UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - R-06150

Type - Revised Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G33242 Block - 281 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

Well A (SS Well 001)

DP SemiSubmersible

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

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

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

Ronald O'Connor

Plan Coordinator

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

April 14, 2015
Public Information Copy 

June 13,2014 

REVISED EXPLORATION PLAN

Lease Number: OCS-G 33242

Area/Block: Green Canyon Block 281

Prospect Name: N/A

Offshore: Louisiana

Submitted by: Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

500 Dallas Street

Suite 2000

Houston, Texas 77002

Melissa Logan

(713) 328-3017

mlogan@talosenergyllc.com

Estimated startup date: June 1, 2015

Authorized Representative: No. Copies Being Submitted:

Cathy Thornton Proprietary: 1 Copy & CD

J. Connor Consulting, Inc. Public Info: 1 Copy & CD

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700

Houston, Texas 77084

(713) 705-8020

cathy.thornton@jccteam.com

For BOEM: 

Plan No. R-6150

Assigned to: Ronald O'Connor
ENERGY RESOURCE TECHNOLGY GOM, INC.

REVISED EXPLORATION PLAN

LEASE OCS-G 33242 

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 281 

APPENDIX A Plan Contents 

APPENDIX B General Information

APPENDIX C Geological, Geophysical Information

APPENDIX D H2S Information 

APPENDIX E Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

APPENDIX F Wastes and Discharge Information 

APPENDIX G Air Emissions Information

APPENDIX H Oil Spills Information

APPENDIX I Environmental Monitoring Information 

APPENDIX J Lease Stipulations Information 

APPENDIX K Environmental Mitigation Measures Information 

APPENDIX L Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 

APPENDIX M Onshore Support Facilities Information 

APPENDIX N Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information 

APPENDIX O Environmental Impact Analysis

APPENDIX P Administrative Information 
Record of Changes 

Date Appendix Revision

08/06/2014 A Revised OCS Plan Information Form to amend BHL X-coordinate

08/06/2014 A Provided a Bathymetry Plat

08/06/2014 B Provided the total volume over the duration of the blowout

08/06/2014 C Revised the approval date of the previously approved Initial EP N9401 to 08/05/2009. Throughout this Plan Control No. N-9401 was 

erroneously referenced as being approved 08/05/2014 

08/06/2014 D Corrected the typo from N2S to H2S

08/06/2014 H Included the company name and BOEM number in the response 

planning statement. Corrected the spill location for the R-OSRP to 

GC237.

08/06/2014 H Included a reference for the plan control no. R-5300 under which the 

calculations and assumptions for the OSRP WCD were submitted 

and found acceptable.

08/06/2014 M Added the name and locations of the disposal facility information 

for the Trash and Debris and Used Oil items

08/06/2014 N Included a Louisiana CZM certificate

01/28/2015 Cover Amended Estimated Start-up date to June 1, 2015

01/28/2015 A Amended Page 1 of OCS Plan Information Form to revise the dates 

to reflect the new estimated start-up date and schedule

02/28/2015 A Amended Bathymetry Plat to remove anchor pattern. Under this 

Revised EP, a DP Semisubmersible will be used for the proposed 

operations

02/28/2015 E Amended Chemosynthetic Information and included a Chemo Map 

02/28/2015 E Revised Archaeological Information to show that the Archaeological 

Report and diskettes were submitted under separate cover. Also, 

included an Archaeological Assessment in Attachment E. 

02/28/2015 H Amended Oil Spill Response Plan information to reflect that the 

most recent OSRP was approved on January 21, 2015. 

02/28/2015 O Included Environmental Impact Assessment

03/24/2015 E Amended Appendix E to remove all references for the use of 

anchors. The proposed activities will be conducted utilizing a DP 

semisubmersible.

 
APPENDIX A

PLAN CONTENTS

(A) PLAN INFORMATION FORM

By letter dated August 5, 2009, BOEM approved ERT’s Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N9401) providing for the drilling and completion of Well Location A in Lease OCS-G 33242, 

Green Canyon Block 281. Under this Revised Plan, ERT hereby provides the Blowout Scenario 

information per NTL 2010-N06. Additionally, we plan to change the rig to a dynamically 

positioned (DP) semi-submersible rig in lieu of a semi-submersible as previously provided for in 

the Initial Exploration Plan. The well is located in a water depth of 2735’. 

See attached OCS Plan Information Form – Form BOEM-137, included in Attachment A. 

(B) LOCATION: 

Included in Attachment A are Well Location and Bathymetry Plats depicting the proposed 

surface and bottom location of the proposed well. 

(C) SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

ERT will utilize a DP semi-submersible drilling unit utilizing a subsea BOP stack to conduct the 

proposed drilling and completion operations. A description of the drilling unit is included on the 

OCS Plan Information Form. Rig specifications will be made part of each Application for 

Permit to Drill. There are no new pipelines or construction proposed under this Plan.

Safety features on the drilling unit will include well control, pollution prevention, and blowout 

prevention equipment as described in Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, and F; and as 

further clarified by BOEM Notices to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the BOEM, 

Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. Appropriate life rafts, life jackets, 

ring buoys, etc., will be maintained on the facility at all times. 

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

drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. 

(D) STORAGE TANKS AND/OR PRODUCTION VESSELS

All facility tanks 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 (Marine 

Diesel) DP MODU 5000 6 30,000 32.4

(E) POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES (FLORIDA ONLY)

Pollution prevention measures information is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan. 

Energy Resources Technology GOM, Inc. Page A-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(F) ADDITIONAL MEASURES

ERT does not propose additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures 

beyond those required by 30 CFR 250. 

(G) COST RECOVERY FEE

A new fee is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan. 

.

Energy Resources Technology GOM, Inc. Page A-2 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX B

GENERAL INFORMATION

(A) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS

Listed in the table below are additional permits/applications to be filed before operations can 

commence under this EP:

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status

Individual NPDES Permit EPA

Application for Permit to Drill BSEE

(B) DRILLING FLUIDS

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be 

Used per Well (BBLS)

Water-based (Seawater, freshwater, barite) 35,000

Oil-based (diesel, minerals, oil) 0

Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 20,000

(C) NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

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

exploration activities. 

(D) 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 556, 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 556.53(d) and National NTL No. 2008-N07, 

“Supplemental Bond Procedures.” If at any point ERT no longer qualifies for a supplemental 

bonding deferment, ERT will either provide the required additional security or a third party 

guarantee within 60 days after such disqualification. 

(E) OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)

ERT, BOEM company number 02899 will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the

facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR Part 253; and NTL No. 2008-N05, 

"Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities".

(F) DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT 

ERT (BOEM company number 02899) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and 

conduct other emergency well control operations. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(G) BLOWOUT SCENARIO

The blowout scenario assumes the rig has sunk and is displaced from the wellhead. The well is 

flowing uncontrolled at the mud line. 

A 13 5/8” intermediate casing string has been set at 15,000’ md, tvd. Open hole is present from 

15,000’ to 19,617’. (4,617’ of 12 1/4” hole). 

Worst Case Discharge

The uncontrolled oil flow rate is 141,154 BOPD. The WCD is based on nodal analysis using 

field analog reservoir data.

Duration of Uncontrolled Flow – Base Case 

The duration of the uncontrolled flow will be a function of the well bridging over, the ability of 

subsea intervention to shut or contain the well, or drilling a relief well. The expected maximum 

time frames for uncontrolled flow in each of the different operational outcomes would be as 

follows: 

Scenario Blowout Duration Oil Discharge*

Bridging Over 3 days 424 M bbls

Subsea Intervention 7 days 988 M bbls

Relief Well 70 days 9.88 MM bbls

*Assumes no declining oil cut

Recoverable oil reserves are estimated to be 33.19 MM bbls.

Potential of Open Hole to Bridge Over

Failure of the borehole in a blowout scenario is influenced by several factors including in-situ 

stress, rock strength, and fluid velocities at the sand face. Blowout simulations confirm that, due 

to the typically large induced drawdown pressures, wellbore pressure gradients in an open hole 

blowout invariably falls below the collapse gradient of the open formations. 

Due to the geopressured nature of the sands in the open hole, the age of the formations, and the 

depth below the mud line where the open hole exists, it is highly likely that the sandstone 

formations are somewhat unconsolidated and friable. Because the blow out scenario creates a 

large drawdown on the reservoirs at the sand face, considerable sand production is anticipated. 

In addition, the shale sequences in the open hole will likely experience tensile failure at that very 

large drawdown. It is reason to assume that the sandstones and shale intervals in the open hole 

will experience tensile failure and will collapse causing a bridge over.

Surface Intervention In the Event of a Blowout

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. will immediately mobilize the Helix Well Containment 

Group’s vessels and equipment to be utilized to shut-in and contain the well. 

Equipment to be mobilized includes vessels to remotely close the blind shear rams, vessels to 

begin subsea dispersant operations, and vessels to initiate debris removal / salvage operations. 

The Helix Q-4000 will also be immediately mobilized to assist in the response. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-2 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
In the event the blind shear rams cannot be remotely closed with the ROV, the LMRP will be 

removed from the BOP, and the HWCG 13 5/8” 10K capping stack will be deployed by the Q4000 or other suitable vessel and installed on the BOP. The blind rams in the capping stack 

would then be closed to contain the well.

A top kill operation would then be initiated to kill and control the well. The proposed well 

design will be able to withstand the anticipated shut in pressure at the BOP, as well as additional 

pressure exerted on the casing during the top kill operation. The estimated shut in pressure of the 

well at the BOP is ~6,800 psi, and the burst rating of the 13 5/8” casing is 10,040 psi. In 

addition, Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. would employ the expertise of Wild Well 

Control, Inc. to assist with any early intervention options. 

The estimated duration for surface intervention that would require the deployment of the capping 

stack is 8 days. This case assumes the HWCG vessels and equipment will be utilized to shut-in 

and contain the well. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. is a member of the Clean Gulf 

Associates / Helix Well Containment Group and is guaranteed this equipment in the event of a 

blowout. 

Availability of Rig to Begin Drilling Relief Well

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. has a Mutual Aide agreement in place with other 

members of the Helix Well Containment Group that requires other operators to make available 

any equipment necessary to respond to an uncontrolled blowout. Energy Resource Technology 

GOM, Inc. has a history of working with the major drilling contractors that provide MODU’s. 

There are currently 45 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico capable of drilling the relief well, if required. 

Relief Well Rig Package Constraints

No rig package constraints are anticipated for the rig which would drill the relief well. All 3rd, 

4th, and 5th generation rigs in the Gulf of Mexico would be suitable to drill the relief well. Hook 

loads are minimal and 10,000 psi BOP’s are required. 

Estimated Time to Drill a Relief Well

The estimated time to drill a relief well is summarized in the table below:

Description Planned Days Cumulative Days 

Site Assessment 3 3

Contract / Mobilize Rig to Location 14 17

Jet 36” 2 19

Drill and set 20” casing 3 22

Certify BOPE / Run and test BOP stack 15 37

Drill and set 16” casing 6 43

Drill and set 13 5/8” casing 14 57

Drill and intercept well 13 70

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-3 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Drilling a Relief Well from a Nearby Platform

No platforms are close enough to the proposed exploration well to drill a relief well.

Measures to Prevent or Reduce the Likelihood of a Blowout

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. employs the following measures to enhance our ability 

to prevent and reduce the likelihood of a blowout. 

Management and Direct Supervision

• Drilling Supervisors, Completion Supervisors, MODU OIM’s, Drillers, and Tool

Pushers, (including all personnel that may be acting in these capacities) must hold a valid

well control certificate from an accredited IWCF or WellCAP organization.

Well and rig equipment

• All rigs will meet all applicable rules and regulations per 30 CFR 250 and 550, as well as

all Notice to Lessees.

• The working pressure and temperature rating of the BOPE and wellhead equipment will

exceed the maximum anticipated pressure and temperature.

• Accumulator controls will always be left in the power position. (i.e. open/closed; not

neutral)

• Rams must be installed to fit all sizes of drill pipe and tubing in use.

• A pressure tested full opening safety valve (FOSV) and opening/closing wrench with

appropriate threads or crossover subs for all connections will be available on the rig floor

at all times.

• A drill string float valve (ported acceptable) will be installed in all drilling bottom hole

assemblies. (BHA’s) Similar valves will be considered for well intervention and

completion operations when reverse circulating is not required.

• MWD/LWD/PWD tools will be used accordingly to obtain real-time data on subsurface

zones.

• Circulating trip tanks are required for all drilling operations.

• PVT and gas detection equipment will be employed for all hole sections.

Drilling Practices

• Volume measurements relative to the well will be monitored at all times.

• All critical pressure test charts (i.e. casing test, LOT, FIT) will be reviewed by Drilling

Engineer/Drilling Supervisor prior to continuing with operations.

• During drilling operations, slow circulating rates (SCR) should be obtained and recorded

for each pump at least after BHA or mud weight changes and 500’ of formation drilled.

• Flow checks shall be conducted after drilling breaks, prior to tripping, after or during lost

circulation events, pumping out, prior to nippling down BOP’s, and any time when

anomalous pit volume readings are reserved. Minimum flow check duration shall be 5

minutes.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-4 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
• Drilling BOP space-out and tool joint space-out diagrams shall be posted on the rig floor

at all times.

• Kill sheets will be updated during each tour and posted on the rig floor.

Measures to Conduct Effective and Early Intervention in the Event of a Blowout

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. employs the following measures to conduct effective 

and early intervention in the event of a blowout: 

• ERT’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan will be activated.

• A blowout specialty company will be deployed to conduct an immediate site assessment.

The team will analyze the blowout situation and devise an intervention strategy.

• Site assessment will be used to assist in determining relief well locations so that planning

can be initiated.

• A suitable rig for a relief well will be sourced and preparations made for the suspension

of current activities in order to mobilize to relief well site.

Additional Prevention and Mitigation Techniques

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. employs the following additional measures to prevent a 

blowout: 

• Pursuant to wellbore cementing and zonal isolation techniques, all cementing operations

will be modeled and designed under guidelines set forth in API RP 65 Part I & II.

