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

## P ublic 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

Submi tted by: Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.


### 500 Da llas Street

Suite 2000
Houston, T exas 77002

Me lissa Logan ( 713) 328

- 3017 mlogan@talosenergyllc.com

Es timated startup date : J une 1, 2015

Aut horized Representative: No. Copies Being Submitted:
Cathy Thornton Proprietary: 1 Copy & CD J. Connor Consulting, Inc. Public Info: 1 Co py & 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'ConnorENERGY RESOURCE TECHNOLGY GOM, INC.

REVI SED EXPLORATION PLAN

LEAS E OCS

- G 33242

G REEN CANYON BLOCK 281

A PPENDIX A Plan Contents

A PPENDIX B General Information

A PPENDIX C Geological, Geophysical Information

A PPENDIX D H2S Information

A PPENDIX E Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

A PPENDIX F Wastes and Discharge Information

A PPENDIX G Air Emissions Information

A PPENDIX H Oil Spill s Inf ormation

A PPENDIX I Environmental Monitoring Information

A PPENDIX J Lease Stipulations Information

A PPENDIX K Environmental Mitigation Measures Information

A PPENDIX L Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

A PPENDIX M Onshore Support Facilities Information

A PPENDIX N Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information

A PPENDIX O Environmental Impact Analysis

A PPENDIX P Administrative InformationRecord 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 N

9401 to 08/05/2009. Throughout this Plan Control No. N-9401 was erroneously referenced as being a pproved 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

08/0 6/2014 N Included a Louisiana CZM certificate

0 1 / 28/2015 Cover Amended Estimated Start

- up date to June 1, 2015

0 1 /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

0 2 /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.

0 2/ 28/2015 H Amended Oil Spill Response P l an information to reflec t that the most recent OSRP was approved on J anuary 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.

### A PPENDIX A

PLAN CONTENTS

(A) P LAN INFORMATION FORM By letter dated August 5, 2009, BOEM approved ERT’s Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N

9401) providing for the drilling and completion of Well Location A in Lease OCS

- G 33242, Green Canyon Block 281. Under this R evised Plan, ERT hereby provides the Blowout Scenario information per NT L 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 i n the Initial Exploration Plan. The well is located in a water depth of 2735’.

S ee attached OCS Plan Information Form – Form BOEM -137, included in Attachment A

.

(B) L OCATION : Included in Attachment A are Well Location and Bathymetry Plats depicting the proposed

surface and bottom location of the proposed well.

(C) S AFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

E RT 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.

S afety 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 B OEM

, 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.

P ollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris.

(D) S TORAGE 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) P OLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES (F LORIDA 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 Exp loration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242 )(F) A DDITIONAL MEASURES

ERT does not propose additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.

(G ) C OST 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 Exp loration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242 )

### APPENDIX B

GENERAL INFORMATION

( A) A PPLICA TIONS 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

In d ividual NPDES Permit EPA Application for Permit to Drill B SEE

(B) DRILLING FLUIDS

T ype 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) N EW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY

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

( D) B ONDING STATEMENT The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by a n 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) O IL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR)

ERT

, BOEM company number02899 will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the

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

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

(F ) D EEP WATER 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 ) B L OWOUT 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 Disch arge * 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

R ecoverable oil reserves are estimated to be 33.19 MM bbls.

Potential of Open Hole to Bridge Over

Failure of th e 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 gr adients in an open hole blowout invariably falls below the collapse gradient of the open formations.

D ue 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 sequence s 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 Interv ention 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.

E quipment to be mobilized includes vessels to remote ly 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)I n the event the blind shear rams ca nnot 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 Q

4000 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.

T he 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 f or the rig which would drill the relief well. All 3 rd

, 4 th , and 5 th 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 est imated time to drill a relief well is summarized in the table below:

D escription 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 sta ck 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.

Ma nagement and Direct Supervision

• Drilling Supervisors, Completio n 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 al l 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 w ill 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.

D rilling 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)• D rilling BOP space

- out and tool joint spa ce

- 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 w ill 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 cement ing 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 u sed 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

G EOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

(A ) G EOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION Geological Description was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N -9401) approved August 5, 2009.

