Environmental Assessment of Statoilhydro Canada Ltd

Environmental Assessment of StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016

Prepared by

for

March 2008 Project No. SA947b

Environmental Assessment of StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016

Prepared by

LGL Limited environmental research associates 388 Kenmount Road, Box 13248, Stn. A., St. John’s, NL A1B 4A5 Tel: 709-754-1992 [email protected] www.lgl.com

In Association With

Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc. Box 21461, St. John's, NL A1A 5G2 Tel: 709-738-0133 www.canpitt.ca

and

Oceans Limited 65A LeMarchant Road St. John’s, NL A1C 2G9 Tel: 709-753-5788

Prepared for

StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Suite 600, Scotia Centre 235 Water Street St. John’s, NL A1C 1B6

March 2008 Project No. SA947b Suggested format for citation:

LGL Limited. 2008. Environmental Assessment of StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016. LGL Rep. SA947b. Rep. by LGL Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., and Oceans Ltd., St. John’s, NL, for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL. 292 p. + appendices. Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures...... vi List of Tables ...... x 1.0 Introduction...... 1 2.0 The Operator...... 5 2.1. Operator’s Objectives...... 5 2.2. Social Responsibility and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits...... 6 2.3. Operator Contacts...... 6 3.0 Project Overview...... 7 3.1. Personnel...... 7 3.2. Name and Location of Proposed Project...... 7 3.3. Alternatives to Project/Alternative Means within Project...... 11 3.4. Mobile Offshore Drilling Units ...... 11 3.5. Logistic Support ...... 12 3.5.1. Marine Support Vessels ...... 12 3.5.2. Helicopter Support...... 13 3.5.3. Shorebase Facilities ...... 13 3.5.4. Ice Management...... 13 3.6. Project Components/Structures/Activities ...... 13 3.6.1. General...... 13 3.6.2. Project Phases...... 14 3.6.3. Project Scheduling...... 14 3.6.4. Description of Waste Discharges, Air Emissions and Treatment...... 15 3.6.5. Geohazard and VSP Surveys ...... 20 3.6.6. Geotechnical Testing...... 20 3.6.7. Onsite Environmental/Ice Observers ...... 20 3.6.8. Project Site Information...... 21 3.6.9. Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 23 3.7. Consultations...... 23 4.0 Physical Environment ...... 24 4.1. Geochemical...... 24 4.1.1. Geology...... 24 4.1.2. Chemical Environment ...... 24 4.2. Climatology...... 26 4.2.1. Data Sources...... 30 4.2.3. Waves...... 37 4.2.4. Air and Sea Temperature ...... 49 4.2.5. Precipitation ...... 52 4.2.6. Visibility...... 54

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page ii 4.2.7. Tropical Storms ...... 57 4.3. Physical Oceanography ...... 66 4.3.1. General Description of the Major Currents ...... 66 4.3.2. Currents in the Project Area...... 69 4.3.3. Water Mass Structure...... 72 4.3.4. Water Properties in the Project Area ...... 73 4.4. Ice and Icebergs...... 81 4.4.1. Sea Ice...... 81 4.4.2. Icebergs...... 83 5.0 Biological Environment...... 87 5.1. Ecosystem ...... 87 5.2. Invertebrates and Fish ...... 87 5.2.1. Marine Habitats...... 87 5.2.2. Profiles of Commercially-Important Species...... 90 5.2.3. Invertebrate and Fish Spawning...... 93 5.2.4. DFO Research Survey Data, 2005-2006...... 93 5.3. Commercial Fisheries...... 103 5.3.1. Data...... 103 5.3.2. Consultations...... 104 5.3.3. Historical Overview of Area Fisheries ...... 104 5.3.4. Current Domestic Harvests...... 107 5.3.5. Fisheries Research...... 130 5.4. Seabirds...... 130 5.4.1. Seasonal Abundance of Seabirds in the Study Area...... 130 5.4.2. Prey and Foraging Habits...... 136 5.5. Marine Mammals ...... 138 5.5.1. DFO Cetacean Sighting Database...... 142 5.5.2. Species Profiles...... 144 5.6. Sea Turtles...... 149 5.7. Species at Risk ...... 149 5.7.1. Profiles of SARA Schedule 1- and COSEWIC-Listed Species ...... 150 5.8. Sensitive/Special Areas ...... 159 6.0 Effects Assessment Methodology...... 160 6.1. Scoping ...... 160 6.2. Consultations...... 160 6.2.1. Issues and Concerns...... 161 6.3. Valued Ecosystem Components ...... 164 6.3.1. Fish Habitat VEC...... 165 6.3.2. Fish VEC...... 165 6.3.3. Commercial Fishery VEC...... 165 6.3.4. Seabird VEC...... 165 6.3.5. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC ...... 166 6.3.6. Species at Risk VEC ...... 166

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page iii 6.4. Other Issues...... 166 6.5. Boundaries ...... 166 6.5.1. Temporal...... 166 6.5.2. Project Area...... 167 6.5.3. Study Area...... 167 6.5.4. Potential Affected Areas...... 167 6.5.5. Regional Area...... 167 6.6. Effects Assessment Procedures ...... 167 6.6.1. Identification and Evaluation of Effects ...... 167 6.6.2. Classifying Anticipated Environmental Effects...... 168 6.6.3. Mitigation...... 169 6.6.4. Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects...... 169 6.6.5. Cumulative Effects...... 170 6.6.6. Integrated Residual Environmental Effects ...... 170 6.6.7. Significance Rating...... 171 6.6.8. Level of Confidence...... 171 6.6.9. Determination of Whether Predicted Environmental Effects are Likely to Occur...... 172 6.7. Monitoring/Follow-Up ...... 172 7.0 Effects Assessment of Routine Activities...... 173 7.1. Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project ...... 173 7.2. Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Environment ...... 174 7.2.1. Potential Zones of Influence ...... 174 7.2.2. Potential Effects of Routine Activities on VECs...... 186 8.0 Accidental Events...... 229 8.1. Probability of Accidental Events ...... 229 8.1.1. General Oil Pollution Record of the Offshore Exploration and Production Industry ...... 229 8.1.2. Sources of Information ...... 230 8.1.3. Categories of Accidental Event Size...... 230 8.1.4. Extremely Large, Very Large and Large Accidental Events...... 230 8.1.5. Blowouts Involving Gas Only or Small Discharges of Oil...... 234 8.1.6. Smaller Platform Spills...... 236 8.1.7. Summary of Blowout and Spill Frequencies ...... 238 8.2. Oil Spill Fate/Behaviour and Trajectory Modeling...... 239 8.2.1. 2008 Modeling for StatoilHydro...... 239 8.2.2. Blowouts ...... 240 8.2.3. Batch Spills...... 243 8.2.4. Other Modeling Relevant to the Project ...... 245 8.3. Accidental Events in the Newfoundland Offshore...... 247 8.3.1. Terra Nova Crude Spills ...... 247 8.3.2. Synthetic Based Mud Spills...... 247 8.4. Spill Response...... 251

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page iv 8.5. Estimation of Potential Cleanup Effectiveness ...... 251 8.5.1. Best-Practicable Containment/Recovery System ...... 252 8.5.2. FTRP: Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible...... 252 8.6. Alternatives to Containment and Recovery ...... 252 8.7. Potential Effects of Accidental Events ...... 253 8.7.1. Fish Habitat...... 254 8.7.2. Fish...... 256 8.7.3. Commercial Fisheries...... 259 8.7.4. Seabirds...... 261 8.7.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ...... 264 8.7.6. Species at Risk ...... 267 9.0 Summary and Conclusions ...... 275 9.1. Residual Effects of the Project ...... 275 9.2. Cumulative Effects of the Project...... 275 9.3. Monitoring and Follow-up...... 277 10.0 Final Comment...... 278 10.1. Environmental Assessment Validation Process ...... 278 11.0 Literature Cited...... 279

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Physical Environmental Conditions on the Grand Banks in Support of StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program Appendix 2: Report On Consultations Appendix 3: Jeanne d’Arc Basin Well Cuttings / Mud Deposition Modeling Appendix 4: Hypothetical Spill Trajectory Probabilities from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen Drilling Program

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page v List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.1. Locations of Proposed Project Area, Study Area, ELs 1049, 1092, 1093, 1100, 1101, and SDL 1040...... 2 Figure 3.1. Schematics of Typical Shallow Well Scenarios – Vertical & Deviated...... 8 Figure 3.2. Schematics of Typical Deep Well Scenarios – Vertical & Deviated...... 8 Figure 3.3. Current StatoilHydro Land Distribution in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass Area...... 9 Figure 3.4. Locations of Potential Fish- and Bird-related Sensitive Areas Relative to the Proposed Project Area and Study Area...... 22 Figure 4.1. QuikSCAT Satellite Derived Winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for January...... 28 Figure 4.2. QuikSCAT Satellite Derived Winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for July...... 28 Figure 4.3. January (a,c) and July (b,d) Monthly Mean Wind Wave Height (a,b) and Significant Wave Height Estimate (c,d) (units are metres)...... 29 Figure 4.4. Locations of the Climate Data Sources...... 30 Figure 4.5. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005...... 32 Figure 4.6. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005...... 33 Figure 4.7. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005...... 34 Figure 4.8. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005...... 34 Figure 4.9. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005...... 35 Figure 4.10. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005...... 36 Figure 4.11. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N, 48.3°W...... 38 Figure 4.12. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N, 48.4°W...... 41 Figure 4.13. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N, 48.1°W...... 41 Figure 4.14. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N, 48.3°W...... 42 Figure 4.15. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N, 46.3°W...... 46 Figure 4.16. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N, 46.3°W...... 46 Figure 4.17. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 1...... 55 Figure 4.18. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 2...... 56 Figure 4.19. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 3...... 57 Figure 4.20. Frequency of Tropical Storm Development in the Atlantic Basin. 1958 – 2007...... 58 Figure 4.21. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 12595 (47.5°N; 48.3°W)...... 59 Figure 4.22. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10255 (46.3°N; 48.4°W)...... 62 Figure 4.23. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10439 (46.4°N; 48.1°W)...... 63 Figure 4.24. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 11421 (46.9°N; 48.3°W)...... 63

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page vi Figure 4.25. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10856 (46.6°N; 46.3°W)...... 65 Figure 4.26. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 13912 (48.3°N; 46.3°W)...... 65 Figure 4.27. Major Ocean Circulation Features in the Northwest Atlantic...... 67 Figure 4.28. The Upper Layer (10-50 m) Circulation around the Flemish Cap and Adjacent Grand Bank during July 1996. Measurements made with a ship mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)...... 68 Figure 4.29. Location and Coverage of the Project Sub-areas...... 69 Figure 4.30. Hydrographic Contours of the Flemish Cap Transect during April 2007...... 74 Figure 4.31. Hydrographic Contours of the Flemish Cap Transect during November 2007...... 75 Figure 4.32. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 1 (depth < 100 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres)...... 76 Figure 4.33. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 2 (100 m – 200 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres)...... 78 Figure 4.34. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 3 (200 m - 400 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres)...... 79 Figure 4.35. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 4 (>400 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depths in metres)...... 80 Figure 4.36. Mean and Composite Maximum Sea Ice Distribution...... 82 Figure 4.37. Maximum and Mean Annual Numbers of Icebergs Observed...... 84 Figure 5.1. Distribution of Shrimp Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 95 Figure 5.2. Distribution of Deepwater Redfish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 96 Figure 5.3. Distribution of Greenland Halibut Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 96 Figure 5.4. Distribution of Roughhead Grenadier Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 97 Figure 5.5. Distribution of Thorny Skate Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 97 Figure 5.6. Distribution of Sand Lance Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 98 Figure 5.7. Distribution of Capelin Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 98 Figure 5.8. Distribution of American Plaice Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 99 Figure 5.9. Distribution of Atlantic Cod Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 99 Figure 5.10. Distribution of Yellowtail Flounder Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 100 Figure 5.11. Distribution of Greenland Shark Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 100 Figure 5.12. Distribution of Atlantic Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 101

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page vii Figure 5.13. Distribution of Northern Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 101 Figure 5.14. Distribution of Spotted Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined)...... 102 Figure 5.15. Project Area (main UAs) Harvest, Groundfish vs. Other, 1987-2006...... 105 Figure 5.16. NAFO Subarea 3 and Divisions...... 105 Figure 5.17. Historical Harvest from Div. 3L, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks...... 106 Figure 5.18. Historical Harvest from Div. 3M, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks...... 106 Figure 5.19. Historical Harvest from Div. 3M, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks...... 107 Figure 5.20. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2004...... 109 Figure 5.21. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 109 Figure 5.22. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2006...... 110 Figure 5.23. Study Area Quantity of Harvest by Month, 2004-2006...... 111 Figure 5.24. Project Area Quantity of Harvest by Month, 2004-2006...... 111 Figure 5.25. Location of Domestic Harvest, All Species, by Month, 2004-2006 (Aggregated)...... 113 Figure 5.26. Fixed Gear Harvesting Locations, 2004-2006, Aggregated...... 115 Figure 5.27. Mobile Gear Harvesting Locations, 2004- 2006, Aggregated...... 115 Figure 5.28. Newfoundland Snow Crab Fishing Areas...... 116 Figure 5.29. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2004...... 118 Figure 5.30. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 118 Figure 5.31. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2006...... 119 Figure 5.32. Project Area Quantity of Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 119 Figure 5.33. Study Area Quantity of Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 120 Figure 5.34. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2004...... 121 Figure 5.35. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 121 Figure 5.36. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2006...... 122 Figure 5.37. Project Area Quantity of Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 122 Figure 5.38. Study Area Quantity of Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged..... 123 Figure 5.39. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2004...... 124 Figure 5.40. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 124 Figure 5.41. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 125 Figure 5.42. Project Area Quantity of Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 125 Figure 5.43. Study Area Quantity of Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 126 Figure 5.44. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2004...... 126 Figure 5.45. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2005...... 127 Figure 5.46. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2006...... 127 Figure 5.47. Project Area Quantity of Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 128 Figure 5.48. Study Area Quantity of Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged...... 128 Figure 5.49. Geographic and Seasonal Distributions of Seabirds in the Study Area and Project Area...... 131 Figure 5.50. Locations of Important Bird Areas Nearest the Study Area...... 135 Figure 5.51. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Sightings During Seismic and CSEM Surveys (2004 – 2007), Relative to the Proposed Study and Project Areas...... 140

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page viii Figure 5.52. DFO Database Cetacean Sightings within the Study Area, 1945 – 2007...... 144 Figure 5.53. Sightings of Endangered Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles within the Study Area, Based on the DFO Cetacean Sighting Database (1945-2007) and Recent Seismic and CSEM Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs (2004-2007)...... 152 Figure 8.1. Frequency of Small Platform Spills (1 to 49 bbl) in the US GOM, 1971 to 1995...... 236 Figure 8.2. Terra Nova FPSO Oily Water Discharge Tracker Buoy Trajectory, 22 November 2004 to 4 March 2005...... 248 Figure 8.3. Spill Location and Trajectory Map Associated with Crude Oil Spill at Terra Nova in April 2006...... 249 Figure 8.4. Surface Spill Trajectory Hindcast for Synthetic Based Mud Spill at White Rose, 22 October 2004...... 250 Figure 8.5. Oil Spill Trajectory Prediction (108 hours)...... 251

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page ix List of Tables

Page

Table 3.1. Current StatoilHydro Interests in Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass Basin Area...... 10 Table 3.2. Typical Mud/Cuttings Treatment System...... 17 Table 3.3. Drill Mud and Cuttings Discharges Asscociated with Typical Jeanne d’Arc Basin Drilling Scenarios...... 18 Table 3.4 Drill Mud and Cuttings Discharges Asscociated with Typical Flemish Pass Drilling Scenarios...... 18 Table 4.1. Grid Point Locations...... 30 Table 4.2. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 32 Table 4.3. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 33 Table 4.4. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 35 Table 4.5. Maximum Wind Speeds (m/s) Statistics...... 37 Table 4.6. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 39 Table 4.7. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 39 Table 4.8. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 12595...... 40 Table 4.9. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 42 Table 4.10. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 43 Table 4.11. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10255...... 44 Table 4.12. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10439...... 44 Table 4.13. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 11421...... 45 Table 4.14. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 47 Table 4.15. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets...... 47 Table 4.16. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10856...... 48 Table 4.17. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 13912...... 49 Table 4.18. Region 1 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 50 Table 4.19. Region 2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 51 Table 4.20. Region 3 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 52 Table 4.21. Region 1 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 53 Table 4.22. Region 2 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 53 Table 4.23. Region 3 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 54 Table 4.24. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 60 Table 4.25. Extreme Wave Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 60

