UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - R-05105

Type - Revised Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G32509 Block - 451 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.

Subsea Wells A, B, and C

DP SEMISUBMERSIBLE

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

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

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

Karen Dunlap

Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: September 29, 2011Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.Green Canyon Block 451OCS-G-32509 #A-CRevised Initial Plan (Floyd)Control No. R-5105Timesheet is for Public & Proprietary Versions.SUBMISSION TYPE PAGE # APPENDIX DATESUBMITTEDDATA SUBMITTEDSubmitted Initial Plan. Plan approved 11/5/09. 9/16/09Submit revised Plan due to NTL 2010 G-09 and WCD 7/21/10Amendment7/22 & 27/10 WCD & Blowout ScenarioAmendmentNo longer required due to change in WCD Scenario.Amendment1/6/11 Submit with NEPA information, LCZMAmendment1/18/11 Replaced Plan with revisions to dateAmendment1, 1, 2, 1-25/11/11Update OCS Plan Information, Bath Maps, Table oftanks/production vessels more than 25 bbls capacity ,Description of the important safety and pollution preventionfeatures for drilling unit.Amendment 17 5/11/11 Oil Spill Discussion: Owner of Equipment,Insufficient Containment, Skimmers, Storage andBooms.Amendment 3, 3, 4, 5, 6,11, 13-14, 15,22, 22, 23,23,24,A 5/11/11 Applications & Permits, Drilling Fluids, BlowoutScenario, Shallow Hazards Report, ArchaeologicalReport, Waste & Discharge Tables, AQR Revision,Support Vessels, Diesel Oil Supply Vessels, DrillingFluids and Solid & Liquid Waste Transportation, LACZM, Plan Information Form.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.Green Canyon Block 451OCS-G-32509 #A-CRevised Initial Plan (Floyd)Control No. R-5105Timesheet is for Public & Proprietary Versions.SUBMISSION TYPE PAGE # APPENDIX DATESUBMITTEDDATA SUBMITTEDAmendment 13 05/11/11 Downhole injection & NPDES General PermitStatements at Waste and Discharge Information (a)Amendment05/16/11 Revised Plan Information Form with Revised DatesAmendment 45/19/11WCD assumptions and calculations for AT 187Amendment 45/23/2011WCD assumptions for GC 451 & AT 187Amendment 46/7/2011Revised Discharge Table adding BOP fluids, etcAmendment 46/8/2011Volume of daily discharge rate for WCDS.Amendment 226/15/2011Diesel oil fuel supply vesselsAmendment 156/27/2011Air Emissions & Plan Information Plan revisionAmendment 156/29/2011AQR checklist & summary sheetAmendment 9, 16, A, B, D, E, F,G, I8/02/11 Deepen wells: H2S, OSRO Information, WellInformation Form, Location Plat, Time vs. Depth,Structure Map, Seismic Lines, Cross Section, Strat.ColumnAmendment N 8/18/2011 Surface containment timeAmendment9/7/2011 Submittal of complete Plan w/ containment planacceptance statement added.Amendment A, N 9/12/2011 Submittal of Plan Information Form & surfacecontainment timeWoodside Energy (USA) Inc.Green Canyon Block 451OCS-G-32509 #A-CRevised Initial Plan (Floyd)Control No. R-5105Timesheet is for Public & Proprietary Versions.SUBMISSION TYPE PAGE # APPENDIX DATESUBMITTEDDATA SUBMITTEDAmendment9/13/2011 Revised footers on public version.Amendment9/14/2011 New log and 2nd complete copy of PlanAmendment9/21/2011 New log and revised p. 16Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 1 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## Revised Exploration Plan Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. Green Canyon Block 451
Leases OCS-G 32509 January 11, 2011

CONTENTS OF PLAN

Under this Initial EP, Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. (Woodside) plans to drill and temporarily abandon three (3) wells (Locations A ,B, & C ) in Green Canyon Block 451, Lease OCS-G 32509. A subsea Blowout Preventer (BOP) will be used in this operation. This Plan was originally given Control No. N-9436 and the revision was given Control No. R-5105 

### (a) Plan Information Form

An OCS Information Form with details of the pro posed drilling operations as provided for in this Plan along with a tentative schedule is included as Attachment A

.



### (b) Bathymetry Map, Location Plat , Anchor Pattern, and Anchor Site Clearance

A Well Location Plat and a Bathymetry Map are included as Attachments B and C, respectively.

There are no anchors associated with this plan

.



### (c) Safety and Pollution Prevention Features

Safety features on the MODU will include well control, pollution prevention, welding procedure, and blowout prevention equipment as described in Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, G and O; and as further clarified by MMS Notice to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the MMS, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. The appropriate life boats, life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard will be maintained on the facility at all times.

In accordance with Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart O, an operator is to ensure Well Control Training is provided for lessee and contractor personnel engaged in well control operations in the OCS Gulf of Mexico. Further, the operator is charged with the responsibility to not create conditions that will pose unreasonable risk to the public health, life, property, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation, navigation, commercial fishing, or other uses of the ocean.Supervisory and certain designated personnel on-board the facility are to be familiar with the effluent limitations and guidelines for overboard discharges into the receiving waters, as outlined in the latest NPDES General Permit GMG290000. Some of these pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris.

The MMS is required to conduct onsite inspections of offshore facilities to confirm operators are complying with lease stipulations, operating regulations, approved plans, and other conditions; as well as to assure safety and pollution prevention requirements are being met. The National Potential Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) List serves as the baseline for these inspections. The MMS also inspects the stockpiles of equipment listed in the operator's approved Oil Spill Response Plan that would be used for the containment and cleanup of hydrocarbon spills.



### (d) Storage Tanks and Production Vessels

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

Type of Storage Tank Type of Facility Tank Capacity (bbls) Number
of Tanks Total Capacity

(bbls) Fluid Gravity

(API)

Hull tanks 1&2 Fuel oil (Diesel) 8204 2 16408 32 o

Hull tanks 3&4 Fuel oil (Diesel) 5500 2 11000 32 o Engine day tank P Fuel oil (Diesel) 305 1 305 32 o Engine day tank S Fuel oil (Diesel) 356 1 356 32 o Settling tank P Fuel oil (Diesel) 213 1 213 32 o Settling tank S Fuel oil (Diesel) 219 1 219 32 o

Base oil 1 Lube oil 4838 1 4838 30 o

Lubrication oil Lube oil 55 1 55 32 o

Waste oil 1&2 Waste oil 226 2 452 31 o



### (e) Pollution Prevention Measures

The Maersk Developer is rigged up for 100% zero discharge operations. All rainwater, wash water, or fluid spillage or runoff is captured and treated via an oil/water separator. Only the uncontaminated water is discharged overboard. The contaminated fluids are transported to the shore base for disposal. All trash is compacted and bagged and transported to the shore base for disposal



### (f) Additional Measures

No additional measures are proposed for this Plan.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 3 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) Applications and Permits

Application / Permit Issuing Agency Status

APD BOEMRE District To be submitted

General NPDES Permit U.S. EPA To be submitted Emergency Evacuation Plan U.S. Coast Guard To be submitted

(b) Drilling Fluids

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

Water-based 36,000 bbls Synthetic-based 15,000 bbls

Oil-Based 0 bbls

(c) Peak Production Rates / Life of Reserves

Not applicable for exploration plans.



### (d) Oil Characteristics

Not applicable for exploration plans.



### (e) New or Unusual Technology

Woodside does not propose the use of any new or unusual technology in the activities proposed under this plan.



### (f) Bonding Information

The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this Initial EP are satisfied by an area-wide bond furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR Part 256, Subpart I; NTL No. 2000-G16, “Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds”; and National NTL No. 2008-N07.



### (g) Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR)

Woodside (MMS Operator No. 02407) has demonstrat ed oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this Initial EP according to 30 CFR Part 253, and NTL 2008-N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities”.



### (h) Deepwater Well Control StatementWoodside Energy (USA) Inc. 4 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 Woodside (MMS Operator No. 02407) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.



### (i) Suspensions of Production

Not applicable for exploration plans.



### (j) Blowout Scenario

A blowout scenario for the proposed operations is outlined in Attachment L

.



### (k) Chemical Products

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

## GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

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



### (a) Geological Description

PROPRIETARY



### (b) Structure Contour Maps

Enclosed as Attachment E are current structure maps drawn to the top of the proposed hydrocarbon zone(s). The surface and bottom hole location(s) along with the locations of the geologic cross-sections of the well(s) to be drilled under this Initial

EP are included.



### (c) Interpreted 2-D or 3-D Seismic Lines

Enclosed as Attachment F are copies of the migrated and annotated deep seismic line within 500 feet of each of the proposed surface locations.



### (d) Geological Structure Cross-Sections

An interpreted geological cross-section showing the location and depth of each of the proposed well(s) with at least one key horizon and the objective sand labeled is

enclosed as Attachment G

.



### (e) Shallow Hazards Report

Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc (GEMS) was contracted by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. to provide a 3D Geohaz ard review study in the Atwater Valley area of the Gulf of Mexico to investigate seabed and subseabed geohazards across Block 187, Offshore, Louisiana in May 2010. The purpose of the study was for the identification of potential shallow drilling hazards and problems which may impact the rig positioning or drilling of proposed exploratory well and for possible anchor moorings.

Three (3) copies of the report and maps prepared by GEMS were included in the Plan’s original submittal.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 6 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

### (f) Site Specific Shallow Hazards Assessment

C&C was contracted by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. to provide a 3D Geohazard review study in the Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico to investigate seabed and sub-seabed geohazards across Block 451, Offshore, Louisiana, in April 2009. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor and shallow geologic conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2000 feet of the proposed wellsites. This site clearance is based on the interpretation of 3D seismic data provided by Woodside to C&C.

Copies of the site clearance for each proposed location are included with this plan as

Attachment H to assist your review.



### (g) High Resolution Seismic Lines

C&C was contracted by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. to provide a 3D Geohazard review study in the Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico to investigate seabed and sub-seabed geohazards across Block 451, Offshore, Louisiana, 2009. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor and shallow geologic conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2000 feet of the proposed wellsite. This site clearance is based on the interpretation of 3D seismic data provided by Woodside to C&C.



### (h) Stratigraphic Column

A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic column from the seafloor to the total depth of each of the proposed well(s) is included as Attachment I

.



### (i) Time Versus Depth Tables

Time versus depth tables are included as Attachment D.



### (j) Geochemical Information

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



### (k) Future G&G Activities

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

## HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

(a) Concentration

Woodside does not anticipate encountering H 2 S while conducting our proposed exploratory activities.



### (b) Classification Request

In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), Woodside requests Green Canyon Block 451, Lease OCS-G 32509, be classified by the Minerals Management Service as an area where the “absence” of hydrogen sulfide has been substantiated based upon the following:

PROPRIETARY



### (c) Contingency Plan

Woodside does not anticipate encountering H 2 S while conducting our proposed exploratory activities therefore a contingency plan is not required at this time.



### (d) Modeling Report

Woodside does not anticipate encountering H 2 S while conducting our proposed exploratory activities therefore a modeling report is not required at this time.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 8 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## Mineral and Resource Conservation Information

(a) Technology and Reservoir Engi neering Practices and Procedures

Not Required for Exploration Plans



### (b) Technology and Recovery Practices and Procedures

Not Required for Exploration Plans



### (c) Reservoir Development

Not Required for Exploration PlansWoodside Energy (USA) Inc. 9 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SO CIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

(a) Chemosynthetic Communities Report

C&C performed a geohazards assessment for the “Floyd” Prospect located in Block 451(OCSG-32509) and vicinity, Green Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico using a 3D seismic data volume provided by Woodside in June 2009. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2000 feet of the proposed

wellsite.

Water depths of the study area are greater than 300 meters (984 feet). No chemosynthetic communities have been reported in the area according to the MMS (NTL No. 2000-G20). The nearest chemosynthetic communities known to exist are located in GC-272 and 232, approximately 12 miles northwest of the survey area.

C&C was also contracted by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. to prepare site clearance letters for each of the proposed drill sites in Block 451, Green Canyon Area, Offshore, Louisiana. These can be
found with our shallow hazards assessment in Attachment H. Woodside does not anticipate any seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2000 feet of the proposed wellsite(s).



### (b) Topographic Features Map

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



### (c) Topographic Features Statement

Woodside does not propose to drill more than two wells from the same surface location which is outside the 1-mile Zone but within the Protective Zone of an identified topographic feature; therefore a statement for shunting described in Attachment 2, Section A, Item No. 2 of NTL No. 2004-G05 “Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico” is not required.



### (d) Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Map

The activities proposed in this plan are not affected by a live bottom (pinnacle trend) stipulation

attached to the lease.



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

The activities proposed in this plan are not affected by a live bottom (low relief) stipulation

attached to the lease.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 10 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

### (f) Potentially Sensiti ve Biological Features

Woodside does not propose bottom-disturbing activities within 61 meters (200 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features; therefore the map described in Attachment 8, Section A, of NTL No. 2009-G39 “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features & Areas” is not required.



### (g) ROV Monitoring Survey Plan

The activities proposed in this plan do not require an ROV Survey Plan since the Deepwater Grid (Grid 10) accessed through NTL 2008-G06 shows sufficient ROV information has been gathered for the GC-451 area.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 11 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

### (h) Threatened and Endangered Species Information

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

Sperm Whales, Blue Whales, Sei Whales, Sin Whales, Humpback Whales and North Atlantic Right Whales, of these six whales, only Sperm W hales are considered to commonly occur in the Gulf of Mexico. Bottlenose Dolphin, Atlantic Spotted Dolphin, and Risso’s Dolphin are considered protected species and are also regarded to be common “nearshore species”.

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to conserve threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become endangered in the future. The location of the activities proposed in this plan does not include any critical habitats designated under the ESA. Threatened and endangered turtles that may be found in the location of the activities proposed include:

Green Sea Turtles, Hawk’s Bill Sea Turtles, Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles, Leatherback Sea Turtles, and Loggerhead Sea Turtles.

Other threatened or endangered species that may be found in the area of proposed activities but are more commonly found in coastal areas or estuaries include:

Gulf Sturgeon and Smalltooth Sawfish.

Threatened nearshore marine invertebrates species include:

Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral

The Dusky Sharks, Night Sharks, Sand Tiger Sharks, Speckled Hind, Warsaw Grouper, and Nassau Grouper are all considered “species of concern”. Please refer to our Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) contained in this plan for detailed information on how Woodside plans to mitigate harm to these threatened and endangered species.



