UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - N-09728

Type - Initial Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G33706 Block - 833 Ewing Bank Area

Operator - Walter Oil & Gas Corporation

Wells A & B

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:

October 22, 2013
PUBLIC INFORMATION 

May, 2013 

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN 

Lease Number: OCS-G 33706 

Area/Block: Ewing Bank Block 833 

Prospect Name: NA 

Offshore: Louisiana 

Submitted by: Walter Oil & Gas Corporation 

 1100 Louisiana 

 Suite 200 

 Houston, Texas 77002 

 Paul Rodriguez 

 (713) 659-1221 

 prodriguez@walteroil.com 

Estimated start-up date: November 1, 2013 

Authorized Representative: No. Copies Being Submitted: 

Judy Davidson Proprietary: 1 Copy & CD 

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

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 

Houston, Texas 77084 For BOEM: 

(281) 578-3388 Plan No. 

judy.davidson@jccteam.com Assigned to: 
WALTER OIL & GAS CORPORATION 

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN 

LEASE OCS-G 33706 

 EWING BANK BLOCK 833 

APPENDIX A Plan Contents 

APPENDIX B General Information

APPENDIX C Geological, Geophysical Information

APPENDIX D H2S Information 

APPENDIX E Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

APPENDIX F Wastes and Discharge Information 

APPENDIX G Air Emissions Information

APPENDIX H Oil Spills Information

APPENDIX I Environmental Monitoring Information 

APPENDIX J Lease Stipulations Information 

APPENDIX K Environmental Mitigation Measures Information 

APPENDIX L Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 

APPENDIX M Onshore Support Facilities Information 

APPENDIX N Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information 

APPENDIX O Environmental Impact Analysis

APPENDIX P Administrative Information 
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

A-1 OCS Plan Information Form 

A-2 Well Location Plat 

A-3 Bathymetry Map 

A-4 Pay.Gov Receipt 

B-1 Blowout Scenario and WCD Calculations 

C-1 Structure Contour Maps 

C-2 3-D Seismic Lines 

C-3 Geological Structure Cross Sections 

C-4 Shallow Hazard Assessment 

C-5 Archaeology Survey 

C-6 Stratigraphic Column 

C-7 Time vs. Depth Table 

E-1 Bathymetry and Seafloor Features Map 

F-1 Projected Generated Wastes 

G-1 Air Emission Spreadsheets 

L-1 Solid and Liquid Waste Transportation 

L-2 Vicinity Map 

N-1 Coastal Zone Management Consistency Certification
Ewing Bank Block 833 Initial Exploration 

Record of Changes 

Date Section/Page Remarks 

07/02/13 A-1 Added rig will be equipped with a subsea BOP 

Attachment 

A-1 

Amended OCS Plan Information Form to include E,W,N,S and 

+ and - for lat. and long. Provided anchor radius. Changed 

archaeological area to yes. 

Attachment 

C-4, Pages 3 

and 29 

Amended pages 3 and 29 of Geohazard assessment to show 

area in high archaeological potential. 

Page C-2 Amended Attachment Numbers from C-5 to C-6 and C-6 to 

C-7. 

Pages E-1 

and E-2 

Amended Page Numbers from F-1 and F-2 to E-1 and E-2 

Page F-3 Amended Page Number from F-3 to F-1 

Attachment 

F-1 

Amended Projected amount to indicate total or per well. for 

WBM 

Page H-1 Corrected OSRP approval date, added Plan control number 

for OSRP WCD. 

Attachment 

L-1 

Amended Onshore Waste Disposal Table to indicate total or 

per well, and transport method for 5 gallon drum. 

Page O-10 Added EW 833 is an Arch Block under Shipwreck Sites. 

07-31-13 Attachment 

A-1 Page 1 

Revised Activity Schedule 

Attachment 

B-1 

Public Information Copy of Blowout Scenario 

Attachment 

G-1 

Revised Air Quality Review due to activity schedule change. 

08-01-13 Attachment 

F-1 

Revised Waste Discharge Table 

Attachment 

L-1 

Revised Waste Onshore Disposal Table 

08-22-13 Attachment 

A-1 

Revised activity schedule. Public and Proprietary 

Page B-1 Added WCD daily volume, duration and total volume 

Attachment 

G-1 

Revised Air Emissions Spreadsheets to reflect new activity 

schedule. 

09-11-13 All Public and Proprietary Information Copies 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page A-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX A 

PLAN CONTENTS 

(A) PLAN INFORMATION FORM 

Under this Exploration Plan, Walter proposes to drill and complete two wells. The wells will be 

drilled with an anchored semi-submersible MODU and are located in approximately 1200 to 

1310 feet of water. 

See attached OCS Plan Information Form – Form BOEM-137, included as Attachment A-1. 

(B) LOCATION: 

Included as Attachment A-2 is a Well Location Map depicting the proposed surface and bottom 

location of the proposed wells. Included as Attachment A-3 is a Bathymetry Map showing the 

water depths across the lease block. 

(C) SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES

 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. 

Walter will drill these wells with a semi-submersible drilling rig which is equipped with subsea 

BOPs. BOP information and schematics will be included as a part of the Application for 

Permits to Drill. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. 

(D) STORAGE TANKS AND/OR PRODUCTION VESSELS 

Type of 

Storage Tank 

Type of 

Facility 

Tank Capacity 

(bbls) 

Number 

of Tanks 

Total 

Capacity 

(bbls) 

Fluid 

Gravity 

(API) 

Fuel Oil (Marine 

Diesel) 

Semi-Submersible 

Drilling Rig 2,999 2 5,998 32.50

(E) POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES (FLORIDA ONLY) 

Pollution prevention measures are not required to be submitted with this plan. 

(F) ADDITIONAL MEASURES 

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

beyond those required by 30 CFR 250. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page A-2 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

(G) COST RECOVERY FEE 

Included as Attachment A-4 is a pay.gov receipt in the amount of $7,346.00 to cover operations 

proposed in this plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 

Minerals Management Service OMB Approval Expires: July 31, 2008

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

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

Company Name: Walter Oil & Gas Corporation BOEM Operator Number: 

Address: 1100 Louisiana, Suite 200 

 Houston, Texas 77002 Contact Person: Judy Davidson 

Phone Number: 281-578-3388 

Email Address: judy.davidson@jccteam.com 

Lease(s): G-33706 Area: EW Block(s): 833 Project Name (If Applicable): NA 

Objective(s): Oil Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Base: Fourchon, LA Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 64.9 

Description of Proposed Activities (Mark all that apply) 

 Exploration drilling Development drilling 

 Well completion Installation of production platform 

 Well test flaring (for more than 48 hours) Installation of production facilities 

 Installation of caisson or platform as well protection structure Installation of satellite structure 

 Installation of subsea wellheads and/or manifolds Commence production 

 Installation of lease term pipelines Other (Specify and describe) 

Have you submitted or do you plan to submit a Conservation Information Document to accompany this plan? Yes x No 

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

Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes x No 

Do you propose any activities that may disturb an BOEM-designated high-probability archaeological area? Yes x No 

Have all of the surface locations of your proposed activities been previously reviewed and approved by BOEM? Yes x No 

Tentative Schedule of Proposed Activities 

Proposed Activity Start 

Date End Date No. of Days 

Drill Well A 11-01-13 01-19-14 80 

Complete and Test A 01-19-14 03-01-14 41 

Install subsea wellhead 03-01-14 03-03-14 2 

Drill Well B 03-03-14 05-22-14 80 

Complete and Test B 05-22-14 07-02-14 41 

Install subsea wellhead 07-02-14 07-04-14 2 

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Production Platform 

 Jackup Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform 

 Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Well protector Compliant tower 

 Semisubmersible Submersible Fixed platform Guyed tower 

 DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach Description) Subsea manifold Floating production system 

 Drilling Rig Name (If Known): Spar Other (Attach description) 

Description of Lease Term Pipelines 

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

 BOEM Form BOEM-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form BOEM-137, which may not be used.) 

ATTACHMENT A-1
 PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

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

BOEM Form BOEM-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form BOEM-137, which may not be used.) 

Proposed Well/Structure Location 

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, reference previous name): A Subsea Completion 

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 4900' Yes No 

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) 

Lease No. OCS-G 33706 

Area Name Ewing Bank 

Block No. 833 

Blockline 

Departures 

(in feet) 

N/S Departure: 4340' FSL 

E/W Departure: 3069' FEL 

Lambert X-Y 

coordinates 

X: 2,610,531.00 

Y: 10,221,140.00 

Latitude/ 

Longitude 

Latitude: 280 07' 59.08" N 

Longitude: 890 59' 23.58" W 

TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 1310' 

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 = 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us 

to inform you that BOEM collects this information as part of an Walter Oil & Gas Corporation’s Exploration Plan or 

Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for BOEM approval. We use the information to facilitate our 

review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 

CFR 250.196. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The use of this form is voluntary. 

The public reporting burden for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development 

Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that burden to average 580 hours per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding 

the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 4230, 

Minerals Management Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240. 
 PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

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

BOEM Form BOEM-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form BOEM-137, which may not be used.) 

Proposed Well/Structure Location 

Well or Structure Name/Number (If renaming well or structure, reference previous name): B Subsea Completion 

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: 4100' Yes No 

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) 

Lease No. OCS-G 33706 

Area Name Ewing Bank 

Block No. 833 

Blockline 

Departures 

(in feet) 

N/S Departure: 3200' FSL 

E/W Departure: 5940' FEL 

Lambert X-Y 

coordinates 

X: 2,607,660.00 

Y: 10,220,000.00 

Latitude/ 

Longitude 

Latitude: 280

 07' 48.51" N 

Longitude: 890 59' 55.88"W 

TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 1200' 

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 = 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us 

to inform you that BOEM collects this information as part of an Walter Oil & Gas Corporation’s Exploration Plan or 

Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for BOEM approval. We use the information to facilitate our 

review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 

CFR 250.196. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The use of this form is voluntary. 

The public reporting burden for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development 

Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that burden to average 580 hours per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding 

the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 4230, 

Minerals Management Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240. 

±

1,200'

860'

920'

1,100'

980'

1,020' 1,000'

1,020'

1,000'

980'

3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

89°59'0"W90°0'0"W90°1'0"W

28°10'0"N

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N 2,600,000

2,605,0002,610,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

Chart scale 1" = 2,000'

Bathymetry Plat Figure 10

Proposed EW833A:

Easting: 2,610,531ft E

Northing: 10,221,140ft N

FEL of Ewing Bank833 : 3,069ft

FSL of Ewing Bank833 : 4,340ft

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Southwest Pass Safety Fairway

Williams EN 8" Gas (11457)

Eni Pet US 12'' al (11458)

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Proposed EW833B :

Easting: 2,607,660ft E

Northing: 10,220,000ft N

FEL of Ewing Bank 833 : 5,940ft

FSL of Ewing Bank 833 : 3,200ft

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page B-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX B 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

(A) APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS 

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

commence under this EP: 

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status 

Application for Permit to 

Drill 

BSEE To be submitted 

(B) DRILLING FLUIDS 

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be 

Used per Well 

Water-based Drilling Fluid 7,500 bbls/well 

Oil-based (diesel, minerals, oil) NA 

Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 4,000 bbls/well 

(C) NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY 

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

exploration activities. 

(D) BONDING STATEMENT 

The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by 

$3,000,000.00 areawide development bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 556 

Subpart I; NTL No. 2000-G16, "Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds”. 

(E) OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation, BOEM Company number 0730 has demonstrated or will 

demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this DOCD according 

to 30 CFR Part 553; and NTL No. 2008-N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility 

for Covered Facilities". 

(F) DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation (BOEM Company Number 0730) has, or will have the financial 

capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations. 

(G) BLOWOUT SCENARIO 

Included as Attachment B-1 is the Blowout scenario and Worst-Case Discharge Calculation Data 

for operations proposed in this plan. The WCD is estimated to be 109,474 bbls/day with a total 

duration of 121 days and total volume of 13,246,354 barrels.
Attachment B-1 

Blowout Scenario and WCD Calculations 

There are currently three moored semi-submersible drilling rigs with 15,000 psi subsea blowout 

preventers with derrick capacity and horsepower available for relief well drilling in case the semisubmersible rig has blow out. It is estimated that a contract could be administered and additional 

equipment procured to drill the relief well in one hundred and twenty one days. Available and safety 

record will be predominant factor for selecting the relief well rig (2 days to acquire rig, 14 days to move on 

location and set anchors and 105 days to drill relief well). 