(B ) S T RUCTURE CONTOUR MAP S

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

the enti re lease block

, the location of the proposed well

, and the location of geological cross

sections were provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N

- 9401) approved August 5,

2009.

(C ) I NTERPRETED S EISMIC LINE S Interpreted seismic lines were provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N -9401) approved August 5, 2009.

(D ) G EOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS

- SECTIONS

I nterpreted geological structure cross

- sections showing the location and depth of the proposed well and at least one key horiz on 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 ) S H ALLOW HAZARDS REPORT

The Shallow Hazards Report was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N -9401) approved August 5, 2009.

(F) S HALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

The Shallow Hazards Assessment was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N

9401) approved August 5, 2009.

(G ) H IGH

- RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES

The H igh Resolution Seismic Lines provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N

9401) approved August 5, 2009.

(H ) S TRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic column depicting the w ell 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

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

the re 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) C ONCENTRATION

ERT does not anticipate encountering any H 2 S during the proposed operations.

(B) C LASSIFICATION

H 2 S classification information was provided in the Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N -9401) approved August 5, 2009.

T he BOEM has classified the well as H 2 S absent.

. (C) H2S C ONTINGENCY PLAN Not Applicable.

(D ) M ODE LING 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 exp ulsion 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 indi cate 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 ) T OPOGRAPHIC 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

Protec tive 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 fe ature 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 with in 30 meters ( 1 00 feet) of potentially sensiti ve biological features; therefore, biologically sensi tive area maps are not required.

(G) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (R OV ) 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

Noti ce 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 Mari ne 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) A RCHAEOLOGICAL 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 Su rveys 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 i n 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

AI R EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(A ) E MISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS

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

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified

emission factors? X

Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87 .5° W longitude? X Do you expect to encounter H 2 S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours from any proposed well? X

Do you propose to burn produced hyd rocarbon liquids? X

T here 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

Emiss ion

Amounts 1
(tons) Calculated Exemption

Amounts 2
(tons) Calculated Complex Total

Emission

Amounts 3
(tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 273.62 71284.17 273.62 Particular matter (PM) 36.48 3196.80 36.48 Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) 167.36 3196.80 167.36 Nitrogen oxide s (NO

x ) 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 Technol ogy GOM, Inc. Page G-1 Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242)

### APPENDIX H

OIL SPILL S 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 I NFORMATION 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) W ORST

- CASE SCENARIO COMPARISON

C ategory Regional OSRP

WCD EP

WCD

Type of Activity Exploratory Drilling Exploratory Drilling

Spill Location (Area/Block) GC 2 37 GC 2 81

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

Distance to Nearest Shoreline (mi) 91 96

TOTAL VOLUM E = 24

- hour uncontrolled blowout 212,891 1 41,154 Type of Oil (Crude or Condensate) Crude Crude

API Gravity 33° 3 2.6 °

ER T has determined that the worst

- case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP do es not supersede the worst

- case scenario from our approved R egional 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 33 242)Since ERT has the capability to respond to the worst

- case spill scenar io included in our Regional OSRP approved on J anuary 21, 2015, and since the worst

- case scenario determined for our EP does not replace the worst

- case scenario in our R egional OSRP, I hereby certify that ERT has the

c apability to respond, to the maximum e xtent 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 Identificat ion 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 Nat ional 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 ser ves 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 resp onse equipment under contract to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2.

U sing 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 % natur al evaporation/dispersion 25,407

Remaining volume 115,747

Daily dispersant capability 7,540

Oil addressed by in

- situ burning 8,728

Fi gure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment avail able 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 33 242)needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure 2 als o indicates how operations will be supported.

E RT ’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 i n-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 W orst 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 barge s, 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.