### (i) Archaeological Report

Woodside will perform an ROV survey imaging 100% of the seafloor with sector scanning sonar within a minimum 500’ radius of the proposed well locations upon commencement of operations. These locations will be certified by an authorized marine archaeologist and by Woodside 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
BOEMRE. Should a resource be encounter ed, Woodside will contact the BOEMRE immediately.



### (j) Air and Water Quality Information

The location of the activities proposed in this plan do not affect the State of Florida; therefore this information is not required in this plan.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 12 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

### (k) Socioeconomic Information

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

## WASTE AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION

(a) Projected Ocean Discharges See Table 1 below. There will be no downhole disposal. These discharges will be covered by a general NPDES discharge permit. (b) Projected Generated Wastes See Table 2 below

Table 1. Wastes Generated, Treated and Downhole Disposed or Discharged to the Gulf of

Mexico (Discharges Per Well Unless Otherwise Noted) Projected Generated Waste Projected Ocean Discharges Type of Waste and Composition Composition Projected

Amount Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Water-Based Drilling Fluid Barite,

additives 36000 bbls 36000 bbls Discharged at Seafloor

Synthetic-based Drilling fluid Esters, polyalpha

olefins 3000 bbls 3000 bbls NA

Cuttings Wettedwith Syntheticbased Fluid Esters, polyalpha

olefins 7700 bbls 7700 bbls Cleaned and Shunted

Overboard

Cuttings Wetted

with Water-based

Fluid Barite,

additives 5000 bbls 5000 bbls Discharged at Seafloor

Cuttings Wetted

with Oil- based Fluid Diesel 0 NA

Domestic Waste Grey water 450 ,000 gal. 35 gal/person/day Treated and Discharged

Overboard Sanitary Waste Treated Sanitary

Waste 321 ,000 gal. 25 gal/day/person “ “

Deck Drainage Rain/Wash

Water 0-100,000

bbls dependent

on rainfall NA “ “

Well Treatment,

Workover or Completion Fluids NA NA Discharged Overboard

Desalinization unit Brine 110 bbls/day NA “ “

BOP fluid BOP Fluid 

### 35 bbls/yr NA Discharged at seafloor

Ballast Water NA NA Discharged Overboard Bilge water NA NA “ “

Excess cement at

seafloor Cement 55 0 bbls NA Discharged at seafloor

Fire water NA NA Discharged Overboard Cooling water NA NA “ “

Produced Water NA NA “ “ NA=Not ApplicableWoodside Energy (USA) Inc. 14 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

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

Projected Generated

Waste Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation Waste Disposal

Type of

Waste Composition Transport

Method Name/Location of Facility Amount Disposal

Method

Oil-Based

Fluid NA

Syntheticbased

Fluid Used SBF

and additives Cuttings boxes on supply boat US Liquids, Fouchon, LA 31000

bbls Recycled

Cuttings

Wetted

with OilBased

Mud NA

Produced

Sand NA

Trash and

Debris Steel, cables,

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

Used Oil Used oil Drums on supply boat New Park Fourchon, LA 17 bbls/

mo. Disposal

Wash

Water NA

Chemical

Wastes Chemical

Waste Solids Containers on supply boat New Park Fourchon, LA 90 bbls/

mo. Disposal per

Classification NA=Not Applicable

(c) Modeling Report

Not required by EPA under the OCS General Permit.



### (d) NPDES Permits

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



### (e) Cooling Water Intakes

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

## AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(a) Screening Checklist

Included in this section, (if applicable) is the Projected Air Emissions Worksheet prepared in accordance with NTL No. 2006-G15.

For this plan, there are no existing facilities or activities co-located with the current proposed activities; therefore, the Complex Total Emissions are the same as the Plan

Emissions.

Air Quality Screening Questions 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

The following information was prepared by:

Debra Benoit Woodside Energy (USA)

Phone: 713-401-0083

Email: debra.benoit@woodsideenergy.com

(a) Summary Table of Emissions

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL

Woodside Energy
USA Green Canyon 451 G32509 NA Locations A,B,C, (GC-451)

Emitted Substance

Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO

2012 49.76 228.27 1710.45 51.31 373.19

Allowable 3,629.70 3,629.70 3,629. 70 3,629.70 77,582.41

(c) Spreadsheets

Not required for this submittal.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 16 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## OIL SPILL INFORMATION

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning

(1) Site-Specific OSRP

Lease OCS-G 32509 is not located in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico therefore a site-specific OSRP is not required.



### (2)(i) Regional or Subregional OSRP Information

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

.



### (ii) Spill Response Sites

Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location(s)

Lake Charles and Fourchon, LA Fourchon, LA



### (iii) OSRO Information

Woodside’s primary response providers, Clean Gulf Associates (CGA), National Response Corporation (NRC) Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG) and O’Brien’s Response Management (ORM), will provide closest available personnel and equipment, as well as supervisory personnel. OSRP Certification was accepted May 21, 2011.



### (iv) Worst Case Scenario Determination

Category Regional OSRP EP Type of Activity Exploratory Drilling Exploratory Drilling Facility Location (area/block) AT 187 GC 451 Facility Designation 2 

### Wellbore Wellbore Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 79 109

Volume 3


### Storage tanks (total) Flowlines (on facility) Lease term pipelines Uncontrolled blowout (volume per day)

Total Volume NA

NA

NA 199,028 bbls

199,028 bbls NA

NA

NA 159,951 bbls

159,951 bbls Type of Oil(s) (crude oil, condensate, diesel) Crude Oil Crude Oil

API Gravity(s) 4 

### 28o 29oWoodside Energy (USA) Inc. 17 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 1 Types of activities include pipeline, platform, caisson, subsea completion or manifold, and mobile drilling rig.

2 E.g., Well No. 2, Platform JA, Pipeline Segment No. 6373.

3 Take your regional OSRP worst-case scenario volume from the appropriate section of your regional OSRP. For EP’s, the worst-case scenario volume is the daily volume possible from an uncontrolled blow out. Determine this volume using the provisions of 30 CFR 254.47(b). For DOCD’s, determine the volu me of your worst-case scenario using the provisions of 30 CFR 254.47(a), (b), and (c), as appropriate.

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

Since Woodside has the ability to respond to the appropriate worst-case spill scenario included in its regional OSRP submitted May 19, 2011 and since the worst-case scenario determined for this Plan does not replace the worst-case scenario in our regional OSRP, I hereby certify that Woodside has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in

this Plan



### (b) Oil Spill Response Discussion

The oil spill response discussion for the propos ed operations are detailed in Attachment “N”.



### (c) Modeling Report

Not required for the location of the activities proposed in this plan.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 18 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

(a) Monitoring Systems

Woodside is aware of the requirements of NTL No. 2009-G02 whereby MMS established and implemented a program to monitor ocean currents and require operators to share the data for all floating MODU’s and production facilities operating or installed in water depths greater than 400 meters (1,312 feet). Woodside will report ocean current data to the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Internet website as required.



### (b) Incidental Takes

Woodside does not anticipate the incidental taking of any these species as a result of the activities proposed in this Plan based on the implementation of, and adherence to, NTL No. 2007-G02 “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program, NTL No. 2007-G03 “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training and Elimination” and NTL No. 2007-G04 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”.



### (b) Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

Woodside’s activities under this Initial EP are not located within the Protective Zones of the Flower Garden Banks or Stetson Bank and therefore are not required to monitor the impacts of an oil spill.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 19 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Oil and gas exploration and development activities on the OCS are subject to stipulations developed before the lease sale and would be attached to the lease instrument, as necessary, in the form of mitigating measures. The MMS is responsible for ensuring full compliance with stipulations.

Minerals Management Service’s Stipulation No. 3 does not apply to Green Canyon Block 451, this block is not located in any of the Military Warning Areas.

Stipulation No. 3 – Military Areas This stipulation will be included only in the leases located within the Warning Areas and Eglin Water Test Areas 1 and 3.

Minerals Management Service invoked Stipulation No. 6 for Lease OCS-G 32509, Green Canyon Block 451.

Stipulation No. 6 – Protected Species was invoked to reduce the potential taking of Federally protected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, Gulf sturgeon, and other listed species).

The Minerals Management Service issued NTL 2007-G04 and NTL 2007-G02 pursuant to 30 CFR 250.103, 250.23(o) and 250.204(s) to explain how Operators must implement measures to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species effective February 7, 2007. Woodside will ensure that our contract vessel operators are aware of their requirement to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species immediately to the MMS Protected Species Biologist by telephone.

The Minerals Management Service issued NTL 2007-G03 pursuant to 30 CFR 150.103 to provide guidance and assist the operators in preventing intentional and / or accidental
introduction of trash and debris into the marine environment. With this assistance and with laws such as MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, our employees will ensure that all offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel have complete understanding of the requirement that Operators be proactive in avoiding
accidental loss of solid waste items on the OCS.



## Environmental Mitigation Measures Information

(a) Monitoring Systems.

Woodside does not have existing or planned monitoring systems that are measuring, or will measure, environmental conditions and/ or will provide project-specific data or information on the impacts of these proposed activities.



### (b) Incidental Takes

Woodside does not anticipate the incidental taking of any these species as a result of the activities proposed in this Plan based on the implementation of, and adherence to, NTL No. 2007-G02 “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures andWoodside Energy (USA) Inc. 20 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 Protected Species Observer Program, NTL No. 2007-G03 “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training and Elimination” and NTL No. 2007-G04 “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 21 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## Decommissioning Information

This information is not required for plans submitted in the MMS GOMR.

## RELATED FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION

(a) Related OCS Facilities and Operations

This discussion is not required for EP’s.



### (b) Transportation System

This discussion is not required for EP’s.



### (c) Produced Liquid Hydrocarbon s Transportation Vessels

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



## SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

(a) General

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

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

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



### (b) Diesel Oil Supply Vessels

Woodside does not propose to utilize vessels that will transfer diesel oil for purposes other than fuel (e.g., base for corrosion control fl uids). Florida is not an affected state; no activities are proposed within Protective Zones; no surface facility is planned in water depths greater than 400 meters; this is not a DOCD for which Alabama is an affected state nor a DOCD proposing new multiwell struct ures for which Louisiana is an affected

state.

Size of Fuel Supply vessel Capacity of fuel supply vessel Frequency of fuel

transfers Route fuel supply

vessel will take

285’ 203,000 gal Weekly Fourchon to MODU

### (c) Drilling Fluids Transportation

Type of Material Quantity Being Transported Quantity Being Transported Transportation Method

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

onboard OSV

Synthetic-base drilling

fluids 11,000 bbls max per

voyage Below deck liquid mud

tanks onboard OSV

Water Based drilling

fluids 12,000 bbls max per

voyage Below deck liquid mud

tanks onboard OSV

(d) Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation

See Table 2 of Waste and Discharge Section

.

(e) Vicinity Map

A Vicinity Plat showing the location of Green Canyon Block 451 relative to the shoreline

and the onshore base is included as Attachment J

.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 24 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

(a) General

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

Name Location Existing, New or
Modified

C-Port Fourchon, LA Existing



### (b) Support Base Construction or Expansion

The proposed operations do not mandate any immediate measures for land acquisition or expansion of the existing onshore base facilities.



### (c) Support Base Construction or Expansion Timetable

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



### (d) Waste Disposal

See Table 2 of Waste and Discharge Section

.

(e) Air Emissions

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



### (f) Unusual Solid and Liquid Wastes

This discussion is not required to accompany EP’s submitted in the MMS GOMR.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 25 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## SULPHUR OPERATIONS INFORMATION

Woodside is not proposing to conduct sulphur operations in this plan.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 26 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information

The States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have federally approved coastal zone management programs (CZMP). A pplicants for an OCS plan submitted to the Minerals Management Service must provide a cert ification with necessary data and information for the affected State to determine that the proposed activity(s) complies with the enforceable policies of each States’ approved program, and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.

(a) Consistency Certification

A Coastal Zone Management Consistency Certification for the State of Louisiana is required for the initial exploratory activities proposed in this plan and is included in Attachment K

.

(b) Alabama Enforceable Polices

Not required for this plan.

(c) Other Information

The enforceable policies for the State of Louisiana were considered in making our certification of consistency above.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 27 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA)

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment M.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 28 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

### (i) References

Administrative Information

NTL 2010-N10 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources

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

3D GeoHazard Study of Block 325, Walker Ridge Area, OCS-G 32673 prepared for Woodside.

NTL 2009-G40 Benthic Communities

NTL 2009-G39 Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features & Areas

NTL 2009-G27 Submitting Exploration Plans & Development Operations Coordination

Documents

NTL 2009-G06 Military Warning and Water Test Areas.

NTL 2009-G02 Ocean Current Monitoring

NTL 2008-G20 Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.

NTL 2008-N07 Supplemental Bond Procedures.

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

NTL 2008-G06 Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater.

NTL 2008-G04 Information Requirements for Expl oration Plans and Development Operations
Coordination Documents.

NTL 2007-G04 Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting.

NTL 2007-G03 Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination.

NTL 2007-G02 Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program

NTL 2005-G07 Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.

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

NTL 2000-G16 Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds.

Current Code of Federal Regulations 30 Parts 250, 254 and 256.Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 29 Green Canyon Block 451

Initial EP
Revised 1-6-2011 Lease OCS-G 32509 

## ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(a) Exempted Information Descripti on (Public Information Copies Only)

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

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

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



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



### (b) Bibliography

3D GeoHazard Study of Block 451, Green Canyon Area, OCS-G 32509, prepared for Woodside by C&C in July 2009.

