf

- edge were almost exclusively bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Squid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough

- toothed dolphin, and Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to marine mamm als as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents.

Emissions: Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a sta rtle reaction from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to disruption of marine mammals’ normal activities. Stress may make them more vulnerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, and/or predation (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is litt le conclusive evidence for long

- term displacements and population trends for marine mammals relative to noise.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components which may be detrimental to marine mammals. Most operational discharges a re diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of debris have caused the death or serious injury of marine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm

ma rine mammals. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by
MARPOL

- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent m aterials such as plastic or glass.Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. hel icopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste ma nagement in accordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can
avoid marine mammal s and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine mammals and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the twenty

- eight species of whales and dolphins, and the sing le species of manatee that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected marine mammal species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Mar ine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404

- 3922, the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at (727)
824

- 5312, or the Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (305) 862

- 2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract ve ssel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@boemre.gov . If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective sal vage and stranding
network as needed.

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil

- related injuries and spill

- related deaths to marine mammals. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer t o Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetac eans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil dispersant chemicals included in FM O&G ’s OSRP is considered to be low when compared with the constituents and fractions of crude oils and diesel products. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s OSRP (refer to
information submitted in accordance with Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact marine mammals.

8. Sea Turtles

IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. GulfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles over shelf waters. Historically t hesespecies have been sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all species as a transitory ha bitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activities, support vessels, and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction from sea turtles, but this is a temporary disturbance.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not known to be lethal to sea turtles. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of, debris have caused the death or serious injury of sea turtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially h arm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USC G) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precauti ons such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persisten t materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. h elicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance
with N TL No. 2012

- G01.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and sea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid sea turtles and reduce potential deaths by m aintaining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS.
Vessel crews m ust report sightings of any injured or dead protected sea turtle species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404

- 3922, the NMFS Southeast RegionalOffice at (727) 824

- 5312, or the Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (305) 862

- 2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@boemre.gov . If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vul nerable to the harmful effects of oil through direct contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fatal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed
activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to the possibility of collisions with sea turtles. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to
information submitted in accordance with Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality

Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are located 80 miles from the Breton Wilderness Area and 66 miles from shore. Applicable emissions data is included in Section 7 of the Plan.

There would be a limited degree of air quality degradation in the imme diate vicinity of the proposed activities. Plan Emissions for the proposed activities do not exceed the annual exemption levels as set forth by BOEM. Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air pollu tants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 from the coastline.
There are no other IPF s (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which would impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)

Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, onl y an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a drillship, FM O&G ’s proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 would not cause impacts to shipwre ck
sites.Additionally, Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

FM O&G will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist an d by FM O&G to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, FM O&G will contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that cou ld cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 are physical disturbances to th e seafloor and accidents (oil spills).

Physical Disturbances to the seafloor: Although the operations proposed will be conducted by utilizing a drillship, which would cause only an insignificant amount of seafloor to be disturbed, Mississippi Canyon bl ocks 84, 85 and 129 is located inside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability lines. FM O&G will report to BOEM the discovery of any object of prehistoric archaeological significance and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cul tural

resource.

FM O&G will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine

ar chaeologist and by FM O&G to be clear of seafloor archaeological resources. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, FM O&G will contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource. .

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to prehistoric archaeological sites if the release were to occur subsea. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in acco rdance with Section 8 ).There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities 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 Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 include effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and
marine waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on live

- bottom communities and EFH from operational wa ste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced

- water discharges, discharge

- rate restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or e cological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil spills that contact coastal bays and estuaries, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs and larvae are present, have the greatest potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). The activities proposed in t his plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information
submitted in Section 8 ).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed act ivities which could impact essential
fish habitat.

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds

IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, accidental oil spills, and discarded trash and debris from vessels and the fa cilities.

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are far below
concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

Accidents: An oil spill would cause localized, low

- level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5

, Water Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feeding at the spill location may experience chronic, nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected that few, if any, coastal and marine birds wouldactually be affected to that extent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM
O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

Discarded trash and debris : Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared in discarded trash and debris, or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and death. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulat ions and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution wi ll be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass. Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facil ities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 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 a n explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012

- G01. Debris, if any, from these proposed
activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact marine and

pe lagic birds.

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents.

There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H 2 S release) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In accordance with
NTL No.’s 2008

- G04, 2009

- G27, and 2009

- G31, sufficient information is included in Section 4 to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H 2 S absent.

Coastal and Onshore

1. Beaches

IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to beaches include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.Accidents: Oil spills contacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreational beaches and associated resources. Due to the distance from shore (66 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’ s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in
Section 8 ).

