Marine Consent Eez000010

MARINE CONSENT EEZ000010

Pursuant to sections 62(1)(a) and (3) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, the application for marine onsent c by Shell Todd Oil Services Limited to undertake restricted activities (listed in Schedule 1) at the Māui offshore facilities located in the Taranaki Basin is GRANTED subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2).

Pursuant to section 71(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 this marine consent commences when the time for lodging an appeal against the grant of the consent expires and no appeal has been l odged,or when the High Court determines any appeal or all persons who lodged appeals withdraw their appeals.

This marine consent expires 35 years after the date of granting of this consent.

Dated 4 June 2015

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

SCHEDULE 1: AUTHORISED RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

This marine consent authorises the following restricted activities under section 20 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, subject to the conditions listed in Schedule 2.

Section 20(2)(a) – the construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a structure on or under the seabed.

1) Placement and alteration of structures known as ā Mui Platform Alpha, Māui Platform Bravo and associated structures on and under the seabed. 2) Construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of structures associated with Māui Platform Alpha and Māui Platform Bravo on or under the seabed. 3) Construction, placement, alteration,extension, removal or demolition of whole or parts of the topsides of the structures known as Māui Platform Alpha and Māui Platform Bravo and associated structures on and under the seabed. 4) Placement, alteration, extension and removal of structures associated with 26 wells and associated side-tracks including conductors, well casings, production tubing strings, cement plugs and other associated temporary and permanent downhole equipment on and under the seabed. 5) Placement, alteration, extension and removal of new well casing, production tubing strings, cement plugs and other associated temporary and permanent downhole equipment under the seabed in connection with the drilling of up to 12 sidetrack- wells from Māui Platform Alpha and up to 10 side- track wells from Māui Platform Bravo. 6) Placement and alteration of nine unused exploration wells, including conductors, wellheads, well casings, cement plugs and other associated temporary and permanent downhole equipment on and under the seabed. 7) Placement and removal of unused Floating Production Storage and Offtake vessel flow lines on the seabed. 8) Placement and removal of semi-TAD drill rigs and associated anchors, chains and wires situated on and under the seabed.

9) Placement and removal of anchors, chains and wires associated with all support vessels. 10) Construction, placement, alteration and removal of structures associated with environmental monitoring on or under the seabed.

Section 20(2)(b) – the construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a submarine pipeline on or under the seabed.

1) Placement of three submarine pipelines on or under the seabed. 2) Construction and alteration of three submarine pipelines in connection with inspection, maintenance and repair activities. 3) Placement of concrete, cement mattresses, pipeline coatings, grout, clamps, anodes and other remedial structures in, on or under the seabed in connection with maintenance and repairs to three submarine pipelines and associated structures.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

4) Removal of parts of three submarine pipelines in connection with inspection, maintenance and repair of submarine pipelines.

Section 20(2)(d) – the removal of non-living natural material from the seabed or subsoil.

1) Removal of natural gas, condensate, produced water and as sociated small amounts of residual solids from the seabed and subsoil. 2) Removal of non-living material associated with the drilling of up to 12 sidetrack- wells from Māui Platform Alpha and up to 10 side-track wells from Māui Platform Bravo from the seabed and subsoil. 3) Removal of non-living natural material from theseab ed and subsoil associated withenvironmental monitoring.

Section 20(2)(e) – the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on the seabed or subsoil.

1) Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the inspection, maintenance and repair of subsurface structures and submarine pipelines. 2) Disturbance of the subsoil in connection with the drilling of up t o 12 tracks ide - wells from Māui Platform Alpha and up to 10 sidetrack- wells from Māui Platform Bravo and extraction of non-living natural materials. 3) Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the placement and removal of anchors holding semi-TAD drill rigs and construction support vessels. 4) Disturbance of seabed or subsoil associated with environmental monitoring.

Section 20(2)(f) – the deposit of any thing or organism in, on, or under the seabed.

1) The deposit of structures referred to in respect of section 20(2)(a) above in, on or under the seabed. 2) Deposit of marine growth and sediments in, on or under the seabed resulting from the removal of such material from structures and submarine pipelines. 3) Deposit of garnet and residual material removed from structures during cleaning of topside facilities. 4) Deposit of small amounts of residual solids contained in produced water discharges in, on or under

the seabed. 5) Deposit of drill cuttings and m uds in, on or under the seabed resulting fromtrack side drilling- activities. 6) Deposit of concrete, cement mattresses, coatings, grout, clamps, anodes and remedial other structures in, on or under the seabed in connection with maintenance and repairs to three submarine pipelines, Māui Platform Alpha, Māui Platform Bravo and associated structures.

Section 20(2)(g) – the destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat.

1) Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the inspection, maintenance and repair of subsurface structures and submarine pipelines. 2) Damage and disturbance of seabed or subsoil associated with environmental monitoring.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

3) Destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in connection with drilling of up to 12 side-track wells from Māui Platform Alpha and up to 10 side-track wells from Māui Platform Bravo and extraction of non-living natural materials. 4) Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the placement and removal of anchors holding semi-TAD drill rigs and construction support vessels.

Section 20(4)(a) – the construction, mooring or anchoring long-term, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a structure or part of a structure.

1) Placement and alteration of Māui Platform Alpha, Māui Platform Bravo and associated structures in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 2) Placement, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of structures associated with Māui Platform Alpha and Māui Platform Bravo in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 3) Placement and removal of unused Floating Production Storage and Offtake vessel flow lines in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 4) Placement and alteration of the wellheads of three unused exploration wellheads in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 5) Construction, mooring or anchoring longterm,- placement, alteration and removal of structures associated with environmental monitoring in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 6) Anchoring longterm,- placement and r emoval of semiTAD- drill rigs and a ssociated anchors, chains and wires in the waters of the exclusive economic zone. 7) Anchoring longterm,- placement and removal of all support vessels and associated anchors, chains and wires in the waters of the exclusive economic zone.

Section 20(4)(b) – the causing of vibrations (other than vibrations caused by the normal operation of a ship) in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine life.

1) Vibration caused by activities relating to the extraction, production and transport of natural gas and condensate undertaken in the exclusive economic zone at the structures known as MāuiPlatform Alpha, Māui Platform Bravo and all associated structures and submarine pipelines.

2) Vibration caused by drilling of side-track wells.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

SCHEDULE 2: MARINE CONSENT CONDITIONS

DEFINITIONS:

Terms used in this Schedule have the following meanings:

Cuttings means rock, sand and other materials that are removed from the well bore during drilling including metal fragments, elastomer, and residual Drilling Muds and cement;

Drilling Mud means drilling fluids that are mixtures of minerals and other products that are used to lubricate the wellbore and drill string, support rock structures and transportdrill Cuttings to the surface. Drilling Muds includes both water based and synthetic based drilling fluids;

EEZ Act means the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 as amended from time to time;

EPA means the Environmental Protection Authority or any equivalent Authority havingan equivalent role under the EEZ Act;

IA means the Māui Impact Assessment document provided by Shell Todd Oil Services Limited as part of its marine consent application dated 15 December 2014;

Jacket means the platform frame on the sea bed that supports the Topside of MPA or MPB;

Long Term in relation to anchoring Long Term means anchoring occurring for a duration of longer than 30 consecutive days;

MPA means Māui Platform Alpha;

MPB means Māui Platform Bravo;

Oil Based Mud means Drilling Muds that have an oil base obtained from refinery extraction (diesel, kerosene, fuel oil, selected crude oil)that provide the external continuous phase in an emulsion fluid. It does not include synthetic based muds that are comprised of synthetically derived fluids including, but not limited to, gas to liqparaffinsuid and olefins;

Rejuvenation means large-scale works that seek to significantly modify the process or operation of the production facilities and utilities located on the Topside of MPA or MPB above the waterline. Rejuvenation does not include:

(a) Any works on the Jacket and below the waterline; or (b) The placement of new structures on the seabed; or (c) Drilling activities or any works on the wells or wellheads including but not limited to well servicing or well interventions; or (d) Functional ‘like’ for ‘like’ replacement; or (e) Maintenance or integrity management activities; or (f) Temporary or minor works.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

Support Vessel means specialised vessels to support non-routine activities, including works associated with Rejuvenation and subsea inspection and maintenance;

Topside means structures and equipment located on the Jacket above the waterline and includes accommodation facilities;

Working Day as defined in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

CONDITIONS:

Pursuant to sections 62(3) and 63of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, this marine consent is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:

1) The Consent Holder shall ensure that the marine consent is exercised in general accordance with the application for marine consent and IA dated 15 December 2014, and the three further information responses presented by the Consent Holder (being (i) the letter from Shell Todd Oil Services Limited to the EPA dated 17 February 2015, (ii) Appendix B to the statement of evidence of Catherine Mary Clarke dated 19 March 2015, and (iii) the letter fromShell Todd Oil Services Limited to the EPA dated 17 April 2015), except where these are modified by the conditions below.

2) Pursuant to section 73(1)(a) of the EEZ Act, the duration of this marine consent shall be 35 years after the date of granting of this consent.

3) The Consent Holder shall ensure that a copy of this marine consent is available for inspection at the following locations: (a) The Consent Holder's head office in New Zealand; and (b) On MPA and MPB.

4) The Consent Holder shall ensure that personnel directly involved in the exercise of this marine consent are informed of their obligations and responsibilities in exercising this marine consent.

5) (i) The Consent Holder shall,within 20 Working Days of the date of commencement of this marine consent, provide the EPA with the name and contact details of the delegated experienced person(s) responsible for collating and reporting information on compliance management in relation to this marine consent.

(ii) The Consent Holder shall advise the EPA of any changes to the name and contact details of this person(s).

6) At least annually the Consent Holder shall inform, and seek to engage with, relevant iwi entities on the general scope of the planned activities under this marine consent.

Advice Note: The Consent Holder should seek advice from the EPA as to who the relevant iwi entities are. The Consent Holder is also encouraged to use this opportunity to investigate the

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

involvement of kaitiaki in environmental management practices and the development of environmental indicators using both mātauranga māori and western science.

7) The Consent Holder shall notify the EPA in writing within 24 hours of any Tier 2 or 3 spill, as defined in the New Zealand Oil Spill Response Strategy 2015 - 2019 or subsequent editions.

8) In the event of an unplanned spill that triggers a T ier 2 orspill 3 response as defined in the New Zealand Oil Spill Response Strategy 2015 - 2019 or subsequent editions, the Consent Holder shall: (a) Seek advice from the relevant regional councils, relevant iwi entities, the Department of Conservation, Maritime New Zealand and the EPA about whether monitoring is likely to detect any environmental effects and, if so, design and implement an appr opriate monitoring programme as soon as practicable; and (b) Provide the EPA with the results of the monitoring undertaken in response to Condition 8(a).

Advice Note: The Consent Holder should seek advice from the EPA as to who the relevant iwi entities are in the event of an unplanned spill.

9) The Consent Holder shall within 12 months of the date of commencement of this marine consent provide a r eport to the Ministry for Primary Industries (witha copy to the EPA) that assesses the risks relating to biosecurity at MPA, MPB and Support Vessels, and identifieselated r risk mitigation measures.

10) The Consent Holder shall not use Oil Based Muds for drilling activities authorised by this marine consent.

11) The Consent Holder shall provide a PreDrilling- and Monitoring Plan to the EPA, for its information, at least 40 Working Days prior to commencing any campaign for drilling activities authorised by this marine consent. The plan shall include details of: (a) The proposed start and finish date for the drilling campaign;

(b) The proposed mobilisation and de-mobilisation date for any drilling rigs to be used; (c) The Drilling Muds to be used; (d) The anticipated in-situ volume of drill Cuttings to be removed and discharged from each well; (e) Any drilling rig to be used; and (f) The name and location of the well(s) to be drilled.

12) While undertaking the drilling activities authorised by this marine consent the Consent Holder shall maintain a log, to be kept on the relevant drilling platform and provided on inspection or request by the EPA, of the following: (a) The name and location of the wells drilled; (b) The total volume of cement used per well drilled, estimated by dry weight; (c) The total volume of milling swarf taken onshore for disposal;

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

(d) Where synthetic based muds are used during the drilling activity, records showing the average retention-on-Cuttings for the total number of wells drilled in a drilling campaign; (e) The total volume of water based muds used in each well; (f) The total volume of synthetic based muds used in each well; and (g) The in-situ volume of drill Cuttings removed and discharged from each well.

13) The Consent Holder shall notify the EPA within W 5 orking Days following the conclusion ofeach drilling campaign. Within three months after the conclusion of each drilling campaign the Consent Holder shall provide a report to the EPA that summarises the information collected in the log required in accordance with Condition 12. This report shall include the combined total insitu- volume of drill Cuttings removed and discharged from MPA and MPB since the granting of this marine consent.

14) The combined total in-situ volume of drill Cuttings removed as a result of drilling at MPA and MPB authorised by this marine consent shall not exceed 4,200 cubic metres and 1, 600 cubic metres respectively.

15) The Consent Holder shall provide a Subsea Inspection and Maintenance Plan to the EPA, for its information, at least 20 Working Days prior to commencing the consented activities in association with the inspection, maintenance and repair of subsurface structures and s ubmarine pipelines (for the avoidance of doubt this excludes structures under the seabed or in the subsoil). The plan shall include details of: (a) The activities anticipated to result in disturbance to the seabed,and methods to ensure there are no adverse effects; (b) The details of any materials to be placed on the seabed; and (c) The location of works.

16) During any subsea inspection and maintenance works, the Consent Holder shall observe every reasonably practicable measure to prevent the discharge of silt and or/ debris and / or any other contaminants to, and to minimise the disturbance of, the seabed in the exclusive economic zone.

17) In the case of emergency situations, where unscheduled subsea inspection or maintenance activities in relation to the Māui offshore facilities are required to be undertaken, the Consent Holder shall advise the EPA as soon as reasonably practicable of: (a) Details (including location) of the works undertaken; and (b) Details (including location) of any materials placed on the seabed.

18) (i) The Consent Holder shall,wit hin six months following the commencement of this marine consent, submit a Benthic Monitoring Plan for approval by the EPA. The plan shall be for the purpose of assessing the impacts of the activities authorised by this marine consent on the benthic environment. The plan shall include: (a) The location of sampling sites in relation to MPA and MPB; (b) The frequency of sampling, including prior to and after each drilling campaign;

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

(ii) In developing the benthic sampling methodology, the Consent Holder shall seek to ensure any effects on marine mammals, fish and benthic communities are minimised.benthic The sampling programme required under Condition 8 1(i) shall be undertaken annually, or less frequently with the approval of the EPA.

19) Within 12 months of the completion of the benthic sampling required under the Benthic Monitoring Plan, the findings shall be reported to the EPA. An alternative date for the provision of the findings may be agreed by the Consent Holder and the EPA.

20) The Consent Holder shall notify the Department of Conservation as soon as possible within 24 hours of any sightings of a Māui or Hector’s dolphin (dead or alive) observed from MPA, MPB or Support Vessels. Where the information is known by the Consent Holder, the notification shall include the location, time, weather conditions, number and approximate size of individual dolphins.

21) (i) The Consent Holder shall maintain a log of all marine mammal (except for fur seal) sightings from MPA, MPB or Support Vessels authorised by this marine consent, including the following information where available: (a) The date and location of all marine mammal sightings from the consented operations; (b) The species of marine mammal(s) (where known) and number of individuals (including the presence of juveniles) associated with each sighting; (c) The behaviour of marine mammal(s) sighted, including their direction of travel; (d) Any marine mammal injuries or mortalities observed; (e) The approximate size of each marine mammal; and (f) Any physical nteraction i (including, but not limited to, vessel strike or entanglement) between any marine mammals and any equipment, vessels or other inanimate objects.

(ii) A digital copy of the log shall beavailable on request andprovided to the Department of Conservation and the EPA by 1 December every year (or on an alternative date as otherwise agreed by the Department of Conservation and the EPA).

22) The Consent Holder shall make available to offshore personnel a N ew Zealand marine mammals species identification guide to assist in the accurate identification of species.

23) (i) The Consent Holder shall maintain a l og of all seabird collisions including the following information where available: (a) Date and time of collision; (b) Weather condition; (c) Species (where known); (d) The condition of the bird (dead, released alive and unharmed, or injured); and

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

(e) Photographs (where practicable).

(ii) A digital copy of the log shall be provided to the Department of Conservation and the EPA by 1 December every year (or on an a lternative date as otherwise agreed by the Department of Conservation and the EPA).

24) The Consent Holder shall make available to offshore personnel a New Zealand seabirds species identification guide to assist in the accurate identification of species.

25) The Consent Holder shall provide an Anchor Management Plan to the EPA, for its information, at least 20 Working Days prior to undertaking the Long Term anchoring of any structure or ship undertaking activities authorised by this marine consent. This plan shall include details on: (a) The methods to be adopted to minimise disturbance to the seabed; (b) The removal of all anchoring equipment at the end of the anchoring programme where practicable; and (c) The methods to be adopted to minimise potential entanglement risks to marine mammals, such as the use of high tension mooring lines and the minimisation of floating lines on the sea surface.

26) All anchoring equipment used for the Long T erm anchoring of any structure or ship undertaking activities authorised by this marine consent shall be removed, where practicable.

27) The Consent Holder shall provide a Construction Management Plan for any Rejuvenation of Topside of MPA and MPB to the , EPAfor its information,at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of any Rejuvenation of the Topside of the platforms. The plan shall include details on: (a) Plans and details of the proposed Rejuvenation works; and (b) Details of the proposed construction methodology.

28) When undertaking maintenance, including cleaning and painting activities, of the Topside of MPA

and MPB the Consent Holder shall ensure that: (a) Containment is erected around the areas of cleaning and maintenance on the topside of the platforms as far as practicable; (b) All waste is directed to containment areas as far as practicable; (c) Any sand blasting is undertaken using non-toxic substances; and (d) Any paints or coatings used on t he platforms areas, far as practicable, the lowest toxicity products that are suitable for required purpose of protecting the structures against corrosion.

29) Pursuant to sections 76 and 77 of the EEZ Act, the EPA may serve notice to the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions of this marine consent on the fifth anniversary of the grant of the consent, and then at 10 yearly intervals thereafter for the following purposes:

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

(a) To deal with any adverse effect on the environment that may arise from the exercise of the consent and with which it is appropriate to deal after the consent has been granted; or (b) To deal with any practical issues arising from the implementation of the conditions of the consent.

END OF MARINE CONSENT DOCUMENT

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS) ACT 2012

Māui Offshore Facilities – Shell Todd Oil Services Limited Reasons for Decision on Application for Marine Consent

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

Executive Summary

i. Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and C ontinental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 EE ( Z Act), the application for marine consent by Shell Todd Oil Servicesimite Ld (STOS) to undertake restricted activities (listed in Schedule 1) at the Māui offshore facilities located in the Taranaki Basin is GRANTED, subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2).

ii. The reasons for granting the marine consent are set out below in this decisionin accordance with section 69 of the EEZ Act. In making our decision on this application for marine consent, we have acted as an independent decision-maker under delegated authority from the EPA. We have applied the decision-making criteria set out in sections 59 an d 60 of the EEZ Act. We have also applied the information principles set out in section 61 of the EEZ Act.

iii. STOS applied for marine consent on 15 December 2014 to undertake various activities relating to the extraction, production and transport of natural gas and condensatewithin the Māui Natural Gas Field at Māui Platform Alpha MPA ( ) andMāui Platform Bravo MPB ( ), as well asassociated structures and submarine pipelines. STOS sought a consent term of 35 years.

iv. The application for marine consent included provision for future drilling operations to access previously untapped reserves from the Māui Natural Gas Field and to maximise the recovery of hydrocarbons. STOS is proposing to drill up to 12 sidetrack- wells from MPA and up to 10 side-track wells from MPB. The proposed drilling operations would use existing well conductors at the platforms.

v. The adverse effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities, including the proposed drilling operations, on the environment will be negligible to minor. Many of thepotential adverse effects will be localised and of a short duration.

vi. We have found that sediment deposited onto the seabedand disturbance of the seafloor around MPA and MPB will result in minor, localised and transient adverse effects on benthic communities. Increased turbidity and suspended sediment in the water column will have negligible effects on planktonic

communities. vii. We have found that marine mammals and fish species have the ability to move away from thelocalised discharge plumes and noise emitted from production or drilling activities, and effects will be no more than negligible or minor. viii. The operation of support vessels and helicopterswi ll not have more than negligible to minor effects on marine mammals.

ix. We have found there is no evidence of seabird collisions occurring at the Māui offshore facilities or of any other activities with more than a negligible effect on seabirds.

x. We have found that the planned activities at the Māui offshore facilities will have negligible effects on biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes, and the protection of rare and threatened ecosystems and habitats of threatened species.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

xi. With respect o t existing interests, we are satisfied that there will be negligible adverse effects on commercial fishing arising out of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities. We also consider that het risk of collision between vessels that operate within proximity of MPA and MPB will be low.

xii. We have considered the potential for any adverse effects on Māori interests in commercial and customary fishing. We have concluded that any adverse effects will be negligible. In terms of customary fishing rights, we recognise that iwi are actively involved in customary fishing activities that could be adversely affected by the application, and acknowledge that these activities are distinct from Māori commercial fisheries interests. We consider that the activities will have a negligible effect on the exercise of customary fishing rights. xiii. We consider that the EEZ Actalso requires us to take into account information regardingMāori perspectives on the natural environment. We accept that the impact of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on cultural and spiritual values, and sense of identity, is a matter of concern and importance to iwi. While we do not see these matters as determinative in our decision, we recognise the importance attached to these effects by iwi. xiv. We have taken intoaccount potential effects of low probability but high potential impact– such as hydrocarbon spills. This issue was the focus of 170 submissions. Based on the evidence presented by STOS and the relevant government agencies, we accept that the probability of a major hydrocarbon spill is extremely low given the mitigation measures in place, the historical evidence of previous drilling operations, and the production and operational standards and procedures in place at the Māui offshore facilities. We accept that the gas, condensate or diesel hydrocarbon product in a s pill would rapidly evaporate and weather. We are also satisfied that Maritime New Zealand andthe other government agencies have the plans, processes and resources to respond to a hydrocarbon spill event. The overall environmental effects from a hydrocarbon spill event at the Māui offshore facilities on fish, zooplankton, marine mammals, seabirds and coastal ecosystems, were one to occur, would be negligible to minor.

xv. We are satisfied that the granting of the marine consent will result in ongoing and substantial economic benefits to the Taranaki Region and New Zealand. The future operation of the Māui offshore facilities will

provide up to $66 million of annual household incomes and 1,150 full time jobs, as well as benefits via security of energy supply. We also note that the proposed future drilling operations will add significantly to the economy given the substantial investment that will be involved with these. xvi. We have taken into account the nature and effect of other marine management regimes pursuant to section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act. The relevant marine management regimes have different purposesto the EEZ Act and do n ot havesafeguarding the lifesup- porting capacity of the environment as a k ey focus. They all, however, impose standards and r equirements that are relevant to the environmental matters that we must consider under section 59 of the EEZ Act. There are also a number of activities, such as discharges, that are an inherent component of the operations at the Māui offshore facilities that give rise to environmental effects that we must consider, but are controlled through other marine management regimes. We have found that the drilling muds used by STOS are of low toxicity, and that other marine management regimes appropriately manage discharges into the water column. We have

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

taken care not to impose conditions that conflict with measures required by other marine management regimes or the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.

xvii. A large number of submitters raised concerns relating to the use of fossil fuels and the implications of the marine consent application on climate change. Section 59(5)(b) of the EEZ Act states that the EPA must not have regard to “the effects on climate change from the discharge of greenhouse gases into the air”. Accordingly, we have had no regard to any parts of submissions or evidence on these matters in our decision-making. xviii. After considering all the information provided bySTOS, the expert evidence, the issuesidentified in submissions, and taking into account the matters listed in sections 59 and 61 of the EEZ Act, we consider that granting the marine consent will accord with the sustainable management purpose of the Act. We acknowledge that the application will generate adverse effects, but consider that they can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated through the conditions we have decided to impose pursuant to sections 62(3) and 6 3of the EEZ Act (and the requirement of other marine management regimes). The conditions are detailed in Schedule 2.

xix. Finally, having considered the requirements of sections 59, 61 and 73 of the EEZ Act, and inlight of the purpose of the Act, we have determined that the duration of the marine consent should be 35 years rof m the date of granting of this marine consent. We have imposed a condition enabling reviews of the marine consent conditions pursuant to sections 76 and 77 of the EEZ Act.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

Table of Contents

1. Introduction / Background ...... 1

1.1 The Decision-making Committee ...... 1 1.2 The Applicant and the Application...... 1 1.2.1 The Applicant ...... 1 1.2.2 The Application ...... 1 1.2.3 Activities Subject to Approval ...... 6 1.2.4 Other Activities Associated with the Application ...... 10 1.3 Procedural History ...... 12 1.3.1 Timeline ...... 12 1.3.2 Requests for Information ...... 13 1.3.3 Section 44 Reports and Other Advice ...... 13 1.4 Context of Application ...... 14 1.4.1 Expiry of Petroleum Mining License (PML) 381012 ...... 14 1.5 Submissions ...... 14 1.6 The Decision-making Process ...... 15

2. Description of the Existing Environment and Existing Interests ...... 17

2.1 Physical Environment ...... 17 2.1.1 Geological Setting ...... 17 2.1.2 Climate ...... 17 2.1.3 Oceanography ...... 17 2.1.4 Sediment Characteristics ...... 18 2.2 Biological Environment ...... 18 2.2.1 Benthic Ecosystems ...... 18 2.2.2 Plankton and Primary Productivity ...... 19 2.2.3 Fish Species ...... 20 2.2.4 Marine Mammals ...... 20 2.2.5 Seabirds ...... 21 2.2.6 Marine Reptiles ...... 21 2.2.7 Sites of Conservation Significance ...... 21 2.3 Existing Interests ...... 22 2.3.1 Commercial Shipping Interests ...... 22 2.3.2 Fishing Interests ...... 23 2.3.3 Iwi Interests ...... 23

3. Statutory Framework ...... 26

3.1 Introduction ...... 26 3.2 Purpose and Principles of the EEZ Act ...... 26

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

3.2.1 Purpose ...... 26 3.2.2 International Obligations ...... 27 3.2.3 Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Treaty of Waitangi ...... 27 3.3 Section 20 – Restrictions on Activities in the EEZ and Continental Shelf ...... 28 3.4 Decision-making Criteria ...... 28 3.5.1 Full Use of Powers ...... 31 3.5.2 Best Available Information ...... 32

4. Context for Consideration and Evaluation ...... 33

5. Potential Effects on the Environment and Existing Interests ...... 35

5.1 Introduction ...... 35 5.2 Benthic Communities ...... 36 5.2.1 The Issues ...... 36 5.2.2 The Effects ...... 36 5.2.3 Findings ...... 40 5.2.4 Conditions ...... 41 5.3 Planktonic Communities ...... 41 5.3.1 The Issues ...... 41 5.3.2 The Effects ...... 42 5.3.3 Findings ...... 44 5.3.4 Conditions ...... 44 5.4 Marine Mammals ...... 44 5.4.1 The Issues ...... 44 5.4.2 The Effects ...... 45 5.4.3 Findings ...... 49 5.4.4 Conditions ...... 49 5.5 Seabirds ...... 50 5.5.1 The Issues ...... 50 5.5.2 The Effects ...... 50 5.5.3 Findings ...... 51 5.5.4 Conditions ...... 52 5.6 Fish ...... 52 5.6.1 The Issues ...... 52 5.6.2 The Effects ...... 53 5.6.3 Findings ...... 54 5.6.4 Conditions ...... 55 5.7 Biosecurity ...... 55 5.7.1 The Issues ...... 55 5.7.2 The Effects ...... 55

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

5.7.3 Finding ...... 56 5.7.4 Conditions ...... 56 5.8 Māori Environmental Values ...... 57 5.8.1 The Issues ...... 57 5.8.2 Iwi Interests - NKTT Report...... 57 5.8.3 The Effects ...... 58 5.8.4 Findings ...... 60 5.8.5 Conditions ...... 61 5.9 Existing Interests ...... 61 5.9.1 The Issues ...... 61 5.9.2 The Effects ...... 62 5.9.3 Findings ...... 65 5.9.4 Conditions ...... 66 5.10 Hydrocarbon Spills ...... 66 5.10.1 The Issues ...... 66 5.10.2 The Effects ...... 67 5.10.3 Findings ...... 69 5.10.4 Conditions ...... 70 5.11 Cumulative Effects ...... 71

6. Effects on Human Health Arising from Effects on the Environment ...... 73

6.1 The Issues ...... 73 6.2 The Effects ...... 73 6.3 Findings ...... 74 6.4 Conditions ...... 74

7. The Protection of Biological Diversity and Integrity of Marine Species, Ecosystems and Processes ...... 75

8. The Protection of Rare and Vulnerable Ecosystems and Habitats of Threatened Species76

9. The Economic Benefit to New Zealand ...... 78

10. The Efficient Use and Development of Natural Resources ...... 80

11. The Nature and Effect of Other Marine Management Regimes ...... 82

12. Best Practice ...... 84

13. Relevant Regulations and Other Applicable Law ...... 85

13.1 Relevant Regulations ...... 85 13.2 Other Applicable Law ...... 85

14. Other Relevant Matters ...... 86

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

14.1 Value of Investment ...... 86

15. Adaptive Management ...... 87

16. Purpose of the EEZ Act ...... 88

17. Duration of Consent ...... 90

APPENDIX 1: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 93

APPENDIX 2: PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...... 95

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 96

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent

1. Introduction / Background

1.1 The Decision-making Committee

1. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the consent authority for certain activities that are restricted within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and in, or on, the continental shelf. One of theEPA ’s functions, pursuant to ection s 13(1) of theExclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 EEZ( Act), is to decide applications for marine consent.