• RP 53 for Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells and RP 16Q for

Marine Drilling Risers will be used for installation, testing, and maintenance of the

surface and subsea marine risers and BOP systems.

Enclosed in Attachment B is the NTL 2010-N06 Worst Case Discharge Analysis. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page B-5 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX C

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

(A) GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

Geological Description was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) 

approved August 5, 2009. 

(B) STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS 

Current structure contour maps drawn on the top of each prospective hydrocarbon sand, showing 

the entire lease block, the location of the proposed well, and the location of geological crosssections were provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) approved August 5, 

2009. 

(C) INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES 

Interpreted seismic lines were provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) 

approved August 5, 2009. 

(D) GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS

Interpreted geological structure cross-sections showing the location and depth of the proposed 

well and at least one key horizon and the objective sand labeled using standard biostratigrahic 

terms were provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) approved August 5, 

2009. 

(E) SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

The Shallow Hazards Report was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) 

approved August 5, 2009. 

(F) SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT 

The Shallow Hazards Assessment was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N9401) approved August 5, 2009. 

(G) HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

The High Resolution Seismic Lines provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N9401) approved August 5, 2009. 

(H) STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic column depicting the well from the seafloor to 

total depth, with each objective horizon labeled, was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan 

(Control No. N-9401) approved August 5, 2009. 

(I) TIME VS DEPTH TABLES

Tables providing seismic travel time versus depth for the proposed well location in areas where 

there is no well control was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) 

approved August 5, 2009. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page C-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX D

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

(A) CONCENTRATION

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

(B) CLASSIFICATION

H2S classification information was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9401) 

approved August 5, 2009. 

The BOEM has classified the well as H2S absent. 

. 

(C) H2S CONTINGENCY PLAN 

Not Applicable.

(D) MODELING REPORT

Not Applicable. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page D-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX E

BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

(A) DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES 

High-amplitude seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of authigenic carbonates and 

chemosynthetic community habitats. The seafloor at the proposed well location contains no high 

negative or high positive seafloor amplitudes associated with fluid expulsion or mounded 

carbonates representing potential chemosynthetic communities. The nearest reported 

chemosynthetic communities are in Block GC 234, approximately seven (7) miles west 

northwest of the study area. No high seafloor amplitude that may indicate the occurrence of 

hard ground or authigenic carbonates are found within 1500 feet of the proposed Well “A” 

surface location. 

MAPS

The maps prepared using 3-D seismic data to depict seafloor and shallow geological features and 

areas with a radius circle of 2000 feet around the well have been previously submitted and 

approved. A copy of the map is included in Attachment E. 

 

ANALYSIS

Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are not located 

within 500 feet of any seafloor disturbances resulting from the company. 

 

Using 3-D seismic information, all seafloor features and areas that could be disturbed by the 

activities proposed in this plan have been identified. The likelihood of these proposed activities 

disturbing these seafloor and shallow geologic features is discussed in the following summary: 

Features or areas that could support high-density deepwater benthic communities are not located 

within 2000 feet of any proposed muds and cuttings discharge location. 

 (B) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES MAP 

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

activity zone”.

(C) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING)

All activities proposed under this Plan will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature 

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

(D) LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND) MAP

Green Canyon Block 281 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; 

therefore a separate bathymetric map is not required. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page E-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(E) LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) STIPULATION 

Green Canyon Block 281 is not located within 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. 

 (F) POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES

Green Canyon Block 281 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive 

biological features; therefore, biologically sensitive area maps are not required.

 

(G) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS 

BOEM has determined there is enough data gathered in this grid area, therefore, we will not be 

conducting any ROV surveys either pre-spudding or post-drilling operations.

(H)THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE 

MAMMAL INFORMATION

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

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

listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. 

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

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

information on the presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical 

habitat designated under the ESA and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of proposes activities under this plan.

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

Turtle, and the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle as endangered and the Loggerhead Turtle and Gulf 

Sturgeon as threatened. Currently there are no designated critical habitats for the listed species 

in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, however, it is possible that one or more of these 

species could be seen in the area of our operations.

(I) ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

Green Canyon Block 281 has been determined to have a high potential for containing 

archaeological properties. to be located in an area where historic shipwrecks may exist. In 

accordance with NTL No. 2005-G07 “Archaeological Surveys and Reports,” and NTL No. 2011-

JOINT-G01, “Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource 

Surveys and Reports,” an Archaeological Survey Report is provided under separate cover. An 

Archaeological Assessment is included in Attachment E. 

(J) AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

Air and water quality information is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan. 

(K) SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

Socioeconomic information is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page E-2 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX F

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

(A) PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES

please specify if the amount reported is a total or per well amount

Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges 

Type of Waste Composition 

Projected 

Amount 

(BBLS/Well)

Discharge Rate 

(BBLS/Day) Discharge Method

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

Water-based drilling fluid Water -based drilling fluids 2,500 0 Seafloor before installation of marine riser

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid Cuttings generated while using 

water-based drilling fluids 50 0 Seafloor before installation of marine riser

Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid 

Synthetic based drilling fluids 

adhering to drill cuttings from 

synthetic-based hole intervals

 1,600 200

Treated cuttings will be discharged overboard while 

drilling SBM interval. Cuttings will pass through 

cuttings dryer to reduce ROC percentage in 

compliance with EPA and will then be shunt through 

downpipe below water line

Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

Domestic waste

Gray water from galleys, sinks, 

showers, and laundry 4788 114 USCG approved MSD with chlorination and discharged

Sanitary waste

Human body treated waste 

discharged from toilets 3192 76 USCG approved MSD with chlorination and discharged

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

Deck Drainage Rain water and rig wash 2625 125 Deck drainage is gravity separated, tested and 

discharged overboard

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover? 

Well treatment fluids Frac fluid (gel) 100 100 Discharged overboard through shunt line

Well completion fluids Calcium Bromide 100 15 Discharged overboard through shunt line

Workover fluids N/A

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

Desalinization unit discharge N/A

Blowout prevent fluid Transaqua DW 50 0.55 Discharged from vent ports on BOP stack

Ballast water Uncontaminated seawater 36000 400 Per MARPOL regulations

Bilge water N/A

Excess cement at seafloor N/A

Fire water N/A

Cooling water N/A

Excess food Misc. food 135 1.5 Discharged overboard

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

Produced water

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit ? General

NOTE: If you will not have a type of waste, enter NA in the row. 

TABLE 1. WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR 

DISCHARGE TO THE GOM

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page F-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX G

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(A) EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

Screen Procedures for EP’s Yes No

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

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

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

(where D = distance to shore in miles)?

X

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified 

emission factors?

X

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

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

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

proposed well?

X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

There are no existing facilities or activities co-located with the currently proposed activities, 

therefore the Complex Total Emissions are the same as the Plan Emissions and are provided in 

the table below. 

Air Pollutant

Plan 

Emission 

Amounts1

(tons) 

Calculated 

Exemption 

Amounts2

(tons) 

Calculated 

Complex Total 

Emission 

Amounts3

(tons)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 273.62 71284.17 273.62

Particular matter (PM) 36.48 3196.80 36.48

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 167.36 3196.80 167.36

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 1254.07 3196.80 1254.07

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 37.62 3196.80 37.62

1

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

2

List the exemption amounts for your proposed activities calculated by using the formulas in 30 CFR 250.303(d). 3

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

This information was calculated by: Cathy Thornton 

(713) 705-8020 

cathy.thornton@jccteam.com

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page G-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX H

OIL SPILLS INFORMATION

(A) OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

All the proposed activities and facilities in this Plan will be covered by ERT’s (GOM No. 02899) 

Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP). The last Biennial Oil Spill Response Plan was submitted on

April 29, 2014 and approved on January 21, 2015. OSRP Control No. O-647. 

(B) SPILL RESPONSE SITES

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location

Houma, LA

Harvey, LA

Leeville, LA

Houma, LA

Harvey, LA

Leeville, LA

Fourchon, LA

(C) OSRO INFORMATION

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

Services, LLC (CGAS) will provide closest available personnel, as well as a CGAS supervisor to 

operate the equipment. 

(D) WORST-CASE SCENARIO COMPARISON

Category Regional OSRP

WCD

EP

WCD

Type of Activity Exploratory Drilling Exploratory Drilling

Spill Location (Area/Block) GC 237 GC 281

Facility Designation SS Well No. 005 SS Well No. 001

Distance to Nearest Shoreline 

(mi) 91 96 

TOTAL VOLUME = 24-

hour uncontrolled blowout 212,891 141,154

Type of Oil (Crude or 

Condensate) Crude Crude 

API Gravity 33° 32.6° 

ERT has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP does not 

supersede the worst-case scenario from our approved Regional OSRP. The calculations and 

assumptions for the OSRP WCD were submitted and found acceptable under Revised DOCD 

Control No. R-5300 approved March 8, 2012. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Since ERT has the capability to respond to the worst-case spill scenario included in our Regional 

OSRP approved on January 21, 2015, and since the worst-case scenario determined for our EP 

does not replace the worst-case scenario in our Regional OSRP, I hereby certify that ERT 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 our EP.

(E) SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION FOR NEPA ANALYSIS

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 141,154 barrels of crude oil with an API gravity of 32.6°. 

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected 

utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and 

Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website. The results are shown in Figure 1. The 

BOEM OSRAM identifies a 7% probability of impact to the shorelines of Cameron Parish, 

Louisiana within 30 days. Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake. 

Cameron Parish also includes the area along the coastline from Sabine Pass to Big Constance 

Lake in Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge. This region is composed of open public beaches, 

marshlands and swamps. It serves as a habitat for numerous birds, finfish and other animals, 

including several rare, threatened and endangered species. 

Response

ERT will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as practicable. 

A description 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 ADIOS oil database. The results indicate 18% or 

approximately 25,407 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with 

approximately 115,747 barrels remaining.

Spill Response GC 281, SS Well No. 005 Barrels of Oil 

WCD Volume 141,154

Less 18% natural evaporation/dispersion 25,407

Remaining volume 115,747

Daily dispersant capability 7,540

Oil addressed by in-situ burning 8,728

Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary 

storage equipment available to respond to a spill of 115,747 barrels. The volume accounts for the 

amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates individual times 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-2 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure 2 also indicates 

how operations will be supported. 

ERT’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 size of the spill, 

weather and potential impacts. If aerial dispersants are utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from 

two of the DC-3 aircrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraft would provide a 

daily dispersant capability of 7,540 barrels. If the conditions are favorable for in-situ burning, the 

proper approvals have been obtained and the proper planning is in place, in-situ burning of oil 

may be attempted. Using estimates based on the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, up to 5% or 

approximately 6,786 barrels of the total daily Worst Case Discharge volume could be burned. 

Slick containment boom would be immediately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. 

Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing the HOSS barge, nine Fast 

Response Units, eleven sets of Koseq skimming arms, and two Aqua Guard Triton RBS 

skimmers, with a total derated skimming capacity of 318,609 barrels. Temporary storage 

associated with skimming equipment equals 31,700 barrels. If additional storage is needed, a 

47,000 barrel storage barge, a 25,000 barrel storage barge, three 23,000 barrel storage barges, an 

80,000 barrel storage barge, and an 83,937 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 Cameron Parish, Louisiana would depend upon 

existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the use of CGA’s near 

shore and shallow water skimmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity of 54,753 barrels. 

Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 1,761 barrels. If additional 

storage is needed, three 20,000 barrel storage barges 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. A Letter of Intent from Oil Mop will ensure 

access to 30,000 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

Cameron Parish and Unified Command would be consulted to ensure that environmental and 

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

protection. 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 equipment allowing a more effective response to site-specific circumstances.

ERT’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill 

Response Plan.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-3 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, ERT 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 

41 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)). ERT will 

continue to commit additional on-water mechanical recovery resources as well as apply 

dispersants and in-situ burning needed and as approved, under the supervision of the USCG 

Captain of the Port (COTP) and the Regional Response Team (RRT).

Initial Response Considerations

Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors to include but not 

be limited to:

• Weather

• Equipment and materials availability

• Ocean currents and tides

• Location of the spill 

• Product spilled 

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments 

• Trajectory and product analysis

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

ERT 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 sensitive areas as possible. Safety will take 

precedence over all other considerations during these operations. 

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

• Information will be confirmed

• An assessment will be made and initial objectives set

• OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified 

• ICS 201, Initial Report Form completed 

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published

• Unified Command will be established

o Overall safety plan developed to reflect the operational situation and coordinated 

objectives

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

site

o On-site command and control established

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-4

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment

Surveillance

• Surveillance Aircraft: within two hours of 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 surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography 

and visual confirmation 

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems 

Dispersant application assets

• Put ASI on standby

• With the FOSC, conduct analysis to 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 dispersants, 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 and 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 operations

CGA HOSS Barge

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA FRUs

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off-shore as allowed

T&T Koseq Skimming Systems

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off-shore as allowed

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-5

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
• VOOs with a minimum of 2,000 bbls storage capacity

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

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

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

systems

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

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)

• Use ERT’s contracted resources as applicable

• Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming

Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

In-situ Burn assets

• Determine appropriateness of in-situ burn operation in coordination with the FOSC and

affected SOSC

• Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

• Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

• Determine assets to perform on water operation

• Build operations into safety plan

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-6 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Near Shore Response Actions

Timing

• Put near shore assets on standby and deployment in accordance with planning based on

the actual situation, actual trajectories and oil budgets

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

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

Considerations 

• Water depth, vessel draft

• Shoreline gradient

• State of the oil

• Use of VOOs

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline

Equipment Deployment 

Surveillance 

• Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

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

and visual confirmation

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets

Dispersant Use

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

water depth 

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

Vessel Deployment

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• FRVs

• Egmopol and Marco SWS

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

• Use ERT’s contracted resources as applicable

• Industry vessels are usually best for deployment of Vessel of Opportunity Skimming

Systems (VOSS)

• Acquire additional resources as needed

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-7 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Shoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations 

• Environmental risk assessments (ERA) to 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 Spill Response Plan, Deep

Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

Actions 

Placement of boom 

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

appropriate ACP 

• Assess timing of booming operations to ensure it is where it needs to be at time of

impact. Consider: 

o Trajectories

o Weather forecast

o Oil Impact forecast

o Verified spill movement

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability

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

Beach Preparation 

Considerations and Actions 

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

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

• Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter

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

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

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

possible to maximize on-site work time

• Boom tending, repair, replacement 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 considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom

and/or sweep obtained

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

inland areas

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-8 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Decanting 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 and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval 

will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill 

recovery.