# Attachment A

Plan Information

### APPENDIX A - OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM

General Information
Type of OCS X Exploration Plan (EP) Development Operations Coor dination Document (DOCD) Company Name: Woodside Energy MMS Operator Number: 02407

Contact Person: Debra K. Benoit

Phone Number: 713-401-0083 Address: 5151 San Felipe Street Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77056 E-Mail Address: debra.benoit@woodsideenergy.com

Lease:OCS-G-32509 Area: GC Block: 451 Proj ect Name (If Applicable): Floyd

Objective(s): 

### X Oil Gas Sulfur Salt Onshore Base: Fourchon, 

### LA Dist. to Closest Land 109 mi
Description of Proposed Activi ties (Mark all that apply)

X Exploration drilling Development drilling Well completion Installati on of production platform
Well test flaring Installation of pr oduction facilities
Installation of well protec tion structure Installation of satellite structure

Installation of subsea wellheads and/or manifold s Installation of leas e term (ROW) pipelines

X Temporary well abandonment Commence production
Other (Specify and describe) Have you submitted or do you plan to submit a Conservation Information Document to Yes X No Do you propose to use new or unusual technol ogy to conduct your activities? Yes X No Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea Yes X No Do you propose any activities that may disturb an MMS-designated high-probability Yes X No Have all the surface locations of your proposed activities been previously reviewed and Yes X No

Tentative Schedule of Proposed Activities
Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of days

Drill & TA #A 4/14/2012 7/15/2012 9 3

Drill & TA #B 4/14/2013 7/15/2013 9 3

Drill & TA #C 4/14/2014 7/15/2014 9 3

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

X DP Semisubmersible Othe r (Attach Description) Subsea manifold Floating production
Drilling Rig Name (If Known): Maersk Developer S par Other (Attach
Description of Lease Term Pipelines
From (Facility/Area/Block) To (Facility/Area/Block) Diameter(In) Length Product

MMS Form MMS-137 Page 1 of 4OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well / structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number: Location A Subsea Completion

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A X Yes No

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells)

Lease No. OCS-G 32509 OCS-G 32509

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 451 451

Block line Departures (in feet) N/S Departure: 5,492’ FNL N/S Departure:

E/W Departure: 4,472’ FWL E/W Departure:

Lambert X-Y

coordinates X: 2,158,712’ X:

Y: 9,989,548’ Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude: 27° 31’ 10.007” N Latitude:

NAD 27 Longitude: 91° 24’ 01.694” W Longitude:

TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,066

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge

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

Chain on Seafloor

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that MMS collects this information as part of an applicant’s Exploration Plan or Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for MMS approval. We use the information to facilitate our review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the F reedom 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 informat ion unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The use of this form is voluntary. The public reporting burde n for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that bur den to average 600 per response, or 640 with an accompanying EP, or 690 with an accompanying DPP or DOCD, including the time for reviewing instruc tions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the forms associated with subpart B. Direct comments regarding the burden e stimate 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



### MMS Form MMS-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form MMS-137 which may not be used.) Page 2 of 4



# P UBLIC INFORMATION COPYOCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well / structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number: Location B Subsea Completion

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: X Yes No

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells)

Lease No. OCS-G 32509 OCS-G 32509

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 451 451

Block line Departures (in feet) N/S Departure: 7,492’ FNL N/S Departure:

E/W Departure: 4,472’ FWL E/W Departure:

Lambert X-Y

coordinates X: 2,158,712’ X:

Y: 9,987,548’ Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude: 27° 30’ 50.203” N Latitude:

NAD 27 Longitude: 91° 24’ 01.981” W Longitude:

TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,212

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge

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

Chain on Seafloor

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that MMS collects this information as part of an applicant’s Exploration Plan or Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for MMS approval. We use the information to facilitate our review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the F reedom 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 informat ion unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The use of this form is voluntary. The public reporting burde n for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that bur den to average 600 per response, or 640 with an accompanying EP, or 690 with an accompanying DPP or DOCD, including the time for reviewing instruc tions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the forms associated with subpart B. Direct comments regarding the burden e stimate 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,

D C 20240



### MMS Form MMS-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form MMS-137 which may not be used.) Page 3 of 4



# P UBLIC INFORMATION COPYOCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well / structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/Number: Location C Subsea Completion

Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: X Yes No

Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells)

Lease No. OCS-G 32509 OCS-G 32509

Area Name Green Canyon Green Canyon

Block No. 451 451

Block line Departures (in feet) N/S Departure: 4,468’ FNL N/S Departure:

E/W Departure: 4,872’ FWL E/W Departure:

Lambert X-Y

coordinates X: 2,159,112’ X:

Y: 9,990,572’ Y:

Latitude/ Longitude Latitude: 27° 31’ 20.097” N Latitude:

NAD 27 Longitude: 91° 23’ 57.105” W Longitude:

TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,038

Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge

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

Chain on Seafloor

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Statement: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that MMS collects this information as part of an applicant’s Exploration Plan or Development Operations Coordination Document submitted for MMS approval. We use the information to facilitate our review and data entry for OCS plans. We will protect proprietary data according to the F reedom 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 informat ion unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The use of this form is voluntary. The public reporting burde n for this form is included in the burden for preparing Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents. We estimate that bur den to average 600 per response, or 640 with an accompanying EP, or 690 with an accompanying DPP or DOCD, including the time for reviewing instruc tions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the forms associated with subpart B. Direct comments regarding the burden e stimate 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



### MMS Form MMS-137 (July 2005 – Supersedes all previous editions of form MMS-137 which may not be used.) Page 4 of 4



# P UBLIC INFORMATION COPY

# Attachment B Well Location Map

# Attachment C Bathymetry MapOCS-G-25144

CHEVRON OCS-G-25145

KERR-MCGEE

OCS-G-25155

MURPHY OCS-G-25156

MURPHY OCS-G-28081

WOODSIDE OCS-G-25143

MAXUS

OCS-G-25149

MAXUS OCS-G-28078

WOODSIDE OCS-G-32509

WOODSIDE 

### GC408

GC496 GC494 GC495 GC407 GC406

GC452

GC450 GC451 2,000'

2,000' 2,000'

SITE CLEARANCE

COLOR-SHADED BATHYMETRY MAP

"FLOYD" PROSPECT WELLS "A", "B", & "C" LOCATIONS

OCS-G-32509

BLOCK 451

GREEN CANYON AREA Bathymetric contours (in feet) CGG survey inline number (Inline spacing = 65.62 feet)

CGG survey crossline number (Crossline spacing = 82.02 feet)

Bathymetry data processed with C & C Hydromap© software from 3D

dataset.

Contour interval = 10 feet

Bin size = 25 meters (82.02 feet)

Zero datum = Mean Sea Level

Applied acoustic velocity = Advocate and Hood (1993) for data between

sea level and seafloor.

Color shaded image

Sun azimuth = 45°

Sun elevation = 30°

Depth in feet -3000
-3010
-3020
-3030
-3040
-3050
-3060
-3070
-3080
-3090
-3100
-3110
-3120
-3130
-3140
-3150
-3160
-3170
-3180
-3190
-3200
-3210
-3220
-3230
-3240
-3250
-3260
-3270
-3280
-3290
-3300
-3310
-3320
-3330
-3340
-3350
-3360
-3370 3380

3390
3400
3410
3420
3430
3440
3450
3460
3470
3480
3490
3500
3510
3520
3530
3540
3550
3560
3570
3580
3590
3600
3610
3620
3630
3640
3650
3660
3670
3680
3690
3700
3710
3720
3730
3740
3750

# Attachment D Time vs Depth

Tables

# Attachment E Structure Map

# Attachment F

3-D Seismic

# Attachment G

Structure

Cross-Section

# Attachment H

Site Clearance

Letters

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 1 January 12, 2011

Woodside Energy Ltd. 830 West Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attn: Mr. Doug Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter

Proposed Well “A”

Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area

INTRODUCTION Woodside Energy Ltd. (Woodside) contracted C & C T echnologies, Inc. (C & C) to prepare a well site clearance letter for the drilling location of the proposed Well “A” in Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon (GC) Area. The data used for the site cl earance letter is an expl oration-quality 3D seismic volume, collected by CGG Veritas between 1999 and 2000, provided by Woodside. C & C completed the geohazard report titled “Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area” in July 2009. This site clearance letter is based on findings provided within this report.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location. The depth limit of the interpretation is approximately two and a half seconds of two-way traveltime below the seafloor. A dynamically positioned drilling rig is planned to drill the well, therefore an anchor assessment is not needed. The assessment and enclosures presented with this letter comply with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) guidelines provided in Notice To Lesse es (NTL) No. 2008-G05 (Shallow Hazards Program) and NTL No. 2000-G20 (Deepwater Chemosynthetic Co mmunities). Per Woodside’s request, on January 10, 2011, this letter and supporting maps have been u pdated to meet the requireme nts as stated in new the NTL No. 2009-G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

METHODS

The 3D seismic data used for this site clearance as sessment were provided in SEG-Y format on a digital linear tape (DLT) tape, where the files were retrieved and saved on a secure server then processed for shallow hazards by C & C. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.3 for interpretation. The time-migrat ed data volume was proces sed at a two-millisecond sample rate and was interpreted to two and a half seconds below sea level. The inlines of the CGG Veritas data set run west-east and are spaced at 65.62-foot (20-meter) intervals. The crosslines run north-south and are spaced at 82.02-foot (25-meter) intervals.

A strong positive amplitude peak, flanked by troughs , represents the seafloor on the seismic volumes. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32-bit floati ng-point numbers, identified during data loading. The data provided were adequate for regional screen ing of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions.

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls of the proposed surface location for GC451 Well “A” are tabulated below:

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 2 Coordinates Well
X-Coordinate Y-Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 451 Green Canyon Area

Well “A” 2,158,712.00’ 9,989,548.00’ 27 ° 31’10.007” N 91 ° 24’01.694” W FNL 5,492’ FWL 4,472’

The geodetic datum used for this project is the No rth American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15 North (15N). All grid units, including scales and measurements, are in U.S. Survey Fe et. The surface hole location of the proposed GC451 Well “A” and the 2,0 00-foot radius are displayed on the Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Features Map (Sheet 3), and the Subsurface Features Map (Sheet 4).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY The “Floyd” Prospect is located in the west-central Gulf of Mexico in an area designated as the Green Canyon Area by the BOEMRE. The study area lies on the upper to middle continental slope of offshore Louisiana. This area of the slope consists of di apiric highs and basin-like topography. Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region , condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea le vel stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarsegrained clastic deposits (sands and gr avels) of variable thickness.

The area where the well is planned is undergoing regional extension and localized compression where allochthonous salt movement is the primary influe nce on the seafloor and subsurface sediments. Salt within this area is shallow and located at a depth of approximately 1,110 to 2,400 feet below the seafloor. The underlying salt sheet is migrating toward the sout heast and has formed the Timbalier Basin to the southeast of the proposed well location.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS The water depth at the proposed GC451 Well “A” su rface location is 3,066 feet below sea level (BSL). Within the 2,000-foot radius the seabed depth rang es from 3,020 feet BSL in the northeastern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary to 3,220 feet BSL at the southern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary in Block GC451 (Sheet 1). Water depths in the survey area were determined by appl ying the 1993 Advocate and Hood empirical time-depth model for calculating water depth in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. This equation is: D = 0.1105 - 5066.9193T + 468.6693T 2 - 554.7107T 3 + 340.7019T 4 - 116.9910T 5 +
20.7280T 6 - 1.4658T 7 , where D = water depth in feet and T = one-way traveltime in seconds.

The seafloor at the proposed well site is on the southeastern side of an elongated fault block where the seafloor slopes to the southeast at an average gradient of 2.5° (Sheet 1; Figure No. 1). Potential seafloor hazards identified within the 2,000-foot radius in clude seafloor faulting with localized gradients not exceeding 27°. The well site is proposed between tw o normal fault scarps striking southwest to northeast. The fault scarps are located due north and south at a distance of 405 feet and 608 feet, respectively, of the proposed Well “A” location.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The seafloor reflector displays a range of low to moderate amplitudes within the 2,000-foot radius. In general the seafloor exhibits moderate ampl itudes suggesting finely textured se afloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay (Sheet 2; Figure No. 2). Areas of low return identified on the fault scarp faces are attributed to the high angle of seabed where signal reflection is low. This lower amplitude likely results

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 3 from the seismic signal being deflec ted away from the hydrophones by the high angle of incidence of the fault scarp face.

At the well location no seafloor haza rds are present that might pose a pr oblem for drilling activities. Several fault scarps are identified within the 2,000-foot radius with scarps to the north and south, exhibiting 35 and 60 feet, respectively, of seafloor displ acement (Sheet 3). No recent slumping is evident along the fault scarps. No other significant seafloor features are located at th e proposed Well “A” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High-amplitude seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonate s and deepwater benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the prop osed well location, and surrounding 2,000-foot radius, contains no low or high positive seafloor amplitudes associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential deepwater benthic communities.

The nearest reported deepwater benthic community is located in Block 272, Green Canyon Area, approximately 13 miles northwest of the propo sed Well “A” location according to the BOEMRE (NTL No. 2009-G40). While, according to NTL 2009-G40, deepwater benthic communities are not know to exist within the planned well area, deepwater benthi c communities are known to exist in similar geologic

conditions to those located north of Well “A”. Mound features with associated expulsion and higher amplitudes are evident in the extreme northern portion of Block 451 and southern portion of Block 467, outside of the 2,000-foot radius. No areas of potential deepwater benthic communities are identified within 2,000 feet of the proposed location (Figure Nos. 3 and 4).

MAN-MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEMRE data shows that no pipelines, umbilicals, wells, or platforms are located within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location (Sheet 3). Man-made objects are below the resolution of 3D seismic data, thus unknown objects may exist at the well site. The drilling location of the Well “A” is free from any known man- made hazards and infrastructure.

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARDS AND STRATIGRAPHY Five stratigraphic units of distinct seismic character were assessed (Sheet 4; Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Woodside provided C & C with check shot survey data used to derive the total vertical depth (TVD) in feet from the corresponding two-way traveltime in s econds. From these values an equation was derived that calculates structure depth below sea level: Y = 386.98(x 2 ) + 1,963.5x Where Y = depth below sea level in feet and x = two- way traveltime in seconds . A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 2009 Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCSG-32509), Green Canyon Area.

Subsurface deposition in the upper 170 feet, Unit A, occurred during a high sea level stand and is

considered a “condensed section”. This unit is lik ely comprised of hemipelagic clays laid down as a drape deposit and interbedded layers of fine-grained tu rbidites, or thin mass transport deposits, and some possible sands (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Unit A is ca tegorized by uniform paralle l reflectors, which are discontinuous only as a result of fa ulting from subsurface salt. No slumping or mass transport deposits are evident along the downthrown side of faulting within the 2,000-foot radius.

At the well bore, Unit B contains low to moderate amp litude parallel reflectors at the top of the unit which become deformed with depth due to faulting (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The Unit B sequence is identified 170

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 4 to 347 feet below the mudline with slumping and mass transport deposits evident w ithin this unit. This unit has the characteristics resembling an “expanded section” associated with a lower sea level stand. Some of the reflectors appear to be truncated indi cating a possible unconformity associated with changes in surface morphology. The seafloor fault located north of the proposed surface location crosses the well bore 188 feet below the mudline (1.321 seconds) with in this unit. Low amplitude reflectors are interpreted to indicate fine-grained silts and cl ays with mass movement deposits exhibiting higher amplitude values suggesting more sand rich sediments.