Measure to prevent Blowout:

Ewing Banks 833 Well A is the deepest well to be drilled in the area. Walter O&G was successfully drilling 

EW 834 #1 uisng Esies seismic based pore pressure before the well was suspended due to the Macondo 

incident. Additional seismic pore pressure detection (ie Eseis) will be used to mitigate risk for drilling of 

the subject well. MWD/PWD will provide down hole pressure information to mitigate risk of blowout. The 

use of MWD will also provide accurate location of the zone if an incident occurs. 

Additional precautions and safety procedures:

1. Complete detailed well design program for drilling operations including mud program and cement 

program. Safety meeting will be conducted every tour to communicate importance of operations. 

2. Maintain mud properties consistent with offset wells. 

3. Flow monitoring equipment for the rigs mud return system with real time data provided to 

supervisory personnel. 

4. Real-time gas monitoring for the purpose of measuring gas units contained in the mud system for 

supervisory personnel. 

5. Drilling breaks monitored and check for flow. In the event of flow, mud weight will be increased to 

control the well. 

6. Monitoring of trip volumes both pulling in and out of the hole. Proper fill up volumes will be 

measured. 

7. Control surge and swab pressures. 

8. Circulate bottoms up before trips to insure the well is stable and free of gas. 

9. Testing of BOP’s at a minimum of every two weeks when rams are changed or BOP’s repaired. 

Measures to reduce the likelihood of a blowout:

1. Contractor personnel (driller and tool pusher) have the authority to shut well(s) in should a well flow 

be encountered. Company personnel will be informed of the situation. 

2. Company personnel will go to the floor immediately to assist Contractor personnel in industry-best 

practices kill procedure. 

3. Proper API casing design and cementing practices using centralizers as recommended by 

simulation to insure centralized casing and 360 degree annular fill up of cement. 

4. Production casing will have two barriers (float collar and float shoe). 

5. Upon bumping the plug in cement operations, floats will be checked. In the event the floats do not 

hold, pressure will be maintained for 6-8 hours, and then shoe tract will be rechecked. Remedial 

cementing or setting of bridge plug will be taken if necessary to isolate the shoe tract. 
6. Run cement bond log to verify cement quality before displacing well with completion fluid. 

Arrangements for drilling relief wells:

1. Review shallow hazards survey to determine positioning of relief well. 

2. Contract and mobilize relief well rig. 

3 Contract relief well directional drilling company and relief well drilling experts. Incorporate relief well 

trajectory and well plan 

4. Prepare drilling program based on optimum rig position relative to targeted wellbore to optimize 

intervention. Incorporate relief well trajectory in well plan. 

5. Well control experts may attempt to board the vessel and contain the blowout from the surface 

provided sufficient safety. HFRS equipment may be required to remove debris and provide fire 

fighting boats for access. 

Note: Walter O&G is a member of Clean Gulf and the Helix Well Containment Group and will employ the 

HFPS (Helix Fast Response System) in the event the is a spill. 

Potential for well to bridge over 

Walter does not have sufficient information to anticipate that this well would likely bridge over; therefore, 

discussion of the likelihood of the well to bridge over is not included in this plan. 

Walter does not have any empirical data. 

Likelihood for surface intervention to stop blowout. 

An ongoing operation for surface intervention will work in parallel to the relief well operations. “Well 

Control” experts will board the rig, provide there is sufficient safety, to review the possibility of surface 

containment; or coordinate with relief well operations to contain the blowout. Firefighting boats and 

derrick barges will be employed to control the heat/fire and strip away surface equipment that prohibit 

successful surface intervention. A capping stack/diverter arrangement could potentially be used provided 

wellbore/casing integrity is verified during the operation. 

Rig package constraints (if none, a statement to that affect). 

No constraints. 

Estimated time to drill relief well, including: 

Estimated 121 days 

Time to acquire a rig (days): 2 days 

Time to move rig onsite (days): 14 days 

Drilling time (days): 105 days to drill relief well 

Statement whether the possibility of using a nearby platform was considered, if feasible. 

No nearby platform. 

Measure to enhance ability to conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout.

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation is a member of Helix Well Control Group and the equipment is on standby 

in case of an incident. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page C-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX C 

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION 

(A) GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 

Proprietary Information 

(B) STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAP

 Proprietary Information 

(C) INTERPRETED 2-D And/Or 3-D SEISMIC LINE(S) 

Proprietary Information

(D) GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS

Proprietary Information

(E) SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT 

A shallow hazards survey was conducted over Ewing Bank Block 833. One hard copy and one 

CD of the shallow hazards report are being submitted to the BOEM under separate cover. 

(F) SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT 

Utilizing the 3D seismic exploration data, a shallow hazards assessment was prepared for the 

proposed surface locations, and is included as Attachment C-4. An archaeological assessment is 

included as Attachment C-5. 

(G) HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES 

High resolution seismic lines are included in the Shallow Hazards Assessment. 

(H) STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

Proprietary Information 

(I) TIME VS DEPTH TABLES

Proprietary Information 
Gardline Project Ref. 7071

Report Status Final

Issue Date November 28, 2012

Gardline Surveys Inc

1500 Bingle Road, Houston, TX 77055. USA

Telephone 713 481 4630 Fax 713 464 8275 www.gardline.com

WALTER OIL & GAS CORPORATION

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED A & B WELL LOCATIONS

WELL CLEARANCE LETTERS

OCTOBER 2012
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

1

WELL CLEARANCE LETTER – PROPOSED EW833-A WELL LOCATION

November 28, 2012

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation

1100 Louisiana Suite 200

Houston, TX 77002

Attention: Mr. Pete Hetherington 

Well Clearance Letter

Proposed EW833-A Location

Ewing Bank, Block 833, 

OCS-G 33706

Gardline Surveys Inc was contracted by Walter Oil & Gas Corporation to prepare a Well Clearance 

Letter for the proposed Ewing Bank, Block 833-A location (OCS-G 33706). This letter addresses 

seafloor and shallow geologic conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2,000ft of 

the proposed wellsite. The depth limit of this site clearance assessment is Horizon H50 (-5,081ft below 

sea surface, 3,771ft below seabed). We understand that Walter Oil and Gas Corporation plans to drill 

the proposed exploration well from an anchored semi-submersible rig; therefore, an anchoring 

assessment is included at the end of this volume. Relevant letter-size chart extracts, data examples, 

and a Top Hole Prognosis are presented with this Well Clearance Letter. This geohazard assessment

is based on the interpretation of 3D seismic data. This site clearance letter is issued as a supplement to

Gardline Report No. 7071 entitled 3D Geohazard Assessment, Gulf of Mexico – Ewing Bank Blocks 

833(E) & 834, Volume 1 - Geohazard Study.

3D Geophysical Survey. Walter Oil & Gas Corporation provided the 3D dataset to Gardline Surveys 

Inc. on tape media in SEG-Y format for loading onto a Seismic Micro-Technology (SMT) workstation. 

The 3D data cube contains a survey with 4 millisecond sample rate data to a record length of 6.0 

seconds TWT below sea surface. Inlines are oriented south to north, have a numerical increment of 

one, and exhibit a line spacing of 65.6ft (20m). Crosslines are oriented west to east, have a numerical 

increment of one, and exhibit a line spacing of 41ft (12.5m).

Acquisition Parameters (Streamer)

TGS – Deep Resolve 3D-Pre-stack Time Migration (PSTM)-22 September-8 October 2005

Dual Source Clustered Air guns arrays-3040 cubic inches or 3222 cubic in

Source Interval 62.5m per sub-surface line

Streamer Length 9000m X 6-acquired in half streamer lengths 4500m X 6

Number of Channels 350 per streamer/2160 per shot (Streamer length 4500m)

Group Interval 12.5

Record Length 13000s
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

2

Sample Interval 2ms

Multiplicity 72 fold at 6.25m bin interval, 144 fold at 12.5m bin interval

Recorded Bin Size 6.25m X 40m

Primary Navigation DGPS for the Vessel, RGPS for front and tail buoys, and extensive in-sea 

acoustic system

Recording Instrument Sercel Seal 408 XL

Cable Type Sercel-Liquid filled RDP

Cable Depth 9 meters +/-1meter

Filters 3 Hz (12dB/Octave)-200Hz (370 dB/Octave)

Gun Depth 6 meters +/-1meter

Shooting Direction North/South

Acquired By: M/V Polar Search-Source/Recording Boat, M/V Akademik Shatskiy-Source 

boat, two boat operations

Processing Parameters: Streamer Pre-Processing

Input SEGD Data

Merge navigation with seismic trace headers

Apply start data (SOD) correction

Resample from 2ms to 4ms

Apply differential NMO, 2 to 1 trace sum, output group interval 25m

Output navigation merge shot ordered tapes (SEGY)

Noise attenuation

Velocity analysis

Output 3D bin sorted tapes (SEGY) 12.5m CDP Interval-2 by 72 fold

Spherical divergence and gain correction

Deconvolution

Processing Parameters: Migration and Post Stack Processing

Grid data to 25m by 40m bin (all data input into migration)

Kirchhoff pre-stack curved ray migration velocity analysis

Output migration velocities

Kirchhoff pre-stack curved ray migration (25m by 40m)

Output 3D bin sorted tapes (SEGY) - 60 fold for streamer/58 fold for OBC

Velocity analysis

Automatic velocity picking update at every CDP location

Output ETA velocity correction trace volumes-SEGY (25m by 40m by 48msec and 12.5 by 20m by 

4msec

Radon demultiple

Output migrated gathers with NMO/Radon (SEGY)-60 fold

Mute and stack

Output raw migration-25m by 40m SEGY

Output for corridor stacks-12.5m X 20m (SEGY)
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

3

Apply filter and wrap scale

Output processed migration tape-12.5m X 20m (SEGY)

Data exhibits a good frequency response across the upper second below seabed, with an effective 

frequency range of 10 - 70Hz (Figure 9). The data exhibits a dominant frequency in the upper one 

second of approximately 53Hz, resulting in a mean vertical resolvability of typically 25ft and a layer 

detectability of 5ft. The data is considered good to excellent quality.

With respect to NTL 2008 G04:

a. The 3-D data provides an image of sufficient resolution of the shallow section to allow a clear 

analysis of the shallow conditions.

b. The data are loaded to a workstation at no less than 16-bit (preferably 32-bit) data resolution 

and are un-scaled.

c. There is no form of trace and/or sample decimation of the original processed volume.

d. The original processed sample interval and bin size are maintained throughout the area.

e. Half of the percentage power spectrum analyses curve at the proposed well location possesses 

a frequency content of 50 Hz or higher across the first second of section below the seafloor.

f. Seafloor reflection is free of gaps and is defined by a wavelet of stable shape and phase to 

allow auto-tracking of the seafloor event with minimum user intervention and guidance.

g. Acquisition artefacts such as cross-line statics and/or amplitude striping, though possibly 

identifiable in shallow section, do not detract from the overall interpretation of the picked event 

when mapped in time or amplitude. Similarly, time slices or windowed attribute extractions are 

devoid of, or show minimal, acquisition artefacts to the detriment of their interpretation.

h. Merge points between datasets of differing origin or vintage that cross the area are marked by 

minimal, preferably no, time shifts or amplitude changes across the join that might otherwise be 

to the detriment of the interpretation.

i. Processed bin sizes are less than 40 meters in both the inline and crossline dimension.

j. The processed output sample interval is 4 milliseconds or less.

k. Attention to definition of an accurate velocity model in the shallow section in processing allows 

optimum structural and stratigraphic resolution to have been achieved in the 3-D migrated 

volume. The shallow section shows no indication of under or over migration artefacts.

l. Multiple energy is unidentifiable or at a level that does not interfere with the analysis of the 

shallow section.

m. The proposed activities are not in an area of high archaeological potential (see NTL No. 2005-

G07).
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

4

1. LOCATION COORDINATES

1.1 Proposed EW833-A Well Location

Proposed EW833-A Location (Surface)

Location Coordinates

NAD 27 Datum - Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid UTM Zone 15N - CM 93° West

Latitude 28° 07' 59.08” North Easting 2,610,531 ft E

Longitude 89° 59’ 23.58” West Northing 10,221,140 ft N

FEL of Ewing Bank 833 3,069 ft Inline 4065

FSL of Ewing Bank 833 4,340 ft Crossline 6800

Water Depth: -1,310 ft Slope: 1.4° ENE

Nearest Shoreline 66 miles @ 349° 

Port of Operation Fourchon 68 miles @ 350 ̊

Nearest Manned Platform ENI A-Morpeth 7 miles @ 197° 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

5

2. VELOCITY DATA

2.1 Velocity Data

Time-to-depth conversion for the water column was derived using the Advocate and Hood 

(1993) polynomial:

Water Depth (ft)=

0.1105 – 5066.9193X + 468.6693X2 – 554.7107X3 + 340.7019X4 – 116.991X5 + 20.728X6 – 1.4658X7

Where X = one way time to seabed (in seconds)

Sub-seabed time-to-depth conversion was performed using a second order polynomial 

derived from checkshot data at well EW790-1 from library records:

Depth below seabed (ft) = 176.51X2

+2628.7X

Where X = two way time in seconds below seabed
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

6

3. SEABED CONDITIONS

3.1 Bathymetry

Seabed depth at the proposed EW833-A location is -1,310ft below sea-surface. The seafloor 

deepens to the ENE at 1.4°.