CGA Equipment Limitations

The capability for any spill response equipment, whether a dedicated or portable system, to 

operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in 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, vessel 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 seas, 20 knot winds

Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots

Visibility less than 3 nautical miles

Ceiling less than 1,000 feet.

FRU 8 foot seas

HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas

Koseq Arms 8 foot seas

OSRV 4 foot seas

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-9

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
\ 

Environmental Conditions in the GOM

Louisiana 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. However, during 

hurricane season, Louisiana has recorded wave heights ranging from 40 to 50 feet high and 

winds reaching speeds of 100 mph. Because much of southern Louisiana lies below sea level, 

flooding is prominent. 

Surface water temperature ranges between 70 and 80 ̊F during the summer months. During the

winter, the average 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 Atlantic 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 n 

month. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-10 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
FIGURE 1

TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected 

utilizing ERT’s WCD and information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model 

(OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website 

using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS-G Launch 

Area

Land Segment and/or 

Resource

Conditional 

Probability (%) 

within 30 days

Green Canyon Block 

281, 

SS Well No. 001 

96 miles from shore

G33242 C43 Matagorda County, TX

Brazoria County, TX 

Galveston County, TX 

Jefferson County, TX 

Cameron Parish, LA 

Vermilion Parish, LA

Iberia Parish, LA

Terrebonne Parish, LA

Lafourche Parish, LA

Plaquemines Parish, LA

2

1

3

2

7

3

1

3

1

2

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-11 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (96 miles from shore)

115,747 bbls of crude oil (volume considering natural weathering) 

API Gravity 32.6° FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to GC 281, SS Well No. 001 

Dispersants/Surveillance

Dispersant/Surveillance Dispersant 

Capacity (gal)

Storage 

Capacity

Persons 

Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout

Travel to 

site Total Hrs

CGA

Basler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.7 2.7

ASI

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.9 2.9

Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.7 2.7

Offshore Response 

Offshore 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

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 8 Harvey 7 0 5 11.3 1 24.3

T&T Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

Koseq Skimming Arms (3) 53487 6000 3 Utility 18 Leeville 4 12 2 9.2 2 29.2

Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Venice 4 12 2 10.8 2 30.8

Koseq Skimming Arms (1) 17829 2000 1 Utility 6 Fourchon 4 12 2 9.2 2 29.2

Koseq Skimming Arms (5) 89145 10000 5 Utility 30 Galveston 4 12 2 20.8 2 40.8

Recovered 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

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

K-Sea Operating (available through contract with CGA)

PACIFIC 996165 NA 80000 1 Tug 6 Houma 4 12 4 11.25 1 32.25

DBL 76 1212984 NA 83937 1 Tug 6 Houma 4 12 4 11.25 1 32.25

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-12 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Staging Area: Fourchon

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) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Belle Chasse 1 2 2.5 9.2 1 15.7

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 7 9.2 1 20.2

FRU (3) + 100 bbl Tank (5) 11310 500 1 Utility 6 Houma 1 2 1 9.2 1 14.2

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 9.2 1 22.7

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 7540 400 1 Utility 6 Venice 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

T&T Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

Aqua Guard Triton RBS (2) 45560 4000 2 Utility 12 Galveston 4 12 7 9.2 2 34.2

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

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Belle Chasse 1 2 2.5 9.2 1 15.7

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Galveston 1 2 7 9.2 1 20.2

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Houma 1 2 1 9.2 1 14.2

42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 9.2 1 22.7

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Lake Charles 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Pascagoula 1 2 4 9.2 1 17.2

1000’ Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 20 Harvey 1 4 2.5 9.2 6 22.7

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-13

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Nearshore 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 Galveston 1 0 0 3.2 0 4.2

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Houma 1 0 2 6 0 9

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 1 0 1 2 0 4

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 9 0 11

Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 1 2 2 4.4 1 10.4

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 13.75 1 34.75

Staging Area: Cameron

Nearshore and Inland 

Skimmers With Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure

Hrs to 

Load 

Out

Travel to 

Staging

Travel to 

Deployment 

Site

Hrs to 

Deploy

Total 

Hrs

CGA

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6

Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 2 0 9.5

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6

RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Venice 1 2 6.5 2 0 11.5

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-14

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Staging Area: Cameron Shoreline Protection

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

Oil Mop (available through Letter of Intent)

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 1 2 3 8

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 4 2 3 11

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

Beach Boom 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

Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5

Beach Boom (1000’) NA NA NA 4 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12

Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5

Wildlife 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 NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 1 2 10.5

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10

Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 1 1 2 7

Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5

Response Asset Total

Offshore EDRC 318,609

Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 336,637

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 54,753

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 61,761

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H-15

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX I

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(A) MONITORING SYSTEMS

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

activities.

(B) INCIDENTAL TAKES

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. 

To date, it has been documented that the use of explosives and/or seismic devices can affect 

marine life. Operations proposed in this plan will not be utilizing either of these devices. 

(C) FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Green Canyon Block 281 is not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; 

therefore, the requested information is not required in this Plan. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page I-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX J

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Exploration activities are subject to the following stipulation(s) attached to Lease OCS-G 33242, 

Green Canyon Block 281. 

. 

Lease Stipulation No. 8 is meant to reduce the potential taking of marine protected species. ERT 

will operate in accordance with NTL 2007-G04, to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to 

protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species, and the prevention 

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

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page J-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX K

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

(A) MITIGATION MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO MARINE AND 

COASTAL ENVIRONMENT 

Mitigation measures taken to minimize impact to marine and coastal environment is not required 

for this EP.

(B) INCIDENTAL TAKES

ERT 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 ESA as a result of the operations 

conducted herein: 

• NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species

Reporting

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

• NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and

Protected Species Observer Program”

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page K-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX L 

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

(A) GENERAL

Type Maximum Fuel 

Tank Capacity 

Maximum 

Number in Area 

at Any Time

Trip Frequency 

or Duration 

Tug Boats 7900 bbls – 3 tugs NA NA

Anchor Handling Boat NA NA NA

Crew Boat 3000 bbls 1 3 trips per week

Supply Boat 300 bbls 1 1 trip per week

Helicopter 10 bbls 1 1 trip per week

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

conditions will be utilized.

(B) DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS

Size of Fuel Supply 

Vessel

Capacity of Fuel 

Supply Vessel

Frequency of Fuel 

Transfers

Route Fuel Supply 

Vessel Will Take

180 feet 1500 bbls Weekly From shorebase in 

Fourchon to GC281 then 

back to shorebase.

(C) DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION

Drilling fluid transportation information is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan. 

(D) SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION

For solid and liquid waste transportation refer to Table 2 under Waste Disposal in Appendix M 

Section D of this Plan. 

(E) VICINITY MAP

Enclosed in Attachment L is 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 vessels and aircraft that will be used when traveling between 

the onshore support facilities and the platform. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page L-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX M 

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

(A) GENERAL

Name of Shorebase Location Existing/New/Modified

Martin Terminal North Fourchon, LA Existing

(B) SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION

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

shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this Exploration Plan. 

(C) SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE

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

shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this Exploration Plan. 

(D) WASTE DISPOSAL

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page M-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX N 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana. A 

certificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is enclosed in 

Attachment N. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page N-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX O 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) 

Green Canyon Block 281

OCS-G 33242

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

Resources 

Impact Producing Factors (IPFs)

Categories and Examples

Refer to recent GOM OCS Lease Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs

Emissions 

(air, noise, 

light, etc.)

Effluents 

(muds, 

cutting, other 

discharges to 

the water 

column or 

seafloor)

Physical 

disturbances to the 

seafloor (rig or 

anchor 

emplacements, 

etc.)

Wastes sent 

to shore for 

treatment 

or disposal

Accidents 

(e.g., oil 

spills, 

chemical 

spills, H2S 

releases) 

Discarded

Trash &

Debris 

Site-specific at Offshore 

Location

Designated topographic features (1) (1) (1)

Pinnacle Trend area live bottoms (2) (2) (2)

Eastern Gulf live bottoms (3) (3) (3)

Benthic communities (4)

Water quality X X

Fisheries X X

Marine Mammals X(8) X X(8) X

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

Air quality X(9)

Shipwreck sites (known or 

potential)

(7)

Prehistoric archaeological sites (7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location

Essential fish habitat X X(6)

Marine and pelagic birds X X

Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore

Beaches X(6) X

Wetlands X(6)

Shore birds and coastal nesting 

birds

X6)

Coastal wildlife refuges

Wilderness areas

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-1 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

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

anchors will be on the seafloor within the:

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

o 1000-m, 1-mile or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic

Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease;

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

o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the

Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend)

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low-Relief)

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

4) Activities on blocks designated by the 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 environmental 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 block designated by the

BOEM as having high-probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will

be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are

located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in

a sentence or two.

8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or sea

turtles or their critical habitats.

9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-2 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(B) Analysis

Site-Specific at Green Canyon Block 281

Proposed operations consist of the drilling and completion of Well A.

The operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned semisubmersible.

1. Designated Topographic Features

Potential IPFs on topographic features include effluents, and accidents. 

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 281 is 26 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features 

Stipulation Block (Ewing-1 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 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 corals. Because the 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. The activities proposed in this 

plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9). 

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 topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include effluents and accidents. 

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 281 is 190 miles from 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 Quality). Oil spills have the potential to foul 

benthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom 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 organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not 

applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. The activities 

proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in 

Section 9). 

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. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-3

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 281 is 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 activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional 

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9). 

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 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.

Although Green Canyon Block 281 is located in water depths greater than 984 feet (300 meters) where 

high-density benthic communities are found, the block is located 7 miles from BenthicGreen Canyon 

Block 234, the nearest identified area containing such communities. Additionally, a dynamically 

positioned semisubmersible 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 dynamically positioned semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed operations in Green Canyon 

Block 281 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.

5. Water Quality

IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Green Canyon 

Block 281 include effluents and accidents.

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 ecological 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 spill 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 drilling 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 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-4

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 ERT’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in 

Section 9).

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 Green Canyon 

Block 281 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 the 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 point, 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 to 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 ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in 

Section 9). 

There are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent to 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 mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 281 include emissions, 

effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. 

Emissions: Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle 

reaction from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to disruption of marine mammals’ normal 

activities. Stress may make them more vulnerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-5 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
and/or predation (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little 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 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 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 marine 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).

ERT 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 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. 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 ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however 

should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid 

marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine mammals and 

maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help 

identify the twenty-eight species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be 

encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead 

protected marine mammal 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 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 vessel, the BOEM 

must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@bsee.gov. If the vessel is 

the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding 

network as needed. 

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 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-6 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, 

which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress 

to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil 

dispersant chemicals included in ERT’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 ERT’s OSRP (refer to information submitted in accordance with Section 9).

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 these species have been 

sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than 

they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all 

species as a transitory habitat.

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 harm 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 (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT 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 nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation 

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other 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 an explanation from ERT management 

or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management 

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-7 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 maintaining 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 must 

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 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 vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to 

protectedspecies@bsee.gov. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to 

assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed. 

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerable 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 ERT’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with 

Section 9).

There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities 

which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality

The projected air emissions identified in Section 8 are not expected to affect the OCS air quality 

primarily due to distance to the shore or to any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I air 

quality area such as the Breton Wilderness Area. Green Canyon Block 281 is beyond the 200 

kilometer (124 mile) buffer for the Breton Wilderness Area and is 96 miles from the coastline. 

Therefore, no special mitigation, monitoring, or reporting requirements apply with respect to air 

emissions. 

Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air 

pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing 

atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Green Canyon Block 281 

from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, 

wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact air 

quality. 

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)

Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed 

operations in Green Canyon Block 281 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-8 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dynamically positioned semisubmersible 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 dynamically positioned 

semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 281 would not cause impacts to 

shipwreck sites.

Additionally, Green Canyon Block 281 is 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.

Green Canyon Block 281 is located in Deepwater Environmental Assessment Grid 9, which has been 

determined to have adequate ROV survey coverage. ERT will not perform additional AUV/ROV 

survey imaging per guidance in NTL 2008-G04. However, should a resource be encountered, ERT 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 could cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Potential IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed 

operations in Green Canyon Block 281 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dynamically positioned semisubmersible 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 dynamically positioned 

semisubmersible, ERT’s proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 281 would not cause impacts to 

prehistoric archaeological sites.

Green Canyon Block 281 is located in Deepwater Environmental Assessment Grid 9, which has been 

determined to have adequate ROV survey coverage. ERT will not perform additional AUV/ROV 

survey imaging per guidance in NTL 2008-G04. However, should a resource be encountered, ERT will 

contact the BOEM immediately and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural 

resource.

Additionally, Green Canyon Block 281 is located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high 

probability line, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, 

or accidents) from the proposed activities which could impact prehistoric archeological sites.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-9

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 

281 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 livebottom communities and EFH from operational waste 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 ecological 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 this plan 

will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities 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 facilities.

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 would actually 

be affected to that extent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional 

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9).

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 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-10 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
(EPA). ERT 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 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 servicesrelated 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 an explanation 

from ERT 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 pelagic 

birds. 

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents.

There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for 

treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H2S 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 H2S 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 (96 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 ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9). 

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 from 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 Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). ERT 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 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-11 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 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. 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 ERT 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 which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands

IPFs from the proposed 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 distance from shore (96 miles) and the response capabilities that would be 

implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s 

Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9). 

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 Control Act, and 

regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT 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 

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. 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 ERT management 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-12 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 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 activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). 

Given the distance from shore (96 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no 

impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP 

(refer to information submitted in Section 9). 