Unit C consists of low to high, parallel to chaotic, reflectors with variable acoustic impedance (Figure Nos. 3 and 4) and is found 347 to 616 feet below the mudline. The top of Unit C represents an unconformity, resulting from eroded uplifted beds. M oderate to high reflectors, of primarily parallel orientation, are disrupted by intense faulting. Incr eased shear strength may o ccur below Unit C due to the unconformity. The higher amplitude values are inte rpreted to result from sand rich deposits likely associated with mass movement deposits. These parallel reflectors indicate varying stratigraphic thickness. The lower portion of this unit is comprised of chaotic reflectors with low amplitude values likely saturated with fluid from dissolution occurring above the top of salt.

Unit D is characterized by discontinuous, chaotic reflectors, showing prim arily low to moderate amplitudes between 616 to 1,813 feet below the mudline. Low amplitude chaotic reflectors are evident in the upper portion of the unit (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The base of Unit D along the well bore is the stratigraphic contact with the top of salt due to Horiz on 4 being indistinguishable. At a depth of 1,475 feet BML, moderate to high amplitudes are evident ex tending to the top of salt. These higher amplitude reflectors are contained within a localized depression on the top of salt. The change in seismic character within this section could be the possible result of lithological differences as compared to the upper section, or a function of salt dissolution/sediment inter action, and likely a combination of both. The well bore will pierce the top of salt (1,813 feet below the mudline) in this depression where the higher amplitude reflectors are present. The unpredictable natu re of salt and its movement increases the risk of well bore stability at the salt/sediment interface.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude, commonly termed br ight spots, are interpre ted as potential regions of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sa nds. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as be ing at one of four levels. These are:

• Negligible - No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

• Low risk of gas - Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2-3x background level) and phase reversal. This may also in clude diffuse areas of gas blanking.

• Moderate risk of gas - Generally indicated by high amplitude (3-4x background level) and phase reversal.

• High risk of gas - Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a comb ination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull-down and masking of underlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.

No high amplitude subsurface amplitude anomalies ar e noted at the location of the proposed well bore (Sheet 4; Figure No. 5). A negligible to moderate risk of shallow gas exists along the well bore for the proposed Well “A” drilling site. Due to the subsurface salt being so shallow and extensive throughout the region, the only form of structural closures are th e fault blocks that have formed, however no high amplitudes appear to be associated with these features.

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 5 SHALLOW WATER FLOW (SWF) Shallow Water Flows (SWF) are overpressured unconso lidated sands encountered in the tophole sections of some wells drilled in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and comp action after deposition. The sands are usually unconsolidated and overpressured. The pressure rise s with overburden causing a potentially disastrous hazard for drilling operations. The nearest reported sh allow water flows occurred approximately 24 and 25 miles northeast and northwest, respectively, of the proposed well site. A mode rate severity shallow water flow event occurred during ERT’s drilling of GC282 Well No. 1 (OCS-G-16727) at a depth of 2,121 feet below the mudline. BHP’s GC237 We ll No. 3 (OCS-G-15563) encountered a low severity shallow water flow at a depth of 720 feet below th e mudline. These shallow water flow events occurred in the northeastern portion of the Green Canyon Area and are attributed to deposition of the Mississippi Fan system. The third closest shallow water flow event occurred at BP’s Well No. 2 (OCS-G-12205) recorded as a low severity event 1,354 feet below th e mudline in GC181. Well integrity was maintained at all three drilling sites. No seismic data was av ailable to correlate the sand prone high SWF potential

units to the Well “A” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests the regi on is highly faulted and stratigraphy is greatly impacted by salt induced uplift and migration. No di rect indicators of channelized sediments are present along the proposed drilling site. However, in comple xly faulted structures, formation pressures may be compartmentalized and may vary between different fa ult blocks. Areas with extensive shallow faulting are also vulnerable to low-margin drilling conditions. Th e overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible

to moderate at the well location. Unit C has the hi ghest potential for a shallow water flow event due to the sediments exhibiting characteristics similar to ma ss transport deposits covere d by a rapidly deposited sediments. A tophole prognosis chart summarizing subsurface conditions and shallow water flow potential is provided as Figure No. 5.

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

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the n ear-surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations . Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and deepwater benthic co mmunities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of any obvious BSRs on the 3D data collected in Block 451, Green Canyon Area.

SURFACE CONDUCTOR JETTING ASSESSMENT The Surface Conductor Jetting Assessment for the upper 120 milliseconds (~300 feet) of the 3D exploration seismic data is included as Figure No. 6 (assumed velocity of 5,000 feet/second). The interpreted soil lithology from the seismic profiles is presented as part of the assessment.

The near seafloor seismic stratigraphy at the drill site is characterized by alternating low to moderate amplitude reflectors representing primarily Holocene and Late Pleistocene clay beds with possible interbedded layers of fine-grained debris flows. A possible unconformity exists approximately 140 feet BML at the boundary between Unit A and B. The fa ult scarp located just north of the well location

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 6 intersects the well bore approximately 188 feet BML, n ear this boundary. It is recommended to set the casing below the faulted zone.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface well site location is clear of geological co nstraints. The seafloor within the 2,000-foot

radius of the drill location does contain several faul t scarps, though none intersect the proposed Well “A” surface location. Drilling efforts need to take note of the positions of these features and avoid as necessary.

The northern fault intersects the well bore at 188 feet below the mudline.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes, that may indicate the occurrence of hard ground, carbonates, or potential expulsion, are found within 2,000 feet of th e proposed Well “A” surface location.

No known infrastructure exists in proximity of the Well “A” location.

A negligible to moderate risk of shallow gas exis ts along the majority of the well bore for the proposed Well “A” drilling site.

A possible lithological change or a function of salt di ssolution/sediment interaction occurs at a depth of 1,475 to 1,813 feet below the mudline. Caution shoul d be used when drilling thr ough this interval and the top of salt due to the unpredictable nature of salt movement, dissolution, and possible pressure

differences.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests all units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk of shallow

water flow at the well location.

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

this assessment.

Sincerely yours,

Hallie Graves Marine Geologist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Seafloor rendering and features identified within 2,000 feet of well location. Figure No. 2. 3D volume cut away with seafloor amplitudes overlain. Figure No. 3. 3D seismic Inline 2673 through Well “A”. Figure No. 4. 3D seismic Crossline 2519 through Well “A”. Figure No. 5. Tophole prognosis chart for the proposed Well “A” in Block 451, Green Canyon Area. Figure No. 6. Surface Conductor Jettin g Assessment for Proposed Well “A”. Figure No. 7. Extracted wavelet and power spectru m at Proposed Well “A” in Block 451, Green Canyon

Area.

Sheet 1. Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Amplitude Map

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 7 Sheet 3. Seafloor Features Map Sheet 4. Subsurface Features Map

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 1 January 12, 2011

Woodside Energy Ltd. 830 West Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attn: Mr. Doug Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter

Proposed Well “B”

Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area

INTRODUCTION Woodside Energy Ltd. (Woodside) contracted C & C T echnologies, Inc. (C & C) to prepare a well site clearance letter for the drilling location of the proposed Well “B” in Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon (GC) Area. The data used for the site cl earance letter is an expl oration-quality 3D seismic volume, collected by CGG Veritas between 1999 and 2000, provided by Woodside. C & C completed the geohazard report titled “Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area” in July 2009. This site clearance letter is based on findings provided within this report.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately two and a half seconds of two-way traveltime below the seafloor. A dynamically positioned drilling rig is planned to drill the well, therefore an anchor assessment is not needed. The assessment and enclosures presented with this letter comply with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) guidelines provided in Notice To Lesse es (NTL) No. 2008-G05 (Shallow Hazards Program) and NTL No. 2000-G20 (Deepwater Chemosynthetic Co mmunities). Per Woodside’s request, on January 10, 2011, this letter and supporting maps have been u pdated to meet the requireme nts as stated in new the NTL No. 2009-G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

METHODS

The 3D seismic data used for this site clearance as sessment were provided in SEG-Y format on a digital linear tape (DLT) tape, where the files were retrieved and saved on a secure server then processed for shallow hazards by C & C. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s (SMT) Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.3 for interpretation. The time-migrat ed data volume was proces sed at a two-millisecond sample rate and was interpreted to two and a half seconds below sea level. The inlines of the CGG Veritas data set run west-east and are spaced at 65.62-foot (20-meter) intervals. The crosslines run north-south and are spaced at 82.02-foot (25-meter) intervals.

A strong positive amplitude peak, flanked by troughs , represents the seafloor on the seismic volumes. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32-bit floati ng-point numbers, identified during data loading. The data provided were adequate for regional screen ing of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions.

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls of the proposed surface location for GC451 Well “B” are tabulated below:

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 2 Coordinates Well
X-Coordinate Y-Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 451 Green Canyon Area

Well “B” 2,158,712.00’ 9,987,548.18’ 27 ° 30’50.203” 91 ° 24’01.981” FNL 7,492’ FWL 4,472’

The geodetic datum used for this project is the No rth American Datum 0f 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15 North (15N). All grid units, including scales and measurements, are in U.S. Survey Fe et. The surface hole location of the proposed GC451 Well “B” and the 2,000-foot radius are displayed on the Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Features Map (Sheet 3), and the Subsurface Features Map (Sheet 4).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY The “Floyd” Prospect is located in the west-central Gulf of Mexico in an area designated as the Green Canyon Area by the BOEMRE. The study area lies on the upper to middle continental slope of offshore Louisiana. This area of the slope consists of di apiric highs and basin-like topography. Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region , condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea le vel stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarsegrained clastic deposits (sands and gr avels) of variable thickness.

The area where the well is planned is undergoing regional extension and localized compression where allochthonous salt movement is the primary influe nce on the seafloor and subsurface sediments. Salt within this area is shallow and located at a depth of approximately 1,110 to 2,400 feet below the seafloor. The underlying salt sheet is migrating toward the sout heast and has formed the Timbalier Basin to the southeast of the proposed well location.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS The water depth at the proposed GC451 Well “B” surface location is 3,212 feet below sea level (BSL). Within the 2,000-foot radius the seabed depth ranges from 3,065 feet BSL in the northern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary to 3,280 feet BSL at the southeastern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary in Block GC451 (Sheet 1). Water depths in the survey area were determined by appl ying the 1993 Advocate and Hood empirical time-depth model for calculating water depth in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. This equation is: D = 0.1105 - 5066.9193T + 468.6693T 2 - 554.7107T 3 + 340.7019T 4 - 116.9910T 5 +
20.7280T 6 - 1.4658T 7 , where D = water depth in feet and T = one-way traveltime in seconds.

The seafloor at the proposed well site is sloping to the southeast at an average gradient of 1.5° (Sheet 1, Figure No. 1). Potential seafloor hazards identified w ithin the 2,000-foot radius include seafloor faulting with localized gradients not exceeding 24°. The we ll site is proposed between two normal fault scarps striking east to west and southwest to northeast, respectively. The fault scarps are located due north and south at a distance of 617 feet and 384 feet, respectively, of the proposed Well “B” location.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The seafloor reflector displays a range of low to moderate amplitudes within the 2,000-foot radius. In general the seafloor exhibits moderate ampl itudes suggesting finely textured se afloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay (Sheet 2; Figure No. 2). Areas of low return identified on the fault scarp faces are attributed to the high angle of seabed where signal reflection is low. This lower amplitude likely results from the seismic signal being deflec ted away from the hydrophones by the high angle of incidence of the fault scarp face.

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 3 At the well location no seafloor haza rds are present that might pose a pr oblem for drilling activities. Several fault scarps are identified within the 2,000-foot radius , with scarps to the north and south, exhibiting 45 and 50 feet, respectively, of seafloor di splacement (Sheet 3) with no recent slumping evident along faults. No other significant seafloor features are located at the proposed Well “B” location that could interfere with drilling activities.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High-amplitude seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonate s and deepwater benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the prop osed well location, and surrounding 2,000-foot radius, contains no low or high positive seafloor amplitudes associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential deepwater benthic communities.

The nearest reported deepwater benthic community is located in Block 272, Green Canyon Area, approximately 13 miles northwest of the proposed Well “B” location according to the BOEMRE (NTL No. 2009-G40). While, according to NTL 2009-G40, deepwater benthic communities are not know to exist within the planned well area, deepwater benthi c communities are known to exist in similar geologic

conditions to those located north of Well “B”. Mound features with associated expulsion and higher amplitudes are evident in the extreme northern portion of Block 451 and southern portion of Block 467, outside of the 2,000-foot radius. No areas of potential deepwater benthic communities are identified within 2,000 feet of the proposed location (Figure Nos. 3 and 4).

MAN-MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEMRE data shows that no pipelines, umbilicals, wells, or platforms are located within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location (Sheet 3). Man-made objects are below the resolution of 3D seismic data, thus u nknown objects may exist at the well site. The drilling location of Well “B” is free from any known man-made hazards and infrastructure.

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARDS AND STRATIGRAPHY Five stratigraphic units of distinct seismic character were assessed (Sheet 4; Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Woodside provided C & C with check shot survey data used to derive the total vertical depth (TVD) in feet from the corresponding two-way traveltime in s econds. From these values an equation was derived that calculates structure depth below sea level: Y = 386.98(x 2 ) + 1,963.5x Where Y = depth below sea level in feet and x = two- way traveltime in seconds . A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 2009 Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCSG-32509), Green Canyon Area.

Subsurface deposition in the upper 213 feet, Unit A, occurred during a high sea level stand and is

considered a “condensed section”. This unit is lik ely comprised of hemipelagic clays laid down as a drape deposit and interbedded layers of fine-grained tu rbidites, or thin mass transport deposits, and some possible sands (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Unit A is ca tegorized by uniform paralle l reflectors, which are discontinuous within the 2,000-foot radius, only as a result of faulting from subsurface salt. No slumping or mass transport deposits are evident along the downthrow n side of faulting within the 2,000-foot radius.

At the well bore, Unit B contains low to moderate am plitude, parallel reflectors, at the top of the unit, which become deformed with depth due to faultin g (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The Unit B sequence is identified 213 to 461 feet below the mudline, with slumping and mass transport deposits evident within this unit, not at the well bore but within the 2,000-foot radius. This unit has the characteristics resembling an “expanded section” associated with a lower sea level stand. Some of the reflectors appear to be

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 4 truncated indicating a possible unconformity associat ed with changes in su rface morphology. Faulting

within this unit has caused exte nsive deformation and limited continuity of the sediments.

Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude para llel to chaotic reflectors with variable acoustic impedance and is found 461 to 783 feet below the m udline (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The top of Unit C represents an unconformity, resulting from eroded uplifte d beds. Moderate reflectors with parallel to discontinuous orientation disrupted by intense fau lting comprise Unit C. Increased shear strength may occur below Unit C due to the unconformity. Uniform pa rallel reflectors extend east to west whereas the

reflectors are discontinuous from north to south wh ere faults are encountered. Faults are numerous throughout this unit with four instances occurring alo ng the well bore. The first intersect crosses the well bore 511 feet below the mudline (1.470 seconds) within this unit. The lower portion of this unit is comprised of chaotic reflectors with low amplit ude values likely saturated by fluid resulting from dissolution of the salt. The seafloor scarp located 50 feet south of the proposed surface location intersects the drilling path in this unit.

Unit D is characterized by discontinuous chaotic refl ectors showing primarily low to moderate amplitudes between 783 to 1,522 feet below the mudline. Low am plitude chaotic reflectors are evident at the top of the unit (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Sediments within this unit are highly deformed due to extensive faulting and a possible fault intersects the well bore in the upper portion of the unit. Two identifiable faults

intersect the well bore at 872 feet below the mudlin e (1.585 seconds) and 1,039 feet below the mudline (1.637 seconds). At a depth of approximately 1,185 feet BML, Horizon 4 is slightly apparent and moderate to high amplitudes are evident extending to th e top of salt. One fault is evident within this transition zone above the top of salt, 1,376 feet below the mudline (1.740 seconds). The change in seismic character within this section could be the possi ble result of lithological differences as compared to the upper section, or a function of salt dissolution/sedimen t interaction, and likely a combination of both. Higher amplitudes are present at this location and at the salt/sediment interface. This region of higher amplitudes associated with the top of salt, are extens ively deformed due to the salt/sediment interaction. The proposed Well “B” location will pierce the top of sa lt (1,522 feet below the mudline) at the base of this unit. The unpredictable nature of salt and its movement increases the risk of well bore stability at the

salt/sediment interface.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude , commonly termed bright spots, are interpreted as potential regions of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sa nds. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as being at one of four levels. These are:

• Negligible - No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

• Low risk of gas - Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2-3x background level) and phase reversal. This may also in clude diffuse areas of gas blanking.

• Moderate risk of gas - Generally indicated by high amplitude (3-4x background level) and phase reversal.

• High risk of gas - Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a comb ination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull-down and masking of underlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.

No high amplitude subsurface amplitude anomalies ar e noted at the location of the proposed well bore (Sheet 4; Figure No. 5). A negligible to moderate risk of shallow gas exists along the well bore for the proposed Well “B” drilling site.

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 5 SHALLOW WATER FLOW (SWF) Shallow Water Flows (SWF) are overpressured unconso lidated sands encountered in the tophole sections of some wells drilled in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and compaction after deposition. The sands are usually unconsolidated and overpressured. The pressure rise s with overburden causing a potentially disastrous hazard for drilling operations. The nearest reported sh allow water flows occurred approximately 24 and 25 miles northeast and northwest, respectively, of the proposed well site. A mode rate severity shallow water flow event occurred during ERT’s drilling of GC282 Well No. 1 (OCS-G-16727) at a depth of 2,121 feet below the mudline. BHP’s GC237 We ll No. 3 (OCS-G-15563) encountered a low severity shallow water flow at a depth of 720 feet below th e mudline. These shallow water flow events occurred in the northeastern portion of the Green Canyon Area and are attributed to deposition of the Mississippi Fan system. The third closest shallow water flow event occurred at BP’s Well No. 2 (OCS-G-12205) recorded as a low severity event 1,354 feet below th e mudline in GC181. Well integrity was maintained at all three drilling sites. No seismic data was av ailable to correlate the sand prone high SWF potential

units to the Well “B” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests the regi on is highly faulted and stratigraphy is greatly impacted by salt induced uplift and migration. No di rect indicators of channelized sediments are present along the proposed drilling site. However, in comple xly faulted structures, formation pressures may be compartmentalized and may vary between different fa ult blocks. Areas with extensive shallow faulting are also vulnerable to low-margin drilling conditions. Th e overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible

to moderate at the well location. Unit C has the hi ghest potential for a shallow water flow event due to the sediments exhibiting characteristics similar to ma ss transport deposits covered by a rapidly deposited layer of sediments. A tophole prognosis chart summar izing subsurface conditions and shallow water flow potential is provided as Figure No. 5.

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

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the n ear-surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations . Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and chemosynthetic comm unities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of any obvious BSRs on the 3D data collected in Block 451, Green Canyon Area.

Mounds located north of the Well “B” location have the potential for gas hydrate association however, the well site remains free from any potential hydrate accumulation.

SURFACE CONDUCTOR JETTING ASSESSMENT The Surface Conductor Jetting Assessment for the upper 120 milliseconds (~300 feet) of the 3D exploration seismic data is included as Figure No. 6 (assumed velocity of 5,000 feet/second). The interpreted soil litholog y from the seismic profiles is presented as part of the assessment.

The near seafloor seismic stratigraphy at the drill site is characterized by alternating low to moderate amplitude reflectors representing primarily Holocene and Late Pleistocene clay beds with possible

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 6 interbedded layers of fine-grained debris flows. A possible unconformity exists approximately 213 feet BML at the boundary between Unit A and B. Un it B has severely faulted components and it is recommended to set the casing below this faulted zone.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface well site location is clear of geological co nstraints. The seafloor within the 2,000-foot

radius of the drill locati on contains two fault scarps, though none intersect the propose d Well “B” surface location. Drilling efforts should note the positi ons of these features and avoid as necessary.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes, that may indica te the occurrence of hard ground or carbonates or potential expulsion, are found with in 2,000 feet of the proposed Well “B” surface location.

No known infrastructure exists in proximity to the Well “B” location.

A negligible to moderate risk of shallow gas exis ts along the majority of the well bore for the proposed Well “B” drilling site.

A possible lithological change or a fu nction of salt dissolution/sediment interaction occurs at a depth of 1,185 to 1,522 feet below the mudline. Caution should be used when drilling through this interval and the top of salt due to the unpredictable nature of salt moveme nt, dissolution, and possible pressure differences.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests all units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk of shallow

water flow at the well location.

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

this assessment.

Sincerely yours,

Hallie Graves Marine Geologist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Seafloor rendering and features identified within 2,000 feet of well location. Figure No. 2. Seafloor amplitudes evident within the study area. Figure No. 3. 3D seismic Inline 2642 through Well “B”. Figure No. 4. 3D seismic Crossline 2519 through Well “B”. Figure No. 5. Tophole prognosis chart for the proposed Well “B” in Block 451, Green Canyon Area. Figure No. 6. Surface Conductor Jettin g Assessment for Proposed Well “B”. Figure No. 7. Extracted wavelet and power spectru m at Proposed Well “B” in Block 451, Green Canyon

Area.

Sheet 1. Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Amplitude Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Features Map Sheet 4. Subsurface Features Map

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 1 January 12, 2011

Woodside Energy Ltd. 830 West Causeway Approach, Suite 1000 Mandeville, LA 70471

Attn: Mr. Doug Lumpkin

Site Clearance Letter

Proposed Well “C”

Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area

INTRODUCTION Woodside Energy Ltd. (Woodside) contracted C & C T echnologies, Inc. (C & C) to prepare a well site clearance letter for the drilling location of the proposed Well “C” in Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon (GC) Area. The data used for the site cl earance letter is an expl oration-quality 3D seismic volume, collected by CGG Veritas between 1999 and 2000, provided by Woodside. C & C completed the geohazard report titled “Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCS-G-32509), Green Canyon Area” in July 2009. This site clearance letter is based on findings provided within this report.

This letter provides a tophole drilling prognosis and addresses seafloor conditions within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location. The depth limit of the investigation is approximately two and a half seconds of two-way traveltime below the seafloor. A dynamically positioned drilling rig is planned to drill the well, therefore an anchor assessment is not needed. The assessment and enclosures presented in this letter comply with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation an d Enforcement (BOEMRE) guidelines provided in Notice to Lessees (NTL) No . 2008-G05 (Shallow Hazards Program) and NTL No. 2000-G20 (Deepwater Chemosynthetic Communities). Pe r Woodside’s request, on January 10, 2011, this letter and supporting maps have been updated to meet the requirement s as stated in new the NTL No. 2009-G40 (Deepwater Benthic Communities)

METHODS

The 3D seismic data used for this site clearance as sessment were provided in SEG-Y format on a digital linear tape (DLT) tape, where the files were retrieved and saved on a secure server then processed for shallow

hazards at C & C. The data were loaded into Seismic Micro Technology’s Kingdom Suite 2D/3D Pak, Version 8.3 (SMT) for interpretation. The data vol ume (Time Migrated SEG-Y data) was processed at a 2- millisecond sample rate and was interp reted to two and a half seconds below sea level. The inlines of the CGG Veritas data set run west-east and are spaced at 65.62-foot (20-meter) interval s. The crosslines run north-south and are spaced at 82.02 -foot (25-meter) intervals.

A strong positive amplitude peak, flanked by troughs , represents the seafloor on the seismic volumes. Amplitude values are represented by IBM 32-bit floati ng-point numbers, identified during data loading. The data provided were adequate for regional screen ing of the seafloor and shallow geologic conditions.

WELL LOCATION The coordinates and calls of the proposed surface location for GC451 Well “C” are tabulated below:

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 2 Coordinates Well
X-Coordinate Y-Coordinate Latitude Longitude Calls From Block 451 Green Canyon Area

Well “C” 2,159,111.96’ 9,990,572.09’ 27 ° 31’20.097” 91 ° 23’57.105” FNL 4,468’ FWL 4,872’

The geodetic datum used for this project is the No rth American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) on the Clarke 1866 Ellipsoid. The datum is projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15 North (15N). All grid units, including scales and measurements, are in U.S. Survey Fe et. The surface hole location of the proposed GC451 Well “C” and the 2,000-foot radius are displayed on the Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map (Sheet 1), Seafloor Amplitude Map (Sheet 2), Seafloor Features Map (Sheet 3), and the Subsurface Features Map (Sheet 4).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY The “Floyd” Prospect is located in the west-central Gulf of Mexico in an area designated as the Green Canyon Area by the BOEMRE. The study area lies on the upper to middle continental slope of offshore Louisiana. This area of the slope consists of di apiric highs and basin-like topography. Two types of depositional sequences are identified in the region , condensed and expanded sections. Condensed sections are deposited during high sea le vel stands and consist of slowly accumulated hemipelagic clays. The expanded sections are formed during low sea level stands and consist of rapidly accumulated, coarsegrained clastic deposits (sands and gr avels) of variable thickness.

The area where the well is planned is undergoing regional extension and localized compression where allochthonous salt movement is the primary influe nce on the seafloor and subsurface sediments. Salt within this area is shallow and located at a depth of approximately 1,110 to 2,400 feet below the seafloor. The underlying salt sheet is migrating toward the sout heast and has formed the Timbalier Basin to the southeast of the proposed well location.

BATHYMETRY AND SEAFLOOR GRADIENTS The water depth at the proposed GC451 Well “C” su rface location is 3,038 feet below sea level (BSL). Within the 2,000-foot radius the seabed depth rang es from 3,020 feet BSL in the eastern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary to 3,160 feet BSL at the sout hern portion of the 2,000-foot boundary in Block GC451 (Sheet 1). Water depths in the survey area were determined by appl ying the 1993 Advocate and Hood empirical time-depth model for calculating water depth in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. This equation is: D = 0.1105 - 5066.9193T + 468.6693T 2 - 554.7107T 3 + 340.7019T 4 - 116.9910T 5 +
20.7280T 6 - 1.4658T 7 , where D = water depth in feet and T = one-way traveltime in seconds.

The seafloor at the proposed well site is on the north western side of an elongated fault block where the seafloor slopes to the northwest on the backside of the uplift with an average gradient of 2.3° (Sheet 1; Figure No. 1). Potential seafloor hazards identified w ithin the 2,000-foot radius include seafloor faulting with localized gradients not exceeding 14°. The well site is proposed on the top of the uplift where normal faulting occurs to the north and south, striking southwest to northeast. The fault scarps are located due north and south at a distance of 1,460 feet and 532 feet, respectively, of the proposed Well “C”

location.

SEAFLOOR HAZARDS The seafloor reflector displays a range of low to moderate amplitudes within the 2,000-foot radius. In general the seafloor exhibits moderate ampl itudes suggesting finely textured se afloor sediments that are likely comprised of hemipelagic clay (Sheet 2; Figure No. 2).

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 3 At the well location no seafloor hazar ds are present that might pose a pr oblem for drilling activities. A few fault scarps are identified within the 2,000-foot radius, with the closest exhibiting 50 and 35 feet, respectively, of seafloor displacement with no recent slumping ev ident along the fault scarps (Sheet 3). No other significant seafloor features are located at the proposed Well “C” location that could interfere with drilling

activities.

POTENTIAL DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES High-amplitude seafloor anomalies are a potential indicator of carbonate s and deepwater benthic community habitats. The seafloor at the prop osed well location, and surrounding 2,000-foot radius, contains no low or high positive seafloor amplitudes associated with fluid expulsion or mounded carbonates representing potential deepwater benthic communities.

The nearest reported deepwater benthic community is located in Block 272, Green Canyon Area, approximately 13 miles northwest of the proposed Well “C” location according to the BOEMRE (NTL No. 2009-G40). While, according to NTL No. 2009-G 40, deepwater benthic communities are not know to exist within the planned well area, deepwater benthic communities are known to exist in similar geologic conditions to those located north of Well “C ”. Mound features with associated expulsion and higher amplitudes are evident in the extreme norther n portion of Block 451 and s outhern portion of Block 467, outside of the 2,000-foot radius. No areas of potential deepwater benthi c communities are identified within 2,000 feet of the proposed location (Figure Nos. 3 and 4).

MAN-MADE HAZARDS A review of company and BOEMRE data shows that no pipelines, umbilicals, wells, or platforms are located within a 2,000-foot radius of the proposed well location (Sheet 3). Man-made objects are below the resolution of 3D seismic data, thus u nknown objects may exist at the well site. The drilling location of Well “C” is free from any known man-made hazards and infrastructure.