I f the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Cameron Parish, Louisiana would depend u pon 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 b arrels. If additional storage is needed, three 20,000 barrel storage barge s may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. 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 coas tal 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 33 242)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 E ffective 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) an d 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

• Loc ation 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 are as 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

• OSRO s 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

o bjectives

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 33 242)Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment

Surveillance

• Surveillance Aircraft: within two hours of QI notifica tion, 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

• Cont inual 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 sur face

• 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 disper sant stocks required for expected operations

Containment boom

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

• Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom

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

their most effective containment

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

Dedicated off

- shore skimming systems

General

• Deployed to the highest concentration of oil

• Assets deployed at safe distance from aer ial dispersant and in

- situ burn operations

CGA HOSS Barge

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations

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

CGA FRUs

• To the area of the thickest oil

• Use as far off

- shore as all owed

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

S torage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets

• Early call out (to allow for tug boat acqui sition 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

V

essels 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 tr aining to be required

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections

In

- si tu 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 sys tems

• 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 33 242)Near Shore Response Actions

T

iming

• 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 shorelin e if possible

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

C onsiderations

• Water depth, vessel draft

• Shoreline gradient

• State of the oil

• Use of VOOs

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline

E quipment Deploym ent
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

D ispersant 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)

V

essel Deployment Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• FRVs

• Egmopol and Marco SWS

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

V

OO

• 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 asset s, 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 33 242)Shoreline Protection Operations

R esponse 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

currentl y for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010

A ctions

P lacement of boom

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

• Assess timing of boomin g 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)

B each Preparation

C onsiderations 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 be en 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 33 242)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 in creases 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 s pill 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 i n 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 f oot seas

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page H

- 9 Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33 242)\

E nvironmental 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.

S urface 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.

T he Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 Novem ber. 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 33 242)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

9 6 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 33 242)WCD Scenario

– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (9 6 miles from shore) 115,747 bbls of crude oil (volume considering natural weathering) API Gravity 32.6° FIGURE 2

– Equipment Response Tim e 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 N A 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 Sit e Hrs to Deploy Total

Hrs

CGA

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 8 H arvey 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) 3565 8 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 Sto rage 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

CT Co 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 33 242)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 Capacit y 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 33 242)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 Deplo y 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

Ente rprise 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 Egmopo l 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 24 9 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 33 242)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 Galves ton 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 Trav el 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 G uns (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 33 242)

### AP PENDIX I

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(A) M ONITORING 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 ) F L OWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Green C anyon 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 stipulati on(s) attached to Lease OCS

- G 33242, Green Canyon Block 281.

. L ease 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

protect ed 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

Gr een Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242)APPENDIX K

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

( A) MITIGATION MEA SURES 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 fol lowing 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 -G 01, “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

T he 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 Su pply

Vessel Will Take

180 feet 1500 bbls Weekly From shorebase in

Fourchon to GC2 81 then

back to shorebase.

(C ) DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION Drilling fluid transportation information is not required by BOEM to be included in this plan.

(D ) S OLID 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 pro posed 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 ) G ENE RAL

Name of Shorebase Location Existing/New/Modified

Martin Terminal North Fourchon , LA Existing

(B ) S UPPORT 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 ) S UP PORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will we expa nd the existing shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this Exploration Plan.

(D ) W AS TE DISPOSAL

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page M-1 Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242)APPENDIX N

CO ASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZMA) INFORMATION

R elevant 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)



### G reen Canyon Block 281

OCS

- G 33242

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALY SIS 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 wate r column or seafloor) Physical

disturbances to the

seafloor (rig or

anchor emplacements, etc.) Wastes sent

to shore for

treatment or disposal Accidents (e.g., oil spills,

chemical spills, H 2 S releases) Discarded

Trash &

Debris

Site

- specific at Off shore

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 Environme ntal 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 BOE M 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 disturbanc es, 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 wi ll

b e affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your plan ned 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 i n

a sentence or two. 8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse ef fect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or s ea

t urtles 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 acciden ts.

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 Mexic o 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 Re gional 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 s ublethal 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 a re 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 o rganisms. 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 a n 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 Sect ion 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 IP Fs (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 great er 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 opera tions 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: Leve ls 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. Op erational 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

ev en 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 o f 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 ).

T here are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and waste s 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.

E ffluents: 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 ef fect on fisheries.

A ccidents: 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 o il 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. Th e activities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in
Section 9 ).

T here are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activi ties 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 py gmy 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.

E missions: Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to di sruption 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 populati on trends for marine mammals relative to noise.

E ffluents: 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 fro m drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

D iscarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of debris have caused the death or serious inj ury 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).

