Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT May 12, 2020 MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030) From: Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231)

Subject: Public Information copy of plan Control # - N-10098 Type - Initial Exploration Plan Lease(s) - OCS-G36558 Block - 801 Mississippi Canyon Area Operator - Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Description - Subsea Wells A, A-ST, B, C, D and E Rig Type - Not Found

Attached is a copy of the subject plan.

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

Leslie Wilson Plan Coordinator

Site Type/Name Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk WELL/A G36558/MC/801 1083 FSL, 3249 FEL G36558/MC/801 WELL/A-ST G36558/MC/801 1083 FSL, 3249 FEL G36558/MC/801 WELL/B G36558/MC/801 2770 FSL, 3405 FEL G36558/MC/801 WELL/C G36558/MC/801 2834 FSL, 863 FEL G36558/MC/801 WELL/D G36558/MC/801 687 FSL, 6085 FEL G36558/MC/801 WELL/E G36558/MC/801 1133 FSL, 3249 FEL G36558/MC/801 Record of Changes – PUBLIC COPY

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Plan Control No. N-10098, Initial Exploration Plan Lease OCS-G 36558, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 Byblos Prospect

Date Section Page Remarks 12/26/2019 All All Plan received by BOEM

01/06/2020 1 Attachment 1-A, Page 1 Update New Technology Question of BOEM 137 Form

01/06/2020 1 Attachment 1-A, Page 8 Update Base of Target Sands on BOEM 137 Form

03/30/2020 All All Submit Final Complete Copy of Plan

04/22/2020 1 Page 1 In response to NMFS 2020 BiOp, include statement regarding pile-driving and pipelines

04/22/2020 5 Page 12 In response to NMFS 2020 BiOp, update Section 5.7

04/22/2020 9 Pages 18-20 in response to NMFS 2020 BiOp; updated Sections 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4

04/22/2020 11 23 In response to NMFS 2020 BiOp, update Section 11.1 and 11.2

04/22/2020 12 Page 24 In response to NMFS 2020 BiOp, update Section 12.1 and 12.5

PUBLIC COPY December 2019

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN

Mississippi Canyon Block 801 OCS-G 36558 Byblos Prospect Affected State: Louisiana

Estimated Startup Date: July 1, 2020

SUBMITTED BY: Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC 2107 CityWest Blvd. Houston, Texas 77042

Bekki Winfree (713) 240.9015 [email protected]

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Kelley Pisciola J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 19219 Katy Freeway, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77094 (281) 698.8519 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS ...... 1 1.1 PLAN INFORMATION ...... 1 1.2 LOCATION ...... 1 1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES ...... 1 1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS ...... 2 1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES ...... 2 1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES ...... 2 1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE ...... 2 SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 3 2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS ...... 3 2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS ...... 3 2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY ...... 3 2.4 BONDING STATEMENT ...... 4 2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) ...... 4 2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT...... 4 2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS ...... 4 SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION ...... 8 3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 8 3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS ...... 8 3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES ...... 8 3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS ...... 8 3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT ...... 8 3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT ...... 8 3.7 HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES ...... 8 3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN ...... 8 3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES ...... 8 SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION ...... 9 4.1 CONCENTRATION ...... 9

TOC Pg 1 of 3

4.2 CLASSIFICATION ...... 9 4.3 H2S CONTINGENCY PLAN ...... 9 4.4 MODELING REPORT ...... 9 SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION ...... 10 5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES ...... 10 5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS) ...... 10 5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) ...... 10 5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) ...... 10 5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) ...... 10 5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP ...... 10 5.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION ...... 11 5.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ...... 12 5.9 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ...... 12 5.10 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION ...... 12 SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION ...... 13 6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES ...... 13 6.2 MODELING REPORT ...... 13 SECTION 7 AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION ...... 14 7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS ...... 14 7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION ...... 14 SECTION 8 OIL SPILL INFORMATION ...... 15 8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING ...... 15 8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES ...... 15 8.3 OSRO INFORMATION ...... 15 8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION ...... 15 8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION ...... 15 8.6 MODELING REPORT ...... 16 SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION ...... 17 9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS ...... 17 9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES ...... 17 9.3 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY ...... 17 SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION ...... 18

TOC Pg 2 of 3

10.1 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 18 SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION ...... 20 11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS ...... 20 11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES ...... 20 SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION ...... 21 12.1 GENERAL ...... 21 12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS ...... 21 12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION...... 21 12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION ...... 21 12.5 VICINITY MAP ...... 21 SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION ...... 22 13.1 GENERAL ...... 22 13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION ...... 22 13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE ...... 22 13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL ...... 22 SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION ...... 23 SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ...... 24 SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION ...... 25 16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION ...... 25 16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 25

TOC Pg 3 of 3

SECTION ATTACHMENTS

Section 1 Plan Contents 1-A OCS Plan Information Form 1-B Well Location Plat 1-C Bathymetry Map 1-D Pay.gov Receipt Section 3 Geological, Geophysical Information 3-D Shallow Hazard Assessment Section 6 Wastes and Discharges Information 6-A Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the GOM Section 7 Air Emissions Information 7-A Emissions Worksheets Section 8 Oil Spill Information 8-A Oil Spill Response Discussion Section 12 Support Vessels and Aircraft Information 12-A Waste You Will Transport and/or Dispose Onshore 12-B Vicinity Map Section 14 Coastal Zone Management Act Information 14-A Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Section 15 Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) 15-A Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

Attachments Pg 1 of 1

SECTION 1 PLAN CONTENTS

1.1 PLAN INFORMATION Lease OCS-G 36558, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 was issued in the Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale Number 252 with an effective date of July 1, 2019. Under this Exploration Plan, Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC (Equinor) proposes to drill and temporarily or permanently abandon Well Locations A, A-ST, B, C, D and E. Well Locations B-E are included as respud/relief well locations should complications occur while drilling the planned A and A-ST location. NOTE: Well Location E is a mirror location and within 50’ of Well Location A (any reference to MC 801-Alt A on text, maps or drawings is one and the same as Well Location E).

The wells will be drilled with a dynamically positioned drillship MODU and are located in approximately 3,276 – 3,341 feet of water. The operations proposed will not utilize pile-driving, nor is Equinor proposing any new pipelines expected to make landfall.

The OCS Plan Information Form BOEM-137 is included as Attachment 1-A.

1.2 LOCATION Well Location Plats depicting the surface locations and bottomhole locations of the proposed wells, measured depths/true vertical depths and water depths is included as Attachment 1-B.

No anchors are associated with the activities proposed in this plan. A Bathymetry Map depicting the surface locations and water depths of the proposed wells is included as Attachment 1-C.

1.3 SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION FEATURES Equinor proposes to drill the wells with a DP Drillship which is equipped with a Subsea BOP. Once a rig is determined, BOP information and schematics will be included as a part of the Application for Permit to Drill.

The rig will be equipped with safety and fire-fighting equipment required to comply with United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations. Appropriate life saving equipment such as life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc. as prescribed by the USCG, will be maintained on the rig at all times.

Safety features on the drilling unit will include well control, pollution prevention, and blowout prevention equipment as described in BSEE regulations 30 CFR 250 C, D, E, O, Q and S; and as further clarified by BSEE Notices to Lessees, and current policy making invoked by the BSEE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USCG.

Pollution prevention measures include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on drilling deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris. Compliance will be maintained with the EPA NPDES Permit. The rig will be monitored daily and any waste or fuel resulting in pollution of the Gulf waters will be reported to the representative in charge for immediate isolation and correction of the problem. All spills will be reported to the appropriate governmental agencies.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 1 – Pg. 1 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

1.4 STORAGE TANKS AND PRODUCTION VESSELS Tank Total Fluid Type of Type of Number Capacity Capacity Gravity Storage Tank Facility of Tanks (bbl) (bbl) (API) Fuel Oil 34,721 1 34,721 28° Crude Oil 125,000 1 125,000 32° Base Oil DP Drillship 11,070 2 22,140 32° Dirty Oil 43 1 43 32° Sludge 82 2 164 N/A

1.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES These operations do not propose activities for which the State of Florida is an affected state.

1.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES Equinor does not propose any additional safety, pollution prevention, or early spill detection measures beyond those required by 30 CFR 250.

1.7 COST RECOVERY FEE Documentation of the $14,692.00 cost recovery fee payment is included as Attachment 1-D.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 1 – Pg. 2 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558) U.S. Department of the Interior Attachment 1-A OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 6/30/2021 OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM General Information Type of OCS Plan: XX Exploration Plan (EP) Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) Company Name: Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC BOEM Operator Number: 02748 Address: 2107 CityWest Blvd. Contact Person: Kelley Pisciola Houston, TX 77042 Phone Number: 281-698-8519 E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Amount If a service fee is required under 30 CFR 550.125(a), provide the paid $14,692.00 Receipt No. 26M2TV39 Project and Worst Case Discharge (WCD) Information Project Name (If Applicable): Lease(s): G-36558 Area: Mississippi Canyon Block(s): 801 Byblos Objective(s) X Oil Gas Sulphur Salt Onshore Support Base(s): Fourchon, LA, Houma, LA and Galliano, LA Platform / Well Name: Well Location A Total Volume of WCD: 27,453,879 API Gravity: 29° Distance to Closest Land (Miles): 55 Volume from uncontrolled blowout: 295,203 BOPD Have you previously provided information to verify the calculations and assumptions for your WCD? Yes X No If so, provide the Control Number of the EP or DOCD with which this information was provided

Do you propose to use new or unusual technology to conduct your activities? X Yes No Do you propose to use a vessel with anchors to install or modify a structure? Yes X No Do you propose any facility that will serve as a host facility for deepwater subsea development? Yes X No Description of Proposed Activities and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply) Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days Drill and TA or PA Well Location A 07/01/2020 11/17/2020 140 Drill and TA or PA Well Location A ST 01/01/2021 05/20/2021 140 Drill and TA or PA Well Location B 01/01/2022 05/20/2022 140 Drill and TA or PA Well Location C 01/01/2023 05/20/2023 140 Drill and TA or PA Well Location D 01/01/2024 05/19/2024 140 Drill and TA or PA Well Location E 01/01/2025 05/20/2025 140

Note: Well Locations B, C, D, and E are intended as respud/relief well locations only. Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure

Jackup X X Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

DP Semisubmersible Other (Attach description) Floating production Other (Attach description) Drilling Rig Name (If known): system Description of Lease Term Pipelines From (Facility/Area/Block) To (Facility/Area/Block) Diameter (Inches) Length (Feet) N/A

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): A Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure: N/S Departure: N/S Departure 1,083’ FSL F __ L Blockline N/S Departure Departures F __ L (in feet) E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure: E/W Departure: E/W Departure 3,249’ FEL F __ L E/W Departure F __ L X: X: 836,271’ X: X: Lambert X-Y X: coordinates Y: Y: 10,217,883’ Y: Y: Y: Latitude Latitude: 28° 8’ 03.210” N Latitude: Latitude Latitude/ Latitude Longitude Longitude Longitude: 89° 29’ 43.686” W Longitude: Longitude Longitude MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,276’ TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 2 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): A-ST Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 3 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): B Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure: N/S Departure: N/S Departure 2,770’ FSL F __ L Blockline N/S Departure Departures F __ L (in feet) E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure: E/W Departure: E/W Departure 3,405’ FEL F __ L E/W Departure F __ L X: X: 836,115’ X: X: Lambert X-Y X: coordinates Y: Y: 10,219,570’ Y: Y: Y: Latitude Latitude: 28° 8’ 19.873” N Latitude: Latitude Latitude/ Latitude Longitude Longitude Longitude: 89° 29’ 45.815” W Longitude: Longitude Longitude MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,326’ TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 4 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): C Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure: N/S Departure: N/S Departure 2,834’ FSL F __ L Blockline N/S Departure Departures F __ L (in feet) E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure: E/W Departure: E/W Departure 863’ FEL F __ L E/W Departure F __ L X: X: 838,657’ X: X: Lambert X-Y X: coordinates Y: Y: 10,219,634’ Y: Y: Y: Latitude Latitude: 28° 8’ 21.023” N Latitude: Latitude Latitude/ Latitude Longitude Longitude Longitude: 89° 29’ 17.452” W Longitude: Longitude Longitude MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,341’ TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 5 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure

Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): D Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure: N/S Departure: N/S Departure 687’ FSL F __ L Blockline N/S Departure Departures F __ L (in feet) E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure: E/W Departure: E/W Departure 6,085’ FEL F __ L E/W Departure F __ L X: X: 833,435’ X: X: Lambert X-Y X: coordinates Y: Y: 10,217,487’ Y: Y: Y: Latitude Latitude: 28° 7’ 85.713” N Latitude: Latitude Latitude/ Latitude Longitude Longitude Longitude: 89° 30’ 15.254” W Longitude: Longitude Longitude MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,313’ TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor X: Y:

Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 6 of 7

OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM (CONTINUED) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location Well or Structure Name/Number (If Previously reviewed under an approved renaming well or structure, reference Yes X No EP or DOCD? previous name): E Is this an existing If this is an existing well or structure, list Yes X No well or structure? the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility to conduct your X Yes No proposed activities? For wells, volume of For structures, volume of all storage API Gravity of WCD Info uncontrolled blowout and pipelines (Bbls): 29° fluid (Bbls/Day): 295,203 N/A Completion (For multiple completions, enter Surface Location Bottom-Hole Location (For Wells) separate lines) OCS Lease No. OCS-G 36558 OCS

Area Name Mississippi Canyon

Block No. 801

N/S Departure F __ L N/S Departure: N/S Departure: N/S Departure 1,133’ FSL F __ L Blockline N/S Departure Departures F __ L (in feet) E/W Departure F __ L E/W Departure: E/W Departure: E/W Departure 3,249’ FEL F __ L E/W Departure F __ L X: X: 836,271’ X: X: Lambert X-Y X: coordinates Y: Y: 10,217,933’ Y: Y: Y: Latitude Latitude: 28° 8’ 03.704” N Latitude: Latitude Latitude/ Latitude Longitude Longitude Longitude: 89° 29’ 43.6898” W Longitude: Longitude Longitude MD (Feet): Water Depth (Feet): 3,276’ TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Radius (if applicable) in feet: N/A MD (Feet): TVD (Feet): Anchor Locations for Drilling Rig or Construction Barge (If anchor radius supplied above, not necessary) Anchor Name or No. Area Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate Length of Anchor Chain on Seafloor X: Y: Form BOEM- 0137 (June 2018 – Supersedes all previous editions of this form which may not be used.) Page 7 of 7

MC801-B MC801-C MC801-E MC801-D MC801-A MC801-A ST

BLOCK WELL CALLS UTM X UTM Y LATITUDE LONGITUDE WD

MC801 MC801-A SL 3249 FEL 1083 FSL 836271 10217883 28° 08’ 03.210“ N 89° 29’ 43.686“ W 3276

MC801 MC801-B SL 3405 FEL 2770 FSL 836115 10219570 28° 08’ 19.873“ N 89° 29’ 45.815“ W 3326

MC801 MC801-C SL 863 FEL 2834 FSL 838657 10219634 28° 08’ 21.023“ N 89° 29’ 17.452“ W 3341

MC801 MC801-D SL 6085 FEL 687 FSL 833435 10217487 28° 07’ 85.713“ N 89° 30’ 15.254“ W 3313

MC801 MC801-E SL 3249 FEL 1133 FSL 836271 10217933 28° 08’ 03.704“ N 89° 29’ 43.6898“ W 3276 Byblos Mississippi Canyon 801 EP Location A, B, C, D and E OCS – G – 36558 Well Location Map Public 89°32'0"W 89°31'30"W 89°31'0"W 89°30'30"W 89°30'0"W 89°29'30"W ´ 28°9'0"N 28°9'0"N

- 3400 28°8'30"N 28°8'30"N MC 801-B SL ! ! - 3300 MC 801-C SL MC 801-A SL !

28°8'0"N MC 801-D SL ! MC 801-E SL 28°8'0"N

- 3200

- 3100 28°7'30"N

- 3200 28°7'30"N 28°7'0"N 28°7'0"N

89°32'0"W 89°31'30"W 89°31'0"W 89°30'30"W 89°30'0"W 89°29'30"W

BYBLOS

Mississippi Canyon 801 1 in = 2,000 ft EP Location A, B, C ,D and E 2,000 1,000 0 2,000

Feet OCS - G - 36558 Countour Interval = 20 ft Well Location and Bathymetry Map NAD27 BLM16N Bekki Winfree

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:58 PM To: Bekki Winfree Subject: Pay.gov Payment Confirmation: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF

An official email of the United States government

Your payment has been submitted to the designated government agency through Pay.gov and the details are below. Please note that this is just a confirmation of transaction submission. To confirm that the payment processed as expected, you may refer to your bank statement on the scheduled payment date. If you have any questions or wish to cancel this payment, you will need to contact the agency you paid at your earliest convenience.

Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF Pay.gov Tracking ID: 26M2TV39 Agency Tracking ID: 75903244699

Account Holder Name: Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Transaction Type: ACH Debit Transaction Amount: $14,692.00 Payment Date: 12/11/2019

Account Type: Business Checking Routing Number: 021000021 Account Number: ************7244

Transaction Date: 12/10/2019 01:58:18 PM EST Total Payments Scheduled: 1 Frequency: OneTime

Region: Gulf of Mexico Contact: Bekki Winfree 713-240-9015 Company Name/No: Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC, 02748 Lease Number(s): 35081, , , , Area-Block: Mississippi Canyon MC, 801: , : , : , : , Surface Locations: 4

SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS The table below provides all additional applications to be filed covering operations proposed in this EP.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status Application for Permit to Drill BSEE To be submitted Application for Permit to Modify BSEE To be submitted Emergency Evacuation Plan USCG To be submitted

2.2 DRILLING FLUIDS The table below provides the types and estimated volumes of the drilling fluids Equinor plans to use to drill the proposed wells.

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume of Drilling Fluid to be Used per Well (bbl) Water-based (seawater, freshwater, barite) 114,970 bbls/well See Attachment 6-A, Table 1 Oil-based (diesel, mineral oil) N/A Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 10,000 bbls/well See Attachment 12-A, Table 2

2.3 NEW OR UNUSUAL TECHNOLOGY Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) technology from a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) could potentially be used in drilling a well or wells proposed is this plan. If used, the MPD system will maintain a near constant bottom hole pressure (CBHP) above pore pressure at all times by using a combination of mud density, circulating friction, and surface applied back pressure. Gulf of Mexico (GoM) deepwater exploration wells, particularly sub-salt, face challenges such as:

 Tight operating window between pore pressure (PP) and fracture gradient (FG), which may potentially increase the risk of losses or well control issues  PP/FG uncertainty, particularly with poor seismic imaging sub-salt  Wellbore ballooning  Equivalent circulating density challenges due to wellbore length, architecture, and mud rheology

Surface back pressure MPD is the most suitable MPD method to address GoM exploration challenges as the system can quickly and precisely adjust bottom hole pressure during changing well conditions. A surface back pressure MPD system consists of the following equipment:

 Integrated MPD riser joint including an active control device (ACD), annular, and flow spool Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 2 – Pg. 3 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

 MPD surface manifolds including buffer manifold, junk catcher manifold, choke manifold, metering manifold, and distribution manifold  Valve and choke control modules  High resolution pressure transducers  Coriolis meters for flow/volume control

High resolution pressure management and coriolis flow measurement included in the MPD system also allow for early kick and loss detection, improving well control and safety while drilling. The MPD riser joint may also be installed on wells to provide a safer means of riser gas handling. In the unplanned event of gas in the riser, the annular and flow spool included in the MPD riser joint provide pressure control and riser degassing flow path with or without the ACD installed. The MPD riser joint will be located near surface but positioned below the riser tensioner ring and slip joint.

2.4 BONDING STATEMENT The bond requirements for the activities and facilities proposed in this EP are satisfied by an area-wide bond, furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR 556.900 (a) and 30 CFR 556.901 (a) and (b) and NTL No. 2015-BOEM-N04, "General Financial Assurance"; and additional security under 30 CFR 556.901(d) – (f) and NTL No. 2016—BOEM-N01, “Requiring Additional Security” as required by BOEM.

2.5 OIL SPILL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OSFR) Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC (Company No. 02748) will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR 553.15 (a); and NTL No. 2008-N05, "Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities".

2.6 DEEPWATER WELL CONTROL STATEMENT Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC (Company No. 02748) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations.

2.7 BLOWOUT SCENARIO AND WORST CASE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS In accordance with the requirements outlined in NTL No. 2015-BOEM-N01, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations Coordinator Documents on the OCS for Worst Case Discharge and Blowout Scenarios,” the Blowout Scenario follows below and the Worst Case Discharge Assumptions and Calculations are included as Attachment 2-A.

Blowout scenario: The highest discharge rate of liquid hydrocarbons would occur if a kick was encountered while drilling the WCD hole section in 14 ¾” hole size and the blowout prevention equipment failed.

Estimated Spill flow rate: 295,203 BOPD at the seafloor.

Volume: 27.45 MMBBLS

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 2 – Pg. 4 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

Relief Rig Timing (Contract) and Rig Mobilization: A total of 93 days is planned for drilling the relief well and killing the well. This estimate includes 21 days for the selected rig to temporarily abandon the well it is on, mobilize to the Byblos MC801 location, 65 days for drilling to deepest exposed shoe and 7 days for kill operations. The NTL 2010-N06 WCD Report, Equinor’s Response to NTL 2010-N06 Blowout Prevention and Intervention Measures and the Detail of Relief Well Days vs Activity Schedule Days to Drill are included in the Time Estimate Section below.

The likelihood of surface intervention to stop the blowout: Detailed analyses on dynamic well kill procedures and relief wells’ drilling plans have been performed. The well would be killed dynamically.

The potential for the well to bridge over: It’s very poor due to the lack of data to support it.

Rig Availability: There are several DP rigs capable of drilling at this water depth in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The DP rig (drillship or drill ship) would be selected from the pool of suitable rigs available to Equinor through our MAA (Mutual Aid Agreement) with other operators to respond to a blowout.

Relief Rig Package Constraints: Dynamically Positioned drillship or drill ship capable of drilling in excess of 4,000 feet of water. There are no rig constraints, as there are several rigs working in the GOM designed to drill in water depths up to 10,000 feet (some drill ships 12,000 feet) and the rated drilling depth capacity is 40,000 feet. Equinor has access to these types of rigs through the MAA mentioned under Rig Availability. The Pacific Sharav is an example of a suitable rig currently present in the GOM that could be used for relief well operations.

Drilling relief well location: Drilling a relief well from a neighboring platform or onshore location is not feasible for this well.

Summary of Preventive Measures: A summary of Equinor’s Preventive Measures is titled “Response to NTL 2010-N06 Blowout Prevention and Intervention Measures” and is included as part of Attachment D.

Time Estimate Section

Schedule of activity days

The total time for Mississippi Canyon 801 well of 140 days was estimated based on statistical analysis of previous analogous wells drilled by Equinor in the Gulf of Mexico. Wells used for this analysis include MC718 Martin, MC814 Thorvald, MC 942 Powernap and WR160 Yeti 1 and 2.

Expected values were determined by section for mobilization, drilling operations, and plug and abandonment. Dryhole logging operations are expected to be two days based on anticipated runs. Total time from mobilization to demobilization is expected to be 140 days for the worst case discharge design with 14 3/4” hole to TD.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 2 – Pg. 5 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

Activity Time Estimate (days) Mobilization 3 Spud to TD 121 Wireline (dryhole) 0 Plug and Abandon 16 Total 140

Main Well Days

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 2 – Pg. 6 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

Relief Well Days

Relief well operation times are based on times estimates from the expected case of the original hole drilling to the intersection point at the 14” shoe and setting 14” casing prior to kill operations. Time for spud to 14” casing point is 65 days.