SUBSURFACE GEOHAZARDS Five stratigraphic units of distinct seismic character were assessed (Sheet 4; Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Woodside provided C & C with check shot survey data used to derive the total vertical depth (TVD) in feet from the corresponding two-way traveltime in s econds. From these values an equation was derived that calculates structure depth below sea level: Y = 386.98(x 2 ) + 1,963.5x Where Y = depth below sea level in feet and x = two- way traveltime in seconds . A detailed description of the sequence units can be found in the 2009 Shallow Hazard Report, “Floyd” Prospect, Block 451 (OCSG-32509), Green Canyon Area.

Subsurface deposition in the upper 147 feet, Unit A, occurred during a high sea level stand and is

considered a “condensed section”. This unit is lik ely comprised of hemipelagic clays laid down as a drape deposit and interbedded layers of fine-grained tu rbidites, or thin mass transport deposits, and some possible sands (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). Unit A is ca tegorized by uniform paralle l reflectors, which are discontinuous only as a result of fa ulting from subsurface salt. No slumping or mass transport deposits are evident along the downthrown side of faulting within the 2,000-foot radius.

At the well bore, Unit B contains low to modera te amplitude, parallel and discontinuous reflectors throughout the unit, which become deformed at depth due to faulting (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The Unit B sequence is identified 147 to 381 feet below the m udline with mass transport deposits more evident

within this unit. This unit h as the characteristics resembling an “expanded section” associated with a lower sea level stand. Some of the reflectors appear to be truncated indicating a possible unconformity

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 4 associated with changes in surface mo rphology. Low amplitude reflectors are interpreted to indicate finegrained silts and clays with mass movement deposits exhibiting higher amplitude values suggesting more

sand rich sediments. The seafloor fault located 1,460 feet north of the proposed surface location intersects the drilling path in this unit.

Unit C consists of low to moderate amplitude, parallel to chaotic re flectors, with variable acoustic impedance and is found 381 to 790 feet below the m udline (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The top of Unit C represents an unconformity, resulting from eroded uplifte d beds. Moderate reflectors with parallel to discontinuous orientation disrupted by intense fau lting comprise Unit C. One fault intersects the well bore 561 feet below the mudline (1.430 seconds). In creased shear strength may occur below Unit C due to the unconformity. The higher amplitude values are interpreted to be resulting from sand rich deposits likely associated with mass movement deposits having thicker stratigraphic depositi on in this area. The lower portion of this unit is comprised of chaotic reflectors with low amplitude values likely saturated with fluid from dissolution occurring above the top of salt.

Unit D is characterized by discontinuous, chaotic reflectors, showing prim arily low to moderate amplitudes between 790 to 1,857 feet below the mudline. Low amplitude chaotic reflectors are evident in the upper portion of the unit (Figure Nos. 3 and 4). The base of Unit D along the well bore is the stratigraphic contact with the top of salt (1,857 feet below the mud line) due to Horizon 4 being indistinguishable. At a depth of 1,497 feet BML, moderate to high amplitudes are evident extending to the top of salt. These higher amplitude reflectors are contained within a localiz ed depression on the top of salt. The change in seismic character within this section could be the possible result of lithological differences as compared to the upper section, or a f unction of salt dissolution/sediment interaction, and likely a combination of both. The well bore will pierce the top of salt (1,857 feet below the mudline) on the edge of a depression where the higher amplitude reflectors are present. The unpredictable nature of

salt and its movement increases the risk of we llbore stability at the salt/sediment interface.

SHALLOW GAS Anomalies of very high amplitude, commonly termed br ight spots, are interpre ted as potential regions of fluid/gas saturation usually associated with porous sa nds. Shallow gas is interpreted with amplitude levels and the gas risk is assessed as be ing at one of four levels. These are:

• Negligible - No amplitude anomalies or other gas indicators present.

• Low risk of gas - Generally indicated by increased amplitude (2-3x background level) and phase reversal. This may also in clude diffuse areas of gas blanking.

• Moderate risk of gas - Generally indicated by high amplitude (3-4x background level) and phase reversal.

• High risk of gas - Generally indicated by the highest amplitudes (in excess of 4x background level), phase reversal, and a comb ination of other attributes indicative of the presence of gas, particularly velocity pull-down and masking of underlying sediments. Stratigraphic and structural settings may also be taken into account.

No high amplitude subsurface amplitude anomalies ar e noted at the location of the proposed well bore (Sheet 4; Figure No. 5). A low to negligible risk of shallow gas exists along the well bore for the proposed Well “C” drilling site. Due to the subsurface salt being so shallow and extensive throughout the region, the only form of structural closures are th e fault blocks that have formed, however no high amplitudes appear to be associated with these features.

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 5 SHALLOW WATER FLOW (SWF) Shallow Water Flows (SWF) are overpressured unconso lidated sands encountered in the tophole sections of some wells drilled in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Sands with SWF potential often lie below a seal that prevents dewatering and comp action after deposition. The sands are usually unconsolidated and overpressured. The pressure rise s with overburden causing a potentially disastrous hazard for drilling operations. The nearest reported sh allow water flows occurred approximately 24 and 25 miles northeast and northwest, respectively, of the st udy area. A moderate severity shallow water flow event occurred during ERT’s drilling of GC282 Well No. 1 (OCS-G-16727) at a depth of 2,121 feet below the mudline. BHP’s GC237 Well No. 3 (OCS -G-15563) encountered a low severity shallow water flow at a depth of 720 feet below the mudline. These shallow water flow events occurred in the northeastern portion of the Green Canyon Area and are attributed to deposition of the Mississippi Fan system. The third closest shallow water flow event occurred at BP’s Well No. 2 (OCS-G-12205) recorded as a low severity event 1,354 feet below th e mudline in GC181. Well integrity was maintained at all three drilling sites. No seismic data was av ailable to correlate the sand prone high SWF potential

units to the Well “C” location.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests the regi on is highly faulted and stratigraphy is greatly impacted by salt induced uplift and migration. No di rect indicators of channelized sediments are present along the proposed drilling path. However, in comple xly faulted structures, formation pressures may be compartmentalized and may vary between different fa ult blocks. Areas with extensive shallow faulting are also vulnerable to low-margin drilling conditions. Th e overall risk of shallow water flow is negligible to moderate, at the well location. Unit C has the hi ghest potential for a shallow water flow event due to the sediments exhibiting characteristics similar to ma ss transport deposits covere d by a rapidly deposited layer of higher amplitudes. A tophole prognosis chart summarizing subsurface conditions and shallow water flow potential is provided as Figure No. 5.

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

The areas where seafloor gas hydrates accumulate in the n ear-surface sediments of the Gulf of Mexico are generally unfavorable sites for drilling operations . Irregular seafloor topography, gas seeps, gas chimneys, seafloor hydrates and deepwater benthic co mmunities may all be found in close association. There was no indication of any obvious BSRs on the 3D data collected in Block 451, Green Canyon Area.

SURFACE CONDUCTOR JETTING ASSESSMENT The Surface Conductor Jetting Assessment for the upper 120 milliseconds (~300 feet) of the 3D exploration seismic data is included as Figure No. 6 (assumed velocity of 5,000 feet/second). The interpreted soil lithology from the seismic profiles is presented as part of the assessment.

The near seafloor seismic stratigraphy at the drill site is characterized by alternating low to moderate amplitude reflectors representing primarily Holocene and Late Pleistocene clay beds with possible interbedded layers of fine-grained debris flows. A possible unconformity exists approximately 147 feet

### ______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 730 EAST KALISTE SALOOM ROAD, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70508 6 BML at the boundary between Unit A and B. The fa ult scarp located just north of the well locations intersects the well bore near this boundary. It is recommended to set the casing below the faulted zone.

CONCLUSIONS The proposed surface well site location is clear of geological co nstraints. The seafloor within the 2,000-foot

radius of the drill location does contain a few fault scarps. Drilling efforts need to take note of the positions of these features and avoid as necessary.

No high or low seafloor amplitudes, that may indicate the occurrence of hard ground, carbonates, or potential expulsion, are found within 2,000 feet of th e proposed Well “C” surface location.

No known infrastructure exists in proximity of the proposed Well “C” location.

A low to negligible risk of shallow gas exists along the majority of the well bore for the proposed Well “C” drilling site.

A possible lithological change or a function of salt di ssolution/sediment interaction occurs at a depth of 1,497 to 1,857 feet below the mudline. Caution shoul d be used when drilling thr ough this interval and the top of salt due to the unpredictable nature of salt movement, dissolution, and possible pressure

differences.

The assessment of seismic profiles suggests all units exhibit a negligible to moderate risk of shallow

water flow at the well location.

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

this assessment.

Sincerely yours,

Hallie Graves Marine Geologist

Enclosures Figure No. 1. Seafloor rendering and features identified within 2,000 feet of well location. Figure No. 2. Seafloor amplitudes evident within the anchor spread. Figure No. 3. 3D seismic Inline 2688 through Well “C”. Figure No. 4. 3D seismic Crossline 2524 through Well “C”. Figure No. 5. Tophole prognosis chart for the proposed Well “C” in Block 451, Green Canyon Area. Figure No. 6. Surface Conductor Jettin g Assessment for Proposed Well “C”. Figure No. 7. Extracted wavelet and power spectr um at Proposed Well “C” in Block 451, Green Canyon

Area

Sheet 1. Color-Shaded Bathymetry Map Sheet 2. Seafloor Amplitude Map Sheet 3. Seafloor Features Map Sheet 4. Subsurface Features MapOCS-G-25144

CHEVRON OCS-G-25145

KERR-MCGEE

OCS-G-25155

MURPHY OCS-G-25156

MURPHY OCS-G-28081

WOODSIDE OCS-G-25143

MAXUS

OCS-G-25149

MAXUS OCS-G-28078

WOODSIDE OCS-G-32509

WOODSIDE 

### GC408

GC496 GC494 GC495 GC407 GC406

GC452

GC450 GC451 2,000'

2,000' 2,000'

Face of Escarpment Face of Escarpment High seafloor reflectivity (high amplitude seafloor) - C & C job #061593 Expulsion Fault scarp with seafloor displacement (Hachures on downthrown side)

Possible fluid expulsion zone associated with low amplitude seafloor

anomalies

High positive amplitude anomalies associated with potential mounded carbonates or hard grounds on seafloor Base of escarpment (Hachures on upslope side)

Crest of escarpment (Hachures on downthrown side)

Mass movement deposits Seafloor gully, sedimentation pathway

SITE CLEARANCE

SEAFLOOR FEATURES MAP

"FLOYD" PROSPECT WELLS "A", "B", & "C" LOCATIONS

OCS-G-32509

BLOCK 451

GREEN CANYON AREA CGG survey inline number (Inline spacing = 65.62 feet)

CGG survey crossline number (Crossline spacing = 82.02 feet)

Mounds Depression

# Attachment I Stratigraphic Column

# Attachment J Vicinity Map

# Attachment K Consistency

Certificate

# Attachment L

Blowout Scenario

with Assumptions and Calculations

### (j) Blowout Scenario

1) Purpose

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

2) Background

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

MC-252 ‘Macondo’ location.

3) Information Requirements

a) Blowout scenario

The GC-451 exploration well is drilled to the objective sands as outlined in the Geological and Geophysical Information Secti on of this Plan utilizing a typical subsea wellhead system, conductor, surface and intermediate casing program, and using a MODU rig with a marine riser and sub-sea BO P. A hydrocarbon influx and a well control event occurred from the objective followed by fa ilure of the subsea BOP and marine riser and

a blow-out to the seabed. 

### The worst case discharge from the objective sands was modeled for flow up the well bore with no drill pipe in the hole.

### b) Estimated flow rate of the potential blowout

Category Initial EP Type of Activity Exploratory Drilling Facility Location (area/bloc k) GC 451 Well Location “ A ” Facility Designation MODU Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 109 Uncontrolled blowout (volume per day) 159,951 bbl 

### Type of Fluid(s) Crude

c) Total volume and maximum durati on of the potential blowout

Category Initial EP Duration of flow (days) 21 days to contract/mob rig

9 9 days to drill relief well

1 2 0 days total duration Total volume of spill (bbls) 5,735,000 Note: MBAL model used assuming depletion.*

* Note: Our Analysis of the Floyd prospect indicates depletion drive as the primary drive

mechanism.

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

Mechanical failure/colla pse of the borehole in a blowout sc enario is influenced by several factors including in-situ stress, rock strength and fluid velocities at the sandface. Given the substantial fluid velocities inherent in the blowout rate quoted above, it is possible that the borehole may fail/c ollapse/bridge over within the span of a week.

e) Likelihood and measures taken for surf ace and/or sub-sea intervention to stop the

blowout

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

• Acoustic Secondary BOP Control System: The rig has a Kongsberg acoustic BOP control system fitted to the BOP. This syst em has the ability to communicate with the

BOP from surface in the event of failure of the primary umbili cal control system from the rig under a scenario such as a lo ss of the rig or marine riser. Control can be established either from the surface acoustic package on the rig or by deploying a second acoustic control package on the back of a supply boat. The system is configured to provide control over the following func tions: - Blind / shear ram close - Pipe ram close - LMRP

disconnect

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

The system is configured to provide control over the following functions: - Blind / shear ram open and close - Casing (super) shear ram open and close - Auto shear sequence - Pipe rams open and close - LMRP disconnect - Wellhead disconnect The rig is equipped with two ROV’s which provides additional redundancy. The panels could also be operated by an ROV from independe nt supply boat in the event of a loss of rig scenario. The ROV panel has been tested during the month of June 2010, using the rig based ROV

with the BOP on a wellhead on the seabed and the actual hot stab. A close of the blind shear rams was successfully achieved in 13 minutes using the ROV’s direct hydraulic supply.

• Deadman / autoshear function: The rig is equipped with an automated sequence that

closes the blind shear rams in the event of any of the followi ng scenarios: - Inadvertent disconnect of the LMRP - Loss of both hydrauli c pressure and electr ical supply from the surface BOP control system No human inte rface is required once these systems are armed. These systems were satisfactorily tested during rig comm issioning and again in

June 2010.

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

Woodside currently has one deepwater M ODU (Maersk Developer) on contract and located in the US GOM for expl oration drilling. If the blowout scenario does not involve the loss or damage of the rig (eg: marine rise r failure only), then the existing contracted rig may be available for drilling the relief well. Maersk Drilling owns and maintains spare riser joints and a spare BOP in the US GOM. If the blowout scenario involves significant damage or total loss of this rig th en a replacement rig will be required to be

contracted. The US GOM activ ity level currently supports a deepwater operating fleet of between 25 to 40 MODU’s with the majority of those rigs being dynamically positioned vessels. The GOM is considered a mature ope rating environment with a significant local rig fleet capable of conducti ng relief well operations. Th e ability to negotiate and contract a rig of similar capability under the sc enario of a requirement to drill a relief well is considered high.