3.2 Seafloor Morphology and Man Made Features

The proposed EW833-A well location is located in the southeast quadrant of Block EW833. 

The seabed is slightly rugose at the proposed well location (Figure 2). The seabed within 

2,000ft appears to be slightly rugose with minor faults to the south, of which the closest is 

~880ft from the proposed well location. Additional faults are located outside the 2,000ft radius 

of the well in all directions; none of these faults are expected to affect drilling of the proposed 

well. There is no evidence to support any catastrophic soil failure in the vicinity of the proposed 

well location; the seabed is predicted to be stable. Seabed sediments are clay-prone. Shallow

sediments appear conducive for jetting of seabed casing with no hard layers predicted.

There are no anomalous seabed amplitudes indicative of hydrocarbon macroseep observed 

within a 2,000ft radius of the proposed location (Figure 3).

There are two existing and one proposed pipeline plus two umbilicals oriented approximately 

north to south located to the east of the proposed wellsite as tabulated below:

Pipeline Installations

Operator Segment Area Block -

Origin/Termination

Outside 

Diameter (in)

Product Status

Walter Oil & 

Gas

14154 GI115 / MC837 1 inch Umbilical

(Hydraulic)

Out of Service

Walter Oil & 

Gas

13133 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Gas Combined

Walter Oil & 

Gas

13134 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Oil Combined

Walter Oil & 

Gas

17411 GI115 / EW878 2.5 inch Umbilical

(Elec / Hyd)

Out of Service

Walter Oil & 

Gas

18613 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Oil Proposed

The closest approach to the proposed site is 390ft ENE of the proposed well location. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

7

4. SUBSEABED GEOLOGY

4.1 Geology and Lithology

The sub-seabed geology has been divided into five units separated by five horizons: Units A, 

B, C, D and E, and Horizons H10, H20, H30, H40 and H50 (Figures 4 through 7).

4.2 Unit A

Lithology in this upper unit is interpreted as well-layered, clay-prone and silt sediments. 

Generally, seabed sediments and shallow soils are expected to be good for jetting of the 

seabed casing with no hard-grounds predicted.

No shallow gas hazards or shallow water flow risks are predicted in Unit A.

Horizon H10 marks the base of Unit A at -1,716ft below sea-surface (406ft below seabed).

4.3 Unit B

This unit is interpreted to be a well-layered, clay-prone and silt sequence with isolated coarsergrained interbeds and lenses in its upper interval from -1,716ft to -2,230ft below sea surface 

(406ft to 920ft below seabed). 

The lower interval of Unit B is interpreted to consist of mass transport clays and silts with 

possible fine sands. Minor fine sands within this interval could be the source of minor shallow 

water flow. Low volume shallow water flow has been recorded within this depth range to the 

southeast of the present study area (Ewing Bank Blocks 1005 & 1006). As such, a Slight 

Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit B throughout the lower interval, from -

2,230ft to -2,626ft below sea surface (920ft to 1,316ft below seabed) at the proposed well 

location.

The base of this unit is marked by an erosional surface and a predicted lithology change. 

Horizon H20 represents this interface at -2,626ft below sea surface (1,316ft below seabed).

4.4 Unit C

Lithology within this unit is expected to comprise of clays and silts with localized sandy

interbeds and lenses passing into clay rich sediments toward the base. Slightly coarser 

interbeds within this unit may induce minor drilling fluid circulation and wellbore stability 

problems.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

8

No shallow gas hazards or shallow water flow risks are predicted in Unit C. A minor anomaly 

is observed in Unit C 725ft to the southwest, but is not connected to the proposed well 

location.

The base of this unit is marked by Horizon H30, which represents a boundary between low

amplitude reflectors at the base of Unit C and higher-amplitude and higher-energy deposits at 

the top of the underlying Unit D. Horizon H30 occurs at -3,219ft below sea surface (1,909ft 

below seabed).

4.5 Unit D

This unit is interpreted to comprise of clay and silt sediments with numerous coarser-grained 

interbeds and lenses deposited in a higher energy environment. Throughout this unit there 

are a number of well-defined somewhat higher-amplitude reflectors, especially within the upper 

interval. These high-amplitude reflectors are interpreted as sand interbeds or lenses that 

could potentially be prone to shallow water flow. Also, these sands may induce minor drilling 

fluid circulation and wellbore stability problems.

A vertical well will intersect a normal fault within Unit D at -3,314ft below sea surface (2,004ft 

below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation problems may occur if pressures over hydrostatic 

are exerted by the drilling fluid column.

Given the probability of sandy sediments within Unit D deposited rapidly with inadequate 

de-watering time and encapsulated by impermeable clays and silts, this unit is considered 

a Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk, especially in the upper interval. Faulting has 

offset much of the connectivity that these sands once possessed, consequently no high 

amplitudes are identified; however, there is still the possibility that small pockets of trapped 

gas may be present throughout this unit. As such, Unit D is also assigned a Sight Risk of 

Gas.

The base of this unit is marked by an erosional surface and a predicted lithology change. 

Horizon H40 represents this boundary at -3,857ft below sea surface (2,547ft below seabed).

4.6 Unit E

This unit is interpreted to be composed of clays and silts with occasional sandy interbeds.

The possibility of minor sandy interbeds in combination with areas of clay-prone sediments 

leads to a Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk throughout Unit E. Minor drilling fluid 

circulation and wellbore stability problems possible throughout this unit.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

9

Horizon H50 marks the base of Unit E and the base of this shallow hazards assessment, 

occurring at -5,081ft below sea surface (3,771ft below seabed).

4.7 Shallow Gas Assessment

Sandy interbeds throughout Unit D, between -3,219ft and -3,857ft below sea surface (2,004ft 

to 2,547ft below seabed), are considered a Slight Gas Risk.

4.8 Shallow Water Flow Assessment

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is predicted in the lower interval of Unit B between -2,230ft 

and -2,626ft below sea surface (920ft to 1,316ft below seabed).

A Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit D between -3,219ft and -3,857ft 

below sea surface (1,909ft to 2,547ft below seabed).

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit E at the proposed well location 

between -3,857ft and -5,081ft below sea surface (2,547ft to 3,771ft below seabed). 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

10

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Seabed

No significant problems are anticipated at seabed.

• Unit A

No hazards or problems predicted. Shallow soils are expected to be conducive to jetting of 

seabed casing with no hardgrounds predicted.

• Unit B

Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is predicted in the lower interval of Unit B between -2,230ft 

and -2,626ft below sea surface (920ft to 1,316ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is advised. 

Appropriate drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent shallow 

water flow event throughout this interval.

• Unit C

Occasional coarser interbeds may be experienced between -2,626ft and -3,219ft below sea 

surface (1,316ft to 1,909ft below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation and wellbore stability 

problems are possible through this interval.

• Unit D

A Slight Risk of Gas is predicted throughout Unit D at the proposed well location between 

-3,219ft and -3,857ft below sea surface (1,909ft to 2,547ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is 

advised through Unit D.

Minor drilling fluid circulation problems are possible if pressures over hydrostatic are exerted by 

the drilling fluid column at the level of a normal fault at -3,314ft below sea surface (2,004ft below 

seabed). Casing seats should avoid this level as formation integrity could be compromised.

A Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit D between -3,219ft and -3,857ft 

below sea surface (1,909ft to 2,547ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is advised. Appropriate 

drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent shallow water flow 

event throughout this interval.

• Unit E

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit E at the proposed well location between 

-3,857ft and -5,081ft below sea surface (2,547ft to 3,771ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

11

advised. Appropriate drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent 

shallow water flow event through this interval.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

12

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and look forward to continuing as your 

geohazards consultants. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further 

assistance.

Sincerely,

Andrew Haigh Matilde DeLeon

Geophysical Manager Quality Assurance

Copies Submitted: 6 copies to Mr. Pete Hetherington at Walter Oil & Gas Company

Attachments:

Proposed EW833-A Well Location

Seabed Depth Extract

Seabed Morphology Extract

Seabed Amplitude Extract

Geohazard Summary Extract

Inline Data Example

Crossline Data Example

Top Hole Prognosis

ROV Plat

Power Spectrum

Bathymetry Plat

Public Information Plat

Proprietary Information Plat

Vicinity Map

10-Mile Radius Plat
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-A Well

89°59'0"W89°59'30"W90°0'0"W

28°8'30"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,608,0002,610,0002,612,0002,614,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

10,224,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Depth Extract

Figure 1

(EW833-A)

±

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location 3® 3

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3

3

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Depth in feet below sea surface

to seabed, contoured at 25 ft intervals.

-1310

Seabed Depth (Feet)

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N 3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-A Well

89°59'0"W89°59'30"W90°0'0"W

28°8'30"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,608,0002,610,0002,612,0002,614,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

10,224,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Morpholgy Extract

Figure 2

(EW833-A)

±

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location 3® 3

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3

3

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N 3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

250ft exclusion zone

around sensitive sessile

benthic communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote

down throw side

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-A Well

89°59'0"W89°59'30"W90°0'0"W

28°8'30"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,608,0002,610,0002,612,0002,614,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

10,224,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Amplitude Extract

Figure 3

(EW833-A)

±

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location 3® 3

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3

3

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Relative Seabed Amplitude

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N 3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Pipelines

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-A Well

89°59'0"W89°59'30"W90°0'0"W

28°8'30"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,608,0002,610,0002,612,0002,614,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

10,224,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Geohazard Summary Extract

Figure 4

(EW833-A)

±

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location 3® 3

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3

3

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N 3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

250ft exclusion zone around sensitive

sessile benthic communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote down

throw side

Slight to locally Moderate Risk

of Gas within Unit A

Slight Risk of Gas

within Unit B

Moderate Risk of Gas

within Unit C

Moderate to High Risk of

Gas within Unit D

High Risk of Gas

within Unit E

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

27

WELL CLEARANCE LETTER – PROPOSED EW833-B WELL LOCATION

November 28, 2012

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation

1100 Louisiana Suite 200

Houston, TX 77002

Attention: Mr. Pete Hetherington

Well Clearance Letter

Proposed EW833-B Location

Block 833, Ewing Bank Area

OCS-G 33706

Gardline Surveys Inc was contracted by Walter Oil & Gas Corporation to prepare a Well Clearance 

Letter for the proposed EW833-B location in Ewing Bank, Block 833 (OCS-G 33706). This letter 

addresses seafloor and shallow geologic conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations 

within 2,000ft of the proposed wellsite. The depth limit of this site clearance assessment is Horizon H50 

(-4,317ft below sea surface, 3,117ft below seabed). We understand that Walter Oil and Gas 

Corporation plans to drill the proposed exploration well from an anchored semi-submersible rig; 

therefore, an anchoring assessment is included at the end of this volume. Relevant letter-size chart 

extracts, data examples, and a Top Hole Prognosis are presented with this Well Clearance Letter. This 

geohazard assessment is based on the interpretation of 3D seismic data. This site clearance letter is 

issued as a supplement to Gardline Report No. 7071 entitled 3D Geohazard Assessment, Gulf of 

Mexico – Ewing Bank Blocks 833(E) & 834, Volume 1 - Geohazard Study.

3D Geophysical Survey. Walter Oil & Gas Corporation provided the 3D dataset to Gardline Surveys 

Inc. on tape media in SEG-Y format for loading onto a Seismic Micro-Technology (SMT) workstation. 

The 3D data cube contains a survey with 4 millisecond sample rate data to a record length of 6.0 

seconds TWT below sea surface. Inlines are oriented south to north, have a numerical increment of 

one, and exhibit a line spacing of 65.6ft (20m). Crosslines are oriented west to east, have an numerical 

increment of one, and exhibit a line spacing of 41.0ft (12.5m).