E RT 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.

I nformational placards will be posted on all vesse ls 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 procedur es, 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 a lso 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.

A ccidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unus ual 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 injur ed 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 t he 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 p rotectedspecies@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.

O il spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil

- related injuries and spill

- relat ed 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 compar ed 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 ).

T here 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.

E missions: Noise from drilling activities, support vessels, and helicopters may elicit a startle

reaction from sea turtles , but this is a temporary disturbance.

E ffluents: 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).

D iscarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of, debris have caused the death or serious injury of sea turtles (Balazs, 1 985). 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 non

biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

I nformational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food pre paration 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 Pow erPoint 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 managemen t 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)A ccidents: 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 g uide 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.

A ll 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 juv eniles 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 ).

T here 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, moni toring, or reporting requirements apply with respect to air

emissions.

A ccidents 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 treatme nt 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 includ e 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 disturbanc es 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 ad equate 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
Poten tial 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 operat ions 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 perfor m 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 )V icinity 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 efflue nts and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates in the

Gulf of Mexico.

E ffluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on live

bottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced

- water discharges, discharge

- rate restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity testin g 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.

A ccidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to c ause 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

occu r 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 ).

T here 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.

E missions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are far below

concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

A ccidents: 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 inf ormation submitted in Section 9 ).

D iscarded 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 Agen cy

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. Info rmational 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 c rews) 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 traini ng 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

pr oposed activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

T here are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from t he 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 H 2 S release) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In accordance with NTL No.’s 2008 -G04,

2009- G27, and 2009

- G31, sufficient information is included in Section 4 to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H 2 S absent.

C oastal and Onshore

1

. Beaches IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to beaches include accidents (oil spills) and

discarded trash and debris.

A ccidents: Oil spil ls 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 acti vities proposed in this plan will be covered by ERT’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 9 ).

D iscarded 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, particular ly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

I nformational 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 Wa shed 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.

T here 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.

A ccidents: 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 submi tted in Section 9 ).

D iscarded 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 ac cidental 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 h andling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non

- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

I nformational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleepin g 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

sh ore 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 spil l 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 pro hibited 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 Protectio n 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 bi ns 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 glas s.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services

related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captain s 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 d ebris 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 othe r 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 )D iscarded trash and debris: Operators ar e 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 Protecti on 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 b ins 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.

I nformational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services

related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the

marine trash and debris training 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.

T here are no oth er 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).

D iscarded trash an d 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 c overing 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 services

related personnel (e.g. helicopte r 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 vie w 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 Ide ntified 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 t he proposed activities from site

- specific environmental conditions.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S During the hurricane season, June through November, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39

- 73 mph winds), of which six become hu rricanes ( > 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 loc al 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 activiti es 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 Installa tion 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 mitigatio n 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 prop osed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.

(H) PREPARER(S)

Mat t Harlan J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578-3388 matt.harlan@jccteam.com

(I ) REFERENCES

Authors:

A merican Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water marine mammals: a literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

B alazs, 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

- TM

NMFS

- SWFC -54. Pp 387-429.

B urke, 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.

D aly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic

- based drilling fluid conta minated cuttings in waters of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P

- 16 Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242)H ansen, 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.

L aist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. I n: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer

- Verlag. Pp.

99-139.

M ajors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed

to seal bombs in the ea stern tropical Pacific purse

- seine fishery

– an annotated bibliography. NOAA Administrative Report LJ -90-06.

M arine Mammal Commission. 1999. Annual report to Congress – 1998.

P iatt, 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

V auk , 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.

V ermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian

Field

- Naturalist. 89:278 -298.

A lthough not cited, the following were utilized in preparing this EIA:

• Hazard Surveys

• BO EM 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 ha s 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 ) B IBLIOGRAPHY Not applicable.