2. On 17 October 2014, the EPA Board appointed aDecision -making Committee (DMC) to exercise powers and functions under the EEZ Act related to the application for marine consent by Shell Todd Oil Services Limited (STOS). The EPA Board also delegated all of the functions and powers of the EPA related to the processing, hearing and deciding of the application under the EEZ Act to the DMC. This DMC comprises Mr Alan Bickers (Chair), Ms Gillian Wratt (EPA Board Member), Mr Greg Shaw, Ms Miria Pomare and Ms Sue Powell. This is our written decision pursuant to section 69 of the EEZ Act.

3. In considering and deciding the application for marine consent bySTOS , we have exercised independent judgement within the statutory framework for determining applications for marine consent under the EEZ Act.

1.2 The Applicant and the Application

1.2.1 The Applicant

4. STOS has been operating in New Zealand for over 50 years. STOS is jointly and equally owned by Shell Petroleum Mining Limited and Todd Petroleum Mining Limited.

5. STOS operates a number of gas fields, production stations and a tank farm on behalf of various joint venture partners, including Shell Petroleum Mining Limited, Todd Petroleum Mining Limited and OMV New Zealand Limited. STOS is also the operator at the Māui and Kapuni Natural Gas Fields, and provides operating services to Shell Exploration New Zealand Limited in relation to the Pohokura Natural Gas Field.

1.2.2 The Application

6. STOS has applied for marine consent to undertakevarious activities relating to the extraction, production and transport of natural gas and condensatewithin the Māui Natural Gas Field at Māui Platform Alpha (MPA) and Māui Platform Bravo (MPB), as well as associated structures and submarine pipelines. STOS has sought a term of consent of 35 years.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 1

7. The facilities and activities associated with the extraction, production and transport of natural gas and condensate at the Māui offshore facilities was described in the Impact Assessment1 and in the evidence of Messrs Sion Bridge,2 Owen Hey3 and Kerry Williamson4 on behalf of STOS. These facilities and activities are briefly detailed in the sub-sections below.

Māui Platform Alpha

8. MPA has been operational since 1979. It is situated approximately 35ilo kmetres (km) offshore of Taranaki and sits in approximately 108 metres (m) of water. MPA comprises a four-legged steel tower pinned to the seabed (jacket), upon which is fixed a platform (topside). The topside includes three main decks, six hydrocarbon production modules, two utility modules (containingpower generation facilities, fire pumps, sea water pumps, workshops and a control room), living quarters for up to 70 personnel, water and waste treatment facilities, and life support / communications facilities.

9. The jacket weight of MPA is 11,800 tonnes (t) and the topside weight is 9,000 t. The topside is approximately 80m by 50 m, and t he upper deck is situated approximately 35m above the water surface. The vent stack for emergency de-pressurisation of the production facilities rises 60 m above the upper deck on the north-eastern corner of the platform.

10. Mr Bridge clarified in response to questioning thatMPA (and MPB) has been designed for a combination of three critical factors: waves, wind and earthquakes. He advised that MPA (and MPB) was designed to tolerate 22 m high waves and there was no indication that the design criteria were anything less than “very conservative”.5 He also said that the conservatism in the design criteria meant that he was very confident thatthe platform would be suitable to tolerate potential future sea conditions resulting from climate change.

11. The hydrocarbon extraction process at MPA is controlled from the onshore production station (MPS) at Ōaonui. This minimises the number of personnel required on M PA, although the platform is permanently manned given the amount and nature of the equipment on board.T he marine consent application includes provision for the potential upgrading of equipment and facilities on MPA, which could possibly lead to a future reduction in manning levels.6

Māui Platform Bravo

12. MPB has been operational since 1992. It is situated approximately 50km offshore of Taranaki and sits in approximately 108 m of water. MPB is located approximately 15 km from MPA. MPB also comprises a four-legged steel tower pinned to the seabed upon which is fixed a platform.

1 Māui Impact Assessment – Shell Todd Oil Services Limited - 15 December 2014. 2 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015. 3 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 18 March 2015. 4 Statement of Evidence of Kerry James Williamson – 18 March 2015. 5 Hearing Transcript – Day One (29 April 2015) – Page 80. 6 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 43].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 2

13. The topside at MPB includes two main decks, bulk water separation facilities, living quarters for up to 45 personnel, utilities and maintenance workshop areas, power generation facilities, water and waste treatment facilities, and life support / communication facilities.

14. The jacket weight of MPB is 5,000 t and the topside weight is 3,300 t. The topside is approximately 60 m by 40 m, and the upper deck is approximately 30m above the water surface. The vent stack rises 50 m above the upper deck on the north-western corner of the platform.

15. MPB has no g as processing facilities and i s designed as a ‘ Not Normally Manned Installation’ satellite platform.7 MPB can be operated and controlled remotely from MPA or MPS, with no need to have staff on the platform to facilitate day-to-day operations.

Wells

16. There are eight operational wells and associated side-track wells drilled through conductors at MPA, and nine operational wells and associated side-track wells at MPB. Side-track wells are wells that re- enter from the surface location, before deviating from the existing well bore to achieve production from an alternate zone or bottom-hole location. In total, there are 30 sidetrack- wells from ‘mother- bore’ wells at MPA and MPB.

17. All but one of the wells at MPA is used for the extraction of natural gas and condensate. Well MA-12 is used as a produced water reinjection well.P roduced water is a c ombination of formation water from the wells and condensed water from the gas processing facilities. This water is disposed of by reinjection back into the reservoir via the injection well (MA-12). Reinjection is undertaken due to the residual hydrocarbon content exceeding allowable levels for disposal overboard.

Submarine Pipelines

18. There are three existing submarine pipelines associated with the Māui offshore facilities. These are:8

(a) A 15 km submarine pipeline from MPB toMPA , which transports condensate liquid and natural gas to MPA for initial process separation;

(b) A 35 km submarine pipeline from MPA to MPS, which transports dry hydrocarbon gas to the MPS; and

Unused Structures and Wells

19. There are redundant structures associated with historical operations at the Māui offshore facilities that remain on t he seabed. These include unused exploration wells, wellheads, the Whakaaropai Floating Production Storage and Offtake (FPSO) vessel anchors, chains and f low lines.STOS is seeking marine consent for the placement of the flow lines on the seabed (which may be removed as part of the decommissioning of MPB, or earlier).

7 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 50]. 8 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 57].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 3

Routine Activities

20. Various maintenance activities are undertaken at the Māui offshore facilities.9 These include performance testing of equipment, draining and refilling of lubricants, greasing of equipment, welding and grinding, sand and water blasting, and minor discharge activities (e.g. sewage, kitchen waste, cooling water and deck discharges).

21. Although some of thefacilities at MPA are over 35 years old, Mr Bridge advised that “they are maintained to a high standard and are fit for the purpose for which they are designed. Equipment is upgraded and replaced as required or as technology develops and STOS is continually mindful of how the facilities could be improved to make operations safer, more efficient, effective and environmentally sound. Operating practices have evolved over time and will continue to do so as technology develops.”10

Logistics

22. Supply vessels transport food, fuel, equipment and drilling and production chemicals to the Māui offshore facilities.11 Supplies are also transferred between MPA and MPB when required. The number of vessel movements is highly variable and is dependent on t he extent of drilling, well servicing or major maintenance projects being undertakenat any time. Four supply vessel sailings are undertaken per month on average, although this can increase to 12 sailings per month.

23. STOS does not own its own supply vessels and uses contract suppliers as necessary. The main supply vessel currently used by STOS is the MV Pacific Runner, operated by Swire Pacific Offshore Operations Limited.

24. A helipad is located on MPA and MPB, and there are approximately three to four routine helicopter flights to the platforms per week. Additional flights are undertaken as needed for specific projects. The helicopters used to service MPA and MPB fly out of New PlymouthAirport . Their transit flying altitude is typically around 4,000 feet.

Hydrocarbon Processing

25. Hydrocarbon processing operations at the Māui offshore facilities involve the following:12

(a) The extraction of hydrocarbons from the reservoirs below the seabed through the‘ mother- bores’ and side-track wells;

(b) The removal of water and other impurities from the hydrocarbon stream;

(d) The separation of the hydrocarbons into gas and condensate form;

9 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 96 - 125]. 10 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 36]. 11 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 126 - 142]. 12 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 68 - 95]. 13 Production water is also referred to as ‘produced water’ in the evidence and in this decision.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 4

(e) The storage and injection of process and other chemicals into the production stream fluids; and

(f) The transportation of the hydrocarbons to shore via the subsea pipelines.

26. In response to concerns raised by some submitters,14 Mr Bridge specifically clarified that “no hydraulic fracturing has been undertaken in the Māui Field to stimulate the wells to increase production and there is no intention to undertake hydraulic fracturing in the future at Māui.”15 Mr Hey advised that “STOS has not used any oil based muds on any of the wells drilled in the Māui Field”.16

27. Marine Protection Rule 200.14 under the Marine Transport Act 1994sets limits for discharges of production water to the sea. STOS has systems in place to comply with these and limits ts i discharges are also authorised through its Discharge Management Plan (DMP)17 for the Māui offshore facilities. In light of Marine Protection Rule 200.14, produced water at MPA is reinjected back into the reservoir at depth a of approximately 2,800m below sea level. Reinjection is undertaken as the water contains residual chemicals that make it difficult to meet the dispersed oil limit required for overboard discharges. Reinjection rates average approximately 35 cubic metres per hour (m3/h), while the maximum rate of reinjection is approximately 75m3/h.

28. Produced water at MPB meets the dispersed oil limits under Marine Protection Rule 200.14 because the wells contain corrosion-resistant alloy production tubing and is, therefore, able to be discharged to the ocean at an average rate of approximately 15 m3/hour.

Future Drilling Operations

29. Future drilling operations are anticipated to access previously untapped reserves from the Māui Natural Gas Field and to maximise the recovery of hydrocarbons.18 STOS is proposing to drill up to 12 side-track wells from MPA and up to 10 track side - wells from MPB (which includesany associated contingency sidetrack- wells). All of the proposed drilling would useexisting well conductors at the platforms.

30. Drilling mud is ejected at the end of the drill bit during drilling operations. Water based or synthetic based drilling muds will be used during the drilling operations.19 The mud is transported up the well with the cuttings and is processed on board the drilling rigto separate it from the cuttings. Drilling muds are selected based on a number of factors including the specific application, performance, biodegradability, ‘Offshore Chemicals Notification Scheme’ ranking, re-usability and availability. These factors are assessed as part of the DMP approval process.

31. Cuttings are the rock that has been drilled by the drill bit, then transported out of the wellwith the drilling mud and removed by the shale shakers. The cuttings consist of the type of rock that is being

14 Frack Free Kāpiti (Submitter 111457). 15 Statement of Evidence of Sion Iwan Bridge – 19 March 2015 [Para 73]. 16 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 19 March 2015 [Para 119]. 17 Māui Platform A and B Discharge Management Plan – Rev 3.2. 18 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 19 March 2015 [Para 82]. 19 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 19 March 2015 [Para 96].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 5

drilled. Particle size can also vary depending upon rock type, bit type and mud type. The cuttings that are discharged contain a small proportion of drilling mud.

32. The side-track wells will commence between 200 and 2,200 m below the seabed.20 The length of the side-track wells will vary depending on the drilling target, but could be between1.5 and 8 km long. Well diameters will range from 13.5 inches down to 6.125 inches as the depth of the well increases. The maximum volume of cuttings that may be produced from drilling side-track wells is estimated to be 4,167.83 m3 at MPA and 1,504.93 m3 at MPB.21

Conditions

33. STOS proposed a r ange of conditions as part of its marine consent application.An initial set of conditions was attached to the evidence ofMs Catherine Clarke,22 who is a p lanning expert that provided evidence on consent conditions on behalf of STOS.

34. A revised set of consent conditions was proffered by STOS as part of its closing legal submissions, and following caucusing between Ms Clarke and Ms Gemma Couzens on behalf of the EPA. STOS proffered 33 conditions that addressed general operations, spill notification, prohibition on the use of oil based muds, biosecurity management, anchoring, drilling operations, marine mammals, seabirds, and monitoring and reporting. The issue of conditions is discussed further as part of our findings in sections 5 and 6 of this decision.

1.2.3 Activities Subject to Approval

35. Details of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities that STOS sought marine consent for under section 20 of the EEZ Act are set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Marine Consent Requirements

Consent Category Proposed Activities

Section 20(2)(a) – the Placement and alteration of structures known as MPA, MPB construction, placement,and associated structures on and under the seabed. alteration, extension, removal, or Construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of a structure on or demolition of structures associated with MPA and M PB on or under the seabed. under the seabed.

Construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of whole or parts ofthe topsides of the structures known as MPA and MPB and as sociated structures on and under the seabed.

Placement, alteration, extension andremoval of structures

20 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 19 March 2015 [Para 92]. 21 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 19 March 2015 [Para 8]. 22 Statement of Evidence of Catherine Mary Clarke – 19 March 2015.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 6

Consent Category Proposed Activities

associated with 26 wells and associated sidetracks- including conductors, well casings, production tubing strings, cement plugs and other associatedtemporary and permanent downhole equipment on and under the seabed.

Placement, alteration, extension and r emoval of new well casing, production tubing strings, cement plugs and other associated temporary and permanent downhole equipment under the seabed in connection with the drilling of up t o 12 side-track wells from MPA and up to 10 s idetrack- wells from MPB.

Placement and alteration of nine unused exploration wells, including conductors, wellheads, well casings, cement plugs and other associated temporary and permanent downhole equipment on and under the seabed.

Placement and removal of unused FPSO flow lines on t he seabed.

Placement and removal of semi-TAD drill rigs and associated anchors, chains and wires situated on and under the seabed.

Placement and removal of anchors, chainsand wires associated with all support vessels.

Construction, placement, alteration and removal of structures associated with environmental monitoring on or under the seabed.

Section 20(2)(b) – the Placement of three submarine pipelines on or under the construction, placement,seabed. alteration, extension, removal, or Construction and alteration of three submarine pipelines in demolition of a submarine pipeline connection with inspection, maintenance and repair activities. on or under the seabed. Placement of concrete, cement mattresses, pipeline coatings, grout, clamps, anodes and other remedial structures in, on or under the seabed in connection withmaintenance and repairs to three submarine pipelines and associated structures.

Removal of parts of three submarine pipelines connection in with inspection, maintenance and repair submarine of pipelines.

Section 20(2)(d) – the removal of Removal of natural gas, condensate, produced waterand

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 7

Consent Category Proposed Activities

non-living natural material fromassociated small amounts of residualsolids from the seabed the seabed or subsoil. and subsoil.

Removal of non-living material associated with the drilling of up to 12 side-track wells from MPA and up to 10 sidetrack- wells from MPB from the seabed and subsoil.

Removal of nonliving- natural material from the seabed and subsoil associated with environmental monitoring.

Section 20(2)(e) – the disturbance Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connectionwith the of the seabed or subsoil in inspection, a maintenance and repair of subsurfacestructures manner that is likely to have anand submarine pipelines. adverse effect on the seabed or Disturbance of the subsoil in connection with the drillingof up subsoil. to 12 side-track wells from MPA and up to 10 sidetrack- wells from MPB and extraction of non-living natural materials.

Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the placement and removal of anchors holding semi-TAD drill rigs and construction support vessels.

Disturbance of seabed or subsoil associated with environmental monitoring.

Section 20(2)(f) – the deposit of The deposit of structures referred to in respect of section 20(2) any thing or organism in, on, or(a) above in, on, or under the seabed. under the seabed. Deposit of marine growth and sediments in, on or under the seabed resulting from the removal of such materialfrom structures and submarine pipelines.

Deposit of garnet and residual material removed from structures during cleaning of topside facilities.

Deposit of small amounts of residual solids contained in produced water discharges in, on or under the seabed.

Deposit of drill cuttings and muds in, on or under theseabed resulting from side-track drilling activities.

Deposit of concrete, cement mattresses, coatings, grout, clamps, anodes and other remedial structures in, on or under the seabed in connection with maintenance andrepairs to three submarine pipelines, MPA, MPB associated and structures.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 8

Consent Category Proposed Activities

Section 20(2)(g) – the destruction, Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connection with the damage, or disturbance of theinspection, maintenance and repair of subsurface structures seabed or subsoil in a mannerand submarine pipelines. that is likely to have an a dverse Damage and disturbance of seabed or subsoilassociated with effect on m arine species or their environmental monitoring. habitat. Destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in connection with drilling of up to 12 side-track wells from MPA and up to 10 side-track wells from MPB and extraction of non- living natural materials.

Disturbance of seabed and subsoil in connectionwith the placement and removal of anchors holding semi-TAD drill rigs and construction support vessels.

Section 20(4)(a) – the Placement and alteration of MPA, MPB associated and construction, mooring structures or in the waters of the EEZ. anchoring longterm,- placement, Placement, alteration, extension, removal demolition or of alteration, extension, removal, or structures associated with MPA and MPBin the waters of the demolition of a structure or part of EEZ. a structure. Placement and removal of unused FPSO flowlines in the waters of the EEZ.

Placement and alteration of the wellheads of three unused exploration wellheads in the waters of the EEZ.

Construction, mooring or anchoring longterm,- placement, alteration and removal of stru cturesassociated with environmental monitoring in the waters of the EEZ.

Anchoring long-term, placement and removal of semi-TAD drill rigs and associated anchors, chains and wires in the waters of the EEZ.

Anchoring long-term, placement and r emoval ofall support vessels and associated anchors,chains and wires in the waters of the EEZ.

Section 20(4)(b) – the causing of Vibration caused by activities relating to theextraction, vibrations (other than vibrationsprodu ction and transport of natural gas and condensate caused by the normal operation of undertaken in the EEZ at the structures known as MPA,MPB a ship) in a manner that is likely to and all associated structures and submarine pipelines. have an adverse effect on marine

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 9

Consent Category Proposed Activities

life. Vibration caused by drilling of side-track wells.

36. The opening legal submissions for STOS stressed that the decommissioning of existing structures and submarine pipelines at the Māui offshore facilities will require marine consent under section 20 of the EEZ Act, and that the current application by STOS does not seek consent to undertake these activities.23 Mr Robert Jager, General Manager for STOS, also commented in response to questioning that requiring information on ‘ end of life’ management of the existing structures and submarine pipelines as part of this application would be problematic given that “the timing, the scope and the methodology at this point are entirely unclear”.24 He advised that the preferred methodology for the decommissioning of similar structures is continuing to develop around the world.

1.2.4 Other Activities Associated with the Application

37. There are a number of ancillary activities associated with the activities at the Māui offshore facilities that are not covered by the application for marine consent under the EEZ Act, but the effects of which need to be considered as part of the overall effects assessment under section 59(2) of the Act. These ancillary activities include:

(a) Discharges without seabed impacts;

(b) Submarine pipelines within 12 nautical miles (nmi) of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS);

(d) Vessel movements; and

(e) Helicopter movements.

38. Some of the above activities are also regulated under other marine management regimes, which are matters to be taken into account in accordance with section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act. The government agencies responsible for marine management regimes that are relevant to this application for marine consent are identified in Table 2 below.

23 Opening Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 29 April 2015 [Para 169]. 24 Hearing Transcript – Day One (29 April 2015) – Page 79.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 10

Table 2: Relevant Marine Management Regimes

Agency Legislation Responsibilities

The Ministry The of Crown Minerals ActNew Zealand Petroleum& Minerals is Business, Innovation 1991 responsible for managing the prospecting, and Employment exploration and mining permit regime. (New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals Branch)

Department Marine of MammalsThe D epartment of Conservation is Conservation Protection Act 1978 responsible for protected species and marine mammals. It prepares and administers the Wildlife Act 1953 guidelines for minimising disturbance to

marine mammals from seismic surveys, as well as seismic surveying regulations in marine mammal sanctuaries.The Department of Conservation approves Marine Mammal Impact Assessments, which must be pr epared by anyone proposing to undertake a marine seismic survey.

The Department of Conservation also has responsibility for nonmammal- species, including seabirds.

Maritime Maritime New Transport ActMaritim e New Zealand is responsible for Zealand 1994 ensuring operators have approved plans in place to manage wastes from their activities, International Regulations as well as Emergency Response Plans if that for Preventing Collisions at work causes a leak or spill into the sea. Sea 1972 Maritime New Zealand sets maritime rules for managing discharges and oil spills and preventing the collision of vessels at sea.

Plans developed to meet those rules include a DMP, which includes a Spill Contingency Plan, Well Control Contingency Plan, and an Environmental Monitoring Programme. Maritime New Zealand approves all DMPs.

For oil and gas , workthe Emergency Response Plan needs to include how the operator would stem the flow of oil in the

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 11

Agency Legislation Responsibilities

unlikely event of a well blowout. Maritime New Zealand is also responsible for maintaining New Zealand’s national oil spill response capability and preparedness and for coordinating any major, national-level oil spill responses.

Ministry for Primary Fisheries Act 1996 The Ministry for Primary Industries is Industries responsible for managing New Zealand’s Biosecurity Act 1993 fisheries within the EEZ and i ts territorial waters, which includes commercial, recreational and Māori customary fisheries.

The Ministry for Primary Industries is also responsible for biosecurity at New Zealand’s boundaries and within the EEZ. It administers biofouling and ballast water guidelines for vessels entering New Zealand waters.

WorkSafe NewHealth and Safety WorkSa in fe New Zealand is responsible for Zealand Employment Act 1992 administering legislation to provide for a safe workplace. Health and Safety in Employment (PetroleumPetroleum operators intending to drill a well Exploration and Extraction) are required to submit a Safety Casethat Regulations 2013 WorkSafe New Zealand ‘accepts’. A Safety Case includes information to ensure the risk of a well failure is as low as reasonably practical and requires the well to be managed through its life cycle in relation to its design, construction, operation, maintenance, modification, suspension and abandonment.

1.3 Procedural History

1.3.1 Timeline

39. STOS lodged its application for marine consent with the EPA on 15 December 2014. The procedural history of the application is set out in detail in Appendix 2.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 12

1.3.2 Requests for Information

40. The EPA requested further information from STOS on 21 January 2015. TOS S responded to this request on 17 February 2015. This response included the DMP for the Māui offshore facilities. As part of Minute 4 (issued on 23 April 2015), we agreed to protect those parts of theDMP containing ‘confidential information’ as identified in STOS’ application for the prohibition of publication or communication of information under section 158(3)(b) of the EEZ Act.

41. A second request for further information was made by the EPA on 20 F ebruary 2015. STOS responded to this request in the evidence of its various experts, which was provided to the EPA on 19 March 2015. A summary of STOS’response to this request for further information wasalso provided in Appendix B to the evidence of Ms Clarke.

42. A third request for further information was madeby the EPA on 7 April 2015. STOS responded to this request on 17 April 2015.

43. All of the further information provided by STOS was made available on the EPA website.

1.3.3 Section 44 Reports and Other Advice

44. The EPA commissioned the following reports under section 44(1) of the EEZ Act:

(a) The report entitled“STOS Māui Offshore Facilities Marine Consent Application Marine Ecology Review, Deliverable One” by DHI Water and Environment Limited (Marine Ecology Review Report – D1), which was received on 4 February 2015;

(b) The report entitled“Analysis of SubmissionsReport” by Mitchell Partnerships Limited (Submissions Report), which was received on 10 March 2015;

(c) The report entitled “Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Report - EEZ000010” by Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (NKTT Report), which was received on 17 March 2015;

(d) The report entitled “STOS Māui Offshore Facilities Marine Consent Application Review of Offshore Operations: Final Findings and Recommendations Report” by Woods Group ODL Limited (Offshore Operations Report), which was received on 16 April 2015;

(e) The report entitled “STOS Māui Offshore Facilities Marine Consent Application Marine Ecology Review, Deliverable Two:Final Report” by DHI Water and E nvironment Limited (Marine Ecology Review Report – D2), which was received on 16 April 2015;

(f) The report entitled “EPA Expert Evaluation Report” by Ms Couzens (EPA Expert Report), which was received on 21 April 2015; and

(g) The report entitled “STOS Māui Offshore Facilities Marine Consent Application Drill Cutting and Condensate Spill Modelling Review” by DHI Water and Environment Limited (Modelling Review Report), which was received on 24 April 2015.

45. We commissioned the following legal advice:

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 13

(a) Advice from Crown Law on the meaning of 'placement' and 'deposit' under section 20 of the EEZ Act, which was received on 23 February 2015;

(b) Advice from Buddle Findlay on whether the recommendations contained within the T NKT Report could legally be given effect to through decision the on the marine consent application, which was received on 21 April 2015; and

(c) Advice from the EPA on matters ating rel to the imposition of conditions on t he marine consent and duplication with other marine management regimes, which was received on 5 May 2015.

46. All of the reports commissioned under section 44(1) of the EEZ Act and the advice were made available on the EPA website.

1.4 Context of Application

1.4.1 Expiry of Petroleum Mining License (PML) 381012

47. The Māui Mining Licence (Petroleum Mining License (PML) 381012) was initially granted to Shell BP and Todd Oil Services Limited by the Minister of Mines in 1973 for a term of 42 years (commencing on 28 June 1973). This license expires on 27 June 2015but, also provides for a right to apply for renewal.