Acquisition Parameters (Streamer)

TGS – Deep Resolve 3D-Pre-stack Time Migration (PSTM)-22 September-8 October 2005

Dual Source Clustered Air guns arrays-3040 cubic inches or 3222 cubic in

Source Interval 62.5 m per sub-surface line

Streamer Length 9000 m X 6-adquired in half-streamer lengths 4500m X 6

Number of Channels 350 per streamer/2160 per shot (Streamer length 4500m)

Group Interval 12.5

Record Length 13000s
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

28

Sample Interval 2ms

Multiplicity 72 fold at 6.25m bin interval, 144 fold at 12.5m bin interval

Recorded Bin Size 6.25m X 40m

Primary Navigation DGPS for the Vessel, RGPS for front and tail buoys, and Extensive in sea 

acoustic system

Recording Instrument Sercel Seal 408 XL

Cable Type Sercel-Liquid filled RDP

Cable Depth 9 meters +/-1meter

Filters 3 Hz (12dB/Octave)-200Hz (370 dB/Octave)

Gun Depth 6 meters +/-1meter

Shooting Direction North/South

Acquired By: M/V Polar Search-Source/Recording Boat, M/V Akademik Shatskiy-Source 

boat, and Two boat perations

Processing Parameters: Streamer Pre Processing

Input SEGD Data

Merge navigation with seismic trace headers

Apply start data (SOD) correction

Resample from 2ms to 4ms

Apply differential NMO, 2 to 1 trace sum, output group interval 25m

Output navigation merge shot ordered tapes (SEGY)

Noise attenuation

Velocity analysis

Output 3D bin sorted tapes (SEGY) 12.5m CDP Interval-2 by 72 fold

Spherical divergence and gain correction

Deconvolution

Processing Parameters: Migration and Post Stack Processing

Grid data to 25m by 40m bin (all data input into migration)

Kirchhoff pre-stack curved ray migration velocity analysis

Output migration velocities

Kirchhoff pre-stack curved ray migration (25m by 40m)

Output 3D bin sorted tapes (SEGY) - 60 fold for streamer/58 fold for OBC

Velocity analysis

Automatic velocity picking update at every CDP location

Output ETA velocity correction trace volumes-SEGY (25m by 40m by 48msec and 12.5 by 20m by 

4msec

Radon demultiple

Output migrated gathers with NMO/Radon (SEGY)-60 fold

Mute and stack

Output raw migration-25m by 40m SEGY

Output for corridor stacks-12.5m X 20m (SEGY)
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

29

Apply filter and wrap scale

Output processed migration tape-12.5m X 20m (SEGY)

Data exhibits a good frequency response across the upper second below seabed, with an effective 

frequency range of 10 - 70Hz (Figure 9). The data exhibits a dominant frequency in the upper one 

second of approximately 53Hz, resulting in a mean vertical resolvability of typically 25ft and a layer 

detectability of 5ft. The data is considered good to excellent quality.

With respect to NTL 2008 G04:

n. The 3-D data provides an image of sufficient resolution of the shallow section to allow a clear 

analysis of the shallow conditions.

o. The data are loaded to a workstation at no less than 16-bit (preferably 32-bit) data resolution 

and are un-scaled.

p. There is no form of trace and/or sample decimation of the original processed volume.

q. The original processed sample interval and bin size are maintained throughout the area.

r. Half of the percentage power spectrum analyses curve at the proposed well location possesses 

a frequency content of 50 Hz or higher across the first second of section below the seafloor.

s. Seafloor reflection is free of gaps and is defined by a wavelet of stable shape and phase to 

allow auto-tracking of the seafloor event with minimum user intervention and guidance.

t. Acquisition artefacts such as cross-line statics and/or amplitude striping, though possibly 

identifiable in shallow section, do not detract from the overall interpretation of the picked event 

when mapped in time or amplitude. Similarly, time slices or windowed attribute extractions are 

devoid of, or show minimal, acquisition artefacts to the detriment of their interpretation.

u. Merge points between datasets of differing origin or vintage that cross the area are marked by 

minimal, preferably no, time shifts or amplitude changes across the join that might otherwise be 

to the detriment of the interpretation.

v. Processed bin sizes are less than 40 meters in both the inline and crossline dimension.

w. The processed output sample interval is 4 milliseconds or less.

x. Attention to definition of an accurate velocity model in the shallow section in processing allows 

optimum structural and stratigraphic resolution to have been achieved in the 3-D migrated 

volume. The shallow section shows no indication of under or over migration artefacts.

y. Multiple energy is unidentifiable or at a level that does not interfere with the analysis of the 

shallow section.

z. The proposed activities are not in an area of high archaeological potential (see NTL No. 2005-

G07).
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

30

1. LOCATION COORDINATES

1.1 Proposed EW833-B Well Location

Proposed EW833-B Location (Surface)

Location Coordinates

NAD 27 Datum - Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid UTM Zone 15N - CM 93° West

Latitude 28° 07' 48.51” North Easting 2,607,660 ft E

Longitude 89° 59’ 55.88” West Northing 10,220,000 ft N

FEL of Ewing Bank 833 5,940 ft Inline 4021

FSL of Ewing Bank 833 3,200 ft Crossline 6774

Water Depth: -1,200 ft Slope: 1.9° ENE

Nearest Shoreline 66 miles @ 349° 

Port of Operation Fourchon 68 miles @ 350 ̊

Nearest Manned Platform ENI A-Morpeth 7 miles @ 192° 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

31

2. VELOCITY DATA

2.1 Velocity Data

Time-to-depth conversion for the water column was derived using the Advocate and Hood 

(1993) polynomial:

Water Depth (ft)=

0.1105 – 5066.9193X + 468.6693X2 – 554.7107X3 + 340.7019X4 – 116.991X5 + 20.728X6 – 1.4658X7

Where X = one way time to seabed (in seconds)

Sub-seabed time-to-depth conversion was performed using a second order polynomial 

derived from checkshot data at well EW790-1 from library records:

Depth below seabed (ft) = 176.51X2

+2628.7X

Where X = two way time in seconds below seabed.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

32

3. SEABED CONDITIONS

3.1 Bathymetry

Seabed depth at the proposed EW833-B location is -1,200ft below sea-surface (Figure 1). 

The seafloor deepens to the ENE at 1.9°.

3.2 Seafloor Morphology and Man Made Features

The proposed EW833-B well location is located in the southeast quadrant of Block EW833. 

The seabed is slightly rugose at the proposed well location (Figure 2). The seabed within 

2,000ft appears to be slightly rugose with minor faults to the south and southeast. The nearest

fault is ~1,200ft from the proposed well location to the south; none of these faults are expected 

to affect drilling of the proposed well at the seabed. There is no evidence to support any 

catastrophic soil failure in the vicinity of the proposed well location, and the seabed is predicted 

to be stable. Seabed sediments are clay-prone. Shallow sediments appear conducive for 

jetting of seabed casing with no hard layers predicted.

There are no anomalous seabed amplitudes indicative of hydrocarbon macroseep observed 

within a 2,000ft radius of the proposed location (Figure 3).

There are two existing and one proposed pipeline plus two umbilicals oriented approximately 

north to south, located to the east of the proposed wellsite as tabulated below:

Pipeline Installations

Operator Segment Area Block -

Origin/Termination

Outside 

Diameter (in)

Product Status

Walter Oil & 

Gas

14154 GI115 / MC837 1 inch Umbilical

(Hydraulic)

Out of Service

Walter Oil & 

Gas

13133 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Gas Combined

Walter Oil & 

Gas

13134 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Oil Combined

Walter Oil & 

Gas

17411 GI115 / EW878 2.5 inch Umbilical 

(Elec / Hyd)

Out of Service

Walter Oil & 

Gas

18613 EW878 / GI115 4 inch Bulk Oil Proposed

The closest approach to the proposed site is 3,467ft ENE of the proposed well location. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

33

4. SUBSEABED GEOLOGY

4.1 Geology and Lithology

The sub-seabed geology has been divided into five units separated by five horizons: Units A, 

B, C, D and E, and Horizons H10, H20, H30 H40 and H50 (Figures 4 through 7).

4.2 Unit A

Lithology in this upper unit is interpreted as well-layered clay-prone and silt sediments. 

Generally, seabed sediments and shallow soils are expected to be good for jetting of the 

seabed casing with no hard-grounds predicted.

No shallow gas hazards or shallow water flow risks are predicted in Unit A.

Horizon H10 marks the base of Unit A at -1,558ft below sea-surface (358ft below seabed).

4.3 Unit B

This unit is interpreted to be a well-layered, clay-prone sequence with isolated coarser-grained 

interbeds and lenses in the upper interval from -1,558ft to -2,070ft below sea surface (358ft to 

870ft below seabed). A sand interbed interpreted to be between 15ft and 40ft thick is located

at -2,032ft below sea surface (832ft below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation and wellbore 

instability may be experienced at the interbed. This sand is possibly connected to an 

amplitude anomaly considered a slight risk of gas located ~40ft southeast of the wellbore. 

Therefore, a Slight Risk of Gas is assigned to this sand interbed.

The lower interval of Unit B is interpreted to consist of mass transport clays and silts with 

possible fine sands. Minor fine sands within this interval could be the source of minor shallow 

water flow. Low volume shallow water flow has been recorded in this depth range to the 

southeast, in Ewing Bank, Blocks 1005 & 1006. Therefore, a Slight Shallow Water Flow 

Risk is assigned to Unit B throughout the lower interval from -2,070ft to -2,313ft below sea 

surface (870ft to 1,113ft below seabed) at the proposed well location.

The base of this unit is marked by an erosional surface and a predicted lithology change. 

Horizon H20 represents this interface at -2,313ft below sea surface (1,113ft below seabed).

4.4 Unit C

Lithology within this unit is expected to comprise of clays and silts from -2,313ft to -2,671ft 

below sea surface (1,113ft to 1,471ft seabed)
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

34

A vertical well will intersect a normal fault within Unit C at -2,536ft below sea surface (1,336ft 

below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation problems may occur if pressures over hydrostatic 

are exerted by the drilling fluid column.

No shallow gas hazards or shallow water flow risks are predicted in Unit C at the proposed well 

location. Occasional minor anomalies occur within the 2000ft radius, but none are connected 

to the proposed well location.

The base of this unit is marked by Horizon H30, which represents a boundary between lowamplitude reflectors at the base of Unit C, and higher-amplitude reflectors at the top of 

underlying Unit D. Horizon H30 is located at -2,671ft below sea surface (1,471ft below 

seabed).

4.5 Unit D

This unit is interpreted to comprise of clay and silt sediments with frequent sandy interbeds

that could potentially be prone to shallow water flow from -2,671ft to -3,495ft below sea surface 

(1,471ft to 2,295ft below seabed).

A vertical well will intersect a normal fault within Unit D at -3,147ft below sea surface (1,947ft 

below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation problems may occur if pressures over hydrostatic 

are exerted by the drilling fluid column.

This unit was deposited rapidly with inadequate de-watering time and is encapsulated by 

impermeable clays and silts; therefore, it is considered a Moderate Shallow Water Flow 

Risk. Faulting at the location of the well has offset much of the connectivity that these 

sands once possessed, and there are no high amplitudes present; however, there is still 

the possibility that small pockets of trapped gas may be present throughout this unit. As 

such, Unit D is also assigned a Sight Risk of Gas.

The base of this unit is marked by an erosional surface and a predicted lithology change at

Horizon H40 at -3,495ft below sea surface (2,295ft below seabed).

4.6 Unit E

This unit is interpreted to be composed of clay and silt sediments with occasional coarsergrained interbeds and lenses. The possibility of minor sandy interbeds and lenses leads to 

a Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk throughout Unit E from -3,495ft to -4,317ft below sea 

surface (2,295ft to 3,117ft below seabed).

Horizon H50 marks the base of Unit D. At the well location Horizon H50 is also the location of 

a normal fault, and the base of this shallow hazards study. Horizon H50 and the fault both 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

35

occur at -4,317ft below sea surface (3,117ft below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation 

problems may occur if pressures over hydrostatic are exerted by the drilling fluid column.

4.7 Shallow Gas Assessment

A 15ft to 40ft thick sand interbed in Unit B at -2,032ft below sea surface (832ft below seabed) 

is assigned a Slight Risk of Gas.

Sandy interbeds throughout Unit D, between -2,671ft and -3,495ft below sea surface (1,471ft 

to 2,295ft below seabed), are considered a Slight Gas Risk.

4.8 Shallow Water Flow Assessment

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is predicted in the lower interval of Unit B between -2,070ft 

and -2,313ft below sea surface (870ft to 1,113ft below seabed).

A Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit D between -2,671ft and -3,495ft 

below sea surface (1,471ft to 2,295ft below seabed).

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit E at the proposed well location from 

-3,495ft to -4,317ft below sea surface (2,295ft to 3,117ft below seabed).
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

36

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Seabed

No significant problems are anticipated at seabed.

• Unit A

No hazards or problems predicted. Shallow soils are expected to be conducive to jetting of 

seabed casing with no hardgrounds predicted.

• Unit B

A sand interbed between 15ft and 40ft thick is predicted to occur at -2,032ft below sea surface 

(832ft below seabed). Minor drilling fluid circulation and wellbore stability problems are possible 

through this interbed. This sand is also assigned a Slight Risk of Gas, Drilling Caution is 

advised through this sand.

Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is predicted in the lower interval of Unit B between -2,070ft 

and -2,313ft below sea surface (870ft to 1,113ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is advised. 

Appropriate drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent shallow 

water flow event throughout this interval.

• Unit C

Minor drilling fluid circulation problems are possible if pressures over hydrostatic are exerted by 

the drilling fluid column at the level of a normal fault at -2,536ft below sea surface (1,336ft below 

seabed). Casing seats should avoid this level as formation integrity could be compromised.

• Unit D

Minor drilling fluid circulation problems are possible if pressures over hydrostatic are exerted by 

the drilling fluid column at the level of a normal fault at -3,147ft below sea surface (1,947ft below 

seabed). Casing seats should avoid this level as formation integrity could be compromised.

A Slight Risk of Gas is predicted throughout Unit D at the proposed well location between

-2,671ft and -3,495ft below sea surface (1,471ft to 2,295ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is 

advised through Unit D.

A Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit D between -2,671ft and -3,495ft 

below sea surface (1,471ft to 2,295ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is advised. Appropriate 

drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent shallow water flow 

event throughout this interval.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

37

Unit E

A Slight Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned to Unit E at the proposed well location between 

-3,495ft and -4,317ft below sea surface (2,295ft to 3,117ft below seabed). Drilling Caution is 

advised. Appropriate drilling methodology is recommended to deal with a minor non-persistent 

shallow water flow event through this interval.

Minor drilling fluid circulation problems are possible if pressures over hydrostatic are exerted by 

the drilling fluid column at the level of a normal fault at -4,317ft below sea surface (3,117ft below 

seabed) which is also the location of Horizon H50. Casing seats should avoid this level as 

formation integrity could be compromised.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Gardline Report 7071

Well Clearance Letter - Ewing Bank, Block 833 - Proposed A & B Well Locations

38

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and look forward to continuing as your 

geohazards consultants. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further 

assistance.

Sincerely,

Andrew Haigh Matilde DeLeon

Geophysical Manager Quality Assurance

Copies Submitted: 6 copies to Mr. Pete Hetherington at Walter Oil & Gas Company

Attachments:

Proposed EW833-B Well Location

Seabed Depth Extract

Seabed Morphology Extract

Seabed Amplitude Extract

Geohazard Summary Extract

Inline Data Example

Crossline Data Example

Top Hole Prognosis

ROV Plat

Power Spectrum

Bathymetry Plat

Public Information Plat

Proprietary Information Plat

Vicinity Map

10-Mile Radius Plat
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-B Well

89°59'30"W90°0'0"W90°0'30"W

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,604,0002,606,0002,608,0002,610,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Depth Extract

Figure 1

(EW833-B)

±

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3® 3

3

3

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Depth in feet below sea surface

to seabed, contoured at 25 ft intervals.

-1200

Seabed Depth (Feet)

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-B Well

89°59'30"W90°0'0"W90°0'30"W

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,604,0002,606,0002,608,0002,610,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Morpholgy Extract

Figure 2

(EW833-B)

±

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Possible fluid macro seep

at seabed favorable for

potential development of

sensitive sessile benthic

communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote

down throw side

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Block Line

250ft exclusion zone

around sensitive sessile

benthic communities

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-B Well

89°59'30"W90°0'0"W90°0'30"W

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,604,0002,606,0002,608,0002,610,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Seabed Amplitude Extract

Figure 3

(EW833-B)

±

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Relative Seabed Amplitude

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Pipelines
3® 3

3

3

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW833-B Well

89°59'30"W90°0'0"W90°0'30"W

28°8'0"N

28°7'30"N

2,604,0002,606,0002,608,0002,610,000

10,218,000

10,220,000

10,222,000

Chart Scale 1''=1,000ft

Geohazard Summary Extract

Figure 4

(EW833-B)

±

0 400 800 1,600 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

2,000ft Radius

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Possible fluid macro seep

at seabed favorable for

potential development of

sensitive sessile benthic

communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote

down throw side

250ft exclusion zone around

sensitive sessile benthic

communities

Slight Risk of Gas

within Unit B

Moderate Risk of Gas

within Unit C

Moderate to High Risk

of Gas within Unit D

High Risk of Gas

within Unit E

Proposed EW 833- A Well Location

2,610,531 ft E/10,221,140 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Proposed EW 833- B Well Location

2,607,660 ft E/10,220,000 ft N

3® 3

3

3

Block Line

Slight to locally Moderate

Risk of Gas within Unit A

Pipelines

Walter O&G 1" Umbilical (17310)

Walter O&G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter O&G 2" Umbilical (17411)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)




Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page D-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX D 

HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION 

(A) CONCENTRATION 

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

(B) CLASSIFICATION 

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), Walter requests that Ewing Bank Block 833 be 

classified by the BOEM as H2S absent. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page E-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX E 

BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION 

(A) DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES 

Included as Attachment E-1 are maps prepared using 3-D seismic data depicting seafloor and 

shallow geological features and areas, and the surface locations of the proposed wells with a 

radius circle of 2,000 feet around each well. Also included on the map is the maximum anchor 

radius for each well, plus the additional 1,000 foot buffer area beyond the proposed maximum 

anchor radius. 

ANALYSIS 

Features or sites that could support high density sensitive sessile benthic communities are not 

located within 2,000 feet of any mud and cuttings discharge locations. 

Features or sites that could support high density sensitive sessile benthic communities are not 

located within 250 feet of any proposed anchors and associated equipment. 

(B) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES MAP 

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

activity zone”. 

(C) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) 

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

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

(D) LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND) MAP 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; 

therefore a separate bathymetric map is not required. 

(E) LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) STIPULATION 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located within 100 feet of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical 

relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required. 

 (F) POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive 

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

(G) REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE (ROV) SURVEYS 

BOEM has determined that there is enough ROV data gathered in Grid Area 12, 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. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page E-2 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

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

2008-G04, lessees/operators are required to address site-specific information on the presence of 

federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat designated under the ESA 

and marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area 

of proposes activities under this plan. 

There are five species of sea turtles that may be found in the Gulf of Mexic (see table below), 

NOAA fisheries currently lists all five of these turtles as endangered (E) or threatened (T). 

Species Scientific Name Status 

Potential Presence 

Critical Habitat Designated 

in the Gulf of Mexico Lease Area Coastal 

Sea Turtles 

Loggerhead Turtle Carettsa Caretta T x x None 

Green Turtle Chelonia mydas T,E x x None

Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys corlacea E x x None

Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E x x None

Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempli E x x None

(I) ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 

An Archaeological Survey Report has been prepared in accordance with NTL 2005-G07 

"Archaeological Surveys and Reports" and is being submitted under separate cover. 

(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. 
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982) Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-A LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED DEPTH - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-A)

CHART 13

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Seabed Depth (Feet)

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.13

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR KB ARH

Not to scale

Block boundaries

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

Depth in feet below sea surface to 

seabed, contoured at 25ft intervals.

-1310

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

2000ft Radius

4,900ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone

Buffer zone
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982)

2,000ft Radius

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-A LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED MORPHOLOGY - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-A)

CHART 14

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.14

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR KB ARH

Not to scale

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

Possible fluid macro seep at seabed 

favorable for potential development 

of sensitive sessile benthic communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote down throw 

side

Illuminated from the northwest at 45° above horizontal

250ft exclusion zone around sensitive 

sessile benthic communities 

4,900ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Block boundaries

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

Buffer zone
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982)

2,000ft Radius

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-A LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED AMPLITUDE - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-A)

CHART 15

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

Relative Seabed Amplitude 

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.15

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR KB ARH

Not to scale

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

Seabed amplitude derived from positive value of seabed pick 

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Block boundaries

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

Buffer zone

4,900ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982) Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-B LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED DEPTH - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-B)

CHART 16

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

Seabed Depth (Feet)

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.16

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR VC ARH

Not to scale

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

-1200

2,000ft Radius

2000ft Radius

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Block boundaries

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

Buffer zone

Depth in feet below sea surface to 

seabed, contoured at 25ft intervals.

4,100ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982) Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-B LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED MORPHOLOGY - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-B)

CHART 17

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.17

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR KB ARH

Not to scale

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

Possible fluid macro seep at seabed 

favorable for potential development 

of sensitive sessile benthic 

communities

Seabed faults, ticks denote down 

throw side

Illuminated from the northwest at 45° above horizontal

250ft exclusion zone around sensitive 

sessile benthic communities 

2000ft Radius

4,100ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Block boundaries

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

Buffer zone
6

6

EWING BANK BLOCK 834 (OCS-G27982) Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G33706)

Walter O & G 2" UMB (17411)

Southwest Pass

Safety Fairway

Walter O & G 2" Lift (17313)

Walter 1" UMB (14154)

Walter 4" BULK GAS (13133)

Proposed Walter 4" BULKOIL (18613)

Eni Pet U

S 12" ak (1145

8)

Williams EN

8" Gas (11457)

Proposed EW833-A Well

Proposed EW833-B Well

EW834-2

EW834-1

2,600,0002,605,0002,610,0002,615,0002,620,000

10,215,000

10,220,000

10,225,000

10,230,000

90°2'0"W90°1'0"W90°0'0"W89°59'0"W89°58'0"W89°57'0"W

28°9'0"N

28°8'0"N

28°7'0"N

Lund

Lloyd Ridge

Green Canyon Atwater Valley Garden Banks

De Soto Canyon

Henderson

Destin Dome

Mississippi Canyon

Walker Ridge

East Breaks

Keathley Canyon

T e x a s L o u i s i a n a F l o r i d a

Study Area

LEGEND

Chart scale 1" = 1,000'

3D GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

EWING BANK

BLOCK 833

PROPOSED EW833-B LOCATION

GEODETIC INFORMATION

Data Parameters

Datum Name

Ellipsoid

Semi-major Axis

Reciprocal Flattening

NAD27

NAD27

6378206.40

294.98

Projection Method

False Northing

False Easting

Latitude of Origin

Longitude of Origin

Standard Parallel

Scale Factor

Transverse Mercator

0.00

1640416.67

0 North

-93.0

15 North

-0.9996

SEABED AMPLITUDE - ANCHOR RADIUS (PROPOSED EW833-B)

CHART 18

0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet

0 150 300 600 900 Meters

Relative Seabed Amplitude 

REV DATE REMARKS AUTHOR DRAWN CHECKED

SURVEY DATE N/A REPORT REF 7071 CHART NO 7071.18

0 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 FINAL JR KB ARH

Not to scale

±

Prepared by: Gardline Surveys, Inc. 1500 Bingle Road, Houston, Texas, 77055. Telephone: 713.481.4630

Notes

Map Projection Parameters

Seabed amplitude derived from positive value of seabed pick 

2000ft Radius

4,100ft Maximum Anchor Radius

1,000ft Buffer Zone

Proposed EW 833- A well location 3® 3

2,610,531ft E/10,221,140ft N

3

3

Block boundaries

6 Existing Well

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Pipelines 

Study area boundary

Proposed EW 833- B well location 3® 3

2,607,660ft E/10,220,000ft N

3

3

Safety fairways 

Buffer zone
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page F-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX F 

WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION 

(A) PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES 

 “Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the GOM” is 

included in this section as Attachment F-1 

 
please specify: Per well amount

Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges 

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Discharge rate Discharge Method Answer yes or no

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

EXAMPLE: Cuttings wetted with synthetic 

based fluid 

Cuttings generated while 

using synthetic based X bbl/well X bbl/day/well discharge overboard No

Water-based drilling fluid

Water based drilling fluids 7,500 bbls/well 250 bbls /day/well Seafloor before installation of marine riser No

Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid

Cuttings generated 

while using water 

based drilling fluids 3,400 bbls/well 160 bbls/day/well Seafloor before installation of marine riser No

Synthetic based drilling fluids NA NA NA NA No

Drill cuttings generated while using synthetic based drilling fluids

Cuttings generated while using synthetic based drilling fluids 4300 bbls/well 

33 bbls/day/well (assume 131 days to drill based on 150' per day)

Treated cuttings will be discharged overoard while drilling SBM interval. Cuttings will pass through cuttings dryer to reduce ROC percentage in compliance with EPA and then shunt through downpipe below water line. No

Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste

Sanitary waste from 

ATTACHMENT F-1

WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE GOM

Projected 

Downhole 

Disposal

EXAMPLE: Sanitary waste water living quarters X bbl/well X bbl/hr/well chlorinate and discharge overboard No

Domestic waste Gray Water 13,000 bbls/total 100 bbls/well/day Treated and discharged overboard NoSanitary waste

Human body treat waste discharged from toilets 6,500 bbls total 50 bbls/well/day

USCG approved DNV Class approved treatment tank and discharged No

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

Deck Drainage

Rain water and rig wash 46,800 bbls total

15 bbls/hr /dependent on rainfall

Oily water is treated in one of four (4) separators and discharged through Portside caisson (cuttings chute) below sea level No

Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover? 