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page x Table 4.26. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 60 Table 4.27. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 61 Table 4.28. Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 in Region 2...... 61 Table 4.29. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 64 Table 4.30. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 64 Table 4.31. Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 64 Table 4.32. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 66 Table 5.1. Table Spawning Specifics of Notable Invertebrate and Fish Species Likely to Spawn Within or Near the Study Area...... 94 Table 5.2. Species/Groups with Highest Catch Weights During DFO RV Surveys in Study Area and Project Area, 2005 and 2006...... 95 Table 5.3. Table Average ‘Mean Catch Depth’, and Minimum and Maximum Catch Depths during RV Surveys in Study Area, 2005 and 2006...... 102 Table 5.4. Study Area Quantity of Harvest by Species, All Months, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged)...... 108 Table 5.5. Project Area Quantity of Harvest by Species, All Months, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged).... 108 Table 5.6. Study Area Landings by Gear Type, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged)...... 114 Table 5.7. Project Area Landings by Gear Type, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged)...... 114 Table 5.8. Relevant 2008 Snow Crab Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*...... 117 Table 5.9. Area 7 2008 Northern Shrimp Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*...... 120 Table 5.10. 2007 Yellowtail Flounder Quotas...... 129 Table 5.11. Relevant 2008 Turbot Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*...... 129 Table 5.12. Preliminary 2008 Schedule for DFO RV Surveys in NAFO Divisions 3LN that Overlap with Study Area...... 130 Table 5.13. Monthly Abundance of Bird Species Occurring in Shelf Waters of the Study Area. .... 132 Table 5.14. Number of Pairs of Seabirds Nesting at Seabird Colonies in Eastern Newfoundland. .. 134 Table 5.15. Seabird Observations by LGL Biologists in Study Area and Project Area, 2004- 2007...... 137 Table 5.16. Marine Mammals with Reasonable Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area, and their COSEWIC and SARA Status...... 139 Table 5.17. Population Estimates of Marine Mammals with Reasonable Liklihoods of Occurrence in the Study Area...... 141 Table 5.18. Prey of Marine Mammals with Reasonable Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area...... 142 Table 5.19. DFO Database Cetacean Sightings within the Study Area, 1945 – 2007...... 143 Table 5.20. SARA Schedule 1 and COSEWIC-listed Marine Species that Potentially Occur in the Study Area...... 151

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page xi Table 7.1. Drilling Project Activity Table to Aid in Developing Frequency and Duration Ratings...... 175 Table 7.2. Mud Components and Cuttings Discharge Volume for a Typical Grand Banks Development Well...... 179 Table 7.3. Typical Constituents of SBM...... 180 Table 7.4. Natural and Development-related Underwater Sound Levels...... 185 Table 7.5. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Fish Habitat VEC...... 188 Table 7.6. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish Habitat VEC...... 190 Table 7.7. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish Habitat VEC...... 192 Table 7.8. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Fish VEC...... 195 Table 7.9. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish VEC...... 197 Table 7.10. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish VEC...... 199 Table 7.11. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys)...... 201 Table 7.12. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys)...... 203 Table 7.13. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys)...... 205 Table 7.14. Potential Interactions of Routine Project Activities and Seabirds, Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles...... 207 Table 7.15. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Seabird VEC...... 208 Table 7.16. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Seabird VEC...... 211 Table 7.17. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC...... 213 Table 7.18. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC...... 215 Table 7.19. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Species at Risk...... 216 Table 7.20. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC...... 218 Table 7.21. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC...... 220 Table 7.22. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC...... 222 Table 7.23. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC...... 224 Table 7.24. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC...... 225

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page xii Table 7.25. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC...... 228 Table 8.1. Spill Size Categories...... 230 Table 8.2. Historical Very Large (>10,000 bbl) Oil Spills from Offshore Blowouts, 1970- Present...... 231 Table 8.3. Oil Spill (> 1 Litre) Data Pertaining to the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2008...... 233 Table 8.4. Blowouts and Spillage from US Federal Offshore Wells, 1972-2005...... 235 Table 8.5. Spill Frequency from Platforms for Spills in the Ranges of 1 to 49 bbl and 50 to 999 bbl (US OCS 1971 to 2006)...... 236 Table 8.6. Small and Medium Hydrocarbon Spills (1-1,000 bbl) During Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007...... 237 Table 8.7. Small and Medium Spill Frequencies, Based on US GOM and NLOA Experiences. ... 237 Table 8.8. Predicted Number of Blowouts and Spills for StatoilHydro’s Proposed Nine-Year Drilling Program, Based on US GOM Statistics...... 238 Table 8.9. Characterisitcs of Surface Slick and In-Water Dispersed Oil Cloud for Winter and Summer Above-Surface Blowout at Mizzen...... 240 Table 8.10. Surface Oil Coverage Estimates for Summer Above-Surface Blowout at Mizzen...... 241 Table 8.11. Characterisitcs of Initial Surface Slick for Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen...... 242 Table 8.12. Characteristics of Slick and Dispersed Oil Cloud for Winter and Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen...... 242 Table 8.13. Oil Coverage Estimates for Thick Oil Slick Portions from Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen...... 243 Table 8.14. Characteristics of Batch Diesel Fuel Spills at Mizzen...... 244 Table 8.15. Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible...... 252 Table 8.16. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Fish Habitat VEC...... 255 Table 8.17. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fish Habitat VEC...... 255 Table 8.18. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fish Habitat VEC...... 256 Table 8.19. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Fish VEC...... 258 Table 8.20. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fish VEC...... 258 Table 8.21. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fish VEC...... 259 Table 8.22. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Seabirds...... 262 Table 8.23. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Ivory Gull of the Seabird VEC...... 263 Table 8.24. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Seabird VEC...... 264 Table 8.25. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtles...... 265 Table 8.26. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC.... 266 Table 8.27. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Marine Mammal and Seabird VEC...... 267

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page xiii Table 8.28. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Species-at-Risk that Could Occur in the Study Area...... 268 Table 8.29. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC...... 269 Table 8.30. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC...... 270 Table 8.31. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC...... 271 Table 8.32. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC...... 272 Table 8.33. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC...... 273 Table 8.34. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC...... 274

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page xiv

1.0 Introduction

StatoilHydro Canada Ltd (StatoilHydro) and partners plan to undertake a program of exploration and appraisal/delineation well drilling at various locations in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass area over the period of 2008 through 2016. The purpose of this Project is to drill likely oil and gas targets identified from interpretation of existing and new seismic survey data and to conduct any appraisal/delineation drilling that may arise from the exploration drilling.

The western boundary of the area to be explored (exploration area = the Project Area) is approximately 250 km east of St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador (Figure 1.1) and encompasses water depths ranging from <100 m to 1,000 to 2,000 m. The approximate dimensions of the Project Area are 320 km west to east and 350 km north to south. The Project Area includes the Mizzen (EL 1049), River of Ponds (EL 1100), L’Anse Aux Meadows (EL 1101), and West Bonne Bay (SDL 1040) Exploration and Significant Discovery Licenses. The most likely drilling prospect for 2008 is the Mizzen license which covers an area of 826 km2 and is located approximately 500 km east-northeast of St. John’s. StatoilHydro is the current Operator of the Mizzen EL (65% share) along with its partner Husky (35% share).

Drilling operations are currently planned to begin in the late summer/fall of 2008 or early 2009 depending on the availability, quality and economic viability of drilling targets, availability of drill rigs (MODUs), and regulatory approval. At this time, it is anticipated that a maximum of 27 single and/or dual side-track wells could be drilled during the 2008-2016 period. The Project Area and Study Area defined in this environmental assessment are depicted in Figure 1.1. Other Project activities associated with the proposed drilling program include geohazard surveys, vertical seismic profiling (VSP), potential geotechnical testing if jack-up rig used, and seabed sampling associated with setting of MODU anchors.

The Project will require authorizations pursuant to Section 138 (1) (b) of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and Section 134 (1) (a) of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act. Subject to Section 5 (1) (d) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act), the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) is a responsible authority (RA) and federal environmental assessment coordinator (FEAC) and must undertake a screening level environmental assessment (EA) of the Project.

Legislation that is relevant to the environmental aspects of this Project includes:

x Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts; x Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; x Oceans Act; x Fisheries Act; x Navigable Waters Protection Act;

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 1 Figure 1.1. Locations of Proposed Project Area, Study Area, ELs 1049, 1092, 1093, 1100, 1101, and SDL 1040.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 2 x Canada Shipping Act; x Species at Risk Act; x Migratory Birds Convention Act; and x Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

There is no federal funding for this Project. Federal lands are involved and they are administered by the C-NLOPB, a federal-provincial agency operating under the Accord Acts. A Drilling Program Authorization (DPA), Approval to Drill a Well (ADW), Site Survey (Geohazard) and Vertical Seismic Profile Authorizations are required to conduct a drilling program in the Project Area.

The Project is aimed at defining and drilling for potential oil and gas resources on any current or future StatoilHydro land holdings within the Project Area. Futhermore, StatoilHydro anticipates that it may conduct exploration and/or appraisal/delination drilling activites on behalf of other operators with current or future land holdings in the Project Area should such opportunities arise and commercial agreements and regulatory approvals be in place. It is also possible, should a suitable opportunity arise, that StatoilHydro would opt for another operator to conduct drilling and/or seismic activities on its behalf on current or future StatoilHydro land holdings within the Project Area.

The Project Description (Section 3.0) is based upon information available to StatoilHydro at the time of writing. Not all Project details are presently known because all necessary seismic survey information has not been collected and existing seismic survey information has not been fully interpreted. Furthermore, not all contractors and suppliers have been selected, the specific number and location of wells are yet to be finalized, and new leases within the Project Area (Figure 1.1) may be acquired over the coming years. However, all drilling operations will be carried out within the scope indicated in this EA. This document is an accurate reflection of the Operator’s present level of knowledge.

To avoid the repetition of detailed information that has been presented in recent environmental assessments of proposed oil and gas activities in the same vicinity, this EA summarizes such information and cross-references sections of specific existing EAs. This approach is in accordance with the Scoping Document for this Project which was issued by the C-NLOPB in August 2007. The intention of this summary approach is to provide a concise document that contains all the salient details which can be efficiently reviewed by regulators and other interested parties .

This screening EA is organized by the following major headings:

x Introduction; x The Operator; x Project Overview; x Physical Environment; x Biological Environment;

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 3 x Effects Assessment Methodology; x Effects Assessment of Routine Activities; x Effects Assessment of Accidental Events; x Summary and Conclusions; x Final Comment; and x Literature Cited.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 4 2.0 The Operator

On October 1, 2007, the Norwegian companies of Statoil and Norsk Hydro (energy division) merged to form StatoilHydro ASA. StatoilHydro Canada Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of StatoilHydro ASA of Stavanger, Norway which has established Canadian offices in Calgary, Alberta and St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (as the pre-merger company Norsk Hydro Canada Oil and Gas Inc.).

StatoilHydro is part of a globally active company involved in exploration and development of crude oil and natural gas and is committed to maximizing returns to stakeholders in an ethical, socially responsible and environmentally responsible way.

StatoilHydro has interests in various exploration licenses (EL), significant discovery licences (SDL), and production licences (PL) in the Newfoundland offshore. In the Grand Banks area, StatoilHydro is a partner in the Hibernia and Terra Nova producing oilfields and the proposed Hebron project, and is operator of one SDL and three ELs. Additionally, StatoilHydro may acquire new licenses resulting from a Call for Bids or the acquisition of lands from other operators.

2.1. Operator’s Objectives

StatoilHydro’s long-term goals are:

x To increase its equity interests in offshore Newfoundland; x To plan for and execute StatoilHydro-operated exploration, appraisal/delineation, development, and production activities; and x To increase its portion of total global production originating from Canada.

StatoilHydro’s goals for the drilling activities described in this EA include:

x Execute a cost-effective program from St. John’s, while maintaining health, safety and environmental responsibilities and meeting all due diligence requirements; x Establish and maintain cost-effective relationships with suppliers and contractors, creating long-term mutual benefits and local infrastructure; and x Optimize synergy opportunities with other operators in the area.

StatoilHydro’s East Coast activities are managed from its St. John’s office and operations will be supported by local logistics infrastructure and resources to the extent possible.

StatoilHydro is committed to conducting its operations in a manner that respects the environmental characteristics of the immediate area. StatoilHydro will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and codes of practice as well as particular commitments made during the application and review process for which this Project Description is submitted.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 5 2.2. Social Responsibility and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits

StatoilHydro is committed to improving the communities in which it operates, including supporting charitable, cultural, and community organizations.

StatoilHydro is committed to supporting research and development, education and training, and technology transfer.

StatoilHydro is committed to employing qualified individuals without regard to race, religion, gender, national origin, or disability.

StatoilHydro is committed to the industrial and employment benefits objectives of the Canada- Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act (the Act) and C-NLOPB guidelines dated February 2006, including full and fair opportunity and first consideration.

In the spirit of the Act, StatoilHydro actively seeks to enhance the participation of individuals and organizations from Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in Canada in offshore oil and gas activity on the East Coast.

StatoilHydro encourages its suppliers and service providers to implement these principles.

2.3. Operator Contacts

Operator Contacts concerning this application are as follow:

Mr. Erik Abrahamsen Mr. Dag Storegjerde Vice President, Operations Drilling Superintendent StatoilHydro Canada Ltd StatoilHydro Canada Ltd Suite 600, Scotia Centre Suite 600, Scotia Centre 235 Water Street 235 Water Street St. John’s, NL A1C 1B6 St. John’s, NL A1C 1B6 Phone: (709) 738-8472 Phone: (709) 738-8498 Fax: (709) 726-9053 Fax: (709) 726-9053 [email protected] [email protected]

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 6 3.0 Project Overview

Between 2008 and the end of 2016, StatoilHydro plans to evaluate up to 27 oil and gas targets with a combination of vertical/slightly deviated and deviated (twin) wells in the Project Area, including as many as nine targets in the Flemish Pass Basin. The typical well designs used for depths of between 2,000 and 3,500 m true vertical depth (TVD) are shown in Figure 3.1. StatoilHydro is also considering deep wells, in the order of 7,000 m TVD. The well design for the deeper targets is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

The Project Area (Figure 1.1) encompasses all of StatoilHydro’s land holdings in the Newfoundland offshore that will be considered in the environmental assessment of the Project (Figure 3.3). No new shore-based facilities will be constructed to support this drilling program. StatoilHydro’s initial drilling targets for either 2008 and/or 2009, when selected, are most likely to be in EL 1049 (Mizzen) located in the northern portion of Flemish Pass Basin (Figure 1.1).

3.1. Personnel

The overall Project will be managed by StatoilHydro Vice President Operations located in St. John’s. The Vice President has the authority to effectively manage the overall operational aspects of the Project on an ongoing basis. Day-to-day drilling operations will be directed by the StatoilHydro Drilling Superintendent. The shore-based drilling operations management team will also include Senior Drilling Engineers, Logistics Coordinator(s), Environmental Advisor, and Safety Advisor.

Offshore, the management team will include the Senior Drilling Supervisor, Night Drilling Supervisor, Logistics Coordinator, Rig Manager, and Supply Vessel Masters.