The mobilization time for the relief wells was calculated by assuming it takes 21 days for another rig to abandon the well it is currently drilling and mobilize to location. The days to reach the casing shoe above the open hole that is blowing out are assumed to be the same as the original well, including the non-productive time. Then 7 days are added to range in on the previous casing string and pump mud to kill the flow. This determines the maximum flowing Worst Case Discharge time of 93 days.

Activity Time Estimate (days) Mobilization 21 Drill relief well to deepest casing shoe 65 Range in and kill well 7 Total 93

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 2 – Pg. 7 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

3.1 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION Proprietary Information.

3.2 STRUCTURE CONTOUR MAPS Proprietary Information.

3.3 INTERPRETED SEISMIC LINES Proprietary Information.

3.4 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE CROSS-SECTIONS Proprietary Information.

3.5 SHALLOW HAZARDS REPORT A report entitled Shallow Hazards Assessment and Deepwater Chemosynthetic Communities Evaluation, Mississippi Canyon Area, Block 801 (Lease No. G36558), Gulf of Mexico, prepared by Berger Geosciences, LLC is provided with this plan.

3.6 SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT In accordance with NTL No. 2008-G05, “Shallow Hazards Program,” a site-specific shallow hazards assessment has been prepared for the proposed surface locations evaluating seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect drilling operations. The shallow hazards assessment and archaeological assessment is included as Attachment 3-D.

3.7 HIGH-RESOLUTION SEISMIC LINES Proprietary Information.

3.8 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN Proprietary Information.

3.9 TIME VERSUS DEPTH TABLES Proprietary Information.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 3 – Pg. 8 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

Wellsite Evaluation

Mississippi Canyon Area Block 801 Gulf of Mexico

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Block 801 Table of Contents: Wellsite Evaluation Page SHALLOW HAZARDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED WELLS ...... 1 Maximum Anchor Radius Criteria ...... 1 Tophole Prognosis Criteria ...... 1 PROPOSED WELL MC 801-A ...... 3 Twinned Location ...... 3 Power Spectrum Analysis ...... 4 Seafloor Conditions ...... 5 Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis ...... 6 PROPOSED WELL MC 801-B ...... 9 Twinned Location ...... 9 Power Spectrum Analysis ...... 10 Seafloor Conditions ...... 11 Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis ...... 12 PROPOSED WELL MC 801-C ...... 14 Twinned Location ...... 14 Power Spectrum Analysis ...... 15 Seafloor Conditions ...... 16 Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis ...... 17 PROPOSED WELL MC 801-D ...... 19 Twinned Location ...... 19 Power Spectrum Analysis ...... 20 Seafloor Conditions ...... 21 Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis ...... 22

List of Tables Table W-1 Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-A Table W-2 Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-A Table W-3 Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-B Table W-4 Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-B Table W-5 Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-C Table W-6 Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-C Table W-7 Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-D Table W-8 Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-D

Project No.: 19-07-18 i

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Block 801 List of Figures Figure W-1 Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-A Figure W-2 Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-A Figure W-3 Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-B Figure W-4 Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-B Figure W-5 Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-C Figure W-6 Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-C Figure W-7 Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-D Figure W-8 Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-D

List of Maps Map W-1 Bathymetry, Proposed Well MC 801-A Map W-2 Bathymetry, Proposed Well MC 801-B Map W-3 Bathymetry, Proposed Well MC 801-C Map W-4 Bathymetry, Proposed Well MC 801-D

Project No.: 19-07-18 ii

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Block 801 Shallow Hazards Assessment for the Proposed Wells This section contains an assessment of the shallow hazards and a tophole prognosis for four proposed exploration wells located within MC 801. The seafloor benthic communities assessment considers surface conditions within the muds and cuttings discharge radius of 2,000-ft from the proposed well locations. The archaeologic assessment considers surface conditions within 1,000-ft of the proposed well locations. The wellsite assessment considers the conditions within a 500-ft radius from the proposed well locations from the seafloor to 7,000 ft below the mudline (BML; ~2.20 s BML).

Maximum Anchor Radius Criteria Equinor anticipates using a dynamically positioned mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) in the Study Area; therefore, no specific anchor pattern has been analyzed.

Tophole Prognosis Criteria The following sections specify the criteria used to develop the tophole prognosis for the proposed wells. The assessment is based on the evaluation of 3-D seismic data, and comparison to regional stratigraphic units as available. The tophole assessment is restricted to the specific proposed well locations. Gas Hydrates. The base of the gas hydrate stability zone (BGHSZ) is calculated based on Maekawa et al. (1995). The potential for solid gas hydrates was evaluated for the proposed wells. The criteria include: • Is water depth conducive for gas hydrate formation? • What is the depth to the BGHSZ at the proposed well? • Is a BSR present between the seafloor and BGHSZ? • Is a BSR present within 500 ft of the proposed well? • Does the proposed well intersect a BSR? • Have gas hydrates been identified in the region of the proposed well?

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

NEGLIGIBLE

Project No.: 19-07-18 1

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Block 801 Shallow Gas. The potential for shallow gas was evaluated for the proposed wells. The criteria used to evaluate the proposed wells include: • Does an anomalous amplitude event exist in proximity to the proposed well, and is there evidence for connectivity to the proposed wellbore? • Is there supporting geophysical evidence for shallow gas associated with the anomalous amplitude? • Is the anomalous amplitude within a sequence that may be sand-prone? • Is there evidence of migration of fluid (including hydrocarbons) from depth, such as along a fault plane? • Does the sequence correlate to other wells within the area that encountered shallow gas? • Is the proposed well located in a frontier area with little or no offset well control?

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

NEGLIGIBLE

Shallow Water Flow. The potential for shallow water flow (SWF) was assessed for the proposed wells. The potential for SWF is based on the following criteria: • Does the stratigraphic unit correlate to a regional sand-prone sequence? • Is the area subject to high sedimentation rates and rapid overburden deposition? • Is the sequence composed of high-amplitude, chaotic reflectors indicative of sand? • Is there a potential seal (perhaps clay-prone) above the sand-prone sequence? • Does the sequence correlate to other wells within the area that encountered SWF? • Is the proposed well located in a frontier area with little or no offset well control?

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

NEGLIGIBLE

Project No.: 19-07-18 2

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A Proposed Well MC 801-A The following is an evaluation of Proposed Well 801-A along with a twinned location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-A. The surface location for MC 801-A is in the southeastern portion of MC 801. The water depth at Proposed Well MC 801-A is 3,276 ft BSL (Map W-1). The proposed well is within an area of relatively smooth seafloor that slopes to the west at about 2.4°. The proposed location provided by Equinor is as follows: Table W-1. Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-A NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 836,271.00 10,217,883.00 28° 08' 03.210" N 89° 29' 43.686" W Block Calls 3-D Seismic Line Reference Line Trace 3,249’ FEL 1,083’ FSL 11029 16784

Twinned Location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-A is located 50 ft north of Proposed Well MC 801-A with the same well path and is intended to be used as an alternate drilling location. Seafloor and subsurface conditions at the twinned well are approximately equivalent and no separate illustrations of the subsurface conditions were prepared. The proposed alternate drilling location is as follows: Table W-2. Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-A NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 836,271.00 10,217,933.00 28° 08' 03.704" N 89° 29' 43.698" W

Block Calls

3,249’ FEL 1,133’ FSL

Project No.: 19-07-18 3

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A Power Spectrum Analysis The power spectrum for the proposed well was derived through the use of IHS Kingdom Suite’s Trace Calculator tools. For Proposed Well MC 801-A, the power spectrum was extracted from a subset that ranges from Inline 10929 to 11129 and Crossline 16684 to 16884 and is limited to the upper one second below the seafloor. The frequency content within the upper one second below the seafloor is of sufficient quality for shallow hazards analysis.

Figure W-1. Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-A

Project No.: 19-07-18 4

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A Seafloor Conditions The following paragraphs summarize the seafloor morphology and benthic community potential at the proposed well location. Seafloor Morphology. Proposed Well MC 801-A is located in the southeastern corner of MC 801. Water depth near the proposed well ranges from 3,191 ft to 3,452 ft BSL (Map W-1). The seafloor at the proposed well location is relatively smooth and featureless with a slope to the west of 2.4°. There are six seafloor faults within a 2,000 ft radius of the proposed well location (Maps 4 and W-1; Figure W-2). The nearest seafloor fault is located 660 ft to the northeast (Map 4). This fault, as well as all other seafloor faults, dip away from the proposed location and will not be intersected by a vertical wellbore. There are six seafloor faults within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location. The planned wellbore will not penetrate any of these faults. Benthic Communities Assessment. There is no evidence of fluid migration to the seafloor within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-A. There are no seafloor amplitude anomalies or signs of gas migration within 2,000 ft of the proposed well (Map 4). There are no BSRs or other seismic indicators of gas hydrates within 2,000 ft of the proposed well. Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic or other benthic communities are not anticipated within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-A. Infrastructure. There is no existing infrastructure within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-A. The closest infrastructure to the proposed well is an active gas pipeline (Segment No. 19890) located 2.2 miles to the north-northeast (Map W-1). The pipeline runs west to east across the northern portion of MC 801. No infrastructure is within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location; however, an active gas pipeline is located approximately 2.2 miles to the north-northeast. Archaeologic Assessment. All blocks in the Mississippi Canyon Protraction Area are regarded as being in a high probability zone for historic shipwrecks based on Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01 (BOEM/BSEE, 2011), including MC 801. Pursuant to the public information in the NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and Navigational Charts (NOAA, 2019); no shipwrecks are reported within MC 801. An archaeological survey and report were completed by Tesla Offshore, LLC. (Tesla) in 2008 and will be submitted to the BOEM under separate cover. For details about sonar contacts and avoidances within the Seafloor Assessment Area please refer to the Tesla Archaeological Assessment (2008).

Project No.: 19-07-18 5

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis The wellsite assessment covers the subsurface conditions within a 500-ft radius from the proposed well path from the seafloor to the investigation limit of 7,000 ft BML. Six 3-D seismic marker horizons (Horizon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were interpreted at Proposed Well MC 801-A (Figure W-2). A generalized description of the stratigraphic sequences can be found in Section 1.4 of this report. The following is an assessment of the conditions that will be encountered at or near the borehole. Faults. The wellbore at the Proposed Well MC 801-A will not penetrate any apparent seafloor or buried faults (Map W-1; Figure W-2). A vertical wellbore will not intersect any seafloor or buried faults at the proposed location.

Seafloor to Horizon 1. The unit between the seafloor and Horizon 1 consists of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections overlying low-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections. These reflections are interpreted to represent fine-grained hemipelagic clays overlying stratified silts and clays. (Figure W-2). Horizon 1 is expected to be encountered at 272 ft BML (Map 5 and Figure W-2). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). This sequence is assessed as having a low potential for gas hydrates (Figure W-2). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas and a negligible potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-2). Horizon 1 to Horizon 2. The Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit consist of three intervals (Figure W-2). The upper interval is 174 ft thick and consists of low-amplitude, discontinuous reflections representing channel margin deposits consisting of clays, silts and thin sands. An interface at 446 ft BML marks the base of this interval (Figure W-2). The middle interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, semi- parallel and discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent overbank and levee deposits containing silts and thin sands (Figure W-2). The middle interval is 952 ft thick and extends from the interface at 446 ft BML to an interface at 1,398 ft BML. The lower interval contains moderate- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent the SWF Blue Unit. The Blue Unit at the proposed location is 460 ft thick and contains silt and clay dominated turbidites with isolated sand intervals (Figure W-2). Horizon 2 marks the base of the Blue Unit, as well as the overall unit, and is mapped at 1,858 ft BML. The base of the gas hydrate stability zone (BGHSZ) at this water depth is estimated to be within the Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit at 1,274 ft BML based on Maekawa et al. (1995). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a low potential for gas hydrate from 272 ft BML to the BGHSZ at 1,274 ft BML and a negligible potential for gas hydrate from the BGHSZ at 1,274 ft BML to 1,858 ft BML (Figure W-2). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas from 272 ft BML to 1,398 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas from 1,398 ft BML to 1,858 ft BML. There is a negligible potential for SWF from 272 ft BML to 446 ft BML, a moderate potential for SWF from 446 ft BML to 1,398 ft BML, and a high potential for SWF from 1,398 ft BML to 1,858 ft BML (Figure W-2). Horizon 2 to Horizon 3. The Horizon 2 to Horizon 3 unit contains an upper interval of moderate- to high-amplitude, subparallel and continuous reflections separated from an underlying interval of low- amplitude, semi-continuous to chaotic reflections by an interface at 2,402 ft BML (Figure W-2). The unit is interpreted to consist of an upper interval of sand-prone turbidites overlying a lower interval of clay and silt mass transport deposits with isolated, thin sands.

Project No.: 19-07-18 6

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A The upper interval is 544 ft thick and the lower interval is 777 ft thick at the proposed well location. Horizon 3 is interpreted to be encountered at 3,179 ft BML (Figure W-2). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-2). There is a moderate potential for shallow gas and SWF between Horizon 2 at 1,858 ft BML and the interface at 2,402 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas and SWF from the interface at 2,402 ft BML to Horizon 3 at 3,179 ft BML (Figure W-2). Horizon 3 to Horizon 4. The unit between Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 contains intervals of low-amplitude, chaotic reflections alternating with intervals of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections interpreted to represent stacked mass transport deposits (Figure W-2). Horizon 4 is mapped at 3,964 ft BML and the unit is 785 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-2). Horizon 4 to Horizon 5. The Horizon 4 to Horizon 5 unit consists of three intervals separated by the bounding horizons and interfaces at 4,315 ft and 4,953 ft BML (Figure W-2). The upper interval consists of moderate-amplitude, subparallel and semi-continuous reflectors interpreted to represent turbidites of silt and clay with thin sands possible. The upper interval is 351 ft thick at the proposed location. The middle interval is 628 ft thick and consists of moderate-amplitude, chaotic reflections interpreted to represent silt and clay dominated mass transport deposits with possible isolated sands. overlying low- to moderate-amplitude chaotic reflections (Figure W-2). The lower interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections representing silt and clay rich turbidites. The lower interval is 298 ft thick and Horizon 5 is mapped at 5,251 ft BML at the proposed location. There is one amplitude anomaly within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). The anomaly is located 282 ft to the southwest of the proposed location. This anomaly is associated with the prominent trough reflection just above Horizon 5 and is considered to represent lithologic variation between the overlying silt and clay sediments and the underlying clay-dominated unit. There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-2). Horizon 5 to Horizon 6. The unit consists of low-amplitude, chaotic to semi-parallel, and discontinuous reflectors interpreted to represent clay-dominated mass transport deposits (Figure W-2). The unit is 1,099 ft thick and Horizon 6 is expected to be encountered at 6,350 ft BML (9,626 ft BSL; Map 6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-2). There is a low potential for shallow gas and a low potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-2). Horizon 6 to Limit of Investigation (LOI). The unit below Horizon 6 consists of low- to high-amplitude, chaotic to subparallel, and semi-continuous reflectors (Figure W-2). These reflections are interpreted to represent stacked turbidites consisting of clay and silt, becoming sand-prone in the lower portion of the unit. The base of this unit is defined at 7,000 ft BML making the unit 650 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4).

Project No.: 19-07-18 7

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-A There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates, a moderate potential for shallow gas, and a low potential for SWF within this sequence (Figure W-2).

Project No.: 19-07-18 8

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-B Proposed Well MC 801-B The following is an evaluation of Proposed Well 801-B along with a twinned location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-B. The surface location for MC 801-B is in the southeastern portion of MC 801. The water depth at Proposed Well MC 801-B is 3,326 ft BSL (Map W-2). The proposed well is within an area of relatively smooth seafloor that slopes to the northwest at about 2.7°. The proposed location provided by Equinor is as follows: Table W-3. Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-B NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 836,115.00 10,219,570.00 28° 08' 19.873" N 89° 29' 45.815" W Block Calls 3-D Seismic Line Reference Line Trace 3,405’ FEL 2,770’ FSL 11045 16815

Twinned Location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-B is located 50 ft north of Proposed Well MC 801-B with the same well path and is intended to be used as an alternate drilling location. Seafloor and subsurface conditions at the twinned well are approximately equivalent and no separate illustrations of the subsurface conditions were prepared. The proposed alternate drilling location is as follows: Table W-4. Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-B NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 836,115.00 10,219,620.00 28° 08' 20.368" N 89° 29' 45.826" W

Block Calls

3,405’ FEL 2,820’ FSL

Project No.: 19-07-18 9

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-B Power Spectrum Analysis The power spectrum for the proposed well was derived through the use of IHS Kingdom Suite’s Trace Calculator tools. For Proposed Well MC 801-B, the power spectrum was extracted from a subset that ranges from Inline 10945 to 11145 and Crossline 16715 to 16915, and is limited to the upper one second below the seafloor. The frequency content within the upper one second below the seafloor is of sufficient quality for shallow hazards analysis.

Figure W-3. Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-B

Project No.: 19-07-18 10

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-B Seafloor Conditions The following paragraphs summarize the seafloor morphology and benthic community potential at the proposed well location. Seafloor Morphology. Proposed Well MC 801-B is located in the southeastern corner of MC 801. Water depth near the proposed well ranges from 3,195 ft to 3,450 ft BSL (Map W-2). The seafloor at the proposed well location is relatively smooth and featureless with a northwest slope of 2.7° There are seven seafloor faults identified within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location (Maps 4 and W-2; Figure W-4). The nearest fault is located 400 ft to the southeast (Map 4). This fault dips towards the wellbore and will be penetrated at approximately 351 ft BML. A vertical wellbore will not penetrate any of the other seafloor faults. A seafloor fault will be penetrated at approximately 351 ft BML at the proposed well location. Benthic Communities Assessment. There is no evidence of fluid migration to the seafloor within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-B. There are no seafloor amplitude anomalies or signs of gas migration within 2,000 ft of the proposed well (Map 4). There are no BSRs or other seismic indicators of gas hydrates within 2,000 ft of the proposed well. Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic or other benthic communities are not anticipated within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-B. Infrastructure. There is no existing infrastructure within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-B. The closest infrastructure to the proposed well is an active gas pipeline (Segment No. 19890) located 1.9 miles to the north-northeast (Map 4). The pipeline runs west to east across the northern portion of MC 801. No infrastructure is within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location; however, an active gas pipeline is located approximately 1.9 miles to the north-northeast. Archaeologic Assessment. All blocks in the Mississippi Canyon Protraction Area are regarded as being in a high probability zone for historic shipwrecks based on Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01 (BOEM/BSEE, 2011), including MC 801. Pursuant to the public information in the NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and Navigational Charts (NOAA, 2019); no shipwrecks are reported within MC 801. An archaeological survey and report was completed by Tesla Offshore, LLC. (Tesla) in 2008 and will be submitted to the BOEM under separate cover. For details about sonar contacts and avoidances within the Seafloor Assessment Area please refer to the Tesla Archaeological Assessment (2008).

Project No.: 19-07-18 11

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-B Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis The wellsite assessment covers the subsurface conditions within a 500-ft radius from the proposed well path from the seafloor to the investigation limit of 7,000 ft BML. Six 3-D seismic marker horizons (Horizon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were interpreted at Proposed Well MC 801-B (Figure W-4). A generalized description of the stratigraphic sequences can be found in Section 1.4 of this report. The following is an assessment of the conditions that will be encountered at or near the borehole. Faults. The wellbore at the Proposed Well MC 801-B will penetrate a seafloor fault at approximately 351 ft BML (Map W-2; Figure W-4). A vertical wellbore at Proposed Well MC 801-B will not penetrate any buried faults at the proposed location (Figure W-4). A vertical wellbore will intersect one seafloor fault at 351 ft BML and will not penetrate any buried faults.

Seafloor to Horizon 1. The unit between the seafloor and Horizon 1 consists of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections overlying low-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections. These reflections are interpreted to represent fine-grained hemipelagic clays overlying stratified silts and clays. (Figure W-4). Horizon 1 is expected to be encountered at 269 ft BML (Map 5 and Figure W-4). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). This sequence is assessed as having a low potential for gas hydrates (Figure W-4). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas and a negligible potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-4). Horizon 1 to Horizon 2. The Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit consist of three intervals (Figure W-4). The upper interval is 217 ft thick and consists of low-amplitude, discontinuous reflections representing channel margin deposits consisting of clays, silts and thin sands. An interface at 486 ft BML marks the base of this interval (Figure W-4). The middle interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, semi- parallel and discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent overbank and levee deposits containing silts and thin sands (Figure W-4). The middle interval is 748 ft thick and extends from the interface at 486 ft BML to the interface at 1,226 ft BML. The lower interval contains moderate- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent the SWF Blue Unit. The Blue Unit at the proposed location is 475 ft thick and contains silt and clay dominated turbidites with isolated sand intervals (Figure W-4). Horizon 2 marks the base of the Blue Unit, as well as the overall unit, and is mapped at 1,701 ft BML. The base of the gas hydrate stability zone (BGHSZ) at this water depth is estimated to be within the Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit at 1,299 ft BML based on Maekawa et al. (1995). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a low potential for gas hydrate from 269 ft BML to the BGHSZ at 1,299 ft BML and a negligible potential for gas hydrate from the BGHSZ at 1,299 ft BML to 1,701 ft BML (Figure W-4). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas from 269 ft BML to 1,226 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas from 1,226 ft BML to 1,701 ft BML. There is a negligible potential for SWF from 269 ft BML to 486 ft BML, a moderate potential for SWF from 486 ft BML to 1,226 ft BML, and a high potential for SWF from 1,226 ft BML to 1,701 ft BML (Figure W-4). Horizon 2 to Horizon 3. The Horizon 2 to Horizon 3 unit contains an upper interval of moderate- to high-amplitude, subparallel and continuous reflections separated from an underlying interval of low- amplitude, semi-continuous to chaotic reflections by an interface at 2,308 ft BML (Figure W-4). The

Project No.: 19-07-18 12

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-B unit is interpreted to consist of an upper interval of sand-prone turbidites overlying a lower interval of clay and silt mass transport deposits with isolated, thin sands. The upper interval is 607 ft thick and the lower interval is 650 ft thick at the proposed well location. Horizon 3 is interpreted to be encountered at 2,958 ft BML (Figure W-4). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-4). There is a moderate potential for shallow gas and SWF between Horizon 2 at 1,701 ft BML and the interface at 2,308 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas and SWF from the interface at 2,308 ft BML to Horizon 3 at 2,958 ft BML (Figure W-4). Horizon 3 to Horizon 4. The unit between Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 contains intervals of low-amplitude, chaotic reflections alternating with intervals of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections interpreted to represent stacked mass transport deposits (Figure W-4). Horizon 4 is mapped at 3,587 ft BML and the unit is 629 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-4). Horizon 4 to Horizon 5. The Horizon 4 to Horizon 5 unit consists of three intervals separated by the bounding horizons and interfaces at 4,011 ft and 4,437 ft BML (Figure W-4). The upper interval consists of moderate-amplitude, subparallel and semi-continuous reflectors interpreted to represent turbidites of silt and clay with thin sands possible. The upper interval is 424 ft thick at the proposed location. The middle interval is 426 ft thick and consists of moderate-amplitude, chaotic reflections interpreted to represent silt and clay dominated mass transport deposits with possible isolated sands. overlying low- to moderate-amplitude chaotic reflections (Figure W-4). The lower interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections representing silt and clay rich turbidites. The lower interval is 391 ft thick and Horizon 5 is mapped at 4,828 ft BML at the proposed location. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-4). Horizon 5 to Horizon 6. The unit consists of low-amplitude, chaotic to semi-parallel, and discontinuous reflectors interpreted to represent clay-dominated mass transport deposits (Figure W-4). The unit is 977 ft thick and Horizon 6 is expected to be encountered at 5,805 ft BML (9,131 ft BSL; Map 6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-4). There is a low potential for shallow gas and a low potential for SWF from within this unit (Figure W-4). Horizon 6 to Limit of Investigation (LOI). The unit below Horizon 6 consists of low- to high-amplitude, chaotic to subparallel, and semi-continuous reflectors (Figure W-4). These reflections are interpreted to represent stacked turbidites consisting of clay and silt, becoming sand-prone in the lower portion of the unit. The base of this unit is defined at 7,000 ft BML making the unit 1,195 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates, a moderate potential for shallow gas, and a low potential for SWF within this sequence (Figure W-4). Project No.: 19-07-18 13

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-C Proposed Well MC 801-C The following is an evaluation of Proposed Well 801-C along with a twinned location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-C. The surface location for MC 801-C is in the southeastern portion of MC 801. The water depth at Proposed Well MC 801-C is 3,341 ft BSL (Map W-3). The proposed well is within an area of relatively smooth seafloor that slopes to the north-northeast at about 4.1°. The proposed location provided by Equinor is as follows: Table W-5. Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-C NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 838,657.00 10,219,634.00 28° 08' 21.023" N 89° 29' 17.452" W Block Calls 3-D Seismic Line Reference Line Trace 863’ FEL 2,834’ FSL 11073 16773

Twinned Location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-C is located 50 ft north of Proposed Well MC 801-C with the same well path and is intended to be used as an alternate drilling location. Seafloor and subsurface conditions at the twinned well are approximately equivalent and no separate illustrations of the subsurface conditions were prepared. The proposed alternate drilling location is as follows: Table W-6. Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-C NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 838,657.00 10,219,684.00 28° 08' 21.517" N 89° 29' 17.463" W

Block Calls

863’ FEL 2,884’ FSL

Project No.: 19-07-18 14

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-C Power Spectrum Analysis The power spectrum for the proposed well was derived through the use of IHS Kingdom Suite’s Trace Calculator tools. For Proposed Well MC 801-C, the power spectrum was extracted from a subset that ranges from Inline 10973 to 11173 and Crossline 16673 to 16873, and is limited to the upper one second below the seafloor. The frequency content within the upper one second below the seafloor is of sufficient quality for shallow hazards analysis.