Well treatment fluids

Viscous and csg wash 

spacers using HEC and 

small amounts sodium 200 bbls/well 50 bbls/well/day discharge overboard No

Well completion fluids Calcium Chloride 500 bbls/well 50 bbls/well/day discharge overboard NoWorkover fluids NA NA NA NA No

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

Desalinization unit discharge NA NA NA NA No

Blowout prevent fluid NA NA NA NA NoBallast water NA NA NA NA NoBilge water NA NA NA NA NoExcess cement at seafloor NA NA NA NA NoFire water NA NA NA NA NoCooling water NA NA NA NA No

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

Produced water NA NA NA NA NA

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. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page G-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX G 

AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION 

(A) EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS 

 Screen Procedures for EP’s Yes No 

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

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

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

(where D = distance to shore in miles)? 

x 

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified 

emission factors? 

x 

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

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

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

proposed well? 

x 

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? x 

Enclosed as Attachment G-1 are the emissions worksheets prepared in accordance with 30 CFR 

250.303(d). 

This information was calculated by: Judy.Davidson

 (281) 578-3388 

 judy.davidson@jccteam.com
EXPLORATION PLAN (EP)

AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST

OMB 

COMPANY Walter Oil & Gas CorporationAREA Ewing Bank

BLOCK 833LEASE G-33706PLATFORMWELL A,B

COMPANY CONTACT Judy DavidsonTELEPHONE NO. 281-578-3388REMARKS Drill and complete 2 wells

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 1 of 8
EMISSIONS FACTORS

Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine RE

SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3

Equipment/Emission Factors units PM SOx NOx VOC CO RENG Turbines gms/hp-hr 0.00247 1.3 0.01 0.83 AP42 3.2-NG 2-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10.9 0.43 1.5 AP42 3NG 4-cycle lean gms/hp-hr 0.00185 11.8 0.72 1.6 AP42 3NG 4-cycle rich gms/hp-hr 0.00185 10 0.14 8.6 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 1.468 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3

Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 1.468 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 2.42 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3NG Heaters/Boilers/Burners lbs/mmscf 7.6 0.593 100 5.5 84 P42 1.4-1, 1NG Flares lbs/mmscf 0.593 71.4 60.3 388.5 AP42 1Liquid Flaring lbs/bbl 0.42 6.83 2 0.01 0.21 AP42 1.3-Tank Vapors lbs/bbl 0.03 E&P FFugitives lbs/hr/comp. 0.0005 API SGlycol Dehydrator Vent lbs/mmscf 6.6 La. DGas Venting lbs/scf 0.0034

Sulphur Content Source Value Units

Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm

Diesel Fuel 0.4 % weight

Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm

Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weight

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 2 of 8
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Walter Oil & Gas Corpora Ewing Bank 833 G-33706 0 A,B Judy Davidson 281-578-3388 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

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 

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24 61 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 13.62 

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 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 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 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 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

4 trips/week VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 2500 120.75 2898.00 6 35 1.76 8.08 60.57 1.82 13.22 0.19 2 trips/week VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 3000 144.9 3477.60 8 17 2.11 9.70 72.69 2.18 15.86 0.14 

VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 4000 193.2 4636.80 24 2 2.82 12.93 96.92 2.91 21.15 0.07 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 4000 193.2 4636.80 24 2 2.82 12.93 96.92 2.91 21.15 0.07 

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 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 

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 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 

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

DRILLING OIL BURN 0 0 0 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 

2013 YEAR TOTAL 28.12 129.02 966.74 29.00 210.93 14.09 

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2161.17 

64.9

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 3 of 8
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Walter Oil & Gas CorporaEwing Bank 833 G-33706 0 A,B Judy Davidson 281-578-3388 

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR 

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 S

DRILLING PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 26400 1275.12 30602.88 24.00 185.00 18.61 85.36 639.65 19.19 139.56 41.31 18

PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

4 trips/week VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 6 123 2952.00 6.00 106.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.00 02 trips/week VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 8 61 1464.00 8.00 53.00 0.01 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.00 0

VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 24 2 48.00 24.00 2.00 0.02 0.08 0.58 0.02 0.13 0.00 0

VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 24 2 48.00 24.00 2.00 0.02 0.08 0.58 0.02 0.13 0.00 0

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNTTANK- 0 0 0 0.00 

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

2014 YEAR TOTAL 18.65 85.56 641.15 19.23 139.89 41.31 18

EXEMPTION 

CALCULATION

DISTANCE FROM LAND IN 

MILES 2161.17 21

64.9

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 4 of 8
SUMMARY

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELLWalter Oil & GasEwing Bank 833 G-33706 0 A,B

Emitted Substance

Year

 PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2013 14.09 64.62 484.18 14.53 105.642014 41.31 189.52 1420.13 42.60 309.85

Allowable 2161.17 2161.17 2161.17 2161.17 54908.81

FORM BOEM-0138 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX H 

OIL SPILLS INFORMATION 

(A) OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING 

All the proposed activities and facilities in the Exploration Plan will be covered by Walter Oil & 

Gas Corporation's (Company Number 0730) last approved Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) 

dated July, 2011 and last approved on August 3, 2012 (OSRP Control Number 0-370) and 

modification to that plan approved April 19, 2013. The WCD was accepted and approved in 

Plan Control Number S-7359. 

(B) SPILL RESPONSE SITES 

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location 

Houma, LA. Houma, LA. 

Harvey, LA. Harvey, LA. 

Venice, LA. Venice, LA. 

(C) OSRO INFORMATION 

Walter’s primary equipment provider is Clean Gulf Associates (CGA). CGA will also provide 

closest available personnel, as well as CGA supervisor to operate the equipment. 

(D) WORST-CASE SCENARIO COMPARISON 

Category Regional OSRP 

WCD 

EP 

WCD 

Type of Activity Drilling Drilling 

Facility Location 

(Area/Block) EW 834 EW 833 

Facility Designation A A 

Distance to Nearest 

Shoreline (miles) 64 64.9 

Volume 

 Storage Tanks (Total) 

Uncontrolled blowout 

Total Volume 

169,488 bbls 

169,488 bbls 

109,474 bbls 

109,474 bbls 

Type of Oil(s) 

(crude, condensate, diesel) Crude Oil Oil 

API Gravity 240 230

Walter has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP do not 

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

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page H-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page H-2 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Since Walter has the capability to respond to the worst-case spill scenario included in our 

Regional OSRP approved on August 3, 2012, and since the worst-case scenario determined for 

our EP does not replace the worst-case scenario in our Regional OSRP, Walter hereby certifies 

that Walter has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case 

discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our 

EP. 

(E) SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION FOR NEPA ANALYSIS 

Included as Attachment H-1 is a Spill Response Discussion prepared for Ewing Bank Block 833. 
Attachment H-1 

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 109,474 barrels of crude oil with an API gravity of 23°. 

Land Segment and Resource Identification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

including several rare, threatened and endangered species. 

Response

Walter will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as 

practicable. A description of the response equipment under contract to contain and recover the 

Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2.

Using the estimated chemical and physical characteristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering 

model was run on a similar product from the ADIOS oil database. The results indicate 5% or 

approximately 5,474 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with 

approximately 104,000 barrels remaining. 

Spill Response EW 833, Well A Barrels of Oil 

WCD Volume 109,474 

Less 5% natural evaporation/dispersion 5,474 

Remaining volume 104,000 

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

storage equipment available to respond to a spill of approximately 104,000 barrels. The volume 

accounts for the amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates 

individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure 

2 also indicates how operations will be supported. 

Walter’s Oil Spill Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants 

and in-situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified Command based on the size of the spill, 
weather and potential impacts. If aerial dispersants are utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from 

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

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

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

may be attempted. 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 (FRUs), two Aqua Guard Triton RBS skimmers, and 

eleven sets of Koseq Skimming Arms, with a total derated skimming capacity of 277,378 barrels. 

Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 27,700 barrels. If additional 

storage is needed, three 23,000 barrel storage barges, one 25,000 barrel storage barge, one 

47,000 barrel storage barge, and one 115,183 barrel storage barge may be mobilized and 

centrally located to provide temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of 

operations as much as possible. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished 

and operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming attempts. 

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Cameron Parish, Louisiana would depend upon 

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

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

Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 765 barrels. If additional storage 

is needed, three 20,000 barrel storage barges may be mobilized and centrally located to provide 

temporary storage allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operations as much as possible. 

Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection 

and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. A Master Service Agreement with OMI Environmental 

will ensure access to 30,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom. Figure 2 outlines individual 

times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would 

be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given 

actual sea and weather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for 

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

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

protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protection response modes applicable for oil 

spill clean-up operations. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan provides detailed 

shoreline protection strategies for this area, and it describes necessary action to keep the oil spill 

from entering Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, based on the assumption that removal of the released 

oil will be much easier and less damaging to fragile coastal ecosystems if done in the open 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment 

and operation of equipment allowing a more effective response to site-specific circumstances. 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of 

Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan. 

Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, Walter 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 

76 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)). 
Initial Response Considerations 

Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors which include but 

are not limited to: 

• Weather 

• Equipment and materials availability 

• Ocean currents and tides 

• Location of the spill 

• Product spilled 

• Amount spilled 

• Environmental risk assessments 

• Trajectory and product analysis 

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

Walter will take action to provide a safe, aggressive response to contain and recover as much of 

the spilled oil as quickly as it is safe to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response 

actions will be designed to provide an “in-depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much 

oil as possible as far from environmentally sensitive areas as possible. Safety will take 

precedence over all other considerations during these operations. 

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

• Information will be confirmed 

• An assessment will be made and initial objectives set 

• OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified 

• ICS 201, Initial Report Form will be completed 

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published 

• Unified Command will be established 

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

objectives 

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

site 

o On-site command and control established 

Offshore Response Actions 

Equipment Deployment

Surveillance 

• Surveillance Aircraft will be deployed within two hours of Qualified Individual (QI) 

notification, or at first light

• Provide trained observer to provide on site status reports 

• Provide command and control platform at the site if needed 

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

and visual confirmation 

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems 
Dispersant application assets 

• Put Airborne Support Inc. (ASI) on standby 

• With the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), conduct analysis to determine 

appropriateness of dispersant application 

• Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface 

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

• Coordinate movement of dispersants, aircraft, and support equipment and personnel 

• Confirm dispersant availability for current and long range operations 

• Start ordering dispersant stocks required for expected operations 

Containment boom 

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

• Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom 

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

their most effective containment 

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

Dedicated off-shore skimming systems 

General 

• Deployed to the highest concentration of oil 

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

CGA HOSS Barge 

• Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations 

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

CGA FRUs 

• To the area of the thickest oil 

• Use as far off-shore as allowed 

• VOOs 140’ – 180’ in length 

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

T&T Koseq Skimming Systems 

• To the area of the thickest oil 

• Use as far off-shore as allowed 

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

• VOOs at least 200’ in length 

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

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets 

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

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

systems 

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

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) 

• Use Walter’s contracted resources as applicable 

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

Systems (VOSS) 

• Acquire additional resources as needed 

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required 

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections 

In-situ Burn assets 

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

affected State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC) 

• Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems 

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations 

• Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required 

• Determine assets to perform on water operation 

• Build operations into safety plan 

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan 
Near Shore Response Actions 

Timing 

• Place near shore assets on standby and deploy in accordance with planning based on the 

actual situation, actual trajectories and oil budgets 

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

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions 

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil 

Considerations 

• Water depth, vessel draft 

• Shoreline gradient 

• State of the oil 

• Use of VOOs 

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline 

Equipment Deployment 

Surveillance 

• Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations 

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

and visual confirmation 

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets 

Dispersant Use 

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

water depth 

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

Vessel Deployment 

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems 

• Fast Response Vessels (FRV) 

• Egmopol and Marco Shallow Water Skimmer (SWS) 

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks 

VOO 

• Use Walter’s contracted resources as applicable 

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

Systems (VOSS) 

• Acquire additional resources as needed 

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

• Expect mission specific and safety training to be required 

• Plan with the US Coast Guard for vessel inspections 

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches 
Shoreline Protection Operations 

Response Planning Considerations 

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

• Time to acquire personnel and equipment and their availability 

• Previous contingency planning contained in the appropriate Area Contingency Plan, and 

currently for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep 

Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010 

Actions 

Placement of boom 

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

appropriate ACP 

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

impact. Consider: 

o Trajectories 

o Weather forecast 

o Oil Impact forecast 

o Verified spill movement 

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability 

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

Beach Preparation 

Considerations and Actions 

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

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations 

• Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter 

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

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

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

possible to maximize on-site work time 

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

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

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

• Passive clean up of marshes should be considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom 

and/or sweep obtained 

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

inland areas 
Decanting Strategy 

Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a 

quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or 

decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases 

the effective on-site oil storage capacity and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval 

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

recovery. 