48. The right is subject to the licensee having “complied substantially with the provisions of this licence”. Legal counsel for STOS initially advised that the company will be exercising its right to apply to extend the term of the Māui Mining Licence for a further 21 years.25

49. Subsequent to this advice, the Minister for Energy and Resourcesrenewed PML 381012 for the Māui Natural Gas Field for a period of 21 years on 15 May 2015the ( licence expires on 28 June 2036).

1.5 Submissions

50. STOS’ application for marine consent was publically notified by the EPA on 26 January 2015. The submission period closed on 24 February 2015. The EPA received 393 submissions.

51. A summary of the relief requested by submitters is provided in Table 3 below.

25 Opening Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 29 April 2015 [Para 165].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 14

Table 3: Relief Requested by Submitters

Submitter Position Number of Submitters Percentage

Grant 8 2%

Grant with conditions 2 0.5%

Neutral 3 0.8%

Decline 380 96.7%

52. A detailed summary of the issues raised by submitters on the marine consent application is provided in Appendix 3. Issues most frequently raised by submitters included:

(a) The drilling programme will further threaten the habitat and survival of threatened species (particularly Māui dolphin and blue whale);

(b) New Zealand should put resources into developing clean energy options;

(d) The risks to marine life, coastal ecosystems, fisheries, local livelihoods andthe economy from a potential hydrocarbon spill are too great;

(e) The Government should apply the precautionary principle to honour New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention of Biological Diversity 1992 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992;

(f) The cumulative effects of dumping eco-toxic chemicals and other materials into the sea need to be properly assessed; and

(g) The Impact Assessment does not providean adequate assessment of effects on existing interests.

53. A large number of submitters raised concerns relating to the use of fossil fuels and the implications of the marine consent application on climate change. Section 59(5)(b) of the EEZ Act states that the EPA must not have regard to “the effects on climate change from the discharge of greenhouse gases into the air”. Accordingly, no regard has been given to any arguments in the submissions or evidence on these matters as part of our decision-making on the marine consent application.

1.6 The Decision-making Process

54. Evidence and submissions were heard over a period ofeight days between 29 April 2015 and 1 1 May 2015. The hearing was held at Clifton’s Conference Centre,Wellington and the Pukekura Function Centre, New Plymouth.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 15

55. Three members of the DMC visited MPA and M PB on 26 February 2015. The purpose of the site visit was to familiarise ourselves with the Māui offshore facilities, and to gain a general overview of the equipment and procedures on the platforms that are subject to the marine consent application.

56. The DMC convened on nine occasions to assess the marine consent application, determine whether further information was necessary, set hearing procedures, review evidence, deliberate and writeits decision. The hearing was formally closed on 13 May 2015.

57. We record our appreciation for the time and effort taken by parties who participated ine thmarine consent application process. We appreciated the detailed evidence of STOS’ witnesses, particularly the expert evidence on the potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities. We also appreciated the ability to question the experts on their assessments.

58. The opportunity to question the government agencies was also valuable in determining the nature and effect of other marine management regimes.

59. Consenting processes, particularly public hearings, can be consuming time- and daunting for submitters and w e acknowledge their participation. The involvement and i nput of submitters is important and their input was helpful.

60. We also wish to thank the EPA staff for their assistance throughout the processing of the marine consent application, particularly Ms Couzens for her report evaluating the application by STOS.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 16

2. Description of the Existingnvironment E and Existing Interests

61. Section 39(1)(b) of the EEZ Act requires an Impact Assessment to describe the current state of the area where it is proposed that anactivity be undertaken and the environment surrounding the area. Section 39(1)(d) of the EEZ Act also requires an Impact Assessment to identify persons whose existing interests are likely to be adversely affected by the activity.

62. Section 5 of the mpact I Assessment, along with information provided insubmissions and expert evidence, describes the existing environment of the area around the Māui offshore facilities. Sections 2.1 to 2.2 of this decision provide a summary of theexisting physical and bi ological environment in the Taranaki Basin.

63. Section 1.3 of the Impact Assessment, along with information provided insubmissions and ex pert evidence, identifies persons who potentially have existing interests in relation to the activities at the Māui offshore facilities. Section 2.3 of this decision provides a summary of this information.

2.1 Physical Environment

2.1.1 Geological Setting

64. The Taranaki Basin lies on the west coast of the North Island and contains both offshore and onshore oil and gas reserves.

65. The oil and gas reserves in the Taranaki Basin have formed the focus of much of New Zealand’s hydrocarbon exploration and production sector to date. In this respect, he t Taranaki Basin has a history of active natural gas, gas condensate and oil production dating back to the early 1900s. The Taranaki Basin contains the only currently producing hydrocarbon reservoirs within New Zealand.

2.1.2 Climate

66. The coastal environment of Taranaki is dominated by highenergy- wave and wind conditions as a result of its west facing aspect and the long fetch to the nearest land mass.

67. Average air temperatures range from 6 to 28degrees Celsius (°C), with surface water temperatures ranging from 10.8 to 18.4 °C. The mean wind speed in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities is 17 knots (kt) and the mean current is 0.16 kt.

2.1.3 Oceanography

68. New Zealand sits in the generally eastward-forward southern branch of the South Pacific subtropical ‘gyre’ (rotating ocean current). This gyre is driven by the south-east trade winds to the north and the ‘Roaring Forties’ westerly winds to the south. Together, these winds set up the anti-clockwise circulation within the gyre, which is then modified by the spin of the earth.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 17

69. Of more local influence to the Taranaki Basin are a series of currents traversing New Zealand. There are three such currents that influence New Zealand’s oceanic features differently: the Tasman Front, the Subtropical Front and the Subantarctic Front. The Tasman Front and the Subtropical Front are relatively warm currents, while the Subantarctic Front brings cooler water to southern New Zealand.

70. The primary local currents affecting the Taranaki Bains are the D’Urville Current and the Westland Current. Both of these currents are derived from predominantly subtropical-origin waters.

2.1.4 Sediment Characteristics

71. The physical and chemical characteristics of sediment in the benthic environment around MPA and MPB have been surveyed as part of STOS’ monitoring of operations at the Māui offshore facilities over the past nine years. These surveys have identified that the benthic environment in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities are dominated by silt, clay and fine sand fractions, which is similar to other offshore locations in Taranaki.

72. Sediment grain size within 500 m of MPA and MPB showed a spatial gradient on both flow axes, with coarser sediments closer to the platforms. The organic content of the sediment was also lower closer to the platforms.

73. The surveys also identified that ithin w 500 m of MPA and MPB there areminor amounts of anthropogenic debris in the sediments (e.g. rust flakes, garnet grains and paint flecks), with a pattern of decreasing amounts further away from the platforms. With the exception of barium, concentrations of potential contaminant metals and metalloids in sediments more than 500 m from MPA and MPB were representative of background concentrations in the Taranaki coastal environment.

2.2 Biological Environment

2.2.1 Benthic Ecosystems

Māui Platform Alpha

74. Benthic assemblages within 500 m of MPA were dominated by polychaete worm families when surveyed in April 2013. Eight of the 10 most abundant taxa were also among the 10 most abundant taxa at control sites for the survey.

75. Overall, taxa abundance was highly variable between the survey stations, although generally there was a trend of increased abundance further from MPA.

76. Benthic macrofaunal communities within 500m of MPA were more variable than at control sites. Although these differences were confounded by variable survey timing, there were significant distance-related community differences present close to MPA. The surveys showedthat the macrofaunal patterns closer to MPA are related to the physical placement of the platform, causing minor substrate variation (i.e. changes in depositional patterns, higher concentrations of finesand / barium and increased deposition of platform related debris).

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 18

77. Sea floor video footage within 500 m from MPA observed a lower abundance of epifauna, but higher abundances of fish compared to control sites. Video footage of the seafloor within 1 km of MPA observed an abundance of gastropod taxa on the northern axis and a low level of sediment structures created by burrowing or animal movement compared to control sites.

Māui Platform Bravo

78. Sediment infauna surveys undertaken in August 2011 and January 2013at MPB showed relatively sparse communities of species generally typical offshore of benthic marine environments in the Taranaki Basin. Polychaete worms were consistently the most dominant taxonomic group the in vicinity of MPB and at the control site, accounting for up84% t o of the total taxa. The results categorise the MPB infaunal community as a ‘polychaete-crustacean community with bivalve-mollusc representation’.

79. Bivalve species found during surveys were typical previous of studies in the area. Significant differences between the MPB survey site and control sites were observed, but these differences primarily arose from the occurrence of a num ber of low-abundance species with low contribution scores and s o are considered attributable to natural spatial variation, rather than anthropogenic influences.

80. The taxa with the highest total abundance were cirratulid polychaetes, deposit-feeding worms often associated with soft sediment environments. The 10most abundant taxa at the MPB site shared seven taxa with a similar list compiled for the control site,although none of the species listed were completely absent from either site. Indices for community diversity and evenness were relatively high and uniform across stations on the sampling axes out from 1 km from MPB and for the control sites.

81. Benthic macrofaunal communities within 500m of MPB had polychaete worms as the dominant taxonomic group, although some compositional differences were observed. Although richness and abundance at MPB were higher than, or equal to, those at control sites, taxa richness anddiversity declined in samples closest to MPB. Several taxa often usedas indicators of environmental conditions were observed to be principal contributors to these community differences.

2.2.2 Plankton and Primary Productivity

82. Phytoplankton distribution and abundance is influenced by a range of , factorsincluding light availability for photosynthesis and the presence of nutrients in the water column.

83. The Taranaki Basin is impacted by several largescale,- highly variable, physical phenomena that structure the distribution and biomass of phytoplankton. These scale large- physical processes include the Kahurangi / Cape Farewell upwelling plume, tidal mixing, river plumes and s urf beach processes.

84. Of these phenomena, the Kahurangi / Cape Farewell upwelling plume is the most relevant the to activities at the Māui offshore facilities and is the best understood process in terms of plant nutrient renewal - which impacts on primary production dynamics and its downstream impact on zooplankton. Short-term and s easonal variability in these processes and c onsequent patterns of plankton

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 19

distribution and biomass is to be expected.The Kahurangi / Cape Farewell upwelling plume and its downstream propagation and associated primary and secondary production periodically extend into the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities.

85. The Impact Assessment noted that the NASA Giovanni System (SeaWIFS) was used to estimate the chlorophyll-a concentration within the Taranaki Basinacross a five-year period (2005 to 2010) via satellite remote sensing. The satellite imagery provided in the Impact Assessment indicates low concentrations of between 0.4 and 0.6 milligrams chlorophyll-a per m3.

2.2.3 Fish Species

86. The Impact Assessment noted that Leathwick et al (2006) analysed species richness for fish, using an extensive set of data from around New Zealandwaters . The study concluded that depth was the single most important factor influencing species richness in New Zealand waters and that the highest species richness was found in waters of between 900 and 1,100m depth – much deeper than the waters around MPA and MPB.

87. Given the low level of productivity within the area around the Māui offshore facilities, it is anticipated that the diversity of fish species is also low.

88. The fish species potentially present in the area around the Māui offshore facilities, based on annual distribution data provided within the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System, include blue cod, blue mackerel, gurnard, hāpuku, jack mackerel, john dory, kahawai, kingfish, barracouta, elephant fish, red cod, rig, school shark, tarakihi, tuna, blue sharks and mako sharks.

2.2.4 Marine Mammals

89. New Zealand supports a d iverse community of marine mammals.For ty-one species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and nine species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) are known to exist in New Zealand waters.

90. Ms Helen McConnell, who presented expert evidence on m arine mammals on be half of STOS, identified that there are 24 species of marine mammals that routinely or occasionally use the area around the Māui offshore facilities, with none relying entirely on habitat here.26 Ms McConnell listed the following threatened species as potentially present in the area:

(a) Blue whales are likely to have a regular presence;

(b) Orca are likely to be regular transitory visitors;

(d) Bryde’s whales and Hector’s dolphins could make infrequent visits.

26 Statement of evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 56].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 20

91. Recent research by NIWA (Torres et al, 2014) suggests that the South Taranaki Bight / Greater Cook Strait Region is a foraging ground for blue whales, where they most likely take advantage of proliferations of zooplankton prey that result from upwelling events in the area.

92. Ms McConnell and the Department of Conservation agreed that thearea around the Māui offshore facilities is at the extreme limit of Māui dolphin habitat. This is consistent with the views expressed by marine mammal experts in other marine consent hearings for activities in the South Taranaki asinB . Fur seals also occur throughout Taranaki waters and are reported to use the jacket of MPA and MPB as a haul-out. This was observed by the members of the DMC who visited the platforms.

2.2.5 Seabirds

93. The National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014) identifies the offshore waters in the South Taranaki Bight as a ‘hot spot’ for two seabird species: the flesh-footed shearwater and the sooty shearwater.A number of other seabirds, including albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters, have normal ranges that span across the area around the Māui offshore facilities.

94. The area with the greatest concentration of seabirds along the Taranaki coast is in the vicinity of the Sugar Loaf Islands, just west of New Plymouth and Port Taranaki. The Manawatū Estuary has one of the most diverse ranges of birds in one location in New Zealand and provides habitat to a number of threatened species of birds.

2.2.6 Marine Reptiles

95. Eight species of marine reptiles are known to occur off the New Zealand coast. Theseinclude the loggerhead turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, olive ridley turtle, leatherback turtle, yellow-bellied sea snake, banded sea krait and Saint Giron’s sea krait.

96. With the exception of the leatherback turtle, marine reptiles are characteristically found in warm temperate seas. As such, most of New Zealand’s marine reptiles are concentrated in the warm waters off the north-east coast of the North Island.

97. Marine reptiles are likely to breed on beaches located in tropical or subtropical areas outside ofthe New Zealand. The leatherback turtle is unique among sea turtles in its ability to withstand cooler waters. Consequently, it is the most widely distributed marine reptile off New Zealand. Leatherback turtles are thought to have resident feeding grounds within New Zealand and sightings have been recorded as far south as Fiordland. It is possible that marine reptiles may occur within thearea around the Māui offshore facilities, although the lack of nearby breeding habitat and distance from known concentrations mean that they are likely to be rare.

2.2.7 Sites of Conservation Significance

98. The Māui offshore facilities are not located within a protected or managed marine area.

99. The closest protected natural area is the Ngā Motu Sugar / Loaf Islands, which is located just offshore from New Plymouth. There are at least 89 species offish and 33 s pecies of encrusting

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 21

sponges within this protected area. The Ngā Motu / Sugar Loaf Islands are considered important for 19 species of seabirds, with approximately 10,000 seabirds nesting here. A breeding colony of New Zealand fur seals also inhabits these islands.

100. Other protected natural areas in thewider vicinity include the Paraninihiand Taupuae Marine Reserves. The Paraninihi Marine Reserve is an 18 square kilometre (km2) marine reserve located off the coast of Pukearuhe and is approximately 102 km from the Māui offshore facilities. The Tapuae Marine Reserve covers 14 km2 and is located approximately 53 km from the Māui offshore facilities.

101. The Taranaki Regional Council’s Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan documents a number of sensitive coastal areas within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) along the Taranaki coast (Taranaki Regional Council, 2012).

102. Further afield, but still within possible reach of a h ydrocarbon spill are theapiti K Marine Reserve located between Paraparaumu and Waikanae beaches, and four marine reserves along the northern coastline of the South Island;Long Island - Kokomohua (approximately 166 km from the Māui offshore facilities), Horoirangi (approximately 153 km from the Māui offshore facilities), Tonga Island (approximately 121 km from theMāui offshore facilities), and Westhaven (Te Tai Tapu) (approximately 111 km from the Māui offshore facilities).

103. The Manawatū Estuary and Farewell Spit are Ramsar Convention approved sites of international importance for migratory birds.

104. The West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary is located along the west coast of the North Island, approximately 30 km from the Māui offshore facilities at its closest point. The boundaries of the sanctuary extend southward along shore from Maunganui Bluff in Northland to Ōakura Beach in Taranaki. The sanctuary’s offshore boundary extends from MHWS to the 12 nmi territorial sea limit. The total area of the sanctuary is approximately 1,200,086 hectares, covering 2,164 km of coastline. Within the sanctuary there are restrictions on seabed mining activities and acoustic seismic survey work.

2.3 Existing Interests

2.3.1 Commercial Shipping Interests

105. The closest commercial port to the Māui offshore facilities is Port Taranaki (New Plymouth). The port offers nine fully serviced berths for a wide variety of cargoes and vessels. The maximum port draft is 12.5 m. Port Taranaki has the ability to handle a r ange of cargoes, including bulk products and containers, and has specialist experience in the handling of heavy lift and project cargoes.

106. The coastline along Taranaki is part of one of the busiest shipping lanes around New Zealand. This is due to it being the northern access to Port Wellington and major fishing bases in Nelson / Tasman Bay. Because of the increased potential for a collision between ships and the offshore installations in the Taranaki Basin, the International Maritime Organization approved a ‘Precautionary Area’ for the west coast of the North Island in 2006.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 22

107. A Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Area in is place under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996 for STOS’ three existing submarine pipelines. A 500 m safety zone also surrounds MPA and MPB under the Continental Shelf (Māui A Safety Zone) Regulations 1975 and Continental Shelf (Māui B Safety Zone) Regulations 1991.

108. There are several exceptions to the general protection provided by theSubmarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Area. This includes ships that are being used for research carriedout by or for the Ministry for Primary Industries.

2.3.2 Fishing Interests

109. The Māui offshore facilities are located in Fisheries Management Area 8 (Central) and Statistical Reporting Area 040. The total tonnage of catch from the 040 Statistical Area between 2008 and 2013 was 34,170 t, according to information supplied by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

110. The most commonly caught speciesw ithin the 040 Statistical Areaare jack mackerel, barracouta, frostfish, blue mackerel and trevally. Jack mackerel accounts for 74% of the commercial catch in the area. The predominant fishing method is trawling, which accounts for 95% of the commercial catch.

111. The Impact Assessment noted recreational fishing as alawfull y established existing interest in the CMA. It did not identify any particular fishingactivities occurring around the Māui offshore facilities, but did note that there are some fishing charters that operate out of New Plymouth and other smaller centres along the Taranaki coast.

2.3.3 Iwi Interests

112. The Impact Assessment noted that thecoastal environment within the TaranakiIwi rohe (area) contains a number of features and resources of value to TaranakiI wi. Taranaki Iwi exercise mana whenua and mana moana from Paritūtū in the north around the western coast of Taranaki Maunga to Rāwa o Turi stream in the south and from these boundary points out to the outer extent of the EEZ.

113. The Impact Assessment also noted that Taranaki Iwi continue to exercise custodianship over those areas accessible to TaranakiI wi. Many Taranaki Iwi have imposed rāhui (temporary restrictions) over sites, restricting the taking of kūkū, kina, pāua and other mātaitai. Proper and sustainable management of the CMA has always been at the heart of the relationship between TaranakiI wi and the coast.

Historical Treaty Claims

114. STOS did not identify in the Impact Assessment any settlements of historical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 relevant to the activities for which marine consent is sought.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 23

Māori Commercial Fishing

115. Māori commercial fishing interests were briefly identifiedin the mpact I Assessment and in the fisheries evidence of Ms Nicola Gibbs on behalf of STOS27. Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust (TKONT)28 also highlighted concerns with respect toits fishing rights and interests in Fisheries Management Area 8 (Central). TKONT advised that Ngāruahine are holders of fisheries quota under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 andtherefore, , are potentially affected by restricted access to commercial fishing due to the presence of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities.

116. While a total of 57 mandated iwi organisations throughout New Zealand were notified of themarine consent application, TKONT was the only iwi organisation to make a submission and to identifyits commercial and customary fisheries interests as meeting the definition of an existing interest pursuant to section 4 of the EEZ Act.

117. TKONT said that the fisheries quota allocated to it falls entirely within Fisheries Management Area 8 (Central), and consequently all opportunities for Ngāruahine to exercise their commercial fishing and development rights are confined to this fishing area.TKONT currently leases its quota to other commercial fishery operators as it does not operate its own vessel. At the present time TKONT is unable to fully commercialise its quota so the potential impacts of further restrictions on commercial fishing areas resulting from the marine consent application was a particular concern.

118. This concern was also raised in the NKTT Report in relation to alli wi holding fisheries quota. There was a concern that adverse effects from the activities at the Māui offshore facilities would reduce the value of their present assets and future development , rights as well as undermine important concepts such as rangatiratanga which ( is among theprinciples expressly recognised under the Treaty of Waitangi) and kaitiakitanga.

Māori Customary Fishing

119. The only reference to customary fishing in the mpactI Assessment and in the evidence of Ms Gibbs was in relation to Māori commercial fishing. However, we are mindful of the fact that in addition to commercial fisheries interests provided for under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, customary fishing rights may also be an existing interest under section 4 of the EEZ . ActThese customary fishing rights are separate to the commercial fisheries assets discussed above andin, our view, deserve separate consideration in the context of this decision.

120. TKONT identified a number of potential impacts on customary fishing rights, including sustainability, access to customary fishing grounds, mahinga kai and the quality of kaimoana.

121. At the hearing, Dr Will Edwards of TKONT, emphasised the importance of customary fishing not only as a means of sustaining and upholding the manamarae of through the extension of manaakitanga (hospitality) to manuhiri (visitors), but also in terms “…t of he redistribution of

27 Statement of Evidence of Nicola Gay Gibbs – 17 March 2015. 28 Submitter 111082.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 24

kaimoana by those families that have that knowledge to their immediate community [which] is hugely important to community cohesion...”29

122. In response to questioning on t he range of customary fishing activities potentially affected by the application, TKONT noted thatit was unable to provide detailed information regarding customary fishing without first consulting with the whānau and hapū responsible for carrying out these activities on behalf of the iwi. It was also noted that many of these activities have been set out TKONTin s application for customary marine title and protected customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA Act).

123. Nevertheless, based on the information we received, it is clear that certain whānau and hapū within Ngāruahine are actively involved in customary fishing and c ontinue to uphold the customs and tikanga associated with it. Protecting traditional fishing grounds, imposing rāhui or temporary restrictions in the event of a death at sea, and the recital of karakia are examples of activities related to customary fishing still carried out today. They are also expressions of kaitiakitanga or traditional guardianship, which are responsibilities that we appreciate are taken very seriously by TKONT.

124. Furthermore, we heard that TKONT operates a ‘pātaka’ system for customary fishing ng usi commercial fishing vessels. Under this system, a local commercial operator is issued with a customary permit to harvest fish.Iwi manage a process for issuing the permits and tracking the amount of fish that is put into the storeand then distributed to marae to provide seafood for tangihanga and hui. TKONT confirmed that commercial vessels are commonly used to harvest customary catch and this may involve fishing in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities.

Customary Rights or Marine Title

125. Two applications have been lodged with the Crown for customary marine title and protected customary rights under the MACA Act in the general vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities. These applications are for customary rights within the common marine and c oastal area between the Taungatara and Waihi Rivers,30 and for the common marine and coastal area surroundingD ’Urville Island (out to 12 nmi).31

126. The application for customary marine rights under the MACA Actby Ngāruahine has not yet been determined, so the rights have not yet been 'recognised' for the purposesclause of (f) of the definition of existing interests under section 4 of the EEZ Act. Nonetheless, TKONT and Dr Edwards provided us with information about Ngāruahine's interests in customary activities that underpin those applications, which can be considered under clause (a) of the definition of existing interests.

127. No other existing protected customary right or customary marine titles have been identified.

29 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) – Page 316. 30 Applicant is Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine Iwi. 31 Applicant is Ngāti Kōata.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 25

3. Statutory Framework

3.1 Introduction

128. This section sets out the statutory framework under the following headings:

(a) Purpose and Principles of the EEZ Act;

(b) Section 20 – Restrictions on Activities in the EEZ and Continental Shelf;

(d) Information Principles.

129. There are regulations and other laws relevant todecision -making on this application for marine consent, and these must be taken into account under sections 59(2)(k) and ( l) of the EEZ Act. A number of regulations and other laws include environmental considerations andthese are discussed further in section 13 of this decision.

3.2 Purpose and Principles of the EEZ Act

3.2.1 Purpose

130. Section 10(1) of the EEZ Act states:

“The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.”

131. ‘Sustainable management’ is defined in section 10(2) of the EEZ Act as follows:

“In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and pr otection of natural resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to provide for their economic well-being while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment; and

132. The resources to be s ustainably managed under the EEZ Act are thenatural “ resources of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf”. Section 4(1) of the EEZ Act defines natural resources as follows:

“(a) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, includes seabed, subsoil, water, air, minerals, and energy, and all forms of organisms (whether native to New Zealand or introduced); and

(b) in relation to the continental shelf, means the mineral and other nonliving- resources of the seabed and subsoil and sedentary species.”

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 26

133. Section 4(1) of the EEZ Act defines ‘environment’ as:

“the natural environment, including ecosystems and their constituent parts and all natural resources, of—

(a) New Zealand:

(b) the exclusive economic zone:

(d) the waters beyond the exclusive economic zone and above and beyond the continental shelf.”

134. Section 10(3) of the EEZ Act states:

“In order to achieve the purpose, decision-makers must—

(a) take into account decision-making criteria specified in relation to particular decisions; and

(b) apply the information principles to the development of regulations and the consideration of applications for marine consent.”

135. The decision-making criteria referred to in section 10(3)(a) of the EEZ Act are set out in sections 59 and 60 of the Act. The information principles are found in section 61. These provisions are discussed in detail later in this decision.

3.2.2 International Obligations

136. Section 11 of the EEZ Act states:

“This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations under various international conventions relating to the marine environment, including—

(a) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:

(b) the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.”

137. New Zealand’s international obligations are binding on t he Crownwhich, fulfils New Zealand’s sovereign obligations. We interpret that the relevant obligations of the Crown are expressly encapsulated by Parliament in the EEZ Act and other legal instruments, such as the other marine management regimes, and do not require additional consideration to be appliedby the EPA to the decision-making criteria and information principles contained in the EEZ Act.

3.2.3 Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Treaty of Waitangi

138. Section 12 of the EEZ Act states:

“In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi for the purposes of this Act,—

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 27

(a) section 18 (which relates to the function of the Māori Advisory Committee) provides for the Māori Advisory Committee to advise the Environmental Protection Authority so that decisions made under this Act may be informed by a Māori perspective; and

(b) section 32 requires the Minister to establish and use a process that gives iwi adequate time and opportunity to comment on the subject matter of proposed regulations; and

(c) sections 33 and 59, respectively, require the Minister and the EPA to take into account the effects of activities on existing interests; and

(d) section 45 requires the Environmental Protection Authority to notify iwi authorities, customary marine title groups, and pr otected customary rights groups directly of consent applications that may affect them.”

139. Matters of cultural relevance are addressed through the EPA’s obligation to notify relevant Māori groups of applications for marine consent, the ability forDMC s to receive specialist advice on matters pertaining to Māori (including the NKTT Report), the obligation to have regard to any submissions received, and the requirement to take into account the effect of activities on ex isting interests, which can include certain Māori interests.

3.3 Section 20 – Restrictions on Activities in the EEZ and Continental Shelf

140. Section 20 of the EEZ Act restricts certain activities from being undertaken in the EEZ or in, or on, the continental shelf unless they are authorised under the EEZ Act. An analysis of the activities that require marine consent under section 20 of the EEZ Act was set out in the Impact Assessment and the opening legal submissions for STOS.32

3.4 Decision-making Criteria

141. Sections 59 a nd 60of the EEZ Act set out the matters that must be considered in coming to a decision on an application for marine consent.