Figure W-5. Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-C

Project No.: 19-07-18 15

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-C Seafloor Conditions The following paragraphs summarize the seafloor morphology and benthic community potential at the proposed well location. Seafloor Morphology. Proposed Well MC 801-C is located in the southeastern corner of MC 801. Water depth near the proposed well ranges from 3,195 ft to 3,514 ft BSL (Map W-3). The seafloor at the proposed well location is relatively smooth and featureless with a north-northeast slope of 4.1° There are four seafloor faults identified within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location (Maps 4 and W-3; Figure W-6). The nearest seafloor fault is located approximately 160 ft to the southeast and dips away from the proposed well location. A vertical wellbore will not penetrate this, or any of the faults. There are four seafloor faults within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location. The planned wellbore will not penetrate any of these faults. Benthic Communities Assessment. There is no evidence of fluid migration to the seafloor within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-C. There are no seafloor amplitude anomalies or signs of gas migration within 2,000 ft of the proposed well (Map 4). There are no BSRs or other seismic indicators of gas hydrates within 2,000 ft of the proposed well. Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic or other benthic communities are not anticipated within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-C. Infrastructure. There is no existing infrastructure within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-C. The closest infrastructure to the proposed well is an active gas pipeline (Segment No. 328605) located 1.8 miles to the north-northeast of the proposed well location (Map 4). The pipeline runs west to east across the northern portion of MC 801. No infrastructure is within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location; however, an active gas pipeline is located approximately 1.8 miles to the north-northeast. Archaeologic Assessment. All blocks in the Mississippi Canyon Protraction Area are regarded as being in a high probability zone for historic shipwrecks based on Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01 (BOEM/BSEE, 2011), including MC 801. Pursuant to the public information in the NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and Navigational Charts (NOAA, 2019); no shipwrecks are reported within MC 801. An archaeological survey and report was completed by Tesla Offshore, LLC. (Tesla) in 2008 and will be submitted to the BOEM under separate cover. For details about sonar contacts and avoidances within the Seafloor Assessment Area please refer to the Tesla Archaeological Assessment (2008).

Project No.: 19-07-18 16

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-C Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis The wellsite assessment covers the subsurface conditions within a 500-ft radius from the proposed well path from the seafloor to the investigation limit of 7,000 ft BML. Six 3-D seismic marker horizons (Horizon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were interpreted at Proposed Well MC 801-C (Figure W-6). A generalized description of the stratigraphic sequences can be found in Section 1.4 of this report. The following is an assessment of the conditions that will be encountered at or near the borehole. Faults. The wellbore at the Proposed Well MC 801-C will not penetrate any apparent seafloor or buried faults (Map W-3; Figure W-6). A vertical wellbore will not intersect any seafloor or buried faults at the proposed location.

Seafloor to Horizon 1. The unit between the seafloor and Horizon 1 consists of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections overlying low-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections. These reflections are interpreted to represent fine-grained hemipelagic clays overlying stratified silts and clays. (Figure W-6). Horizon 1 is expected to be encountered at 162 ft BML (Map 5 and Figure W-6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). This sequence is assessed as having a low potential for gas hydrates (Figure W-6). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas and a negligible potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-6). Horizon 1 to Horizon 2. The Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit consist of three intervals (Figure W-6). The upper interval is 528 ft thick and consists of low-amplitude, discontinuous reflections representing channel margin deposits consisting of clays, silts and thin sands. An interface at 690 ft BML marks the base of this interval (Figure W-6). The middle interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, semi- parallel and discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent overbank and levee deposits containing silts and thin sands (Figure W-6). The middle interval is 418 ft thick and extends from the interface at 690 ft BML to the interface at 1,108 ft BML. The lower interval contains moderate- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent the SWF Blue Unit. The Blue Unit at the proposed location is 546 ft thick and contains silt and clay dominated turbidites with isolated sand intervals (Figure W-6). Horizon 2 marks the base of the Blue Unit, as well as the overall unit, and is mapped at 1,654 ft BML. The base of the gas hydrate stability zone (BGHSZ) at this water depth is estimated to be within the Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit at 1,276 ft BML based on Maekawa et al. (1995). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a low potential for gas hydrate from 162 ft BML to the BGHSZ at 1,276 ft BML and a negligible potential for gas hydrate from the BGHSZ at 1,276 ft BML to 1,654 ft BML (Figure W-6). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas from 162 ft BML to 1,108 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas from 1,108 ft BML to 1,654 ft BML. There is a negligible potential for SWF from 162 ft BML to 690 ft BML, a moderate potential for SWF from 690 ft BML to 1,108 ft BML, and a high potential for SWF from 1,108 ft BML to 1,654 ft BML (Figure W-6). Horizon 2 to Horizon 3. The Horizon 2 to Horizon 3 unit contains an upper interval of moderate- to high-amplitude, subparallel and continuous reflections separated from an underlying interval of low- amplitude, semi-continuous to chaotic reflections by an interface at 2,137 ft BML (Figure W-6). The unit is interpreted to consist of an upper interval of sand-prone turbidites overlying a lower interval of clay and silt mass transport deposits with isolated, thin sands.

Project No.: 19-07-18 17

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-C The upper interval is 483 ft thick and the lower interval is 764 ft thick at the proposed well location. Horizon 3 is interpreted to be encountered at 2,901 ft BML (Figure W-6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-6). There is a moderate potential for shallow gas and SWF between Horizon 2 at 1,654 ft BML and the interface at 2,137 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas and SWF from the interface at 2,137 ft BML to Horizon 3 at 2,901 ft BML (Figure W-6). Horizon 3 to Horizon 4. The unit between Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 contains intervals of low-amplitude, chaotic reflections alternating with intervals of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections interpreted to represent stacked mass transport deposits (Figure W-6). Horizon 4 is mapped at 3,432 ft BML and the unit is 531 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-6). Horizon 4 to Horizon 5. The Horizon 4 to Horizon 5 unit consists of three intervals separated by the bounding horizons and interfaces at 3,783 ft and 4,188 ft BML (Figure W-6). The upper interval consists of moderate-amplitude, subparallel and semi-continuous reflectors interpreted to represent turbidites of silt and clay with thin sands possible. The upper interval is 351 ft thick at the proposed location. The middle interval is 405 ft thick and consists of moderate-amplitude, chaotic reflections interpreted to represent silt and clay dominated mass transport deposits with possible isolated sands. overlying low- to moderate-amplitude chaotic reflections (Figure W-6). The lower interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections representing silt and clay rich turbidites. The lower interval is 433 ft thick and Horizon 5 is mapped at 4,621 ft BML at the proposed location. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-6). Horizon 5 to Horizon 6. The unit consists of low-amplitude, chaotic to semi-parallel, and discontinuous reflectors interpreted to represent clay-dominated mass transport deposits (Figure W-6). The unit is 889 ft thick and Horizon 6 is expected to be encountered at 5,510 ft BML (8,851 ft BSL; Map 6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-6). There is a low potential for shallow gas and a low potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-6). Horizon 6 to Limit of Investigation (LOI). The unit below Horizon 6 consists of low- to moderate- amplitude, chaotic to subparallel, and semi-continuous reflectors (Figure W-6). These reflections are interpreted to represent stacked turbidites consisting of clay and silt, with potential sand-prone sediments in the lower portion of the unit. The base of this unit is defined at 7,000 ft BML making the unit 1,490 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates, a moderate potential for shallow gas, and a low potential for SWF within this sequence (Figure W-6).

Project No.: 19-07-18 18

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D Proposed Well MC 801-D The following is an evaluation of Proposed Well 801-D along with a twinned location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-D. The surface location for MC 801-D is in the southeastern portion of MC 801. The water depth at Proposed Well MC 801-D is 3,313 ft BSL (Map W-4). The proposed well is within an area of relatively smooth seafloor that slopes to the northeast at about 0.8°. The proposed location provided by Equinor is as follows: Table W-7. Location, block calls, and seismic lines for Proposed Well MC 801-D NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 833,435.00 10,217,487.00 28° 07' 58.713" N 89° 30' 15.254" W Block Calls 3-D Seismic Line Reference Line Trace 6,085’ FEL 687’ FSL 10994 16826

Twinned Location Proposed Well MC 801-Alt-D is located 50 ft south of Proposed Well MC 801-D with the same well path and is intended to be used as an alternate drilling location. Seafloor and subsurface conditions at the twinned well are approximately equivalent and no separate illustrations of the subsurface conditions were prepared. The proposed alternate drilling location is as follows: Table W-8. Location and block calls for Proposed Twinned Well MC 801-Alt-D NAD27 UTM Zone 16 North, US Survey ft Geographic Coordinates X Y Latitude Longitude 833,435.00 10,217,437.00 28° 07' 58.218" N 89° 30' 15.242" W

Block Calls

6,085’ FEL 637’ FSL

Project No.: 19-07-18 19

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D Power Spectrum Analysis The power spectrum for the proposed well was derived through the use of IHS Kingdom Suite’s Trace Calculator tools. For Proposed Well MC 801-D, the power spectrum was extracted from a subset that ranges from Inline 10894 to 11094 and Crossline 16726 to 16926, and is limited to the upper one second below the seafloor. The frequency content within the upper one second below the seafloor is of sufficient quality for shallow hazards analysis.

Figure W-7. Power spectrum at Proposed Well MC 801-D

Project No.: 19-07-18 20

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D Seafloor Conditions The following paragraphs summarize the seafloor morphology and benthic community potential at the proposed well location. Seafloor Morphology. Proposed Well MC 801-D is located near the south-central block boundary of MC 801. Water depth near the proposed well ranges from 3,121 ft to 3,427 ft BSL (Map W-4). The seafloor at the proposed well location is relatively smooth and featureless with a northwest slope of 0.8° There are four seafloor faults identified within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location (Maps 4 and W-4; Figure W-8). The nearest seafloor fault is located approximately 1,230 ft to the north and dips away from the proposed well location. A vertical wellbore will not penetrate this, or any of the faults. There are four seafloor faults within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location. The planned wellbore will not penetrate any of these faults. Benthic Communities Assessment. There is no evidence of fluid migration to the seafloor within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-D. There are no seafloor amplitude anomalies or signs of gas migration within 2,000 ft of the proposed well (Map 4). There are no BSRs or other seismic indicators of gas hydrates within 2,000 ft of the proposed well. Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic or other benthic communities are not anticipated within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-D. Infrastructure. There is no existing infrastructure within 2,000 ft of Proposed Well MC 801-D. The closest infrastructure to the proposed well is an active gas pipeline (Segment No. 328605) located 2.6 miles to the north of the proposed well location (Map 4). The pipeline runs west to east across the northern portion of MC 801. No infrastructure is within 2,000 ft of the proposed well location; however, an active gas pipeline is located approximately 2.6 miles to the northeast. Archaeologic Assessment. All blocks in the Mississippi Canyon Protraction Area are regarded as being in a high probability zone for historic shipwrecks based on Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01 (BOEM/BSEE, 2011), including MC 801. Pursuant to the public information in the NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and Navigational Charts (NOAA, 2019); no shipwrecks are reported within MC 801. An archaeological survey and report were completed by Tesla Offshore, LLC. (Tesla) in 2008 and will be submitted to the BOEM under separate cover. For details about sonar contacts and avoidances within the Seafloor Assessment Area please refer to the Tesla Archaeological Assessment (2008).

Project No.: 19-07-18 21

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D Stratigraphy and Tophole Prognosis The wellsite assessment covers the subsurface conditions within a 500-ft radius from the proposed well path from the seafloor to the investigation limit of 7,000 ft BML. Six 3-D seismic marker horizons (Horizon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were interpreted at Proposed Well MC 801-D (Figure W-8). A generalized description of the stratigraphic sequences can be found in Section 1.4 of this report. The following is an assessment of the conditions that will be encountered at or near the borehole. Faults. The wellbore at the Proposed Well MC 801-D will not penetrate any apparent seafloor or buried faults (Map W-4; Figure W-8). A vertical wellbore will not intersect any seafloor or buried faults at the proposed location.

Seafloor to Horizon 1. The unit between the seafloor and Horizon 1 consists of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections overlying low-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections. These reflections are interpreted to represent fine-grained hemipelagic clays overlying stratified silts and clays. (Figure W-8). Horizon 1 is expected to be encountered at 301 ft BML (Map 5 and Figure W-8). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). This sequence is assessed as having a low potential for gas hydrates (Figure W-8). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas and a negligible potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-8). Horizon 1 to Horizon 2. The Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit consist of three intervals (Figure W-8). The upper interval is 340 ft thick and consists of low-amplitude, discontinuous reflections representing channel margin deposits consisting of clays, silts and thin sands. An interface at 641 ft BML marks the base of this interval (Figure W-8). The middle interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, semi- parallel and discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent overbank and levee deposits containing silts and thin sands (Figure W-8). The middle interval is 602 ft thick and extends from the interface at 641 ft BML to the interface at 1,243 ft BML. The lower interval contains moderate- amplitude, discontinuous to chaotic reflections interpreted to represent the SWF Blue Unit. The Blue Unit at the proposed location is 577 ft thick and contains silt and clay dominated turbidites with isolated sand intervals (Figure W-8). Horizon 2 marks the base of the Blue Unit, as well as the overall unit, and is mapped at 1,820 ft BML. The base of the gas hydrate stability zone (BGHSZ) at this water depth is estimated to be within the Horizon 1 to Horizon 2 unit at 1,279 ft BML based on Maekawa et al. (1995). There are four amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). The nearest anomaly is approximately 70 ft to the northeast of the proposed location. This anomaly, as well as the remaining three anomalies, are associated with the interface interpreted as an erosion surface that marks the top of the Blue Unit and display a peak over trough character. These anomalies are considered to represent lithologic variation and are not considered to indicate the presence of shallow gas. There is a low potential for gas hydrate from 301 ft BML to the BGHSZ at 1,279 ft BML and a negligible potential for gas hydrate from the BGHSZ at 1,279 ft BML to 1,820 ft BML (Figure W-8). There is a negligible potential for shallow gas from 301 ft BML to 1,243 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas from 1,243 ft BML to 1,820 ft BML. There is a negligible potential for SWF from 301 ft BML to 641 ft BML, a moderate potential for SWF from 641 ft BML to 1,243 ft BML, and a high potential for SWF from 1,243 ft BML to 1,820 ft BML (Figure W-8).

Project No.: 19-07-18 22

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D Horizon 2 to Horizon 3. The Horizon 2 to Horizon 3 unit contains an upper interval of moderate- to high-amplitude, subparallel and continuous reflections separated from an underlying interval of low- amplitude, semi-continuous to chaotic reflections by an interface at 2,414 ft BML (Figure W-8). The unit is interpreted to consist of an upper interval of sand-prone turbidites overlying a lower interval of clay and silt mass transport deposits with isolated, thin sands. The upper interval is 594 ft thick and the lower interval is 733 ft thick at the proposed well location. Horizon 3 is interpreted to be encountered at 3,147 ft BML (Figure W-8). There is one amplitude anomaly within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). The anomaly is located 380 ft to the northwest of the proposed location. This anomaly occurs in the sand- prone upper portion of the unit and may indicate shallow gas. There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-8). There is a moderate potential for shallow gas and SWF between Horizon 2 at 1,820 ft BML and the interface at 2,414 ft BML and a low potential for shallow gas and SWF from the interface at 2,414 ft BML to Horizon 3 at 3,147 ft BML (Figure W-8). Horizon 3 to Horizon 4. The unit between Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 contains intervals of low-amplitude, chaotic reflections alternating with intervals of moderate-amplitude, parallel and continuous reflections interpreted to represent stacked mass transport deposits (Figure W-8). Horizon 4 is mapped at 3,981 ft BML and the unit is 834 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-8). Horizon 4 to Horizon 5. The Horizon 4 to Horizon 5 unit consists of two intervals separated an interface at 4,400 ft BML (Figure W-8). The upper interval consists of moderate-amplitude, subparallel and semi-continuous reflectors interpreted to represent turbidites of silt and clay with thin sands possible. The upper interval is 419 ft thick at the proposed location. The lower interval consists of low- to moderate-amplitude, chaotic reflections representing silt and clay rich mass transport deposits with thin sand intervals possible (Figure W-8). The lower interval is 854 ft thick and Horizon 5 is mapped at 5,254 ft BML at the proposed location. There are two amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). These anomalies are located 425 and 450 ft to the northeast of the proposed location. Both of these anomalies are associated with the Horizon 5 reflector and are not considered to represent shallow gas. There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit. There is a low potential for shallow gas and SWF within this unit (Figure W-8). Horizon 5 to Horizon 6. The unit consists of low-amplitude, chaotic to semi-parallel, and discontinuous reflectors interpreted to represent clay-dominated mass transport deposits (Figure W-8). The unit is 1,245 ft thick and Horizon 6 is expected to be encountered at 6,499 ft BML (9,812 ft BSL; Map 6). There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates within this unit (Figure W-8). There is a low potential for shallow gas and a low potential for SWF within this unit (Figure W-8). Horizon 6 to Limit of Investigation (LOI). The unit below Horizon 6 consists of low- to moderate- amplitude, chaotic to subparallel, and semi-continuous reflectors (Figure W-8). These reflections are interpreted to represent stacked turbidites consisting of clay and silt, with potential sand-prone sediments Project No.: 19-07-18 23

Wellsite Evaluation Mississippi Canyon Area © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Proposed Well MC 801-D in the lower portion of the unit. The base of this unit is defined at 7,000 ft BML making the unit 501 ft thick. There are no amplitude anomalies within 500 ft of the proposed wellbore within this unit (Map 4). There is a negligible potential for gas hydrates, a moderate potential for shallow gas, and a low potential for SWF within this sequence (Figure W-8).

Project No.: 19-07-18 24 Legend Lithology Potential Ranking X = 836,271’ Mass Transport Deposit – MTD Clay Silt & Sand High Low Y = 10,217,883’ Base of Gas Hydrate Stability Zone – BGHSZ Clay & Silt Sand Moderate Negligible

NW MC 801-A SE MC801-A-AltMC801-A Prognosis SW MC 801-A NE MC801-AMC801-A-Alt MC MC MC MC Shallow Water Gas Hydrate Gas 801 845 Gas Shallow 801 802 Lithology Flow Line: 10950.0 11000.0 11050.0 11100.0 Line:Line: 11029.0 11029.0 11029.0 11029.0 Line: Trace: 11029 16875.011029 11029 1102916800.0 Time BML16725.0BSL 16650.0 Trace: 16784.0 11000 1105016784.011100 16784.0 16784.0 Trace: Horizon Trace: 16875 16800 16725 16650 (s) (ft)* (ft)* Predicted Lithology 16784 16784 16784 Offset:Dist. (ft) 0 2000 380004000 6000 8000 40000 42000 44000 46000 Offset:Dist. (ft) 0 180004000 6000 8000 2000010000 22000 24000 26000

1.300 Seafloor 1.329 0 3,276 Seafloor slope is 2.4°1.300to the west 1.300 1.300

Hemipelagic clay drape overlying stratified silt 1.400 1.400 1.400 1.400 Horizon 1 1.434 272 3,548 and clay-dominated deposits Channel margin deposits containing clays, silts, and 1.500 Interface 1.500 446 3,722 thin sands 1.500 1.500 1.500

1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600

Overbank and levee deposits containing clays, silts, 1.700 and thin sands 1.700 1.700 1.700 BGHSZ 1.781 1,214 4,490 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800

Interface 1.846 1,398 4,674 1.900 BLUE UNIT - Silt- and1.900 clay-dominated turbidite 1.900 1.900 deposits with isolated sands

2.000 Horizon 2 2.005 1,858 5,134 2.000 2.000 2.000

2.100 Undifferentiated sand2.100-prone turbidites containing 2.100 2.100 interbedded silts and clays Interface 2.187 2,402 5,678 2.200 2.200 2.200 2.200

2.300 Mass transport deposits2.300 containing silts and clays 2.300 2.300 with thin sands possible

2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 Horizon 3 2.437 3,179 6,455

2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 Stacked mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and clays 2.600 2.600 2.600 2.600 way Travel Time way Travel Time (sec) - Horizon 4 2.679 3,964 7,240

Two 2.700 Turbidites containing2.700 interbedded silts and clays 2.700 2.700 with possible thin sands Interface 2.784 4,315 7,591 2.800 2.800 2.800 2.800

Mass transport deposits containing silts, clays, and 2.900 isolated sands 2.900 2.900 2.900 Interface 2.970 4,953 8,229 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 Turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays Horizon 5 3.055 5,251 8,527

3.100 3.100 3.100 3.100

3.200 Clay-dominated MTD3.200 3.200 3.200

3.300 3.300 3.300 3.300 Horizon 6 3.359 6,350 9,626 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

Alternating turbidites containing clay and silt 3.500 becoming silt- and sand3.500-rich in lower portion 3.500 3.500

Limit of 3.600 Investigation 3.582 7,000 10,276 3.600 3.600 3.600

3.700 3.700 3.700 3.700

*Water depth error ±2%; BML depths ± 4%.

Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-A ©Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Figure W-2 Legend Lithology Potential Ranking X = 836,115’ Mass Transport Deposit – MTD Clay Silt & Sand High Low Y = 10,219,570’ Base of Gas Hydrate Stability Zone – BGHSZ Clay & Silt Sand Moderate Negligible

NW MC 801-B SE Prognosis SW MC 801-B NE MC801-B MC MC MC801-B MC MC Shallow Water Gas Hydrate Gas 801 845 Gas Shallow 845 801 Lithology Line: 11045.0 11045.0 11045.0 11045.0 Flow Line: 11025.0 11100.0 Line: 11045 11045 11045 Line: 11025 11100 Trace: 16950.0 16875.0 Time16800.0 BML BSL 16725.0 Trace: 16815.0 16815.0 Trace: Horizon Trace: 16875 16800 16725 (s) (ft)* (ft)* Predicted Lithology 16815 16815 Offset:Dist. (ft) 0 2000 360004000 6000 8000 38000 40000 42000 44000 Offset:Dist. (ft) 0 180002000 4000 6000 200008000 10000 22000 24000 26000 28000 1.300 1.300 1.300 1.300 Seafloor 1.350 0 3,326 Seafloor slope is 2.7° to the northwest

1.400 Hemipelagic clay drape1.400 overlying stratified silt 1.400 1.400 and clay-dominated deposits Horizon 1 1.454 269 3,595 Channel margin deposits containing clays, silts, and 1.500 Fault 1.485 351 3,677 1.500 1.500 1.500 Interface 1.536 486 3,812 thin sands

1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600

Overbank and levee deposits containing clays, silts, 1.700 and thin sands 1.700 1.700 1.700

1.800 Interface 1.806 1,226 4,552 1.800 1.800 1.800

BGHSZ 1.807 1,228 4,555 BLUE UNIT - Silt- and clay-dominated turbidite 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900 deposits with isolated sands Horizon 2 1.972 1,701 5,027 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000

Undifferentiated sand-prone turbidites containing 2.100 interbedded silts and2.100 clays 2.100 2.100 Interface 2.177 2,308 5,634 2.200 2.200 2.200 2.200

Mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and 2.300 clays 2.300 2.300 2.300

Horizon 3 2.388 2,958 6,284 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400

Stacked mass transport deposits containing sand, 2.500 silts, and clays 2.500 2.500 2.500 Horizon 4 2.585 3,587 6,913 2.600 2.600 2.600 2.600 way Travel Time way Travel Time (sec) - Turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays with possible thin sands Two 2.700 Interface 2.714 4,011 7,337 2.700 2.700 2.700

Mass transport deposits containing silts, clays, and 2.800 isolated sands 2.800 2.800 2.800 Interface 2.841 4,437 7,763

2.900 Turbidites containing2.900 interbedded silts and clays 2.900 2.900 Horizon 5 2.955 4,828 8,154 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000

3.100 Clay-dominated MTD3.100 3.100 3.100

3.200 3.200 3.200 3.200 Horizon 6 3.231 5,805 9,131

3.300 3.300 3.300 3.300

3.400 Alternating turbidites3.400 containing clay and silt 3.400 3.400 becoming silt- and sand-rich in lower portion

3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500

3.603 7,000 10,326 3.600 Limit of 3.600 3.600 3.600 Investigation

3.700 3.700 3.700 3.700

*Water depth error ±2%; BML depths ± 4%.

Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-B ©Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Figure W-4 Legend Lithology Potential Ranking X = 838,657’ Mass Transport Deposit – MTD Clay Silt & Sand High Low Y = 10,219,634’ Base of Gas Hydrate Stability Zone – BGHSZ Clay & Silt Sand Moderate Negligible

NW MC MC801-C801-C SE MC801-C Prognosis SW MC MC801-C801-C NE MC801-C MC MC MC MC Shallow Water Gas Hydrate Gas 801 802 Gas Shallow 801 802 Lithology Flow Line:Line:Line: 11073.0 11073.011073.0 11073.0 11073.011073.0 11073.0 11073.0 Line:Line:Line: 11025.0 11025.011100.0 11100.0 Trace:Trace: 1107316875.0 16875.01107316800.0 1107316725.0 1107316650.016800.0 Time 16725.0BML BSL 16650.0 Trace:Trace: 1102516773.0 16773.01110016773.0 16773.0 Trace: Horizon Trace: 16875 16800 16725 16650 (s) (ft)* (ft)* Predicted Lithology 16773 16773 Offset:Dist.Offset: (ft) 0 38000 20003800040000 4000 42000 6000 44000 8000 400004600010000 42000 44000 46000 Offset:Dist.Offset: (ft) 200000 20000200022000 400024000 60002600022000800028000 1000030000 24000 26000 28000 30000 1.3001.300 1.300 1.300 1.3001.300 1.300 1.300 Seafloor 1.356 0 3,341 Seafloor slope is 4.1° to the north-northeast Hemipelagic clay drape overlying stratified silt 1.4001.400 1.400Horizon 1 1.419 162 3,503 and clay-dominated deposits1.400 1.4001.400 1.400 1.400

1.5001.500 1.500 Channel margin deposits1.500 containing clays, silts, and 1.5001.500 1.500 1.500 thin sands

1.6001.600 1.600Interface 1.618 690 4,031 1.600 1.6001.600 1.600 1.600

Overbank and levee deposits containing clays, silts, 1.7001.700 1.700 1.700 1.7001.700 1.700 1.700 and thin sands Interface 1.770 1,108 4,449 1.8001.800 1.800 1.800 1.8001.800 1.800 1.800 BGHSZ 1.814 1,231 4,572 BLUE UNIT - Silt- and clay-dominated turbidite deposits with isolated sands 1.9001.900 1.900 1.900 1.9001.900 1.900 1.900 Horizon 2 1.962 1,654 4,995 2.0002.000 2.000 2.000 2.0002.000 2.000 2.000 Undifferentiated sand-prone turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays 2.1002.100 2.100Interface 2.126 2,137 5,478 2.100 2.1002.100 2.100 2.100

2.2002.200 2.200 2.200 2.2002.200 2.200 2.200 Mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and clays 2.3002.300 2.300 2.300 2.3002.300 2.300 2.300

Horizon 3 2.376 2,901 6,242 2.4002.400 2.400 2.400 2.4002.400 2.400 2.400 Stacked mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and clays 2.5002.500 2.500 2.500 2.5002.500 2.500 2.500 Horizon 4 2.543 3,432 6,773

2.6002.600 2.600 Turbidites containing2.600 interbedded silts and clays 2.6002.600 2.600 2.600 with possible thin sands way Travel Time way Travel Time (sec) - Interface 2.651 3,783 7,124

Two 2.7002.700 2.700 Mass transport deposits2.700 containing silts, clays, and 2.7002.700 2.700 2.700 isolated sands Interface 2.773 4,188 7,529 2.8002.800 2.800 2.800 2.8002.800 2.800 2.800 Turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays

2.9002.900 Horizon2.900 5 2.901 4,621 7,962 2.900 2.9002.900 2.900 2.900

3.0003.000 3.000 3.000 3.0003.000 3.000 3.000 Clay-dominated MTD

3.1003.100 3.100 3.100 3.1003.100 3.100 3.100 Horizon 6 3.155 5,510 8,851

3.2003.200 3.200 3.200 3.2003.200 3.200 3.200

3.3003.300 3.300 3.300 3.3003.300 3.300 3.300

3.4003.400 3.400 Alternating turbidites3.400 containing clay and silt with 3.4003.400 3.400 3.400 thin sands possible

3.5003.500 3.500 3.500 3.5003.500 3.500 3.500

3.6003.600 Limit3.600 of 3.609 7,000 10,341 3.600 3.6003.600 3.600 3.600 Investigation

3.7003.700 3.700 3.700 3.7003.700 3.700 3.700

*Water depth error ±2%; BML depths ± 4%.

Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-C ©Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Figure W-6 Legend Lithology Potential Ranking X = 833,435’ Mass Transport Deposit – MTD Clay Silt & Sand High Low Y = 10,217,487’ Base of Gas Hydrate Stability Zone – BGHSZ Clay & Silt Sand Moderate Negligible

NW MC 801MC801-D -D SE MC801-D Prognosis SW MC 801MC801-D -D NE MC801-D MC MC MC MC Shallow Water Gas Hydrate Gas 801 845 Gas Shallow 845 801 Lithology Flow Line:Line:Line:10994.010994.0 10994.0 10994.0 10994.010994.0 10994.0 10994.0 Line:Line:Line: 10950.0 10950.011025.0 11025.0 Trace:Trace:16950.016950.0 1099416875.0 1099416800.0 16875.01099416725.0 16800.0Time BML BSL 16725.0 Trace:Trace: 1095016826.0 16826.01102516826.0 16826.0 Trace: Horizon Trace: 16875 16800 16725 (s) (ft)* (ft)* Predicted Lithology 16826 16826 Offset:Dist.Offset: (ft) 360000 36000200038000 400040000 600042000 38000800044000 46000 40000 42000 44000 46000 Offset:Dist.Offset: (ft) 0 16000 2000 18000160004000 20000 6000 22000 8000 180002400010000 20000 22000 24000 1.3001.300 1.300 1.300 1.3001.300 1.300 1.300 Seafloor 1.344 0 3,313 Seafloor slope is 0.8° to the northwest

Hemipelagic clay drape overlying stratified silt 1.4001.400 1.400 1.400 1.4001.400 1.400 1.400 and clay-dominated deposits Horizon 1 1.460 301 3,614

1.5001.500 1.500 Channel margin deposits1.500 containing clays, silts, and 1.5001.500 1.500 1.500 thin sands Interface 1.588 641 3,954 1.6001.600 1.600 1.600 1.6001.600 1.600 1.600

Overbank and levee deposits containing clays, silts, 1.7001.700 1.700 and thin sands 1.700 1.7001.700 1.700 1.700 BGHSZ 1.800 1,225 4,539 1.8001.800 1.800Interface 1.806 1,243 4,556 1.800 1.8001.800 1.800 1.800 BLUE UNIT - Silt- and clay-dominated turbidite 1.9001.900 1.900 deposits with isolated1.900 sands 1.9001.900 1.900 1.900

2.0002.000 2.000Horizon 2 2.007 1,820 5,133 2.000 2.0002.000 2.000 2.000

2.1002.100 2.100 2.100 2.1002.100 2.100 2.100 Undifferentiated sand-prone turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays 2.2002.200 2.200 2.200 2.2002.200 2.200 2.200 Interface 2.260 2,414 5,727 2.3002.300 2.300 2.300 2.3002.300 2.300 2.300 Mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and clays 2.4002.400 2.400 2.400 2.4002.400 2.400 2.400 Horizon 3 2.442 3,147 6,460

2.5002.500 2.500 2.500 2.5002.500 2.500 2.500 Stacked mass transport deposits containing sand, silts, and clays 2.6002.600 2.600 2.600 2.6002.600 2.600 2.600 way Travel Time way Travel Time (sec) - Horizon 4 2.699 3,981 7,294 Two 2.7002.700 2.700 2.700 2.7002.700 2.700 2.700 Turbidites containing interbedded silts and clays with possible thin sands 2.8002.800 2.800Interface 2.824 4,400 7,713 2.800 2.8002.800 2.800 2.800

2.9002.900 2.900 2.900 2.9002.900 2.900 2.900 Mass transport deposits containing silts, clays, and isolated sands 3.0003.000 3.000 3.000 3.0003.000 3.000 3.000 Horizon 5 3.071 5,254 8,567 3.1003.100 3.100 3.100 3.1003.100 3.100 3.100

3.2003.200 3.200 3.200 3.2003.200 3.200 3.200 Clay-dominated MTD

3.3003.300 3.300 3.300 3.3003.300 3.300 3.300

3.4003.400 3.400Horizon 6 3.414 6,499 9,812 3.400 3.4003.400 3.400 3.400

3.5003.500 3.500 Alternating turbidites3.500 containing clay and silt with 3.5003.500 3.500 3.500 thin sands possible Limit of 3.596 7,000 10,313 3.6003.600 3.600 3.600 3.6003.600 3.600Investigation 3.600

3.7003.700 3.700 3.700 3.7003.700 3.700 3.700

*Water depth error ±2%; BML depths ± 4%.

Seismic sections with tophole prognosis for Proposed Well MC 801-D ©Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019 Figure W-8 835,000 E 835,000 E 840,000 Legend Î Lat/Long Grid Points

UTM Northing and Easting Grid Lines ³ (! Proposed Well MC 801 MC 802 2,000-ft Radius Circle GG36558 GG35985 EQUINOR SHELL 10-ft Contours

50-ft Contours

Depths 10,220,000 N (Below Sea Level) 3,191 ft

X = 836,271 ft Y = 10,217,883 ft 28° 08' 03.210" N 89° 29' 43.686" W 3 3,249 ft FEL 1,083 ft FSL , 40 0

Grid Information: Data Source: 3-D Seismic Method: Kriging Spacing: 50 ft Search Radius: 150 ft

MC 801-A (!

28°8'0"N 3,452 ft **IMPORTANT NOTICE** This map is not intended for navigation purposes. Public information obtained from BOEM database (October 2019).

Geodetic Datum: NAD27 Interpretation By: J.Keenan Projection: UTM Cartography: T. Nguyen Zone: 16N Project No.: 19-07-18 Grid Units: Feet Date: October 2019 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet 0

5 4 Scale =1:12,000 3 , , 3 3 3 , 3 0 0 0 0

0 5 ,3 3

Block 801

2 10,215,000 N Mississippi Canyon Area

, 3 Gulf of Mexico

MC 845 MC 846 Map W-1 GG35986 OPEN Bathymetry SHELL Proposed Well MC 801-A 00 3,2 Lease No. G36558

Map Prepared by: Berger Geosciences, LLC. © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019

3, 200 89°30'0"W 89°29'0"W 835,000 E 835,000 E 840,000

00 Legend 3,4 3,400 0 Î Lat/Long Grid Points 0

, 3 UTM Northing and Easting Grid Lines

28°9'0"N 0 40 (! Proposed Well ³ 3, 2,000-ft Radius Circle

10-ft Contours

MC 801 MC 802 50-ft Contours GG36558 GG35985 EQUINOR SHELL

Depths (Below Sea Level) 3,195 ft X = 836,115 ft Y = 10,219,570 ft 28° 08' 19.873" N 89° 29' 45.815" W 3,405 ft FEL 2,770 ft FSL

Grid Information: Data Source: 3-D Seismic Method: Kriging Spacing: 50 ft Search Radius: 150 ft 10,220,000 N 3, 350

MC 801-B (! 3 ,4 3,450 ft 0 0 **IMPORTANT NOTICE** This map is not intended for navigation purposes. Public information obtained from BOEM database (October 2019).

Geodetic Datum: NAD27 Interpretation By: J.Keenan Projection: UTM Cartography: T. Nguyen Zone: 16N Project No.: 19-07-18 Grid Units: Feet Date: October 2019 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Scale =1:12,000

28°8'0"N

Block 801 Mississippi Canyon Area Gulf of Mexico

3 , 3 0 Map W-2 0 Bathymetry

3,300 Proposed Well MC 801-B 3

, 2 Lease No. G36558 5 0 MC 845 MC 846 GG35986 OPEN Map Prepared by: Berger Geosciences, LLC. SHELL © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019

5 3 2 , 10,215,000 N , 40 3 0 0 3,20 89°30'0"W 89°29'0"W 835,000 E 835,000 E 840,000 Legend 00 ,4 3,400 3 3 Î , Lat/Long Grid Points 4

0 UTM Northing and Easting Grid Lines

28°9'0"N 0 (! 0 Proposed Well 4 , ³ 3 2,000-ft Radius Circle MC 801 MC 802 GG36558 GG35985 10-ft Contours EQUINOR SHELL 50-ft Contours

Depths (Below Sea Level) 3,195 ft

X = 838,657 ft Y = 10,219,634 ft 28° 08' 21.023" N 89° 29' 17.452" W 863 ft FEL 2,834 ft FSL

Grid Information: Data Source: 3-D Seismic Method: Kriging Spacing: 50 ft Search Radius: 150 ft 10,220,000 N

MC 801-C (! 3,514 ft

**IMPORTANT NOTICE** This map is not intended for navigation purposes. Public information obtained from BOEM database (October 2019).

Geodetic Datum: NAD27 Interpretation By: J.Keenan Projection: UTM Cartography: T. Nguyen Zone: 16N Project No.: 19-07-18 Grid Units: Feet Date: October 2019 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

0 Scale =1:12,000 0

28°8'0"N

Block 801 Mississippi Canyon Area Gulf of Mexico

Map W-3 MC 845 MC 846 Bathymetry GG35986 OPEN 3, 45 Proposed Well MC 801-C 3,300 SHELL 0 0 5 Lease No. G36558 ,3 3 Map Prepared by: Berger Geosciences, LLC. © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019

2 3 , ,4 10,215,000 N 3 00 0 0 0 ,20 ,5 89°30'0"W 3 89°29'0"W 3 830,000 E 830,000 E 835,000 Legend Î Lat/Long Grid Points

UTM Northing and Easting Grid Lines

MC 801 (! Proposed Well GG36558 ³ EQUINOR 2,000-ft Radius Circle 3 ,4 00 10-ft Contours

50-ft Contours

10,220,000 N

Depths (Below Sea Level) 3,121 ft

X = 833,435 ft Y = 10,217,487 ft

3 28° 07' 58.713" N 89° 30' 15.254" W , 3

6,085 ft FEL 687 ft FSL 0

Grid Information: Data Source: 3-D Seismic Method: Kriging Spacing: 50 ft Search Radius: 150 ft

28°8'0"N MC 801-D (! 3,427 ft

, **IMPORTANT NOTICE**

0 This map is not intended for navigation purposes. 0 Public information obtained from BOEM database (October 2019).

10,215,000 N Block 801 Mississippi Canyon Area MC 845 Gulf of Mexico GG35986 SHELL Map W-4 00 3,2 Bathymetry Proposed Well MC 801-D Lease No. G36558 3,200

1 , 00 Map Prepared by: 3 3,3 Berger Geosciences, LLC. © Berger Geosciences, LLC. 2019

50 0 3,2 3,35 89°31'0"W 89°30'0"W

SECTION 4 HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

4.1 CONCENTRATION

Equinor anticipates encountering zero ppm H2S during the proposed operations.

4.2 CLASSIFICATION In accordance with Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), Equinor requests that the area of proposed operations be classified by the BOEM as H2S absent.

4.3 H2S CONTINGENCY PLAN

An H2S Contingency Plan is not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

4.4 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 4 – Pg. 9 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 5 BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

5.1 DEEPWATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES The seafloor disturbing activities proposed in this plan are in water depths greater than 300 meters (984’). Berger Geosciences, LLC was contracted to provide an assessment of the shallow conditions at the proposed surface locations. The purpose of the assessment was to address seafloor conditions that may impact exploratory drilling operations within 2,000 feet of the proposed well sites. Equinor will avoid all high-density deepwater benthic communities by 2,000 feet from each proposed mud and cuttings discharge location and 250 feet from the location of all other seafloor disturbances. As per NTL No. 2009-G40, “Deepwater Benthic Communities,” a map showing the 2,000 foot radius around the well site is included as Attachment 3-D

5.2 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES (BANKS) Activities proposed in this EP do not fall within 305 meters (1000 feet) of a topographic “No Activity Zone;” therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.3 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES STATEMENT (SHUNTING) Activities proposed under this EP will be conducted outside all Topographic Feature Protective Zones; therefore, shunting of drill cuttings and drilling fluids is not required per NTL No. 2009- G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.4 LIVE BOTTOMS (PINNACLE TREND FEATURES) Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located within 61 meters (200 feet) of any pinnacle trend feature; therefore, a separate bathymetric map is not required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.5 LIVE BOTTOMS (LOW RELIEF) Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of any live bottom (low relief) feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet; therefore, live bottom (low relief) maps are not required per NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas.”

5.6 POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES MAP Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located within 30 meters (100 feet) of potentially sensitive biological features. In accordance with NTL No. 2009-G39, “Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas,” biologically sensitive area maps are not required.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 5 – Pg. 10 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

5.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND MARINE MAMMAL INFORMATION The federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the Gulf Coast are provided in the table below.

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in the Gulf of Mexico Lease Coastal Area Marine Mammals Manatee, West Trichechus manatus latirostris E -- X Florida (peninsular) Indian Whale, Blue Balaenoptera masculus E X* -- None Whale, Bryde’s Balaenoptera edeni E X* -- None Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus E X* -- None Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae E X* -- None Whale, North Eubalaena glacialis E X* -- None Atlantic Right Whale, Sei Balaenopiera borealis E X* -- None Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon E X -- None (=macrocephalus) Terrestrial Mammals Mouse, Beach Peromyscus polionotus E - X Alabama, Florida (panhandle) (Alabama, beaches Choctawatchee, Perdido Key, St. Andrew) Birds Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus T - X Coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida (panhandle) Crane, Whooping Grus Americana E - X Coastal Texas Reptiles Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas T X X None

Sea Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Lepidochelys kempli E X X None Ridley Sea Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea E X X None Leatherback Sea Turtle, Caretta caretta T X X Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Loggerhead Alabama, Florida Sharks and Fishes Oceanic Whitetip Carcharhinus longimanus T X -- None Shark Giant Manta Ray Manta Birostris T X X None Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus T X X Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi Alabama and Florida (panhandle) Corals Coral, Elkhorn Acopora palmate T - X Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas

Coral, Staghorn Acopora cervicornis T - X Florida Abbreviations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened * The Blue Fin, Bryde’s, Humpback, North Atlantic Right, and Sei Whales are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are unlikely to be present in the lease area.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 5 – Pg. 12 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

5.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT A report entitled Deep Tow Survey, Block 801, OCS-G 32350, Mississippi Canyon Area, Offshore Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico, prepared by Tesla Offshore LLC was submitted by LLOG Exploration Offshore, L.L.C. in 2009, Plan Control No. N-9372 and is referenced in the most recent Wellsite Clearance Letters submitted with this Exploration Plan.

5.9 AIR AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Air and water quality information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL No. 2008- G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents.”

5.10 SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Socioeconomic information is not required to be included in this plan per NTL No. 2008-G04, “Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents.”

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 5 – Pg. 12 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 6 WASTES AND DISCHARGES INFORMATION

6.1 PROJECTED GENERATED WASTES “Wastes You Will Generate, Treat and Downhole Dispose or Discharge to the Gulf of Mexico” is included as Attachment 6-A.

6.2 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 6 – Pg. 13 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

TABLE 1. WASTES YOU WILL GENERATE, TREAT AND DOWNHOLE DISPOSE OR DISCHARGE TO THE GOM please specify if the amount reported is a total or per well amount Projected Downhole Projected generated waste Projected ocean discharges Disposal

Type of Waste and Composition Composition Projected Amount Discharge rate per well Discharge Method Answer yes or no Will drilling occur ? If yes, you should list muds and cuttin

Water-based drilling fluid 114,970 bbls/well 11,497 bbls/day/well seafloor No Cuttings w\gel\mud\fresh and Cuttings wetted with water-based fluid salt water 3,917 bbls/well 391 bbls/day/well seafloor No

Cuttings w\SBM 8.6 - 17.0 ppg Cuttings wetted with synthetic-based fluid SBM 5,054 bbls/well 40 bbls/day/well overboard No Will humans be there? If yes, expect conventional waste remove floating solids and Domestic waste (kitchen water, shower water) grey water 18,060 bbls/well 129 bbls/day/well discharge No Sanitary waste (toilet water) treated sanitary waste 12,040 bbls/well 86 bbls/day/well chlorinate and discharge No

Is there a deck? If yes, there will be Deck Drainage filter oil & grease and Deck Drainage Rainfall & Potable Water 14,280 bbls/well 102 bbls/day/well discharge No Will you conduct well treatment, completion, or workover? well treatment fluids NA NA NA NA No well completion fluids NA NA NA NA No workover fluids NA NA NA NA No Miscellaneous discharges. If yes, only fill in those associated with your activity. Desalinization unit discharge Max Capacity 15,400 bbls/well 110 bbls/day/well discharge overboard No Blowout preventer fluid Stack Magic ECO-FV2 243 bbls/well 1.8 bbls/day/well discharge at seafloor No Ballast water Sea Water 7,000 bbls/well 50 bbl/day/well discharge overboard No Bilge water Oil/Water Mixture 1,820 bbls/well 13 bbls/day/well discharge overboard No Excess cement at seafloor Class H 1,500 bbls/well 8 bbls/min/well discharge at seafloor No Fire water Sea Water 21,000 bbls/well 150 bbls/day/well discharge overboard No Cooling water Sea Water 186,415,320 bbls/well 1,331,538 bbls/day/well discharge overboard No Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in for produced water. Produced water NA NA NA NA

Will you be covered by an individual or general NPDES permit ? GMG290000

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

SECTION 7 AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

7.1 EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS AND SCREENING QUESTIONS Screen Questions for EP’s Yes No Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (tons) associated with X your proposed exploration activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the following formulas: CT = 3400D2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants (where D = distance to shore in miles)? Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or X modified emission factors? Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87.5° W longitude? X Do you expect to encounter H2S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per X million (ppm)? Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours X from any proposed well? Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X

7.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION Included as Attachment 7-A are Air Emission Worksheets which show the emissions calculations for the Plan Emissions and if different, a set of worksheets showing the emissions calculations for the Complex Total Emissions.