3.2. Name and Location of Proposed Project

The official name of the Project is the StatoilHydro Canada Ltd Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016. It is generally located on the northeastern Grand Banks and in deeper waters immediately to the east (Figure 1.1). Exploration and/or appraisal/delineation wells could be drilled on any current or future StatoilHydro land holdings in this area from 2008 through 2016 (Figure 3.3). The corner coordinates of the Project Area (Figure 1.1) are 49o N 49.5o W; 49o N, 45.5o W; 46o N, 45.5o W; and 46o N, 49.5o W.

The current list of licenses held by StatoilHydro in partnership with others is provided in Table 3.1. StatoilHydro has interests in 28 significant discovery licenses (SDL), five (5) exploration licenses (EL), and five (5) production licenses (PL) in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass Basin Area. As indicated in Table 3.1, StatoilHydro operates four of the licences; SDL 1040 (West Bonne Bay), EL 1100 (River of Ponds), EL 1101 (L’Anse Aux Meadows), and EL1049 (Mizzen).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 7 Water Depth ~100-250m Total TVD ~3500m Vertical Well Deviated Sidetrack Well

914mm Hole 762mm Conductor (~200mTVD)

508mm Hole 406mm Surface Casing (1600mTVD)

311mm Hole 244mm Int. Casing (~3000mTVD)

216mm Hole

216mm Hole ~3500mTVD

Figure 3.1. Schematics of Typical Shallow Well Scenarios – Vertical & Deviated.

Water Depth ~250m Total TVD ~7000m Vertical Well Deviated Sidetrack Well

914mm Hole 762mm Conductor (~350mTVD)

660mm Hole 508mm Surface Casing (~1650m TVD)

311mm Hole

Cement

444mm Hole 340mm Int. Casing (~4500mTVD) 244mm Casing

311mm Hole 244mm Liner (~6000mTVD) 178" Liner

216mm Hole ~7000mTVD 152mm Hole

Figure 3.2. Schematics of Typical Deep Well Scenarios – Vertical & Deviated.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 8 Figure 3.3. Current StatoilHydro Land Distribution in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass Area.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 9 Table 3.1. Current StatoilHydro Interests in Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass Basin Area.

License Development Operator Gross Hectares StatoilHydro (%) PL 1001 Hibernia HMDC 22 285 5.00 PL 1002 Terra Nova Petro-Can 12 800 15.00 PL 1003 Terra Nova Petro-Can 355 15.00 PL 1004 Terra Nova Petro-Can 1 065 15.00 PL 1005 Hibernia South HMDC 1 416 25.00 Extension SDL 197 ExxonMobil 7 722 3.75 SDL 200A/B ExxonMobil 8 765 7.50 SDL 208A Petro-Can 1 424 15.00 SDL 1001 ExxonMobil 3 883 7.50 SDL 1002 ExxonMobil 5 664 7.50 SDL 1003 ExxonMobil 3 894 7.50 SDL 1004 Petro-Can 708 11.27 SDL 1005 ExxonMobil 354 7.50 SDL 1006 Hebron ExxonMobil 5 325 7.50 SDL 1007 Hebron Petro-Can 3 195 11.27 SDL 1009 Hebron Petro-Can 6 390 11.27 SDL 1010 Hebron Petro-Can 3 550 11.27 SDL 1011 Husky 5 321 7.50 SDL 1012 Husky 355 4.50 SDL 1013 Imperial 2 136 4.73 SDL 1014 Imperial 2 487 4.73 SDL 1017 Imperial 356 5.40 SDL 1031 Husky 7 045 7.50 SDL 1035 Petro-Can 1 420 15.75 SDL 1036 Petro-Can 1 420 15.00 SDL 1037 Petro-Can 1 065 27.40 SDL 1038 Petro-Can 356 27.40 SDL 1039 Petro-Can 2 492 27.80 SDL 1040 West Bonne Bay StatoilHydro 3 195 65.00 SDL 1041 Chevron 3 883 9.99 SDL 1042 Husky 3 897 15.00 SDL 1046 Husky 5 320 15.00 EL 1049 Mizzen StatoilHydro 82,606 65.00 EL 1092 North Mara Petro-Can 35 674 50.00 EL 1093 Hibernia south ExxonMo 7,080 5.00 extension EL 1100 River of Ponds StatoilHydro 30,572 50.00 EL 1101 L’Anse Aux Meadows StatoilHydro 21,009 50.00

As noted previously (Section 1.0), StatoilHydro may participate in arrangements with other operators to conduct exploration and/or appraisal/delineation drilling on their behalf, or vice versa, within the geographic and temporal scope of this EA.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 10 3.3. Alternatives to Project/Alternative Means within Project

The alternative to the Project is to not drill any wells in these locations but to seek oil and gas elsewhere in order to satisfy market demand. However, StatoilHydro has been awarded rights to explore in the indicated offshore areas through a regulated competitive bidding process and is now seeking to fulfill commitments made as part of this process.

Alternative means evaluated within the Project include the use of a semi-submersible drilling rig, a jack- up drilling rig or a drillship. Within the oil and gas industry, these rig types are all considered Mobile Offshore Drilling Units or MODUs because they move under their own power and/or can be towed between locations. The harsh environment jack-up rig types are typically limited to water depths of 122 m off the East Coast of Canada and presently have not been approved for operations during the ice season. More details regarding MODUs are in Section 3.4.

While there are differences between rig types, their overall environmental “footprints” and emissions are similar. The semi-submersible and jack-up approaches were selected because they represent the best:

x Technological solution given environmental conditions likely to be encountered; x Scheduling given availability of other suitable vessel types, and x Economics compared to other qualified vessels.

The rig will be selected through a technical and competitive process with consideration given to synergistic opportunities with other projects.

Another evaluation to be used within the Project is the use of vertical/slightly deviated wells (i.e., one well per one hole) versus dual side-track wells where there are two wells drilled per one hole. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide schematics of these well configurations for both typical shallow and deep drilling targets.

3.4. Mobile Offshore Drilling Units

MODUs will be used to carry out the proposed dtilling program. MODUs can be considered to fit into one of the following three general categories:

x Semi-submersible drill rigs that are either moored to the seafloor with anchors while they are operating (e.g., SSDU Henry Goodrich), or use a thruster or dynamic positioning (DP) system to assist in maintaining position or in transiting (e.g., Erik Raude); x Jack-up drill rigs that have extending legs that rest on the seafloor while operating (e.g., Rowan Gorilla VI), and x Drill ships that are either moored to the seafloor with anchors while they are operating or use a thruster or DP system to assist in maintaining position or in transiting (e.g., Deepwater Millenium).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 11 The lengths of anchor chains used by the MODUs (excluding jack-up rigs) during this Project will vary in size up to a maximum of approximately 1,600 m. Therefore, the anchor patterns and total area they may encompass will vary depending on the MODU used, water depth and technical considerations. For safety and efficiency reasons, it is possible that anchors may be preset on location for a period of weeks prior to MODU arrival.

In the case of a rig using DP, the drill stem and riser are the only connections with the seafloor. The DP rigs are often used in water depths exceeding 500 m. They are virtually the same as anchored rigs in terms of drilling and discharge treatment equipment. Although generally noisier than anchored rigs, maintaining the DP vessel in position does not disturb the seabed. A jack-up rig may be used in water less than 150-m deep during ice-free periods.

In this Project Description, it is necessary to describe and consider typical rigs because all contracts are not yet in place and there is potential for change during the 9 years of the Project. Of the potential MODUs, the appropriate ones will be selected through a technical and competitive process, with consideration given to synergies with other operators and partners. Thus, this environmental assessment considers the three MODU types listed above as offshore drilling rigs typical for East Coast Operations. Drilling and abandonment procedures, and emissions associated with all these rigs are similar. While there are differences between rig types, their overall environmental “footprints” are similar. Any differences are clearly noted in this EA.

3.5. Logistic Support

St. John’s will be the base of operations and support centre for the work to be addressed by the assessments described in this Project Description. StatoilHydro will engage drilling rigs, supply vessels, helicopters, and related goods and services on a direct-hire basis. To support those resources, StatoilHydro will acquire marine supply base, logistics, and telecommunications services, including vessel-following, flight-following, personnel onboard (POB), meteorological and oceanographic, ice management, and emergency response services from third party service providers. All such goods and services will be acquired by means of formal competitive tendering processes to the extent possible that will be executed over a period of several months.

StatoilHydro will establish related safety plans and bridging documents with the service providers.

3.5.1. Marine Support Vessels

Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) and Supply/Standby vessels are planned be Canadian-flagged and Canadian-crewed and will be managed from St. John’s. Letters of Compliance for each chartered standby vessel will be in place prior to Project commencement.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 12 3.5.2. Helicopter Support

Typical helicopter support for the Project may involve AS-332L Super Puma and/or Sikorsky S92 and/or Sikorsky 76 aircraft based in St. John’s. Auxiliary flight services including First Response Equipment and technicians, alternate landing site facilities, weather station, aviation fuel, helicopter passenger transportation suits, aircraft maintenance, passenger loading terminal, and flight following services will be arranged.

3.5.3. Shorebase Facilities

Dock facilities to support Project activity will be established in St. John’s involving office space, crane support, bulk storage and consumable (fuel, water) storage and delivery capability. Warehouse facilities will be arranged as required and will consist primarily of storage for tubular goods, and the equipment belonging to the drill rig which can be stored onshore.

Arrangements will be made for operation and co-ordination service of all aeronautical and marine voice and data communication from a central facility in St. John’s. The primary communications link between the drill rig and the Project Operations office in St. John’s will be via a dedicated C-Band satellite service. Independent backup communications systems will be provided by high quality HF radio service, available through the coastal radio station.

3.5.4. Ice Management

As part of the preparations for drilling, an ice management plan will be prepared with the assistance of local resources by StatoilHydro. StatoilHydro will coordinate its ice management efforts with other operators in the area, including Exxon, Petro-Canada, Husky, and Chevron.

3.6. Project Components/Structures/Activities

3.6.1. General

For most wells, the current plan is to use a semi-submersible drilling rig which is typically moored using an eight or twelve point anchoring system (i.e., Stevin NK3 anchors). For other wells, a jack-up, which does not require anchors, may be used. There is also the option of using a drillship, depending on the drilling situation and rig availability during the 2008-2016 period.

It is planned that the drilling rig employed will be supplied and supported by two or three supply boats operating from St. John’s Harbour. The supply boats (anchor-handling) will have a range of 12,000 to 15,000 HP and be capable of storing and delivering drilling fluids, casing, deck cargo, water, cement, diesel fuel, and other bulk commodities. On average there will be two or three supply boat trips per week between the shorebase and the drilling rig.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 13 Helicopter support may consist of about six trips per week ferrying personnel and light supplies and equipment.

In the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area, shallow well designs will include final total well depths (TVD) ranging up to 3,500 m TVD, and deep well designs will include total well depths (TVD) that may exceed 7,000 m (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). In the Flemish Pass, well designs envisage final total well depths (TVD) of approximately 3,800 m. The actual hole size and casing setting depth will vary on the individual well design and reflect the specific well requirements and design criteria.

On some occasions the wells may be suspended for future re-entry in accordance with C-NLOPB regulations. This is similar to the abandonment process described above, but the wellhead is not removed. A suspension cap is installed to protect the wellhead connector.

3.6.2. Project Phases

For the purposes of the environmental assessment, the Project will consist of three phases for each well:

1. Geohazard or site survey(s) at MODU anchor and drilling sites. These surveys may include seabed sampling (coring, grabs, ROV surveying) and/or the use of a small seismic survey array, subbottom profiler and multi-beam equipment, etc. at and adjacent to the site being surveyed. Geotechnical testing, including boreholes, would likely be conducted if a jack-up MODU was to be used; 2. Drilling of exploration/delineation well(s), inclusive of routine activities such as pre-setting of anchors, vertical seismic profiling (VSP), and production testing; and 3. Abandonment or suspension of the well.

3.6.3. Project Scheduling

The first well is planned for late 2008 or early 2009. The drilling of a well will require approximately 150 days to drill, complete, test and abandon. In general, the scheduling window for drilling will be year- round. Over the temporal scope of the Project, 2008-2016, there is a possibility that StatoilHydro will use two MODUs for concurrent exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling in the Project Area.

All wells will either be suspended or abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 14 3.6.4. Description of Waste Discharges, Air Emissions and Treatment

Waste discharges will include drill muds and cuttings, produced water, grey and black water, ballast water, bilge water, deck drainage, discharges from machinery spaces, cement, blowout preventer (BOP) fluid (not released when using a jack-up rig), and air emissions.

All discharges will be in compliance with the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (OWTG) (NEB et al. 2002). Brief descriptions of the expected discharges are provided in the following sections.

StatoilHydro will institute its fluid management system (TFM). TFM early assessment is important because it allows time for proper technology adjustments required to collect the total benefits resulting from fluid cycling and drilling waste management. Key elements of TFM are described below.

3.6.4.1. Fact Finding Process

• Review the drilling program to calculate quantities of mud and drill cuttings that will be produced (number of wells, well length, and other well data). Calculate the mentioned quantities vs. period of time. • Explore the opportunity to use different drilling /completion fluid systems by calculating the difference in type of waste and amount of wastes generated (fluid and solids). • Estimate the cost impact from drilling waste handling / treatment required. • Does restriction connected to use of fresh water source apply (Statoil aims to minimize consumption of fresh water resources); and if so what impact will it have on the fluid cycling and drilling waste management? • Use the information to calculate cost impacts with respect to: o Use/consumption of fluids. o How much fluid can be recovered for reuse and recycling and how much will be wasted, including disposed of? • Calculate cost benefits and compare the different fluid alternatives. • Cross check with Environmental Impact and Social Assessment reports to identify criticalities in drilling waste management. • Review available infrastructure required for logistics involved in fluid and waste handling (treatment facilities, access roads, transportation, etc.) • Check with relevant service companies to collect experience and learn about criticalities and prepare for local challenges.

3.6.4.2. Fact Management

• Extract information valuable for decision making: quantities/volumes and fluid life cycle cost impacts. • Identify process modifications required (techniques, rig equipment, waste treatment, handling and transport, etc.).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 15 3.6.4.3. Evaluate

• Contract o Check with contract department to see if any existing contracts can be applied. o Evaluate possible Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can be applied to assist increased performance in waste minimisation efforts. A minimum of KPIs that apply relate to cost and volume/weight benefits, for both fluids and drill cuttings. o Strategy for contract management; packing of services, synergies, compensation arrangement for waste minimisation, etc.

• Technology o New technology or process modification? Is there a need for R&D work to optimize total fluid and waste management performance? Is rig surface equipment modification necessary? o Changes that influence the technical conditions for the operational TFM plan will be limited after DG2 is completed.

• Plan o Briefly describe disposal solutions. o Implemented waste minimisation measures. o Reuse/recycling incentives in contracts, other physical measures or methods applied. o Describe measurements and reporting routines. ¾ Cost-efficient measures focused: . Reuse and recycling of: - Fluids (including freshwater where relevant).

3.6.4.4. Drilling Cuttings and Completion Fluids

If technically feasible, the wells will be drilled to depth using water-based muds (WBM). However, some conditions may be encountered that would potentially require the use of synthetic-based muds (SBM) and thus this assessment also considers SBM.

The total volume of cutting and drill mud discharged will obviously depend on the depth of hole being drilled and drilling conditions encountered. Drilling upper hole sections will be done with WBM and for the most part straight holes will be drilled and completed with WBM unless difficult drilling conditions are encountered that demand SBM to ensure hole integrity and hence safety. Deviated and directional drilling situations may also demand the use of SBM.

Drill mud components and additives typically differ somewhat by well, the specific conditions encountered in drilling, and by the depth and purpose for drilling. The first part of the hole (i.e., the surface casing and conductor) is drilled without the riser in place and thus the WBM and associated cuttings are discharged directly to the marine environment.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 16 During the drilling of the hole for the intermediate casing, the riser and associated BOP are in place and mud is transported back to the rig. Cuttings are then removed from the drilling mud in successive separation stages through shakers, hydrocyclones and/or centrifuges. After passing through the solids control system the cleaned cuttings are then discharged overboard through a cuttings shute. The recovered mud is then reconditioned and reused. Minimum typical treatment equipment is outlined in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Typical Mud/Cuttings Treatment System.