This lease is located approximately 109 miles from the shoreline and there are no platforms

available in this block to untilize to drill a relief well.

Contracting strategy: • Request rig availability from existing strategic partners in the US GOM where Woodside is a non-operating part ner in an active drilling ope ration or a partner in the sharing of a rig. • Request rig availability from the wide r GOM fleet through direct contact and negotiation and by utilizing the established communicati on network between the US GOM operator drilling organizations.

g) Rig constraints

The US GOM deepwater rig fleet consists of mainly 4th to 6th generation, dynamically positioned MODU’s which are capable of perfor ming equivalent relief well operations at

the GC-451 location. The smaller US GOM fleet of anchored MODU’s that can work in deepwater would have time and equipment c onstraints of mobilizing and setting up a deepwater anchoring spread at the GC-451 lo cation and would not be the preferred option for the drilling of a relief well.

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

### • Since Woodside has the ability to respond to the appropriate worst-case spill scenario included in its regional OSRP submitted Apr il 30, 2011 and since the worst-case scenario determined for this Plan does not replace the worst-case scenario in our regional OSRP, I hereby certify that Woodside has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a subs tantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in this Plan.

k) Measures taken to enhance ab ility to prevent a blow-out

• Well design: Woodside uses a systematic well design process for the planning and construction of a well operation. This proce ss involves an assuranc e plan covering each step of the well design and an independent pe er review of the well design and of the shallow hazards and formation pressure hazard s expected during drilling. These are the critical design steps required to minimize the potential for an unplanned well control event that could lead to a blowout. This proc ess will also include a Professional Engineer review and approval of the final casing design.

Woodside’s drilling philosophy is to provide a detailed pre-drill assessment of formation pressure and provide an overbal anced mud weight for the safe drilling of the well. For an exploration well this may also include taking formation pressures to confirm the actual formation pressure during the well construc tion process and minimize the risk of an unplanned well control event.

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

blowout scenario.

• Barrier Philosophy: For the GC-451 explor ation well design Woodside will require and use two independent barriers for both inte rnal and external flow paths and conduct positive and negative testing to confirm integr ity of those barriers in accordance with

NTL No. 2010-N05.

• Management of change prot ocol: Woodside uses a ‘Man agement of Change’ system for monitoring and approving changes in the we ll design or well cons truction that require a deviation from the approved Drilling Pr ogram. Where an unplanned result in the offshore operation requires a change or devia tion from the approved dr illing plan, a risk based decision with formal onshore manageme nt approval is required before continuing the operation.

• BOP and well control equipment: The Maer sk Developer has a 15k psi (6 ram / 2 annular) Hydril BOP with primary and seconda ry BOP control systems. The BOP was

### delivered new in 2008. The BOP and well cont rol equipment was audited during the rig construction and commissioning process by an independent third party. Prior to commencement of operations at the GC-451 lo cation, a BOP certification package will be submitted as part of the APD process that details the compliance with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and applicable federal regulations including NTL No.

2010-N05.

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

annular in a controlled manner and back through conventional surface well control equipment. This item of well control equi pment is relatively unique in the industry and has a direct application fo r deepwater operations.

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

• Well control training and dr ills. Woodside’s Well Contro l Manual requires that key nominated onshore and offshore positions in cluding rig contractor personnel hold an IWCF, WELLCAP or equivalent well control training certif icate, renewable every two years for the type of floating drilling opera tion being conducted. Woodside also monitors compliance for its personnel with the federal regulations and Sub-Part O for well control training. A comprehensive program of well c ontrol drills will be conducted offshore to ensure readiness to identify and then ma nage a well control situation and thereby minimize the potential for a well control ev ent to lead to a blowout scenario.

l) Arrangements for drilling a relief well

Woodside maintains a master agreement with ‘Wild We ll Control’ for advice, management, engineering, well kick pre and post modeling and resource support for an unplanned loss of well control event. In the event of any well cont rol event, Wild Well

Control would be contacted and mobilized if required to support Woodside’s operational

team both in the onshore and offshore locati ons. During a significant loss of well control event, Woodside would mobilize up from a standard drilling support organization in Houston, Texas to a 24 hr / 7 days a week onshore capability utiliz ing local operations resources within the Woodside USA organization and the wider Woodside Energy organization in Australia. A conceptual relief well design will be prepared ahead of time and issued with the Application to Drill. Th is conceptual well design would be finalized

based on the exact circumstance of the loss of well control event.

### Back-up long lead equipment equivalent to the original well design will be carried in stock to allow a rapid response. This in cludes a spare deepwa ter sub-sea wellhead system and the large OD casing (36”, 28” 22” , 18” and 16”) and the connectors required for the first part of the well. Smaller OD casing is considered widely available on the ground in the GOM and would be resourced out of existing inventor y or from suppliers as required.

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

Specialist services for range finding to dril l the relief well in close proximity to the original wellbore at the reservoir depth w ill be provided through Vector Magnetics LLC as a sub-contractor to Baker Hughes Inteq under our existing directional drilling

agreement.

The GC-451 block has three well locations identified, with the corresponding 1500 ft

radius around their locations cleared for shal low hazards as part of Exploration Plan N09436. A fourth location has been identified and the corresponding 2000 ft radius around

its well location cleared for shallow hazards. This fourth well location has been submitted as a supplement to EP N-09436 as proposed well location “D”. Depending on the nature

of the blowout scenario and th e total depth required to inte rsect the blowout zone, these previously cleared areas would be reviewed for best suitability for the location of the relief well. After selecting the most suitabl e surface location a directional plan would be prepared and issued within a 48 hour period.

# Attachment M

Environmental Impact Analysis1 

# Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. (Woodside)

Initial Exploration Plan Green Canyon Block 451

OCS-G32509

(A) Impact Producing Factors

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment

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

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

the water

column or seafloor) Physical

disturbances to the

seafloor (rig or

anchor emplacements, etc.) Wastes sent

to shore for

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

chemical spills, H 2 S releases) Discarded

Trash &

Debris

Site-specific at Offshore

Location

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

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

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

Benthic communities X(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 (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 X2 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 (LowRelief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by BOEMRE 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 BOEMRE 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.3 

### (B) Analysis

Site-Specific at Green Canyon Block 451

Proposed operations consist of the drilling and te mporary abandonment of three well locations. Operations will be conducted with a dynamically positioned semi-submersible.

1. Designated Topographic Features

Potential IPFs on topographic features include phy sical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents,

and accidents.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Green Canyon Block 451 is 34 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Bloc k (Sweet Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Effluents: Green Canyon Block 451 is 34 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Sweet Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (r efer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic organisms only if the oil contacts the or ganisms. 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities, which coul d 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: Green Canyon Block 451 is 213 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.4 

### Effluents: Green Canyon Block 451 is 213 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5 , Water Quality). Oil spills have the potential to

foul benthic communities and cause lethal and su blethal 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 app licable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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 in clude physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents, and accidents.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: Green Canyon Block 451 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: Green Canyon Block 451 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 spil ls 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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.5 

### 4. Benthic Communities

Green Canyon Block 451 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: Green Canyon Block 451 is approximately 12 miles and 13 miles, respectively, from a known benthic community site (Benthic Green Canyon Block 272 and Green Canyon Block 233, respectively), 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 Green Canyon Block 451 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 bi ological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offs hore 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 produ ced. The spill risk relate d 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 th an 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. Histor ically, 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 components6 

### of oil are insoluble in water and therefore float. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to water quality.

6. Fisheries

IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 451 include physical disturbances to the seafloor, effluents and accidents.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: The emplacement of a struct ure or drilling rig results in minimal loss of bottom trawling area to commerc ial 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 no t 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 downcurrent 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 potentia l 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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 spotte d 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 could7 

### cause impacts to marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 451 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 indi rect, 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 Protec tion Agency (EPA).

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. w ill 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 ve ssels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g . helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2007-G03.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and ce taceans 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 marine8 

### mammals and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the twenty-eight species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected marine mammal species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline at (888) 404-3922 , the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312, or the Louisiana Marine Mammal Stra nding Network at (504) 235-3005. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEMRE must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@mms.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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s OSRP.

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 rive r (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all sp ecies as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activities, support ve ssels, 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).9 

### 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 expe cted to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. 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 ve ssels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g . helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2007-G03.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and sea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Co ntract vessel operators can avoid sea turtles and reduce potential deaths by ma intaining 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 Louisiana Marine Mammal Stranding Network at (504) 235- 3005. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEMRE must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@mms.gov

. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is requi red 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 Wo odside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan.10 

### There are no other IPFs (including physical disturbances to the seafloor) from the proposed activities which could impact sea turtles.

9. Air Quality

The projected air emissions identified in Append ix G are not expected to affect the OCS air quality primarily due to distance to the shore or to any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I air quality area such as the Breton W ilderness Area. Green Canyon Block 451 is beyond the 200 kilometer (124 mile) buffer for the Breton Wilderness Area and is 109 miles from the coastline. Therefore, no special mitigation, mo nitoring, or reporting requirements apply with respect to air emissions.

Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Green Canyon Block 451 from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)

IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 451 include disturbances to the seafloor. Green Canyon Block 451 is not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEMRE as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks. Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will report to BOEMRE 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 accident s) from the proposed activ ities which could impact shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

IPFs which could impact prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed operations in Green Canyon Block 451 include disturbances to the seafloor (structure emplacement) and accidents (oil spill). Green Canyon Block 451 is located outside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability line. Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will report to BOEMRE 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 potent ial 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 c overed by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan.11 

### There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact 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 Green Canyon Block 451 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 live-bottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced-water discha rges, discharge-rate restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity te sting are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some de trimental 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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 bi rds 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 atmos phere from these activities are far below

concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.12 

### Accidents: An oil spill would cause localized, low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill w ould 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 ex tent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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 anddeath. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOLAnnex 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). Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of so lid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and usi ng special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised whenhandling 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 Micros oft 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 annua lly. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2007-G03. Debris, if any, from these proposed activities w ill seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physica l disturbances to the se afloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact marine and pelagic birds.

3. Public Health and Sa fety 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

C to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BOEMRE as H 2 

### S absent.

Coastal and Onshore13 

### 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 (109 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional

OSRP.

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. Operator s 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). Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, mani festing trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to 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 ve ssels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g . helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2007-G03.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from th e proposed activities which could impact beaches.

2. Wetlands

Accidents: Oil spills could caus e impacts to wetlands, 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 (109 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.14 

### 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 occu r from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5 , Water Quality). Given the distance from shore (109 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and marine birds are hi ghly 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 Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste manage ment plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards w ill be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g . helicopter pilots, vessel capt ains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” ( previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem” ). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2007-G03.

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 propose d activities could caus e 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 di stance from shore (109 miles) and the response15 

### capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional OSRP.

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

An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill w ould occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5

, Water Quality). Due to the distance from the Breton Wilderness Area (215 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be c overed by Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s Regional

OSRP.

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified

(C) Impacts on your 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 Nove mber, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which six become hurricanes ( > 74 mph winds). Due to its location in the gulf, Green Canyon Block 451 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:

Drilling & completion

a. Secure well locations

b. Secure DP

c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in a ccordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09 and 2009-G10.16 

### (E) Alternatives

No alternatives to the propose d 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 su ch entities has not been provided.

(H) Preparer(s)

Bridget O'Farrell-Villarreal J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77084 (281) 578-3388 Bridget.O’Farrell@jccteam.com

(I) References

Authors:

• American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effect s of offshore petroleum operations on cold

water marine mammals: a literature review . Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp.

• Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1 990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and

Prevention. Commission on Life Sciences . Earth and Life Sciences. National Academy Press, 1990.

• Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: en tanglement 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 – 199817 

### Although not cited, the following were utilized in preparing this EIA:

• 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-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429.

• Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benef its 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.

• Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on ma rine 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.

• Hazard Surveys

• BOEMRE EIS’s:

o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activiti es. Environmental Assessment. BOEMRE

2000-001

o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact Statement. BOEMRE 96-0059

### EIA Summary

As per 30 CFR 250.227(b), “Your EIA mu st describe those resources, conditions, and activities listed below that could be affected by your exploration activities, or that could affect the construction and op eration of facilities or struct ures, or the activities proposed in your EP”.

Meteorology, oceanography, geology, and shallow geological or man-made

hazards.

Meteorology, oceanography, geology, and shallow geological or man-made hazards that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA and GEMS shallow hazards survey.

Air and water quality.

Air and water quality that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in

the EIA.

Benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, coastal and marine birds, fish and shellfish, and plant life.

The benthic communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, coastal and marine birds, fish and shellfish, and plant life that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA and in the threatened and endangered species section of this EP.

Threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA and in the threatened and endangered species section of this EP.

Sensitive biological resources or habitats such as essential fish habitat, refuges, preserves, special management areas identified in coastal management programs, sanctuaries, rookeries, and calving grounds.

Sensitive biological resources or habitats s uch as essential fish habitat, refuges, preserves, special management areas identified in coastal management programs, sanctuaries, rookeries, and calving grounds that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA.

Archaeological resources.

Archaeological resources that could be a ffected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA and GEMS shallow hazards surveySocioeconomic resources including empl oyment, existing offshore and coastal infrastructure (including major sources of supplies, services, energy, and water), land use, subsistence resources and harvest practices, recreational and commercial fishing (including typical fishing seasons, location, and type), minority and lower income groups, and coastal zone management programs.

Socioeconomic resources including employment, existing offshore and coastal infrastructure (including major sources of s upplies, services, energy, and water), land use, subsistence resources and harvest practices, recreational and commercial fishing (including typical fishing seaso ns, location, and type), minority and lower income groups, and coastal zone management programs that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EIA.

Coastal and marine uses such as military activities, shipping, and mineral exploration or development.

Coastal and marine uses such as military activi ties, shipping, and mineral exploration or development that could be affected by the proposed operations are addressed in the EP.

Other resources conditions, an d activities identified by the Regional Supervisor.

At this time Woodside knows of no other resour ces conditions, and activities identified by the Regional Supervisor that would pertain to the proposed operations of this EP.

# Attachment N Oil Spill Response Discussion

OSRP CertificationSPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Managem ent Act analysis, the largest spill volume originating from the proposed acti vity would be a well blowout during drilling operations , estimated to be 159,951 barrels of crude oil with an API gravity of 29°.