“59 Environmental Protection Authority’s consideration of application

(1) This section and sections 60 and 6 1 apply when the Environmental Protection Authority is considering an application for a Marine Consent and submissions on the application.

(2) The EPA must take into account—

(a) any effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the activity, including—

(i) cumulative effects; and

32 Opening Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 29 April 2015 [Appendix 1].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 28

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone; and

(b) the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity, including—

(i) the effects of activities that are not regulated under this Act; and

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone; and

(d) the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems, and processes; and

(e) the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and t he habitats of threatened species; and

(f) the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application; and

(g) the efficient use and development of natural resources; and

(h) the nature and effect of other marine management regimes; and

(i) best practice in relation to an industry or activity; and

(j) the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity; and

(k) relevant regulations; and

(l) any other applicable law; and

(m) any other matter the EPA considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

(3) The EPA must have regard to—

(a) any submissions made and evidence given in relation to the application; and

(b) any advice, reports, or information it has sought and received in relation to the application; and

(4) When considering an application affected by section 74, the EPA must also have regard to the value of the investment in the activity of the existing consent holder.

(5) Despite subsection (3), the EPA must not have regard to—

(a) trade competition or the effects of trade competition; or

(b) the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air; or

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 29

(6) Subsection (5)(c) does not apply if the person has given written approval but the person withdraws the approval by giving written notice to the EPA—

(a) before the date of the hearing, if there is one; or

(b) if there is no hearing, before the EPA decides the application.

60 Matters to be considered in deciding extent of adverse effects on existing interests

In considering the effects of an activity on existing interests under section 59(2)(a), the Environmental Protection Authority must have regard to—

(a) the area that the activity would have in common with the existing interest; and

(b) the degree to which both the activity and the existing interest must be carried out to the exclusion of other activities; and

(d) any other relevant matter.”

142. There is no explicit hierarchy in the extensive list of matters that must be taken into account under section 59(2) of the EEZ Act. The relative importance of these depends on the specifics of each marine consent application, the nature of the environment, and the extent and nature of existing interests. However, sections 59(2)(d) and 59(2)(e) includehe t qualifying words “the importance of protecting”, which are not used in any of the other subclauses- . We have taken this to mean that Parliament chose to place particular emphasis on the protection of biological diversity, integrity and ecosystems as specified in these sections.

143. While the activities subject to this marine consent application will take place in the EEZ, we are required to take into account effects that may occur from allowing the activities, including those that may occur outside the EEZ. This clear requirement is important as some of the potential adverse effects of the activities may occur within the CMA (e.g. a hydrocarbon spill).

144. Section 59(2)(b)(i) also requires us to take into account the effects of activities that are not regulated under the EEZ Act. This requirement ensures that all potential effects activity, of an whether regulated by section 20 of the EEZ Act or not, are considered‘ in the round’ when determining whether to grant marine consent.

145. Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act requires us to consider ‘any other matters’ we think are relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. We consider the relevant other matters in section 14 of this decision.

146. Section 59(3) of the EEZ Act states we “must have regard to” any submissions or evidence given to us, any advice or reports we have sought, and any advice from NKTT. We have had regard to these

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 30

obligations in reaching our decision and these are noted, where appropriate, throughout this decision. We note that pursuant to section 59(5) of the EEZ Act, we have not given regard to:

(a) Trade competition or the effects of trade competition; or

(b) The effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air.

147. Section 61 of the EEZ Act states:

“61 Information principles

(1) When considering an application for a Marine Consent, the Environmental Protection Authority must—

(a) make full use of its powers to request information from the applicant, obtain advice, and commission a review or a report; and

(b) base decisions on the best available information; and

(2) If, in relation to making a decision under this Act, the information available is uncertain or inadequate, the EPA must favour caution and environmental protection.

(3) If favouring caution and environmental protection means that an ac tivity is likely to be refused, the EPA must first consider whether taking an ad aptive management approach would allow the activity to be undertaken.

(4) Subsection (3) does not limit section 63 or 64.

(5) In this section, best available information means the best information that, in the particular circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time.”

3.5.1 Full Use of Powers

148. We are satisfied we have made full use of our powers to request and access informationand , consider we have met our responsibility under section 61(1)(a) of the EEZ Act.

149. In this case, we have had the benefit of:

(a) The marine consent application by STOS and the Impact Assessment (including supporting technical documents);

(b) Additional information supplied by STOS at the request of the EPA (refer to Appendix 2);

(d) Submissions from interested parties, including parties with existing interests that may be affected by the application (refer to Appendix 3);

(e) Expert evidence, both written and oral, and supplemented by questioning by us;

(f) Non-expert evidence and representations in support of submissions;

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 31

(g) Supplementary evidence supplied by STOS and other parties during the hearing;

(h) The joint witness statement of experts on the proposed marine consent conditions;

(i) Legal representations in both opening and closing the hearing on behalf of STOS;

(j) Legal advice from Crown Law, Buddle Findlay and EPA inhouse- counsel in relation to the meaning of the terms ‘placement’ and ‘deposit’ in section 20 of the EEZ Act, the treatment of the recommendations in the NKTT Report, and the setting of conditions under the EEZ Act;

(k) The EPA Expert Report;

(l) The NKTT Report;

(m) The Marine Ecology Review Reports (D1 and D2);

(n) The Modelling Review Report; and

(o) The Offshore Operations Report.

150. The EPA also requested that STOS provide us with the DMP for MPA and MPB. This information was requested on 21 January 2015 and provided to us by STOS on 17 February 2015.

3.5.2 Best Available Information

151. Pursuant to section 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act, we must make our decision based on the best available information. “Best available information” is defined in section 61(5) of the EEZ Act. It is, however, important to note that best available information is not necessarily ‘all available information’. We are required to exercise judgement about what information is the best available informationhis for t particular marine consent application, having regard to issues of cost, effort and time.

152. A considerable amount of evidence has been presented in support of the marine consent application. We were very conscious that a s ignificant amount of this evidence is basedon two key modelling exercises; being the drill cuttings dispersion modelan d the hydrocarbon spill model.Concern was expressed by submitters, and to an extent by us, that there had been little validation of the models against real data. The exception was the benthic monitoring, which has been undertaken according to established protocols. Through questioning of experts we were able to satisfy ourselves that there was adequate conservatism in the models, and adequate information available from other localities and jurisdictions to be confident in the results of the modelling and consequent effects assessments. We were also satisfied that seeking more information was unlikely to yield significantly different findings.

153. Furthermore, the results of benthic monitoring provided information on the environmental consequences of past drilling campaigns, from which it is most useful to draw conclusions about likely future effects.

154. On the basis of the above, we are satisfied that we have been able to make our decision based on the best available informationin accordance with ection s 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act and this was sufficient for us to assess the likely effects of the activities on the environment and existing interests.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 32

4. Context for Consideration and Evaluation

155. Sections 59 an d 61 of the EEZ Act require us to take into account a number ofmatters when considering an application for a marine consent. The matters in sections 59 and 61 of the EEZ Act are evaluated in the following sections as follows:

(a) Section 5 of this decision addresses potential effects on t he environment and existing interests as required by sections 59(2)(a) and 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act;

(b) Section 6 of this decision addresses potential effects on hum an health as required by section 59(2)(c) of the EEZ Act;

(c) Section 7 of this decision addresses the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes as required by section 59(2)(d) of the EEZ Act;

(d) Section 8 of this decision addresses the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and t he habitats of threatened species as required by section 59(2)(e) of the EEZ Act;

(e) Section 9 of this decision addresses the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application as required by section 59(2)(f) of the EEZ Act;

(f) Section 10 of this decision addresses the efficient use and development of natural resources as required by section 59(2)(g) of the EEZ Act;

(g) Section 11 of this decision addresses the nature and effect of other marine management regimes as required by section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act;

(h) Section 12 of this decision addresses best practice in relation to an industry or activity as required by section 59(2)(i) of the EEZ Act;

(i) Section 14 addresses other relevant regulations and laws as required by section59(2)(k)s and 59(2)(l) of the EEZ Act;

(j) Section 15 of this decision addresses other matters potentially relevant to the application as required by section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act;

(k) Section 16 of this decision addresses adaptive management as required by section61(3) of the EEZ Act;

(l) Section 17 of this decision considers the relevant information in light of the purpose of the EEZ Act as stated in section 10 of the EEZ Act; and

(m) Section 18 of this decision considers the duration of the consent in accordance with section 73 of the EEZ Act.

156. We note that section 63 of the EEZ Act states:

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 33

“(1) The Environmental Protection Authority may grant a marine consent on any condition that it considers appropriate to deal with adverse effects of theactivity authorised by the consent on the environment or existing interests.

(2) The conditions that the EPA may impose include, but are not limited to, conditions—

(a) requiring the consent holder to—

(i) provide a bond for the performance of any 1 or more conditions of the consent:

(ii) obtain and maintain public liability insurance of a specified value:

(iii) monitor, and report on, the exercise of the consent and the effects of the activity it authorises:

(iv) appoint an observer to monitor the activity authorised by the consent and its effects on the environment:

(v) make records related to the activity authorised by the consent available for audit:

(b) that together amount or contribute to an adaptive management approach.

(3) However, the EPA must not impose a condition on a c onsent if the condition would be inconsistent with this Act or any regulations.

(4) To avoid doubt, the EPA may not impose a condition to deal with an effect if the condition would conflict with a measure required in relation to the activity by another marine management regime or the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.”

157. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account“the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”. We have wide discretion in terms of imposing conditions on this application for marine consent and have carefully considered the conditions proffered by STOS in its closing legal submissions, as well as those recommended by Ms Couzens. Our findings on the proffered conditions are set out in sections 5 and 6 of this decision.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 34

5. Potential Effects on the Environment and Existing Interests

5.1 Introduction

158. Sections 59(2)(a) and 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act require us to take into account the effects of allowing the activity on the environment and existing interests. The latter provisions also requires us to take into account other activities occurring in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities, including those not regulated under the EEZ Act, and the likely effects of these activities on the environment and existing interests.

159. Section 59(3) of the EEZ Act requires us to have regard toany submissions and e vidence, any advice provided to us in relation to the application, and any advice received from NKTT.

160. This section summarises our understanding of the key potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on the environment and existing interests. Our understanding of the key potential effects is based on the information provided in the mpact I Assessment, the further information provided by STOS, the EPA Expert Report, the NKTT Report, submissions, and the expert evidence. This section also outlines our findings on the key potential effects.

161. We have applied the definition of “effect” in section 6 of the EEZ Act, and have considered any potential cumulative effects - including potential effects of low probability but high potential impact.

162. We have taken into account the effects on t he environment andexisting interests of allowing the activities that may occur outside of the EEZ in accordance withsections 59(2)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii) of the EEZ Act – that is, effects “in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone”.

163. In considering the effects on the environment of allowing the activities at the Māui offshore facilities we have considered Māori perspectives on the natural environment, as well as the scientific and other technical information provided to us.

164. The key potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on the environment and existing interests are categorised under the following sub-headings:

(a) Benthic communities;

(b) Planktonic communities;

(d) Seabirds;

(e) Fish;

(f) Biosecurity;

(g) Māori environmental values; and

(h) Existing interests.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 35

165. The potential effects of a hydrocarbonspill event are considered under a separate subheading- in this section. We have adopted this approach as the potential effects of a hydrocarbon spill event may manifest across many of the identified environmental values and existing interests. A hydrocarbon spill event also has the potential to generate effects on the environment outside of the EEZ.

166. Likewise, our consideration of potential cumulative effects is provided under a separate sub-heading in this section.

5.2 Benthic Communities

5.2.1 The Issues

167. The key potential adverse effects on benthic communities are:

(a) Smothering due to the deposition of drill cuttings and muds onto the seabed;

(b) The disturbance of the sea floor by the placement of structures;

(d) The discharge of contaminants in produced water on marine sediments and water quality; and

(e) Waste from maintenance activities (e.g. cleaning, recoating and zinc anodes).

168. A number of submitters expressed concern about the potential loss of marine habitat and the degradation of the marine environment. These concerns stated that increased drilling in the Taranaki Basin risks ecosystems, will destroy precious habitat, and will present a danger for animals and the environment. Climate Justice Taranaki33 and Dr Lyndon DeVantier34 raised concerns about the risk of ocean acidification from the discharge of methane into the water column and release of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

5.2.2 The Effects

Deposition of Drill Cuttings

169. Expert evidence on the dispersal modelling of drill cuttings was provided on behalf of STOS by oceanographer Dr Brett Beamsley.35 Dr Beamsley had provided models of twopersion dis scenarios. The first scenario, in the Impact Assessment,36 was based on the use of waterbased muds (WBMs) that result in fine cuttings. The second scenario, provided in response to the EPA’s request for further information, was based on the use of synthetic based muds (SBMs) that result in coarser cuttings.

33 Submitter 110891. 34 Submitter 110914. 35 Statement of Evidence of Dr Brett James Beamsley – 18 March 2015. 36 Māui Impact Assessment: Annexure G: Drill Cuttings Dispersion Modelling Report (September 2014), Met Ocean Solutions Limited, Page 1.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 36

170. Dr Beamsley explained that while the strongest influence on the oceanic dispersal of drill cuttings is the particle size distribution, it is also influenced by the local currents and turbulence at the time of release. To account for this variability when making an assessment of the likely effects, simulations of the discharge need to be undertaken over relatively long durations so that robust statistical outcomes can be derived. Accordingly, an 11-year database of the likely dispersal and deposition of discharged cuttings was constructed and formed the basis of the effects assessment.

171. In the first modelled scenario, the near surface discharge of 4,168 m3 of cuttings at MPA is predicted to give rise to a maximum depositional thickness of between 2.76 and 3.44 centimetres (cm), and the discharge of 1,505 m3 of cuttings at MPB is predicted to give rise to a m aximum depositional thickness of between 0.65 and 0.79 cm (season dependent). The cumulative percentage of total deposition indicates that 25% of the discharged cutting volumes will deposit within 60 –70 m of the discharge point at both MPA and MPB. Further, 90% of the discharged cutting volumes will deposit within 29 km of the discharge point at MPA and within 31 km at MPB.

172. In the second modelled scenario, the near surface discharge of cuttings at MPA is predicted to give rise to a maximum depositional thickness of between 1.7and 2.29 m, and a maximum depositional thickness of between 0.48 and 0.61 m at MPB (season dependent). The cumulative percentage of total deposition indicates that 25% of the discharged volumes will deposit within 1020 – m of the discharge point at both MPA and MPB, while 90% of the cuttings volume is predicted to settle within 50 m of the platforms.

173. Dr Beamsley considered that the two modelled scenarios would bracket the potential dispersion and depositional thickness of the cuttings, with the second scenario the most likely as STOS has advised of its intention to use SBMs.

174. Marine scientist Dr Daniel McClary, 37 who provided expert evidence on the physical and biological effects of the activities on the benthic environment on behalf of stated STOS in response to questioning from us that even if cuttings were spread over a much greater area it is still a very small proportion of available habitat and the impacts will still be low.38

175. Dr McClary said that recolonisation- of the seabed near MPA following drilling has been demonstrated to occur relatively rapidly. Cawthron (2014) examined the marine benthos within the exclusion zone near the end of the most recent drilling campaign (7 April 2013 – 15 August 2014). In that campaign approximately 837 m3 of cuttings was discharged over a period of 496 days for an average of 1.7 millimetres per day. Dr McClary noted that Cawthron found that there was an extant community already present. He said that the composition of the benthic assemblages present suggested a transition between a highly disturbed substrate and a more stable community. It was his view that these lines of evidence indicate that the direct impacts of the physical deposition of drill

37 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015. 38 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 April 2015) – Page 226.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 37

cuttings on the seabed biota near the platforms will be both spatially restricted and transient in nature.

176. Dr McClary also said that the dispersal of muds and cuttings has the potential to affect some benthic organisms through toxic effects. He noted that SBMs are formulated to have low toxicity, especially at the concentrations in which they are used in offshore drilling, and that generally the low level of contamination associated with the residual discharge of SBMs has not resulted in detectable levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons within a few months of deposition (Li et al, 2009).

177. In addition, Dr McClary stated that heavy metals associated with drilling fluids (e.g. barium, cadmium, lead and zinc) have been shown to have minimal effects on benthos since these metals are bound to minerals and have limited bioavailability. Given the wave energy and water depth characteristics at MPA and MPB, Dr McClary stated that he“would expect that any potential toxicity from SBM remaining on cuttings is likely to be substantially reduced by dilution as the cuttings settle out of the water column. However, some toxicity from residual SBM contamination is possible within areas of significant deposition, particularly close to the platform.”39

178. The modelling of drill cuttings dispersal and its ecological effects were independently reviewedin reports prepared for the EPA by coastal and marine engineerDr Claus Pedersen40 and marine biologist Mr Matthew Jury.4142 Dr Pedersen advised that standard industry practice has been applied in the modelling. However, he had some concerns around the validation of data and sensitivity analysis.

179. Mr Jury concurred with Dr Pedersen’s comments and advised that he had taken this into account in a conservative approach in relation to his assessment potential of environmental effects. He maintained the view stated in the Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 in relation to environmental effects on sediment quality and the benthic community that drill cuttings discharge from future wells will be of minor consequence.

Placement of Structures

180. Dr McClary stated that the structures at the Māui offshore facilities would have displaced local benthic communities at the time of their installation, but over time thebenthic communities would have re-colonised available space around the structures (as observed in the benthic monitoring).

181. Given that the habitat occupied by the facilities and structures is representative of a much larger available area, Dr McClary considered that the loss of habitat from the placement of the platforms or pipelines did not represent a level of disturbance of any “measurable consequence to the ecology of the area”.43

39 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 113]. 40 Modelling Review Report – 24 April 2015. 41 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable One) – 4 February 2015. 42 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable Two) – 16 April 2015. 43 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 75].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 38

Subsea Works and Anchoring

182. Dr McClary stated that all subsea works, including pipeline inspection,s have the potential to cause localised seabed disturbance. He noted that STOS has identified that the detection of freespans (unsupported lengths of pipeline due to discontinuities on the seabed) may requirethe installation of additional cement mattresses to support the submarine pipelines. While this will result in small losses of habitat, Dr McClary said that these structures can also be colonised by a r ange of benthic and near-benthic species. Overall, he concluded that the minor disturbance activities would not result in detectable impacts on benthic populations due to the small areas involved.44

183. With respect to the anchoring of vessels, Dr McClary saidthat the degree of environmental impact will be dependent on factors such as the weight and configuration of the equipment, and the physical characteristics of the seabed habitat. He said that if a semi-TAD drill rig is used this would require up to 12 anchors, which will directly impact on benthic fauna. However, he considered there is potential for re-colonisation through recruitment via migration of fauna from adjacent areas and reproduction (Lissner et al, 1991). He expected habitats to quickly recover from disturbance.

Produced Water Discharges

184. Dr McClary explained that the minor quantities of residual sand and drilling muds in the produced water are unlikely to result in any detectable impacts on the seabed ecology near MPA and MPB. He also stated that the dilution of produced water occurs close to the point of discharge and that any particulates are dispersed by ocean currents prior to deposition, limiting the potential depth of deposition at any point.

185. Based on the evidence ofmarine hydrocarbon ecotoxicology expert Dr Alison Lane45 and Mr Bridge, Dr McClary clarified that the monitoring of produced water at MPB includesnuous conti sampling of produced water to ensure hydrocarbons, which may also adhere to sediment particles, do not exceed concentration limits.

Maintenance Activities

186. Dr McClary advised that cleaning activities typically use inert garnet for sandblasting to remove paint, rust and metal fragments from the surface being cleaned. While the evidence of Mr Bridge indicated that the majority of sandblasting and resulting contaminants are contained and removed for onshore disposal, Dr McClary said that overboard discharges inevitable are and any solid material will settle on the sea surface before it is eventually deposited on the seabed.

187. Dr McClary said that benthic studies close to MPA and MPB have identified the presence of zinc and lead in the sediments at elevatedlevels (which he considered is likely the result of paint and other material lost from the platforms over time). He also said that zinc and lead are known to be toxic to marine organisms at elevated concentrations. However, he said that the evaluation of the surveys of

44 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 90]. 45 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Lane – 18 March 2015.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 39

the benthic communities around MPA and MPB does not suggest any impacts on benthic community structure that can be attributed to this source. He also said that the potential for future harm from this source is also lessened as alternative paints and o ther products with reduced toxicity become available and are used on the platforms.

188. Zinc anodes placed on the infrastructure MPA of and MPB below the sea surface to prevent corrosion are also a source of potential zinc contamination of the benthic environment.

Ocean Acidification

189. The submissions from Climate Justice Taranaki andDr DeVantier raised a concern that the escape of methane from the wells, and the emission of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere,are creating an environmental effect due t o ocean acidification. They stated that this has potential to impact on benthic organisms that form calcareous shells or skeletons.

190. Dr McClary advised that the benthic organisms in thearea around the Māui offshore facilities are predominantly soft-bodied so not dependent on l aying down large quantities of 46 shell. Mr Jury concurred with this view.47

5.2.3 Findings

191. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of theactivitie s at the Māui offshore facilities on benthic communities:

(a) The physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment around MPA and MPB are similar to other offshore locations in Taranaki, and are dominated by silt, clay and fine sand fractions. The benthic communities within 500m of MPA and MPB comprisespecies generally typical of offshore benthic marine environments in the Taranaki Bight, dominated by polychaete worm assemblages;

(b) Sediment will be deposited onto the seabed around MPA and MPB from the discharge of drill cuttings and muds, cement and or / cement slurry. We find that this deposition will be localised and result in minor adverse effects on benthic communities;

(c) Disturbance to the sea floor has occurred from the placement of the existing facilities and structures. We find that this disturbance has had a minor effect on the benthic communities;

(d) Disturbance of the seabed will occur during the placement and removal of anchors, subsea work and benthic sampling for monitoring. We find that this disturbance will be localised and temporary and result in minor adverse effects on benthic communities;

(e) The discharge of sediment and contaminants in the produced water will have negligible effects;

46 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 April 2015) – Page 229. 47 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 453.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 40

(f) Maintenance activities may result in the deposition of small quantities of contaminants on the sea floor. We find the impacts of this deposition will be highly localised and result in negligible effects of the benthic communities;

(g) Any potential methane leakage and hydrocarbon release to the atmospherewould result in negligible effects on the benthic communities; and

(h) Overall, we find the potential adverse effects on the benthic communities from the deposition of the drill cuttings and muds, the contamination of benthic sediments, and placement and removal of anchors, subsea work and benthic sampling for monitoring will be localised and negligible to minor in the context of the wider environment.

5.2.4 Conditions

192. Conditions have been proffered by STOS, and r ecommended by the EPA, with respect to the management and monitoring of the potential effects of the activities on benthic communities. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

193. We have carefully considered these conditions and the monitoring and reporting provided for in the DMP, and have decided to impose the following conditions in relation to benthic communities: Conditions 11 (Pre-Drilling Plan), 12 (Drilling Records), 13 (Completion of Drilling Activity), 14 (Limits on Drill Cuttings Removed), 1(Subsea5 Inspection and Maintenance Plan), 17 (Reporting of Emergency Subsea Work), 18 (Benthic Monitoring Plan), 19 (Reporting on Benthic Monitoring), 25 (Anchor Management Plan), 26 (Anchor Removal), 27 ( Construction Management Plan the for Rejuvenation of Topsides) and 28 (Containment of Maintenance Waste and U se of Low Toxicity Products).

5.3 Planktonic Communities

5.3.1 The Issues

194. The key potential adverse effects on planktonic communities are:

(a) Increased turbidity and suspended sediment in the water column from the discharge of drill cuttings and muds; and

(b) Hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the discharge of drill cuttings and, muds produced water, and other incidental discharges.

195. A number of submitters also expressed concern about the potential loss of marine habitat and the degradation of the marine environment. As previously noted, these concerns statedthat increased drilling in the Taranaki Basin risks ecosystems, will destroy precious habitat, and will present a danger for animals and the environment. Climate Justice Taranaki and Dr DeVantier raised concerns about the risk of ocean acidification from the discharge of methane into the water column and release of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 41

5.3.2 The Effects

Increased Turbidity in the Water Column

196. Dr Beamsley advised that, based on the cuttings dispersion modelling results, surface plume concentrations are expected to reach background levels within approximately 25 - 50 m for MPA and MPB. Mid-water plumes are expected to have maximum concentrations of between 10 15- grams per cubic metre (g/m3) at MPA and 8 - 10 g/m3 at MPB. On this basis, Dr McClary concluded that he “would not expect dispersion of suspended solids and resulting turbidity from drilling activities at the Māui platforms to significantly impact on water quality in the area.”48

197. Marine scientist, Dr Alison MacDiarmid, provided expert evidence on behalf of STOS on plankton communities in the water column49. She identified that suspended sediments from drill cuttings and muds may have an adverse effect on plankton communities via the shading of phytoplankton. This would reduce primary production and t he amount of food available to zooplankton grazers.Dr MacDiarmid noted that high concentrations of fine sediment can clog zooplankton respiratory surfaces and / or feeding apparatus, as well as impair the ability of zooplankton visual predators to find prey.

198. Dr MacDiarmid elaborated further on t he modelling results, noting thatsuggest they that concentrations of total suspended sediment (TSS) are expected to reach approximate ambient concentrations in surface waters within 25 -50 m of the discharge point at MPA and MPB as the sediment rapidly descends through the water column50. Just above the sea floor, ambient TSS is reached in less than 200 m from the discharge point at MPA and MPB in all seasons. The ‘near bed plumes’ are expected to have a maximum concentration of approximately 1.6 g/m3 and 1.2 g/m3 for MPA and MPB respectively.

199. Dr MacDiarmid concluded that it is “very unlikely” that suspended sediments from thedrilling operations will be sufficiently high measurably to impact on phytoplankton or zooplankton populations.51 She also noted that phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in the Taranaki Bight are typical of the shelf communities found around the entire North Island.

Produced Water

200. Dr MacDiarmid outlined that the total volume of produced water discharged into the ocean at MPB in 2014 was 105,900 m3, which equates to an average monthly volume of 8,825 m3. She drew attention to the evidence of Mr Bridge which noted that produced water is treated and monitored for oil content in accordance with the DMP before it is discharged overboard.

201. Dr McClary advised that irect d toxicity testing ofp roduced water conducted by Cawthron (2015) detected significant toxicity associated with produced water collected from MPB in March 2014. He

48 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 114]. 49 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015. 50 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 31]. 51 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 32].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 42

explained that dilution modelling had beenconducted using ‘visual plumes’ (software for modelling plume dispersion provided by the USEPA). He stated that in all modelling runs a 50 x dilution (equating to 2% of the total produced water concentration) is reached within 5m of the discharge point. On this basis, Dr McClary concluded that the produced water discharged from the platforms is “unlikely to have a detectable impact on ambient water quality in the AOI [Area of Interest]”.52

202. Dr MacDiarmid concluded that if similar volumes ofp roduced water continued to be discharged, it is unlikely they would have a significant ecological effect on planktonic communities, particularly given the likely rapid rate of dilution of the discharge by waves and currents around MPB.53

203. Mr Jury questioned whether sufficient weight was given in this assessment to the possibility that in calm conditions the produced water would not be rapidly dispersed.54

Other Discharges

204. Dr MacDiarmid also considered the possible effects of garnet from sand blasting, paint chips from cleaning platform surfaces, ground food waste and grey water discharges on plankton. She noted that the small volume of garnet dust and paint chips from sand blasting and cleaning operations will have negligible effects on plankton.