This information was calculated by: Kelley Pisciola 281-698-8519 [email protected]

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 7 – Pg. 14 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

OMB Control No. 1010-0151 EXPLORATION PLAN (EP) OMB Approval Expires: 06/30/2021 AIR QUALITY SCREENING CHECKLIST

COMPANY Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC AREA Mississippi Canyon BLOCK 801 LEASE OCS-G 36558 PLATFORM N/A WELL A, AST, B, C, D and E

COMPANY CONTACT Kelley Pisciola TELEPHONE NO. 281-698-8519 Ultra-low sulfur diesel factor used. Drill and TA/PA wells using a Drillship (Discover Inspiration or similar drillship). Emission calculations used actual max fuel usage data plus a 40% contingency factor based on enclosed REMARKS Discover Inspiration fuel usage records.

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 1 of 9 EMISSIONS FACTORS

Fuel Usage Conversion Factors Natural Gas Turbines Natural Gas Engines Diesel Recip. Engine REF. DATE SCF/hp-hr 9.524 SCF/hp-hr 7.143 GAL/hp-hr 0.0483 AP42 3.2-1 4/76 & 8/84

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

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

Diesel Recip. < 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 1 0.005505 14 1.12 3.03 AP42 3.3-1 10/96 Diesel Recip. > 600 hp. gms/hp-hr 0.32 0.005505 11 0.33 2.4 AP42 3.4-1 10/96 Diesel Boiler lbs/bbl 0.084 0.009075 0.84 0.008 0.21 AP42 1.3-12,14 9/98

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

Sulphur Content Source Value Units Fuel Gas 3.33 ppm Diesel Fuel 0.0015 % weight Produced Gas( Flares) 3.33 ppm Produced Oil (Liquid Flaring) 1 % weight

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 2 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 1ST YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

Ultra-low sulfur diesel factor used. Drill and TA/PA wells using a Drillship Equinor Gulf of Mexico (Discover Inspiration or similar drillship). Emission calculations used actual max Mississippi Canyon 801 OCS-G 36558 N/A A, AST, B, C, D and E Kelley Pisciola 281-698-8519 LLC fuel usage data plus a 40% contingency factor based on enclosed Discover Inspiration fuel usage records. OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HPGAL/HRGAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D D/YR PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO DRILLING* PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 21509 1038.8847 24933.23 24 140 15.16 0.26 521.14 15.63 113.70 25.47 0.44 875.52 26.27 191.02 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 7200 347.76 8346.24 8 20 5.07 0.09 174.45 5.23 38.06 0.41 0.01 13.96 0.42 3.04 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 9468 457.3044 10975.31 12 20 6.67 0.11 229.40 6.88 50.05 0.80 0.01 27.53 0.83 6.01 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FACILITY DERRICK BARGE diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSTALLATION MATERIAL TUG diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2020 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

*21509 was calculated based on 2017-2018 fuel usage for the Discover Inspiration Drillship with a 40% contingency factor added (1.4 X max fuel usage). Because the max lb/hr emissions in the AQR sheet are calculated based on the HP of the engine, this approach was used so that the emission calculation formulas in the AQR sheet did not have to be modified. The HP calculation details are: 24934 gal/day (actual max fuel usage + 40% contingency) / 24/hr/day / 0.0483 gal/HP-hr (Fuel Usage Conversion Factor included in "Factor" sheet of AQR) = 21509 HP.

BOEM FORM 0138 June 2018- Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 3 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 2ND YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2021 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

BOEM FORM 0138 June 2018- Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 4 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 3RD YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS Ultra-low sulfur diesel factor used. Drill and TA/PA wells using a Drillship (Discover Inspiration or Equinor Gulf of Mexico Mississippi Canyon 801 OCS-G 36558 N/A A, AST, B, C, D and E Kelley Pisciola 281-698-8519 similar drillship). Emission calculations used actual max fuel usage data plus a 40% contingency LLC factor based on enclosed Discover Inspiration fuel usage records. OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HPGAL/HRGAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D D/YR PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO DRILLING* PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 21509 1038.8847 24933.23 24 140 15.16 0.26 521.14 15.63 113.70 25.47 0.44 875.52 26.27 191.02 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 7200 347.76 8346.24 8 20 5.07 0.09 174.45 5.23 38.06 0.41 0.01 13.96 0.42 3.04 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 9468 457.3044 10975.31 12 20 6.67 0.11 229.40 6.88 50.05 0.80 0.01 27.53 0.83 6.01 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2022 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 5 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 4TH YEAR

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL CONTACT PHONE REMARKS Ultra-low sulfur diesel factor used. Drill and TA/PA wells using a Drillship (Discover Equinor Gulf of Mexico Inspiration or similar drillship). Emission calculations used actual max fuel usage Mississippi Canyon 801 OCS-G 36558 N/A A, AST, B, C, D and E Kelley Pisciola 281-698-8519 LLC data plus a 40% contingency factor based on enclosed Discover Inspiration fuel usage records. OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATING MAX. FUEL ACT. FUEL RUN TIME MAXIMUM POUNDS PER HOUR ESTIMATED TONS Diesel Engines HP GAL/HR GAL/D Nat. Gas Engines HP SCF/HR SCF/D Burners MMBTU/HR SCF/HR SCF/D HR/D D/YR PM SOx NOx VOC CO PM SOx NOx VOC CO DRILLING* PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 21509 1038.8847 24933.23 24 140 15.16 0.26 521.14 15.63 113.70 25.47 0.44 875.52 26.27 191.02 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRIME MOVER>600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURNER diesel 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AUXILIARY EQUIP<600hp diesel 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(crew) 7200 347.76 8346.24 8 20 5.07 0.09 174.45 5.23 38.06 0.41 0.01 13.96 0.42 3.04 1 / week VESSELS>600hp diesel(supply) 9468 457.3044 10975.31 12 20 6.67 0.11 229.40 6.88 50.05 0.80 0.01 27.53 0.83 6.01 VESSELS>600hp diesel(tugs) 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2023 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 6 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 5TH YEAR

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2024 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018- Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 7 of 9 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 6TH YEAR

MISC. BPD SCF/HR COUNT TANK- 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

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

2025 YEAR TOTAL 26.91 0.46 924.99 27.75 201.82 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07

EXEMPTION DISTANCE FROM LAND IN CALCULATION MILES 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32 55.0

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018- Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 8 of 9 SUMMARY

COMPANY AREA BLOCK LEASE PLATFORM WELL Equinor Gulf of Mississippi Canyon 801 OCS-G 36558 N/A A, AST, B, C, D and E Mexico LLC Emitted Substance Year

PM SOx NOx VOC CO 2020 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 2021 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 2022 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 2023 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 2024 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 2025 26.68 0.46 917.00 27.51 200.07 Allowable 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 1831.50 49172.32

BOEM FORM 0138 (June 2018 - Supersedes all previous versions of this form which may not be used). Page 9 of 9 Fuel Usage

Month gal/mth avg gal/day Jan-17 467,064 15,066.58 Feb-17 362,709 12,953.89 Mar-17 424,402 13,690.39 Apr-17 410,520 13,684.00 May-17 430,514 13,887.55 Jun-17 422,864 14,095.47 Jul-17 429,878 13,867.03 Aug-17 427,018 13,774.77 Sep-17 445,768 14,858.93 Oct-17 475,278 15,331.55 Nov-17 420,826 14,027.53 Dec-17 449,885 14,512.42 Jan-18 413,165 13,327.90 Feb-18 364,728 13,026.00 Mar-18 419,505 13,532.42 Apr-18 496,605 16,553.50 May-18 552,100 17,809.68 Jun-18 474,180 15,806.00 Jul-18 478,142 15,423.94 Aug-18 444,866 14,350.52 Sep-18 441,960 14,732.00 Oct-18 440,104 14,196.90 Nov-18 411,052 13,701.73 Dec-18 435,082 14,034.90 Average 14,426.90 MAX 17,809.68

SECTION 8 OIL SPILL INFORMATION

8.1 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING All the proposed activities and facilities in this EP will be covered by the Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) filed by Equinor USA E&P Inc. (Company No. 02528), last approved on March 27, 2020 (OSRP Control No. O-735). The following operators are covered under this OSRP:

Equinor USA E&P Inc. (Company No. 02528) Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC (Company No. 02748)

8.2 SPILL RESPONSE SITES Primary Response Equipment Location Preplanned Staging Location Houma, Louisiana Houma, Louisiana Leeville, Louisiana Fourchon, Louisiana Venice, Louisiana Venice, Louisiana

8.3 OSRO INFORMATION Equinor’s primary equipment provider is Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) and Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC). Clean Gulf Associates Services, LLC (CGAS) will provide closest available personnel, as well as a supervisor to operate the equipment and MSRC personnel are responsible for operating MSRC response equipment.

8.4 WORST CASE SCENARIO DETERMINATION Category Regional OSRP EP WCD - Drilling WCD - Drilling Type of activity Drilling Drilling Facility location (area/block) MC 801 MC 801 Facility designation A A Distance to nearest shoreline (miles) 55 55 Storage tanks (bbl) NA NA Uncontrolled blowout (bbl) 295,203 295,203 Total volume (bbl) 295,203 295,203 Type of oil(s) Crude Crude (crude, condensate, diesel) API gravity 29° 29°

Equinor has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this EP does not supersede the worst-case scenario from our approved Regional OSRP.

Since Equinor has the capability to respond to the worst-case spill scenario included in our Regional OSRP last approved March 27, 2020, and since the worst-case scenario determined for our EP does not replace the worst-case scenario in our Regional OSRP, Equinor hereby

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 8 – Pg. 16 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

certifies that Equinor has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in this EP.

8.5 OIL SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION The Oil Spill Response Discussion is included as Attachment 8-A.

8.6 MODELING REPORT Modeling reports are not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 8 – Pg. 17 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SPILL RESPONSE DISCUSSION

For the purpose of NEPA and Coastal Zone Management Act analysis, the largest spill volume originating from the proposed activity would be a well blowout during drilling operations, estimated to be 295,203 barrels of crude oil with an API gravity of 29°.

Land Segment and Resource Identification

Trajectories of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website. The results are shown in Figure 2. The BOEM OSRAM identifies an 8% probability of impact to the shorelines of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana within 30 days. Plaquemines Parish includes Barataria Bay, the Mississippi River Delta, Breton Sound and the affiliated islands and bays. This region is an extremely sensitive habitat and serves as a migratory, breeding, feeding and nursery habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Beaches in this area vary in grain particle size and can be classified as fine sand, shell or perched shell beaches. Sandy and muddy tidal flats are also abundant. Figure 1 contains a list of environmental sensitivities found in Plaquemines Parish.

Figure 1 – Environmental Sensitivities

Sensitive Areas Descriptions Access Wildlife Contact 1) DELTA 48,800 acres of marsh, shallow By boat only. RTE: Delta NWR NATIONAL ponds, channels and bayous. Brown pelican, American Bayou Lacombe Centre WILDLIFE Provides a winter sanctuary for alligator 61389 Hwy 434 REFUGE migratory waterfowl such as Lacombe, LA 70445 snow geese and more than 18 Others: Phone: (985) 882-2000 species of ducks. Also the home Waterfowl (winter), peregrine of many other water birds and falcon, sea birds, shore birds, various wildlife species. bass, bream, catfish, crappie, drum, garfish, redfish, speckled trout, flounder, nutria, mink, otter, muskrat, raccoon, white- tailed deer 2) PASS A 66,000 acres characterized by By boat only, RTE: Pass A Loutre WMA LOUTRE river channels with attendant however, the Brown pelican, American Hammond Field Office WILDLIFE pass banks, natural bayous and tributaries along the alligator 42371 Phyllis Ann Drive MANAGEMENT man-made canals which are Mississippi River Hammond, LA 70403 AREA interspersed with intermediate provide excellent Others: Phone (985) 543-4777 and fresh marshes. Furbearers traveling passages. Waterfowl (winter), peregrine and alligators are fairly common The nearest public falcon, sea birds, shore birds, in the marsh. Freshwater finfish launches are in bass, bream, catfish, crappie, flourish in the interior marsh Venice. drum, watermouth, garfish, ponds. redfish, speckled trout, flounder, nutria, mink, otter, muskrat, raccoon, white-tailed deer 3) FINE SAND Beaches with low slopes and a By boat only. N/A BEACHES grain-size of 0.625 to 0.200 mm. Low percentage of shells and hash. Major fine sand beaches on the delta plain are found at Southwest Pass, Pelican Island and Chandeleur Island. 4) PERCHED Shoreline type where a thin shell By boat only. N/A SHELL beach overlies a fresh or salt BEACHES marsh with an eroded marsh platform outcropping in the surf zone. Organic debris is common to this shoreline type. Where the marsh platform outcrops on the shoreline, it can become re-vegetated by marsh grass.

1 Sensitive Areas Descriptions Access Wildlife Contact 5) SHELL Shoreline types comprised of By boat only. N/A BEACHES almost entirely of shell. Shell material may be in the form of shell hash or whole shells. Shell beaches form extremely steep beach faces. Major shell beaches on the delta plain are found at Point Au Fer and Shell Island. 6) MUDDY TIDAL Shoreline types comprised of By boat only. N/A FLATS broad intertidal areas consisting of mud and minor amounts of shell hash. The grain-size is smaller than 0.0625 mm. Muddy tidal flats are typically found in association with prograding river mouths. Major muddy tidal flats on the delta plain are found at the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River mouths. 7) SANDY TIDAL Shoreline types comprised of By boat only. N/A FLATS broad intertidal areas consisting of fine and coarse grain sand and minor amounts of shell hash. Mean grain size is between 0.0625 and 0.4 mm. Typically found in association with barrier island and tidal inlet systems. This type of flat is submerged during each tidal cycle and at low tide may be 100-200 m wide. Slight changes in water levels can produce significant shoreline changes. Low water levels can expose extensive tidal flat areas to oiling. Major sandy tidal flats on the delta plain are found at Barataria Bay and the Mississippi River mouth.

Areas of Socio-Economic Concern in Plaquemines Parish:  Commercial fishing routes o South Pass o Tiger Pass o Barataria Waterway

Protection Priorities for Plaquemines Parish:  Delta National Wildlife Refuge  Pass-A-Loutre Wildlife Management Area  Other coastal marshes

2 Response

General Considerations for all Oil Spill Recovery Operations (Refer to the Tactics discussion below for more detail)

Equinor will use all appropriate measures possible to safely and efficiently recover all oil spills from its facilities. These include but are not limited to:  Conducting detailed safety analyses on all operations and preparing/disseminating resulting safety plans to all response personnel  Use of tactics described in the most current MSRC Gulf Area Tactics Guide Book and CGA Equipment Guide Book and Tactic Manual and any other appropriate tactics developed during the event  Configuring all surface recovery systems to achieve maximum throughput and recovery efficiency rates: o Maximization of the use of advanced and adverse weather recovery systems to increase oil to recovery system encounter rates o Use of vessels with the largest possible onboard recovered oil storage to minimize off-load times o Use of appropriate vessels to deploy ocean boom to form the widest practical width to maximize oil to recovery system encounter rate o Use of appropriate recovery systems to maximize recovery rate in all operable environmental conditions  Early deployment of MSRC’s Responder class OSRVs and large OSRBs along with CGA’s 95’ vessels and HOSS Barge to recover and store oil while minimizing rig/derig and transit time, maximizing onboard storage and on-station time  Obtaining early approval for decanting of oil to maximize storage capacity  Use of most efficient, high volume pumps for oil recovery and decanting, offloading and lightering  Use of advanced technology (such as thermal infrared and multi-spectral cameras) to detect oil on the water’s surface and classify it as recoverable or non-recoverable. This will allow more efficient use of on-water recovery task forces, maximize recovery rates and expand operational windows. This advanced technology is effective in both day and night time surveillance activities depending upon atmospheric conditions  Early consideration of advanced oil removal methods (e.g. dispersant application and in- situ burning) and coordination/consultation with the USCG and appropriate Regional Response Team for obtaining permission to proceed as necessary  Providing effective communication systems to allow for the command and control of deployed resources to ensure safety, reduce response times, and collect information necessary to develop a comprehensive, timely, and accurate Common Operating Picture (COP)

3 Equinor will make every effort to respond to the Worst Case Discharge as effectively as practicable. A description of the response equipment under contract to contain and recover the Worst Case Discharge is shown in Figure 2.

Using the estimated chemical and physical characteristics of crude oil, an ADIOS weathering model was run on a similar product from the ADIOS oil database. The results indicate 9% or approximately 26,568 barrels of crude oil would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours, with approximately 268,635 barrels remaining.

Spill Response MC 801, Well Location A Barrels of Oil WCD Volume 295,203 Less 9% natural evaporation/dispersion 26,568 Remaining volume 268,635

Figure 3 outlines equipment, personnel, materials and support vessels as well as temporary storage equipment available to respond to the worst case discharge. The volume accounts for the amount remaining after evaporation/dispersion at 24 hours. The list estimates individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Figure 3 also indicates how operations will be supported.

Equinor’s Oil Spill Response Plan includes alternative response technologies such as dispersants and in-situ burn. Strategies will be decided by Unified Command based on an operations safety analysis, the size of the spill, weather and potential impacts. If aerial dispersants are utilized, 8 sorties (9,600 gallons) from two of the DC-3 aircrafts and 4 sorties (8,000 gallons) from the Basler aircraft would provide a daily dispersant capability of 7,540 barrels. If the conditions are favorable for in-situ burning, the proper approvals have been obtained and the proper planning is in place, in-situ burning of oil may be attempted. Slick containment boom would be immediately called out and on-scene as soon as possible. Offshore response strategies may include attempting to skim utilizing CGA and MSRC spill response equipment, with a total derated skimming capacity of 1,189,841 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 407,896 barrels. If additional storage is needed, various tank barges with a total of 1.31 million+ barrels of storage capacity may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage and minimize off-loading time. Safety is first priority. Air monitoring will be accomplished and operations deemed safe prior to any containment/skimming attempts.

If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would depend upon existing environmental conditions. Shoreline protection would include the use of CGA and MSRC near shore and shallow water skimmers with a totaled derated skimming capacity 291,303 barrels. Temporary storage associated with skimming equipment equals 9,037 barrels. If additional storage is needed, various tank barges with a total of 301,000+ barrels of storage capacity may be mobilized and centrally located to provide temporary storage and minimize off-loading time. Onshore response may include the deployment of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection and sorbent boom on vegetated areas. Master Service Agreements with AMPOL and OMI Environmental will ensure access to 155,350 feet of 18” shoreline protection boom. Figure 3 outlines individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. Strategies would be based upon surveillance and real time trajectories that depict areas of potential impact given actual sea and weather conditions. Applicable Area Contingency Plans (ACPs), Geographic Response Plans (GRPs), and Unified Command (UC) will be consulted to ensure that

4 environmental and special economic resources are correctly identified and prioritized to ensure optimal protection. Shoreline protection strategies depict the protection response modes applicable for oil spill clean-up operations. As a secondary resource, the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan will be consulted as appropriate to provide detailed shoreline protection strategies and describe necessary action to keep the oil spill from entering Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. The UC should take into consideration all appropriate items detailed in Tactics discussion of this Appendix. The UC and their personnel have the option to modify the deployment and operation of equipment to allow for a more effective response to site-specific circumstances. Equinor’s contract Incident Management Team has access to the applicable ACP(s) and GRP(s).

Based on the anticipated worst case discharge scenario, Equinor can be onsite with contracted oil spill recovery equipment with adequate response capacity to contain and recover surface hydrocarbons, and prevent land impact, to the maximum extent practicable, within an estimated 68 hours (based on the equipment’s Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC)).

5 Tactics

Initial Response Considerations Actual actions taken during an oil spill response will be based on many factors to include but not be limited to:  Safety  Weather  Equipment and materials availability  Ocean currents and tides  Location of the spill  Product spilled  Amount spilled  Environmental risk assessments  Trajectory and product analysis  Well status, i.e., shut in or continuous release

Equinor will take action to provide a safe, aggressive response to contain and recover as much of the spilled oil as quickly as it is safe to do so. In an effort to protect the environment, response actions will be designed to provide an “in-depth” protection strategy meant to recover as much oil as possible as far from environmentally sensitive areas as possible. Safety will take precedence over all other considerations during these operations.

Coordination of response assets will be supervised by the designation of a SIMOPS group as necessary for close quarter vessel response activities. Most often, this group will be used during source control events that require a significant number of large vessels operating independently to complete a common objective, in close coordination and support of each other. This group must also monitor the subsurface activities of each vessel (ROV, dispersant application, well control support, etc.). The SIMOPS group leader reports to the Source Control Section Chief.

In addition, these activities will be monitored by the Incident Management Team (IMT) and Unified Command via a structured Common Operating Picture (COP) established to track resource and slick movement in real time.

Upon notification of a spill, the following actions will be taken:  Information will be confirmed  An assessment will be made and initial objectives set  OSROs and appropriate agencies will be notified  ICS 201, Initial Report Form will be completed  Initial Safety plan will be written and published  Unified Command will be established o Overall safety plan developed to reflect the operational situation and coordinated objectives o Areas of responsibility established for Source Control and each surface operational site o On-site command and control established

Decanting Strategy Recovered oil and water mixtures will typically separate into distinct phases when left in a quiescent state. When separation occurs, the relatively clean water phase can be siphoned or decanted back to the recovery point with minimal, if any, impact. Decanting therefore increases the effective on-site oil storage capacity and equipment operating time. FOSC/SOSC approval will be requested prior to decanting operations. This practice is routinely used for oil spill recovery.