Equipment No. Type Characteristics Shale Shakers (Primary) 3 (minimum) Thule VSM 300 or equivalent 1,000 gpm design flowrate or more Desilter 1 Swaco or equivalent 16 x 4 in cones Cuttings Dryer System 1 Verti-G Dryer To be determined Centrifuges (Decanting) 2 or more 518 & 414 To be determined Note: Enhanced cuttings cleaning equivalent to the Henry Goodrich for SBM only.

A typical WBM system would be composed of barite, potassium chloride, a viscosifier, a polymer fluid loss additive and whole mud loss additives (such as nut shells, grape seeds, and/or inert fibres), an encapsulator (a polymer used to coat cuttings) and glycol (i.e., polyethylene glycol).

A typical SBM system would be composed of barite, a synthetic base fluid such as Puredrill LV or equivalent, lime, a viscosifier, calcium chloride, an asphaltine fluid loss additive, and whole mud loss agents such as graphite, calcium carbonate, grape seeds, and/or inert fibers.

For typical 3,500 m TVD (Jeanne d’Arc Basin) and 3,800 m TVD (Flemish Pass) wells drilled with WBM, up to 473 m3 of cuttings and 3,474 m3 of WBM would be discharged over the course of a well. See Tables 3.3 and 3.4 for various typical potential drilling scenarios.

Some exploration wells in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area may approach 7,000 m TVD and require more hole sections and casing to reach total depth (TD) (Table 3.3). Due to the anticipated duration of these wells, SBM may be used to ensure hole stability and allow optimal formation evaluation with wireline logs.

It is anticipated that SBM will not be required to drill the straight simple holes or hole sections. Furthermore, if used, SBM will be recycled and reused or brought to shore for disposal when spent. A deviated twin well approach uses less drill mud and results in lower total volumes of discharged drill mud and cuttings than individual vertical/slightly deviated wells.

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 provide preliminary estimates of the discharges to the environment that may be expected for some typical potential drilling scenarios. These estimates are subject to change during final planning. It should be noted that these tables assume that treatment will be in place to recover synthetic base fluids from cuttings to ensure compliance with the 6.9% discharge target in the OWTG (August 2002) at a minimum and that all water based muds would be discharged. Hence, this table represents a “worst” case set of discharge scenarios.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 17 All drilling fluid and solid discharges will be in accordance with the OWTG and subject to approval by C-NLOPB. StatoilHydro will have a Total Fluids Management Plan in place for the proposed drilling.

Table 3.3. Drill Mud and Cuttings Discharges Asscociated with Typical Jeanne d’Arc Basin Drilling Scenarios.

Total Mud Discharge Total Cuttings with Synthetic base Typical Potential Drilling Scenarios Hole Sections Discharge fluid portion […] (m3) ( m3) Drilling with Water Based Mud Only • 3500 m Hole All Sections 473.2 3474 • 7000 m Hole All Sections 1023.4 8902 Drilling with Water Based & Synthetic Fluid Based Muds • 3500 m Hole drilled with Water Based Mud System WBM Sections 402.8 2276 except for two lower hole sections (i.e., 311 and 216 SBM Sections 109 183.7 [65.2] mm dia. Sections) • 7000 m Hole drilled with Water Based Mud System WBM Sections 676.4 4831 except for three lower hole sections (i.e., 311 and 216 SBM Sections 533 1165 [382.7] mm dia. Sections) Drilling Options for side track from existing hole • 3500 m Sidetrack hole drilled from existing upper well Using SBM 43 199 [58.3] hole (216 mm section only) Using WBM 34 692 • 7000 m Sidetrack hole drilled from existing upper well Using SBM 181.4 402.6 [133.4] hole (311, 216 & 152 mm sections) Using WBM 117.2 2437

Table 3.4 Drill Mud and Cuttings Discharges Asscociated with Typical Flemish Pass Drilling Scenarios.

3.6.4.5. Produced Water

If hydrocarbons are present and testing is conducted then small amounts of produced water may be discharged by atomizing with hydrocarbons and flared. If the flare capacity is exceeded, then small amounts of treated produced water will be brought ashore for disposal.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 18 3.6.4.6. Grey/Black Water

The rig will accommodate about 85 to 150 personnel. It will discharge about 50 m3 grey water per day. Black water or sewage will be macerated to 6 mm particle size or less and discharged as per the OWTG. Estimated amounts of black water are up to 19 m3 per day.

3.6.4.7. Bilge Water

Bilge water will be treated to OWTG standards (15 g/L or less).

3.6.4.8. Deck Drainage

Any deck drainage such as the rotary table floor and machinery spaces will undergo treatment as per OWTG.

3.6.4.9. Ballast Water

Water used for stability purposes in both supply boats and drilling rigs is stored in dedicated tanks and thus does not normally contain any oil. If oil is suspected in the ballast water it will be tested and if necessary treated to OWTG standards.

3.6.4.10. Cooling Water

Top drives and draw works on rigs are cooled by pumping water through a set of heat exchangers; the water is then discharged overboard in accordance with OWTG. Other equipment is cooled through a closed loop system which may use chlorine as a biocide. Water from closed systems will be tested prior to discharge and will comply with the OWTG. Any requirement for biocide use will be covered by the Environmental Protection Plan submitted to C-NLOPB.

3.6.4.11. Waste

All trash and garbage, including organic waste from galleys, will be containerized and transported to shore for disposal in approved landfills. Combustible waste such as oil rags and paint cans will be placed in hazardous materials containers for transport to shore. The rig will have a recycling program. Waste will be treated in accordance with StatoilHydro’s Waste Management Plan.

3.6.4.12. Blowout Preventer (BOP) Fluid

When drilling with semi-submersibles or drillships, BOP test fluid (glycol/water) is released at intervals. A typical BOP function test or pressure test releases approximately 1.0 m3 of fluid. Function or pressure testing is conducted approximately once per week. Leakage and intermittent BOP troubleshooting will increase the volume of BOP fluid discharged. A typical annual discharge is approximately 100 m3.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 19 3.6.4.13. Air Emissions

Air emissions will be reported in accordance with OWTG and the National Pollution Release Inventory.

3.6.5. Geohazard and VSP Surveys

Geohazard/well site surveys and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) using an airgun array may be conducted as part of the drilling activities. Geohazard surveys may also be conducted at areas where anchors are to be set. The VSP is used to assist in further defining a petroleum resource in relation to the well bore. The array is similar to that employed by 2-D or 3-D seismic surveys but typically is smaller and deployed in a small area for a 12 to 18 hour period. Well site or geohazard surveys may also deploy a small array and sonar; they are used to identify and avoid hazardous areas prior to drilling.

Geohazard/well site surveys might also include seabed sampling which may be comprised of sediment coring, sediment grabbing and/or ROV surveying.

3.6.6. Geotechnical Testing

Geotechnical testing would be conducted to gather information on the seabed if a jack-up rig was to be used. A typical geotechnical survey involves shallow drilling (e.g., 100 m) to sample the types of materials in the sea bed, and how sediments are produced during drilling. This ensures that the jack-up rig will be stable and safe. Geotechnical drilling uses a ship-based drill rig smaller than the ones used to conduct exploratory drilling.

3.6.7. Onsite Environmental/Ice Observers

An onsite environmental observer will also be on board the drilling unit to record and report 24-hour weather, oceanographic, and ice conditions. During the potential ice-infested water periods, two environmental/ice observers will be stationed on the drilling unit to assist the drilling operations personnel in strategic and tactical planning and to record and report the weather and oceanographic conditions. As part of these duties these personnel will also assist in vessel monitoring under the Collision Avoidance Procedures.

The environmental observers will also conduct seabird and marine mammal observations on a daily basis in accordance with established protocols. The data compiled from these observations will be provided to the C-NLOPB, Canadian Wildlife Service and Fisheries and Oceans, Marine Mammals Section.

In addition, an Oceanographic Monitoring Program will again be conducted in accordance with the C-NLOPB Guidelines Respecting Physical Environment Programs (NEB et al. 1999) depending on the location of the drilling.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 20 3.6.8. Project Site Information

3.6.8.1. Environmental Features

The Project has the potential to affect air, water, plankton, fish and fish habitat, fisheries, marine birds and mammals through emissions and discharges, both routine and accidental. There are no known special or unique areas in the Project Area however the Bonavista Cod Box is located proximate to the northwest portion of the Project Area and deep-water corals likely occur in the Flemish Pass area. A description of the physical and biological environment of the northeastern Grand Banks and potential Project interactions and effects are provided in following sections. A valued ecosystem component (VEC) approach is used in the environmental assessment. VECs in the area include seabirds, marine mammals/sea turtles and commercial fisheries. Effects on VECs including cumulative effects (within the Project and with existing and planned projects) are assessed in the following environmental assessment. Focus is on sensitive species, areas and times, including species listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

3.6.8.2. Species at Risk

Species listed under Schedule I of the SARA that may occur to varying degrees in the Study Area include:

x Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (endangered); x North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (endangered); x Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (endangered); x Northern wolffish (Anarchichas denticulatus) (threatened); x Spotted wolffish (Anarchichas minor) (threatened); x Atlantic wolffish (Anarchichas lupus) (special concern); x Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) (special concern); and x Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) (Atlantic population) (special concern).

Other species that are listed as endangered, threatened, special concern and candidate under COSEWIC are also considered in the environmental assessment.

3.6.8.3. Other Users

Current and past uses of the area include marine shipping, oil and gas activity, defence-related ship traffic, and commercial fisheries. Hunting of murres, waterfowl, and seals has occurred for many years further inshore from the Project Area.

There is a continuing problem on the Grand Banks and the approaches to the Gulf of St. Lawrence with oily discharges (i.e., mystery spills) from marine vessels in international shipping lanes. Previous disturbance of the seabed may have occurred from bottom trawling activity associated with commercial fisheries.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 21 The closest seabird-related protected areas are Cape St. Mary’s and Witless Bay which are located approximately 370 and 265 km, respectively, to the west of the Project Area (Figure 3.4). In addition, the offshore region of the Grand Bank is heavily used by migratory seabirds. The closest urban centre is St. John’s, located about 250 km to the west of the Project Area.

3.6.8.4. Navigable Waters

The physical presence of the rig and supply boats affects navigable waters on the Grand Banks to a small degree. The Project Area is close to major North Atlantic shipping lanes and may receive ship traffic from fishing vessels, tankers, freighters, naval vessels, private yachts and others. The detailed physical characteristics of the waterway are provided in Section 4.0.

3.6.8.5. Fish and Fish Habitat

The proposed Project Area is on the Grand Banks, a region known to support large and diverse commercial fisheries. In recent years, the most valuable commercial species in the vicinity of the Project Area is snow crab. Bottom fish habitats appear typical of that area of the Grand Banks. Fish and fish habitat, and fisheries will be covered in detail in the environmental assessment to follow.

The closest fish-related protected area, the Bonavista Cod Box, is located approximately 30 km from the Project Area (Figure 3.4). The northwest corner of the defined Study Area overlaps with part of the Bonavista Cod Box.

Figure 3.4. Locations of Potential Fish- and Bird-related Sensitive Areas Relative to the Proposed Project Area and Study Area.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 22 3.6.9. Effects of the Environment on the Project

Effects of the physical environment on the Project include those caused by wind, ice, waves, and currents. Descriptions of these components, including extreme events, are contained in the following sections.

Effects of the biological environment on the Project are primarily those related to biofouling which may affect rig stability and corrosion, and the interior of pipes and water intakes and outlets.

3.7. Consultations

For the proposed program, the following organizations were contacted during the preparation of the environmental assessment:

x Natural History Society; x Environment Canada; x Fisheries and Oceans; x ONE OCEAN; x Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW) Union; x Fish processors with interests in the Project Area; x Environment Canada; x Fisheries and Oceans Canada; and x Others with relevant information, interests and concerns as appropriate.

All issues and concerns that arose during the consultations are addressed in this EA

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 23 4.0 Physical Environment

This section describes the geochemistry, climate, physical oceanography, and ice environment of the Project Area and vicinity (i.e., part of the Study Area). Detailed descriptions of the physical environment of this general area have been included in several recent documents including the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study and Supplement (Husky 2000, 2001a), the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a), various Husky exploration drilling EAs and update for Jeanne d’Arc Basin (LGL 2002, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b), the Petro-Canada Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3-D Seismic Program EA (LGL 2007c), the Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling EA and Addendum (LGL 2005b, 2006c), the Husky 3-D Seismic EA and update (LGL 2005c; Moulton et al. 2006a), the Orphan Basin 3-D Seismic EA and update (Buchanan et al. 2004a; Moulton et al. 2005a), and the Petro-Canada Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program EA (Petro-Canada 2002). Wherever possible, references to particular sections of some of these documents will be made if the information in them remains relevant to this EA.

4.1. Geochemical

This section on geochemistry presents summary information included in recent documents.

4.1.1. Geology

A geological overview of the Grand Banks and the White Rose site, including the physiography and surficial sediments, is contained in Section 2.6 of the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) and Section 5.0 of the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study Supplemental Report (Husky 2001a).

4.1.2. Chemical Environment

An overview of the chemical environment (i.e., water and sediment chemistry) of the Grand Banks and the White Rose site is contained in Section 2.8 of the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000). Sediment chemistry in the vicinity of White Rose is also discussed in various Husky EEM reports (Husky 2005, 2006, 2007 in LGL 2007b).

4.1.2.1. Water Chemistry

Aspects of water chemistry discussed in Section 2.8.1 of Husky (2000) included dissolved oxygen, suspended particulate matter, inorganic nutrients, trace metals and hydrocarbons. A full suite of water characterization was completed in the White Rose EEM baseline in 2000. The seawater parameters considered relevant by Husky to the design considerations for the seawater injection system were discussed in a report on seawater quality (JWEL 2001). These parameters include the following:

x pH; x Salinity;

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 24 x Specific gravity; x Density; x Total suspended solids (TSS); x Total dissolved solids; x Dissolved oxygen concentration (DO); x Dissolved carbon dioxide concentration; x Sulphides; x Temperature at surface and seabed; x Ion concentrations; x Sodium (Na); x Potassium (K); x Calcium (Ca); x Magnesium (Mg); x Chloride (Cl);

x Bicarbonate (HCO3); x Sulphate (SO4); x Carbonate (CO3); and x Distribution of Chlorophyll A and Nitrate-N by depth.

For each of these parameters, historical data from the offshore region of NAFO Division 3L were extracted from the Marine Chemistry Data Archives by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and compared to data collected during baseline characterization surveys for Terra Nova and White Rose in 1997 and 2000, respectively. The ranges of values for the White Rose and Terra Nova baseline data generally fell within the ranges of values extracted from the archives for the offshore region of 3L as discussed in the following sections.

4.1.2.2. Sediment Chemistry

Chemical characteristics of sediments on the Grand Banks were described in Section 2.8.2 of the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000). The sediment chemistry was discussed in terms of particle size, trace metals, and hydrocarbons. In general, the Grand Banks sediments are relatively pristine, particularly compared to some inshore areas.

A full baseline EEM characterization study was conducted on the White Rose field in 2000. The Husky EEM program was implemented in 2004 and there are sediment chemistry data from the 2004, 2005 and 2006 sampling programs in Significant Development Area White Rose (Husky 2005, 2006, 2007 in LGL 2007b). Section 7.1.3 of the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (LGL 2007b) discusses some of the EEM sediment chemistry results.

The marine geology of the northern part of the Flemish Pass is discussed in the Petro-Canada Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program EA (Section 4.2.7 in Petro-Canada 2002). Petro-Canada (2002) indicated that there is likely an eastward increase in the proportion of fine-grained sediments in the

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 25 Flemish Pass. The floor of the Flemish Pass is receiving little sediment at the present time (Morin and Pereira 1987 in Petro-Canada 2002).