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and marine birds are highly susceptible to entanglement in 

floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics. Operators are prohibited from 

deliberately discharging debris as 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). ERT 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 nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food 

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated 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 an explanation 

from ERT 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 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 (96 miles) and the response capabilities that would 

be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by 

ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9).

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-13

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 Coast Guard (USCG) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT 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 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 servicesrelated 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 an explanation 

from ERT 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 coastal 

wildlife refuges.

5. Wilderness Areas

Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness 

areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 

5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated Wilderness Area (166 miles) and 

the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The 

activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information 

submitted in Section 9).

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 Coast Guard (USCG) and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ERT 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 materials such as plastic or glass.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-14 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
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 servicesrelated 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 an explanation 

from ERT 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 HAZARDS

During the hurricane season, June through November, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of 

ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which six become hurricanes ( > 74 mph winds). Due to its 

location in the gulf, Green Canyon Block 281 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force 

winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations 

covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, 

damage exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous 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. Platform / Strucure Installation

Operator will not conduct platform / structure installation operations during Tropical 

Storm or Hurricane threat.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-15

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
3. Pipeline Installation

Operator will not conduct pipeline installation operations during Tropical Storm or 

Hurricane threat.

(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 potential 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)

Matt Harlan

J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 

Houston, TX 77084 

(281) 578-3388 

matt.harlan@jccteam.com

(I) REFERENCES

Authors: 

American 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: entanglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, 

R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-

29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TMNMFS-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 contaminated cuttings in 

waters of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, 

June 24, 1997. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-16 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau 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. In: 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 eastern 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.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-17 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
APPENDIX P 

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(A) EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION

The proposed bottom-hole location of the planned well has been removed from the public information 

copy of the EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and 

any interpreted geology. 

(B) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Not applicable. 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P-18 

Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 

Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS-G 33242)
Attachment A
U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM

General Information

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

Company Name: Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. BOEM Operator Number: 02899 

Address: 500 Dallas Street, Suite 2000 Contact Person: Cathy Thornton

 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone Number: 713-705-8020 

Email Address: cathy.thornton@jccteam.com

If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the Amount paid NA Receipt No. NA

Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD)Information

Lease(s): G33242 Area: GC Block(s): 281 Project Name (if applicable): 

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

Platform/Well Name: Well Location A Total Volume of WCD: 141,154 API Gravity: 32.6° 

Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 96 Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 141,154

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

Exploration drilling 06/01/2015 07/30/2015 60

Development drilling and completion

Well completion 08/012/2015 08/10/2015 10

Well test flaring (for more than 48-hours)

Installation or modification of structure

Installation of production facilities

Installation of subsea wellheads and/or manifolds

Installation of lease term pipelines

Commence production

Other (Specify and attach description)

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure

Jackup Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform Rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

X 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
OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED)

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

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name / Number (if renaming well 

or structure, reference previous name) 

Well Location A (SSWell No. 001)

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) 141,154

For structures, volume of all storage 

and pipelines (Bbls)

API Gravity of 

fluid 32.6°

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) Completion (For multiple 

completions, enter separate lines)

Lease No. OCS-G 33242

Area Name GC

Block No. 281

Block Line 

Departures 

(in feet)

N/S Departure: 5052’ FNL N/S Departure: N/S Departure: F____L

N/S Departure: F____L

N/S Departure: F____L

E/W Departure: 1475’ FWL E/W Departure: E/W Departure: F____L

E/W Departure: F____L

E/W Departure: F____L

Lambert X-Y 

coordinates

X: 2,250,755’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,053,348’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude / 

Longitude

Latitude: 27° 41' 28.893"N Latitude: Latitude:

Latitude:

Latitude:

Longitude: 91° 06' 48.691"W Longitude: Longitude:

Longitude:

Longitude:

Water Depth (Feet):

2735’

MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet):

MD (Feet):

MD (Feet):

TVD (Feet):

TVD (Feet):

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: TVD (Feet):

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

X= Y=

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


Attachment B

Proprietary Information
Attachment E
v

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GC281 Well “A” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508 Job No. 073321 

10

Figure 3. Seafloor amplitude map. 

GC281 Well Location A

Lease OCS-G 33242

Please disregard the anchor pattern, 

Under this Revised EP, ERT plans to drill 

this well with a DP Semisubmersible
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

BLOCK 281 (OCS-G-33242)

GREEN CANYON AREA 

GULF OF MEXICO

SUBMITTED BY

January 2015

Project No. 141166

Robert F. Westrick 

Senior Marine Archaeologist 
Project No. 141166 

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3

3.0 HISTORIC POTENTIAL ................................................................................................... 7

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF DATA ................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Bathymetry Record .................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Side Scan Sonar Record ............................................................................................. 8

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 9

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 10

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

Illustration 1: Regional Map Showing the Survey Area. ............................................................... 2

Illustration 2: Vicinity Map Showing the Survey Area. ................................................................ 3

Illustration 3. Shipping Routes in the Gulf of Mexico, 1763–1821............................................... 5

Illustration 4. Shipping Routes in the Gulf of Mexico, 1821–1862............................................... 6

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Shipwrecks Reported within 20 Nautical Miles of the Survey Area ............................... 8
Project No. 141166 

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

ii

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A Sonar Contact Report 

APPENDIX B Unidentified Sonar Contact Table 

APPENDIX C Equipment Descriptions 

Instrument Settings 

Survey Configuration Diagram 

Project Personnel 

Survey Logs 

APPENDIX D Sound Velocity Profile 

Tide Curves 

APPENDIX E Reduced Study Maps 

ENCLOSURES 

Archaeological Assessment Maps 

Sheet 1 of 2 Color Shaded Bathymetry Map Horizontal Scale 1′′ = 1,000′

Sheet 2 of 2 Side Scan Sonar Mosaic Map Horizontal Scale 1′′ = 1,000′

CD (Digital Files) 

Report and Maps (PDF), AutoCAD (DWG) and associated files, BOEM file (ASCII format) 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

iii

EXECTUTIVE SUMMARY

 Talos Energy, LLC (Talos) contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C&C) to perform an 

Archaeological Assessment within Block 281, Green Canyon Area (GC), Gulf of Mexico.

 This Archaeological Assessment is based on the interpretation of geophysical data collected 

aboard C&C’s M/V Miss Ginger on December 17-18, 2014.

 Multibeam bathymetry, side scan sonar, magnetometer, and subbottom profiler data were 

acquired.

 Water depths across the Green Canyon study area range from 2,520 to 2,920 feet below 

Mean Sea Level (MSL).

 The seafloor displays low to moderate sonar reflectivity across the study area.

 Four (4) unidentified sonar contacts were recorded within the archaeological assessment area.

 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the study area appears clear of archaeological 

resources.
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Talos Energy, LLC (Talos) contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C&C) to perform an 

Archaeological Assessment Survey within Block 281 (OCS-G-33242) Green Canyon Area (GC). 

Regional and Vicinity Maps of the survey area are on pages 2 and 3 (Illustrations 1 and 2), 

respectively. The deepwater multi-sensor data for the survey was acquired using C&C’s C 

Surveyor VTM Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). The purpose of this assessment was to 

identify potential submerged archaeological resources that could be impacted by proposed lease 

development. The survey was conducted to comply with the Pre-Seabed Disturbance Survey 

Mitigation (3.20) established by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) in March 2011. The survey fieldwork and this report comply with the 

BOEM Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2005-G07 for Archaeological Resource Surveys and 

Reports. 

Field operations were conducted from the M/V Miss Ginger on December 17-18, 2014. During 

the survey, seas ranged from 2 to 4 feet, and winds varied from 15 to 22 knots. Although

weather conditions affect the AUV deployment and recovery, surface conditions generally have 

no impact on geophysical data quality for this type of survey.

The survey grid consisted of sixteen (16) tracklines, including thirteen (13) primary lines (Line 

Nos. 101-113) running east-west at 200-meter line spacing and three (3) tie lines (Line Nos. 201-

203) running north-south at 900-meter line spacing. Navigation fixes (event marks) were 

recorded continuously and annotated at 125-meter intervals along all survey lines. The survey 

grid was designed to provide a representative sampling with the subbottom profiler system and 

overlapping coverage with side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder systems. 

C-Surveyor VTM’s remote-sensing payload includes a Simrad EM 2040 Swath Bathymetric 

System (200 kHz), an EdgeTech 2200-M Side Scan Sonar (120 kHz), and an EdgeTech Chirp 

DW106 Subbottom Profiler (1.5-4.5 kHz). The raw digital data was logged using C&C’s 

proprietary software. Post processing of multibeam data delivered a 3-meter-gridded dataset 

with relative vertical accuracies within 20 centimeters. Objects approximately 0.5 meter can be 

detected with the side scan sonar system. The subbottom profiling system vertical resolution is 

estimated at 8 centimeters, with approximately 120 meters of subbottom penetration in some 

areas.

The C-Surveyor VTM AUV was deployed from the support vessel, M/V Miss Ginger, using 

inertial navigation as the primary navigational input. Surface positioning of the support vessel 

was accomplished using C&C’s C-NAV® L-Band globally corrected differential GPS (DGPS) 

for relaying the corrections. These positions are generally accurate to one meter or less. AUV 

positions are calculated using a Kalman filter algorithm, which uses input data from a Simrad 

HiPAP System (High Precision Acoustic Positioning), inertial navigation and a Doppler Velocity 

Log to provide a position solution. The post-processed positions for the AUV data are accurate 

to within 5 meters.
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

2

A sonar contact report with data reproductions is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B contains 

a table of unidentified sonar contacts. The equipment descriptions and instrument settings used 

for data acquisition, survey configuration diagrams, and a listing of all field and office personnel 

involved in this project are included in Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C is a copy of 

the survey logs. Appendix D contains water column sound velocity profiles and tide curves used 

to correct the bathymetric data. Reduced study maps are found in Appendix E.

Illustration 1: Regional Map Showing the Survey Area.
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

3

Illustration 2: Vicinity Map Showing the Survey Area.

The geodetic datum used to generate the study map is the North American Datum 1927 

(NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid, and projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM), Zone 15 North (15N). NADCON version 2.1 was utilized to convert the GPS positions 

from the WGS84 datum to the local NAD27 datum. All coordinates given are presented in this 

projection on the study map and referenced within this report. All grid units presented on the 

study map(s), as well as scales and measurements are in U.S. Survey Feet.

2.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) has a long history of maritime activity. The 

Spanish were active in Louisiana waters by the early sixteenth century. In 1519, the Governor of 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

4

Jamaica, Francisco Garay, sent Alonzo Alvarez de Piñeda to explore the northern coast. The 

governor hoped he might discover the Strait of Anian, a mythical waterway that supposedly 

could be followed to the Orient. During his voyage, Piñeda charted the coastline from the tip of 

La Florida to the general area near the present-day city of Tampico, Mexico (Mahan, 1967).

Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca’s account of the ill-fated expedition led by Pánfilo de Narvarez is 

also one of the earliest recorded accounts of Spanish explorers in the region. After exploring the 

interior of Florida, the expedition tried to sail across the GOM in four sailing barges, which they 

constructed from local resources. All four vessels were lost, most likely along the coast of 

Texas. Although Navárez’s party originally numbered 400, only Cabeza de Vaca and three other 

survivors reached Mexico (Weddle, 1985; Pearson et al., 1989).

Spanish treasure fleets regularly sailed through Gulf waters transporting raw materials and 

treasure from the New World back to Spain. Three vessels from the 1554 Nueva España Flota, 

under the command of Captain-General Bartolomé Carreño, the Santa María de Yciar; Espíritu 

Santo; and San Estebán wrecked in a violent storm off Padre Island. The Texas Antiquities 

Committee subsequently located and excavated the San Estebán between 1972 and 1975 (Arnold 

and Weddle, 1978; Keith, 1988).

The French turned their attention to the GOM by the end of the seventeenth century. In 1685, 

the French explorer, Rene Robert Sieur La Salle, received a royal commission to establish a 

colony near the mouth of the Mississippi River. La Salle headed to the Gulf with four ships 

loaded with colonists and supplies. The expedition ended in failure after the Spanish captured 

one of the vessels and two others were lost on the coast of Texas. The supply ship L’Aimable, 

laden with 4,500 pounds of lead, sixty kegs of wine, muskets, tools and everything else the 

Frenchmen needed to establish a new colony, ran aground and sank off Pass Caballo while 

entering Matagorda Bay in February 1685. The following year, the barque La Belle wrecked in 

Matagorda Bay during a storm (Arnold, 1997; Bruseth and Turner, 1995). 

In 1699, the French sent Pierre le Moyne, Sieur de Iberville to colonize the lower Mississippi 

Valley. Iberville established a French settlement at Biloxi Bay in 1699. After 1701, the 

settlement was moved to Mobile Bay. In 1718, Iberville's brother, Jean Baptiste le Moyne, Sieur 

de Bienville established a colony at New Orleans. Four years later, the seat of French 

government was transferred from Biloxi to New Orleans (Pearson et al., 1989).

In 1762, the French ceded control of the Louisiana Territory to Spain. As Spain's interests in the 

Gulf increased, Spanish vessels became more numerous along the coast and archaeological 

examples from that period have been periodically discovered. Researchers documented the 

remains of El Nuevo Constante, which wrecked off the Louisiana coast in 1766. El Nuevo 

Constante was a Spanish merchant vessel referred to as a frigate in contemporary documents. A 

second vessel of the fleet, Corazón de Jesús y Santa Bárbara, was also lost during the same 

storm, but remains undiscovered (Pearson et al., 1989; and Pearson and Hoffman, 1995).

In 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte secretly bargained control of Louisiana from Spain. Thomas 

Jefferson fearing Napoleon’s control of the Mississippi outlet could pose a serious threat to 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

5

American shipping in the Gulf dispatched Robert Livingston to Paris. Livingston successfully 

negotiated the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States in April 1803. The boundaries 

of the territory were left vague giving the United States a strong claim to Texas and “West 

Florida.” From 1810 to 1813, the American government laid claim to the Florida parishes of 

Louisiana, the coast of Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida (Tindall, 1988).

Illustration 3. Shipping Routes in the Gulf of Mexico, 1763–1821 (Modified from Pearson et al., 2003).