Offshore Response Actions – Equipment Deployment

Surveillance  Aerial Observation: o Deployment of surveillance aircraft within two hours of QI notification, or at first light o Trained observer to provide on site status reports o Aerial photography and visual confirmation  Command and control platform at the site if needed  Remote Sensing: o Use of thermal infrared and multi-spectral sensing systems or other technology to detect oil and classify it as recoverable or non-recoverable to enhance on-water recovery capability o Surveillance platforms should be appropriate for weather and atmospheric conditions to provide the greatest altitude (e.g. aircraft, aerostats or ship mounted) o Continued surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems  Continuous monitoring of vessel assets using vessel monitoring systems

Dispersant application assets  Put aerial dispersant providers on standby  With the FOSC, conduct analysis to determine appropriateness of dispersant application (refer to Section 18 of approved Oil Spill Response Plan)  Gain FOSC approval for use of dispersants on the surface  Confirm dispersant availability for current and long range operations  Deploy aircraft in accordance with a plan developed for the actual situation  Coordinate deployment of a Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) team as required  Coordinate movement of dispersants, aircraft, and support equipment and personnel  Initiate orders for additional dispersant stocks required for expected operations

Containment boom  Call out early and expedite deployment to be on scene ASAP  Ensure boom handling and mooring equipment is deployed with boom  Provide continuous reports to vessels to expedite their arrival at sites and provide for most effective containment  Use Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) to deploy and maintain boom  Deploy CGA 300 Oceangoing Boom Barge  Deploy MSRC OSRVs and OSRBs with onboard ocean boom inventories  Additional significant stockpiles of boom are available in CGA and MSRC warehouses

7 Dedicated off-shore skimming systems General  Deployed to the highest concentration of oil  Assets deployed at safe distance from aerial dispersant and in-situ burn operations

CGA HOSS Barge  Integrated Infrared Camera and X-Band Radar system allowing for 24/7 oil spill detection, tracking, and oil recovery capability  Helideck and onboard accommodations for 16 people  Consider for use in areas of known debris (seaweed, and other floating materials)

CGA 95’ Fast Response Vessels (FRVs)  Designed to be a first vessel on scene  Capable of maintaining the initial command and control function for on-water recovery operations  24 hour oil spill detection capability  Highly mobile and efficient skimming capability  Use as far off-shore as safely possible

CGA Fast Response Units (FRU)  Skid-based skimming system to be deployed from a vessel of opportunity (VOO)  Use as far off-shore as allowed

T&T Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms  High volume skimming system to be deployed from Platform Supply Vessel (PSV)  Use as far off-shore as allowed

MSRC Responder Class Vessels / Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRV)  Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations  Use as near-shore as allowed by draft of vessel  Use as far off-shore as needed  Consider for use in areas of known debris (seaweed and other floating materials)

MSRC Oil Spill Response Barges (OSRB)  Use for oil removal operations and storage in areas with heaviest oil concentrations, as appropriate  Consider for use in areas of known debris (seaweed and other floating materials)

MSRC PSV-VOO Skimming Systems  Use in areas with heaviest oil concentrations  Use as near-shore as allowed by draft of vessel  Use as far off-shore as needed  Expected 24-hour mobilization  Expected length of 200 foot or greater  PSV-VOO with deck space of 150’ x 40’ to provide space for skimmer, marine storage tanks and boom  PSV-VOO with 2,000-20,000 bbl below deck storage supplemented with two or more 500 bbl marine portable tanks depending on below deck storage compatibility with flashpoint of recovered product

8 Storage Vessels  Establish availability of contracted assets (See Appendix E of OSRP)  Early call out (to allow for tug boat acquisition and deployment speeds)  Phase mobilization to allow storage vessels to arrive with skimming systems  Position as closely as possible to skimming assets to minimize offloading time

Vessels of Opportunity (VOO)  Use Equinor’s contracted resources as applicable  Industry vessels are ideal for deployment of VOSS  Acquire additional resources as needed  Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft  Expect mission specific and safety training to be required  Plan with the USCG/American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) for vessel inspections  Place VOOs in task forces as needed  Use organic onboard storage if appropriate  Maximize non-organic storage appropriate to vessel limitations  Decant as appropriate after approval has been granted  Assign bulk storage barges to each task force  Position bulk storage barges as close to skimming units as possible  Utilize large skimming vessel (e.g. barges) storage for smaller vessel offloading  Maximize skimming area (swath) to the optimum width given sea conditions and available equipment  Maximize use of oleophilic skimmers in all operations, especially offshore  Near shore, use shallow water barges and shuttle to skimming units for minimization of offloading time  Plan and equip to use all offloading capabilities of the storage vessel for minimization of offloading time

In-situ Burn Assets  Determine appropriateness of in-situ burning in coordination with the FOSC and affected SOSC  Determine availability of fire boom and selected ignition systems  Determine assets to perform on-water operations  Build operations into safety plan  Initiate orders for additional fire boom stocks required for expected operations  Ensure VOO crew members are trained prior to operations  Conduct initial test burn to ensure effectiveness  Conduct operations in accordance with an approved plan

Adverse Weather Operations: In adverse weather, when seas are > 3 feet, the use of larger recovery and storage vessels, oleophilic skimmers, and large offshore boom will be maximized. Safety will be the overriding factor and operations will cease at the order of the Unified Command, vessel captain. In an emergency, ”stop work” may be directed by any crew member.

Surface Oil Recovery Considerations and Tactics

9 (Offshore and Near-shore Operations)

Maximization of skimmer-oil encounter rate  Place barges in skimming task forces to reduce recovered oil offloading time  Place barges alongside skimming systems for immediate offloading of recovered oil when practicable  Use two vessels, each with heavy sea boom, in an open-ended “V” configuration to funnel surface oil into a trailing skimming unit’s organic, V-shaped boom and skimmer (see page 7, CGA Equipment Guide Book and Tactic Manual (CGATM)  Use secondary vessels and heavy sea boom to widen boom swath beyond normal skimming system limits (see page 15, CGATM)  Consider night-time operations, first considering safety issues  Utilize all available advanced technology systems ( IR, X-Band Radar, etc.) to determine the location of recoverable oil  Confirm the presence of recoverable oil prior to movement of vessels

Maximize skimmer system efficiency  Obtain authorization for decanting of recovered water as soon as possible  Place weir skimming systems in areas of calm seas and thick oil  Maximize the use of oleophilic skimming systems in heavier seas  Place less mobile, high EDRC systems (barges) in the largest areas of heaviest oil  Maximize onboard recovered oil storage for vessels  Use smaller, more agile skimming systems to recover streamers of oil normally found farther from the source. Place recovered oil barges nearby

Recovered Oil Storage  Procure and deploy the maximum number of portable tanks to support VOSS if onboard storage is not available  Maximize use of the organic recovered oil storage capacity of the skimming vessel  Place barges in skimming task forces to reduce recovered oil offloading time  Use smaller barges in larger quantities to increase flexibility for multi-location skimming operations

Command, Control, and Communications (C3)  Publish, implement, and fully test an appropriate communications plan  Design an operational scheme, maintaining a manageable span of control  Designate and mark C3 vessels for easy aerial identification  Designate and employ C3 aircraft for task forces  Use reconnaissance aircraft and Rapid Response Teams (RRT) to confirm the presence of recoverable oil

CGA On-Water Recovery Group When the first skimming vessel arrives on scene, a complete site assessment will be conducted before recovery operations begin. Once it is confirmed that the air monitoring readings for O2, LEL, H2S, CO, VOC, and Benzene are all within the permissible limits, oil recovery operations may begin.

10 As skimming vessels arrive, they will be organized to work in areas that allow for the most efficient vessel operation and free vessel movement in the recovery of oil. Vessel groups and Task Forces (TF) will vary in structure as determined by the Operations Section of the Unified Command, but will generally consist, at a minimum, of the following dedicated assets:

 (3-5) Offshore skimming vessels (recovery)  (1) Tank barge (temporary storage)  (1) Air asset (tactical direction)  (2) Support vessels (crew/utility for supply)  (6-10) Boom vessels (enhanced booming)

Example (Note: Actual organization of TFs will be dependent on several factors including, asset availability, weather, spilled oil migration, currents, etc.)

The 95’ FRV Breton Island out of Venice arrives on scene and conducts an initial site assessment. Air monitoring levels are acceptable and no other visual threats have been observed. The area is cleared for safe skimming operations. The Breton Island assumes command and control (CoC) of on-water recovery operations until a dedicated non-skimming vessel arrives to relieve it of those duties.

A second 95’ FRV arrives and begins recovery operations alongside the Breton Island. Several more vessels begin to arrive, including a third 95’ FRV out of Galveston, the HOSS Barge out of Harvey, boom barge (CGA 300) with 25,000’ of 42” auto boom out of Leeville, and 9 Fast Response Units (FRUs) from the pre-determined load-out location.

As these vessels set up and begin skimming, they are grouped into task forces as directed by the Operations Section of the Unified Command located at the command post.

Initial set-up and potential actions:  A 1,000 meter safety zone has been established around the incident location for vessels involved in Source Control  The HOSS Barge is positioned facing the incident location just outside of this safety zone or at the point where the freshest oil is reaching the surface  The HOSS Barge engages its Oil Spill Detection (OSD) system to locate the heaviest oil and maintains that ability for 24-hour operations  The HOSS Barge deploys 1,320’ of 67” Sea Sentry boom on each side, creating a swath width of 800’  The Breton Island and H.I. Rich skim nearby, utilizing the same OSD systems as the HOSS Barge to locate and recover oil  Two FRUs join this group and it becomes TF1  The remaining 7 FRUs are split into a 2 and 3 vessel task force numbered TF2 and TF3  A 95’ FRV is placed in each TF  The boom barge (CGA 300) is positioned nearby and begins deploying auto boom in sections between two utility vessels (1,000’ to 3,000’ of boom, depending on conditions) with chain-link gates in the middle to funnel oil to the skimmers  The initial boom support vessels position in front of TF2 and TF3  A 100,000+ barrel offshore tank barge is placed with each task force as necessary to facilitate the immediate offload of skimming vessels

The initial task forces (36 hours in) may be structured as follows:

TF 1  1 – 95’ FRV  1 – HOSS Barge with 3 tugs  2 – FRUs  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  8 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  8 – Boom-towing vessels  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 2  1 – 95’ FRV  4 – FRUs  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  10 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  10 – Boom-towing vessels  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

TF 3  1 – 95’ FRV  3 – FRUs  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  8 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  8 – Boom-towing vessels  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)

Offshore skimming equipment continues to arrive in accordance with the ETA data listed in Figure 3. This equipment includes 2 AquaGuard skimmers and 11 sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms. These high volume heavy weather capable systems will be divided into functional groups and assigned to specific areas by the Operations Section of the Unified Command.

At this point of the response, the additional TFs may assume the following configurations:

TF 4  2 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ OSV/PSV  1 – AquaGuard Skimmer  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)  6 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  6 – Boom-towing vessels

12 TF 5  3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ OSV/PSV  1 – AquaGuard Skimmer  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)  8 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  8 – Boom-towing vessels

TF 6  3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ OSV/PSV  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)  6 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  6 – Boom-towing vessels

TF 7  3 – Sets of Koseq Rigid Skimming Arms w/ associated 200’+ OSV/PSV  1 – 100,000+ barrel tank barge and associated tug(s)  1 – Dedicated air asset for tactical direction  2 – Support vessels (crew/utility)  6 – 500’ sections of auto boom with gates  6 – Boom-towing vessels

13 CGA Minimum Acceptable Capabilities for Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) Minimum acceptable capabilities of Petroleum Industry Designed Vessels (PIDV) for conducting Vessel of Opportunity (VOO) skimming operations are shown in the table below. PIDVs are “purpose-built” to provide normal support to offshore oil and gas operators. They include but are not limited to utility boats, offshore supply vessels, etc. They become VOOs when tasked with oil spill response duties.

Capability FRU KOSEQ AquaGuard Type of Vessel Utility Boat Offshore/Platform Supply Vessel Utility Boat Operating parameters Sea State 3-5 ft max 9.8 ft max 3-5 ft max Skimming speed ≤1 kt ≤3 kts ≤1 kt Vessel size Minimum Length 100 ft 200 ft 100 ft Deck space for:  Tank(s)  Crane(s) 18x32 ft 100x50 ft 18x32 ft  Boom Reels  Hydraulic Power Units Communication Assets Marine Band Marine Band Radio Marine Band Radio

Tactical use of Vessels of Opportunity (VOO): Equinor will take all possible measures to maximize the oil-to-skimmer encounter rate of all skimming systems, to include VOOs, as discussed in this section. VOOs will normally be placed within an on-water recovery unit as shown in figures below.

Skimming Operations: PIDVs are the preferred VOO skimming platform. OSROs are more versed in operating on these platforms, and the vessels are generally large enough with crews versed in spill response operations. They also have a greater possibility of having onboard storage capacity and are the most likely vessels to be under contract, therefore more readily available to the operator. These vessels will normally be assigned to an on-water recovery task force (see figure below) and outfitted with a VOSS suited for their size and capabilities. Specific tactics used for skimming operations will be dependent upon many parameters which include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, weather, type VOSS onboard, product being recovered, and area of oil coverage. Planners will deploy these assets with the objective of safely maximizing the oil-to- skimmer encounter rate by taking actions to minimize non-skimming time and maximize boom swath. Examples of specific tactical configurations are shown in the figures below.

Fast Response Unit (FRU): A self-contained, skid based, skimming system that is deployed from the right side of a vessel of opportunity (VOO). An outrigger holds a 75’ long section of air inflatable boom in place that directs oil to an apex for recovery via a Foilex 250 weir skimmer. The outrigger creates roughly a 40’ swath width dependent on the VOO beam. The lip of the collection bowl on the skimmer is placed as close to the oil and water interface as possible to maximize oil recovery and minimize water retention. The skimmer then pumps all fluids recovered to the storage tank where it is allowed to settle, and with the approval of the USCG, the water is decanted from the bottom of the tank back into the water ahead of the containment boom to be recycled through the system. Once the tank is full of as much pure recovered oil as possible it is offloaded to a storage barge for disposal in accordance with an approved disposal plan. A second 100 barrel storage tank can be added if the appropriate amount of deck space is available to use as secondary storage. Tactical Overview

14 Mechanical Recovery – The FRU is designed to provide fast response skimming capability in the offshore and nearshore environment in a stationary or advancing mode. It provides a rated daily recovery capacity of 4,251 barrels. An additional boom reel with 440’ of offshore boom and a second support vessel for boom towing can be deployed along with the FRU to extend the swath width when attached to the end of the fixed boom. The range and sustainability offshore is dependent on the VOO that the unit is placed on, but generally these can stay offshore for extended periods. The FRU works well independently or assigned with other on-water recovery assets in a task force. In either case, it is most effective when a designated aircraft is assigned to provide tactical direction to ensure the best placement in recoverable oil. Maximum Sea Conditions – Under most circumstances the FRU can maintain standard oil spill recovery operations in 2’ to 4’ seas. Ultimately, the USCG licensed Captain in charge of the VOO (with input from the CGAS Supervisor assigned) will be responsible for determining when sea conditions have surpassed the vessel’s safe operating capabilities.

Possible Task Force Configuration (Multiple VOOs can be deployed in a task force) 1 – VOO (100’ to 165’ Utility or Supply Vessel) 1 – Boom reel w/support vessel for towing 1 – Tank barge (offshore) for temporary storage 1 – Utility/Crewboat (supply) 1 – Designated spotter aircraft

The VOSS (yellow) is being deployed and connected to an out-rigged arm. This is suitable for collection in both large pockets of oil and for recovery of streaming oil. The oil-to-skimmer encounter rate is limited by the length of the arm. Skimming pace is < 1 knot.

Through the use of an additional VOO, and using extended sea boom, the swath of the VOSS is increased therefore maximizing the oil-to-skimmer encounter rate. Skimming pace is < 1 knot.

15 The Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arm: A skimming system deployed on a vessel of opportunity. It requires a large Offshore or Platform Supply Vessel (OSV/PSV), greater than 200’ with at least 100’ x 50’ of free deck space. On each side of the vessel, a 50’ long rigid framed Arm is deployed that consists of pontoon chambers to provide buoyancy, a smooth nylon face, and a hydraulically adjustable mounted weir skimmer. The arm floats independently of the vessel and is attached by a tow bridle and a lead line. The movement of the vessel forward draws the rubber end seal of the arm against the hull to create a collection point for free oil directed to the weir by the arm face. The collection weir is adjusted to keep the lip as close to the oil water interface as possible to maximize oil recovery while attempting to minimize excess water collection. A transfer pump (combination of positive displacement, screw type and centrifuge suited for highly viscous oils) pumps the recovered liquid to portable tanks and/or dedicated fixed storage tanks onboard the vessel. After being allowed to sit and separate, with approval from the USCG, the water can be decanted (pumped off) in front of the collection arm to be reprocessed through the system. Once full with as much pure recovered oil as possible, the oil is transferred to a temporary storage barge where it can be disposed of in accordance with an approved disposal plan.

Tactical Overview Mechanical Recovery – Deployed on large vessels of opportunity (VOO) the Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms are high volume surge capacity deployed to increase recovery capacity at the source of a large oil spill in the offshore and outer nearshore environment of the Gulf of Mexico. They are highly mobile and sustainable in rougher sea conditions than normal skimming vessels (9.8’ seas). The large Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV) required to deploy the Arms are able to remain on scene for extended periods, even when sea conditions pick up. Temporary storage on deck in portable tanks usually provides between 1,000 and 3,000 bbls. In most cases, the OSV will be able to pump 20% of its deadweight into the liquid mud tanks in accordance with the vessels Certificate of Inspection (COI). All storage can be offloaded utilizing the vessels liquid transfer system.

Maximum Sea Conditions - Under most circumstances the larger OSVs are capable of remaining on scene well past the Skimming Arms maximum sea state of 9.8’. Ultimately it will be the decision of the VOO Captain, with input from the T&T Supervisor onboard, to determine when the sea conditions have exceeded the safe operating conditions of the vessel.

Command and Control – Many large OSV/PSVs have state of the art communication and electronic systems, as well as the accommodations to support the function of directing all skimming operations offshore and reporting back to the command post.

Possible Task Force Configuration (Multiple Koseq VOOs can be deployed in a task force) 1 – > 200’ OSV/PSV with set of Koseq Arms 2-4 – Portable storage tanks (500 bbl) 1 – Modular Crane Pedestal System set (MCPS) or 30 cherry picker (crane) for deployment 1 – Tank barge (offshore) for temporary storage 1 – Utility/Crewboat (supply) 1 – Designated spotter aircraft 4 – Personnel (T&T)

Scattered oil is “caught” by two VOO and collected at the apex of the towed sea boom. The oil moves thought a “gate” at that apex, forming a larger stream of oil which moves into the boom of the skimming vessel. Operations are paced at ≤3 knots. A recovered oil barge stationed nearby to minimize time taken to offload recovered oil.

This is a depiction of the same operation as above using KOSEQ Arms. In this configuration, the collecting boom speed dictates the operational pace at ≤3 knots to minimize entrainment of the oil.

17 Clean Gulf Associates (CGA) Procedure for Accessing Member-Contracted and other Vessels of Opportunity (VOOs) for Spill Response

 CGA has procedures in place for CGA member companies to acquire VOOs from an existing CGA member’s contracted fleet or other sources for the deployment of CGA portable skimming equipment including Koseq Arms, FRUs, and any other portable skimming system(s) deemed appropriate for the response for a potential or actual oil spill, WCD oil spill or a Spill of National Significance (SONS).

 CGA uses Port Vision, a web-based vessel and terminal interface that empowers CGA to track vessels through Automatic Identification System (AIS) and terminal activities using a Geographic Information System (GIS). It provides live AIS/GIS views of waterways showing current vessel positions, terminals, created vessel fleets, and points-of-interest. Through this system, CGA has the ability to get instant snapshots of the location and status of all vessels contracted to CGA members, day or night, from any web-enabled PC.

18 MSRC Typical On-Water Oil Recovery and Removal Tactics (See MSRC Gulf Area Tactics Guidebook for more information)

Mechanical Recovery Large Scale Resources

19 MSRC Small Scale Resources

20 MSRC Enhanced Encounter Rate Resources, FAES

21 MSRC In-situ Burn (ISB)

MSRC Aerial Dispersant

22 Near Shore Response Actions

Timing  Put near shore assets on standby and deploy in accordance with planning based on the actual situation, real time trajectories and oil budgets  VOO identification and training in advance of spill nearing shoreline if possible  Outfitting of VOOs for specific missions  Deployment of assets based on actual movement of oil

Considerations  Water depth, vessel draft  Shoreline gradient  State of the oil  Use of VOOs  Distance of surf zone from shoreline

Surveillance  Provide trained observer to direct skimming operations  Continuous surveillance of oil movement by remote sensing systems, aerial photography and visual confirmation  Continuous monitoring of vessel assets

Dispersant Use  Generally will not be approved within 3 miles of shore or with less than 10 meters of water depth  Approval would be at Regional Response Team level (Region 6)

Dedicated Near Shore skimming systems  CGA o 46’ FRVs o Egmopol and Marco SWS skimmers o 56; Shallow Water skimming vessels  MSRC Kvichaks o Kvichaks o Quick Strike and Lightning FRVs o AardVac, Queensboro, and WP 1 skimmers  Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to observed oil slicks

VOO  Use Equinor’s contracted resources as applicable  Acquire additional resources as needed  Consider use of local assets, i.e. fishing and pleasure craft  Expect mission specific and safety training to be required  Plan with the USCG for vessel inspections  Operate with aerial spotter directing systems to oil patches

23 Shoreline Protection Operations

Response Planning Considerations  Review appropriate Area Contingency Plan(s)  Locate and review appropriate Geographic Response and Site Specific Plans  Refer to appropriate Environmentally Sensitive Area Maps  Ensure capability of continuous analysis of trajectories run periodically during response  Run environmental risk assessments (ERA) to determine priorities for area protection  Allow time to acquire personnel and equipment  As a secondary reference, refer to the State of Louisiana Initial Oil Spill Response Plan, Deep Water Horizon, dated 2 May 2010  Perform aerial surveillance of oil movement  Perform Pre-impact beach cleaning and debris removal  Adhere to Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team (SCAT) operations and reporting procedures  Determine requirements and availability of boom types, sizes and lengths  Consider need for in-situ burning in near shore areas  Assess current wildlife situation, especially status of migratory birds and endangered species  Check for archeological sites and arrange assistance for the appropriate state agency when planning operations may impact these areas

Placement of boom  Position boom in accordance with the information gained from references listed above and based on the actual situation  Determine areas of natural collection and develop booming strategies accordingly  Assess timing of boom placement based on the most current trajectory analysis and the availability of each type of boom needed. Determine an overall booming priority and conduct booming operations accordingly. Consider: o Trajectories o Weather forecast o Oil impact forecast o Verified spill movement o Boom, manpower and vessel (shallow draft) availability o Near shore boom and support material, (stakes, anchors, line)

Beach Preparation Considerations and Actions  Use of a 10 mile go/no-go line to determine timing of beach cleaning  SCAT reports and recommendations  Monitor tide tables and weather to determine extent of high tides  Pre-clean beaches by moving waste above high tide lines to minimize waste  Determine logistical requirements of waste removal and disposal  Stage equipment and housing of response personnel as close to job site as possible to maximize on-site work time  Tend to boom, repair, replace and secure as needed (use of local assets may be advantageous)  Maintain constant awareness of weather and oil movement for resource re-deployment as necessary

24  Consider earthen berms and shoreline protection boom to protect sensitive inland areas  Requisition earth moving equipment  Plan for efficient and safe use of personnel, ensuring: o A continuous supply of the proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) o Heating or cooling areas when needed o Medical coverage o Command and control systems (i.e. communications) o Personnel accountability measures  Assess remediation requirements, i.e., replacement of sands, rip rap, etc.  Ensure availability of surface washing agents and associated protocol requirements for their use (see National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule for list of possible agents)  Discuss with all stakeholders, i.e., land owners, refuge/park managers, and others as appropriate, covering the following: o Access to areas o Possible response measures and impact of property and ongoing operations o Determination of any specific safety concerns o Any special requirements or prohibitions o Area security requirements o Handling of waste o Remediation expectations o Vehicle traffic control o Domestic animal safety concerns o Wildlife or exotic game concerns/issues

Inland and Coastal Marsh Protection and Response Considerations and Actions  All considered response methods will be weighed against the possible damage they may do to the marsh. Methods will be approved by Unified Command only after discussions with local Stakeholder, as identified above o In-situ burn may be considered when marshes have been impacted  Passive clean up of marshes should considered and appropriate stocks of sorbent boom and/or sweep obtained.  Response personnel must be briefed on methods to traverse the marsh, i.e., o use of appropriate vessel o use of temporary walkways or road ways  Discuss and gain approval prior to cutting or moving vessels through vegetation  Discuss use of vessels that may disturb wildlife, i.e, airboats  Ensure safe movement of vessels through narrow cuts and blind curves  Consider the possibility that no response in a marsh may be best  In the deployment of any response asset, actions will be taken to ensure the safest, most efficient operations possible. This includes, but is not limited to: o Planning for stockage of high use items for expeditious replacement o Use of shallow water craft o Use of communication systems appropriate ensure command and control of assets o Use of appropriate boom in areas that can offer effective protection o Planning of waste collection and removal to maximize cleanup efficiency  Consideration of on-site remediation of contaminated soils to minimize replacement operations and impact on the area

25 FIGURE 2 TRAJECTORY BY LAND SEGMENT

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of it impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing Equinor’s WCD and information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico available on the BOEM website using 30 day impact. The results are tabulated below.