Based on sediment coring and ultra-high resolution seismic surveying (>1 m vertical resolution) by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) (D. Piper, Research Scientist, NRCan, pers. comm.), the upper 1 m of surficial sediment in the area of the Flemish Pass where water depth exceeds 900 m is comprised predominantly of mud and silt. The water depth of the entire 12 to15 km2 area at Mizzen where the initial drilling site is proposed is >900 m. This area includes the well site and locations of MODU anchors. Piper indicated that some larger rocks might occur in the area but they would likely be widely scattered.

4.2. Climatology

This section provides a summary discussion of climatology in the Study Area proposed for this Project. A more detailed discussion of climatology in the area can be found in Appendix 1.

The Grand Banks of Newfoundland experiences weather conditions typical of a maritime environment with the surrounding waters having a moderating effect on temperature. In general, maritime climates experience cooler summers and milder winters than continental climates and have a much smaller annual temperature range. Furthermore, a maritime climate tends to be fairly humid, resulting in reduced visibilities, low cloud heights, and receives significant amounts of precipitation.

At any given time, the upper level flow is a wave-like pattern of large and small amplitude ridges and troughs. These ridges and troughs tend to act as a steering flow for surface features and therefore their positions in the upper atmosphere determine the weather at the earth’s surface. Upper ridges tend to support areas of high pressure at the surface, while upper troughs lend support to low pressure developments. The amplitude of the upper flow pattern tends to be higher in winter than summer, which is conducive to the development of more intense storm systems.

During the winter months, an upper level trough tends to lie over Central Canada and an upper ridge over the North Atlantic resulting in three main storm tracks affecting the Grand Banks: one from the Great Lakes Basin, one from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and one from the Gulf of Mexico. These storm tracks, on average, bring eight low pressure systems per month over the area.

Frequently, intense low pressure systems become ‘captured’ and slow down or stall off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. This may result in an extended period of little change in conditions that may range, depending on the position, overall intensity and size of the system, from the relatively benign to heavy weather conditions.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 26 The hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin normally extends from June through November, although tropical storm systems occasionally occur outside this period. On average, Atlantic Canada is influenced by cyclones of tropical origin four times per year, normally in the months of August to October. These storms usually achieve maximum intensity well south of the area and are losing their tropical characteristics and evolving into extratropical cyclones by the time they encroach on the region. However tropical cyclones with storm, or even hurricane force winds, do occasionally affect the area. These systems typically approach the region from the south or southwest.

Once formed, a tropical storm or hurricane will maintain its energy as long as a sufficient supply of warm, moist air is available. Tropical storms and hurricanes obtain their energy from the latent heat of vapourization that is released during the condensation process. The capacity of the air to hold water vapour is dependent on temperature. Therefore as the hurricanes move northward over the colder ocean waters, they begin to lose their tropical characteristics, often transforming into vigorous, fast moving extratropical cyclones. Conditions within the Study Area associated with tropical cyclones and their remnants vary widely from relatively minor events to major storms producing windy and wet weather combined with high waves.

The Study Area, covering nearly 162,000 nm2 in the Northwest Atlantic, has a highly variable wind climate due to the large extent of the area. To present the wind climate of the entire Study Area, a 5- year (August 1999 – July 2004) data set with a spatial resolution of 0.5°x0.5°, from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite was used.

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the wind climatology over the Northwest Atlantic for the months of January and July, respectively. These winds fields are representative of winter and summer in the Northwest Atlantic. Figure 4.1 shows that during January, while there is little change in wind direction, there is an increase in wind speeds over the Study Area as you move eastward with winds reaching 12 m/s from the west-southwest. The lightest winds (near 8 m/s) within the Study Area occur in the south-western corner of the Study Area. The stronger, and slightly more westerly, wind field which occur in the eastern section of the Study Area may be attributed to the closer proximity of the area to two semi- permanent features in the North Atlantic: the Azores High and Icelandic Low.

Due to the stronger tropical to polar temperature gradient, winds in the mid-latitudes are typically stronger in the winter months. On a monthly basis, the strongest winds over the area occur during the months of January and February and are typically from the west-southwest to west. The weakest winds within the Study Area occur during the months of July and August when the tropical to polar temperature gradient is weakest. Mean wind directions vary over the area during July and August, with winds typically originating from the south to southwest in the western section and from the southwest to west-southwest in the eastern section of the Study Area. While winds during the summer are considerably lighter than in the winter months, an analysis of the July wind field (Figure 4.2) shows a similar trend of winds increasing towards the eastern section of the Study Area. These winds are considerably lighter than during winter with the strongest winds (near 8 m/s) occurring in the eastern section of the Study Area and the lightest winds (near 4 m/s) occurring in the southwest section.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 27 Source: http://numbat.coas.oregonstate.edu/cogow.

Figure 4.1. QuikSCAT Satellite Derived Winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for January.

Source: http://numbat.coas.oregonstate.edu/cogow.

Figure 4.2. QuikSCAT Satellite Derived Winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for July.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 28 The wave climate of the Study Area includes the effects of locally generated wind-waves and swell that propagates into the area from both nearby and distant locations. The highest sea states occur when severe storm systems track through the region, whether they are tropical or extratropical in nature.

Due to stronger winds during the winter months, mean significant wave heights are notably higher, with the highest mean significant wave heights occurring in the month of January and the lowest in the month of July. Maximum significant wave heights peak between December and February, and the lowest maximum significant wave heights occur in July and August.

Maps of the monthly mean wind wave heights and significant wave heights for January and July are presented in Figure 4.3. The highest wave heights in the Study Area occur in January with mean wind wave values (Figure 4.3a) near 2.2 m and swell heights near 4.4 m (Figure 4.3c) in the northeast section of the Study Area. The smallest significant wave heights occur in July with mean wind wave values (Figure 4.3b) near 1.2 m and mean swell heights near 2.2 m (Figure 4.3d) in the northeast section.

Source: Gulev (1998).

Figure 4.3. January (a,c) and July (b,d) Monthly Mean Wind Wave Height (a,b) and Significant Wave Height Estimate (c,d) (units are metres).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 29 4.2.1. Data Sources

Wind and wave climate statistics for the Project Area were extracted from the MSC50 North Atlantic wind and wave climatology data set compiled by Oceanweather Inc under contract to Environment Canada. The MSC50 data set consists of continuous wind and wave hindcast data in 1-hour time steps from January 1954 to December 2005, on a 0.1q latitude by 0.1q longitude grid. Winds from the MSC50 data set are 1-hour averages of the effective neutral wind at a height of 10 m. In this study, six grid points were chosen to represent conditions within the Study Area. These points are listed below in Table 4.1 and their locations shown in Figure 4.4.

Table 4.1. Grid Point Locations.

Grid Point Position 10255 46.3°N; 48.4°W 10439 46.4°N; 48.1°W 10856 46.6°N; 46.3°W 11421 46.9°N; 48.3°W 12595 47.5°N; 48.3°W 13912 48.3°N; 46.3°W

Figure 4.4. Locations of the Climate Data Sources.

Grid point 10439 located at 46.4°N; 48.0°W and grid point 10255 located at 46.3°N; 48.4°W were deemed to be most representative of conditions within block EL 1100 and block EL 1101, respectively. Grid point 13912 located at 48.3°N; 46.3°W was chosen to represent conditions at Mizzen. The other points were chosen to give a representation of the remainder of the Study Area.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 30 Air temperature, sea surface temperature, wind speed and direction, visibility, and wave statistics for the area were compiled using data from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS). A subset of global marine surface observations from ships, drilling rigs, and buoys covering the period from January 1950 to December 2006 was used in this report. The ICOADS data subset was divided into three regions to give a better representation of conditions in the Project Area. Region 1 is bounded to the north by 49.0°N, to the south by 47.3°N, to the east by 47.0°W and to the west by 49.5°W. Region 2 covers an area encompassing EL 1100, EL 1101 and SD L1040. This area (Figure 4.4) is bounded to the north by 47.3°N, to the south by 46.0°N, to the east by 47.0°W and to the west by 49.5°W. Region 3 encompasses the Flemish Pass area and is bounded to the north by 49.0°N, to the south by 46.0°N, to the east by 45.5°W and to the west by 47.0°W

Winds from the ICOADS data set are not directly comparable to the MSC50 data set because the winds in the ICOADS data set were either estimated or measured by anemometers at various heights above sea level. The wind speed is dependent on height since the wind speed increases at increasing heights above sea level. Also, winds speeds from each of the data sources have different averaging periods. The MSC50 winds are 1-hour averages while the ICOADS winds are 10-minute average winds. The adjustment factor to convert from 1-hour mean values to 10-minute mean values is usually taken as 1.06 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The ICOADS data set also has certain inherent limitations in that the observations are not spatially or temporally consistent. In addition, even though the data used in this report were subjected to standard quality control procedures, the data set is somewhat prone to observation and coding errors, resulting in some erroneous observations within the data set. The errors were minimized by using the standard filtering system using source exclusion flags, composite QC flags and an outlier trimming level of 3.5 standard deviations. The ICOADS data set is also suspected to contain a fair-weather bias, due to the fact that ships tend to avoid severe weather or simply do not transmit weather observations during storm situations.

4.2.2. Winds

The Grand Banks experiences predominately southwest to west flow throughout the year. West to northwest winds which are prevalent during the winter months begin to shift counter-clockwise during March and April resulting in a predominant southwest wind by the summer months. As autumn approaches, the tropical-to-polar temperature gradient strengthens and the winds shift slightly, becoming predominately westerly again by late fall and into winter. Low pressure systems crossing the area are more intense during the winter months. As a result, mean wind speeds tend to peak during this season.

In addition to mid-latitude low pressure systems crossing the Grand Banks, tropical cyclones often move northward out of the influence of the warm waters south of the Gulf Stream, passing near the Island of Newfoundland. Once the cyclones move over colder waters they lose their source of latent heat energy and often begin to transform into a fast-moving and rapidly developing extratropical cyclone producing large waves and sometimes hurricane force winds. Since 1950, 46% of Atlantic Tropical cyclones transitioned into the extratropical stage. This extratropical transition occurs in the lower latitudes in the early and late hurricane season and at higher latitudes during the peak of the season (Hart 2001).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 31 4.2.2.1. Region 1

Mean wind speeds in Region 1 at grid point 12595 in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reach its maximum value during the month of January (Table 4.2). Grid point 12595 had January mean wind speeds of 11.2 m/s while the ICOADS dataset recorded the highest mean wind speed of 11.7 m/s during the month of January. A wind rose of the annual wind speed for grid points 12595 is presented in Figure 4.5.

Table 4.2. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics.

ICOADS Month Grid Point 12595 Region 1 January 11.2 11.7 February 11.1 11.1 March 10.0 9.2 April 8.5 8.3 May 7.2 7.3 June 6.6 6.9 July 6.2 6.4 August 6.5 6.8 September 7.7 7.5 October 9.0 8.5 November 9.8 9.5 December 10.8 10.7

Figure 4.5. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 32 4.2.2.2. Region 2

Mean wind speeds in Region 2 at each of the grid points in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reaches its maximum during the month of January (Table 4.3). Mean wind speeds were similar at all three MSC50 grid points, with January means having values between 10.8 m/s and 11.0 m/s. The ICOADS dataset recorded the highest mean wind speed of 13.2 m/s during the month of January. Wind roses of the annual wind speed for grid points 10255, 10439 and 11421 are presented in Figures 4.6 to 4.8.

Table 4.3. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics.

ICOADS Month Grid Point 10255 Grid Point 10439 Grid Point 11421 Region 2 January 10.8 10.9 11.0 13.2 February 10.8 10.8 10.9 12.7 March 9.8 9.8 9.9 11.7 April 8.3 8.3 8.4 10.5 May 6.9 6.9 7.0 9.2 June 6.5 6.5 6.6 9.2 July 6.0 6.0 6.1 8.9 August 6.3 6.3 6.4 8.6 September 7.4 7.4 7.5 9.4 October 8.7 8.7 8.8 11.2 November 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.8 December 10.5 10.5 10.6 13.0

Figure 4.6. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 33 Figure 4.7. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005.

Figure 4.8. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 34 4.2.2.3. Region 3

Mean wind speeds in Region 3 at each of the grid points in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reach its maximum value during the month of January (Table 4.4). Mean wind speeds tended to be lower at grid point 10856 and in the ICOADS data set as compared with grid point 13912, located further north at the Mizzen site in Flemish Pass. Wind roses of the annual wind speed for grid points 10856 and 13912 are presented in Figures 4.9 and 4.10.

Table 4.4. Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics.

ICOADS Month Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 Region 3 January 11.3 11.9 11.5 February 11.3 11.6 11.2 March 10.2 10.5 9.9 April 8.6 8.8 8.0 May 7.2 7.6 7.2 June 6.7 6.9 6.7 July 6.0 6.3 6.4 August 6.4 6.7 6.4 September 7.7 8.1 7.6 October 9.1 9.5 9.0 November 9.8 10.3 10.0 December 10.9 11.4 10.9

Figure 4.9. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 35 Figure 4.10. Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005.

Intense mid-latitude low pressure systems occur frequently from early autumn to late spring. In addition, remnants of tropical systems have passed near Newfoundland between spring and late fall. Therefore, while mean wind speeds tend to peak during the winter months, maximum wind speeds may occur at anytime during the year. A table of monthly maximum wind speeds for each of the data sets is presented in Table 4.5.

Rapidly deepening storm systems known as weather bombs frequently move across the Grand Banks. These storm systems typically develop in the warm waters of Cape Hatteras and move northeast across Newfoundland and the Grand Banks. At 00Z on February 11, 2003 a 987 mb low pressure off Cape Hatteras deepened to 949 mb as it moved northeast, crossing eastern Newfoundland near 18Z. The low then began to weaken as it moved north of the forecast waters in the evening. With the exception of Grid Point 12595, the highest wind speeds at each grid point in the 52 years of data occurred on this date. Wind speeds ranged from 28.8 m/s at grid point 10856 to 31.1 m/s at grid point 13912. Wind speeds of 52.5 m/s from the southwest were recorded by the Henry Goodrich anemometer (located at a height of 90 m above sea level) as this system passed.

Grid point 12595 had a maximum wind speed of 31.6 m/s at 00Z on March 08, 2003. This extreme wind was the result of a 972 mb low pressure lying over the Grand Banks at 18Z March 07, 2003, rapidly deepening as it slowly moved east-northeast to 948 mb by 06Z on March 08, 2003.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 36 Another intense storm which developed south of the region passed east of the area on December 16, 1961. This storm resulted in wind speeds similar to that produced during the February 11th storm. During this event, wind speeds ranged from 28.7 m/s at grid point 10856 to 31.0 m/s at grid point 13912.

While mid-latitude low pressure systems account for the majority of the peak wind events on the Grand Banks, storms of tropical origin can also on occasion pass over the region. On August 06 1971, an unnamed Category 1 Hurricane passed west of the region with maximum sustained wind speeds of 38.6 m/s and a central pressure of 974 mb. During this event, wind speeds in the MSC50 data set peaked at 26.8 m/s at grid point 12595, 30.0 m/s at grid point 10255, and 30.6 m/s at grid point 10439.

Table 4.5. Maximum Wind Speeds (m/s) Statistics.