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. Page P

- 18 Revised Exploration Plan June 13, 2014 Green Canyon Block 281 (OCS

- G 33242)

# A ttachment AU.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010

- 0151 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14

O CS PLAN INFORMATION FORM

General Information

Type of OCS Plan: X Exploration Plan (EP) D evelopment 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

E mail 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): G3 3242 Area: GC Block(s): 281 Project Name (if applicable):

Objective(s): X Oil X Gas S ulphur Sa lt Onshore Support Base(s): Fo urchon, LA

Platform/Well Name: Well Location A Total Volume of WCD: 141,154 API Gravity: 3 2.6 °

Distance to Close s t Land (Miles): 9 6 Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 141,154

Have you previously provided information to verify the calculations and a ssumptions 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 a nchors 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 Activi ty Start Date End Date No. of Days

Exploration drilling 0 6 /01/201 5 07 / 30 /201 5 60

Development drilling and completion

Well completion 0 8 /0 1 2/2015 0 8 /1 0 / 201 5 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 Structu re

Jackup D rillship C aisson T ension leg platform

Gorilla Jackup Platform Rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible S ubmersible Sp ar G uyed tower

X DP Semisubmersible O ther (attach description) Floating production
system Other (At tach 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 ( Decem ber 2011 - Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used. Page 1 of 4OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name / Number (if renaming well

or structure, r eference previous name) Well Location A ( SS Well 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

fl uid 3 2.6 °

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 ’ F W L E/W De parture: E/W Departure: F____L E/W Departure: F____L E/W Departure: F____L

Lambert X

- Y

coordinates X: 2,2 50

, 7 5 5’ X: X:

X:

X:

Y: 10,0 53,348’ Y: Y:

Y:

Y:

Latitude / Longitude Latitude: 27 ° 4 1 ' 28.893 "N Latitude: Latitude:

Latitude:

Latitude: Longitude: 91 ° 0 6 ' 48.691 " W Longitude: Longitude: Longit ude: Longitude: Water Depth (Feet):

2735 ’ MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in 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

# Atta chment B

Proprietary Informa tion

# A ttachment Ev______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________GC281 Well “A” Site Clearance Letter 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Lafayette, LA 70508Job No. 07332110Figure 3. Seafloor amplitude map.GC281 Well Location ALease OCS-G 33242Please disregard the anchor pattern,Under this Revised EP, ERT plans to drillthis 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 ArchaeologistProject 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 2 0 Nautical Miles of the Survey Area ............................... 8Project 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. 1 41166

______________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

iii 

### EXECTUTIVE SUMMARY

 Talos Energy, LLC ( Talos ) contracted C & C Technologies, Inc. (C&C) to perform a n Archaeological Assessment within Block 2 81, Green Canyon Area (GC), G ulf of Mexico.

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

aboard C&C’s M /V Miss Ginger on December 1 7

- 18

, 201 4

.

 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

M ean Sea Level (M SL )

.

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

 F our ( 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 S urvey within Block 2 81 ( 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. T he deepwater multi

- sensor data for the survey was acquired using C&C’s C

Surveyor V

TM 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 Sur vey 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 Su rveys 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 ( 1 3 ) primary lines (Line

Nos. 1 01

- 113 ) running east

- west at 200

- meter line spacing and three ( 3 ) tie lines (Line Nos. 2 01

- 2 0 3 ) 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 V

TM ’s remote

- sensing pa yload 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 process ing 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 V TM AUV was deployed from the support vessel, M/V Miss Ginger , using inertial navigation as the prima ry 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 positio ns 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 p roject 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 t ide 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 1 5 North (1 5 N). NADCON version 2.1 was utilized to convert the GPS positions

from the WGS84 datum to the local NA D27 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 ofProject No. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

4 Jamaica, Francisco Garay, sent Alonzo Alvarez de Piñeda to explor e 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 p resent

- 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 o f 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 s upply 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 settlemen t 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 fr om 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

se cond 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 toProject No. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 Unit ed 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 Mississ ippi, 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 mid

nineteenth century steam vessel off High I sland, 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 Sep tember 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 discover ed 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” o r 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 sh ipping. 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 pro moted 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

Cherbou rg, 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 theProject No. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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. U

507 under the command of Korvettenkapitä n 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 Han s

- 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 an d 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 u tilized routes th at 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

tw o 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

me mbers 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 crewm e n were injured.