Prior to 1812, most waterborne commerce in the central part of the Gulf was centered on New 

Orleans. On January 10, 1812, the first steamboat arrived at New Orleans from Pittsburgh. Soon 

after the introduction of steam vessels, maritime commerce in the Gulf of Mexico increased 

dramatically. By the dawn of the Civil War, several major steamship lines were servicing New 

Orleans (Pearson et al., 1989). The growth in maritime activity led to a proportionate increase in 

ship losses and several examples from that period have been documented. Salvors located a midnineteenth century steam vessel off High Island, Texas. Archaeologists from the former 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), now BOEM, investigated the wreck site and identified it 

as the side-wheeler, New York, which operated between New Orleans and Galveston, and was 

lost during a hurricane on September 7, 1846 (Irion, 1998). Seventeen of her passengers and 

crew drowned, including five young children; thirty-six people survived by holding onto debris 

until they were rescued by the S.S. Galveston, two days later (Bowers, 2008). Today, the ship’s

bell and other artifacts recovered from the steamship New York are on public display at the 

Bayou Teche Museum located in downtown New Iberia, Louisiana. 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

6

Illustration 4. Shipping Routes in the Gulf of Mexico, 1821–1862 (Modified from Pearson et al., 2003).

In 1997 and 1999, MMS Archaeologists identified the nineteenth century steamship Josephine, 

which sank off the coast of Mississippi in 1881 (Irion and Ball, 2001). Barto J. Arnold III (1997) 

and others also discovered several nineteenth century steamships in Matagorda Bay, Texas while 

looking for La Salle’s ships.

During the Civil War the Gulf of Mexico was also a theater of conflict for Union blockaders, 

daring blockade-runners, and Confederate “commerce raiders” or privateers. Early in the war, 

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of Southern ports. Confederate 

President Jefferson Davis responded to this action by issuing letters of marque to Confederate 

privateers allowing them to attack Union shipping. In June 1861, the converted mail steamer 

CSS Sumter, under the command of Raphael Semmes, breached the blockade at New Orleans 

and by January 1862, had captured or destroyed eighteen Union merchant ships on her cruise to 

Gibraltar. Semmes was promoted to captain and placed in command of the CSS Alabama. The 

Alabama sank the steamer USS Hatteras off the coast of Galveston, Texas in the summer of 

1862. CSS Alabama sank a record seventy-six vessels before being sunk herself off the coast of 

Cherbourg, France by the USS Kearsarge (Semmes, 1869; Watts, 1988).

After the Civil War, the presence of stern-wheelers began to increase in frequency and 

throughout the last half of the nineteenth century a variety of sailing craft such as schooners, 

clippers, and “New Orleans” luggers were in use along the northern Gulf coast. The need for 

steam propulsion decreased with the beginning of oil production in Louisiana and Texas at the 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

7

onset of the twentieth century. By around 1915, steam engines and paddle wheelers began to 

fade away to diesel engines and screw propellers (Pearson et al., 1989). 

By the start of World War II, steel hull ships powered by petroleum driven screws were plying 

the Gulf. Several German U-boats also operated in the Gulf of Mexico during World War II. U507 under the command of Korvettenkapitän Harro Schacht claimed the first victim in Gulf 

waters with the sinking of the freighter Norlindo on May 4, 1942 off Key West, Florida 

(Wiggins, 1995). Other U-boats soon joined the onslaught in the Gulf, including U-166, 

commanded by Kapitänleutnant Hans-Günther Kühlmann. U-166 took up position off the mouth 

of the Mississippi River to lay mines and attack merchant shipping. Kühlmann sank the 

passenger freighter SS Robert E. Lee approximately 45 miles southeast of the Mississippi River 

on July 30, 1942. PC-566, the naval vessel escorting the freighter, then in turn sank U-166. In 

all, seventeen U-boats sank fifty-six vessels and damaged fourteen others over the course of 

approximately one year with only one U-boat lost in the Gulf of Mexico (Church and Warren, 

2002). Although many of these war casualties have been found, many others have yet to be 

discovered.

3.0 HISTORIC POTENTIAL

Typically, there is a direct correlation between shipwreck locations and traditional shipping 

routes. The Spanish used routes that passed through the project area since roughly the 1760s, 

while steamships utilized routes that passed north of the survey area after the early 1820s 

(Illustrations 3 and 4, Pearson et al., 2003). According to BOEM and C&C records, there are 

two recorded shipwrecks listed within 20 nautical miles of the survey area (Table 2-1). One of 

the shipwrecks, the American Eagle, is a known historic vessels, (50-years old or older). 

The American tanker S.S. American Eagle, was built by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation in 

1959. On February 26, 1984, the American Eagle was en route from Savannah, Georgia to 

Orange, Texas carrying a shipment of oil and gasoline when the cargo exploded. Three crewmen 

were killed and four others were injured in the explosion. Although the American Eagle

sustained major structural damage, the vessel remained afloat until February 27, 1984, when the 

vessel began to break apart and the master ordered the crew to abandon ship. The surviving crew 

members were rescued by three offshore supply vessels and a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter. 

During the abandonment and rescue efforts two additional crew members lost their lives and two 

others were reported missing and were presumed dead; also five more crewmen were injured.

 

The American Eagle shipwreck was identified during a ROW pipeline survey in 2001. However, 

only a portion of the wreck was confirmed. An unidentified sonar contact located approximately 

7,680 feet southeast of the wreck may be the missing bow section. The American Eagle wreck 

lies approximately 91⁄2 miles northeast of the survey area. 

The other shipwreck, the Kodiak II, is reportedly located about 19 miles east-southeast of the 

survey area. The motor vessel Kodiak II sank on September 8, 1998. According to U.S. Coast 

Guard reports, the 225-foot vessel sank in 2,100 feet of water. Although it is probably modern, it 

is of unknown construction date and therefore is considered potentially historic.
Project No. 141166 

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

8

Both shipwrecks are listed in Table 1 along with an estimate of their location reliability. 

Table 1. Shipwrecks Reported within 20 Nautical Miles of the Survey Area 

Vessel Name Date Built Date of Loss Location 

Reliability*

American Eagle 1959 February 27, 1984 1

Kodiak II Unknown September 8, 1998 3

*Location reliability based on scale 1 to 4, 1 being reliable, and 4 being unreliable

Deepwater areas such as the Green Canyon Area were thought to have a low potential for 

undocumented shipwrecks, although the silty clay sediment found in the area should allow for 

good preservation of submerged cultural resources. The recent discoveries, however, of 

undocumented well-preserved historical wrecks in the Viosca Knoll, Green Canyon, and 

Mississippi Canyon Areas suggests the shipwreck potential for deepwater areas of the GOM is 

higher than originally estimated. There is a possibility that undocumented wreck sites may exist 

within or near the survey area. 

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF DATA 

4.1 BATHYMETRY RECORD 

Multibeam bathymetric data were used to determine water depths across the survey area, are 

referenced to Mean Sea Level (MSL), and contoured at 20-foot intervals on the Color Shaded 

Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1 of 2). The seafloor slopes from the north towards the south 

throughout the survey area. Water depths range from 2,520 feet MSL in the southern portion of 

GC237 to 2,920 feet MSL along the southern portion of the survey area in GC281. 

4.2 SIDE SCAN SONAR RECORD

The side scan sonar imagery indicated low to moderate reflectivity throughout the survey area. 

A total of four (4) unidentified sonar contacts that do not correlate to known infrastructure were 

recorded. 

Sonar Contact No. 1 is the largest sonar contact. It measures 12.01 × 11.12 feet with no 

measurable height. It is located along the northern portion of GC281. Sonar Contact Nos. 2 and 

4 are linear contacts measuring 10.3 × 2.05 feet and 15.04 × 2.01 feet, respectively. Neither 

contact displays any measurable height. Sonar Contact No. 2 is located in the central portion of 

the survey grid while Sonar Contact No. 4 is located in the southern portion of GC281. Sonar 

Contract No. 3 is a relatively small contact measuring 3.52 × 3.52 feet with no vertical relief. It 

is located in the western portion of GC281. 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

9

All the contacts recorded in the study area are interpreted as likely associated with modern 

activity or geological in origin. None of the contacts display characteristics suggestive of 

significant archaeological resources. 

Data reproductions of each unidentified sonar contact are presented in the Sonar Contact Report 

located in Appendix B. All unidentified sonar contacts are listed in the Sonar Contact Table in 

Appendix B and depicted on the Archaeological Assessment Maps.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Archaeological Assessment Survey revealed 4 unidentified sonar contacts within the 

archaeological assessment area. All of the sonar contacts appear to be insignificant modern 

debris or natural in origin. No sonar contacts or magnetic anomalies are recommended for 

avoidance or investigation on the basis of historic archaeological potential. 

There is always, however, a possibility that shipwreck remains could be undetected or 

unidentified within the survey area. If any possible shipwreck material is encountered during 

lease development or other seafloor disturbing activity, the BOEM archaeologists must be 

contacted within 48 hours for an assessment of any antiquities. Material indicating the presence 

of a historic shipwreck may include, but is not limited to, wooden ship beams, hull planking, 

rigging, anchors, ceramics, or other possible cultural material. In this event, no activities should 

be conducted near the area of discovery until advised by the appropriate BOEM personnel (NTL 

No. 2005-G07, Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports and Pre-Seabed Disturbance 

Survey Mitigation Document).
Project No. 141166 

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

10

6.0 REFERENCES 

Arnold, J. Barto, III. 1997. The mystery of Matagorda Bay: An Archaeological Discovery. The 

Philosophical Society of Texas. 

Arnold, J. Barto, III. and Robert Weddle. 1978. The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island: The 

Spanish Shipwrecks of 1554. Academic Press. New York. 

BOEM. 2005. Notice To Lessees (NTL) No. 2005-G07, “Archaeological Resource Survey and 

Reports.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 

BOEMRE. 2011. Pre-Seabed Disturbance Survey Mitigation. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Bowers, David Q. 2008. The Treasure Ship S.S. New York – Her Story 1837-1846. New York: 

Stacks, LLC. 

Bruseth, James E. and Toni S. Turner. 2005. From a Watery Grave: The Discovery and 

Excavation of La Salle’s Shipwreck, La Belle. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, 

Texas. 

Church, Robert A. and Daniel J. Warren. 2002. Unraveling the Mystery: The Discovery of the 

U-166. Proceedings of the Information Transfer Meeting (ITM). Minerals Management 

Services. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Irion, Jack. 1998. Paper presented at the Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. New Orleans, Louisiana . 

Irion, Jack B., and Ball, David A. 2001. "The New York and the Josephine: Two Steamships of 

the Charles Morgan Line." The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30.1:48-56. 

Keith, D. H., 1988. “Shipwrecks of the Explorers” in George F. Bass. Ships and Shipwrecks of 

the Americas: A History Based on Underwater Archaeology. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. 

Mahan, William. 1967. Padre Island: Treasure Kingdom of the World. Texian Press. Waco, 

Texas. 

Pearson, Charles E. and Hoffman, Paul E. 1995. The last voyage of El Nuevo Constante: the 

wreck and recovery of an eighteenth-century Spanish ship off the Louisiana coast. Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press. 

Pearson, Charles E., David B. Kelley, Richard A. Weinstein, Sherwood M. Gagliano. 1986. 

Archeological Investigations on the Outer Continental Shelf: A Study within the Sabine River 

Valley, Offshore Louisiana and Texas. Prepared for the Minerals Management Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Project No. 141166

______________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

11

Pearson, Charles E., Stephen R. James, Jr., Michael C. Krivor, S. Dean El Darragi, Lori 

Cunningham. 2003. Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 

High Probability Model for Historic Shipwrecks. Volume II: Technical Narrative. OCS Study 

MMS 2003-061. U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Semmes, Raphael. 1869. Memoirs of service afloat, during the war between the states. 

Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Company. 

Tindall, George Brown. 1988. America, a Narrative History. Vol. I. W. W. Norton and 

Company. New York.

Watts, Gordon P., Jr. 1988. The Civil War at Sea: Dawn of an Age of Iron and Engineering. in 

George F. Bass. Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater 

Archaeology. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Weddle, Robert S. 1985. The Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American Discovery, 

1500-1685. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, Texas.

Wiggins, Melanie. 1995. Torpedoes in the Gulf, Galveston and the U-boats, 1942-1943. Texas 

A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.
C&C Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

APPENDIX A

SONAR CONTACT REPORT

Proprietary Information
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

APPENDIX B 

SONAR CONTACT TABLE

Proprietary Information
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

APPENDIX C 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIONS 

INSTRUMENT SETTINGS 

SURVEY CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM 

PERSONNEL LIST 

SURVEY LOGS 
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C-Surveyor VTM AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLE (AUV)

The C-Surveyor VTM Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) was designed to collect

deepwater, high-resolution geophysical data for site and route surveys in water depths of up to 

3,000 meters. Kongsberg Kongsberg produces the base platform and C&C made upgrades from 

their more than 12 years of AUV operating experience. The system is designed for portability 

and survey work from vessels of opportunity (Figure 1). 

Primary survey sensors found in the system payload include a 

Kongsberg EM 2040 Swath Multibeam Sonar (200, 300, and 

400 kHz), an EdgeTech 2200-M Side Scan Sonar (410 and 120 

kHz) and a custom EdgeTech DW106 Subbottom Profiler 

(Chirp 1 to 6 kHz) with 4 projectors and 6 receive hydrophones. 

A digital still camera and 2GRobotics 3-D Laser Profiler System 

is available for detailed seabed investigations. This AUV is also 

equipped with a MicroTesla Marine Magnetometer for detecting 

ferrous material. An acoustically aided inertial navigation 

system coupled with an acoustic Doppler velocity speed log and 

USBL (Ultra Short BaseLine) positioning from the survey 

vessel is used for primary positioning of the AUV. Ancillary sensors include survey precision 

depth sensors, altimeter, and Seabird CTD (Conductivity, Temperature and Depth) probes. A 

Kongsberg HiPAP 350P or 500 System is typically implemented for tracking the AUV 

acoustically. A Linkquest Acoustic Modem provides data communications and data through the 

Acoustic Command Link (ACL) and the Acoustic Data Link (ADL). The shipboard operator 

communicates and controls the AUV through the ACL and the ADL provides bandwidth for 

obtaining subsets of the geophysical data. An aluminum/oxygen fuel cell powers the AUV, 

allowing operational times of between 50 and 60 hours. Emergency ascent systems include drop 

weights and an air bag. An emergency acoustic transponder, GPS system, wireless Ethernet, 

flashing strobe light and Iridium phone system output visual and remote sensing aids for locating 

the AUV in the event communications are lost with the survey ship. 