Conditional Launch Land Segment and/or Area/Block OCS-G Probability (%) Area Resource within 30 days

Drill, complete, test, G36558 C58 Galveston, TX 1 temporary abandon & Jefferson, TX 1 install temporary well Cameron, LA 3 protector, Well Vermilion, LA 2 Locations A, A-ST, B, Iberia, LA 1 C, D and E Terrebonne, LA 3

Lafourche, LA 3 MC 801, Jefferson, LA 1 Well Location A Plaquemines, LA 8

St. Bernard, LA 1 55 statute miles from Okaloosa, FL 1 shore

26 WCD Scenario– BASED ON WELL BLOWOUT DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS (55 statute miles from shore) 268,635 bbls of crude oil (Volume considering natural weathering) API Gravity 29° FIGURE 3 – Equipment Response Time to MC 801, Well Location A

Dispersants/Surveillance Dispersant Persons Hrs to Hrs to Dispersant/Surveillance From Travel to site Total Hrs Capacity (gal) Req. Procure Loadout ASI Basler 67T 2000 2 Houma 2 2 0.6 4.6 DC 3 1200 2 Houma 2 2 0.8 4.8 DC 3 1200 2 Houma 2 2 0.8 4.8 Aero Commander NA 2 Houma 2 2 0.6 4.6 MSRC C-130 Spray AC 3,250 2 Kiln 4 0 0.5 4.5 King Air BE90 Spray AC 250 2 Kiln 4 0 0.7 4.7

Offshore Response Offshore Equipment Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Pre-Determined Staging Capacity Required Procure Loadout GOM Spill Site Deploy Hrs CGA HOSS Barge 76285 4000 3 Tugs 8 Harvey 6 0 12 6.5 2 26.5 95’ FRV 22885 249 NA 6 Leeville 2 0 2 4 1 9 95’ FRV 22885 249 NA 6 Venice 2 0 3 2.6 1 8.6 95’ FRV 22885 249 NA 6 Vermilion 2 0 3 6.5 1 12.5 95’ FRV 22885 249 NA 6 Galveston 2 0 2 16.5 1 21.5 Boom Barge (CGA-300) 1 Tug 4 (Barge) NA NA Leeville 8 0 4 11 2 25 42” Auto Boom (25000’) 50 Crew 2 (Per Crew)

27 Offshore Response Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Hrs to Total Offshore Equipment No Staging EDRC VOO From Capacity Required Procure Loadout GOM Spill Site Deploy Hrs MSRC Louisiana Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Fort Jackson 2 0 4 4 1 11 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom MSRC 452 Offshore Barge 1 Crucial Disk 88/30 11122 45000 3 Tugs 9 Fort Jackson 4 0 6 6.5 1 17.5 2,640‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Mississippi Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Pascagoula 2 0 2 12 1 17 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom MSRC 402 Offshore Barge 1 Crucial Disk 88/30 11122 40300 3 Tugs 9 Pascagoula 4 0 3 21 1 29 2,640‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom S.T. Benz Responder 1 LFF 100 Brush 18086 4000 NA 10 Grand Isle, LA 3 0 1 5.5 1 10.5 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Gulf Coast Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Lake Charles 2 0 4 18 1 25 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Texas Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Galveston 2 0 1 24 1 28 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom MSRC 570 Offshore Barge 1 Crucial Disk 88/30 11122 56900 3 Tugs 9 Galveston 4 0 2 41 1 48 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Southern Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Ingleside 2 0 2 32 1 37 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom MSRC 403 Offshore Barge 1 Crucial Disk 88/30 11122 40300 3 Tugs 9 Ingleside 4 0 3 56 1 64 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom MSRC 360 Offshore Barge 1 Crucial Disk 88/30 11122 36000 3 Tugs 9 Tampa 4 0 3 54 1 62 1,320’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Florida Responder Transrec 350 + OSRV 10567 4000 NA 10 Miami 2 0 1 50 1 54 2,640’ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom

28 Recovered Oil Storage No Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Staging Capacity Required Procure Loadout GOM Spill Site Deploy Hrs Kirby Offshore (available through contract with CGA) RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 80000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 110000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 130000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 140000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 150000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60 RO Barge NA 160000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 50.5 0 2 6.5 1 60

Loadout/Staging Area: Venice Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total Offshore Equipment With Staging EDRC VOO From Capacity Req. Procure Loadout Staging Site Deploy Hrs CGA Hydro-Fire Boom NA NA 8 Utility 40 Harvey 0 24 2 4.3 6 36.3 MSRC 67” Curtain Pressure Boom (53570’) NA NA 80* 160 Houston 1 2 12 4.3 1 20.3 1000’ Fire Resistant Boom NA NA 3* 6 Galveston 1 4 13 4.3 6 28.3 16000’ Fire Resistant Boom NA NA 3* 6 Houston 1 4 12 4.3 6 27.3 2000’ Hydro Fire Boom NA NA 8* 8 Lake Charles 1 4 8 4.3 6 23.3 * Utility Boats, Crew Boats, Supply Boats, or Fishing Vessels

29 Loadout/Staging Area: Venice Offshore Equipment Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Preferred Staging Capacity Req. Procure Loadout Staging Site Deploy Hrs T&T Marine (available through direct contract with CGA) Aqua Guard Triton RBS (1) 22323 2000 1 Utility 6 Galveston 4 12 13 4.3 2 35.3 Aqua Guard Triton RBS (1) 22323 2000 1 Utility 6 Harvey 4 12 2 4.3 2 24.3 Koseq Skimming Arms (10) 228850 60000 10 OSV 60 Galveston 24 24 13 4.3 2 67.3 Lamor brush Koseq Skimming Arms (6) 108978 36000 6 OSV 36 Galveston 24 24 13 4.3 2 67.3 MariFlex 150 HF Koseq Skimming Arms (2) 45770 12000 2 OSV 12 Harvey 24 24 2 4.3 2 56.3 Lamor brush Koseq Skimming Arms (4) 72652 24000 4 OSV 24 Harvey 24 24 2 4.3 2 56.3 MariFlex 150 HF CGA FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Vermilion 2 6 6 4.3 1 19.3 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Galveston 2 6 13 4.3 1 26.3 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Aransas Pass 2 6 18 4.3 1 31.3 FRU (1) + 100 bbl Tank (2) 4251 200 1 Utility 6 Lake Charles 2 6 8 4.3 1 21.3 FRU (3) + 100 bbl Tank (6) 12753 600 3 Utility 18 Leeville 2 6 5 4.3 1 18.3 FRU (2) + 100 bbl Tank (4) 8502 400 2 Utility 12 Venice 2 6 0 4.3 1 13.3

Staging Area: Venice Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total Offshore Equipment Preferred Staging EDRC VOO From Capacity Req. Procure Loadout Staging Site Deploy Hrs MSRC Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 500 1 Utility 5 Ingleside 1 2 18 4.3 1 26.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Ingleside 1 2 18 4.3 1 26.3 Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1 Utility 5 Ingleside 1 2 18 4.3 1 26.3 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 500 1 Utility 5 Ingleside 1 2 18 4.3 1 26.3 Walosep 4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Ingleside 1 2 18 4.3 1 26.3 Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1) 11122 500 1 PSV 9 Galveston 1 2 13 4.3 1 21.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (2) 2742 400 2 Utility 10 Galveston 1 2 13 4.3 1 21.3 Walosep 4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Galveston 1 2 13 4.3 1 21.3 Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1 Utility 5 Galveston 1 2 13 4.3 1 21.3 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 500 1 Utility 5 Galveston 1 2 13 4.3 1 21.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Port Arthur 1 2 10 4.3 1 18.3 Desmi Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1 Utility 5 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 Stress I Skimmer (2) 31680 1000 2 Utility 10 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 18086 400 1 PSV 9 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 18086 400 1 PSV 9 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 18086 400 1 PSV 9 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Transrec 350 Skimmer (1) 10567 400 1 PSV 9 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Transrec 350 Skimmer (1) 10567 400 1 PSV 9 Lake Charles 1 2 8 4.3 1 16.3 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom

31 Staging Area: Venice Offshore Equipment Preferred Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Staging Capacity Req. Procure Loadout Staging Site Deploy Hrs MSRC GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Baton Rouge 1 2 4.5 4.3 1 12.8 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 500 1 Utility 5 Grand Isle 1 2 5 4.3 1 15.3 LFF 100 Brush Skimmer (1) 10567 400 1 PSV 9 Houma 1 2 3.5 4.3 1 11.8 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 4.3 1 10.3 Walosep W4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 4.3 1 10.3 Foilex 250 Skimmer (1) 3977 400 1 Utility 5 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 4.3 1 10.3 Foilex 200 Skimmer (1) 1989 400 1 Utility 5 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 4.3 1 10.3 Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 400 1 Utility 5 Belle Chasse 1 2 2 4.3 1 10.3 Desmi Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Fort Jackson 1 2 0.5 4.3 1 8.8 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 500 1 Utility 5 Fort Jackson 1 2 0.5 4.3 1 8.8 Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1) 11122 400 1 PSV 9 Fort Jackson 1 2 0.5 4.3 1 8.8 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1) 11122 400 1 PSV 9 Fort Jackson 1 2 0.5 4.3 1 8.8 1,320‘ 67” Curtain Pressure Boom GT-185 Skimmer (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 4.3 1 13.8 Crucial Disk 88/30 Skimmer (1) 11122 500 1 PSV 9 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 4.3 1 13.8 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 500 1 Utility 5 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 4.3 1 13.8 Stress II Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Pascagoula 1 2 5.5 4.3 1 13.8 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1 Utility 5 Tampa 1 2 21 4.3 1 29.3 Crucial Disk 56/30 Skimmer (1) 5671 400 1 Utility 5 Tampa 1 2 21 4.3 1 29.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Tampa 1 2 21 4.3 1 29.3 GT-185 Skimmer w Adaptor (1) 1371 400 1 Utility 5 Miami 1 2 27 4.3 1 35.3 Walosep W4 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Miami 1 2 27 4.3 1 35.3 Desmi Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 5 Miami 1 2 27 4.3 1 35.3 Stress I Skimmer (1) 15840 400 1 Utility 5 Miami 1 2 27 4.3 1 35.3

32 Nearshore Response Nearshore Equipment No Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Staging Capacity Required Procure Loadout GOM Spill Site Deploy Hrs CGA Mid-Ship SWS 22885 249 NA 4 Leeville 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Mid-Ship SWS 22885 249 NA 4 Venice 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Mid-Ship SWS 22885 249 NA 4 Galveston 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Leeville 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Lake Charles 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Vermilion 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 Trinity SWS 21500 249 NA 4 Galveston 2 0 N/A 48 1 51 46’ FRV 15257 65 NA 4 Aransas Pass 2 0 2 25 1 30 46’ FRV 15257 65 NA 4 Leeville 2 0 2 2.5 1 7.5 46’ FRV 15257 65 NA 4 Lake Charles 2 0 2 10 1 15 46’ FRV 15257 65 NA 4 Venice 2 0 2 2.5 1 7.5 MSRC MSRC Lightning 5000 50 NA 6 Tampa 2 0 1 18.4 1 22.4 2 LORI Brush Pack MSRC Quick Strike 5000 50 NA 6 Lake Charles 2 0 1 9.6 1 13.6 2 LORI Brush Pack Enterprise Marine Services LLC (available through contract with CGA) CTCo 2603 NA 25000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2604 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2605 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2606 NA 20000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2607 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2608 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 2609 NA 23000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 CTCo 5001 NA 47000 1 Tug 6 Amelia 25 0 6 16 1 48 Kirby Offshore (available through contract with CGA) RO Barge NA 100000+ 1 Tug 6 Venice 48 12 4 7 1 60

Staging Area: Venice Nearshore Equipment With Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total EDRC VOO From Staging Capacity Req. Procure Load Out Staging Deployment Deploy Hrs CGA SWS Egmopol 1810 100 NA 3 Galveston 2 2 13 2 1 20 SWS Egmopol 1810 100 NA 3 Leeville 2 2 4.5 2 1 11.5 SWS Marco 3588 20 NA 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 1 15 SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Leeville 2 2 4.5 2 1 11.5 SWS Marco 3588 34 NA 3 Venice 2 2 2 2 1 9 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 1131 50 NA 3 Lake Charles 4 12 8 2 2 28 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 1131 50 NA 3 Galveston 4 12 13 2 2 33 Foilex Skim Package (TDS 150) 1131 50 NA 3 Harvey 4 12 2 2222 4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 680 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 1 15 4 Drum Skimmer (Magnum 100) 680 100 1 Crew 3 Harvey 2 2 2 2 1 9 2 Drum Skimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Lake Charles 2 2 8 2 1 15 2 Drum Skimmer (TDS 118) 240 100 1 Crew 3 Harvey 2 2 2 2 1 9 MSRC 30 ft. Kvichak Marco I Skimmer 3588 24 NA 2 Ingleside 1 1 18 2 1 23 30 ft. Kvichak Marco I Skimmer 3588 24 NA 2 Galveston 1 1 13 2 1 18 30 ft. Kvichak Marco I Skimmer 3588 24 NA 2 Belle Chasse 1 1 2 2 1 7 30 ft. Kvichak Marco I Skimmer 3588 24 NA 2 Pascagoula 1 1 5.5 2 1 10.5 AardVac Skimmer (1) 3840 400 1 Utility 4 Lake Charles 1 1 8 2 1 13 AardVac Skimmer (1) 3840 400 1 Utility 4 Pascagoula 1 1 5.5 2 1 10.5 AardVac Skimmer (2) 7680 800 2 Utility 8 Miami 1 1 27 2 1 32 Queensboro Skimmer (1) 905 400 1 Utility 4 Galveston 1 1 13 2 1 18 Queensboro Skimmer (5) 4525 2000 5 Utility 20 Lake Charles 1 1 8 2 1 13 Queensboro Skimmer (1) 905 400 1 Utility 4 Belle Chasse 1 1 2 2 1 7 Queensboro Skimmer (1) 905 400 1 Utility 4 Pascagoula 1 1 5.5 2 1 10.5 WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 4 Pascagoula 1 1 5.5 2 1 10.5 WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 4 Tampa 1 1 21 2 1 26 WP 1 Skimmer (1) 3017 400 1 Utility 4 Miami 1 1 27 2 1 32

34 Shoreline Protection Staging Area: Venice 18” Shoreline Persons Storage/Warehouse Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to VOO Hrs to Deploy Total Hrs Protection Boom Req. Location Procure Loadout Staging Deployment AMPOL (available through MSA) 34,050’ 18” Boom 13 Crew 26 New Iberia, LA 2 2 6 2 12 24 12,850’ 18” Boom 7 Crew 14 Chalmette, LA 2 2 2.5 2 6 14.5 900’ 18” Boom 1 Crew 2 Morgan City, LA 2 2 4.5 2 2 12.5 3,200’ 18” Boom 2 Crew 4 Venice, LA 2 2 0 2 2 8 12,750’ 18” Boom 7 Crew 14 Port Arthur, TX 2 2 10 2 6 22 OMI Environmental (available through MSA) 14,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 12 Belle Chasse, LA 1 1 2 2 3 9 2,000’ 18” Boom 1 Crew 2 Galliano, LA 1 1 4 2 3 11 1,800’ 18” Boom 1 Crew 2 Gonzalez, LA 1 1 4 2 3 11 11,800’ 18” Boom 5 Crew 10 Harvey, LA 1 1 2 2 3 9 2,000’ 18” Boom 2 Crew 4 Houma, LA 1 1 4 2 3 11 2,400’ 18” Boom 2 Crew 4 Morgan City, LA 1 1 5 2 3 12 3,800’ 18” Boom 2 Crew 4 New Iberia, LA 1 1 6 2 3 13 2,300’ 18” Boom 2 Crew 4 Port Allen, LA 1 1 5 2 3 12 1,500’ 18” Boom 1 Crew 2 Venice, LA 1 1 0 2 3 7 19,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 12 Deer Park, TX 1 1 12 2 3 19 11,000’ 18” Boom 5 Crew 10 La Marque, TX 1 1 13 2 3 20 20,000’ 18” Boom 6 Crew 12 Port Arthur, TX 1 1 10 2 3 17

Storage Persons Hrs to Hrs to Travel to Travel to Hrs to Total Wildlife Response EDRC VOO From Capacity Req. Procure Loadout Staging Deployment Deploy Hrs CGA Wildlife Support Trailer NA NA NA 2 Harvey 2 2 2.1 1 2 9.1 Bird Scare Guns (48) NA NA NA 2 Harvey 2 2 2.1 1 2 9.1 Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Galveston 2 2 13 1 2 20 Bird Scare Guns (12) NA NA NA 2 Aransas Pass 2 2 17.8 1 2 24.8 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Lake Charles 2 2 8 1 2 15 Bird Scare Guns (24) NA NA NA 2 Leeville 2 2 4.6 1 2 11.6

Response Asset Total Offshore EDRC (bbls) 1,189,841 Offshore Recovered Oil Storage (bbls) 1,717,896+ Nearshore / Shallow Water EDRC (bbls) 291,303 Nearshore / Shallow Water Recovered Oil Storage (bbls) 310,037+

SECTION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION

9.1 MONITORING SYSTEMS Equinor will monitor loop currents per the requirements set forth in NTL No. 2018-G01, “Ocean Current Monitoring.” Equinor will utilize a DP drillship, which will have a typical moonpool utilized in all Deepwater DP drillships. Moonpools are located in the center of the rig with rectangular openings which generally measure approximately 73.5 feet x 42 feet for a DP drillship. The moonpool’s purpose is to allow access to the water to drill, complete and workover wells. This also allows access to run Blowout Preventers to latch up to the well for well control in the event of an emergency. There is no closing mechanism for the moonpool as it is always open to the sea. In normal operating mode, the draft of the vessel is approximately 36 feet for the DP drillship.

In the extremely rare instance that marine life would get entrapped or entangled by equipment in the moonpool, or by any other equipment on the rig, below are mitigations that Equinor will put in place to protect the marine life in case of an incident.

• Equinor will provide a dedicated crew member to survey the moonpool area for marine life while moving any equipment in or out of the area; • If marine life is detected in the moonpool area, Equinor will cease all operations until it is free and clear; • Equinor will monitor video from the 3 cameras focused on the moonpool area; • If endangered marine life is seen in the area, a live video feed can be streamed real-time for additional coverage; • If marine life is entrapped or entangled, Equinor can safely lower someone into the moonpool to free it.

9.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES There is no reason to believe that any of the endangered species or marine mammals as listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will be “taken” as a result of the operations proposed under this plan.

It has been documented that the use of explosives and or seismic devices can affect marine life. Operations proposed in this plan will not be utilizing either of these devices.

Equinor will adhere to the requirements as set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the ESA as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL No. 2015-BSEE-G03, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination” • NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 9 – Pg. 18 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

• NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program” • “Biological Opinion on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Program”, Appendices B and C • NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

9.3 SEA TURTLE HANDLING AND RESUSCITATION GUIDELINES There is no reason to believe that any sea turtles will be “taken” as a result of the operations proposed under this plan. However, any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities must be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water according to the following procedures:

1. Sea turtles that are actively moving or determined to be dead (as described in paragraph (2)(d) below) must be released over the stern of the boat. In addition, they must be released only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels. 2. Resuscitation must be attempted on sea turtles that are comatose or inactive by: a. Placing the turtle on its bottom shell (plastron) so that the turtle is right side up and elevating its hindquarters at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) for a period of 4 to 24 hours. The amount of elevation depends on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are needed for larger turtles. Periodically, rock the turtle gently left to right and right to left by holding the outer edge of the shell (carapace) and lifting one side about 3 inches (7.6 cm) then alternate to the other side. Gently touch the eye and pinch the tail (reflex test) periodically to see if there is a response. b. Sea turtles being resuscitated must be shaded and kept damp or moist but under no circumstance be placed into a container holding water. A water-soaked towel placed over the head, carapace, and flippers is the most effective method in keeping a turtle moist. c. Sea turtles that revive and become active must be released over the stern of the boat only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels. Sea turtles that fail to respond to the reflex test or fail to move within 4 hours (up to 24, is possible), must be returned to the water in the same manner as that for actively moving turtles. d. A turtle is determined to be dead if the muscles are stiff (rigor mortis) and/or the flesh has begun to rot; otherwise, the turtle is determined to be comatose or inactive and resuscitation attempts are necessary.

Any sea turtle so taken must not be consumed, sold landed, offloaded, transshipped, or kept below deck.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 9 – Pg. 19 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

9.4 FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; therefore, relevant information is not required in this EP.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 9 – Pg. 20 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 10 LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Exploration activities are subject to the following stipulations attached to Lease OCS-G 36558, Mississippi Canyon Block 801.

10.1 MARINE PROTECTED SPECIES In accordance with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Equinor will:

(a) Collect and remove flotsam resulting from activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease;

(b) Post signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms used as a result of activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease detailing the reasons (legal and ecological) why release of debris must be eliminated;

(c) Observe for marine mammals and sea turtles while on vessels, reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when assemblages of cetaceans are observed, and maintain a distance of 90 meters or greater from whales, and a distance of 45 meters or greater from small cetaceans and sea turtles;

(d) Employ mitigation measures prescribed by BOEM/BSEE or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for all seismic surveys, including the use of an “exclusion zone” based upon the appropriate water depth, ramp-up and shutdown procedures, visual monitoring, and reporting;

(e) Identify important habitats, including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g., sea turtle nesting beaches, piping plover critical habitat), in oil spill contingency planning and require the strategic placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less-intrusive cleanup techniques on beaches and bay shores; and

(f) Immediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected species (e.g., marine mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animal (e.g., because of a vessel strike), the responsible parties should remain available to assist the stranding network. If the injury or death was caused by a collision with the lessee’s vessel, the lessee must notify BOEM within 24 hours of the strike.

BOEM and BSEE issue Notices to Lessees (NTLs), which more fully describe measures implemented in support of the above-mentioned implementing statutes and regulations, as well as measures identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS arising from, among others, conservation recommendations, rulemakings pursuant to the MMPA, or consultation. The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors, while undertaking activities

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 10 – Pg. 18 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

authorized under this lease, must implement and comply with the specific mitigation measures outlined in NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting;” NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program;” and NTL No. 2015-BSEE-G03, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination.” At the lessee’s option, the lessee, its operators, personnel, and contractors may comply with the most current measures to protect species in place at the time an activity is undertaken under this lease, including but not limited to new or updated versions of the NTLs identified in this paragraph. The lessee and its operators, personnel, and subcontractors will be required to comply with the mitigation measures, identified in the above referenced NTLs, and additional measures in the conditions of approvals for their plans or permits.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 10 – Pg. 19 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES INFORMATION

11.1 MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE IMPACTS This plan does not propose activities for which the state of Florida is an affected state; however, Equinor will adhere to the requirements set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

• NTL No. 2015-BSEE-G03, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination” • NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting” • NTL No. 2016-BOEM-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program” • “Biological Opinion on the Federally Regulated Oil and Gas Program Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, Appendices to the Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Program”, Appendices B and C

11.2 INCIDENTAL TAKES Equinor will adhere to the requirements set forth in the following documents, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts to any of the species listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of the operations conducted herein:

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 11 – Pg. 23 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 12 SUPPORT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

12.1 GENERAL The most practical, direct route from the shorebase as permitted by weather and traffic conditions will be utilized. The drilling unit, vessels, crew boats and supply boats associated with the operations proposed in this plan will not transit the Bryde’s whale area.

Information regarding the vessels and aircraft to be used to support the proposed activities is provided in the table below.

Type Maximum Fuel Maximum Number Trip Frequency or Tank Capacity in Area at Any Duration Time Crew boat 203,000 gallons 1 1/week Supply boat 122,000 gallons 1 1/week Helicopter 440 - 760 gallons 1 7 times/week

12.2 DIESEL OIL SUPPLY VESSELS Information regarding vessels to be used to supply diesel oil for fuel and other purposes is provided in the table below.