205. Dr MacDiarmid also noted thatMr Bridge had advised that sewage, kitchen waste, and grey water from the living quarters on MPA and MPB are passed after maceration to the drain pile for dispersal in the sea. It was heropinion that this material is likely to have a negligible positive impact on planktonic communities as it provides a small amount of food and nutrients.

206. With respect to the discharge of freshwater from cleaning activities, Dr McClary noted that such discharges will result in a plume of reduced salinity at the point of discharge until it is diluted into the receiving water. He concluded that while this has potential to cause highly localised impacts on planktonic species near the point of discharge, he didnot “consider that impacts of significance on water quality would result from either the freshwater or any contamination from the cleaning and recoating activities”. 55

Ocean Acidification

207. As identified in paragraph 195 of this decision, the submissions from Climate Justice Taranaki and Dr DeVantier raised concerns that escape of methane from the wells and emissions of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere are creating environmental effects due to ocean acidification. This has potential to impact on planktonic organisms that form calcareous shells or skeletons.

208. Several expert witnesses on behalf of STOS identified the highly localised impacts and rapid dilution of emissions from MPA and MPB drilling activities. Any hydrocarbon emissions resulting from the activities are highly unlikely to have detectable effects on ocean acidification.

52 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 78]. 53 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 32]. 54 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 438. 55 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 88].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 43

5.3.3 Findings

209. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of the activities at theMāui offshore facilities on planktonic communities:

(a) The phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in the Taranaki Bight are typical of the shelf communities found around the entire North Island;

(b) Increased turbidity and suspended sediment in the water column from the discharge of drill cuttings and muds will have a negligible effect on the planktonic communities;

(c) Hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the discharge ofproduced water, drill cuttings and muds, and from other incidental discharges will have a negligible effect on the planktonic communities; and

(d) Any potential methane leakage and hydrocarbon release to the atmosphere ouldw result in negligible effects on the planktonic communities.

5.3.4 Conditions

210. No conditions were proffered by STOS, or recommendedby the EPA, with respect to the management and m onitoring of the potential effects of the activities on planktonic communities. Conditions in relation to management of discharges into the water column were proposed at the hearing by Climate Justice Taranaki.56 Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Actalso requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

211. We have carefully considered the conditions proposed, and, bearing in mind the requirement for operations to meet the requirements of the Maritime Transport Act and in particular the Marine Protection Rules administered by Maritime New Zealand (Rule 200.14), have decided not to impose any conditions specific to planktonic communities.

5.4 Marine Mammals

5.4.1 The Issues

212. The key potential adverse effects on marine mammals are:

(a) The presence of stationary objects in the water column;

(b) Decreased water quality from the discharge of production water and drill cuttings;

(d) The operation of support vessels and helicopters; and

56 Opening submissions of Climate Justice Taranaki – 6 May 2015.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 44

(e) Noise from production activities and drilling operations.

213. Two hundred and five submitters raised concerns about the potential effects of the operations at the Māui offshore facilities, and the proposed drilling operations, on marine mammals in the Taranaki Basin. In particular, submitters said that the drilling programme will further threaten the habitats and survival of threatened species, drew attention to the fact that“ there are 50 of the Māui dolphin left”, and that the drilling operations would “make them extinct”.

5.4.2 The Effects

Presence of Stationary Objects

214. Ms McConnell advised that stationary objects in the water column can form obstacles to marine mammals, which potentially increase the chances of collision, entanglement or displacement.

215. Ms McConnell identified that theacket j s at MPA and MPB are made of steel and have high reflectivity, which allows echo-locating marine mammals to easily detect them (avoiding the potential for collision and entanglement).57 She also noted that MPA and MPB have been in place for over 20 years and that there have been no reported marine mammal collisions reported over this time.

216. Ms McConnell concluded that any potential impacts associated withthe jackets impeding the movement of larger marine mammals would be negligible given the small size of the structures relative to the open marine habitat.

217. With respect to mooring lines, Ms McConnell stated that the majority of mooring lines associated with support vessels or drilling rigs will be thick, heavy gauge lines that are maintained at high tension. The risk of marine mammal entanglement with these thick lines “is low”.58 For lighter gauge lines (e.g. those used for environmental monitoring equipment), Ms McConnell recommended that “careful consideration be given to the mooring line configuration in order to minimise entanglement risks by ensuring that all ropes and floats are maintained under tension and that no floating lines are used on the sea surface.”59

Decreased Water Quality

218. Ms McConnell stated that the discharge of production water, drill cuttings and mud, anddomestic water from MPA and MPB could cause changes in the water quality in the immediate vicinity of the platforms.

219. As noted above, Ms McConnell advised that the production water may contain small quantities of residual solids, hydrocarbons and chemicals.T he chemicals associated with production water vary between MPA and MPB, but allhave been approved for use by Maritime New Zealand. While the specific drilling muds for future drilling ventures have not yet been selected, Ms McConnell noted that the Impact Assessment has stated that either SBMs or WBMs will be used. She said that the

57 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 66]. 58 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 69]. 59 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 69].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 45

chemical constituents of modern SBMs and WBMs have been carefully considered to reduce their eco-toxicity to as low as reasonably practical.

220. Ms McConnell stated that she understood that current and wave action ed result in rapid water column mixing, meaning that discharges will dilute close to the discharge point. She concluded that the risk of direct contamination associated with the discharge of production water and drilling muds is low based on the following reasons:60

(a) Marine mammals return to the surface to breathe so the uptake of contaminants in thewater column is primarily through the food chain or through direct contact with skin and m ucous membranes;

(b) Dilution rates are typically high in the offshore marine environment so concentrations of contaminants will decrease rapidly from the point of discharge;

(d) The discharge plumes are highly localised in comparison to the home range of marine mammals and no known specific habitat requirements are found in the immediate vicinity of MPA and MPB; and

(e) Marine mammals are highly mobile and have ample opportunity to avoid discharge plumes.

221. Ms McConnell further explained at the hearing that marine mammals have effective mechanisms for detoxifying hydrocarbons and heavy metals.61

222. In relation to water column turbidity from the discharge of drill cuttings, Ms McConnell said thathe t TSS levels from drill cutting discharges have been modelled based on the discharge of 4168, m3 of cuttings from MPA and ,1505 m3 from MPB. She noted that the modelling results indicatehat t surface plume TSS concentrations are expected to reach background levels within 25– 50 m of the discharge point at both MPA and MPB.

223. Overall, Ms McConnell concluded that the potential impacts to marine mammals from an increase in turbidity will be very low on account of marine mammals being naturally well adapted to tolerate low light levels and turbid coastal waters, and the discharge plumerapidly diluting to background levels (and therefore not significantly alter levels of primary productivity).62

Disturbance to the Seabed

224. Ms McConnell identified that the deposition ofill dr cuttings during future drilling operations will smother discrete areas of the seabed. She advised that benthic foraging habitat is of direct importance to bottlenose dolphins, dusky dolphins and New Zealand fur seals.

60 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 79]. 61 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 May 2015) – Pages 190 - 192. 62 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 85].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 46

225. Ms McConnell commented that marine mammals that utilise benthic foraging habitats could ingest invertebrate prey that is contaminated from drilling muds or hydrocarbon residue. However, she considered this was unlikely to cause significant effects to marine mammals due to the following:

(a) Marine mammals are capable of metabolising and excreting hydrocarbons;

(b) Bioaccumulation of metals could occur, but past sediment monitoring at MPA and MPB has shown that only lead and zinc exceed theAustralian and N ew Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines and that contamination of these metals is not widespread or consistently high; and

(c) Only a few species of marine mammals that could be present in the area are benthic foragers, and no marine mammal species in the area are entirely dependent on benthic prey.

226. Ms McConnell concluded that the deposition of drill cuttings and muds will not have any significant adverse effects on marine mammals.63

Operation of Support Vessels and Helicopters

227. Ms McConnell discussed the potential impacts associated with vessels and helicopters servicing the Māui offshore facilities. With respect to vessels, she noted that ship strikehas been recognised as an increasing conservation concern for marine mammals internationallynternational (I Whaling Commission, 2014). She also noted that vessel speed is a major contributing factor to the probability of ship strike.

228. Ms McConnell cited research that found that most lethal ship strike incidentsved invol vessels travelling at 14 kt or faster and that the probability of a lethal injury drops below 0.5 only at speeds of 11.8 kt or less. She said that the typical transit speed of supply vessels to MPA and MPB (11 kt) will help to reduce the likelihood of lethal injury in the event of a ship strike occurring.

229. Ms McConnell noted that despite an extensive history of oil and gas exploration in offshore Taranaki, the Department of Conservation is unaware of any ship strike incidents in the Māui Natural Gas Field.64

230. Ms McConnell considered that the risk of ship strike can be managed to a level that is “aslow as reasonably practicable”65 through compliance with maritime ules, r 66 limiting vessel activity to the minimum required, and taking avoidance action where possible when a marine mammal is observed in the vicinity of a vessel. In addition, she commented that the legal requirement for compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations 1992MMPR ( ) contributes to the management of collision risk between vessels and marine mammals.

63 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 90]. 64 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 105]. 65 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 99]. 66 Maritime Rules Part 22: Collision Prevention.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 47

231. With respect to helicopter movements, Ms McConnell noted thathelicopters departing and arriving into New Plymouth typically fly over the Sugar Loaf Islands as directed by Air Traffic Control at an altitude between 450 and 1500 m, which is well above the altitude at which a disturbance response would be expected from fur seals. As such, Ms McConnell concluded that ongoing helicopter operations that support STOS’ activities are notlikely to cause any disturbance to fur seals at the Sugar Loaf Islands.67

232. Ms McConnell also drew attention to section 18 of the MMPR, which stipulates flying restrictions in close proximity to marine mammals. Sheconsidered that compliance with these regulations is sufficient to protect whales from potential helicopter disturbance associated with the ongoing operations at the Māui offshore facilities and, therefore, that the risk to marine mammals from helicopter operations is low.68

Noise Effects

233. Expert evidence on the potential effects of noise on marine mammals was provided on behalf of STOS by marine scientist Dr Simon Childerhouse.69 He explained that the most likely sources of significant underwater noise will be from production activities (e.g. hydrocarbon processing) and drilling operations. While there are no isitu n- measurements of the noise from these activities, Dr Childerhouse noted it is possible to estimatethe noise levels from similar activities elsewhere. His assessment assumed a conservative noise source level of 158 and 162 decibels re 1 micropascal at 1 m (root mean square) for production and drilling noise respectively. Dr Childerhouse recommended that the noise levels from the production and drilling operations be measured to confirm that his assumptions are correct.70

234. Dr Childerhouse concluded that noise from production and drilling operations is likely to be audible to baleen whales, beaked whales and dolphins, with the main noise energy from drilling overlapping with baleen whales and the lower frequency end of dolphin sensitivity.71 He stated that given that most of the noise energy is in the lower frequencies, it is more likely to affect low- and mid-frequency cetaceans e.g. ( blue whales) rather than high frequency cetaceanse.g. (Hector’s and Māui dolphins).

235. Dr Childerhouse also stated that he did not believe that the area around the Māui offshore facilities represents an important area for any marine mammals. As such, he considered any noise effects will be less significant than they would be if they occurred in a critical habitat.72

236. Dr Childerhouse noted that cetaceans will only show significant behavioural responses at distances closer than 100 and 200 m to the platforms during production and drilling activities respectively. For

67 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 108]. 68 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 111]. 69 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015. 70 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 1]. 71 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 37]. 72 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 2].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 48

low- and medium-frequency cetaceans (e.g. baleen whales and most toothed whales), he advised that temporary and permanent threshold shifts in hearing sensitivities will only occur extremely close to the noise source and only if an individual cetacean stays there for periods of between 10 minutes and 3 hours. For high-frequency cetaceans (e.g. porpoises, Hector’s and Māui dolphins) permanent threshold shifts will only occur within 1 m of the source, but temporary threshold shifts may occur out to between 400 and 800 m from the source. However, Dr Childerhouse advised that this would require a lengthy period of exposure at these distances.

237. Dr Childerhouse concluded that he believed that both temporary and permanent threshold shifts are “highly unlikely from these activities as they would require an individual to actively swim towards a source of potential negative stimuli and remain in the area for a lengthy period”.73 Overall, he believed that production and drilling noise represents a “minor risk to marine mammals and that risk is restricted to a very small area around the platforms.”74

238. Finally, Dr Childerhouse advised that while cumulative effects from platform andincreased vessel traffic noise are possible, he does not believe that theseeffects are likely. In this respect, platform noise is only going to impact on animals in the immediate area and, therefore, any cumulative effects are unlikely to occur. While vessel noise could increase, Dr Childerhouse stated that any increase would be marginal given the existing amount of other vessel traffic in the area.

5.4.3 Findings

239. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of the activities at Māui the offshore facilities on marine mammals:

(a) Up to 24 species of marine mammals are known to routinely or occasionally occur in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities. This area is at the extremes of thehabitat of Māui dolphin. Blue whales are likely to occasionally forage inthe area dependent on the position of the plume from the Kahurangi upwelling;

(b) The presence of stationary objects in the water column, decreased water quality from the discharge of production water, and drill cuttings disturbance to the seabed are likely to have a negligible effect on marine mammals; and

(c) The operation of support vessels and helicopters and noise from production activities and drilling operations are likely to have a negligible to minor effect on marine mammals.

5.4.4 Conditions

240. Conditions have been proffered by STOS, and recommended by Climate Justice Taranaki, TKONT, the Department of Conservation and the EPA with respect to the management and monitoring of the potential effects of the activities on marine mammals. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires

73 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 5]. 74 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 6].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 49

us to take into account“the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

241. We have carefully considered these proposed conditions and, bearing in mind that anyperations o around marine mammals are required to be carried out in compliance with the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, have decided to impose the following conditions in relation to marine mammals: Conditions 20 (Notification of Māui and Hector’s Dolphin Sightings), 21 (Log and Reporting of Marine Mammal Sightings), and 22 (Marine Mammals Identification Guide).

242. We have decided not to imposethe condition proposed by Dr Childerhouserequiring the measurement of noise levels to confirm assumptions in his assessment.75 He advised that his assumptions are conservative and noise effects are extremely localised. We do not see any reason why the generation of noiseat the Māui offshore facilities should be significantly different to the international data on which he has based his assessments.

5.5 Seabirds

5.5.1 The Issues

243. The key potential adverse effects on seabirds are:

(a) Bird strike caused by artificial lighting on MPA, MPB and support vessels;

(b) Reduced foraging efficiency due to increased water turbidity from the discharges of drill cuttings, produced water and maintenance activities;

(d) Displacement due to noise from production activities and drilling operations.

244. Potential adverse effects on seabirds were not a key themein the submissions. However, over 50 submitters did express concern about marine ecology effects and environmental impacts generally – which would encapsulate potential effects on seabirds from activities at the Māui offshore facilities.

5.5.2 The Effects

Artificial Lighting

245. Expert evidence on seabirds was provided by seabird ecologistDr David Thompson on behalf of STOS.76 He stated that artificial nocturnal lighting on MPA, MPB and support vessels represents the most significant risk to seabirds.A rtificial nocturnal lighting is known to attract some seabirds, with the potential for birds to collide with structures.

246. Dr Thompson noted that nocturnal seabird strikes tend to occur when bright, artificial light sources are used at times of poor visibility, when light isangl ed outwards or upwards fromstructure s, and

75 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 April 2015) – Page 211. 76 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 50

when structures are relatively close to large breeding aggregations of seabirds. He noted that STOS had advised him that no bird strikes have been historically reportedat MPA and MP B, and that STOS has procedures in place for staff to record any bird strike or entanglement (although he did note that seabird collision resulting in birds falling into the sea would go unreported).

247. Overall, Dr Thompson concluded that“artificial nocturnal lighting appears to have very minimal impact upon seabirds.”77

Increased Water Turbidity

248. Dr Thompson stated an increase in water turbidity has the potential to reduce the foragingefficiency of diving seabirds that rely on visual foraging to capture prey from the water column.However, he concluded that this is an “insignificant threat to foraging seabirds, given the location of the proposed activity relatively far offshore and probably beyond the preferred foraging range of coastal species such as shags, and the very localised nature of this impact.”78

249. Dr Thompson also commented that any displacement habitat of is unlikely to have a significant impact (either at the individual or population level) aseabirds s are dynamic and can move to find food.

Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation

250. Dr Thompson stated that there is potential for heavy metals from drill cuttings,produced water discharges (and potentially paint chips) to bio-accumulate up food chains and negatively impact apex consumers such as seabirds. Dr Thompson noted that STOS’ response to the EPA’s request for further information (17 February 2015)concluded that the potential for food chain impacts or bioaccumulation of zinc and lead at higher trophic levels is considered to be highly unlikely, largely because analyses of sediments does not indicate widespread contamination around the platforms nor consistently high levels of metals in sediments.Dr Thompson agreed with this conclusion n i respect to seabirds.

Noise Effects

251. Dr Thompson said that noise generated as part of routine activitiesMPA on and MPB has the potential to cause seabirds to change flying trajectories to avoid the source of the He noise. considered that this disturbance or displacement away from the platforms will have a negligible effect on seabirds. Likewise, he considered that underwater noisegenerated through drilling operations would have a negligible effect on seabirds.79

5.5.3 Findings

252. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on seabirds:

77 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015 [Para 42]. 78 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015 [Para 48]. 79 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015 [Para 51].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 51

(a) We find that there was no evidence ofseabird collisions occurring at the Māui offshore facilities, and there is a current protocol in place to ensure that reporting of incidents occurs. We find that any effects of lighting on seabirds will be negligible; and

(b) In the areas of impacts of turbidity, metals and noise, we agree with Dr Thompson that any potential adverse effects on seabirds relating to the ongoing operation of the facilities, and from the drilling programme, will be negligible.

5.5.4 Conditions

253. Conditions have been proffered by STOS, and r ecommended by theDepartment of Conservation and EPA, with respect to the management and monitoring of the potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on seabirds. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

254. With respect to the Department of Conservation, ithad sought a condition relating to seabird strike reporting protocols but had no comment to make on issues or concerns.When questioned on this matter at the hearing, the Department of Conservation’s legal counsel stated that“t he operations didn’t raise issues such that the Director-General was going to submit in more detail or participate more extensively in this hearing than he has done”.80

255. We have carefully considered these conditions and the monitoring and reporting provided, and have decided to impose the following conditions in relation seabirds: to Conditions 23 (Log of Seabird Collisions) and 24 (Identification Guide).

5.6 Fish

5.6.1 The Issues

256. The key potential adverse effects on fish are:

(a) The discharge of suspended sediment;

(b) Sediment deposition on the sea floor;

(d) Noise from production activities and drilling operations.

257. A number of submitters expressed concern about marine ecology fisheries and effects. The submissions considered that the Impact Assessment must also consider effects not regulated under the EEZ Act, and the state of the fisheries that feed New Zealanders and hold together the ecological chains in the oceans. Other submitters also contended that permission is not given to “ruin / pollute our kaimoana and fish species.”

80 Hearing Transcript – Day Three (1 May 2015) – Page 245.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 52

5.6.2 The Effects

Suspended Sediment

258. Dr MacDiarmid stated that greatly elevated levels of TSS in the water column could potentially lead to reduced primary production in the water column, an increased risk to fish eggs and larvae via the smothering or clogging of gill structures, increased mortality of adult fishes, and decreased prey availability due to visual impairment or prey species leaving the area.

259. Dr MacDiarmid noted that the TSS levels associated with drilling operations are predicted to exceed natural background sediment levels only within 200 m of the discharge point at both MPA and MPB. While the highest concentrations of TSS in midwater- around MPA at about 15 g/m3 will be high enough to cause gill damage in juvenile snapper, Dr MacDiarmid noted the very small area of higher concentration makes it unlikely that an individual fish would be exposed for a sufficient length of time to be affected. As such, she concluded that“ it is very unlikely that TSS will be sufficiently high to impact measurably on t he behaviour, or to have sublethal- or lethal effects on wide ranging fish species, or to have ecologically significant effects on drifting planktonic fish eggs and larvae that will pass through the very small area of elevated TSS”.81

Sediment Deposition on the Sea Floor

260. Dr MacDiarmid advised that fish may be affected by the deposition of sediments on the sea floor as a result of the smothering of ey pr or habitat-forming species, the alteration of preferred seabed substrates, or by the reduction in oxygen concentrations at or near the seabed. Dr MacDiarmid also advised that the magnitude of the impactis dependent on the geographical area affected by the deposition, the thickness of the deposits, the nature of the receiving environment, and the ecological requirements of particular fish species.

261. Dr MacDiarmid, referring to the dispersal and deposition modelling by Dr Beamsley (2015), considered that the area of sea floor affected by drilling deposits is very small in the context of the Taranaki Bight, and that sea floor communities will recover in time as they are repopulated by the settlement of planktonic larvae. She also said that any adverse effects on fish populations in the area will be similarly modest. While sea floor foraging fish (e.g. carpet shark, red gurnard, tarakihi) may move away from the immediate area aroundthe discharges, the effect on populations in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities and the Taranaki Bight will be negligible. Dr MacDiarmid also stated that fish and shark species that are demersal or pelagic foragers will be unaffected by deposits of drill cuttings on the sea floor.82

Produced Water

262. As with her evidence on planktonic communities, Dr MacDiarmid notedthe volume of produced water discharged into the ocean at MPB in 2014and that produced water is treated and monitored

81 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 48]. 82 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 52].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 53

for oil content in accordance with theDMP before it is discharged overboard. She stated thatif similar relatively small volumes of produced water continue to occur, it is unlikely that the discharge of produced water will have a significant ecological effect on fish communities in the Taranaki Bight- due to the relatively low oil content of the produced water and the dilution created by waves and currents in the surrounding waters.

Other Discharges

263. As with planktonic communities, Dr MacDiarmid noted that the small volume of garnet dust and paint chips from sand blasting and cleaning operations will have negligible effects. She also stated that the dispersal of sewage, kitchen waste, and grey water is likely to have a negligible positive impacton fish as it provides a small amount of food and nutrients.

Noise

264. Dr Childerhouse advised that there is little information about the direct impacts anthropogenic of noise on fish. Given the considerable variability betweenpublished studies, he also stated that it is “nearly impossible” to extrapolate conclusions from studies with different sound sources, fish species, or even fish of a particular size to other sources, species, or fish sizes.83 However, given the relatively small area over which noise is likely to be heard, Dr Childerhouse advised that any impacts are likely to be localised to the immediate area aroundMPA and MPB and have little, or no, impact on fish or fisheries in other areas.

265. Dr MacDiarmid drew attention to recent New Zealand based research on vocalisations and hearing in New Zealand fish species, particularly red gurnard. Given the sensitivity of sh, fi she concluded that it is possible that there may be some masking of individual fish calls in the vicinity of MPA and MPB during drilling operations. However, fish movement away from the platforms should reduce the risk of individuals from being exposed long-term to damaging levels of sound.

266. Dr MacDiarmid concluded that at a population level the effects of underwater sound produced during drilling operations on the gurnard population in the Taranaki Basin are “likely to be negligible.”84

5.6.3 Findings

267. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on fish:

(a) Suspended sediment plumes will be generated duringthe drilling operations. We find that the effects of these plumes on planktonic fish eggs and larvae will benegligible given the very short period of time that they are likely to contact any suspended sediments;

(b) As noted in section 5.2.3 of this decision, sediment will be deposited on the sea floor around MPA and MPB. We find that the impacts of this deposition on food sources for fish will be negligible;

83 Statement of Evidence of Simon John Childerhouse – 17 March 2015 [Para 51]. 84 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Bronwyn MacDiarmid – 17 March 2015 [Para 58].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 54

(c) We find that the effect of the deposition of drill cuttings on the sea floor on fish species will be negligible. Further, we note thatfish have the ability to move away from the discharge plume created during drilling operations; and

(d) There is limited information on the noise generated by operations at MPA and MPB, and its impact on f ish. However, we agree with Dr Childerhouse and Dr MacDiarmid that any impacts are likely to be very localised. hereforeT , we find that the impacts of noise on fish stocks will be negligible.

5.6.4 Conditions

268. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account“the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”. We do not seek to impose any conditions with respect the to management of effects on fish in this instance.

5.7 Biosecurity

5.7.1 The Issues

269. The key potential biosecurity effects are:

(a) The transfer of invasive organisms from the jackets of MPA and MPB to sensitiveparts of the CMA; and

(b) The introduction of invasive organisms from vessels entering New Zealand to service MPA or MPB, or in response to an unplanned oil spill event.

270. Biosecurity effects were not a key theme in the submissions, although they were raised by Climate Justice Taranaki.

5.7.2 The Effects

271. Dr McClary identified sea squirt species (Didemnum) present on MPA and MPA as a pot ential biosecurity risk.85 He commented that the invasive speciesD vexillum has not been conclusively identified on MPA and MPB and considered that if it is present it will only require management during decommissioning. He also considered the risks of transfer to any vessel supplying or supporting the platforms would be very low. 86

272. Mr Jury also considered the risk of transfer was low, but noted that the“risk is there…”87 His opinion was that “a fairly simple but important first step is that verification, so a survey by experts to confirm whether it is actually the introduced species or not….”88

85 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Paras 66-67]. 86 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Pages 221 to 223. 87 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 436.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 55

273. Mr Jury also considered that biosecurity risks, due to normal biosecurity measures being suspended in the case of requiring an overseas rig to stop a well blowout, create a potential moderate consequence to plankton and marine protected areas.89

274. Mr Jury’s overall assessment was that biosecurity risks are minor in relation to the rig presence, negligible in relation to vessel traffic, and low in relation to an oil spill event (consequence moderate, likelihood rare, overall risk low).90

275. Dr McClary also stated that “I agree with CJT [Climate Justice Taranaki] that the IA[Impact Assessment] does not adequately address matters related to biosecurity. However, I do not consider that measures towards managing biofouling and ballast waters on associated vessels needs to be included within operational management plans. STOS addresses biosecurity risks through adherence to the Biosecurity Act and associated regulatory requirements. I understand that STOS requires the owners of all supply and support vessels to comply with all relevant legislation, including biosecurity requirements such as the MPI [Ministry for Primary Industries] Import Health Standard for Ballast Water”. 91

276. The Impact Assessment stated that STOS will mitigate any biosecurity risks by adherence to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and associated regulatory requirements.92 Messrs Bridge, Hey and Williamson also stated in their evidence that STOS will enforce the new ‘Craft Risk Management Standard for Biofouling on Vessels Arriving in New Zealand’ (including on its drilling rigs), even though these requirements do not come into force until 2018.

5.7.3 Finding

277. Having considered the information available, submissions and e videncein respect of the potential adverse effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on biosecurity, we find there to be potential risks to biosecurity outside of the EEZ (i.e. inside the CMA) from the activities associated with operations at the Māui offshore facilities that may require management.

5.7.4 Conditions

278. Conditions have been proffered by STOS, and r ecommended by the EPA, with respect to the management of potential biosecurity risks. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

279. We have carefully considered these conditions and the requirements under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and have decided to impose the following condition in relation to biosecurity: Condition 9 (Biosecurity Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures).

88 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 437. 89 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 436. 90 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable Two) – 16 April 2015 [Page 16]. 91 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 153]. 92 Māui Impact Assessment – 15 December 2014 [Section 2.3.2].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 56

5.8 Māori Environmental Values

5.8.1 The Issues

280. As noted previously in this decision, we consider that the requirement on the EPA to take into account any effects on the environment of allowing the activityallows us to consider Māori perspectives on the natural environment. With this in mind, we consider the key potential effect to be the effect of the disturbance of the seabed and marine environment on the environmental values of Māori.