MSC50 ICOADS Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Month Point Point Point Point Point Point Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 12595 10255 10439 11421 10856 13912 January 28.4 27.4 27.0 27.1 28.1 28.8 33.4 36.0 37.0 February 30.0 29.9 30.1 30.5 28.8 31.1 32.9 38.1 36.0 March 31.6 27.0 27.6 29.1 28.1 30.7 30.0 36.5 33.4 April 24.3 25.0 25.2 24.5 25.6 25.7 26.8 29.8 29.8 May 23.7 21.6 22.0 22.6 24.0 25.4 25.7 25.2 25.0 June 23.7 22.7 23.0 23.6 23.1 23.1 22.1 23.2 22.1 July 18.1 21.1 21.0 17.6 20.4 19.9 20.6 22.6 20.6 August 26.8 30.0 30.6 27.7 28.1 28.4 20.6 23.2 22.6 September 28.4 23.6 23.4 26.4 23.7 26.7 27.3 27.3 23.2 October 31.7 27.7 27.8 26.9 27.3 27.8 28.3 30.9 28.3 November 26.8 27.4 27.6 27.4 28.7 27.7 30.9 34.0 36.0 December 29.1 29.9 30.0 30.3 28.7 31.0 32.9 37.0 42.0

4.2.3. Waves

The wave climate of the Grand Banks is dominated by extra-tropical storms, primarily during October through March, however severe storms may, on occasion, occur outside these months. Storms of tropical origin may occur during the early summer and early winter, but most often from late August through October. Hurricanes are usually reduced to tropical storm strength or evolve into extra-tropical storms by the time they reach the area, however they are still capable of producing storm force winds and high waves.

During autumn and winter, the dominate direction of the combined significant wave height is from the west. This corresponds with a higher frequency of occurrence of the wind wave during these months, suggesting that during the late fall and winter, the wind wave is the main contributor to the combined significant wave height. During the months of March and April, the wind wave remains predominately westerly, while the swell begins to shift to southerly, resulting in the vector mean direction of the combined significant wave heights shifting to southwesterly. A mean southwesterly direction for the combined significant wave heights during the summer months is a result of a mainly southwesterly wind

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 37 wave and a southwesterly swell. As winter approaches again, during the months of September and October, the wind wave will veer to the west and become the more dominant component of the combined significant wave height. This will result in the frequency of occurrence of the combined significant wave heights veering to westerly once again.

4.2.3.1. Region 1

The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for grid point 12595 is presented in Figure 4.11. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west-southwest to south-southwest, and accounts for 35.3% of the wave energy. Waves were “iced out” for 3.71% of the time over the 50-year record; this value may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

Figure 4.11. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N, 48.3°W.

Significant wave heights on the Grand Banks peak during the winter months with the MSC50 mean monthly significant wave height of 4.0 m occurring in both December and January. The lowest significant wave heights occur in the summer with the month of July having a mean monthly significant wave height of only 1.7 m (Table 4.6).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 38 Table 4.6. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 12595

January 4.0 February 3.4 March 2.7 April 2.6 May 2.2 June 1.9 July 1.7 August 1.8 September 2.4 October 3.0 November 3.5 December 4.0

Significant wave heights of 10.0 m or more occurred in each month between September and June, with the highest significant wave height of 14.1 m occurring during the month of February (Table 4.7). This event occurred at 00Z, February 12, 2003 and corresponds with a prolonged period of storm force winds over the region. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month. This was the case on September 19, 1982 when Category 1 Hurricane Debby crossed the region, resulting in significant wave heights reaching 11.4 m at grid point 12595.

Table 4.7. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 12595

January 12.8 February 14.1 March 11.2 April 10.8 May 10.8 June 10.3 July 6.4 August 7.8 September 11.4 October 12.0 November 11.7 December 13.9

The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds during the summer months to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 18.5% of the time. Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; though they may occur during the summer as well and account for 2.1% of the periods.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 39 A scatter diagram of the significant wave height versus spectral peak period is presented in Table 4.8. From this table it can be seen that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds, and the second most common wave being 2 m and a peak spectral period of 7 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

Table 4.8. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 12595.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 3.69 3.69 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.16 5 0.00 1.04 0.69 0.03 1.77 6 0.00 1.64 3.82 0.38 0.02 5.85 7 0.00 4.51 6.34 3.51 0.28 0.01 14.64 8 0.00 3.79 5.41 4.54 2.00 0.14 0.00 15.87 9 0.01 1.78 7.52 3.73 3.56 1.16 0.07 0.00 0.00 17.83 10 0.00 0.72 4.60 3.86 2.37 2.24 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.47 11 0.00 0.20 1.89 3.85 2.05 1.24 1.19 0.47 0.07 0.00 10.96 12 0.00 0.20 1.40 1.97 1.36 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.03 0.00 7.09 13 0.00 0.25 0.68 1.14 1.18 0.66 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.03 0.00 5.02 14 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.34 0.58 0.41 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.00 2.09 Period (s) Period 15 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 16 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.71 14.35 32.57 23.42 13.51 6.67 2.97 1.33 0.63 0.41 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.01 100.00

4.2.3.2. Region 2

The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for each of the grid points in Region 2 are presented in Figures 4.12 to 4.14. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west- southwest to south-southwest, and accounts for 35.9% of the wave energy at grid point 10255, 35.8% of the wave energy at grid point 10439 and 36.0% of the wave energy at grid point 11421. Waves were “iced out” for 0.98% of the time at grid point 10255, 1.23% of the time at grid point 10439 and 2.12% of the time at grid point 11421 over the 50-year record. These values may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 40 Figure 4.12. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N, 48.4°W.

Figure 4.13. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N, 48.1°W.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 41 Figure 4.14. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N, 48.3°W.

Significant wave heights on the Grand Banks peak during the winter months with a MSC50 mean monthly significant wave heights of 4.0 m at each grid point. The lowest significant wave heights occur in the summer with the month of July having a mean monthly significant wave height of only 1.7 m at each grid point (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 10255 Grid Point 10439 Grid Point 11421

January 4.0 4.0 4.0 February 3.7 3.8 3.7 March 3.2 3.2 3.0 April 2.7 2.7 2.7 May 2.2 2.2 2.2 June 1.9 1.9 1.9 July 1.7 1.7 1.7 August 1.8 1.8 1.8 September 2.4 2.4 2.4 October 2.9 3.0 3.0 November 3.3 3.4 3.4 December 3.9 3.9 4.0

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 42 Significant wave heights of 10.5 m or more occurred in each month between September and April, with the highest waves at each of the Grid points occurring during the month of February (Table 4.10). The highest significant wave heights of 13.9 m from the MSC50 grid point 10255 and 14.2 m from grid point 10439 occurred on February 23, 1967. A low pressure over Nova Scotia on February 22nd rapidly deepened as it moved northeast to lie off the northeast coast of Newfoundland on February 23rd resulting in a prolonged period of strong-gale to storm force WSW-W winds over the Grand Banks. Maximum significant wave heights of 14.0 m at grid point 11421 occurred during the storm of February 11, 2003. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month.

Table 4.10. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 10255 Grid Point 10439 Grid Point 11421

January 13.3 13.6 13.0 February 13.9 14.2 14.0 March 11.9 11.9 11.0 April 10.8 10.7 10.8 May 9.9 10.0 10.3 June 9.6 9.8 10.0 July 6.2 6.2 6.1 August 8.1 8.2 8.6 September 10.9 11.1 10.9 October 11.8 12.0 11.9 November 11.3 11.5 11.5 December 13.7 13.9 13.5

The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds in July and August to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 19.0% of the time at grid point 10255, 18.6% of the time at grid point 10439, and 18.2% of the time at grid point 11421. Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; though they may occur during the summer as well. .

Scatter diagrams of the significant wave height versus spectral peak period for each grid point are presented in Tables 4.11 to 4.13. From these tables it can be seen that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds, and the second most common wave being 2 m and a peak spectral period of 8 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 43 Table 4.11. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10255.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.96 0.96 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.17 5 0.00 1.06 0.74 0.04 0.00 1.84 6 0.00 1.63 3.85 0.40 0.02 5.90 7 4.81 5.86 3.43 0.28 0.01 14.38 8 0.01 4.66 6.47 4.34 1.97 0.14 0.00 17.59 9 0.00 1.65 8.41 4.13 3.44 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 18.76 10 0.01 0.58 4.37 4.35 2.41 2.16 0.59 0.04 0.00 14.52 11 0.00 0.22 2.10 4.15 2.33 1.34 1.12 0.43 0.06 0.01 11.76 12 0.00 0.21 1.34 1.99 1.32 0.61 0.46 0.45 0.31 0.14 0.01 6.83 13 0.00 0.23 0.74 1.14 1.20 0.63 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.12 0.02 0.00 4.91 14 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.35 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 1.96 Period (s) Period 15 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 15.25 34.12 24.48 13.65 6.37 2.67 1.20 0.58 0.38 0.19 0.08 0.03 0.01 100.00

Table 4.12. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10439.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1.22 1.22 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.14 5 1.01 0.70 0.04 0.00 1.74 6 0.00 1.65 3.75 0.38 0.02 0.00 5.80 7 0.00 4.65 5.84 3.35 0.27 0.01 0.00 14.13 8 0.01 4.67 6.52 4.34 1.95 0.14 0.00 17.63 9 0.00 1.58 8.18 4.02 3.41 1.04 0.07 0.00 18.30 10 0.00 0.60 4.30 4.31 2.41 2.17 0.58 0.04 0.00 14.42 11 0.00 0.21 2.01 4.17 2.41 1.39 1.15 0.42 0.05 0.00 11.81 12 0.22 1.35 2.02 1.41 0.69 0.50 0.48 0.33 0.14 0.01 7.14 13 0.00 0.22 0.73 1.18 1.23 0.68 0.33 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.00 5.14 14 0.04 0.15 0.43 0.59 0.39 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.00 2.09 15 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 1.24 15.01 33.61 24.32 13.80 6.59 2.81 1.25 0.61 0.40 0.22 0.09 0.03 0.01 100.00

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 44 Table 4.13. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 11421.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 2.11 2.11 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.17 5 0.00 1.02 0.76 0.04 1.82 6 1.63 3.89 0.38 0.02 0.00 5.92 7 0.00 4.37 5.96 3.49 0.29 0.01 14.11 8 0.01 4.49 6.37 4.46 2.04 0.15 0.00 17.53 9 0.00 1.61 7.69 3.81 3.44 1.13 0.07 0.00 17.76 10 0.00 0.66 4.50 4.12 2.41 2.19 0.61 0.04 0.00 14.52 11 0.00 0.20 2.02 4.09 2.22 1.33 1.16 0.45 0.08 0.00 11.55 12 0.00 0.21 1.36 2.05 1.41 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.33 0.16 0.02 0.00 7.18 13 0.00 0.23 0.68 1.14 1.20 0.66 0.32 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.00 4.96 14 0.03 0.12 0.36 0.55 0.37 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 1.91 15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 2.13 14.63 33.44 24.00 13.69 6.62 2.85 1.26 0.64 0.39 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.01 100.00

4.2.3.3. Region 3

The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for grid point 0856 and grid point 13912 are presented in Figures 4.15 and 4.16, respectively. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west-southwest to south-southwest and accounts for 35.0% of the wave energy at grid point 10856, and 33.7% of the wave energy at grid point 13912. Waves were “iced out” for 0.61% of the time at grid point 10856 and 0.28% of the time at grid point 13912, over the 50-year record; this value may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

Significant wave heights on the Grand Banks are highest during the winter months with a mean monthly significant wave heights of 4.4 m at grid point 10856 and 4.5 m at grid point 13912. The lowest significant wave heights occur in the summer with the month of July having a mean monthly significant wave height of only 1.7 m at both grid points (Table 4.14).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 45 Figure 4.15. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N, 46.3°W.

Figure 4.16. Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N, 46.3°W.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 46 Table 4.14. Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 January 4.4 4.5 February 4.1 4.2 March 3.5 3.6 April 2.9 3.0 May 2.3 2.4 June 1.9 2.0 July 1.7 1.7 August 1.8 1.9 September 2.5 2.6 October 3.1 3.2 November 3.5 3.7 December 4.1 4.3

Significant wave heights of 10.5 m or more occurred in each month between September and June, with the highest waves occurring during the month of February (Table 4.15). The highest significant wave heights of 14.7 m from the MSC50 grid point 10856 occurred on February 23, 1967. A low pressure over Nova Scotia on February 22nd rapidly deepened as it moved northeast to lie off the northeast coast of Newfoundland on the 23rd resulting in a prolonged period of strong-gale to storm force WSW-W winds over the Grand Banks. At grid point 13912, the highest significant wave height of 15.3 m occurred in both February and December. The February event occurred during the February 11, 2003 storm, while the December event was the result of a rapidly deepening low pressure over the Grand Banks on December 16, 1997. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month.

Table 4.15. Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 Data Sets.

Month Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 January 14.1 13.4 February 14.7 15.3 March 12.3 13.1 April 10.9 11.0 May 11.2 11.7 June 10.8 10.5 July 6.5 7.1 August 10.1 8.2 September 11.3 12.3 October 12.8 12.4 November 13.0 13.5 December 14.2 15.3

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 47 The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds in July and August to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 18.4% of the time at grid point 10856 and 18.5% of the time at grid point 13912. Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; although they may occur during the summer as well.

Scatter diagrams of the significant wave heights versus spectral peak periods are presented in Tables 4.16 and 4.17. These tables show that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

Table 4.16. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10856.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.59 0.59 1 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.14 5 0.00 0.87 0.61 0.03 0.00 1.51 6 0.00 1.57 3.30 0.36 0.02 5.25 7 0.00 4.36 5.73 3.05 0.30 0.01 13.45 8 0.00 4.49 6.76 4.41 1.97 0.15 0.00 17.78 9 0.00 1.38 7.88 4.25 3.59 1.12 0.08 0.00 18.30 10 0.48 3.91 4.51 2.66 2.32 0.65 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.58 11 0.00 0.18 1.58 3.89 2.49 1.58 1.37 0.45 0.05 0.00 11.58 12 0.00 0.19 1.22 1.74 1.63 0.87 0.62 0.61 0.34 0.13 0.01 0.00 7.37 13 0.23 0.81 1.23 1.36 0.89 0.50 0.31 0.27 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.00 6.11 14 0.05 0.13 0.47 0.67 0.52 0.25 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.00 2.69 Period (s) Period 15 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.41 16 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 17 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 13.97 32.01 24.00 14.78 7.58 3.55 1.59 0.76 0.52 0.34 0.16 0.07 0.04 99.99

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 48 Table 4.17. Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 13912.

Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 3.69 3.69 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.16 5 0.00 1.04 0.69 0.03 1.77 6 0.00 1.64 3.82 0.38 0.02 5.85 7 0.00 4.51 6.34 3.51 0.28 0.01 14.64 8 0.00 3.79 5.41 4.54 2.00 0.14 0.00 15.87 9 0.01 1.78 7.52 3.73 3.56 1.16 0.07 0.00 0.00 17.83 10 0.00 0.72 4.60 3.86 2.37 2.24 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.47 11 0.00 0.20 1.89 3.85 2.05 1.24 1.19 0.47 0.07 0.00 10.96 12 0.00 0.20 1.40 1.97 1.36 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.03 0.00 7.09 13 0.00 0.25 0.68 1.14 1.18 0.66 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.03 0.00 5.02 14 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.34 0.58 0.41 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.00 2.09 15 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 16 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 3.71 14.35 32.57 23.42 13.51 6.67 2.97 1.33 0.63 0.41 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.01 100.00

4.2.4. Air and Sea Temperature

The moderating influence of the ocean serves to limit both the diurnal and the annual temperature variation on the Grand Banks. Diurnal temperature variations due to the day/night cycles are very small. Short-term, random temperature changes are due mainly to a change of air mass following a warm or cold frontal passage. In general, air mass temperature contrasts across frontal zones are greater during the winter than during the summer season.

4.2.4.1. Region 1

Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 1 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. Temperature statistics presented in Table 4.18 show that the atmosphere is coldest in January and February with a mean temperature of -0.4ºC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.0ºC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 12.2ºC and coldest in March with a mean temperature of 0.8ºC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.5 to 1.3 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to September, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From October to March, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.2 to 1.9 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to September have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from October to March tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 49 Table 4.18. Region 1 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics.