Size of Fuel Supply Capacity of Fuel Frequency of Fuel Route Fuel Supply Vessel (ft) Supply Vessel Transfers Vessel Will Take 310’ 203,000 gallons Every 10 days Shortest route from Shorebase to block

12.3 DRILLING FLUID TRANSPORTATION Drilling fluid transportation information is not required to be submitted with this plan.

12.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE TRANSPORTATION Solid and liquid waste transportation information is not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

12.5 VICINITY MAP The drilling unit, vessels, crew boats and supply boats associated with the operations proposed in this plan will not transit the Bryde’s whale area.

A vicinity map showing the location of the activities proposed herein relative to the shoreline with the distance of the proposed activities from the shoreline and the primary routes of the support vessels and aircraft that will be used when traveling between the onshore support facilities and the drilling unit is included as Attachment 12-B.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 12 – Pg. 24 of 28 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

TABLE 2. WASTES YOU WILL TRANSPORT AND /OR DISPOSE OF ONSHORE please specify whether the amount reported is a total or per wel Projected Solid and Liquid Wastes generated waste transportation Waste Disposal Type of Waste Composition Transport Method Name/Location of Facility Amount Disposal Method

Will drilling occur ? If yes, fill in the muds and cuttings. Cuttings wetted with Water-based fluid NA NA NA NA NA Oil-based drilling fluid or mud NA NA NA NA NA Cuttings wetted with oil-based fluid NA NA NA NA NA Synthetic-based drilling fluid or mud Whole mud sent back in Below deck storage tanks on offshore Port Fourchon, LA 10,000 bbls/well Recycled after well has been supply vessels abandoned for reconditioning & reuse Synthetic-based drilling fluid or mud Tank washings from Below deck storage tanks on offshore Port Fourchon, LA 600 bbls/well Recycled offshore supply boats supply vessels

Cuttings wetted with Synthetic-based fluid NA NA NA NA

Will you produce hydrocarbons? If yes fill in for produced sand. Produced sand NA NA NA NA NA

Will you have additional wastes that are not permitted for discharge? If yes, fill in the appropriate rows. Trash and Debris non-recyclable/ non- transport in bags / baskets on vessels C-Port & IESI-SWDI 2 cu yds/day landfill hazardous refuse generated to Port Fourchon, LA by personnel on the MODU shorebase - picked up at shorebase and trucked to private facility Trash and Debris non- hazardous recyclables transport in bags / baskets on vessels C-Port & IESI-SWDI 657 lbs/day recycle and scrap metal to Port Fourchon, LA shorebase - picked up at shorebase and trucked to private facility Waste and Used Oil oil filters, rags, pads, empty American Recovery 1/bbl/day incinerate drums transport for disposal at private facility Houma, LA wash water water with trace amounts of Picked up at shorebase & trucked to R360 or Newpark Environmental 1000 bbls/well injected O&G private facility Services, Inc., Fourchon, LA chemical product wastes NA NA NA NA

NOTE: If you will not have a type of waste, enter NA in the row. Vicinity Map Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Mississippi Canyon 801

Houma !! Jefferson Houma Main Pass

~ Galliano Terrebonne1 !! 2 Lafourche 2 .3 Dulac !! M Fort Jackson i ! le ! s

to E R Cocodrie A River Ridge Plaquemines !! ! !! H ! e li p ~ !! o 7 ~ Grand Isle rt 7 1 H .9 0 0 o M . u i 4 m le Fourchon M ! a s ! i , t le L o s A C t S o h P West Delta o o B r r r i e t s b F t a o o s u w e r c Grand Isle H h e o l South Pelto n ip , o L r A t G S a h l o li r a e n b o a , s L e A South Timbalier S h o West Delta South r e b a s e e r

l Grand Isle South i

South Timbalier South Mississippi Canyon

MC801

Ewing Bank

Green Canyon Atwater Valley

SECTION 13 ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

13.1 GENERAL The onshore facilities that will be used to provide supply and service support for the proposed activities are provided in the table below.

Name Location Existing/New/Modified C-Port Port Fourchon, Louisiana Existing Era Heliport (Crew Change) Houma, Louisiana Existing Bristow Heliport (Medevac/SAR) Galliano, Louisiana Existing

13.2 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION There will be no new construction of an onshore support base, nor will Equinor expand the existing shorebase as a result of the operations proposed in this EP.

13.3 SUPPORT BASE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION TIMETABLE A support base construction or expansion timetable is not required for the activities proposed in this plan.

13.4 WASTE DISPOSAL The Table, “Wastes You Will Transport and/or Dispose of Onshore, “is included as Attachment 12-A.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 13 – Pg. 22 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 14 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) INFORMATION

Under direction of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the state of Louisiana developed a Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) to allow for the supervision of significant land and water use activities that take place within or that could significantly affect the Louisiana coastal zone.

Proposed activities are approximately 55 miles from the Louisiana shore. Measures will be taken to avoid or mitigate the probable impacts. Equinor will operate in compliance with existing Coastal Zone Management Program.

The OCS related oil and gas exploratory and development activities having potential impact on the Louisiana Coastal Zone is based on the location of the proposed facilities, access to those sites, best practical techniques for drilling locations, drilling equipment guidelines for the prevention of adverse environmental effects, effective environmental protection, emergency plans and contingency plans.

A certificate of Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the state of Louisiana is included as Attachment 14-A.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 14 – Pg. 23 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

SECTION 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Environmental Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 15-A.

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 15 – Pg. 24 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC (Equinor)

Initial Exploration Plan Mississippi Canyon Block 801 OCS-G 36558

(A) IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Environment Impact Producing Factors (IPFs) Resources Categories and Examples Refer to recent GOM OCS Lease Sale EIS for a more complete list of IPFs Emissions Effluents Physical Wastes sent Accidents Discarded (air, noise, (muds, disturbances to the to shore for (e.g., oil Trash & light, etc.) cutting, other seafloor (rig or treatment spills, Debris discharges to anchor or disposal chemical the water emplacements, spills, H2S column or etc.) releases) seafloor)

Site-specific at Offshore Location Designated topographic features (1) (1) (1) Pinnacle Trend area live bottoms (2) (2) (2) Eastern Gulf live bottoms (3) (3) (3)

Benthic communities (4) Water quality X X Fisheries X X Marine Mammals X(8) X X(8) X Sea Turtles X(8) X X(8) X Air quality X(9) Shipwreck sites (known or (7) potential) Prehistoric archaeological sites X(7)

Vicinity of Offshore Location Essential fish habitat XX(6) Marine and pelagic birds X X Public health and safety (5)

Coastal and Onshore Beaches X(6) X Wetlands X(6) Shore birds and coastal nesting X6) birds Coastal wildlife refuges Wilderness areas

Footnotes for Environmental Impact Analysis Matrix

1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well or platform site or any anchors will be on the seafloor within the: o 4-mile zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3-mile zone of Stetson Bank; o 1000-m, 1-mile or 3-mile zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease; o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft. from any no-activity zone; or o Proximity of any submarine bank (500 ft. buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 meters that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low- Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease. 4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 meters or greater. 5) Exploration or production activities where H2S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered. 6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the BOEM as having high-probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient distance from a shipwreck or a prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two. 8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals or sea turtles or their critical habitats. 9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges. (B) Analysis

Site-Specific at Mississippi Canyon Block 801 Proposed operations consist of the drilling and temporary or permanent abandonment of well locations A, A-ST, B, C, D, and E. Well Locations B, C, D, and E are included as re-spud or relief well locations should complications occur while drilling the planned A and A-ST locations. The operations will be conducted with a dynamically-positioned drillship.

1. Designated Topographic Features Potential IPFs on topographic features include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is 32 miles from the closest designated Topographic Features Stipulation Block (Sackett Bank); therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to benthic organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on corals. Because the crests of topographic features in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are found below 10 m, no oil from a surface spill could reach their sessile biota. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a topographic area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities, which could impact topographic features.

2. Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms Potential IPFs on pinnacle trend area live bottoms include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is 96 miles from the closest live bottom (pinnacle trend) area; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills have the potential to foul benthic communities and cause lethal and sublethal effects on live bottom organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine organisms. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact a live bottom (pinnacle trend) area.

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

Effluents: Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located in an area characterized by the existence of live bottoms; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to statistics in Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spills cause damage to live bottom organisms only if the oil contacts the organisms. Oil from a surface spill can be driven into the water column; measurable amounts have been documented down to a 10 m depth. At this depth, the oil is found only at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to have an effect on marine invertebrates. Oil from a subsurface spill is not applicable due to the distance of these blocks from a live bottom area. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact an Eastern Gulf live bottom area.

4. Benthic Communities There are no IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to benthic communities.

A dynamically-positioned drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a dynamically-positioned drillship, Equinor’s proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 would not cause impacts to benthic communities.

Additionally, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is located approximately 25 miles from the nearest known benthic community site (BenthicMississippi Canyon Block 969), listed in NTL 2009- G40.

5. Water Quality IPFs that could result in water quality degradation from the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to water quality.

Accidents: Oil spills have the potential to alter offshore water quality; however, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill would occur from the proposed activities. Between 1980 and 2000, OCS operations produced 4.7 billion barrels of oil and spilled only 0.001 percent of this oil, or 1 bbl for every 81,000 bbl produced. The spill risk related to a diesel spill from drilling operations is even less. Between 1976 and 1985, (years for which data were collected), there were 80 reported diesel spills greater than one barrel associated with drilling activities. Considering that there were 11,944 wells drilled, this is a 0.7 percent probability of an occurrence. If a spill were to occur, the water quality of marine waters would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small oil droplets. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels. Historically, changes in offshore water quality from oil spills have only been detected during the life of the spill and up to several months afterwards. Most of the components of oil are insoluble in water and therefore float. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

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

6. Fisheries IPFs that could cause impacts to fisheries as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 include effluents and accidents.

Effluents: Effluents such as drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components and properties which are detrimental to fishery resources. Moderate petroleum and metal contamination of sediments and the water column can occur out to several hundred meters down- current from the discharge point. Offshore discharges are expected to disperse and dilute to very near background levels in the water column or on the seafloor within 3,000 m of the discharge point, and are expected to have negligible effect on fisheries.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on fisheries; however, it is unlikely that such an event would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The effects of oil on mobile adult finfish or shellfish would likely be sublethal and the extent of damage would be reduced to the capacity of adult fish and shellfish to avoid the spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete both metabolites and parent compounds. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

There are no IPFs from emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor or wastes sent to shore for disposal from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to fisheries.

7. Marine Mammals GulfCet II studies revealed that cetaceans of the continental shelf and shelf-edge were almost exclusively bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Squid eaters, including dwarf and pygmy killer whale, Risso’s dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, and Cuvier’s beaked whale, occurred most frequently along the upper slope in areas outside of anticyclones. IPFs that could cause impacts to marine mammals as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents.

Emissions: Noises from drilling activities, support vessels and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction from marine mammals. This reaction may lead to disruption of marine mammals’ normal activities. Stress may make them more vulnerable to parasites, disease, environmental contaminants, and/or predation (Majors and Myrick, 1990). There is little conclusive evidence for long-term displacements and population trends for marine mammals relative to noise.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges contain components which may be detrimental to marine mammals. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of debris have caused the death or serious injury of marine mammals (Laist, 1997; MMC, 1999). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm marine mammals. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Equinor management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2015-G03-BSEE.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and cetaceans would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to marine mammals is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid marine mammals and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for marine mammals and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel personnel should use a Gulf of Mexico reference guide to help identify the twenty-one species of whales and dolphins, and the single species of manatee that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel personnel must report sightings of any injured or dead protected marine mammal species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the NMFS Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 1-877-433-8299 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/report.htm#southeast). Any injured or dead protected species should also be reported to [email protected]. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to [email protected]. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

Oil spills have the potential to cause sublethal oil-related injuries and spill-related deaths to marine mammals. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to changes in cetacean behavior and/or distribution, thereby causing additional stress to the animals. The effect of oil dispersants on cetaceans is not known. The acute toxicity of oil dispersant chemicals included in Equinor’s OSRP is considered to be low when compared with the constituents and fractions of crude oils and diesel products. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s OSRP (refer to information submitted in accordance with Section 8).

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

8. Sea Turtles IPFs that could cause impacts to sea turtles as a result of the proposed operations include emissions, effluents, discarded trash and debris, and accidents. GulfCet II studies sighted most loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and leatherback sea turtles over shelf waters. Historically these species have been sighted up to the shelf’s edge. They appear to be more abundant east of the Mississippi River than they are west of the river (Fritts et al., 1983b; Lohoefener et al., 1990). Deep waters may be used by all species as a transitory habitat.

Emissions: Noise from drilling activities, support vessels, and helicopters may elicit a startle reaction from sea turtles, but this is a temporary disturbance.

Effluents: Drilling fluids and cuttings discharges are not known to be lethal to sea turtles. Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed upon release. Any potential impact from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a result of impacts on prey items or possibly through ingestion in the food chain (API, 1989).

Discarded trash and debris: Both entanglement in, and ingestion of, debris have caused the death or serious injury of sea turtles (Balazs, 1985). The limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities is not expected to substantially harm sea turtles. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Accidents: Collisions between support vessels and sea turtles would be unusual events, however should one occur, death or injury to sea turtles is possible. Contract vessel operators can avoid sea turtles and reduce potential deaths by maintaining a vigilant watch for sea turtles and maintaining a safe distance when they are sighted. Vessel crews should use a reference guide to help identify the five species of sea turtles that may be encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected sea turtle species immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by their vessel, to the State Coordinators for the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/stranding_coordinators.htm (phone numbers vary by state). Any injured or dead protected species should also be reported to [email protected]. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with a contract vessel, the BOEM must be notified within 24 hours of the strike by email to [email protected]. If the vessel is the responsible party, it is required to remain available to assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

All sea turtle species and their life stages are vulnerable to the harmful effects of oil through direct contact or by fouling of their food. Exposure to oil can be fatal, particularly to juveniles and hatchlings. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Oil spill response activities may increase vessel traffic in the area, which could add to the possibility of collisions with sea turtles. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with Section 8).

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

9. Air Quality Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is located 91 miles from the Breton Wilderness Area and 55 miles from shore. Applicable emissions data is included in Section 7 of the Plan.

There would be a limited degree of air quality degradation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed activities. Plan Emissions for the proposed activities do not exceed the annual exemption levels as set forth by BOEM. Accidents and blowouts can release hydrocarbons or chemicals, which could cause the emission of air pollutants. However, these releases would not impact onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission height, emission rates, and the distance of Mississippi Canyon Block 801 from the coastline. There are no other IPFs (including effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which would impact air quality.

10. Shipwreck Sites (known or potential) Potential IPFs that could impact known or unknown shipwreck sites as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 include disturbances to the seafloor.

Physical disturbances to the seafloor: A dynamically-positioned drillship is being used for the proposed activities; therefore, only an insignificant amount of seafloor will be disturbed. Because physical disturbances to the seafloor will be minimized by the use of a dynamically- positioned drillship, Equinor’s proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 would not cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

Additionally, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks, therefore, no adverse impacts are expected.

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal, or accidents) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shipwreck sites.

11. Prehistoric Archaeological Sites IPFs that could cause impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 are physical disturbances to the seafloor and accidents (oil spills).

Physical Disturbances to the seafloor: Although the operations proposed will be conducted by utilizing a dynamically-positioned drillship, which would cause only an insignificant amount of seafloor to be disturbed, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 is located inside the Archaeological Prehistoric high probability lines. Equinor will report to BOEM the discovery of any object of prehistoric archaeological significance and make every reasonable effort to preserve and protect that cultural resource.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects to prehistoric archaeological sites if the release were to occur subsea. However, it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (refer to information submitted in accordance with Section 8).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, effluents or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact prehistoric archeological sites.

Vicinity of Offshore Location

1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) IPFs that could cause impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed operations in Mississippi Canyon Block 801 include effluents and accidents. EFH includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

Effluents: The Live Bottom Low Relief Stipulation, the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, and the Eastern Gulf Pinnacle Trend Stipulation would prevent most of the potential impacts on live-bottom communities and EFH from operational waste discharges. Levels of contaminants in drilling muds and cuttings and produced-water discharges, discharge-rate restrictions, and monitoring and toxicity testing are regulated by the EPA NPDES permit, thereby eliminating many significant biological or ecological effects. Operational discharges are not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Accidents: An accidental oil spill has the potential to cause some detrimental effects on EFH. Oil spills that contact coastal bays and estuaries, as well as OCS waters when pelagic eggs and larvae are present, have the greatest potential to affect fisheries. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

There are no other IPFs (including emissions, physical disturbances to the seafloor and wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities which could impact essential fish habitat.

2. Marine and Pelagic Birds IPFs that could impact marine birds as a result of the proposed activities include air emissions, accidental oil spills, and discarded trash and debris from vessels and the facilities.

Emissions: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are far below concentrations which could harm coastal and marine birds.

Accidents: An oil spill would cause localized, low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Marine and pelagic birds feeding at the spill location may experience chronic, nonfatal, physiological stress. It is expected that few, if any, coastal and marine birds would actually be affected to that extent. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

Discarded trash and debris: Marine and pelagic birds could become entangled and snared in discarded trash and debris, or ingest small plastic debris, which can cause permanent injuries and death. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL- Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass. Informational placards will be posted on all vessels and facilities having sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Equinor management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2015-G03-BSEE. Debris, if any, from these proposed activities will seldom interact with marine and pelagic birds; therefore, the effects will be negligible.

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

3. Public Health and Safety Due to Accidents. There are no IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal or accidents, including an accidental H2S release) from the proposed activities which could cause impacts to public health and safety. In accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G04, 2009-G27, and 2009-G31, sufficient information is included in Section 4 to justify our request that our proposed activities be classified by BSEE as H2S absent.

Coastal and Onshore

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

Accidents: Oil spills contacting beaches would have impacts on the use of recreational beaches and associated resources. Due to the distance from shore (55 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

Discarded trash and debris: Trash on the beach is recognized as a major threat to the enjoyment and use of beaches. There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

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

2. Wetlands IPFs from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to wetlands include accidents (oil spills) and discarded trash and debris.

Accidents: It is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (55 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

Discarded trash and debris: There will only be a limited amount of marine debris, if any, resulting from the proposed activities. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

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

3. Shore Birds and Coastal Nesting Birds Accidents: Oil spills could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Given the distance from shore (55 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

Discarded trash and debris: Coastal and marine birds are highly susceptible to entanglement in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris: specifically plastics. Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

Informational placards will be posted on vessels and every facility that has sleeping or food preparation capabilities. All offshore personnel, including contractors and other support services-related personnel (e.g. helicopter pilots, vessel captains and boat crews) will be indoctrinated on waste procedures, and will view the video (or Microsoft PowerPoint presentation), “Think About It” (previously “All Washed Up: The Beach Litter Problem”). Thereafter, all personnel will view the marine trash and debris training video annually. Offshore personnel will also receive an explanation from Equinor management or the designated lease operator management that emphasizes their commitment to waste management in accordance with NTL No. 2015-G03-BSEE.

There are no other IPFs (emissions, effluents, physical disturbances to the seafloor, or wastes sent to shore for treatment or disposal) from the proposed activities that could cause impacts to shore birds and coastal nesting birds.

4. Coastal Wildlife Refuges Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to coastal wildlife refuges. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from shore (55 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

Discarded trash and debris: Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging debris as mandated by MARPOL-Annex V, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Equinor will operate in accordance with the regulations and also avoid accidental loss of solid waste items by maintaining waste management plans, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. Special caution will be exercised when handling and disposing of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non- biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass.

5. Wilderness Areas Accidents: An accidental oil spill from the proposed activities could cause impacts to wilderness areas. However, it is unlikely that an oil spill would occur from the proposed activities (refer to Item 5, Water Quality). Due to the distance from the nearest designated Wilderness Area (91 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. The activities proposed in this plan will be covered by Equinor’s Regional OSRP (refer to information submitted in Section 8).

6. Other Environmental Resources Identified There are no other environmental resources identified for this impact assessment.

(C) IMPACTS ON PROPOSED ACTIVITIES The site–specific environmental conditions have been taken into account for the proposed activities. No impacts are expected on the proposed activities from site-specific environmental conditions.

(D) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS During the hurricane season, June through November, the Gulf of Mexico is impacted by an average of ten tropical storms (39-73 mph winds), of which six become hurricanes ( > 74 mph winds). Due to its location in the gulf, Mississippi Canyon Block 801 may experience hurricane and tropical storm force winds, and related sea currents. These factors can adversely impact the integrity of the operations covered by this plan. A significant storm may present physical hazards to operators and vessels, damage exploration or production equipment, or result in the release of hazardous materials (including hydrocarbons). Additionally, the displacement of equipment may disrupt the local benthic habitat and pose a threat to local species.

The following preventative measures included in this plan may be implemented to mitigate these impacts:

1. Drilling & completion a. Secure well b. Secure rig / platform c. Evacuate personnel

Drilling activities will be conducted in accordance with NTL No.’s 2008-G09, 2009-G10, and 2010-N10.

2. Structure Installation Operator will not conduct structure installation operations during Tropical Storm or Hurricane threat.

(E) ALTERNATIVES No alternatives to the proposed activities were considered to reduce environmental impacts.

(F) MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation will be employed to avoid, diminish, or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources.

(G) CONSULTATION No agencies or persons were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed activities. Therefore, a list of such entities has not been provided.

(H) PREPARER(S)

Matt Harlan J. Connor Consulting, Inc. 19219 Katy Freeway, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77094 281-578-3388 [email protected]

(I) REFERENCES Authors:

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

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In: Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida, eds. Proceedings, Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Pp 387-429.

Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil. 1995. Potential benefits from regulatory consideration of synthetic drilling muds. Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM-43.

Daly, J.M. 1997. Controlling the discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluid contaminated cuttings in waters of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Work Plan, June 24, 1997.

Hansen, D.J. 198l. The relative sensitivity of seabird populations in Alaska to oil pollution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. BLM- YK-ES-81-006-1792.

Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers, eds. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 99-139.

Majors, A.P. and A.C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: implications for dolphins exposed to seal bombs in the eastern tropical Pacific purse-seine fishery–an annotated bibliography. NOAA Administrative Report LJ-90-06.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1999. Annual report to Congress – 1998.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk. 107 (2): 387-397

Vauk , G., E. Hartwig, B. Reineking, and E. Vauk-Hentzelt. 1989. Losses of seabirds by oil pollution at the German North Sea coast. Topics in Marine Biology. Ros, J.D, ed. Scient. Mar. 53 (2-3): 749-754.

Vermeer, K. and R. Vermeer, 1975 Oil threat to birds on the Canadian west coast. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89:278-298.

Although not cited, the following were utilized in preparing this EIA:  Hazard Surveys  BOEM EIS’s: o GOM Deepwater Operations and Activities. Environmental Assessment. BOEM 2000- 001 o GOM Central and Western Planning Areas Sales 166 and 168 Final Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM 96-0058.

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

16.1 EXEMPTED INFORMATION DESCRIPTION The proposed bottomhole locations the planned wells have been removed from the Public Information copy of this EP as well as any discussions of the target objectives, geologic or geophysical data, and interpreted geology.

16.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Initial Exploration Plan (Control No. N-9378). 2. Shallow Hazards Assessment and Benthic Communities Evaluation, Mississippi Canyon Area, Block 801 (Lease No. G36558), Gulf of Mexico, Berger Geosciences, LLC, October, 2019, Project Number 19-07-18. 3. Deep Tow Survey, Block 801, OCS-G 32350, Mississippi Canyon Area, Offshore Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico, Tesla Offshore LLC, October, 2008, Job No. 08-229-12. 4. Oil Spill Response Plan (O-735).

Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC Section 16 – Pg. 25 of 25 Initial EP December, 2019 Mississippi Canyon Block 801 (OCS-G 36558)