Three computers control the system functions onboard C-Surveyor VTM. These computing

centers are referred to as the HUGIN (High Precision Untethered Geosurvey and Inspection), 

payload and navigation processors (Figure 2). These processors use artificial intelligence 

algorithms based on feedback returned from more than 75 sensors to monitor system health and 

make real-time decisions regarding performance, maneuverability and data collection. The 

computers, data storage and sensor electronics are housed in two titanium spheres designated as 

the payload and control. 

Three topside workstations are dedicated to continuous communications with the vehicle while 

on missions. The HUGIN Operator Station monitors all AUV sensors related to the vehicle 

health and maneuverability. The monitoring software warns operators when values are outside 

of optimal range. The Payload Operator Station computer provides graphical views of reduced 

data subsets of subbottom, bathymetry and side scan sonar. The user can turn the geophysical 

systems on or off, adjust instrument settings and control the data bandwidth as needed. The

Figure 1 – C-Surveyor VTM being 

loaded into a van for an overseas 

survey.
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

HiPAP Operator Station provides realtime graphic displays of the C-Surveyor 

V

TM vehicle position and the survey 

ship, which normally follows the AUV 

on the surface while collecting data.

C&C’s C-NAV® DGPS signals provide 

the survey ship position during AUV 

missions. The trackline running 

sequence is downloaded to the onboard 

computer system prior to deployment. 

The AUV vehicle positions are 

calculated with a complex Kalman 

filter algorithm using statistically 

weighted inputs from the DGPS, UltraShort BaseLine (USBL) acoustics, 

inertial navigation and Doppler velocity 

speed log. The inertial system consists 

of a precision gyro and accelerometers 

to maintain the AUV track for the 

mission plan.

A Kongsberg EM 2040 Swath 

Bathymetry System collects soundings 

in a 220-meter swath underneath the 

AUV vehicle. The EM 2040 is capable 

of three frequency ranges - 200, 300 

and 400 kHz. The beam pattern at 400 

kHz will be 0.7° x 0.7° over a 140° 

swath yielding up to 400 beams. The 

AUV normally maintains an altitude of 

40 meters above the seabed. An 

onboard velocimeter records water 

column velocity corrections and 

provides real-time data at the transducer 

face to maintain proper beam forming 

of the acoustic transmissions. The data 

are normally processed and filtered with 

C&C’s proprietary HydroMap software. 

A survey precision depth sensor 

provides the vehicle depth that is added 

to the raw multibeam soundings. 

Atmospheric pressure is recorded 

aboard the survey vessel and applied as 

a depth sensor corrector in post 

processing. Tidal corrections are 

applied using the Goddard deepwater 

Figure 3 – Multibeam bathymetry imagery of 12-m high 

mud volcano in Gulf of Mexico (VE=7).

Figure 2 – Basic Internal Arrangement of C-Surveyor AUV.
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

ocean tide model (Ray, 1999). The final bathymetric dataset is normally delivered at a 3-meter 

bin size (Figure 3).

The C-Surveyor VTM is equipped with a dual frequency EdgeTech 2200-M Side Scan Sonar that 

employs a calibrated wide band, digital frequency modulated (FM) signal to provide high 

resolution, low-noise images. This sonar is capable of simultaneously transmitting linearly 

swept frequency modulated pulses centered at two discrete frequencies: 120 and 410 kHz. The 

raw data files are post-processed and converted to XTF (eXtended Triton Format) for digital 

interpretation and hardcopy generation.

Seismic profiles onboard C-Surveyor VTMare 

collected with a custom high-power EdgeTech Chirp 

Subbottom Profiler (DW106). The four subbottom

transducers are capable of transmitting a frequency 

modulated, high power pulses in the bandwidth 

between 1 and 6 kHz. The source pulse used on most 

surveys is between 1.5 and 4.5 kHz. The source pulse 

is convolved with the recorded trace to prevent source 

ringing and to remove the source signature from the 

response of near-seabed strata. The four-transducer 

system provides significantly more penetration and 

resolution than a single transducer system (Figure 4). 

The raw seismic data can be post processed to create 

SEG-Y or XTF datasets. The SEG-Y data can be 

written with static or variable length traces.

C&C has developed a digital underwater photography system for their fleet of AUVs. This 

photography system provides black and white still frame photographs of the seafloor. Practical 

applications for the acquisition of deepwater photographic seafloor images include investigations 

of man-made or natural features. Man-made feature investigations may include pipeline 

infrastructure, sub-sea installations, debris identification or UXO determination. Images can 

enhance and aid archeological assessments by providing data for possible shipwreck analysis and 

cultural resource potential (Figure 5). Additionally, this tool can be used for pre-lay and post-lay 

deepwater pipeline surveys, investigations of broken or displaced pipelines and seafloor 

assemblies. Natural feature investigations may include verification of potential deepwater 

benthic communities, gas/fluid seeps, seafloor conditions, and deepwater flora and fauna studies 

(Figure 6).

Camera image quality and resolution are directly dependent on the clarity of the water and the 

AUV altitude. Under turbid water conditions, the AUV must be closer to the object of 

investigation in order to provide a clear image. The length of the camera footprint is equal to .75 

times the AUV altitude and the aspect ratio is 4:3. Thus, with an altitude of 10 meters, the image 

covers an area measuring 7.5 meters in the across track direction and 5.6 meters in the along 

track direction. Optimally, an AUV altitude of 6 to 8 meters produces the best quality image. 

The resolution of the image is on the order of 5 millimeters at an AUV altitude of 9 meters. 

Figure 4 - Subbottom profiler image of buried 

deepwater channel systems.

125 meters

10 msec.

(~25’)
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

The image acquisition rate is settable by the AUV Operator. Typically, an image is taken 

approximately every 1.75 seconds which equates to one photo every 3.2 meters of travel at 

normal survey speeds and provides overlap between successive photos. Line spacing for 

adjacent tracks of the AUV over an area would typically be set at a 4-to-5-meter interval, 

providing image overlap of approximately 60% for image mosaicing. All images are referenced 

with navigation data. 

Due to the very low altitudes and resulting small image areas, camera investigations are 

performed independently of other AUV systems during data collection. Additionally, it is 

required to first perform an area survey utilizing sonar data to identify camera investigation sites 

and to obtain terrain and obstacle information before lowering AUV altitudes. 

Figure 6 – AUV camera photographs (clockwise from upper left) of a 16-inch pipeline, lophelia coral colony, 

chemosynthetic community mussels and/or clams, historic shipwreck, and a fish.

Figure 5 - AUV camera photography of the German U-boat U-166. Camera allows groundtruthing of sonar targets on 

single mobilization.
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

Processing of collected photographic data includes navigation synchronization and text 

imprinting on each still frame. Processing time is approximately 4 hours per statute mile of 

photo images. The photo processing starts after the navigation processing has been completed 

and initially quality controlled. Additional time is required for reporting and mapping of data 

results. Deliverable products include a progressive image slide show, individual photographs, or 

mosaics of multiple photographs of objects or small areas. 

A 2GRobotics 3-D Laser Profiler System is installed on the C-Surveyor VTM AUV. The laser

profiler provides high-resolution bathymetry profiles using laser illumination. It operates at a 

nominal altitude of 8 meters and has an altitude range of about 5 to 12 meters above the seafloor. 

The laser produces 1400 vertical measurements across each swath (ping) and can “ping” at up to 

about 29 Hz. At 8 meters altitude, the system has about 5 millimeter horizontal resolution and 

about 5 millimeter vertical resolution. The profiles are produced at about 10 centimeter intervals 

along track. The data is processed with C&C’s HydroMap processing system in the same 

manner as multibeam sonar (Figure 7).

The photographic camera and the laser bathymetry system are optical sensors and are affected by 

the clarity of the water column in which they are operating. A turbidity sensor has been installed 

in the C-Surveyor VTM AUV to measure the clarity of the water and to provide information about

the performance of the optical sensors. The turbidity is measured in units of Nephelometric 

Turbidity Units (NTU). Another measure used in lakes and ponds is the Secchi depth. The 

Secchi depth is an extinction range, the range at which a highly contrasted target becomes 

obscured. There is no standard conversion from NTU to Secchi depth, but a few researchers have 

developed some empirical formulas to estimate the correlation.

A Geochemical Sensor Suite is also available on the C-Surveyor AUV. This suite includes: 

CH4 Methane sensor 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide sensor 

PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) sensor 

The geochemical sensors on the C-Surveyor AUV are design to detect hydrocarbons (PAH), 

methane and CO2 in the water column in support of leak and seep detection. These sensor data 

Figure 7 – 3D laser bathymetry showing the German U-boat U-166.
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

streams are logged and time-stamped for merging with post-prepossessed navigation to support 

generation of wide area contour maps of geochemical concentrations and detections. 

The C-Surveyor VTM AUV has a MicroTesla Marine Magnetometer installed. This sensor

supports the detection of ferrous objects. The three-axis magnetometer data is processed with 

the HydroMap processing system. The processed data can be plotted with any CAD system and 

the raw data can be exported into any GIS or geophysical software package (Figure 8).

C-Surveyor VTM SURVEY SENSORS

Kongsberg EM 2040 Bathymetry and Imagery (200, 300, and 400 kHz) 

EdgeTech Side Scan Sonar (120 and/or 410 kHz) 

EdgeTech DW106 Subbottom Profiler (Chirp 1–6 kHz, normal 1.5–4.5 kHz) 

Digital Camera 

3-D Laser Scanner 

Marine Magnetometer 

Geochemical Sensor 

ANCILLARY SENSORS: 

Inertial Navigation 

Kongsberg HiPAP USBL 

Doppler Velocity Log 

Kalman Filter 

Fiber Optic Gyro 

Motion Reference Unit 

Digiquartz Depth Unit 

Single-Beam Altimeter 

DGPS 

Figure 8 – AUV magnetometer data showing amplitude hits across pipelines.
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

Acoustic Communications 

 Command and Control (Low Speed Acoustic Modem) 

 Data Uplink (High Speed Acoustic Modem) 

VESSEL SPECIFICATIONS:

Depth Rating: 3,000 meters 

Diameter: 1.0 meters 

Length: 4.57 meters 

Normal Speed: 4 knots 

Underwater Endurance @ 4 knots: 24 to 30 hours

Power: Lithium Rechargeable Batteries 

Kongsberg EM 2040 Multibeam Echosounder Specifications: 

Frequency 200, 300, and 400 kHz 

Maximum Ping Rate 50 Hz 

Number of Beams per Ping 400

Beamwidth 0.7° × 0.7° @ 400 kHz 

1.5° × 1.5° @ 200 and 300 kHz 

Beam Spacing Equiangle or equidistant 

Coverage Sector 140° 

Range Resolution 0.5% of AUV altitude 

Sonar Head Depth Rating 6,000 meters 

EdgeTech 2200-M Side Scan Sonar Specifications: 

Modulation Full spectrum chirp frequency modulated pulse with 

amplitude and phase weighting 

Dual Frequency Combinations 120/410 kHz 

Common 

Vertical Beam Width 50o

Depression Angle 20o from horizontal 

Dynamic Range 20 Bits Effective 

Sample Rate ~2,000 samples per channel 

Frequency Specific 

Center Frequency 120 kHz 410 kHz

Pulse Length 4 msec. 2.4 msec. 

Range Scale Selection (per side) 100-250 meters 75–125 meters 

Maximum Ping Rate 30 pps 41 pps 

Range Resolution 3.8 cm 2 cm 

Horizontal 3 dB Beam Width 0.75o 0.75o

Transmit Power 2 Joules 2 Joules 

Peak Source Level 210 dB 210 dB 

(ref = 1μPa @ 1 m) 

Receiver Sensitivity -190 dB -196 dB 

(ref = 1 V/μPa @ center frequency)
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

EdgeTech DW106 Chirp Subbottom Profiler Specifications: 

Modulation Frequency modulated pulse with amplitude and phase 

weighting 

Ping Rate 3 Hz average 

Calibration Each system is acoustic tank tested to calibrate for 

reflection coefficient measurements 

Frequency Band 1–6 kHz (normal operation is 1.5 to 4.5 kHz) 

Number of Hydrophone Arrays 6

Resolution 6–10 cm 

Beam Width 15o–25o

Peak Source level 216 db ref 1μPa @ 1 m

Camera Specifications: 

Camera Depth Rating: 6,000 meters 

Light Source: Xenon Strobe 

Power Source: AUV power, about 2% of total AUV power 

Image Type: Monochrome (black and white) Still Frame Photography 

Image Quality: Dependent on water clarity and AUV altitude 

AUV Altitude Quality 

6 to 8 meters Good 

8 to 10 meters Fair 

10 to 12 meters Marginal 

Image Resolution: 1:1813 of AUV altitude 

(4 millimeters at an AUV altitude of 7.25 meters, 

5 millimeters at an AUV altitude of 9 meters) 

Image Time Intervals: Operator settable. Typicallyu 1.75 seconds 

Seafloor Image Width: .75 times AUV altitude (across track) 

Seafloor Image Length: .56 times the AUV altitude (along track) 

Dynamic Range: 12 bit 

File Size per Image: ~2.7 Megabytes 

Image Storage Capacity: 250 Gigabytes (~90,000 images) 

Georeference Capability: Geotiffs 

Mosaic Capability: User-interfaced software 

2G Robotics 3-D Laser Profiler System Specifications: 

Laser Depth Rating: 3,000 meters 

Power Source: AUV power, about 2% of total AUV power 

Scan Rate: operator adjusted in real-time from 3 to 29 Hz 

Number of range measurements: 1,400 in each across track profile scan 

Image Resolution: AUV Altitude Quality 

8 meters 5 mm 

Update Rate: 1 profile every 10 cm 

Vertical Laser Angle and resolution: 50° / 0.0357° 

Laser Footprint: 5 mm 

Mosaic Capability: User-interfaced software 
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

Magnetometer Specifications:

Operating Range: 3,000 meter

Total g field accuracy ±3.0 mG

Total H field accuracy, absolute ±3.0 nT

Sampling rate: 1 hz

Turbidity Sensor Specifications:

Operating Range: 3,000 meter

Sample rate: 8 Hz

Range: 0125 NTU

Sensitivity: 0.12 NTU

Geochemical Suite Specifications:

CH4 Sensor:

Operating Range: 3,000 meter

Sample rate: 1 Hz

Range: 0-100 nmol

Resolution: 10 nmol

Sensitivity: ±3% of reading

CO2 Sensor:

Operating Range: 3,000 meter

Sample rate: 1 Hz

Range: 200–1000 ppm

Resolution: < 1ppm

Sensitivity: ±1 of upper range value

PAH (PolyAromatic Hydrocarbons) Sensor:

Operating Range: 3,000 meter

Sample rate: 1 Hz

Range: 0-50 ppm

Resolution: 0.1ppm
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C-NAV® DIFFERENTIAL GPS

C-NAV® is a globally corrected differential GPS system owned and operated by C & C

Technologies, Inc. The C-NAV® GPS Receiver combines a dual-frequency, geodetic grade, GPS

Receiver with an integrated L-BAND communication RF detector and decoder all linked by an 

internal microprocessor. C-NAV® uses monitoring stations strategically located around the

globe to provide worldwide accuracies on the order of 0.10m (4 inches). 