The American Eagle ship wreck 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 t he 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. C oast
Guard reports, the 225

- foot vessel sank in 2,100 feet of water. A lthough 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 1 959 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 2 0 -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 RECO RD

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 measur es 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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 l isted in the Sonar Contact Table in Appendix B and depicted on the Archaeological Assessment Map s

.

5 .0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS

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 w ithin 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 e vent, 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.

Br useth, 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. 1 41166

___________________________ ___________________________________________________ 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. Memoi rs 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 InformationProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

APPENDIX B

SONAR CONTACT TABLE

Proprietary InformationProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

APPENDIX C

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIONS

INSTRUMENT SETTINGS

SURVEY CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM

PERSONNEL LIST

SURVEY LOGSProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 C-Surveyor V

TM AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLE (AUV)

The C-Surveyor V TM 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 V TM . 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 V TM being

loaded into a van for an overseas

survey.Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE , LA 70508 HiPAP Operator Station provides real

time 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

seque nce 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, Ultra

Short BaseLine (USBL) acoustics, inertial naviga tion 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 pa ttern 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 tra nsducer 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 multibe am 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 Arrange ment 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 V TM 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 t wo 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 V TM are 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 sou rce 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 process ed 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 phot ographs 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 installatio ns, 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

- la y 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 c lear 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 alon g 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 V TM 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 a cross 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 V TM 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:

CH 4 Methane sensor

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide sensor PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) sensor

The geochemical sensors on the C-Surveyor AUV are design to detect hydrocarbons (PAH),

methane and CO 2 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 V TM 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 V

TM 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 SPECIFICATION S: 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 softwareProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE , LA 70508 Magnetometer Specifica tions: 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:

CH 4 Sensor: Operating Range: 3,000 meter Sample rate: 1 Hz Range: 0

- 100 nmol

Resolution: 10 nmol Sensitivity: ±3% of reading

CO 2 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: 0.1ppmProject 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 roundthe 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 cmProject 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 outputsProject 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 thehousing. 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

scaleProject 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 knotsProject 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 PERSONN EL 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 DivisionC&C Project No. 141166

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 T ALOS ENERGY LLC

M/V MISS GINGER C-SURVEYOR V TM
BLOCK 281,

GREEN CANYON

DECEMBER 17 -18, 2014C&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 Water Depth 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 EOLC&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 Water Depth 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 SOLC&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 Water Depth 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 650mC&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 Water Depth 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 DownProject 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 Water Depth 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 OnProject 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 Water Depth 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 EOLProject 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 Water Depth 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 DeckProject 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 Water Depth 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: 1019mbProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

APPENDIX D

SOUND VELOCITY PROFILES

TIDE CURVESProject No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508Project No. 141166

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 730 E. KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

APPENDIX E

REDUCED STUDY MAPS

# A ttachment GEXPLORATION 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

REMARKSEMISSIONS FACTORS

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

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

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

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3.3-1 10/96 Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3.4-1 10/96

Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98

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

Sulphur Content Source Value Units

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

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 3 of 8 COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

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

96.0SUMMARY

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 W ell 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

# A ttachment LW-92BAY MARCHAND AREAEWING BANK AREASOUTH TIMBALIER AREASOUTH PELTO AREASHIP SHOAL AREAEUGENE ISLAND AREASOUTH MARSH ISLAND AREAVERMILION AREAEAST CAMERON AREASABINE PASS AREA (LA)SABINE PASS AREA (TX)BRAZOS AREAEAST BREAKS AREAGREEN CANYON AREAGARDEN BANKS AREAWALKER RIDGE AREAKEATHLEY CANYON AREAALAMINOS CANYON AREASabine PassHigh IslandHoustonTexas CityFreeportIntracoastal CityMorgan CityFuorchonShoreline Base:DulacHoumaCocodrieNew OrleansCameronLOUISIANAGC 281 1 1 1 M i l e s

9 6 M i l e sAttachmentL- Vicinity MapTEXASWEST DELTA AREAGRAND ISLE AREAWEST CAMERON AREAHIGH ISLAND AREAGALVESTON AREABaytownPort BolivarGalvestonMatagordaGrand Isle

# A ttachment N

### COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION

REVISED EXPLORATION PLAN

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 2 81

OCS- G 3 3242

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 2 7, 2014

_________

Date