5.8.2 Iwi Interests - NKTT Report

281. The NKTT Report advised that it is important that the EPA acknowledges the relationship of Māori to the rohe through whakapapa (genealogy), and the broader associationsthat consolidate the relationship. The NKTT Report advised that it must be acknowledged that Māori do not apply a spatial restriction on the ocean, but instead respect it as a whole.

282. The NKTT Report outlined the importance of the relationship that Māori draw from the Treaty of Waitangi. It explained the principles of tino rangatiratanga, expressly recognised under the Treaty of Waitangi, and the principles of kaitiakitanga and engagement with Māori. It stated that STOS could have improved its engagement process and could have taken the opportunity to develop new and improved measures to address the concerns identified by Taranaki iwi.

283. As identified in section 2.3.3 of this decision, the NKTT Report considered that it is important to note that applications have been lodged by Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine Iwi and Ngāti Kōata with the Crown for customary marine title and protected customary rights. The NKTT Report stated that when this matter is considered alongside the 35 year term of the marine consent requested by STOS, it is likely that within that period the customary interest of these two iwi may become formally recognised under the MACA Act.

284. The NKTT Report made the following recommendations for the EPA and STOS:

(a) Recognise that there is a process for local Māori to confirm and institute their customary rights in the marine and coastal area. Provide a mechanism over the tenure of the consent to respond to this customary right;

(b) Alternatively, reduce the duration of the marine consent to five years to take into account the potential changing rights in the marine and coastal area, as well as the redress and settlement of WAI796 claim;

(d) Consider involving kaitiaki in environmental management practices for the Māui offshore facilities. If mutual benefit is identified between parties, this will enable active protection and empowerment as a r epresentative is always present out in the ocean (exercise mana moana). May also identify taonga resources and species for STOS to incorporate in environmental monitoring programmes;

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 57

(e) Develop environmental indicators using both mātauranga māori and western science. This will require the participation of local Māori; and

(f) Develop an economic strategy with TaranakiI wi to recognise the interests in the petroleum resource.

285. In light of the recommendations made in theNKTT Report, we sought legal advice from Buddle Findlay as to whether the recommendations (or a variation of them) could legally be given effect through our decision. 93 In addition, we sought advice on the relevance of section 12 of the EEZ Act.

286. Buddle Findlay advised that the EPA must have regard to the NKTT Report in considering the marine consent application. Buddle Findlay confirmed that have regard to means that the EPA must “give genuine attention and thought to the information in the report but is entitled, having heard the evidence and considered all relevant matters relating to the Application, to ascribe such weight to that information as it considers appropriate in the circumstances”. Other relevant aspects of Buddle Findlay’s advice in respect of the NKTT Report are summarised below in section 5.9 of this decision.

5.8.3 The Effects

287. The Impact Assessment provided a brief discussion on t he impacts of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on Māori cultural values and perspectives, and it included the Cultural Impact Assessment of Taranaki Iwi prepared for the marine consent application. The Impact Assessment described elements such as the Kāhui Maunga and Taranaki Maunga, and d notefeatures associated with the legendary journey of Taranaki Maunga from the Central Plateau to its present location in Taranaki. It also acknowledged a “deeply held belief by Taranaki Iwi that the seabed (part of Taranaki’s journey) is sacred territory and should be left undisturbed”.94

288. The presentation by TKONT clarified that it supported the grant of the marine consent application by STOS subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.95

289. The presentation by TKONT emphasised the importance of recognising and protecting Māori values in relation to the environment. Dr Edwards acknowledged the seabed (Papatūānuku) and the marine environment (Tangaroa) as ancestors of Ngāruahine in his recital of a traditional chant that recounts the creation of the universe.

“Ko Rangi

Ko Papa

Ka puta ko Rongo

Ko Tānemahuta

Ko Tangaroa,

93 Legal advice from Buddle Findlay to the DMC – 21 April 2015. 94 Māui Impact Assessment – 15 December 2014 [Section 5.3.1]. 95 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) – Page 311.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 58

Ko Tūmatauenga

Ko Haumietiketike

Ko Tawhirimatea.

Tokona rā ko te rangi ki runga

Ko Papa ki raro

Ka puta te ira tangata

Ki te whai ao

Ki te ao mārama

Tihei, mauri ora!”

290. This chant makes reference to the union between Ranginui (sky father) and Papatūānuku (earth mother) from whom sprang many children each becoming the atua (deities) of respective domains of the environment, including Tangaroa who became the deity of the sea. From theseatua human beings trace their descent. In this sense, whakapapa or genealogical relationships between people and the environment are integral to a Te Ao Māori perspective. In Dr Edwards’ words “whakapapa is about how we…map relationships between ourselves and phenomena in the environment…”96

291. The explanation provided byD r Edwards regarding the relevance and meaning of the chant demonstrated a number of key assumptions that underpin a Te Ao Māori perspective. These included the perspective that people are descended from the natural world(as opposed to being ascendant to it), and the reality that a Te Ao Māori perspective can only be fully understood within a Māori cultural context.

292. In respect of the first point, we note that whakapapa is the fundamental point of distinction between the two world views and this is at the crux of different approaches to the use and management of natural resources, and the creation of different types of relationships and attitudes betweenpeople and the environment.

293. The second point was demonstrated byD r Edwards a number of times while giving evidence when he had to revert to the use of Te Reo Māori in order to explain the effects of the application from a cultural perspective. In discussing the difficulties of reconciling different worldviews and systems of knowledge in the context of the application, Dr Edwards commented“one common principle when you are talking about world views is that it is very difficult, and in fact philosophers of science would say you cannot use the tools and understandings of one w orld view to deconstruct the tools of another world view…”97

294. Dr Edwards proposed that in dealing with the marine consent application we attempt to agree that there are differences between the world views and that we navigate the space between these world

96 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) - Page 320. 97 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) - Page 320.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 59

views in a constructive way for the environment.H e noted that the recommendations in the NKTT Report are consistent with a Te Ao Māori world view and ere w strongly supported by TKONT.98 TKONT was particularly supportive of comments around the need for a holistic approachto impact assessments given the inter-connected nature of all elements through whakapapa within the marine environment, and the impossibility of spatially partitioning Tangaroa for the purpose of assessing effects from this application. In this regard,TKO NT emphasised the need to take into account cumulative effects and criticised the EEZ Act’s scope in only considering cultural impacts of any new activity, while disregarding existing impacts.

295. In TKONT’s view, the EEZ Act fails to take into account a holistic world view which is integral to any evaluation of cultural effects, and noted that “Māori have a special relationship with the marine environment; a r elationship that cannot be d elineated by boundaries between commercial operations. The ocean is a cultural site of significance for iwi, and Māori take seriously their role as kaitiaki of the sea. It is difficult to protect the mauri of the wai, without their rights being sufficiently respected, acknowledged and responded to as part of the EPA processes. The committee is therefore urged to recognise the significance that Māori give to the marine environment as a whole, and to consider the cumulative effects that each single operation has to the integrity of New Zealand’s marine environment.”99

296. Both Taranaki Iwi 100 and TKONT emphasised the importance of their role as kaitiaki in relation to the marine environment potentially affected bythe marine consent application. The NKTT Report described kaitiaki as “those persons or entities with an intergenerational responsibility to uphold the cultural demands. The practice of tikanga and kawa, and the application of mātauranga māori, in the role as kaitiaki ensures the mauri of the ecosystem and env ironment…kaitiakitanga is…not only about preserving and protecting natural resources but also ensures welfare of the people those resources support.”101 The NKTT Report recommended that kaitiakitanga is given effect through the inclusion of kaitiaki in environmental management practices for MPA and MPB.

5.8.4 Findings

297. As previously noted, we consider that the EEZ allows Act us to take into account information regarding Māori perspectives on the natural environment. Havingconsidered the information provided in the Impact Assessment, the recommendations in the NKTT Report, the submissions, and the evidence presented at the hearing (particularly the evidence from TKONT), we have concluded that Māori environmental values and perspectives could have been givenmore consideration by STOS.

298. Having now given further consideration to Māori environmental values and perspectives, we make the following findings:

98 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) – Page 313. 99 Submission 111082. 100 Māui Impact Assessment – 15 December 2014 [Section 5.3.1]. 101 NKTT Report - Paras 6.17 - 6.18.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 60

(a) We acknowledge the whakapapa relationship of Māori to the area around the Māui offshore facilities and the importance of their role as kaitiaki in protecting thea uri m of the marine environment;

(b) We also recognise that Māori do not apply a spatial restriction on the ocean, but instead respect it as an integral whole.Any activity that has an overarching environmental cost in cultural and other ways impacts directly on this whakapapa relationship and Māori identity;

(c) We recognise that the Māori perspective on the environment is rooted in a different cultural context to a w estern scientific paradigm and t hat ideally both views should inform the use and management of natural resources to achieve the common objective of environmental sustainability;

(d) We accept that from a Māori perspective there are adverse effects on the environment due to the placement and disturbance from structures on the seabed, and that STOS’ activities interfere with the exercise of kaitiakitanga; and

(e) We accept that the impact of the activities the at Māui offshore facilities on cultural and spiritual values, and sense of identity, is a matter of concern and importance toi wi, and we have taken into account Māori perspectives on environmental effects in our decision. While we do not see these matters as determinative maki in ng our decision, we dowish to recognise the importance attached to these effects by iwi.

5.8.5 Conditions

299. No conditions were proffered by STOS, or recommended by the EPA, with respect to the management of Māori perspectives on the natural environment. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account“the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

300. In an attempt to bridge the divide between Māori and western world views and encourage better cross-cultural understanding of environmental effects, we have decided to impose the following condition requiring STOS to inform and seek to engage annually with the relevanti wi entities on the general scope of the activities: Condition 6 (Iwi Engagement)

301. We encourage STOS and thei wi entities to use this opportunity to investigate the involvement of kaitiaki in environmental management practices and the development of environmental indicators using both mātauranga māori and western science.

5.9 Existing Interests

5.9.1 The Issues

302. The key potential adverse effects on existing interests are:

(a) The risk of collisions with marine traffic;

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 61

(b) Exclusions on commercial fishing; and

303. One hundred and twenty-three submitters raised issues relating to potential adverse effects on existing interests. Many of the submissions identified that the Impact Assessment does not provide adequate assessment of effects, especially effects on existing interests. A further nine submitters raised concerns associated with the existing interests of Māori. These submitters considered that the application fails to provide active protection of Māori interests and taonga as afforded in section 12 of the EEZ Act, and that it also negates the practice of kaitiakitanga by iwi over the environment.

5.9.2 The Effects

Marine Traffic

304. Expert evidence on the potential impacts on shipping traffic was provided by chartered engineer, Mr John Riding, on behalf of STOS.102 He noted that there are existing marine traffic safety management measures in place that are well promulgated to vessel interests and their crews. These include a 500m exclusion zone around MPA and MPB, with no anchoring between the platforms and the interconnecting production pipelines back to MPS.

305. Mr Riding identified that marine traffic in this area around the Māui offshore facilities is low. He advised that 80% of the marine traffic within 5 miles of MPA and MPB is associated with oil field service vessels (based on his analysis of one year of data from ships’ transponder transmissions in the Taranaki Bight).

306. We were also advised by Mr Riding that ishingf activities are concentrated mostly to the southeast- of the Māui offshore facilities. He considered that existing separation distances betweenMPA and MPB and vessels are good, meaning that the risk of collision is low. He agreed with the statements in the Impact Assessment that there are “negligible adverse effects on fishing vessels arising out of the STOS operations”.103 He also stated that “the risk of an adverse incident from shipping traffic in general is confirmed to be low”. 104

307. Mr Riding explained that Maritime New Zealand is conducting a risk review of New Zealand coastal waters and that in the traffic record there isonly a single case of a t anker passing close to MPB (after loading from a FPSO vessel). While he acknowledged that there is the prospect of a disabled tanker drifting into contact with MPA or MPB, he dvised a that Maritime New Zealandprov ides routeing guidance for tankers in its Annual Notice to Mariners and may elect to update advice for the Taranaki Bight to promote an increased safety distance margin from any offshore hazard. Maritime New Zealand also has the jurisdiction to place such advisory information in the New Zealand Pilot publication, which is a mandatory carriage requirement for vessels operating under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).

102 Statement of Evidence of John Francis Riding – 17 March 2015. 103 Statement of Evidence of John Francis Riding – 17 March 2015 [Para 25]. 104 Statement of Evidence of John Francis Riding – 17 March 2015 [Para 30].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 62

Commercial Fishing

308. Ms Gibbs noted that spatial interaction between commercial fishing and the activitiesat the Māui offshore facilities is influenced by a number of factors; including fish behaviour, statutory exclusion zones, and commercial fishing regulations. As with the evidence of Mr Riding, Ms Gibbs documented the prohibition zones in the vicinity ofMPA and MPB, but also noted that these prohibitions have been in place for well over 20 years. We received no submissions or evidence that the current exclusion zone has had a significant adverse effect on commercial fishing.

309. Ms Gibbs concluded that there will be “negligible impacts on commercial fishing as a result of spatial exclusion caused by subsea structural repairs and maintenance. These activities will occur almost entirely within the existing exclusion zones and, if any additional exclusion arises, it will be short-term and temporary in nature. Likewise I expect negligible impacts from the placement of structures for environmental monitoring”.105

310. Ms Gibbs noted that he t anchoring of large construction vessels may result in some additional exclusion of commercial fishing. An anchor spread of 2km in radius will extend beyond the 500m safety zone, but possibly not beyond the surrounding cable protection areawhich, extends at least 2.22 km from MPA and MPB. She concluded that additional exclusion of commercial fishing, if any, will be s mall in area and limited in duration (up to two years for -T a ADs emi drilling rig). She considers this would have a “negligible impact on commercial fishing.”106

311. Any new construction or drilling activities at MPA or MPB will result in an increase in support vessel traffic. Given, however, that commercial fishing vessels and petroleum industry vessels currently co- exist in the Taranaki Bight and that vessel traffic is likely to be within the range of current and historic vessel movements, Ms Gibbs considered any additional navigation risk for fishing vessels to be negligible. 107

312. TKONT raised particular concerns in its submission and presentation regarding the lack of clarity in the marine consent application on the abundance and diversity of fish populations, access to fisheries quota (including settlement quota) by commercial fishers, and the potential impact of a hydrocarbon spill on commercial fishing. TKONT noted thatnsuring e minimal impacts on the distribution and abundance of commercially harvested fisheries was an issue of paramount importance for iwi, as was the protection of Treaty assets provided by way a of quota entitlement through the commercial fisheries settlement.

313. With respect to potential changes to the distribution, abundance or quality of fish affecting the fishing industry by reduced catch levels or making fish harder to find, Ms Gibbs noted that she had reviewed the Impact Assessment and the evidence of Dr McClary, DrMacDiarmid and Dr Childerhouse to identify the main environmental changes that could affect commercially-harvested fish. Overall, Ms

105 Statement of Evidence of Nicola Gay Gibbs – 17 March 2015 [Para 61]. 106 Statement of Evidence of Nicola Gay Gibbs – 17 March 2015 [Para 63]. 107 Statement of Evidence of Nicola Gay Gibbs – 17 March 2015 [Para 64].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 63

Gibbs concluded that new drilling operations at MPA and MPB may result in some short term, localised changes to the distribution of commercially harvested fish species. However, she considered that jack mackerel and associated species are highly mobile, and the scale and duration of any changes are such that any adverse effects on commercial fishing will be negligible.

314. Ms Gibbs also considered itunlikely that activities at the Māui offshore facilities will result in the contamination of seafood.

Customary Fishing

315. TKONT expressed its apprehension about the effects of the marine consent application on cultural interests and values that underpin their tikanga practices, and the contribution of fishing and other activities at sea to their sense of identity.

Iwi Interests – NKTT Report

316. The recommendations from the NKTT Report are outlined in section 5.8.2 of this decisionIn. terms of the recommendation that the EPA recognise the processes under theMACA Act and provide a mechanism over the tenure of the marine consent to respond to newly recognised interests, Buddle Findlay advised108 that the EPA should not preempt- the outcome of ongoing and potential future MACA Act processes. However, Buddle Findlay went on to note that the EPA should, in considering STOS’ application, take into account any effects ofthe proposal on existing, lawfully established activities that are existing interests under the EEZ Act. They stated that future applications under the MACA Act are likely to be founded on existing activities or interests within the meaning of that term. Because effects on ex isting activities must be c onsidered as part of this process, it was Buddle Findlay’s view that it is unnecessary for the marine consent to include a mechanism for recognising potential future MACA Act interests.

317. In terms of the recommendation in the NKTT Report that marine consent be granted for a fiveyear duration (as an alternative) to account for the possibility of customary interests being recognised under the MACA Act, Buddle Findlay advised that a short-term consent is unnecessary to achieve this end. In this regard, they stated that any effects of the proposal on any existing, lawfully established customary activities are matters to be considered as part of this marine consent process.

318. Equally, Buddle Findlay was of the view that a “number of legal and factual matters weigh heavily against the EPA taking into account a possible future settlement of the WAI796 claim” in deciding on the marine consent application. Buddle Findlay understandsthat there is considerable uncertainty over any such settlement of the WAI796 claim, including potential redress, and matters such as revenue sharing in minerals fall within the policy realm of the Government and are beyond the EPA's decision-making functions under the EEZ Act.

108 Legal advice from Buddle Findlay to the DMC – 21 April 2015 [Para 5].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 64

5.9.3 Findings

319. Having considered the information available, submissions, legal advice and evidence we find the following in respect to the potential adverse effects of theactivities at the Māui offshore facilities on existing interests:

(a) There will be negligible adverse effects on fishing vessels arising out of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities;

(b) The risk of collision or contact between all vessels that operate within proximity of the Māui offshore facilities will be low;

(c) With respect to commercial fishing matters, we accept Ms Gibbs’ conclusion that most of the planned activities at MPA and MPB will have negligible impacts on the distribution or abundance of commercially harvested fish species. We received no submissions or evidence that the current exclusion zone has had s ignificant adverse effects on c ommercial fishing. New drilling activities may result in someshort term, localised changes to fish distribution. However, we find any adverse effects on commercial fishing will be negligible;

(d) With respect to potential impacts on c ommercial fishing arising from any additional spatial exclusions in the Taranaki Basin, we agree that this is a r elevant matter especially when considered in combination with the cumulative effects from other oil and g as activities and mammal protection zones that reduce the overall area in which commercial fishing may take place. However, the evidence is that STOS’ activities will occur almost entirely within the existing exclusion zones and, if any additional exclusions arise, they will be short term and temporary in nature. Therefore, we consider that there will be negligible impacts on commercial fishing as a result of spatial exclusion caused by subsea structural repairs and maintenance;

(e) We have given careful consideration tothe NKTT Report and the legal advice from Buddle Findlay, and have adopted the view that not all of the recommendations in the NKTT Report (such as in respect of a possible future settlement of the WAI796 claim) can be legally given effect to under the EEZ Act. However, we recognise that there are lawfully established cultural activities that continue to be exercised either separately or in association withiwi fisheries interests (such as kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga and the maintenance of mātauranga māori). These are associated with preserving Māori fisheries interests, the right ofiwi to make decisions and act on i ssues affecting their fisheries interests, and the system of knowledge associated with Māori commercial and customary activities;

(f) In respect of Māori commercial fishing, we recognise the particular rights and interests ofi wi quota holders under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004. We note that no particular consideration was given to Māori commercial fishing rights and interests in the mpactI Assessment or the evidence of Ms Gibbs. However,equally there was no evidence to suggest thatiwi commercial fishing interests would be affected in a different way, or to a greater degree, than the remainder of the commercial fishing sector. Therefore, we have taken the view that Māori

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 65

interests in commercial fisheries, including interests arising from the Māori fisheries settlement, will not be affected any differently to the commercial fishing sector generally and, therefore, any adverse effects will be negligible; and

(g) In terms of customary fishing rights, we acknowledge that these activitiesare distinct from Māori commercial fisheries interests and should be considered separately in the context of this decision. We recognise that iwi are actively involved in customary fishing activities that could be adversely affected by the application. For instance, any adverse effect on commercial vessel operators could affect the ability ofi wi to harvest and access fish under customary fishing rights through the ‘pātaka’ system. However, for the reasons outlined above, we consider that STOS’ activities will have negligible a effect on t he exercise of customary fishing rights.

5.9.4 Conditions

320. No conditions were proffered by STOS, or recommended by the EPA, with respectthe to management of effects on existing interests. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

321. As there were no material adverse effects identified with respect to marine traffic or commercial fishing, we have determined that there is no requirement for conditions on this matter. Wen ote that all marine operational activities are adequately controlled by Maritime New Zealandand commercial fishing by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

322. We have carefully considered Māori interests in commercial and customary fishing and have decided to impose the following condition requiring STOS to inform and seek to engage with iwi on an annual basis in respect of their planned activities: Condition 6 (Iwi Engagement).

5.10 Hydrocarbon Spills

5.10.1 The Issues

323. Oil and gas development is a highly complex operation, and there are multiple and significant risks to be managed. Offshore oil and gas operations are particularly challenging and require industry best practices, technologies and safeguards that are robust, well tested and continually improved. If they are to be well managed, these activities must be c arried out by organisations with experience, expertise, operational capability and access to substantial financial and intellectual resources.

324. The Offshore Operations Report, and the presentation at the hearing byMr Frank Broomhead,109 provided detail demonstrating that STOS activities at the Māui offshore facilities are well managed and represent best practice.

109 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Pages 452 to 459.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 66

325. As noted extensively in the submissions and ex pert evidence, a h ydrocarbonspill event has the potential to cause widespread and s ignificant adverse environmental effects. The key potential adverse effects associated with a hydrocarbon spill are:

(a) The effects on pelagic fish, reef fish, zooplankton and invertebrates;

(b) The effects on seabirds;

(d) The effects on coastal ecosystems.

326. One hundred and sixty-eight submitters raised concerns about the potential adverse effects of a hydrocarbon spill on t he environment and ex isting interests. The submissions identified the possibility of a spill adversely impacting marine mammals, marine life in general, and the economy / livelihood of people. Several witnesses confirmed to us that a spill of condensate and gas from the Māui Natural Gas Field would have very different environmental consequences than a spill of crude oil.

5.10.2 The Effects

Trajectory Modelling

327. Oceanographer and mathematical modeller, Dr Brian King, considered the potential fate of an unplanned discharge of condensate into the marine environment at MPA and MPB on behalf of STOS.110 The scenario on w hich the dispersion modelling was based was regarded as the worst possible case. He explained that the results of his modelling indicated that any seabed release would be rapidly transported to near surface waters and atomised in a turbulent bubble plume created by the corresponding gas release. At the surface, the gas would be lost to the atmosphere, while the condensate would be mixed into near surface waters. When winds are less than kt , 16 a s mall percentage of the larger condensate droplets would form thin surface slicks predominately seen as metallic and heavy sheens.

328. Dr King also stated that the majority of the liquid condensates would be removed from the marine environment within a few days by evaporation,or naturally dispersed and diluted down through the water column. A small amount of condensate residues would form thin surface slicks that may be dispersed later by wind events exceeding 16kt . During calmer conditions this natural dispersion would be reduced, leaving a potential for visible sheens to remain on the surfacethat would solidify to slicks of waxy flakes after a few days.

329. Dr King also noted that some of simulations conducted suggested that condensate slicks may not reach any shoreline over a 106-day release, due to its highly evaporative nature and periodic strong winds entraining condensate back into the water column. Some of simulation the scenarios did predict that during periods of persistent moderate onshore winds, surface slicks may reach

110 Statement of Evidence of Dr Brian Alfred King – 16 March 2015.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 67

shorelines, but with volumes less than 4% of the total spill volumeHe also. stated thathe t simulations quantified that if surface slicks were to reach shore, they would have weathtoered patches of solidified waxes. During strong winds, no surface slicks or shorelinestranding’s would be evident.

330. Dr Pedersen prepared the Modelling Review Report nd a acknowledged that standard industry practice had been applied in the modelling. He noted, however, a concern with the trajectory modelling in regard to the lack of validation of the currents used to determine the pathways of the hydrocarbon slicks. He said it would be normal practice to provide a quantitative assessment of the ability of the model to accurately simulate the currents within the potential area of impact, which in this case covers the area from Auckland through to the Marlborough Sounds and Cook Strait. 111

331. Dr Lane stated that the residual toxicity after initial evaporation is very low. 112

Effects on Fish and Plankton

332. Dr MacDiarmid stated that in the event of a gas, condensate or diesel spill, pelagic fish eggs and larvae, phytoplankton and zooplankton in the vicinity of the spill will be the most vulnerable. Other vulnerable species include shallow inshore obligate reef fish and invertebrate species.

333. Dr MacDiarmid considered that juvenile and adult pelagic fish appear to be capable of avoiding water with high hydrocarbon concentrations, and many fish species also avoid areas of gas ing bubbl through water. As such, she considered that pelagic fish may avoid the area immediately surrounding the site of the spill.

334. Dr MacDiarmid also noted that it is possible that during calm conditions pelagic species that routinely prey on zooplankton (e.g. ac j k mackerel) could perceive waxy flakes on t he sea surface as food. However, she considered that the waxy nature of the flakes also suggests that fish may reject these flakes after initial tastes.

Effects on Seabirds

335. Dr Thompson noted that spills from MPA, MPB or support vessels, or a loss of well control resulting in a h ydrocarbon release to the environment, could potentially impact on s eabirds. He considered that the accidental spill of diesel, oil or chemicals is unlikely, and that spilled diesel will rapidly degrade. As such, he stated that the severity of this impact on seabirds is “likely to be low.”113

336. However, Dr Thompson did state that seabirds and shorebirds could potentially be i mpacted by hydrocarbons released through a loss of well control– primarily by direct surface contamination or through ingestion of spilled material. He noted that the highly volatile nature of the hydrocarbons that would be released in the event of a loss of well control would result in a very thin ‘surface sheen’ of relatively low-toxicity material.

111 Modelling Review Report – 24 April 2015 [Section 2]. 112 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 April 2015) – Pages 182 and 183. 113 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015 [Para 9].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 68

337. Given the nature of the hydrocarbons that would be released and the relatively extended period of time before any remaining material reached adjacent shorelines, Dr Thompson considered the overall potential impact on seabird and shorebirds of a condensate spill to be relatively low (even in a worst case scenario spill).114

Effects on Marine Mammals

338. Ms McConnell advised that ildlife w can suffer from both external and internal effects during a hydrocarbon spill. External effects are caused by the contamination of theexterior surface of an animal, and internal effects relate to the physiological changes that occur in response to the absorption of toxic hydrocarbon constituents. Ms McConnell noted that both external and internal effects can be s erious and can compromise the immediate survival or term long - health of the affected individual.

339. Ms McConnell said that gas condensate and diesel are highly volatile and are relatively‘non- persistent’ in the marine environment. This volatility provides a key point of difference between most spills of crude oil and the potential spill products associated with the operations at the Māui offshore facilities. She said that the volatility of both condensate and diesel means that only wildlife that come into contact with the freshly spilt product are at risk of significant external contamination- as evaporative processes rapidly reduce the volume of the spill once at the sea surface.

340. In the case of condensate, Ms McConnell stated that the fresh product is quickly converted to a waxy residue that is less likely to cause a loss of waterproofing to wildlife and that will break up rapidly into isolated patches of solid white waxy flakes. Although these properties are likely to reduce the risk of external wildlife contamination over the duration of a spill, Ms McConnell noted that seabirds and fur seals that do become externally contaminated with fresh condensate or diesel could suffer from a loss of waterproofing and related health issues.115 In these cases treatment and rehabilitation would be beneficial to increase wildlife survival rates and address animal welfare concerns.