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of
Mexico available on the BOEM website. The results are shown in Figure 1 . The BOEM OSRAM identifies a 7% probability of impact to the shore lines of Cameron Parish, Louisiana within 30 days.
Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lak e, 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 Bi g Constance Lake in Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge. This region is composed of open public beaches, mars hlands and swamps. It serves as a habitat for numerous birds, finfish and other animals, in cluding several rare, threatened and endangered species.

Response

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as practicable. A description of the response equipment available to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2

.

Using the estimated chem ical and physical characteristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADIOS o il database. The results indicate 16% or 25,592 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with 134,359 barrels remaining.

Spill Response GC 451 Barrels of Oil

WCD Volume 159,951

Less 16% natural evaporation/dispersion 25,592

Remaining volume 134,359

Oil addressed by aerial dispersants 7,540

Oil addressed by in-situ burning 6,717

Figure 2 outlines equipment, personnel, ma terials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to a spill of 159, 951 barrels. 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. Estimated time for surface containment is 5 days.

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 should disp erse approximately 7,540 barre ls of product. If the
conditions are favorable for in-s itu burning, the proper approval s have been obtained and the proper planning is in place, in-situ burning of oil may be attempt ed. Using estimates based on the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, up to 5% or 6,717 barrels of the total daily Worst Case Dischargevolume could be burned. Slick containment boom would be immedi ately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. Offshor e response strategies may include a ttempting to skim utilizing the HOSS Barge and eight Fast Response Units from CG A’s inventory. From NRCC, offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing the Marco Class XI AB skimmers on the OSRB Defender, the OSRV Admiral, two rope mop skimmers, three Vikoma Cascade skimmers and one
additional Marco Class XI AB skimmer. Total der ated skimming capacity of CGA and NRCC equipment is 165,512 barrels. Temporary stora ge associated with skimming equipment equals 23,100 barrels. For additional temporary storage, portable barge sets and bladders totaling 4,584 barrels may be deployed. If additional storage is needed, one 47,000 barrel storage barge, one 25,000 barrel storage barge, one 23,000 barrel storage barge, and three 20,000 barrel storage barges may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storag e allowing the skimmers to stay in the area of operat ions as much as possible. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe pr ior to any containment/skimming attempts.

If the spill went unabated, shor eline impact in Cameron Pari sh, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would incl ude the use of CGA’s near shore

and shallow water skimmers with a totaled derate d skimming capacity of 33 ,253 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equal s 1,512 barrels. If additional storage is needed, two 23,000 barrel storage barges may be mobiliz ed 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 shoreli ne boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. A Master Service Contract with Oil Mop will ensure access to 30,000 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom. Figure 2 outlines individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. St rategies would be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict ar eas of potential impact given actual sea and w eather conditions. The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan for Cameron Parish and Unified Command would

be consulted to ensure that env ironmental and special economic resources would be correctly identified and prioritized to ensur e optimal protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protection response modes applicable for oil spill clean-up operations. The St ate of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan provides de tailed shoreline prot ection strategies for this area, and it describes necessary action to keep the oil spill from entering Loui siana’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 ope n waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Supervisory personnel have the option to modify the deployment and operation of equipment allowi ng a more effective response to site-specific circumstanc es. Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s contract Spill Management Team holds a copy of the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan.Initial Response Considerations Actual actions taken during an oil spill response w ill be based on many factor s to include but not be

limited to:

• Weather

• Equipment and materials availability

• Ocean currents and tides

• Location of the spill

• Product spilled

• Amount spilled

• Environmental risk assessments

• Trajectory and product analysis

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

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. will take action to pr ovide 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-dept h” 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. Sur face containment time frame is approximately 5 days.

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

• Information will be confirmed

• An assessment will be made and initial objectives set

• OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified

• ICS 201, Initial Report Form completed

• Initial Safety plan will be written and published

• Unified Command will be established

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

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

o On-site command and control established

Offshore Response Actions

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

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

• Provide trained observer to provide on site status reports

• Provide command and control platform at the site if needed

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

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems

Dispersant application assets

• Put ASI on standby

• With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determine appro priateness of dispersant application (refer to Section 18)

• 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 stoc ks required for expected operationsContainment 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

Storage Vessels

• Establish availability of CGA contracted assets (See Appendix E)

• 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 Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’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 operat ion in coordination with the FOSC and affected
SOSC

• Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems

• Start ordering fire boom stocks required for expected operations

• Contact boom manufacturer to provide training if required

• Determine assets to perform on water operation

• Build operations into safety plan

• Conduct operations in accordance with an approved planNear Shore Response Actions

Timing

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

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

• Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions

• Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

Considerations

• Water depth, vessel draft

• Shoreline gradient

• State of the oil

• Use of VOOs

• Distance of surf zone from shoreline

Equipment Deployment
Surveillance

• Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations

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

• Continual monitoring of vessel assets

Dispersant Use

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

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

Vessel Deployment

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems

• FRVs

• Egmopol and Marco SWS

• Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO

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

• Industry vessel 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 patchesShoreline 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 (Feb 2011) for Louisiana, The State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010 (La. OSRP)

Actions

Placement of boom

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

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

o Trajectories

o Weather forecast

o Oil Impact forecast

o Verified spill movement

o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability

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

Beach Preparation

Considerations and Actions

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

• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team Reports and recommendations

• Determination of Archeological sites and gaining authority to enter

• Monitoring of tide tables and weathe r to determine extent of high tides

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

• Staging of equipment and housing of response perso nnel 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 movem ent for resource redeployment as necessary

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

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

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

areasDecanting Strategy Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean wate r 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, whet her a dedicated or portable system, to operate in differing weather conditions will be directly in relation to the capabilities of the ve ssel 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 th e 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 east erly and westerly wind belts, and therefore, experiences westerly winds during the winter and easterly winds in th e summer. Average wind spee d 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 Atla ntic 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 (Saffi r-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 im pacting a land segment have been projected utilizing Woodside Energy (USA) Inc.’s WCD and informatio n in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Me xico available on the BOEM website using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Area/Block OCS-G Launch

Area Land Segment and/or

Resource Conditional Probability (%) within 30 days

Exploratory Drilling

GC 451 G32509 C43 Matagorda County, TX Brazoria County, TX Galveston County, TX Jefferson County, TX Cameron Parish, LA Vermilion Parish, LA

Iberia Parish, LA Terrebonne Parish, LA

Lafourche Parish, LA Plaquemines Parish, LA 30 day

2

1

3

2

7
3

1
3

1

2WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS(109 miles from shore)159,951 bbls of crude oilAPI Gravity 29°FIGURE 2 – Equipment Response Time to Green Canyon 451Dispersants/SurveillanceDispersant/SurveillanceDispersantCapacity (gal)StorageCapacityPersonsReq.From Hrs to ProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel to SpillSiteTotal HrsCGA EquipmentBasler 67T 2000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 2.8ASI EquipmentDC 3 1000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 1.0 3.0DC 3 1000 NA 2 Houma 1 1 1.0 3.0Aero Commander NA NA 2 Houma 1 1 0.8 2.8Offshore ResponseOffshore Equipment NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGA EquipmentHOSS Barge 43000 4000 3 Tugs 8 Houma 4 0 5 13.8 1 23.8NRCC EquipmentOSRB Defender(Marco Class XI AB)24000 16500 1 Tug 6 Bayou La Batre 4 2 0 40.0 1 47.0OSRV Admiral(Marco Class XI AB)24000 300 NA 6 Galveston 4 2 0 20.9 1 27.9Recovered Oil Storage NoStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs toGOMTravel toSpill SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsEnterprise Marine Services LLC (available through CGA agreement)CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63Offshore Equipment With Staging EDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoad OutTravel toStagingTravel toSiteHrs toDeployTotal HrsStaging Area: FourchonCGA EquipmentFRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 1 2 7 10.8 1 21.8FRU (3) + 100 bbl Tank (5) 11310 500 1 Utility 6 Houma 1 2 1 10.8 1 15.8FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 1 2 4 10.8 1 18.842” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10Crew 20 Galveston 1 2 7 10.8 1 21.842” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Houma 1 2 1 10.8 1 15.842” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Ingleside 1 2 9.5 10.8 1 24.342” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Lake Charles 1 2 4 10.8 1 18.8NRCC Equipment4-Band Rope Mop + 100 bbl Tank 1509100 1 Utility 4 Morgan City 1 2 2.5 10.8 1 17.38-Band Rope Mop + 100 bbl Tank 2283100 1 Utility 4 Galveston 1 2 7 10.8 1 21.8Vikoma Cascade + 100 bbl Tank 5520100 1 Utility 4 Houston 1 2 7 10.8 1 21.8Vikoma Cascade + 100 bbl Tank 5520100 1 Utility 4 Sulphur 1 2 5 10.8 1 19.8Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (12) NA 2856 Towed 0 Houma 1 2 1 10.8 0 14.8Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (2) NA 476 Towed 0 Morgan City 1 2 2.5 10.8 0 16.3Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (1) NA 238 Towed 0Sulphur1 2 5 10.8 0 18.8Canflex FCB-43E Bladder 100 bbls (3) NA 300 Towed 0Morgan City1 2 2.5 10.8 0 16.3Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (1) NA 238 Towed 0Houston1 2 7 10.8 0 20.8Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (1) NA 238 Towed 0Corpus Christi1 2 10.5 10.8 0 24.342” Auto Boom (2100’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Morgan City 1 2 2.5 10.8 1 16.342” Auto Boom (2000’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Houston 1 2 7 10.8 1 21.842” Auto Boom (2200’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Galveston 12 7.5 10.8 1 22.342” Auto Boom (2700’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Aransas Pass 1 2 10.5 10.8 1 25.342” Auto Boom (4000’) NA NA 8 Crew16 Corpus Christi 1 2 10.5 10.8 1 25.3Offshore Equipment WithStagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravelto SiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsStagingArea:VeniceCGA EquipmentFRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 3770 200 1 Utility 6 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 12.5 1 18.5FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 7540 400 1Utility 6 Venice 1 2 0 12.5 1 16.542” Auto Boom (5000’) NA NA 10 Crew 20 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 12.5 1 18.542” Auto Boom (2500’) NA NA 6 Crew 12 Pascagoula 1 2 4 12.5 1 20.51000’ Hydro-Fire Boom(In-Situ Burn)NA NA 8 Utility 40 Belle Chasse 1 4 2 12.5 6 25.5NRCC EquipmentVikoma Cascade + 100 bbl Tank5520 100 1 Utility 4 Mobile 1 2 4.5 12.5 1 21Marco Class XI AB Skimmer 24000 3001 Utility 4 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 12.5 1 18.5Portable Barge Set 238 bbls (1) NA 238 Towed 0 Mobile 1 2 4.5 12.5 0 2042” Auto Boom (200’) NA NA 3 Crew 6 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 12.5 1 18.542” Auto Boom (1000’) NA NA 3 Crew 6 Bayou La Batre 1 2 4 12.5 1 20.5Nearshore ResponseNearshore EquipmentNo StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsRequiredFromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutHrs to GOMTravelto SpillSiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGA Equipment46’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Galveston 1 0 0 3.6 0 4.646’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Houma 1 0 2 6 0 946’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 1 0 1 2 0 446’ FRV 5000 65 NA 4 Venice 1 0 1 13.2 0 15.2Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through CGA agreement)CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 4 0 4 15.63 1 24.63Nearshore and Inland SkimmersWith StagingEDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentHrs toDeployTotalHrsStaging Area: CameronCGA EquipmentSWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5SWS Egmopol 3000 100 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6Rope Mop 77 2 0 3 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 2 0 9.5RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed0 Galveston 1 2 3.5 2 0 8.5RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Houma 1 2 4 2 0 9RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed 0 Lake Charles 1 2 1 2 0 6RO Storage Barge NA 249 Towed0 Venice 1 2 6.5 2 0 11.5Shoreline ProtectionStaging Area: CameronFeet VOOPersonsReq.Storage/WarehouseLocationHrs toProcureHrs toLoadoutTravel toStagingTravel toDeployment SiteHrs toDeployTotal HrsOil Mop (available through MSA)10,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 New Iberia, LA 1 1 2.5 2 3 9.510,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 Houston, TX 1 1 2.5 2 3 9.510,000’ 18” Boom 4 Crew 10 PortArthur, TX 1 1 1.25 2 3 8.25Beach Boom EDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadOutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentSiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGA EquipmentBeach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA6 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5Beach Boom (1000’) NA NA NA 4 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12Beach Boom (2000’) NA NA NA 6 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5Wildlife Response EDRCStorageCapacityVOOPersonsReq.FromHrs toProcureHrs toLoadOutTravel toStagingTravel toDeploymentSiteHrs toDeployTotalHrsCGA EquipmentWildlife Support Trailer NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA2 Belle Chasse 1 2 4.5 1 2 10.5Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NANA 2 Galveston 1 2 3.5 1 2 9.5Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Houma 1 2 4 1 2 10Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Ingleside 1 2 6 1 2 12Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 1 2 1 1 2 7Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 1 2 11.5Response Asset Total Response Asset TotalOffshore EDRC 165,512 Nearshore/ Shallow Water EDRC 33,253Offshore Recovered Oil Capacity 182,684Nearshore / Shallow WaterRecovered Oil Capacity47,512NATI(}HAL RESPONSE co'|poRATroN 6620 CYPRESSWOOD

DRlvE. STE.201 SPRING, TEXAS 77379 (281) 899-4&18

. FAX {281i 89s-4849

a SEACORcompany



### Please be advised

that Woodside

Energy (USA) Inc. cunently

has a memberchip agreernent

with National

Response

Corporation

(NRC) as equipment

provider and the follovying

contracts

or agreements

by way of NRC membership:

The subject

contracts

or membership

agreements

provide immediate

access to available

personnelandlor

eguipment

on a 24-hour

per day basis.

ou,/tAoro

COf, POEATE HEADQUAftTERS

3500 SUNHISE

HIGHWAY.

SUI?E 103

GREAT RIVER, NY 11739 (6811 224*9141

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

TN SEATTLE,

WA MORGAN

C'TY, LA SI CRO'X,

USVI N€WYORK,

NY TAMPA,

FL

## Helix Well Containment Group

Please be advised that Woodside Energy USA, Inc. currently has a contract and is a valid

member of Helix Well Containment Group as a provider for well containment. The

subject contract provides immediate access to avail able equipment and personnel on a

24

- hour per day basis for well containment. Let this letter serve as verification of

contract for Woodside Energy USA, Inc.

Helix Well Containment Group

Commercial Director

Roger Scheuermann

__________________________

Date: __May 13, 2011_________