Month Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January -0.4 14.5 -11.1 1.5 12.2 -2.8 February -0.4 14.1 -12.3 1.2 12.2 -2.8 March 0.6 13.8 -9.2 0.8 12.1 -2.8 April 1.9 13.5 -5.2 1.4 12.5 -2.6 May 4.0 15.0 -2.5 3.0 14.0 -2.2 June 6.6 17.5 0.0 5.4 16.4 -1.1 July 10.6 20.6 3.0 9.3 19.0 2.3 August 13.0 21.6 4.5 12.2 20.0 4.0 September 11.5 21.1 3.5 11.0 20.0 4.0 October 7.4 19.4 0.0 7.5 18.5 1.5 November 4.5 17.4 -4.0 4.9 16.1 -0.5 December 2.2 16.0 -7.8 3.1 14.8 -2.8 Winter 0.5 14.9 -10.4 1.9 13.1 -2.8 Spring 2.1 14.1 -5.6 1.7 12.9 -2.5 Summer 10.1 19.9 2.5 9.0 18.5 1.7 Autumn 7.8 19.3 -0.2 7.8 18.2 1.7

4.2.4.2. Region 2

Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 2 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. Temperature statistics presented in Table 4.19 show that the atmosphere in Region 2 is coldest in February with a mean temperature of -0.3ºC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 14.2ºC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.8ºC and coldest in February and March with a mean temperature of 0.4ºC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.4 to 1.4 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to August, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From September to February, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.1 to 0.7 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to August have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from September to February tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 50 Table 4.19. Region 2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics.

Month Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January 0.3 15.0 -10.0 1.0 13.3 -2.8 February -0.3 14.0 -10.7 0.4 12.5 -2.8 March 0.4 13.8 -8.2 0.4 12.1 -2.8 April 2.1 13.9 -5.0 1.2 12.5 -2.8 May 4.2 15.2 -2.2 3.2 14.0 -2.2 June 7.3 17.8 -0.2 6.0 16.5 -1.0 July 11.8 20.9 3.5 10.4 19.8 3.0 August 14.2 21.6 4.4 13.8 20.6 5.6 September 12.5 21.1 3.5 12.6 20.0 4.4 October 9.0 19.5 0.4 9.4 18.5 2.0 November 5.1 17.8 -3.5 5.4 17.1 0.0 December 2.3 16.1 -7.2 2.8 14.5 -2.4 Winter 0.7 15.0 -9.3 1.4 13.4 -2.7 Spring 2.3 14.3 -5.1 1.6 12.9 -2.6 Summer 11.1 20.1 2.6 10.1 19.0 2.5 Autumn 8.9 19.5 0.1 9.1 18.5 2.1

4.2.4.3. Region 3

Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 3 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. Winter temperatures within this region are warmer than those of the other two regions. Temperature statistics presented in Table 4.20 show that the atmosphere in Region 3 is coldest in February with a mean temperature of 1.3ºC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.3ºC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 12.4ºC and coldest in February and March with a mean temperature of 3.1ºC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.4 to 1.6 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to September, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From October to March, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.2 to 2.1 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to September have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from October to March tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 51 Table 4.20. Region 3 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics.

Month Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January 1.7 18.0 -9.3 3.9 16.5 -2.5 February 1.3 17.2 -10.0 3.1 15.6 -2.3 March 2.2 17.2 -8.0 3.1 15.5 -2.8 April 3.8 16.6 -4.3 3.4 15.5 -2.5 May 5.4 17.4 -2.1 4.5 16.7 -2.0 June 7.8 19.8 0.5 6.7 18.8 0.0 July 11.1 22.2 4.0 9.5 21.6 3.0 August 13.3 23.2 5.0 12.4 22.0 5.0 September 12.4 22.3 3.5 12.0 21.5 4.8 October 9.2 21.1 0.0 9.4 20.5 2.8 November 6.6 20.2 -3.2 7.6 19.2 0.0 December 3.9 18.5 -6.0 5.3 17.5 -2.0 Winter 2.3 17.9 -8.4 4.1 16.5 -2.3 Spring 3.8 17.1 -4.8 3.7 15.9 -2.4 Summer 10.7 21.7 3.2 9.6 20.8 2.7 Autumn 9.4 21.2 0.1 9.6 20.4 2.5

4.2.5. Precipitation

Precipitation can come in three forms and are classified as liquid (drizzle and rain), freezing (freezing drizzle and freezing rain) or frozen (snow, snow pellets, snow grains, ice pellets, hail and ice crystals). The frequency of precipitation type for each region was calculated using data from the ICOADS data set, with each occurrence counting as one event. Precipitation statistics for these regions may be low due a fair weather bias. That is, ships tend to either avoid regions of inclement weather, or simply do not report during these events.

4.2.5.1. Region 1

The frequency of precipitation type for Region 1 (Table 4.21) shows that annually, precipitation occurs 18.2% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 31.4% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 58.6% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 9.8%. Snow has been reported in each month except August in this region, occurring 0.1% of the time in June, July and September.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 52 Table 4.21. Region 1 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation.

Freezing Rain Rain / Snow Month Rain / Drizzle Snow Hail Total / Drizzle Mixed January 10.1 0.5 2.0 22.7 0.4 35.8 February 8.7 0.4 1.4 20.8 0.1 31.4 March 7.5 0.3 1.4 12.3 0.1 21.6 April 9.0 0.3 0.5 6.1 0.1 15.9 May 11.6 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 13.8 June 10.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.0 July 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.7 August 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 September 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 12.1 October 14.9 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 16.1 November 14.0 0.0 0.8 4.3 0.3 19.4 December 12.7 0.3 1.9 12.4 0.3 27.5 Winter 10.5 0.4 1.7 18.4 0.3 31.4 Spring 9.3 0.2 0.8 6.9 0.1 17.3 Summer 9.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.8 Autumn 13.7 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.1 15.9 Annual 10.8 0.2 0.7 6.5 0.1 18.2

4.2.5.2. Region 2

The frequency of precipitation type for Region 2 (Table 4.22) shows that annually, precipitation occurs in this region 22.5% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 35.6% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 58.4% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 12.7%. Snow was not recorded during the summer months in Region 2.

Table 4.22. Region 2 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation.

Freezing Rain / Rain / Snow Month Rain / Drizzle Snow Hail Total Drizzle Mixed January 13.8 0.6 0.6 24.0 0.2 39.2 February 9.9 0.9 0.5 22.9 0.1 34.3 March 12.2 1.1 0.5 15.2 0.0 28.9 April 13.3 0.2 0.2 5.3 0.1 19.1 May 14.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.0 15.7 June 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 July 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 August 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 September 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 16.8 October 21.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.2 22.6 November 20.5 0.1 0.4 6.4 0.2 27.5 December 16.2 0.2 0.8 15.8 0.3 33.3 Winter 13.4 0.6 0.6 20.8 0.2 35.6 Spring 13.4 0.4 0.3 6.7 0.0 20.8 Summer 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Autumn 19.4 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.1 22.3 Total 14.6 0.3 0.3 7.3 0.1 22.5

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 53 4.2.5.3. Region 3

The frequency of precipitation type for Region 3 (Table 4.23) shows that annually, precipitation occurs in this region 17.3% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 26.6% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 47.7% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 10.0%. Snow has been reported in each month except August in this region, occurring 0.1% of the time in June, July and September.

Table 4.23. Region 3 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation.

Freezing Rain / Rain / Snow Month Rain / Drizzle Snow Hail Total Drizzle Mixed January 12.2 0.3 1.6 13.1 0.2 27.6 February 10.8 0.3 1.4 14.5 0.2 27.1 March 10.9 0.1 0.7 8.2 0.1 20.0 April 10.2 0.1 0.7 3.7 0.2 14.9 May 12.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.1 13.5 June 11.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.3 July 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.5 August 9.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 September 12.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 12.6 October 16.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 16.8 November 16.5 0.1 0.6 2.1 0.2 19.4 December 13.5 0.0 1.0 9.8 0.3 24.6 Winter 12.1 0.2 1.3 12.7 0.2 26.6 Spring 10.9 0.1 0.6 4.9 0.1 16.6 Summer 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 10.0 Autumn 15.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 16.2 Total 11.7 0.1 0.6 4.8 0.1 17.3

4.2.6. Visibility

Visibility is defined as the greatest distance at which objects of suitable dimensions can be seen and identified. Horizontal visibility may be reduced by any of the following phenomena, either alone or in combination:

x Fog; x Mist; x Haze; x Smoke; x Liquid Precipitation (e.g., drizzle); x Freezing Precipitation (e.g., freezing rain); x Frozen Precipitation (e.g., snow); and x Blowing Snow.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 54 During the winter months, the main obstruction is snow; however, mist and fog may also reduce visibilities at times. As spring approaches, the amount of visibility reduction attributed to snow decreases. As the air temperature increases, so does the occurrence of advection fog. Advection fog forms when warm moist air moves over the cooler waters of the Labrador Current. By spring, the sea surface temperature in the Project Area is cooler than the surrounding air. As warm moist air moves over the colder sea surface, the air cools and its ability to hold moisture decreases. The air will continue to cool until it becomes saturated and the moisture condenses to form fog. The presence of advection fog increases until mid-summer when the temperature difference between the air and the sea begins to narrow and eventually decrease below the sea surface temperature. As the air temperature drops, the occurrence of fog decreases. Reduction in visibility during autumn and winter is relatively low and is mainly attributed to the passage of low-pressure systems. Fog is mainly the cause of the reduced visibilities in autumn and snow is the main cause of reduced visibilities in the winter. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility in all three regions since the air temperature has, on average, decreased below the sea surface temperature and it is not yet cold enough for snow.

4.2.6.1. Region 1

A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 1 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 4.17. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 41.9% of the recorded observations had reduced visibilities. July month has the highest percentage (61.2%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometer 42.2% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 24.7% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities.

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations (%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 4.17. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 1.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 55 4.2.6.2. Region 2

A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 2 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 4.18. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 39.9% of the recorded observations had reduced visibilities. July month has the highest percentage (66.9%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometer 49.5% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 24.7% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities.

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations (%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 4.18. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 2.

4.2.6.3. Region 3

A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 3 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 4.19. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 38.6% of the recorded observations in Region 3 had reduced visibilities. July month has the highest percentage (59.8%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometer 41.5% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 28.6% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities. Visibility statistics from Region 3 are slightly higher than reported in Regions 1 and 2. This improvement may be the result of higher sea surface temperatures, resulting in less advection fog forming over the region.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 56 80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations(%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 4.19. Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 3.

4.2.7. Tropical Storms

The hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin normally extends from June through November, although tropical storm systems occasionally occur outside this period. While the strongest winds typically occur during the winter months and are associated with mid-latitude low pressure systems, storm force winds may occur at any time of the year as a result of tropical systems. Once formed, a tropical storm or hurricane will maintain its energy as long as a sufficient supply of warm, moist air is available. Tropical storms and hurricanes obtain their energy from the latent heat of vapourization that is released during the condensation process. These systems typically move east to west over the warm water of the tropics, however, some of these systems turn northward and make their way towards Newfoundland and the Grand Banks. As the hurricanes move northward over the colder ocean waters, they begin to lose their tropical characteristics, since the capacity of the air to hold water vapour is dependent on temperature. By the time these weakening cyclones reach the Grand Banks, they are usually embedded into a mid-latitude low and their tropical characteristics are usually lost.

Since 1995 the number of hurricanes that have developed within the Atlantic Basin has been increasing as shown in Figure 4.20. This increase in activity has been attributed to naturally occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator called the tropical multi-decadal signal and typically lasts 20 to 30 years (Bell, 2006). As a result of the increase in tropical activity in the Atlantic Basin, there has also been an increase in tropical storms or their remnants entering the Canadian Hurricane Centre Response zone, and consequently, a slight increase in the number of tropical storms entering the Study Area. It

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 57 should be noted that the number of storms in 2006 and 2007 have shown a decrease with only 10 tropical storms developing in the Atlantic Basin in 2006 and 17 tropical storms in 2007. This time period is not of sufficient length however to determine whether this decrease will continue.

s 25

Number of Hurricane of Number 10

0 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Atlantic Basin Atlantic Canadian Response Zone Within 278km of 47.5°N, 47.5°W

Figure 4.20. Frequency of Tropical Storm Development in the Atlantic Basin. 1958 – 2007.

Since 1950, 38 tropical systems have passed within 278 km of 47.5°N; 47.5°W. On occasion, these systems still maintain their tropical characteristics when they reach Newfoundland. On October 02, 1975, Hurricane Gladys, a Category 4 Hurricane as it passed east of Cape Hatteras tracked northeast towards the Grand Banks. Gladys, still a Category 2 Hurricane with 43.7 m/s winds and a central pressure of 960 mb on October 03 moved northeast across the Grand Banks and maintained Hurricane strength until it moved north of 50° latitude when it weakened to a post-tropical storm. As this system passed over the region it passed closest to grid point 12595 which recorded a mean wind speed of 31.69 m/s and a significant wave height of 8.3 m.

4.2.8. Wind and Wave Extreme Value Analysis

An analysis of extreme wind and waves was performed for each region using the MSC50 data set which consists of a continuous 52-year period of hourly hindcasted data for the Project Area. The extreme value analysis for wind speeds was carried out using the peak-over-threshold method. The analysis used hourly wind values for the reference height of 10 m above sea level. These values were converted to 10- minute and 1-minute wind values using a constant ratio of 1.06 and 1.22, respectively (U.S. Geophysical Survey 1979). For the extreme wave analysis, two methods were used; the peak-over-threshold method using discrete values and the joint probability method using the complete data set.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 58 After considering four different distributions, the Gumbel distribution was chosen to be the most representative for the peak-over-threshold method as it provided the best fit to the data. Since extreme values can vary, depending on how well the data fits the distribution, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on each grid point to determine how many storms to use in the analysis.

4.2.8.1. Extreme Value Estimates for Region 1

Grid Point 12595 located at 47.5°N; 48.3°W was deemed to be the most representative for the area defined as Region 1 in Figure 4.21.

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 12595 47.5°N 48.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 100 Year 13 50 Year 12 25 Year 11 10 Year 10 1 Year 9

SpectralPeak Period (s) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 01234567891011121314151617 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.21. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 12595 (47.5°N; 48.3°W).

The 1-hour, 10-minute, and 1-minute winds were calculated for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25- years, 50-years and 100-years (Table 4.24). The wind speeds with a 100-year return period for 1-hour, 10-minutes, and 1-minute were 32.4 m/sec, 34.4 m/sec, and 39.6 m/sec, respectively.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 59 Table 4.24. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1.

Return Periods (Years) 1-hour (m/s) 10-minute (m/s) 1-minute (m/s) 1 25.2 26.7 30.8 10 28.9 30.6 35.2 25 30.3 32.1 37.0 50 31.4 33.2 38.2 100 32.4 34.4 39.6

The extreme value estimates for waves with return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 4.25. The annual 100-year extreme significant wave height for Grid Point 12595 is 15.1 m which occurs during the month of February. The highest significant wave height of 14.1 m in the MSC50 data set occurred during a storm on February 11, 2003 and corresponds with the 50-year extreme significant wave height of 14.3 m.

Table 4.25. Extreme Wave Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1.

Return Periods Significant Wave Height Maximum Wave Height Associated Peak Period (Years) (m) (m) (sec) 1 10.9 20.1 13.8 10 13.0 24.1 14.9 25 13.9 25.6 15.3 50 14.5 26.8 15.6 100 15.1 28.0 15.9

A contour plot showing the combination of extreme wave heights and periods for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years is presented in Figure 4.21. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 4.26. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel distribution. For a 100-year return period, the Gumbel distribution gave an extreme significant wave height of 15.1 m, whereas the Weibull distribution gave a value of 16.0 m.

Table 4.26. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1.