5.10.3 Findings

341. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence we find the following in respect to the potential risks and environmental effects of a h ydrocarbon spill event from the activities at the Māui offshore facilities:

(a) We accept that the probability of a major hydrocarbon spill is extremely low given the mitigation measures in place, the historical evidence of previous drillingoperations , and the production and operational standards and procedures in place at the Māui offshore facilities;

(b) We are satisfied that Maritime New Zealand and other agencies have the plans, structures, processes, access to equipment, and financial resources to respond to a hydrocarbonspill

114 Statement of Evidence of Dr David Richard Thompson – 18 March 2015 [Para 10]. 115 Statement of Evidence of Helen Maree McConnell – 19 March 2015 [Para 32].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 69

event. We accept that the responsibilities, operational procedures and policies set out in the National Oil Spill Response Strategy are continuously reviewed and updated;

(c) We are satisfied that we have sufficient information regarding the risks of a hydrocarbon spill event. We questioned the relevant experts and advisors from Maritime New Zealand and WorkSafe New Zealand on this issue. We have particularly relied upon thepresentations of Messrs Nigel Clifford,116 Paul Vorwerk117 and Wayne Vernon118 on the assessment of the risks of a hydrocarbon spill event;

(d) The numerical modelling used and the input data and assumptions made are suitable for the prediction of the trajectories of an unplanned hydrocarbon spill from MPA and MPB and the subsequent coastlines most likely to be a dversely affected. We accept that Dr King considered the worst case event, which was for a continuous 106 day uncontrolled discharge;

(e) Some of the simulation scenarios predicted that during periods of persistent moderate onshore winds, surface slicks may reach shorelines, but would contain only 4% of the total spill volume. Because they would have weathered completely, they would consist of patches of solidified waxes of low toxicity;

(f) If a spill were to occur it could have an adverse economic impact on sectors of the seafood industry. These impacts are likely to arise as a result of temporary disruption of harvesting and adverse market reactions rather than direct adverse effects on har vested species. As the spill dispersion model shows, the likelihood of a h ydrocarbon spill having a m ajor adverse effect on fisheries in the water column and then reaching the coast is highly unlikely;

(g) There is potential for a diesel spill to occur during the transfer of fuel to the platforms, with volumes limited to around 5,500 litres. Such a spill would be subject to rapid evaporation and weathering and is likely to disperse quickly; and

(h) The overall environmental effects from a h ydrocarbon spill onfish, zooplankton, marine mammals, seabirds and coastal ecosystems within close proximity to thespill , taking into account the nature and scale of those effects discussed above, and thelow probability of such an event occurring, are likely to be negligible to minor.

5.10.4 Conditions

342. Conditions have been proffered by STOS, and r ecommended by the EPA, respect with to the management of hydrocarbon spill events. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act also requires us to take into account “the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

116 Mr Nigel Clifford – General Manager of Safety and Response, Maritime New Zealand. 117 Mr Paul Vorwerk – Environmental Scientist, Maritime New Zealand. 118 Mr Wayne Vernon – Chief Inspector, High Hazards Unit, WorkSafe New Zealand.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 70

343. We note that Maritime New Zealand and WorkSafe New Zealand have primary responsibility to regulate and apply conditions relating to maritime safety and hydrocarbon spill preparedness and response.

344. We have carefully considered these conditions and the monitoring and reporting provided, and have decided to impose the following conditions in relation the to management of hydrocarbon spill events: Conditions 7 (Spill Notification) and 8 (Spill Management).

5.11 Cumulative Effects

345. The cumulative effects of activities at the Māui offshore facilities, against the backdrop of other activities in the Taranaki Basin, was raised by 131 submitters in respect of impacts on marine mammals (particularly Māui dolphins) and the potential for hydrocarbon spills.

346. There are a number of situations where cumulative effects could reasonably arise:

(a) Between the activities at, and associated with, MPA and MPB;

(b) Across the Taranaki Basin as a r esult of over 400 o ffshore and ons hore exploration and production wells having been drilled and with a number of operating production wells; and

(c) Across the Taranaki Basin as a r esult of other activities carried out in the area as well as offshore petroleum exploration and production.

347. The distance between MPA and MPB is 15 km.

348. From the modelling reports, the potential overlap in discharge effects from MPA and MPB with the discharge of fine cuttings, if WBMweres used, is an additional depositional thickness at each platform of less than .01 cm.119 The modelling of dispersion of coarse cuttings resulting from the use of SBMs predicts that 90% of cuttings would be deposited within 50m of MPA and MPB.120 Reports on benthic monitoring121 to date do not indicate any significant cumulative benthic impacts from past activities at MPA and MPB.

349. There are also potential cumulative effects from discharges into the water column. The expert evidence summarised in section 5.3.2 of this decision identifies that the drill cutting discharge plume, the produced water discharge plume, and other discharges are rapidly dispersed within 5 - 200 m of MPA and MPB.

350. More than one unplanned hydrocarbon spill event could be expected to have cumulative effects. The likelihood of a spill is assessed as‘ highly unlikely’ and there is no evidence of cumulative effects of

119 Māui Impact Assessment: Annexure G: Drill Cuttings Dispersion Modelling Report (September 2014), Met Ocean Solutions Limited, Page 1. 120 Statement of Evidence of Dr Brett James Beasley – 18 March 2015 [Para 38]. 121 Māui Impact Assessment: Annexure F: Cawthron Benthic Monitoring Reports.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 71

hydrocarbon spills from over 30 years of petroleum exploration and production activities in the Taranaki Basin.

351. Exclusion zones around MPA and MPB, and pipelines associated with the activities, have the potential to cause adverse cumulative impacts on f ishing and shipping activities. No additional exclusions zones are proposed for the activities as part of this marine consent application.

352. Additional ship and helicopter movements could create cumulative risks of ions collis and w hale strike. Mitigation measures are in place to avoid these effects and no experts have identified them as significant risks.

353. We consider the cumulative effects associated with overlap between the two areas of interest to be negligible.

354. Monitoring of cumulative effects in the Taranaki Basin is an appropriate matter for the relevant regulatory authorities to consider.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 72

6. Effects on H uman HealthArising from Effects on t he Environment

6.1 The Issues

355. Section 59(2)(c) of the EEZ Act requiresus to take into accountthe effects on hum an health that may arise from effects on the environment. The key potential effect on human health arising from effects on t he environmentis the discharge of contaminants into the water columnand seabed causing bioaccumulation.

356. We acknowledge that the health of workers on MPA and MPB is subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, which is administered by WorkSafe New Zealand.

6.2 The Effects

357. Dr McClary noted that for the discharges associated with the activities at the Māui offshore facilities, the spatial extent of contamination of the seabedas , measured in the annual monitoring by Cawthron, is limited. He considered that any contaminated areas represent a relatively small proportion of total habitat / foraging area available for fish and other mobile species. He stated that this indicates that the risk of bioaccumulation of contaminants through the food or chain, contamination as a result of the discharges, is “negligible to minor”.122

358. On that basis, Dr McClaryco nsidered that the “risks to human health through bioaccumulation of contaminants through ‘’food chains is likewise negligible.”123

359. Dr Lane also stated she did “not consider there is a risk posed by bioaccumulation of hydrocarbons in seafood that would present a risk to human health. Bioaccumulation to a concentration of significance could only occur where contamination was widespread and at levels above which fish and other species could effectively metabolise and depurate the hydrocarbons, and t hen for very high levels of consumption of contaminated species by higher order predators (including humans).”124

360. The EPA Expert Report acknowledged that the risk of bioaccumulation of contaminants through the food chain as a r esult of the discharges from MPA and M PB is ‘unlikely’ given the conclusions reached in the Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 about the effects of the cuttings deposition on benthos and fish.125 However, the EPA Expert Report agreed with the Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 that there is potential for bioaccumulation in fish as a result of cumulative effects in relation to discharges of produced water, drill cuttings and legacy cuttings piles. As such, it recommended that STOS undertake additional monitoring to assess this as part of its annual monitoring programme.

122 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 119]. 123 Statement of Evidence of Dr Daniel Jay McClary – 19 March 2015 [Para 119]. 124 Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison Lane – 18 March 2015 [Para 94]. 125 EPA Expert Report – 21 April 2015 [Para 90].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 73

6.3 Findings

361. Having considered the information available, submissions and evidence, we find the following in respect to the potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on human health:

(a) No evidence was presented by any parties that there are likely to be any direct impacts on human health;

(b) While the potential for bioaccumulation in fish stocks that might subsequently be consumed exists, we note that fishing is excluded from the areas around the Māui offshore facilities, and that fish stocks that move through the area have limited opportunities to ingest sufficient affected prey species to have any significant impact;

(d) There would be significant difficulty in attributing any bioaccumulation findings in fish species in the human food chain specifically to the activities at MPA and M PB given the exclusion area and the highly mobile nature of fished species; and

(e) We have concluded that any effects on human health from the activities at the Māui offshore facilities will be negligible.

6.4 Conditions

362. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account“the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity”.

363. We note that Maritime New Zealand has the primary responsibility to regulate discharges and monitor the impacts of discharges on the environment (including fish).

364. Broader bioaccumulation in the food chain may well be a m atter the for relevant authorities to consider monitoring given the development activities in the Taranaki Basin. owever H , it would be unreasonable for us to impose a condition of the nature contemplated in the EPA Expert Report and the Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 on a single operator.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 74

7. The Protection of Biological Diversity and Integrity of Marine Species, Ecosystems and Processes

365. Section 59(2)(d) of the EEZ Act requiresus to take into account the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes.

366. The importance of protecting biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes was a k ey point of concern over for 205 submitters. The concerns included effects associated with hydrocarbon spills, drill cuttings and produced water discharge, invasive organisms, contaminants, noise and ship strike that could impact on biological diversity and the loss of habitat in the marine environment.

367. A number of submitters stated that theapplication is incompatible with New Zealand’s national and international obligations (e.g.the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992) with respect to the conservation and recovery of threatened species.

368. We note that section 11 of the EEZ Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations under various international conventions relating to the marine environment, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. We consider there is nothing in these international instruments that would prevent us granting marine consent.

369. Overall, we find that the expert evidence available to us, and considered under section 5 of this decision, supports the conclusion that the activities at the Māui offshore facilities will not result in any significant or permanent adverse effects on bi ological diversity,the integrity of marine species, or ecosystems and processes. We consider that benthic communities are likely to be the most atsk ri from the planned activities due to deposition of drill cuttings and muds, and physical disturbance to the sea floor. However, any adverse effects will be localised and of short duration, and at the most have a minor impact.

370. The likelihood of a significant spill based on previous records and the current / proposed mitigation practices is extremely low. In the event of a spill the impacts on biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes are likely to be negligible to minor.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 75

8. The Protection of Rare and V ulnerable Ecosystems and Habitats of Threatened Species

371. Section 59(2)(e) of the EEZ Act requiresus to take into accountthe importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species.

372. The importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species was a key concern for over 205submitters , particularly the protection of the Māui dolphin and other threatened marine mammal species.

373. The Impact Assessment notes that there are 50 species of marine mammals known to exist in New Zealand waters, and considers threatened marine mammal species with a habitat range overlapping with the area around the Māui offshore facilities.

374. Ms McConnell and Dr Childerhouse gave expert evidence on behalf of STOS on marine mammals. Ms McConnell’s identified 24 species of marine mammals that routinely or occasionally use the area around the Māui offshore facilities, but stated that none rely entirely on the habitat here. She added that blue whales are likely to have a regular presence and Māui dolphins an occasional presence. Ms McConnell also commented in response to questioning that“I strongly believe that the platforms represent the very periphery of the of the [Māui] dolphins habitat”. 126

375. Other threatened marine mammals species that could be found in the area includeorca (regular transitory visitors), southern ight r whales (occasional presence), bottlenose dolphins (occasional presence), Bryde’s whales (infrequent visits) and Hector’s dolphins (infrequent visits).

376. The Department of Conservation confirmed that the area in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities is at the extreme limit of the Māui dolphin habitat. We also note agreement that the water depth and distance offshore are outside the known habitat preferences of Hector’s dolphins.

377. Dr Childerhouse gave evidence on the potential adverse effects of noise associated with the drilling programme on marine mammals.

378. The evidence of Ms McConnell and Dr Childerhouse is considered in section 5.4of this decision. There is nothing in their evidence that indicates a concern in relation to the effects of planned activities on threatened mammal species.

379. There is no evidence of other threatened species for which a therea in the vicinity of the Māui offshore facilities is an important habitat.

380. The likelihood of a significant spill based on previous records and the current / proposed mitigation practices is extremely low. In the event of a spill the impacts on rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species are likely to be negligible to minor.

126 Hearing Transcript – Day Two (30 April 2015) – Page 190.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 76

381. There are a range of legislative regimes and regulations administered by the Department of Conservation that provide for the protection and conservation of rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species. These include the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, Wildlife Act 1953, Marine Reserves Act 1971 and MPR.M The activities at the Māui offshore facilities are required to comply with any of the protection measures set out in these legislative regimes and regulations.

382. We find that the planned activities at the Māui offshore facilities will have negligible effects on the protection of rare and threatened ecosystems and habitats of threatened species.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 77

9. The Economic Benefit to New Zealand

383. Section 59(2)(f) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the activities at the Māui offshore facilities.

384. Mr Jager advised that STOS provides natural gas to satisfy 20% of New Zealand’s demand.127 He also advised that STOS employs 400 staff, 160 - 180 of whom aredirectly associated with operations at the Māui offshore facilities. Mr Jager estimated that 200 additional persons would be involved with a drilling rig and approximately 370 for a semi-TAD.128

385. Mr Jager stated that the joint venture partners of STOS had pai d approximately $550 million in royalties, levies and tax to the Crown between 2008 and129 2013.He also referred to the contributions that STOS made to the local communities in a variety of ways.

386. Expert economic evidence was provided by economist, Mr Fraser Colegrave, on behalf of STOS.130 He identified that based on predicted future production levels the operations at the Māui offshore facilities could yield up to $1.2 billion in taxes, royalties and levies to the Crown and that the operations will contribute up to $350 million in annual GDP. also He estimated that the future operation of the Māui offshore facilities would provide $66 million of annual household incomes and 1,150 full time jobs.131 He outlined benefits to security of energy supply, regional economic development and employment from the continued operations. He concluded that the granting of the marine consent application would have significant financial and economic benefits for New Zealand.

387. Mr Ross Dunlop, Mayor of South Taranaki District, said that his Council was generally supportive of STOS’ marine consent application and acknowledged “the huge economic benefits that the Māui gas and oil field brings to the nation”.132

388. In its submission, Venture Taranaki133, the Regional Economic Development Agency for Taranaki, referred to thesignificant economic benefits of the Māui offshore facilities. It s aid that STOS’ activities contributed substantially to the national and regional economy through direct and indirect employment, demand for goods and services and other economic benefits.

389. We did not receive any credible evidence from submitters to suggest that the granting of the marine consent would not result in continuation of the substantial economic benefits that have accrued from the operations at the Māui offshore facilities.

390. We are satisfied that the granting of the marine consent will result in ongoingand substantial economic benefits to New Zealandand, to the Taranaki RegionWe. note that future drilling

127 Statement of Evidence of Robert Jan Jager – 18 March 2015 [Para 31]. 128 Statement of Evidence of Robert Jan Jager – 18 March 2015 [Para 51]. 129 Statement of Evidence of Robert Jan Jager – 18 March 2015 [Para 49]. 130 Statement of Evidence of Mr Fraser James Colegrave – 17 March 2015. 131 Statement of Evidence of Mr Fraser James Colegrave – 17 March 2015 [Para 61]. 132 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 352. 133 Submitter 110926.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 78

operations will add significantly to the economy given the substantial investment that will be involved with these.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 79

10. The Efficient Use and Development of Natural Resources

391. Section 59(2)(g) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the efficient use and development of natural resources.

392. The opening legal submissions for STOS commented that section 59(2)(f) of the EEZ Act is similar in meaning to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and that guidance from the RMA is helpful in that context. The submissions suggested we are required to:

“(a) consider the broad aspects of economic efficiency rather than narrow aspects of financial viability, the profitability of a venture, or maximum financial yield,

(b) consider more than just economic matters including theow folling three dimensions of efficiency

(i) productive efficiency (output at lower cost);

(ii) allocative efficiency (resources allocated to production that society values the most); and

(iii) dynamic or innovative efficiency (where technological change is encouragedor used to produce productivity gains).”134

393. Mr Jager advised that “Māui continues to contribute about 20% to satisfying New Zealand’s gas demand” and that “reserves estimates indicate that with investment and continued efficient operations, Māui has plenty more to offer in terms of gas supply.”135

394. The submission by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment also commented on t he past and ongoing importance of the Māui offshore facilities to New Zealand’s gas supply, and that there had been considerable effort to extend the life of thefield. 136 It said that the remaining gas reserves would not be able to be developed if the marine consent was declined.

395. Mr Colegrave noted the consequences for New Zealand if other energy sources were forced to cover the shortfall should marine consent not be granted.137

396. Climate Justice Taranaki claimed in its opening submissions that there was no supportive evidence that the drilling of side-track wells would be an efficient use of the resource. They further noted that the Improved Recovery Factor drilling had onlyyielded a small increase in natural gas and condensate production.138 However, we note that productive efficiency is only one operational aspect of efficiency, and that the concept of efficiency needs to be read as a whole.

134 Opening Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 29 April 2015 [Para 65]. 135 Statement of Evidence of Robert Jan Jager – 18 March 2015 [Para 31]. 136 Submission 110903. 137 Statement of Evidence of Fraser James Colegrave – 18 March 2015 [Para 72]. 138 Opening submissions of Climate Justice Taranaki – 6 May 2015 [Para 24].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 80

397. We also find that the continued operation of theactivities at the Māui offshore facilities, and he t expected drilling operations, is an efficient use and development of natural resources.The Māui offshore facilities represent a major investment in infrastructure, and their continued productive use is an efficient use of those facilities. Further, STOS has invested in innovation that is enabling a far longer life in the resource than was previously the case, and it would be highly inefficient to abandon a resource that still has significant reserves when infrastructure and technology exist to extract it.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 81

11. The Nature and Effect of Other Marine Management Regimes

398. The EEZ Act, in combination with other marine management regimes, provides a f ramework for authorising activities in the EEZ.The purpose of the EEZ Acts “to i promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf” and, as such, has the overarching responsibility for making decisions on activities in accordance with this purpose.

399. In giving effect to the purpose of the EEZ Act, we must take a broad view of the overall impact on the environment of all activities that make up an application.

400. Section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the nature and effect of other marine management regimes. Section 7 of the EEZ Act defines what a marine management regime is, and these are also set out in Table 2 of this decision. The government agencies operating marine management regimes relevant to this application for marine consent are:

(a) New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals (a branch of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment) – responsible for managing the prospecting, exploration and mining permit regime;

(b) The Department of Conservation – responsible for marine mammals and protectedspecies (including the assessment of Marine Mammal Impact Assessments);

(c) Maritime New Zealand – responsible for maritime rules for discharges and oil spills. Plans to meet these rules include DMPs, which includea Spill Contingency Plan, Well Control Contingency Plan and Environmental Monitoring Programme;

(d) The Ministry for Primary Industries – responsible for managing fisheries within the EEZ and territorial waters and biosecurity at New Zealand’s boundaries; and

(e) WorkSafe New Zealand – responsible for administering legislation to provide a safe workplace. This includes responsibility for petroleum operators to submit a Safety Case with respect to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of wells.

401. These marine management regimes have different purposes and do not have safeguarding the life- supporting capacity of the environment as a key focus, or impose a duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. They all, however, impose standards and r equirements that are relevant to the environmental matters that we must consider under section 59 of the EEZ Act.

402. The government agencies presented at the hearing in order to provide us with an understanding of the nature and effect of the marine management regimes they administer, and the obligations that STOS has in relation to these regimes.

403. Section 20 of the EEZ Act clearly delineates the activities that are regulated under EEZ the Act. There are a number of other activities, such as discharges, that are an inherent component of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities that give rise to environmental effects that we must consider,

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 82

but are controlled through other marine management regimes. We have given particular consideration to the risk of duplication between this marine consent and other marine management regimes, and h ave sought legal adviceon this matter. The summary of the advice that we have received states that “the EPA must take into account all effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the proposed activity, including the consequential effects that are not regulated by S20 (which may weigh on the EPA’s decision to grant or decline the marine application consent); but the EPA can only impose conditions under S63 which deal with adverse effects of the activity or activities authorised by the consent”.139

404. We may not impose conditions that conflict with measures required by other marine management regimes or the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.The matters of particular concern to submitters related to discharges of pollutants and the risk of a hydrocarbon spill.

405. During the course of the hearing it also became apparent that there may be gaps between the requirements of the EEZ Act and the other marine management regimes. In this case, it was stated in evidence that theMāui offshore facilities are approaching the end of their economic life, and further, that decommissioning is a s ignificant activity that will take a n umber of years to plan and execute. Decommissioning is an activity that falls within the jurisdiction of section 20 of the EEZ Act, but it has not been applied for by STOS as part of this marine consent application. We may only consider the activities that have been applied for. There is no a, bilitytherefore, to regulate this activity at this time or to put in place measures that will ensure it will occur.

406. Well integrity, particularly post-abandonment, was also of concern to submitters. Mr Hey described the approaches and regimes that ensure well integrity through the life-cycle of a well from design and construction to abandonment,140 and further confirmed the rigour of STOS’ approach in response to questioning. 141 We were satisfied that the approach met best industry practice, and that the risk of failure met the “as low as reasonably practicable” test. While it is unclear whether there is any jurisdictional responsibility allocated for monitoring or management of formally abandoned wells, we accept that the approaches and regimes provide reasonable safeguards against post-abandonment failure.

139 Memorandum of Counsel in response to questions from the Decision-making Committee – 5 May 2015 [Para 12]. 140 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 18 March 2015 [Pages 6 to 18]. 141 Hearing Transcript – Day One (29 April 2015) – Pages 112 to 117.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 83

12. Best Practice

407. Section 59(2)(i) of the EEZ Act requireuss to take into account“best practice in relation to an industry or activity”.

408. The Impact Assessment and evidence on behalf of STOS pointed to a number of specific areas that demonstrate the application of best practice the in activities undertaken atthe Māui offshore facilities.

409. We concluded that the information provided in the Offshore Operations Report and elaborated on at the hearing by Mr Broomhead,plus information provided by MaritimeNew Zealand and WorkSafe New Zealand, combined to enable us to determine that the ongoing extraction of hydrocarbons at MPA and MPB, andthe proposed drilling operations, will be done in accordance with industry- recognised best practice.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 84

13. Relevant Regulations and Other Applicable Law

13.1 Relevant Regulations

410. Section 59(2)(k) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account relevant regulations. Regulations are defined in section 4 of theEEZ Act to mean “regulations made under the Act”. We have taken into account the Exclusive Economic Zone and C ontinental Shelf (Environmental Effects– Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013. These regulations state which activities are permitted activities for the purpose of the EEZ Act and the conditions for undertaking those activities without a marine consent.

13.2 Other Applicable Law

411. Section 59(2)(l) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account any other applicable laws. We have taken into account the following relevant statutes and the regulations, rules and policies made under them:

(a) Biosecurity Act 1993;

(b) Fisheries Act 1996;

(d) Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011;

(e) Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978;

(f) Maritime Transport Act 1994;

(g) Resource Management Act 1991;

(h) Wildlife Act 1953; and

(i) Crown Minerals Act 1991.

412. These laws have been discussed, as applicable, in earlier sections of this decision.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 85

14. Other Relevant Matters

413. Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Actrequires us to take into account any other matter that we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application for marine consent.

414. A number of matters were raised bySTOS and submitters during the course of the hearing that could be determined as other relevant matters in accordance with section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act. These include consideration of the value of investment.

14.1 Value of Investment

415. Mr Jager stated the Māui Natural Gas Field had b een in production since 1979 when MPA was constructed, while MPB was built in 1992. Both had been i mproved and upgraded as technology evolved and industry standards improved over their period of operations. He stated that thent joi venture partners had “invested significantly in the development of Māui over the past 35 years”.142

416. The scope and scale of the existing infrastructureat the Māui offshore facilities has been described in paragraphs 8 to 19 of this decision.

417. Mr Hey advised of STOS’ proposed future drilling operations to fully utilise the available gas and condensate resources. He said that a ne w drilling campaign required“a significant financial investment, well into the hundreds of millions of dollars”. 143 He also said that a consent term of 35 years was necessary to deliver a return on this investment.

418. Although STOS did not provide any specific information on the value of its investment in developing the Māui Natural Gas Field, we are in no doubt from the scale of the operations that the value of STOS’ investment in infrastructure is substantial. If STOS was unable to continue to extract natural gas and condensate from the Māui Natural Gas Field and to fully utilise additional reserves through the proposed side-track wells, it would represent a waste of that investment.

142 Statement of Evidence of Robert Jan Jager – 18 March 2015 [Para 31]. 143 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 18 March 2015 [Para 5].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 86

15. Adaptive Management

419. Section 61(3) of the EEZ Act states that if favouring caution and environmental protection means that an activity is likely to be r efused, the EPA must first consider whether taking an ad aptive management approach would allow the activity to be undertaken. Further, section 64(1) of the EEZ Act states that the EPA may incorporate an adaptive management approach into amarine consent granted for an activity.

420. The Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 recommended that an adaptive management approach be taken in relation to the discharge of drill cuttings, produced water and unplanned hydrocarbon spills from MPA and MPB.144 This approach would involve the monitoring and further assessment of these discharges. In the case of the drill cuttings, the Marine Ecology Review Report – D2 stated that this additional monitoring and assessment would be necessary in order to determine whether approval is given to undertake future drilling campaigns.

421. We note that the EPAExpert Report and joint witness statement of experts on t heposed pro conditions did not recommend any conditions with respect to the use of an a daptive management approach for the discharge of drill cuttings, produced water and unplanned hydrocarbon spills. The imposition of an ad aptive management approach was alsoo pposed by STOS in its opening legal submissions.145

422. Given our finding onthe potential effects of the activities at the Māui offshore facilities on the environment and existing interests, we do not consider there is any need for the adoption of an adaptive management approach in accordance with sections 61(3) and 64(1) of the EEZ Act.

144 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable Two) – 16 April 2015 [Sections 6.1, 6.3 and 6.8]. 145 Opening Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 29 April 2015 [Para 156].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 87

16. Purpose of the EEZ Act

423. The purpose of the EEZ Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural resources of the EEZ and the continental shelf. Sustainable management is defined in section 10(2) of the EEZ Act as follows:

(a) sustaining the potential of natural resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment; and

424. Pursuant to section 10(3) of the EEZ Act, we have taken into account the decision-making criteria in sections 59 and 60 of the Act and have turned our minds to whether granting or refusingmarine consent best achieves the sustainable management of natural resources.

425. Ms Clarke stated that “the existing and proposed activities relating to the extraction, production and transport of natural gas and condensate undertaken in the EEZ at the lawfully established and existing structures known as MPA and MPB and all associated structures and submarine pipelines will promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and thereby achieve the purpose of the EEZ Act”.146 She also said that the application would provide for economic well-being of people, while providing for the matters in sections 10(2)(a) to (c) of the EEZ Act.