Infrastructure: 

The system utilizes the GPS satellite system, L-band communication satellites, and a worldwide 

network of referencing stations to deliver real-time high precision positioning. To provide this 

unique service, C-Nav has built a global network of dual-frequency reference stations, which 

constantly receive signals from the GPS satellites as they orbit the earth. Data from these 

reference stations is fed to the USA processing centers in Torrance, California, and Moline, 

Illinois where they are processed to generate the differential corrections. From the two 

processing centers, the correction data is fed via redundant and independent communication links 

to satellite uplink stations at Laurentides, Quebec, Canada; Perth, Australia; Burum, the 

Netherlands; Santa Paula, California; Auckland, New Zealand; and Southbury, Connecticut for 

rebroadcast via the geostationary satellites. 

The key to the accuracy and convenience of the C-NAV system is the source of SBAS 

corrections. GPS satellites transmit navigation data on two L-band frequencies. The C-Nav 

reference stations are all equipped with geodetic-quality, dual-frequency receivers. These 

reference receivers decode GPS signals and send precise, high quality, dual-frequency 

pseudorange and carrier phase measurements back to the processing centers together with the 

data messages, which all GPS satellites broadcast. At the processing centers, C-Nav’s 

proprietary differential processing techniques used to generate real time precise orbits and clock 

correction data for each satellite in the GPS constellation. This proprietary Wide Area DGPS 

(WADGPS) algorithm is optimized for a dual-frequency system such as the C-Nav Correction 

Service in which dual-frequency ionospheric measurements are available at both the reference 

receivers and the user receivers. It is the use of dual-frequency receivers at both the reference 

stations and the user equipment together with the advanced processing algorithms, which makes 

the exceptional accuracy of the C-Nav system possible. 
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

Creating the corrections is just the first part. From our two processing centers, the differential 

corrections are then sent to the Land Earth Station (LES) for uplink to L-band communications 

satellites. The uplink sites for the network are equipped with C-Nav-built modulation 

equipment, which interfaces to the satellite system transmitter and uplinks the correction data 

stream to the satellite that broadcasts it over the coverage area. Each L-band satellite covers 

more than a third of the earth. Users equipped with a C-Nav precision GPS receiver actually 

have two receivers in a single package, a GPS receiver and an L-band communications receiver, 

both designed by the C-Nav for this system. The GPS receiver tracks all the satellites in view 

and makes pseudorange measurements to the GPS satellites. Simultaneously, the L-band 

receiver receives the correction messages broadcast via the L-band satellite. When the 

corrections are applied to the GPS measurements, a position measurement of unprecedented real 

time accuracy is produced. 

Reliability: 

The entire system meets or exceeds a target availability of 99.99%. To achieve this, every part 

of the infrastructure has a built-in back-up system. All the reference stations are built with 

duplicate receivers, processors and communication interfaces, which switch automatically or in 

response to a remote control signal from the processing centers. The data links from the 

reference stations use the Internet as the primary data link and are backed up by dedicated 

communications lines, but in fact the network is sufficiently dense that the reference stations 

effectively act as back up for each other. If one or several fail, the net effect on the correction 

accuracy is not impaired. 

There are two continuously running processing centers, each receiving all of the reference site 

inputs and each with redundant communications links to the uplink LES. The LESs are equipped 

with two complete and continuously operating sets of uplink equipment arbitrated by an 

automatic fail over switch. Finally, a comprehensive team of support engineers maintains round 

the clock monitoring and control of the system. The network is a fully automated selfmonitoring system. To ensure overall system integrity, an independent integrity monitor 

receiver, similar to a standard C-Nav user receiver, is installed at every reference station to 

monitor service quality. Data from these integrity monitors is sent to the two independent 

processing hubs in Torrance, California and Moline, Illinois. Through these integrity monitors 

the network is continuously checked for overall SBAS positioning accuracy, L-band signal 

strength, data integrity and other essential operational parameters. 
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

Receiver Specifications: 

Features 

 “All-in-view” tracking on 26 channels

(12-channels for L1/L2 GPS + 2-channels for SBAS)

 Global decimeter-level accuracy using C-Nav corrections

 Fully automatic acquisition of satellite broadcast corrections

 Configurable for global L-band satellite coverage – RTG, WAAS, EGNOS

 Rugged and lightweight package for mobile applications

 Accepts external GPS correction input in NCT, RTCM v2.2 or CMR format

 L1 & L2 full wavelength carrier tracking

 C/A, P1 & P2 code tracking

 User programmable output rates

 Minimal data latency

 2 separate SBAS (WAAS/EGNOS) channels

 Superior interference suppression

 Patented multipath rejection

 Supports NMEA 0183 v3.01 messages

 Self-survey mode (position averaging)

 CAN bus interface (C-Nav2050M only)

 1PPS Output (C-Nav2050M only)

 Event Marker (C-Nav2050M only)

Performance 

 Real-time Kinematic Accuracy (RTK Option Only)

o Relative position: Centimeter level

 Real-time C-Nav DGPS Accuracy

o Position (H): <10 cm
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

o Position (V): <15 cm

o Velocity: 0.01 m/s

 Pseudo-range Measurement Precision (RMS)

o Raw C/A code: 20cm @ 42 dB-Hz

o Raw carrier

o Phase noise: L1: 0.95 mm @ 42 dB-Hz

L2: 0.85 mm @ 42 dB-Hz

 User Programmable Output Rates

o PVT: 25Hz, 10Hz, 5Hz, or slower

o Raw data: 50Hz, 25Hz, 10Hz, 5Hz, or slower

 Data Latency

o PVT: < 20 ms at all nav rates

o Raw data: < 20 ms at all rates

 Time-to-first-fix

o Cold Start, Satellite

o Acquisition: < 60 seconds (typical)

o Satellite Reacquisition: < 1 second

 Dynamics

o Acceleration: up to 6g

o Speed*: < 515 m/s

o Altitude*: < 60,000 ft

o 1PPS Resolution 12.5nS (C-Nav2050M only)

Physical/Environmental 

 Size (L x W x H): 8.18” x 5.67” x 3.06” (20.8 x 14.4 x 7.8 cm)

 Weight: 4 lbs (1.81 kg)

 External Power

o Input Voltage: 10-30 VDC

o Consumption: <8 W

 Connectors

o I/O Ports: 2 x 7 pin Lemo

o DC Power: 4 pin Lemo

o RF Connector: TNC (with 5 VDC bias for antenna/LNA)

o CAN bus + Event: 5 pin Lemo (2050M only)

o 1PPS Output: BNC (2050M only)

 Temperature (ambient)

o Operating: -40o C to +55o C

o Storage: -40o C to +85o C

 Humidity: 95% non-condensing

 Tested in accordance with MIL-STD-810F for: Low pressure, solar radiation, rain,

humidity, salt fog, sand and dust, and vibration

I/O Connector Assignments 

 Data Interfaces:

o 2 serial ports; from 1200 bps to 115.2 kbps

o CAN Bus I/F (C-Nav2050M only)
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

o Event Marker I/P (C-Nav2050M only)

 Communications Port Functions

o NCT Proprietary: Data, Control

o RTCM I/O: Code Corrections

o NMEA Output: Data

 INPUT/OUTPUT Data Messages

o NCT Proprietary

o Data: PVT, Raw Measurement, Satellite Messages, Nav Quality, Receiver

Commands

o NMEA Messages (Output): ALM, GGA, GLL, GSA, GSV, RMC, VTG, ZDA,

and GST

o Code Corrections: RTG (proprietary) – Internal LBM 

WCT (proprietary) – Internal LBM 

SBAS (WAAS/EGNOS) – Internal GPS 

DGPS (RTCM Type 1, 3 & 9) – External I/O 

RTK (RTCM, CMR, NCT) 

Display Unit Specifications: 

Features 

 4 x 20 character LCD screen

 12 key membrane button input pad

 Rugged, stainless steel housing

 Wide-range (20-40VDC) power supply

 RTCM and NMEA and raw data outputs
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

SEACAT SBE 19-01 

The Seacat SBE 19-01 Profiler from Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc., measures electrical conductivity 

and temperature versus pressure (depth) in marine environments to depths up to 6,800 meters 

(22,309 feet). The maximum sampling rate is 2 scans per second. Self-powered and selfcontained, the SBE 19 features proven Sea-Bird conductivity and temperature sensors and a 

precision semiconductor strain-gauge pressure transducer. A 64-kilobyte solid-state memory 

allows 1.5 hours of recording (6 hours with optional 256 kilobyte memory) while sampling at 

two scans per second. Set-up, check-out, and data extraction are performed without opening the 

housing. Simultaneous real time monitoring is possible using the Seacat Profiler's two wire RS232C transmit capability. Sea-Bird's powerful Seasoft CTD software derives salinity, density, 

sound velocity, and other ocean parameters from stored CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth) 

and may be used for data analysis, plotting and archival. Small external sensors may be powered 

and their frequency or voltage outputs acquired by the SBE 19. 

Seacat Profiler options include 1) aluminum housings for use to 3,400 or 6,800 meters; 2) 256 

kilobyte memory; 3) an extra bulkhead connector for auxiliary inputs; 4) SBE 5 submersible 

pump for pumped conductivity; 5) an opto-isolated junction box for supplying power and 

interconnecting Seacat Profiler and a companion computer which is necessary when using the 

Profiler in real-time mode. 

Use of conductivity, temperature, and depth measurement for determination of sound velocity is 

appealing because these instruments are simpler and more rugged and because resolution, 

accuracy, and stability lead to better precision than can be obtained with direct sound velocity 

measuring devices. Three equations are widely used for deriving sound velocity from CTD data 

(Wilson, 1959; Del Grosso, 1972; Millero and Chen, 1977). Absolute sound velocities derived 

from these equations differ on the order of .5 meter/second for various combinations of water 

temperature, salinity, and pressure. The work of Millero and Chen is the most modern and 

builds upon and attempts to incorporate the work of the earlier investigators. Millero and Chen's 

1977 equation is used in the Sea-Bird Seasoft software, and is the one which is endorsed by the 

Unesco/SCOR/ICES/IASPO Joint Panel on Oceanographic Tables and Standards which 

comprises the internationally recognized authority for measurements of ocean parameters. 

Specifications: 

Measurement 

Range

Initial 

Accuracy Resolution Sensor Calibration

Conductivity 0 to 7 S/m +/- 0.001 S/m +/- 0.0001 S/m

0 – 7 S/m

Physical calibration over the range 1.4 

to 6 S/m, plus zero conductivity (air)

Temperature 

(oC) -5 to + 35 +/- 0.01 +/-0.001

-1 to +31

(Measurements outside this range may 

be at slightly reduces accuracy due to 

extrapolation errors)

Depth 68 to 1,000 m +/- 0.25% +/- 0.015% Minimum 5 values between 0 and full 

scale
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

INSTRUMENT SETTINGS 

Talos Energy LLC 

Archaeological Assessment

Block 281

Green Canyon Area 

EDGETECH CHIRPED SUBBOTTOM PROFILER

Acoustic Source Level = 216 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m

Beam Width = 28° – 36° 

Record Length = 100 meters (1,500 meters/second) 

Delay = Variable in meters 

Frequency = 1.5 to 4.5 kilohertz (Chirped/Frequency Modulated) 

Setback = None 

EDGETECH DUAL FREQUENCY SIDE SCAN SONAR 

Frequency = 120 kilohertz 

Ping Rate = 3 Hertz 

Acoustic Source Level = 210 dB re 1μPa @ 1 m

Receiver Sensitivity = -190 dB re 1 V/μPa @ center frequency

Transducer Radiation = 0.75 horizontal composite, 50 vertical 

Range = 225 meters per channel 

Pulse Bandwidth = 12 kilohertz 

Pulse Length = 12 milliseconds 

Setback = None 

KONGSBERG EM 2040 MULTIBEAM ECHOSOUNDER

Frequency = 200 kilohertz 

Ping Rate = 3 Hertz 

Number of Beams per Ping = 400 

Beamwidth = 1.5° acrosstrack; 1.5° alongtrack 

Coverage Angle = 140° 

Depth Resolution = 0.5% of AUV altitude (20 centimeters @ 40 meter altitude) 

Range Sampling Rate = 10 kilohertz 

Pulse Length = 25μs 

Setback = None 

SURVEY VESSEL 

M/V Miss Ginger 

Average speed during survey = 3.8 knots 
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

PERSONNEL LIST

C & C FIELD PERSONNEL (M/V Miss Ginger) 