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the enjoyment and use of beaches. There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting f rom the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coa st Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using spec ial precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmental ly persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related per sonnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in acc ordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands

IPFs from the pr oposed activities that could cause impacts to wetlands include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item
5 , Water Quality). Due to the dista nce from shore (66 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).Discarded trash and debris: There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Contro l Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by

m aintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items an d packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. Al l offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Th ink About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lea se operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact
wetlands.

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds

Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed act ivities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Given the distance from shore (66 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by
FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and marine birds are highly susceptible to entanglement in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discha rging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will ope rate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials,particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards w ill be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be
ind octrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually . Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluen ts, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds.

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to coastal wildlife refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (66 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section
8 ).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from del iberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent acc idental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informationa l placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 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 vi deo annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated leaseoperator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissi ons, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to coastal wildlife refuges.

5. Wilderness Areas

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to
Item 5 , Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designat ed Wilderness Area (80 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by FM O&G ’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8 ).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL

- Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coas t Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FM O&G will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using spec ial precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

biodegradable, environment ally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support
services

- related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ).
Thereafte r, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from FM O&G management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance
with NTL No. 2012

- G01.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to
wilderness areas.

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified
There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment.(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The site

– specific environmental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed
activities. No impacts are expected on the proposed activities from site

- specific environmental
conditions.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S
During the hurricane season, June through November, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39

- 73 mph wi nds), of which six become hurricanes ( > 74 mph winds) . Due to its location in the gulf, Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85 and 129 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the inte grity of the operations covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, damage exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and pose a threat to local species.

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these impacts:

1. Drilling & completion

a. Secure well
b. Secure rig / platform

c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008

- G09, 2009

- G10, and
2010

- N10.

2. Structure Installation Operator will not conduct structure installation operations during Tropical Storm or
Hurricane threa t.

(E) ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impacts.

(F) MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation will be employed to avoid, diminish, or eliminate poten tial impacts on environmental resources.

(G) CONSULTATION

No agencies or persons were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.(H) PREPARER(S)

Krystal Nava J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578

- 3388 krystal.nava@jccteam.com

(I) REFERENCES

Authors:

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water marine mammals: a literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: enta nglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26

- 29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NOAA

- TM

- NMFS

- SWFC

- 54. Pp 387

- 429.

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benefits from regulatory consideration of synthetic drilling muds. Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
ANL/EAD/TM

- 43.

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic

- based drilling fluid conta minated cuttings in waters of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, B ureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLM

YK

- ES

- 81

- 006

- 1792.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. I n: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer

- Verlag. Pp. 99

- 139.

Majors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed to seal bombs in the ea stern tropical Pacific purse

- seine fishery

– an annotated bibliography. NOAA Administrative Report LJ

- 90

- 06.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. Annual report to Congress

– 1998.Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387

- 397

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk

- Hentzelt. 1989. Losses of seabirds by oil pollution at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros , J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2

- 3): 749

- 754.

Vermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian
Field

- Naturalist. 89:278

- 298.

Although not cited, the following were utilized in preparing this EIA:

• Hazard Surveys

• BOEM EIS’s:

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environmental Assessment. BOEM 2000

- 001

o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM 96

- 0058.Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC Section 1 6

– Pg. 28 of 28 Supplemental Exploration Plan October, 2013 Mississippi Canyon Blocks 84 / 85 (OCS

- G08484 / 09797) 

### SECTION 16

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION The proposed bottom

- hole locations of the planned we lls have been removed from the

Public I nformation copy of this EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and any interpreted geology

.

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. C&C Technologies Survey Services. 3D Seismic Shallow Geohazard Report, King Field, Blocks 84 (OCS

- G 08484), 85 (OCS

- G 08797) , and 128 (OCS

- G 27995) Mississippi Canyon Area, July 2013 (C&C Project #130295).

2. C&C Technologies Survey Services. Archaeological Assessment Report King Field, Blocks 84 (OCS

- G 08484) and 128 (OCS

- G 27995) Mississippi Canyon Area, July, 2013 (C&C Project #130270).

3. C&C Technologies Survey Services. Archaeological & Hazard Study, “King South,” Block 85 (OCS

- G 08797) & Block 129 (OCS

- G 10977) Mississippi Canyon Area, Block 45 (Unleased) & Block 89 (OCS

- G 10441) Desoto Canyon Area, October, 2007 (C&C Project # 072372

- 073019)

.

4. C&C Technologies Survey Services. Site Clearance Letters Proposed Wells “A” & “B” Blocks 85 (OCS

- G 08797) Mississippi Canyon Area, September, 2013 (C&C Project #130295).

5. Initial Exploration Plan (Control Number N

- 4208).

6. Regional Oil Spill Response Plan, Freeport

- McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (Control
Number O

- 713).

7. Supplemental Exploration Plan (Control Number S

- 3630).

8. Supplemental Exploration Plan (Control Number S

- 7147).

9. Unit Agreement (Unit Number 754396002).