CGA Equipment Limitations 

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

operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in relation to the capabilities of the vessel 

the system in placed on. Most importantly, however, the decision to operate will be based on the 

judgment of the Unified Command and/or the Captain of the vessel, who will ultimately have the 

final say in terminating operations. Skimming equipment listed below may have operational 

limits which exceed those safety thresholds. As was seen in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil 

spill response, vessel skimming operations ceased when seas reached 5-6 feet and vessels were 

often recalled to port when those conditions were exceeded. Systems below are some of the 

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

Boom 3 foot seas, 20 knot winds 

Dispersants Winds more than 25 knots 

Visibility less than 3 nautical miles 

Ceiling less than 1,000 feet. 

FRU 8 foot seas 

HOSS Barge/OSRB 8 foot seas 

Koseq Arms 8 foot seas 

OSRV 4 foot seas 
Environmental Conditions in the GOM

Louisiana is situated between the easterly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences 

westerly winds during the winter and easterly winds in the summer. Average wind speed is 

generally 14-15 mph along the coast. Wave heights average 4 and 5 feet. However, during 

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

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

flooding is prominent. 

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

winter, the average temperature will range from 50 and 60 ̊F. 

The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 November. 

97% of all tropical activity occurs within this window. The Atlantic basin shows a very peaked 

season from August through October, with 78% of the tropical storm days, 87% of the minor 

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

categories 3, 4 and 5) hurricane days occurring then. Maximum activity is in early to mid 

September. Once in a few years there may be a hurricane occurring "out of season" - primarily in 

May or December. Globally, September is the most active month and May is the least active 

month. 
FIGURE 1 

TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT 

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

utilizing Walter’s WCD and information in the BSEE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model 

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

using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below. 

Area/Block OCS-G Launch 

Area 

Land Segment and/or 

Resource 

Conditional 

Probability (%) 

within 30 days 

Drill and complete 2 

wells 

EW 833, Well A 

64.7 miles from shore 

G33706 C42 Matagorda County, TX 

Galveston County, TX 

Jefferson County, TX 

Cameron Parish, LA 

Vermilion Parish, LA 

Iberia Parish, LA 

Terrebonne Parish, LA 

Lafourche Parish, LA 

Jefferson Parish, LA 

Plaquemines Parish, LA 

1 

2 

2 

7 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

5 
WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (64.7 miles from s

104,000 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering) API Gravity 23° 

FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to EW 833, Well A 

Dispersants/Surveillance 

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

site 

CGA 

Basler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.6 

ASI 

DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 DC 3 1200 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.6 

Offshore Response

Offshore Equipment No Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Hrs to GOM 

CGA 

HOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 5 Harvey 7 0 5 

T&T Marine (available through contract with CGA)

Koseq Skimming Arms (5) 89145 10000 5 Utility 30 Galveston 24 24 1 Koseq Skimming Arms (3) 53487 6000 3 Utility 18 Leeville 24 24 2 Koseq Skimming Arms (1) 17829 2000 1 Utility 6 Fourchon 24 24 1 Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 35658 4000 2 Utility 12 Venice 24 24 2 

Recovered Oil Storage No 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Hrs to GOM 

K-Sea Operating (available through contract with CGA)

DBL 105 653463 NA 115183 1 Tug 6 Venice 4 12 2 

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 
Staging Area: Venice

Offshore Equipment With 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Travel to Staging 

CGA 

FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 8 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (1) 4251 100 1 Utility 6 Harvey 1 2 1.75 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Ingleside 1 2 11 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 5.5 FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Leeville 1 2 3.5 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Morgan City 1 2 3.25 FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice 1 2 0 

Offshore Equipment With 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Travel to Staging 

CGA 

42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Galveston 1 2 8 42” Auto Boom (10000’) NA NA 20 Crew 40 Harvey 1 2 1.75 42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Ingleside 1 2 11 42” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Lake Charles 1 2 5.5 42” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Pascagoula 1 2 4 Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey (HFB) 1 4 1.75 
Nearshore Response

Nearshore Equipment No 

Staging EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Required From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Hrs to GOM 

CGA

46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Galveston 1 0 0 46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Leeville 1 0 2 46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 1 0 1 46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Morgan City 1 2 2 

Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA)

CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 12 4 

Staging Area: Cameron

Nearshore and Inland 

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

Deploy

CGA 

SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Morgan City 1 2 3 2 SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 1 2 4.75 2 Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Harvey 1 2 3.5 2 
Shoreline Protection 

Staging Area: Cameron 

Shoreline Protection 

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

OMI Environmental (available through MSA) 

10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 2.5 2 10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 2.5 2 10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 1.25 2 

Beach Boom EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Travel to Staging Trave

Deploy

CGA 

Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 Beach Boom (1000’) NA NA NA 4 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 

Wildlife Response EDRC Storage Capacity VOO Persons Req. From Hrs to Procure Hrs to Loadout Travel to Staging Trave

Deploy

CGA 

Wildlife Support Trailer NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 3.75 1 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 1 Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 3.75 1 Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 1 1 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 

Response Asset Total 

Offshore EDRC 277,378 

Offshore Recovered Oil Storage 283,883 

Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC 54,753 

Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage 60,765 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page I-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX I 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION 

(A) MONITORING SYSTEMS 

Daily and special updates from Wilken's Weather Service and Horizon Marine Eddie Watch for 

loop current information. 

(B) INCIDENTAL TAKES 

There is no reason to believe that any of the endangered species or marine mammals as listed in 

the ESA will be “taken” as a result of the operations proposed under this plan. 

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

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

(C) FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; 

therefore, the requested information is not required in this EP. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page J-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX J 

LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION 

Marine Protected Species

The Marine Protected Species Stipulation is meant to reduce the potential taking of marine 

protected species. Walter will operate in accordance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, to minimize 

the risk of vessel strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected 

species, and the prevention of intentional and/or accidental introduction of debris into the marine 

environment.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page K-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX K 

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION 

(A) INCIDENTAL TAKES

Walter will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to 

avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the ESA as a result of the operations 

conducted herein: 

• NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting 

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

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

Protected Species Observer Program” 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page L-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX L 

SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION 

(A) GENERAL 

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

conditions will be utilized. 

Type Maximum Fuel 

Tank Capacity 

Maximum 

Number in Area 

at Any Time 

Trip 

Frequency or 

Duration 

Tug Boats 3000 bbls 2 2 

Anchor Handling Boat 1500 bbls 2 2 

Crew Boat 500 bbls 1 4/week 

Supply Boat 500 bbls 2 2/week 

Helicopters 560 gals. 1 As needed 

(B) DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS 

Size of Fuel Supply 

Vessel 

Capacity of Fuel 

Supply Vessel 

Frequency of Fuel 

Transfers 

Route Fuel Supply 

Vessel Will Take 

180’ 1500 bbls 1 per week Shortest route from 

Shorebase to block. 

*Please note the actual vessels have not yet been contracted. 

(C) DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION 

Drilling fluid transportation is not required to be submitted with this plan. 

(D) SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION 

“Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore” is included in this section as 

Attachment L-1. 

(E) VICINITY MAP 

Enclosed as Attachment L-2 is a vicinity map showing the location of the activities proposed 

herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of the proposed activities from the shoreline and 

the primary route(s) of the support vessels and aircraft that will be used when traveling between 

the onshore support facilities and the drilling unit. 
please specify: Per well

Projected generated 

waste

Solid and Liquid 

Wastes transportation 

Type of Waste Composition Transport Method

Name/Location of Facility Amount 

Will drilling occur ? If yes, fill in the muds and cuttings.

EXAMPLE: Synthetic-based drilling fluid or mud internal olefin, ester

Below deck storage tanks on offshore support vessels

Newpark, Fourchon, Louisiana X bbl/well 

Oil-based drilling fluid or mud NA NA NA NSpent synthetic based drilling fluids and cuttings

Synthetic based drilling fluids adhering 

to drill cutting from synthetic based hole 

intervals Cutting boxes on supply boat

Newpark, Fourchon, 

Louisiana 4,000 b

Cuttings wetted with Water-based fluid NA NA NA NCuttings wetted with Synthetic-based fluid NA NA NA NCuttings wetted with oil-based fluids NA NA NA NCompletion Fluids NA NA NA NCompletion Wash fluids from tank cleaning. NA NA NA N

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

Produced sand NA NA NA N

Waste Dis

ATTACHMENT L-1

 WASTES YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND /OR DISPOSE OF ONSHOR

EXAMPLE: trash and debris (recylables) Plastic, paper, aluminum barged in a storage bin ARC, New Iberia, LA X lb/well Trash and debris While drilling Paper & Plastic

Garbage bags on Supply or Crew Boat

EPS Dock, Fourchon, LA

57 Bags at bag 

Used oil

Oily rags/absorbent pads, used oil filters 19 DOT Drums on Supply boat US Liquids , Fourchon, LA 7 drum

Wash water NA NA NA NChemical product wastes

While Drilling-Paint, solvents, light bulbs

Storage Bins on Supply or Crew Boat

Newpark Environmental, Cameron, LA 200 l

Trash and debris Batteries

Supply or Crew Boat 5 gallon Drum

Newpark Environmental, Cameron, LA

2-5 gallon 

w

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

Will you have additional wastes that are not permitted for discharge? If yes, fill in the appropriate rows. 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page M-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX M 

ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION 

(A) GENERAL 

Name of Shorebase Location Existing/New/Modified 

EPS Logistics Fourchon, LA Existing 

Newpark Fourchon, LA Existing 

(B) SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION 

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

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

(C) WASTE DISPOSAL 

“Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore” is included in Appendix L as 

Attachment L-1.
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Attachment N-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX N 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZMA) INFORMATION 

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

Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is enclosed as Attachment N-1. 

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX O 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) 

Initial Exploration Plan 

Ewing Bank Block 833 

OCS-G 33706

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 

Environment 

Resources 

Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) 

Categories and Examples 

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

Emissions 

(air, noise, 

light, etc.) 

Effluents 

(muds, 

cutting, other 

discharges to 

the water 

column or 

seafloor) 

Physical 

disturbances to the 

seafloor (rig or 

anchor 

emplacements, 

etc.) 

Wastes sent 

to shore for 

treatment 

or disposal 

Accidents 

(e.g., oil 

spills, 

chemical 

spills, H2S 

releases) 

Discarded 

Trash & 

Debris 

Site-specific at Offshore 

Location 

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

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

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

Benthic communities (4) 

Water quality X X X 

Fisheries X X X 

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

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

Air quality X(9) 

Shipwreck sites (known or 

potential) 

(7) 

Prehistoric archaeological sites X(7) 

Vicinity of Offshore Location 

Essential fish habitat X X X(6) 

Marine and pelagic birds X X X 

Public health and safety (5) 

Coastal and Onshore 

Beaches X(6) X 

Wetlands X(6) 

Shore birds and coastal nesting 

birds 

X(6) X 

Coastal wildlife refuges X 

Wilderness areas X 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-2 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix 

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

anchors will be on the seafloor within the: 

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

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

Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease; 

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

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

Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 

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

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 

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

Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 

4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 

5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 

6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine 

would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that 

no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 

7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the 

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

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

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

a sentence or two. 

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

turtles or their critical habitats. 

9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-3 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

(B) ANALYSIS 

Site-Specific at Ewing Bank Block 833 

Proposed operations consist of the drilling and completion of two wells. Operations will be conducted 

with a anchored semi-submersible. 

1. Designated Topographic Features 

Potential IPFs on topographic features include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and 

accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Ewing Bank Block 833 is 41 miles from the closest 

designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Diaphus Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are 

expected. 

Effluents: Ewing Bank Block 833 is 41 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features 

Stipulation Block (Diaphus Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the 

proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic 

organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water 

column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is 

found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an 

effect on corals. Because the crests of topographic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found 

below 10 m, no oil from a surface spill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not 

applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. The activities proposed in this 

plan will be covered by Walter’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

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

effluents, and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Ewing Bank Block 833 is 118 miles from the closest live 

bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Effluents: Ewing Bank Block 833 is 118 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; 

therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-4 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the 

proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills have the potential to foul 

benthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oil from a 

surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to 

a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower 

than the amount shown to have an effect on marine organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not 

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

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

Appendix H). 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed 

activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. 

3. Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms 

Potential IPFs on Eastern Gulf live bottoms include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and 

accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located in an area 

characterized by the existence of live bottoms, and this lease does not contain a Live-Bottom 

Stipulation requiring a photo documentation survey and survey report. 

Effluents: Ewing Bank Block 833 is not located in an area characterized by the existence of live 

bottoms; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. 

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the 

proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to live bottom 

organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water 

column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is 

found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an 

effect on marine invertebrates. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these 

blocks from a live bottom area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Walter’s 

Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

There are no other IPFs (including emissions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed 

activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live bottom area. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-5 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

4. Benthic Communities 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is located in water depths 984 feet (300 meters) or greater. IPFs that could 

result in impacts to benthic communities from the proposed activities include physical disturbances to 

the seafloor. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Ewing Bank Block 833 is approximately 9 miles from a 

known benthic community site (Benthic Ewing Bank Block 1010), listed in NTL 2009-G40. This 

Initial Exploration Plan submittal includes the required maps, analyses, and statement(s). The proposed 

activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL 2009-G40, which will ensure that features or 

areas that could support high-density benthic communities will not be impacted. 

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

from the proposed activities which could impact benthic communities. 

5. Water Quality 

IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Ewing Bank Block 

833 include disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Bottom area disturbances resulting from the 

emplacement of drill rigs, the drilling of wells and the installation of platforms and pipelines would 

increase water-column turbidity and re-suspension of any accumulated pollutants, such as trace metals 

and excess nutrients. This would cause short-lived impacts on water quality conditions in the 

immediate vicinity of the emplacement operations. 

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, 

discharge-rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES 

permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges 

are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality. 

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offshore water quality; however, it is unlikely that an 

accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities. Between 1980 and 

2000, OCS operations produced 4.7 billion barrels of oil and spilled only 0.001 percent of this oil, or 1 

bbl for every 81,000 bbl produced. The spill risk related to a diesel spill from drilling operations is 

even less. Between 1976 and 1985, (years for which data were collected), there were 80 reported 

diesel spills greater than one barrel associated with drilling activities. Considering that there were 

11,944 wells drilled, this is a 0.7 percent probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occur, the 

water quality of marine waters would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small 

oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water 

column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality 

from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to several months afterwards. 

Most of the components of oil are insoluble in water and therefore float. The activities proposed in this 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-6 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

plan will be covered by Walter’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in 

Appendix H). 

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

shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality. 

6. Fisheries 

IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Ewing Bank Block 

833 include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and accidents. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: The emplacement of a structure or drilling rig results in 

minimal loss of bottom trawling area to commercial fishermen. Pipelines cause gear conflicts which 

result in losses of trawls and shrimp catch, business downtime and vessel damage. Most financial 

losses from gear conflicts are covered by the Fishermen’s Contingency Fund (FCF). The emplacement 

and removal of facilities are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to fisheries. 

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components and 

properties which are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum and metal contamination of 

sediments and the water column can occur out to several hundred meters down-current from the 

discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background 

levels in the water column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to 

have negligible effect on fisheries. 

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on fisheries; 

however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the 

extent of damage would be reduced to the capacity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the spill, to 

metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. The activities 

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

Appendix H). 

There are no IPFs from emissions, or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities 

which could cause impacts to fisheries. 

7. Marine Mammals 

GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf-edge were almost 

exclusively bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Squid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy 

killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, and Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most 

frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-7 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Ewing Bank Block 833 include emissions, 

effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. 

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

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

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

and/or predation (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long-term 

displacements and population trends for marine mammals relative to noise. 

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components which may be detrimental to 

marine mammals. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential 

impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly 

through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989). 

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of debris have caused the death 

or serious injury of marine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The limited amount of marine debris, 

if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. 

Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and 

the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies 

including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Walter will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste 

items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special 

precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special 

caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, 

particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or 

glass. 

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

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Walter management 

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

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

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

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

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

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

identify the twenty-eight species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-8 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

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

protected marine mammal species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by 

their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404-3922, the NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312, or the Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (305) 862-

2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM 

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

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

network as needed. 

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil-related injuries and spill-related deaths to marine 

mammals. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities 

(refer 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 Walter’s OSRP is considered to be low when compared with the 

constituents and fractions of crude oils and diesel products. The activities proposed in this plan will be 

covered by Walter’s OSRP (refer to information submitted in accordance with Appendix H). 

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

which could impact marine mammals. 

8. Sea Turtles 

IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, 

effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. GulfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles over shelf waters. Historically these species have been 

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

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

species as a transitory habitat. 

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

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

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not known to be lethal to sea turtles. Most 

operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling 

fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the 

food chain (API, 1989). 

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of, debris have caused the death or 

serious injury of sea turtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from 

the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from 

deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-9 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Walter will operate in 

accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining 

waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as 

covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised 

when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass. 

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

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Walter management 

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

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

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

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

turtles and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a 

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

five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must 

report sightings of any injured or dead protected sea turtle species immediately, regardless of whether 

the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline 

at (888) 404-3922, the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312, or the Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network at (305) 862-2850. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with 

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

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

to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed. 

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerable to the harmful effects of oil through direct 

contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fatal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. 

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

Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which 

could add to the possibility of collisions with sea turtles. The activities proposed in this plan will be 

covered by Walter’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance 

with Appendix H). 

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

which could impact sea turtles. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-10 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

9. Air Quality 

Ewing Bank Block 833 is located 104 miles from the Breton Wilderness Area and 64.9 miles from 

shore. Applicable emissions data is included in Appendix G of the Plan. 

There would be a limited degree of air quality degradation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

activities. Plan Emissions for the proposed activities do not exceed the annual exemption levels as set 

forth by BOEM. Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause 

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

of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Ewing 

Bank Block 833 from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances 

to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which 

would impact air quality. 

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential) 

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

Ewing Bank Block 833 include disturbances to the seafloor and accidents (oil spill). Ewing Bank 

Block 833 is located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability 

for occurrence of shipwrecks. Walter will report to BOEM the discovery of any evidence of a 

shipwreck 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 which could impact shipwreck sites. 

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to shipwreck 

sites if the release were to occur subsea. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur 

from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will 

be covered by Walter’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance 

with Appendix H). 

Walter will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar 

within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of 

operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by Walter to 

be clear of seafloor archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks. Copies of the 

certifications and a circle radius plat of the survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a 

resource be encountered, Walter 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, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or 

disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shipwreck sites. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-11 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites 

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

in Ewing Bank Block 833 are physical disturbances to the seafloor and accidents (oil spills). 

Physical Disturbances to the seafloor: Ewing Bank Block 833 is located inside the Archaeological 

Prehistoric high probability lines. Walter will report to BOEM the discovery of any object of 

prehistoric archaeological significance and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that 

cultural resource. 

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to prehistoric 

archaeological sites if the release were to occur subsea. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil 

spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed 

in this plan will be covered by Walter’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information 

submitted in accordance with Appendix H). 

Walter will perform an AUV/ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar 

within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well location(s) prior to or upon commencement of 

operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by Walter to 

be clear of seafloor archaeological resources. Copies of the certifications and a circle radius plat of the 

survey area will be submitted to the BOEM. Should a resource be encountered, Walter 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) 

from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites. 

Vicinity of Offshore Location 

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Ewing Bank Block 833 

include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and 

marine waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: 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 bottom disturbing activities 

(e.g., anchoring, structure emplacement and removal). 

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, 

and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on livebottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling 

muds and cuttings and produced-water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions, and monitoring and 

toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-12 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse 

impacts to EFH. 

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil 

spills that contact coastal bays and estuaries, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs and larvae are 

present, have the greatest potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would 

occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan 

will be covered by Walter’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

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

the proposed activities which could impact essential fish habitat. 

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds 

IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, 

accidental oil spills, and discarded trash and debris from vessels and the facilities. 

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

concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds. 

Accidents: An oil spill would cause localized, low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. 

However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feeding at the spill location may experience chronic, 

nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected that few, if any, coastal and marine birds would actually 

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

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

Discarded trash and debris: Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared in 

discarded trash and debris, or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and 

death. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex 

V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various 

agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Walter will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid 

waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special 

precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special 

caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, 

particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or 

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

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-13 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from Walter management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. Debris, if any, from these 

proposed activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be 

negligible. 

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact marine and pelagic 

birds. 

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents. 

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

treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H2S releases) 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 Appendix D to justify our request that 

our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H2S absent. 

Coastal and Onshore 

1. Beaches 

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

discarded trash and debris. 

Accidents: Oil spills contacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreational beaches and 

associated resources. Due to the distance from shore (64.9 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 Walter’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the enjoyment 

and use of beaches. There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the 

proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by 

MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations 

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

Protection Agency (EPA). Walter 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. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-14 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

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

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Walter management 

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

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact beaches. 

2. Wetlands 

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

discarded trash and debris. 

Accidents: It is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, 

Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (64.9 miles) and the response capabilities that would be 

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

Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

Discarded trash and debris: There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, 

resulting from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and 

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Walter will operate in accordance with the regulations and 

also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent 

accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small 

items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally 

persistent materials such as plastic or glass. 

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

capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel 

(e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and 

will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed 

Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris 

training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Walter management 

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

in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-15 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact wetlands. 

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds 

Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds. However, it is 

unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). 

Given the distance from shore (64.9 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, 

no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Walter’s Regional 

OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 

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

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

deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution 

Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Walter will operate in 

accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining 

waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as 

covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised 

when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of nonbiodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass. 

 

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

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from Walter management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shore birds 

and coastal nesting birds. 

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges 

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

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

5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (64.9 miles) and the response capabilities that would 

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

Walter’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Appendix H). 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-16 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and 

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Walter will operate in accordance with the regulations and 

also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent 

accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small 

items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally 

persistent materials such as plastic or glass. 

 

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

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support servicesrelated personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste 

procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” 

(previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the 

marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation 

from Walter management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to coastal 

wildlife refuges. 

5. Wilderness Areas 

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

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

5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated Wilderness Area (104 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 Walter’s Regional OSRP (refer to information 

submitted in Appendix H).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as 

mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and 

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Walter will operate in accordance with the regulations and 

also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent 

accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small 

items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally 

persistent materials such as plastic or glass. 

 

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

preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-17 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

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 Walter management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their 

commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2012-G01. 

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to 

shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to wilderness 

areas. 

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified 

There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment. 

(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 

The site–specific environmental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed activities. 

No impacts are expected on the proposed activities from site-specific environmental conditions. 

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 

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

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

location in the gulf, Ewing Bank Block 833 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, 

and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations covered by 

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

exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including 

hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and 

pose a threat to local species. 

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these 

impacts: 

1. Drilling & completion 

a. Secure well 

b. Secure rig / platform 

c. Evacuate personnel 

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09, 2009-G10, and 2010-

N10 . 

2. Structure Installation 

 Operator will not conduct structure installation operations during Tropical Storm or 

 Hurricane threat. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-18 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

(E) ALTERNATIVES 

No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impacts. 

(F) MITIGATION MEASURES 

No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation will be employed to avoid, diminish, or 

eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources. 

(G) CONSULTATION 

No agencies or persons were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed 

activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided. 

(H) PREPARER(S) 

Evan Connolly 

J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 

16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 

Houston, TX 77084 

(281) 578-3388 

Evan.connolly@jccteam.com 

(I) REFERENCES 

Authors: 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water 

marine mammals: a literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp. 

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, 

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

29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429. 

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benefits from regulatory consideration of synthetic drilling 

muds. Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-43. 

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluid contaminated cuttings in 

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

June 24, 1997. 

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLM-YK-ES-81-

006-1792. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page O-19 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. 

Rogers, eds. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 

99-139. 

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

to seal bombs in the eastern tropical Pacific purse-seine fishery–an annotated bibliography. NOAA 

Administrative Report LJ-90-06. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. Annual report to Congress – 1998. 

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact 

of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387-397. 

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk-Hentzelt. 1989. Losses of seabirds by oil pollution 

at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros, J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2-3): 749-

754. 

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

Field-Naturalist. 89:278-298. 

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

• Hazard Surveys 

• BOEM EIS’s: 

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environmental Assessment. MMS 2000-001 

o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. MMS 96-0058. 
Walter Oil & Gas Corporation Page P-1 

Initial Exploration Plan May, 2013 

Ewing Bank Block 833 (OCS-G 33706)

APPENDIX P 

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 

(A) EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION 

The proposed bottom-hole locations of the planned wells have been removed from the public 

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

data, and any interpreted geology. 

(B) BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Gardline Geohazard Assessment and Well Clearance Letters.