December 17 – 18, 2014 

Barry Banks AUV Offshore Manager 

Brandon Bissell Hydrostation Operator Days 

Jason Paige COS Operator Days (Shift Leader) 

Seth Hickman COS Operator Nights (Shift Leader) 

Philip Champagne Hydrostation Operator Nights 

Felix Perez AUV Offshore Technical Manager 

Giles Reed AUV Technician 

Robert Kersteins AUV Technician 

Brian West Data Analyst 

C & C OFFICE PERSONNEL

Tony George Geosciences Manager 

Jih-Ping Shyu Houston Geosciences Manager 

Robert Westrick Senior Marine Archaeologist 

Andy Mayet AutoCAD Cartographer 

Doug Pierrottie AutoCAD Supervisor 

Donny Fontenont Data Analyst 

Eric Quirk AUV Operations Manager 

Jason Duplechin Geospatial Database Manager 

Charlie Broussard Senior Survey Technician 

Scott Croft V.P., Geosciences Division 
C&C Project No. 141166 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

TALOS ENERGY LLC

M/V MISS GINGER C-SURVEYOR VTM

BLOCK 281, 

GREEN CANYON 

DECEMBER 17-18, 2014
C&C Project No. 141166

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

C & C TECHNOLOGIES AUV COS SURVEY LOG Page 

No. 1 

Job No: 141166

Mission Name:

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: 

M/V Miss Ginger

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial 

Navigation, HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: 

12-17-2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Survey Units: 

Meters

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200, 300, 400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0000 New Day 12-17-2014

0545 Shift Change: S. Hickman, P. Champagne

1745 Shift Change: J. Page, B. Bissell

1845 Arrived on Location, Green Canyon 281

2033 Predive Started.

2110 Predive Complete

2114 AUV in armed state

2121 Split pin pulled

2122 AUV in water

2127 Acoustic fish in water

2131 AUV at 300m: P: 4.3o R:-0.5o SP: 6.5o D: 300.3m

2136 AUV sent to 600m

2138 Navigation Started

2143 AUV at 600m: P: 3.2o R: -0.7o SP: 6.1o D: 600.4m

2149 AUV sent to 630m: RPM REF 160

2154 AUV at 630m: P: 4.0o R:-0.5o SP: 6.1o D: 630.0m

2154 AUV Altitude 60m

2202 AUV Altitude 40m

------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2213 AUV in external guidance

2221 180 763 0 203 SOL

2248 182 879 22 203 EOL
C&C Project No. 141166 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C & C TECHNOLOGIES AUV COS SURVEY LOG Page 

No. 2 

Job No: 141166

Mission Name:

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: 

M/V Miss Ginger

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial 

Navigation, HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: 

12/17/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Survey Units: 

Meters

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200, 300, 400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

2259 000 883 22 202 SOL

2316 000 812 9 202 EOL

2326 180 803 9 201 SOL

2342 180 878 22 201 EOL

2352 090 860 0 113 SOL

0000 New Day 12/18/2014

0020 090 862 22 113 EOL

0023 270 855 22 112 SOL

0051 270 853 0 112 EOL

0055 090 844 0 111 SOL

0123 090 848 22 111 EOL

0126 270 841 22 110 SOL

0154 270 834 0 110 EOL

0157 090 824 0 109 SOL

0225 090 833 22 109 EOL

0229 270 826 22 108 SOL

0256 270 818 0 108 EOL

0300 090 810 0 107 SOL

0328 090 817 22 107 EOL

0332 270 809 22 106 SOL

0345 270 814 12 106 EOL

0349 090 805 12 105 SOL
C&C Project No. 141166

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

C & C TECHNOLOGIES AUV COS SURVEY LOG Page 

No. 3

Job No: 141166

Mission Name:

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: 

M/V Miss Ginger

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial 

Navigation, HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: 

12/18/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Survey Units: 

Meters

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200, 300, 400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0402 090 801 22 105 EOL

0406 270 795 22 104 SOL

0419 270 796 12 104 EOL

0422 090 786 12 103 SOL

0436 090 788 22 103 EOL

0439 270 780 22 102 SOL

0453 270 776 12 102 EOL

0458 000 753 5 1003 SOL

0506 000 713 0 1003 EOL

0509 180 715 0 1001 SOL

0516 180 753 5 1001 EOL

0518 000 753 5 1002 SOL

0525 000 714 0 1002 EOL

0533 090 732 0 1004 SOL

0540 090 731 5 1004 EOL

0544 270 739 5 1005 SOL

0550 270 739 0 1005 EOL

0551 Shift Change: S. Hickman, P. Champagne

0601 090 766 12 101 SOL

0614 090 22 101 EOL – End of Mission – Stop External Guidance

0616 Altitude Mode 60m

0619 Depth Ref 650m
C&C Project No. 141166 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C & C TECHNOLOGIES AUV COS SURVEY LOG Page 

No. 4 

Job No: 141166

Mission Name: run141217_1

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: 

M/V Miss Ginger

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial 

Navigation, HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: 

11/18/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Survey Units: 

Meters

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200, 300, 400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0623 Depth Ref 600m

0625 AUV @ 600m P: 4.2o R: -0.2o SP: 6.1o D: 600.4m

0631 Depth Ref 400m

0638 AUV @ 400m P: 4.2o R: -0.2o SP: 6.6o D: 400.3m

0643 Line 23

0646 Navigation and DVL Standby

0648 AUV @ 300m P: 4.6o R: -0.2o SP: 7.0o D: 300.3m

0658 Depth Ref 150m

0659 Acoustic Towfish on Deck

0704 AUV @ 150m

0708 AUV Final Ascent to Surface

0714 AUV on Surface

0747 AUV in Van – Split Pin In

- Used HP: 14.070 Used Energy: 13.63 Time Drift:

0751 Data Download Started

0818 Data Download Complete

0819 CP is Down
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

C & C TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY LOG (Hydro-station) Page 

No. 1

JobNo.

141166

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: M/V Miss Ginger

Remote Vessel: C-Surveyor-V TM

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial Navigation, 

HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: (UTC)

12/16/14

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Units: Meters

Mission: Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200,300,400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0000 New Day 12/16/14

- Dockside in Leeville

0400 Crew Arrives from Lafayette

0000 New Day 12-17-2014

- Vessel Dockside in Leeville

- Fuel: Dock: 120gal

0030 Departing Dock for Stone Fuel

0345 Arrived at Stone Fuel - Refueling

0545 Shift Change P. Champagne S. Hickman

0830 Departing Stone Fuel for Job Site

- - - - - -

1200 WX Wind: NNE 10-15kts Sea: 2-3ft Bar: 1023mb

1745 Shift Change: B. Bissell, J. Page

1800 WX Wind: NNE 8-12kts Sea: 2-3ft Bar: 1022mb

- Abandon ship drill

1830 Drill complete

1845 Vessel on Location – Lower HiPAP Ram

1857 HiPAP ram is down, preparing CTD for Launch

1912 CTD 141217A&B in Water

1930 CTD on bottom WD: 916m Blk: GC280

- LAT: 27o 40.5098 Long: -91o 07.4613 

- X: 684998.65 Y: 3062426.73

1946 CTD on Deck – Download and process Data

2033 Predive started run141217_1

2110 Predive complete

2114 AUV in armed state

2121:44 Split Pin Pulled – Launch AUV

2122 AUV in the Water

2125 AUV diving

2127 Acoustic Towfish in the Water

2143 EdgeTech turned On

2151 EM2040 turned On
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C & C TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY LOG (Hydro-station) Page 

No. 2 

JobNo.

141166

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: M/V Miss Ginger

Remote Vessel: C-Surveyor-V TM

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial Navigation, 

HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: (UTC)

12/17/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Units: Meters

Mission:

run141217_1

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200,300,400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

2213 External Guidance Activated

2221 180 763 0 203 SOL

2248 180 879 22 203 EOL

2259 000 883 22 202 SOL

2316 000 812 9 202 EOL

2326 180 803 9 201 SOL

2342 180 878 22 201 EOL

2352 090 860 0 113 SOL

0000 6 New Day 12-18-2014

- LAT: 27o 41.067303’ LON: -91o 06.830046’

- X: 686020.70 Y: 3063472.15

- Fuel: Transit: 825gal Survey: 64gal

- WX Winds: NNE 15kts Seas: 2-3ft Bar: 1020mb

0020 090 862 22 113 EOL

0023 270 855 22 112 SOL

0051 270 853 0 112 EOL

0055 090 844 0 111 SOL

0123 090 848 22 111 EOL

0126 270 841 22 110 SOL

0154 270 834 0 110 EOL

0157 090 824 0 109 SOL

0225 090 833 22 109 EOL

0229 270 826 22 108 SOL

0256 270 818 0 108 EOL

0300 090 810 0 107 SOL

0328 090 817 22 107 EOL

0332 270 809 22 106 SOL

0345 270 814 12 106 EOL

0349 090 805 12 105 SOL

0402 090 801 22 105 EOL

0406 270 795 22 104 SOL

0419 270 796 12 104 EOL
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

C & C TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY LOG (Hydro-station) Page 

No. 3

JobNo.

141166

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: M/V Miss Ginger

Remote Vessel: C-Surveyor-V TM

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial Navigation, 

HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: (UTC)

12/18/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Units: Meters

Mission:

run141217_1

Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200,300,400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0422 090 786 12 103 SOL

0436 090 788 22 103 EOL

0439 270 780 22 102 SOL

0453 270 776 12 102 EOL

0458 000 753 5 1003 SOL – Nav Accuracy Lines

0506 000 713 0 1003 EOL

0509 180 715 0 1001 SOL

0516 180 753 5 1001 EOL

0518 000 753 5 1002 SOL

0525 000 714 0 1002 EOL

0533 090 732 0 1004 SOL

0540 090 731 5 1004 EOL

0544 270 739 5 1005 SOL

0545 Shift Change P. Champagne S. Hickman`

0550 270 739 0 1005 EOL – Nav Accuracy Lines Complete

0600 WX Wind: SE 20-22kts Sea: 3-4ft Bar: 1018

0601 090 766 12 101 SOL

0614 090 770 22 101 EOL – EOM, Begin Recovery

0615 Stop External Guidance

0620 EM2040 Off

0630 SS/SB Off

0659 Acoustic Fish on Deck

0714 AUV on Surface

0747 AUV in Van – Split Pin In

0751 Data Download Started

0813 Download complete

0847 On CTD Location

0848 CTD 141218A1 &A2 in Water

0902 CTD on bottom WD: 786 m Blk: GC281

LAT: 27o 42.3086 Long: -91o 05.7240 

X: 687803.65 Y: 3065792.54

0916 CTD on Deck
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

C & C TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY LOG (Hydro-station) Page 

No. 4

JobNo.

141166

Client: Talos Energy LLC. Vessel: M/V Miss Ginger

Remote Vessel: C-Surveyor-V TM

Survey Equipment: DGPS, Inertial Navigation, 

HiPAP, Doppler Speed Log

Date: (UTC)

12/18/2014

Areas: Green Canyon

Blocks: 281

Units: Meters

Mission: Datum: NAD27

Projection: UTM

Zone: 15N

Geophysical Equipment: Edgetech FSSB Profiler

(1.5 – 4.5 kHz), Edgetech Dual Frequency SSS

(120 & 410 kHz), Simrad EM 2040 (200,300,400 kHz)

Time (UTC)

(-6 to Local) Heading WaterDepth

Fix

No. Line Name Remarks

0935 CTD Download + Raise HiPAP Ram

0940 HiPAP Ram Raised, Transiting to Leeville

1200 WX Wind: N 5-8kts Sea: 1-2ft Bar: 1019mb
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

APPENDIX D 

SOUND VELOCITY PROFILES 

TIDE CURVES 
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 
Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 
Project No. 141166 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 

APPENDIX E 

REDUCED STUDY MAPS 
Attachment G
EXPLORATION 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 Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

AREA Green Canyon 

BLOCK 281

LEASE OCS-G 33242

PLATFORM

WELL Well Location A

COMPANY CONTACT Cathy Thornton

TELEPHONE NO. 713-705-8020

REMARKS
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 % weight
EMISSIONS 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

Energy Resource Techno Green Canyon 281 OCS-G 33242 Well Location A Cathy Thornton 713-705-8020

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

Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D

Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D

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

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 61200 2955.96 70943.04 24 70 43.14 197.89 1482.82 44.48 323.52 36.23 166.23 1245.57 37.37 271.76

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 8 30 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.17 0.80 6.00 0.18 1.31

VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 2065 99.7395 2393.75 10 10 1.46 6.68 50.03 1.50 10.92 0.07 0.33 2.50 0.08 0.55

VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT

TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

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

2015 YEAR TOTAL 46.05 211.24 1582.89 47.49 345.36 36.48 167.36 1254.07 37.62 273.62

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 3196.80 3196.80 3196.80 3196.80 71284.17

96.0
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

Energy Resourc Green Canyon 281 OCS-G 33242 Well Location A

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2015 36.48 167.36 1254.07 37.62 273.62

Allowable 3196.80 3196.80 3196.80 3196.80 71284.17
Attachment L 
SHIP SHOAL 

EUGENE ISLAND AREA

SOUTH MARSH ISLAND AREA

VERMILION AREA

EAST CAMERON AREA

SABINE PASS AREA (TX) SABINE PASS AREA (LA)

BRAZOS AREA

EAST BREAKS AREA GREEN CA

GARDEN BANKS AREA

ALAMINOS CANYON AREA KEATHLEY CANYON AREA WALK

Sabine Pass

High Island

Houston

Texas City

Freeport

Intracoastal City

Morgan City

 Cameron LOU

G

96

Miles

Attachment L - Vicinity Map

TEXAS

WEST CAMERON AREA

HIGH ISLAND AREA

GALVESTON AREA

Baytown

 Port Bolivar

 Galveston 

Matagorda
Attachment N
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION 

REVISED EXPLORATION PLAN

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 281

OCS-G 33242

The proposed activities described in detail in this OCS Plan comply with Louisiana's approved 

Coastal Management Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such Program 

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

Lessee or Operator 

__________July 27, 2014_________

Date