426. A large number of submitters did not consider that the marine consent application met the purpose of the EEZ Act because it would not promote the sustainable management of natural resources. The rationale for this argument was that the extraction of gas and condensate was being carried out at a rate that would result in the exhaustion of the resource. Climate Justice Taranaki described this in its submission as follows: “There is no plan, strategy or concerted effort bySTOS and / or the New Zealand government to use, develop and protect the resource in the Māui field in a way, or at a rate, that would sustain the potential of the resource to meet the foreseeable needs of future generations.”147

427. We note that the provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the EEZ Act exclude minerals from the definition of sustainable management of the environment. Consequently, we are unable to accept this argument.

428. Climate Justice Taranaki also submitted that we “must consider the effects of climate change on the existing environment and into the future as a cumulative effect. This must include ocean acidification

146 Statement of Evidence of Ms Catherine Mary Clarke – 18 March 2015 [Para 129]. 147 Submission 110891.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 88

and changing weather systems.”148 However, section 59(5)(b) of the EEZ Act specifically prevents us from having regard to “the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air”.

429. Dr DeVantier submitted on the possible effects of ocean acidification and associated adverse effects on shellfish and associated industries. We were not persuaded by this submissionwhich, did not provide convincing evidence of any significant effects from the activities at the Māui offshore facilities.

430. There was no c redible evidence from submitters that granting the application would not safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the environment or result in adverse effects on the environment that were more than minor.

431. Ms Couzens stated in the EPAExpert Report that she had“assessed the economic value and benefit to New Zealand of the proposed activities…and considered that a grant of consent will best achieve the purpose of the Act.”149

432. After considering all the information provided by STOS, the expert evidence, the submissions, and taking into account the matters listed in sections 59 and 60of the EEZ Act, we consider that there is no reason to refuse the application by STOS and that granting marine consent accords with the sustainable management purpose of the Act. We acknowledge that the application will generate adverse effects, but consider that they are negligible to minor andcan be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated through the conditions applied to the marine consent (and the requirements of other marine management regimes).

433. Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) and (3) of the EEZ Act, the application for marine consent by STOS to undertake restricted activities (listed inSchedule 1) at the Māui offshore facilities located in the Taranaki Basin is GRANTED, subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2).

148 Submission 110891. 149 EPA Expert Report – 21 April 2015 [Para 241].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 89

17. Duration of Consent

434. Section 73 of the EEZ Act sets out matters relevant to determining the duration of the consent. It states:

“(1) The duration of a marine consent is—

(a) 35 years after the date of the granting of the consent; or

(b) a period less than 35 years that is specified in the consent.

(2) When determining the duration of the consent, the Environmental Protection Authority must—

(a) comply with sections 59 and 61; and

(b) take into account the duration sought by the applicant; and

(c) take into account the duration of any other legislative authorisations granted or required for the activity that is the subject of the application for consent.”

435. Section 59 of the EEZ Act outlines various mattersthat we have considered as relevant to determining the duration of the marine consent. The principal matters are as follows:

(a) Section 59(2) of the EEZ Act requires us to consider (among other matters) potential effects on the environment and existing interests (including cumulative effects), effects of activities not regulated under the EEZ Act, effects on hum an health, the protection of biological diversity, vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species, economic benefits, the efficient use of natural resources, other marine management regimes, and best practice;

(b) Section 59(3) of the EEZ Act requires us to have regard to any submissions, advice and reports received, including that from the Māori Advisory Committee (NKTT);

(d) Section 59(5) of the EEZ Act requires that wenot have regard for the effects onclimate change of discharging greenhouse gases.

436. The effects on t he environment and ex isting interests, including cumulative effects, have been discussed in section 5 of this decision. We have determined that the likely effects on the environment and existing interests of granting this marine consent will be negligible to minor. The principal matter not regulated by the EEZ Act is the discharge of produced water and drill , cuttings which are regulated under the DMP. We have considered the effects of these activities on the environment.

437. Benthic sampling will be a condition of the marine consent to ensureany adverse effects resulting from the deposition of drill cuttings are identified. A review clause is also proposed as a condition of consent.

438. Effects on human health have been discussed in section 6 of this decision. Likewise, the protection of biological diversity, vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species has been

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 90

addressed in sections 7 and 8 of this decision. None of the experts who presented evidence have identified that any of these matters suggest that the duration of the marine consent should be less than the 35 years sought by STOS.

439. The economic benefits of granting themarine consent have been addressed insection 9 of this decision. These are assessed as being considerable. The efficient use of natural resource has been discussed in section 10 of this decision. Other marine management regimes are discussed in section 11 of this decisionand best practice insection 12. There was no compelling evidence on t hese matters that would suggest that the duration of themarine consent should be less than that sought by STOS.

440. A number of submitters have proposed reducing the duration of the consent.Ms Cassandra Crowley, on behalf of TKONT, suggestedthat a 10 – 15-year consent term might be more appropriate having regard to potential future interests of TKONT.150 Ms Catherine Cheung, on behalf of Climate Justice Taranaki, proposed a t erm of five years on the basis that it would be sufficient time for STOS to wind down its activities and cease operations.151

441. The NKTT Report also recommended a consent term of five years in order to“take into account potential changing rights in the marine and coastal area as well as the redress and settlement of the WAI796 claim.”152 This recommendation was the subject of a det ailed legal analysis by Buddle Findlay on our behalf. Buddle Findlay concluded that there would be “considerable risk” in shortening the duration of the marine consent to take into account the matters raised in the NKTT Report.153

442. Mr Jager said that a 35-year consent duration would provide STOS with certainty to invest in the infrastructure and future growth opportunities at the Māui offshore facilities, and assure the supply of gas to satisfy 20%of New Zealand’s demand. The closing submissions on behalf of STOS also emphasised that:154

(a) STOS needs marine consent for non-drilling activities to continue to the end of life of the field and prepare for decommissioning;

(b) No adverse effects on the environment or existing interests have been identified that warrant a shorter duration of marine consent;

(d) The 35-year duration was the default duration; and

(e) That a 35-year duration would promote sustainable management and the efficient use of the resources by enabling STOS to maintain its infrastructure and efficiently extract hydrocarbons and to enable appropriate investment programmes.

150 Hearing Transcript – Day Five (5 May 2015) – Page 324. 151 Hearing Transcript – Day Six (6 May 2015) – Page 350. 152 NKTT Report – 17 March 2015 [Para 8.3]. 153 Buddle Findlay Legal Advice – 21 April 2015 [Para 37]. 154 Closing Legal Submissions for Shell Todd Oil Services Limited – 11 May 2015 [Para 43].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 91

443. Mr Hey said that a new drilling campaign required“a significant financial investment, well into the hundreds of millions of dollars”.155 He said that a term of 35 years was necessary to deliver a return on this investment.

444. Ms Couzens did not comment in the EPA Expert Report on what she considered was an appropriate term of consent.

445. Having regard to the provisions of section 61 of the EEZ Act, we have considered the information provided in the mpactI Assessment, the additional information sought by the EPA and supplied by STOS, and the evidence of the experts on behalf of STOSand the EPA. We are satisfied that we have received the best available information.

446. We are satisfied that there are no matters in sections 59 and 61of the EEZ Act that would require the duration of the consent to be less than the 35 years sought by STOS.

447. Pursuant to section 73(2)(b) of the EEZ Act in determining the duration of the marine consent, we have taken into account the 35 year duration sought by STOS.

448. Pursuant to section 73(2)(c) of the EEZ Act, we have considered the following legislative authorisations associated with the application for marine consent:

(a) Resource Consent TRK985224 issued by the Taranaki Regional Council, which expires in June 2025;

(b) The DMP, which expires in August 2016; and

449. We have also taken legal advice concerning how we should ‘take into account’ the durationof these legislative authorisations in relation to determining the duration of the marineonsent. c We have considered what weight should be accorded to the fact that they are for shorter durations than the consent term sought by STOS. These authorisations may each be renewed, on application, by the respective consenting authorities upon their expiry.

450. The overriding consideration for us is the sustainable management purpose of the EEZ Act and whether any of these authorities have any direct impact on that and, if so, whether there would be a resulting advantage by aligning the duration of the marine consent with that of one of the other authorisations. We have considered that there would be no advantages and each of the authorisations can stand on its own and is not contingent on the duration of the marine consent.

451. Having considered the requirements of sections 59, 61 and 73 of the EEZ Act, andlight in of the purpose of the Act, we have determined that the duration of the marine consent should be 35 years from the date of granting of this marineconsent. Nevertheless, we have imposed a c ondition enabling reviews of the marine consent conditions pursuant to sections 76 and 77 of the EEZ Act.

155 Statement of Evidence of Owen Michael Hey – 18 March 2015 [Para 5].

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 92

APPENDIX 1: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANZECC Australia New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

AOI Area of Interest oC Degrees Celsius cm Centimetre

CMA Coastal Marine Area

DMC Decision-making Committee

DMP Discharge Management Plan

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EEZ Act Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offtake vessel g/m3 Grams per cubic metre km Kilometre km2 Square kilometre kt Knot m Metre m3 Cubic metre m3/h Cubic metre per hour

MACA Act Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

MHWS Mean High Water Springs

MMPR Marine Mammal Protection Regulations 1992

MPA Māui Platform A

MPB Māui Platform B

MPS Onshore production station at Ōaonui

MPI Ministry for Primary Industries

NKTT Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao nmi Nautical mile

PML Petroleum Mining License

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

SBM Synthetic Based Mud

SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 93

STOS Shell Todd Oil Services Limited t Tonne

TKONT Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust

TSS Total Suspended Sediment

WBM Water Based Mud

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 94

APPENDIX 2: PROCEDURAL HISTORY

TIMELINE FOR APPLICATION

17 October 2014 EPA appointed DMC including delegating decision-making powers to it

15 December 2014 Application for marine consent lodged with the EPA by STOS

12 January 2015 EPA completeness of application check completed

21 January 2015 Letter sent to STOS requesting further information (further information request #1)

26 January 2015 Marine consent application publicly notified

4 February 2015 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable One) received by the EPA

17 February 2015 STOS response received to further information request #1

20 February 2015 Letter sent to STOS requesting further information (further information request #2)

23 February 2015 Legal advice received from Crown Law

24 February 2015 Submission period on marine consent application closes

26 February 2015 DMC site visit to MPA and MPB

10 March 2015 Analysis of Submissions Report received by the EPA

17 March 2015 NKTT Report received by the EPA

19 March 2015 STOS evidence provided to the EPA

19 March 2015 STOS response received to further information request #2

7 April 2015 Submitter evidence provided to the EPA

7 April 2015 Letter sent to STOS requesting further information (further information request #3)

16 April 2015 Marine Ecology Review Report (Deliverable Two) received by the EPA

16 April 2015 Offshore Operations Report received by the EPA

17 April 2015 STOS response received to further information request #3

21 April 2015 EPA Expert Report received by the DMC

21 April 2015 Legal advice received from Buddle Findlay

23 April 2015 Joint witness conferencing on proposed conditions

24 April 2015 Modelling Review Report received by the EPA

29 April 2015 Commencement of hearing

29 April 2015 STOS supplementary evidence provided to the EPA

5 May 2015 Legal advice received from the EPA

13 May 2015 Closure of hearing

15 May 2015 The Minister for Energy and Resources renews PML 381012 for the Māui Natural Gas Field for a period of 21 years

5 June 2015 Marine consent decision released

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 95

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

The following tables provide an overview of the issues raised by submitters. Issues are provided against the relevant subsections of section 59(2) of the EEZ Act.

Table A3.1: Reasons for Support / Support in Part

Reasons for Submission and Indication as to Number of Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

Company Track Over many years of operating the Māui field, STOS have developed a positive track record and have demonstrated a Track Record strong commitment to effective health, safety and environment procedures. Have found STOS to be open and transparent record, 5 with information. STOS has been operating a long time successfully with not damage to the environment. Nothing but procedures, s59(2)(h), s59(2)(m) respect for the procedures and processes the STOS have in place to guarantee the safety of not only personnel but also transparent. the environment. Company has a close relationship with STOS and personally knows how they operate.

Financial STOS is a vital part of community, contributing financial assistance to a large range of community groups, sports clubs and assistance, Community education facilities. STOS offers sports, apprenticeships and scholarship grants to students at Opunake High School. labour Involvement STOS has given financial assistance to the Ōaonui Community Hall, local schools and secondary school children through assistance, 4 scholarship grants and offer work experience and apprenticeships. The consent will allow STOS to operate at Ōaonui and Sandy Bay, s59(2)(m) continue supporting local community. STOS staff on S andy Bay site for hours helping students do pl anting. Want this restoration, project to continue for future generations. plantings.

Availability and security of our energy supply is critical to the functioning of our nation.Economic importance of the continuation of this field and its associated activities. A key provider of natural gas to our nation. Natural gas forms an Economic important component of our overall energy mix, comprising over 20% of our primary energy supply. The Māui field provides Economic Effects wellbeing, employment to many New Zealanders. The economic benefits of the operation of theMāui field provide employment to assistance, many New Zealanders. Over 7,700 jobs exist as a result of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. STOS has continued 4 s59(2)(f), employment, to demonstrate a strong commitment to utilising New Zealand / local content in its support work. Oil and gas industry is a s59(2)(g),s59(2)(m), s59(4) importance, major contributor to the economic wellbeing of South Taranaki. Government’s goal under the Business Growth Agenda is benefits. to make the most of our abundant energy and minerals potential by encouraging environmentally responsible development and efficient use of the country’s diverse energy and mineral resources. Oil and gas industry is a major contributor to the economic wellbeing of South Taranaki.

Fisheries Effects Fish stocks. 1 Fish stocks are unharmed and increased since Māui built the off shore complex in the 1970's. s59(2)(a), s59(2)(d), s59(2)(f), s59(2)(m)

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 96

Statutory Assessment Policy Taranaki Regional Policy Statement contains policies to protect the natural character of the coastal environment, but in Statement, doing so recognises that use and development will be appropriate in many cases. Taranaki Regional Coastal Plan contains 1 s59(2)(i),s59(2)(l), Coastal policies and rules to promote the sustainable management of natural and p hysical resources in relation to the Coastal s59(2)(m) Plan. Marine Area. Also an emphasis on use of the best practicable option for the treatment and disposal of contaminants.

Integrity of Structures Integrity, structures, 1 Knows STOS has procedures for checking integrity of structures and pipelines at sea. Confident these are in top condition. s59(2)(h), s59(2)(k), s59(2)(m) pipelines.

Oil Spills s59(2)(a), s59(2)(c), Recorded s59(2)(d),s59(2)(e), 1 To date there has been no recorded spills into the Coastal Marine Area from any facilities operated by STOS. s59(2)(f), s59(2)(i), spills. s59(2)(k)

Table A3.2: Reasons for Opposition / Opposition in Part

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

Dwindling supplies of fossil fuel. With the reduction of available oilther o renewable energy resources would be more Use of Fossil supported. Likely to be f racked at a f uture date. Endorse sustainable energy instead of keeping the status quo of Fuels destructive fossil fuels. No more fracking or drilling. Just leave it alone and move on from energy that messes with the Fossil fuels, 216 world. Leave the oil in the soil. Future should be focused on renewable energy, not coal, oil and gas. Fossil fuels are no s59(5)(b), drilling, oil. s59(2)(m) option in the long run. Tourism is more lucrative than fossil fuel extraction. Changing norms of public ethics in relation to the social licence to operate fossil fuel extraction. Fossil fuel industry already killing marine life rapidly and destroying environment.

Effects on Māui dolphin, The drilling program will further threaten the habitats and survival of threatened species, notably the Māui dolphin and blue 205 Marine Mammals blue whale, whale. The whales and dolphins are my whanaunga and I don't like that you or anybody can go in their home. There are 50

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 97

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

threatened of the Māui dolphins left. This drilling would make them extinct. s59(2)(d), species. s59(2)(e)

Put resources into developing clean energy in New Zealand. Use able renew energy. Alternative sustainable, and Renewable environmentally less damaging, energy sources must be pursued. We need to move on like the rest of the world and utilise Alternatives energy, renewable resources. Deal with danger of not finding alternative energy sources now. Endorse sustainable energy instead clean 174 of keeping the status quo of destructive fossil fuels. We have other resources that are more lucrative in the long run. Invest s59(2)(m) energy, in a fleet of electric cars instead. Money wasted on further production of oil or gas should be spent on research for energy alternative from non-polluting systems. We need to be focussing on preserving all that we have and looking long term into the future energy. for alternatives that are not only sustainable but a lot safer to retrieve and safer to use.

Climate Change The use of more fossil fuels will contribute further to global warming. 95% of scientists agree that 75% of known fossil fuels Climate Effects must remain unburnt to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees and avoid catastrophic climate change. Drilling is change, 170 short sighted in light of increasing global warming. The need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, reduce energy use and s59(5)(b), global transition onto renewable energy to meet the target of 2 degree increase in global air temperature, to avert catastrophic s59(2)(m) warming. climate change. Global warming will be increased by all fossil fuels consumed.

The risks to marine life, coastal ecosystems, fisheries, local livelihoods and e conomy are too great. Too many risks, Oil Spills appalled at the amount of accidents which have totally destroyed previously pristine areas around the world. Risks Risk, outweigh potential benefits. Not enough assurance that there will be no disasters and proper mitigation will take place. s59(2)(a), assurance, Valuable resources will be destroyed, ecosystems damaged and ordinary citizens will have to deal with this. Further drilling 168 s59(2)(c), clean up, from the Māui platforms will be too risky to justify granting STOS’s application. The possible financial gain for the country is s59(2)(d), s59(2)(e), s59(2)(f), disaster. highly likely to be offset by the increasing cost of dealing with oil spills. All the oceans and seas are getting polluted from oil s59(2)(h), s59(2)(i), spills. We are left with the cleanup- costs and pollution from any spills. The gulf spill was a di saster and the negative ramifications are ongoing. We do not have adequate resources to deal with a serious disaster.

The Government should apply the precautionary principle to honour New Zealand’s obligation under the Convention of UN, International Biological Diversity and the Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development 1992. NZ State obligations including those Convention Obligations contained in Articles 19, 25, 26, 32, 37 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Outcome on Biological 134 Document from the United Nations High Level Plenary to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014, Diversity, s59(2)(k), s59(2)(l) UN Environmental Millennium Development Goals. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, the Law of the Convention on B iological Diversity 1992, the Noumea Convention 1986 and the London ConventionDumping. on UN Sea. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Statutory EEZ, Te Tiriti The activity does not meet the purpose of the EEZ Act. Application breaches Te Tiriti o Waitangi. ustTr that the EPA will 134 Assessment o Waitangi, base the decision not only on a strict interpretation of statutory role. A strong interpretation of the precautionary principle

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 98

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

statutory and sustainable management. Completely inconsistent with any logical conception of 'Environmental Protection' for which s59(2)(i), s59(2)(l), role. the EPA is tasked with. s59(2)(m)

Adequacy of Assessment of Impact The impact assessment does not provide an adeq uate assessment of effects, especially cumulative effects, effects on Effects 133 assessment. existing interests, and contaminant discharge effects. Unclear why the permit period should be for 35 years.

s61(1)

The impact assessment does not provide adequate assessment of effects, especially cumulative effects. Oceans are under threat from a wide variety of dangers, including oil, garbage, plastic, over-fishing, whaling, and many more. Does not Cumulative provide adequate assessment of cumulative effects such as the wide range of contaminant discharges over the process of Effects Cumulative. 131 commercial gas extraction. The cumulative effects of all the operators off our coast dumping ecotoxic chemicals and other

materials into the sea needs to be properly assessed by experts. Neither is this application being considered fully in s59(2)(a)(i) regards to the cumulative effects of other well operators, seismic surveyors, fishing vessels and future activity in this marine environment.

Marine Water Quality Contaminant, The impact assessment does not provide adequate assessment of effects, especially contaminant discharge effects. Need s59(2)(a), waters, 128 precious waters to be left alone. Continued assault of the earth and seas is causing severe localised damage and s59(2)(c), s59(2)(d), pollution. contamination. It will pollute the water. s59(2)(e)

Existing Interests Existing 123 The impact assessment does not provide adequate assessment of effects, especially effects on existing interests. s59(2)(a), interests. s59(2)(b)

Safety Case Safety 120 The approved Safety Cases for Māui-A and B have not been amended to take into account all the activities proposed. cases. s59(2)(h)

Integrity of The impact assessment does not provide a thorough assessment of the integrity of existing and new structures associated Structures. 120 Structures with the activity.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 99

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

s59(2)(h), s59(2)(k), s59(2)(m)

Destroying our nature, species, water resources, air, and health. Bad for environment. Contributes to the continuing Environmental Nature, degradation of our planet. Our oceans are more important than greed. It is bad for nature. The likelihood of environmental Impact (General) environment, 57 damage which could result from these oil wells. We need to do all we can to protect the planet and prevent further damage. planet, More drilling will only do more harm. Please don't kill the planet. Don't believe that this is good for the environment of the s59(2)(a) wildlife. animals we share this earth, ocean and waterways. Wildlife more important than greed.

To increase drilling in Taranaki risks our ecosystem. Destroying precious habitat. Danger for animals, damage to environment. Impact to sea life is too great a risk for what is proposed. Inadequate safety measures for marine life. Places Marine Ecology Ecosystem, the Taranaki environment and marine ecosystem at serious risk. Shouldn't make decisions that disrespect the other Effects habitat, species around us. Oceans are on the brink of extinction of all marine life. Marine environment could be harmed if best wildlife, 56 practice is not followed, support very robust environmental safeguards to protect environment. Protect the wildlife in the s59(2)(d) ecology, sea. Will pollute the Tasman Sea and its marine reserves. Don’t need hazards this will bring to our coastline and ecology. marine life. Give consideration towards the habitat of our oceanic wildlife, and the surrounding environment. Marine life/oceans need to be protected, they are an important part of our environment and survival. This will further traumatize an already devastated ecosystem.

Wellbeing of generations of life depend on sustainability of harmony. Reduce our energy consumption and move to renewable energy and a just and sustainable future. We now need to live a sustainable life to take care of our sea and land. We don't have the right to do this to future generations. Must adopt sustainable practices for survival. Shouldn't make decisions that will inevitably lead to the demise of our own eventually. If we will not take radical shift in our attitude there will Sustainability Future be no life in oceans and the whole planet will begin to collapse. Please, consider what will be left after us. Let us use some generations, of the sustainable technology that has been available for the last 40 years. Be known for being the most sustainable 51 s59(2)(m) sustainable, country instead of the most unsustainable. We should be more concerned for the planet and its creatures as a whole and children. quit being greedy. Children deserve to grow up in a world not distorted by our greed. Time to start protecting our children’s futures. To preserve our environment for ourselves and our future. Protect papatuanuku for future generations. Unless we make the difficult decisions now and protect the environment there will be no future for the next generation. We need to be focussing on preserving all that we have and looking long term into the future for alternatives that are not only sustainable but a lot safer to retrieve and safer to use.

Economic Tourism, Tourism is a lot more lucrative than this enterprise which will only enrich the rich and outsiders- leave NZ for hard working Effects wealth, 35 kiwis. Empower locals. Never ok to destroy natural beauty for the gain of wealth. The potential financial gains in no way

financial, counter the potential devastating impact to the marine and coastal environments. High risk, low return venture. We have s59(2)(f),

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 100

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act s59(2)(g),s59(2)(m) return, other resources that are more lucrative in the long run. All so overseas companies can earn money. The benefits of staying money, oil free are massive. The possible financial gain for the country is highly likely to be offset by the increasing cost of dealing industries, with oil spills. A smart Government/Nation would conduct proper economic modelling and preparing for this. Eyesores they economic, will cause in a country so reliant on its clean, attractive, pristine beaches for tourist dollars. They already have interests in profits, this area so closure of oil and gas production is unlikely to affect their finances. Profit before all else is inexcusable, commercial, unlawful, and unacceptable. Prioritise the health of the natural environment and all its inhabitants over short term profit. money, People before profits. Taxpayers most probably end up paying for the clean-up. It is not a race to make as much money as costs. fast as possible. Take care of the environment we rely on to prosper. Money is not a good enough reason. Economic assessment fails to consider the economic costs to other sectors (e.g. loss of fish stocks, commercial opportunities, tourism, cost of spill or collision). Would have expected to see a more comprehensive assessment of opportunity costs and wealth distribution.

New Zealand's New Zealand's clean image. 100% NZ is the slogan. The government spent billions of dollars to promote this image. Once Image (effects there is an oil spill - this image will be gone. NZ is pristine and known for that and it would damage us severely. If this is Image, clean on) 11 allowed to go ahead you can forget New Zealand's clean Image. We should be at the forefront of global environmental and green. positive change. Let New Zealand be the leaders in this change and keep this country as one of the few in the world who s59(2)(f), s59(2)(m) can be proud to be clean and green.

Consultation, the process of assessment, and public input has been flawed. Unjustifiable when corporations take it for granted that they have the right to do as they please, without any legitimate effort in consultation with the public and their Consultation, concerns of point of view. Consult with iwi officials and local groups. The applicant has not informed or consulted properly. input, It is not clear what role Māori Advisory Committee has played to date nor whether contributions are reflective of the Process regulatory Taranaki Tangata Whenua. EPA has been relatively flexible about the date on which STOS must supply the further (including framework, information requested, but have not provided the same opportunities to submitters to formulate their responses. Submitters consultation) contributions, 10 will not be able to comment on the latest further information request unless they are able to appear at the hearing.Unlikely

flexible, public have had enough time or information to understand properly the effects of the application or the level of detail in s59(2)(m) further order to be able to properly respond on an informed basis. EPA is restricting its ability to receive the best possible

information, information under s 61 and breaching principles of fairness and natural justice. 28 days not an adequate timeframe for iwi timeframe. to be able to successfully digest, understand and provide a robust and substantive response. Dishonest and unfair process that STOS (and other companies) are not being made to open their discharge management plans up for public scrutiny. Wants time to study the Discharge Management Plan and will comment on it at the hearing.

Taonga, Application fails to provide active protection of Māori interests and taonga as afforded in section 12 of the EEZ Act, but also Māori Interests kaitiakitanga, negates kaitiakitanga by Tangata Whenua over the environment. The whales and dolphins are my whanaunga and I don't Tangaroa, 9 like that you or anybody can go in their home. Tangaroa is the God of the Sea. Have you asked Tangaroa if you can go s59(2)(l), s59(2)(m) moana, Te and drill in him? We are the guardians / kaitiakiof this whenua / moana. Consult with iwi officials and local groups. Tiriti o Application breaches Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 101

Reasons for Submission and Indication Number of as to Relevant Key Words Indicative Comments Submitters Clauses of s59 and s61 of the EEZ Act

Waitangi.

Fisheries Effects Must also consider effects not regulated under the EEZ Act (e.g. fishing and shipping). The state of the fisheries which feed Fish stocks, s59(2)(a), 5 New Zealanders and hold together the ecological chains in the oceans. We do not give them permission to ruin/pollute our s59(2)(d), s59(2)(f), fisheries. s59(2)(m) kaimoana and fish species.

Company Track Disregard of Record Shell's total disregard for the law and clear intent in drilling without permits last year should be reason enough to decline law, without 3 this application. STOS recently drilled two exploratory drills without consent nor any impact assessment. It seems there is s59(2)(h), consent, no honesty from the people who are orchestrating this. s59(2)(m) honesty.

Community Involvement Community. 2 STOS needs to address the way in which it currently meets its social contract obligations with the Taranaki community.

s59(2)(m)

EEZ000010 STOS Māui Marine Consent 102