Return Period Combined Significant Wave Height Spectral Peak Period Median Value (years) (m) (s) 1 11.6 14.2 10 13.9 15.3 Grid point 13912 25 14.7 15.8 50 15.4 16.1 100 16.0 16.4

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 60 4.2.8.2. Extreme Value Estimates for Region 2

Three grid points, deemed to be most appropriate for conditions within Region 2, were used in this analysis: Grid Point 10255 located at 46.3°N; 48.4°W, Grid Point 10439 located at 46.4°N; 48.1°W and Grid Point 11421 located at 46.9°N; 48.3°W. The annual 100-year extreme 1-hour wind speed was determined to be 31.5 m/s at Grid Point 10255, 31.6 m/s at Grid Point 10439 and 31.9 m/s at Grid Point 11421. The highest extreme winds occur during February at each of the grid points (Table 4.27). A comparison of these values, with actual values measured by the platforms on the Grand Banks was not possible. Logarithmic profiles for adjusting wind speeds from anemometer height to the surface are valid only in neutral or unstable conditions. Observations from platforms on the Grand Banks over the past ten years frequently show stable conditions in which the surface layer wind speed profiles are not valid. Using a logarithmic profile to adjust wind speeds between the 10 m and anemometer level would therefore introduce an unnecessary source of error in the results.

Table 4.27. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2.

GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Return 1-hour 10-min 1-min 1-hour 10-min 1-min 1-hour 10-min 1-min Periods (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (Years) 1 24.7 26.2 30.1 24.8 26.2 30.2 25.1 26.6 30.6 10 28.1 29.8 34.3 28.2 29.9 34.4 28.5 30.3 34.8 25 29.5 31.2 36.0 29.5 31.3 36.0 29.9 31.7 36.5 50 30.5 32.3 37.2 30.5 32.4 37.3 30.9 32.8 37.7 100 31.5 33.4 38.4 31.6 33.4 38.5 31.9 33.8 38.9

The extreme value estimates for significant wave height for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 4.28. The 100-year extreme significant wave height ranged from 15.2 m at Grid Points 10255 and 11421 to 15.4 m at Grid Point 10439. The 50-year extreme significant wave heights vary between 14.5 m and 14.7 m. These significant wave heights correspond with a significant wave height of 14.66 m recorded over a 20-minute interval by a waverider buoy in the area on February 11, 2003. A storm with a return period of 50 years means that the calculated significant wave height will occur once every 50 years, averaged over a long period of time. It is entirely possible that this event was a 50-year or longer return period storm. The value recorded on February 11, 2003 was the highest recorded significant wave height in a near continuous waverider data set extending back to early 1999. The previous highest recorded value in this data set was 12.47 m, which occurred on January 25, 2003. The maximum significant wave heights measured during the “Ocean Ranger” storm of 1982 was approximately 12 m. If more occurrences of an event of this magnitude were observed, the calculated statistics would consequently begin to increase.

During a storm event on January 08, 2007 a maximum individual wave height of 22.63 m was recorded by a waverider in the Terra Nova field. This is greater than the January maximum 10-year return period estimate of 21.8 m for Grid Point 10255, which is the closest grid point to the Terra Nova waverider. However, the value is less than the 25-year return period estimate of 23.7 m. The significant wave height during this event was measured to be 9.72 m.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 61 Table 4.28. Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 in Region 2.

GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Assoc. Assoc. Assoc. Return Significant Maximum Peak Significant Maximum Peak Significant Maximum Peak Periods Height Height Period Height Height Period Height Height Period (Years) (sec) (sec) (sec) 1 10.5 19.5 13.6 10.7 19.8 13.7 10.7 19.7 13.6 10 12.9 23.8 14.8 13.1 24.2 14.9 12.9 23.9 14.8 25 13.8 25.5 15.2 14.0 25.9 15.3 13.8 25.5 15.2 50 14.5 26.7 15.5 14.7 27.2 15.5 14.5 26.7 15.5 100 15.2 28.0 15.8 15.4 28.4 15.8 15.2 27.9 15.8

A contour plot for each grid point showing the combination of extreme wave heights and periods for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years is presented in Figures 4.22 to 4.24. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 4.29. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel distribution. For a 100-year return period the Gumbel distribution gave extreme significant wave heights at 15.2 m, 15.4 m, and 15.2 m for Grid Points 10255, 10439, and 11421, respectively. The Weibull distribution gave values of 16.1 m, 16.0 m and 16.1 m, respectively.

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10255 46.3°N 48.4°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 100 Year 15 50 Year 14 25 Year 13 10 Year 12 1 Year 11 10 Spectral Peak (s) Period Peak Spectral 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.22. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10255 (46.3°N; 48.4°W).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 62 Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10439 46.4°N 48.1°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 100 Year 15 50 Year 14 25 Year 13 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.23. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10439 (46.4°N; 48.1°W).

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 11421 46.9°N 48.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 100 Year 15 50 Year 14 25 Year 13 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) Period Peak Spectral 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.24. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 11421 (46.9°N; 48.3°W).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 63 Table 4.29. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2.

Combined Significant Wave Height (m) Spectral Peak Period Median Value (s) Grid Point Grid Point Grid Point Grid Point Grid Point Grid Point Return Period 10255 10439 11421 10255 10439 11421 1 11.5 11.5 11.6 14.2 14.1 14.2 10 13.8 13.8 13.9 15.5 15.2 15.4 25 14.7 14.7 14.8 16.0 15.7 15.8 50 15.4 15.4 15.4 16.3 16.0 16.2 100 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.7 16.3 16.5

4.2.8.3. Extreme Value Estimates for Region 3

Grid Point 13912 located at 48.3°N; 46.3°W in northern Flemish Pass and Grid Point 10856 located at 46.6°N; 46.3°W in southern Flemish Pass was chosen to represent Region 3.

The annual calculated values for 1-hour, 10-minutes and 1-minute are presented in Table 4.30. The extreme 1-hour wind speed for a return period of 100 years was determined to be 31.9 m/s at Grid Point 10856 and 33.1 m/s at Grid Point 13912.

Table 4.30. Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3.

GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Return 1-hour 10-minute 1-minute 1-hour 10-minute 1-minute Period (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) 1 25.3 26.8 30.8 25.9 27.5 31.6 10 28.6 30.3 34.9 29.6 31.4 36.1 25 29.9 31.7 36.5 31.0 32.9 37.8 50 30.9 32.8 37.7 32.1 34.0 39.1 100 31.9 33.8 38.9 33.1 35.1 40.4

The annual extreme value estimates for waves for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 4.31. The annual 100-year extreme significant wave height for Grid Point 10856 and Grid Point 13912 is 16.2 m and 16.4 m, respectively.

Table 4.31. Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3.

GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Significant Maximum Associated Peak Significant Maximum Associated Return Wave Height Wave Height Period (sec) Wave Height Wave Height Peak Period Period (m) (m) (m) (m) (sec) 1 11.4 21.1 14.2 11.8 21.8 14.3 10 13.8 25.7 15.4 14.1 26.3 15.6 25 14.8 27.5 15.9 15.0 28.0 16.1 50 15.5 28.8 16.2 15.7 29.3 16.4 100 16.2 30.1 16.5 16.4 30.5 16.8

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 64 Contour plots for both grid points in Region 3 showing the combintation of extreme wave heights and periods for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are presented in Figures 4.25 and 4.26. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 4.32. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel Distribution. For the 100-year return period the Gumbel distribution gave significant wave heights of 6.2 m and 16.4 m for grid points 10856 and 13912, respectively whereas the Weibull distribution gave values of 17.4 m and 17.7 m, respectively.

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10856 46.6°N 46.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 100 Year 13 50 Year 12 25 Year 11 10 Year 10 1 Year 9

Spectral Peak Period (s) Period Peak Spectral 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 012345678910111213141516171819 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.25. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10856 (46.6°N; 46.3°W).

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 13912 48.3°N 46.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 100 Year 14 50 Year 13 25 Year 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 012345678910111213141516171819 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 4.26. Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 13912 (48.3°N; 46.3°W).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 65 Table 4.32. Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3.

Combined Significant Wave Height (m) Spectral Peak Period Median Value (s)

Return Period Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912

1 12.4 12.7 14.8 14.8 10 15.0 15.3 16.0 16.2 25 15.9 16.3 16.5 16.7 50 16.7 17.0 16.8 17.0 100 17.4 17.7 17.1 17.4

4.3. Physical Oceanography

This section provides a summary discussion of physical oceanography in the Study Area proposed for this Project. A more detailed discussion of physical oceanography in the area can be found in Appendix 1.

4.3.1. General Description of the Major Currents

The large scale circulation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador is dominated by well established currents that flow along the margins of the Continental Shelf. The main circulatory feature near the Study Area is the Labrador Current, which transports sub-polar water to lower latitudes along the Continental Shelf of eastern Canada (Figure 4.27). Oceanographic studies show a strong western boundary current following the shelf break with relative low variability compared to the mean flow. Over the Grand Banks a weaker current system is observed where the variability often exceeds that of the mean flow (Colbourne 2000).

The Labrador Current consists of two major branches. The inshore branch is located on the inner part of the shelf and its core is steered by the local underwater topography through the Avalon Channel. The stronger offshore branch flows along the shelf break over the upper portion of the Continental Slope. Lauzier and Wright (1993) found that the offshore branch of the Labrador Current offshore Labrador was located in a 50 km wide band between the 400 m and 1200 m isobaths. This branch of the Labrador Current divides between 48°W and 50°W, resulting in one sub-branch flowing to the east around Flemish Cap and the other flowing south around the eastern edge of the Grand Banks and through Flemish Pass. Characteristic current speeds on the Slope are in the order of 30 cm/sec to 50 cm/sec (Colbourne 2000), while those in the central part of the Grand Banks are generally much lower, averaging between 5-15 cm/s.

The outer branch of the Labrador Current exhibits a distinct seasonal variation in flow speeds (Lazier and Wright 1993), in which the mean flows is a maximum in October and a minimum in March and April. This annual cycle is reported to be the result of the large annual variation in the steric height over the continental shelf in relation to the much less variable internal density characteristic of the adjoining

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 66 deep waters. The additional freshwater in spring and summer is largely confined to the waters over the shelf. In summer, the difference in sea level between the shelf and open ocean is 0.09 m greater than in winter (Lazier and Wright 1993). This difference produces a greater horizontal surface pressure gradient and hence stronger mean flows.

Source: Colbourne et al. (1997).

Figure 4.27. Major Ocean Circulation Features in the Northwest Atlantic.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 67 along the Continental Slope southeast of the Grand Banks and continues north-eastward along the east side of Flemish Cap. This branch of the North Atlantic current can also intrude into the Flemish Pass. The North Atlantic Current transports warmer, high salinity water to the northeast along the southeast slope of both the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap (Colbourne and Foote 2000). This circulation pattern has been supported by geostrophic calculations from the temperatures and salinity transects of the Flemish Section and by ship mounted acoustic Doppler current profiler measurements (Figure 4.28).

Source: Colbourne and Foote (2000).

Figure 4.28. The Upper Layer (10-50 m) Circulation around the Flemish Cap and Adjacent Grand Bank during July 1996. Measurements made with a ship mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP).

Current meter data from five locations in the Study Area south of Flemish Cap were obtained from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. The presence of a north-eastward flowing current was observed only at the location closest to Flemish Cap at 45°32"N: 44°30"W. At this location in 1981 the average current speed was 11 cm/sec at 2005 m and 8 cm/sec at 4038 m, and the maximum current speeds were 20 cm/sec. There are no measurements closer to the surface at this location. However, in the near surface waters the North Atlantic Current near Flemish Cap is described as a frontal jet reaching a maximum speed of about 1 m/sec by Krauss (1986). Fisher and Schott (2002) show that the North Atlantic Current, south of Flemish Cap is a narrow band current reaching 1.2 m/sec. The higher speeds occur in the upper 500 m of the water column.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 68 Currents at depth of 542 m and 634 m were measured in the Newfoundland Basin at locations 44°6"N and 44°46"W and 44°23"N; 45°41"W for a period of 1 year in 1986/87. At both locations the current usually flowed toward the southeast, south, or southwest. At a depth of 542 m the current flowed towards the northeast during April. The mean speeds were 21 cm/sec at 542 m and 15 cm/sec at 634 m. At deeper levels the current flowed in a southerly direction with mean speeds varying between 10 cm/sec and 20 cm/sec. Similar current values were observed at depths of 2000 m and below at the other two deep water moorings sites in the Newfoundland Basin during the same period.

4.3.2. Currents in the Project Area

The Project Area was divided into four sub-areas with depth ranges of 0 m to 100 m, 100 m to 200 m, 200 m to 400 m and more than 400 m, respectively. The location and coverage of each sub-area is shown in Figure 4.29. The data for the following descriptions came from current data collected by Petro-Canada and Husky Energy, and from data archived at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography.

Figure 4.29. Location and Coverage of the Project Sub-areas.

4.3.2.1. Sub-area 1

Sub-area 1 is the shallow section of the Grand Banks where Terra Nova and L’Anse aux Meadows (EL 1101) are located. In this area of the Grand Banks the currents are mainly due to wind stress, tides and low frequency oscillations related to the passage of storm systems.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 69 Wind stress is an important driving force for the currents on the Continental Shelf, with a distinct annual cycle of comparatively strong winds in winter and weaker more variable winds in summer. An analysis of an array of current meter data collected from January to May 1992 by De Tracey et al. (1996) on the north-eastern section of the Grand Banks showed that the near-surface currents and local wind are highly coherent in the shallow region of the Grand Banks, suggesting that the currents on the Grand Banks have a strong wind driven component.

Tides play a major role in the currents on the Grand Banks. The major tidal semidiurnal constituents are M2 and S2 and the major diurnal constituents are O1 and K1. The tidal currents are a significant portion of the flow on the Grand Banks. In the near surface waters, M2, S2, O1, and K1 can have values which range from 6 to 9 cm/sec, 2 to 4 cm/sec, 2 to 6 cm/sec and 2 to 6 cm/sec, respectively. At mid-depth, the tidal constituents of M2, S2, O1, and K1 have values of 6 to 7 cm/sec, 1 to 3 cm/sec, 2 to 3 cm/se, 2 to 4 cm/sec. At 10 m above bottom the constituents of M2, S2, O1, and K1 have values 0 to 7 cm/sec, 0 to 3 cm/sec, 0 to 4 cm/sec and 0 to 4 cm/sec. The individual constituents have low values but the combination of all the tidal constituents contribute significantly to the overall flow.

The semi-diurnal tidal currents rotate through 360° twice per day in a clockwise direction. The diurnal tidal ellipses at Terra Nova are almost circular showing no preferred direction, and the semidiurnal tidal ellipses are slightly elongated in a northwest/southeast direction. Overall, the tidal currents at Terra Nova are responsible for about 30% of the variability near the surface and at mid-depth, and for 20% of the variability near the bottom.

The low frequency components are the most important contributor to the overall flow. The strongest currents have been observed to always occur during the passage of low pressure systems. Some of the flow can be attributed to direct effects of the wind stress upon the sea surface as indicated by an inertial period signal showing up in spectral analysis of the data. Spectral analysis shows that the low frequency components are in the period range of 4 to 7 days. The barotropic component appears to be the largest component of the strong flows.

The mean velocity tends to be directed in a southerly direction between southwest and southeast. The maximum current speeds reached 79.9 cm/sec in May in the near-surface waters, 73.6 cm/sec in September at mid-depth, and 45.1 cm/sec in September near the bottom.

4.3.2.2. Sub-area 2

Sub-area 2 (Figure 4.29) is the section of the Grand Banks where White Rose and River of Ponds (EL 1100) is located. There are some fundamental differences in the circulation regime at White Rose as compared with Terra Nova. At Terra Nova, the currents are characterized by a very weak residual flow because the main flow is overshadowed by the magnitude of the variabilities. At White Rose there are less variabilities overall, but near surface (20 m) the currents are more likely to be flowing in unexpected directions for a long period of time. For instance, near surface, the currents may flow towards the northeast for weeks at a time before reversing to flow south again.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 70 The percentage of the variability of the flow attributable to the tidal currents is similar at White Rose and Terra Nova. At both locations the tidal currents are responsible for about 30% of the flow at mid- depth and for about 20% near bottom. Near the surface the tidal currents account for about 30% of the variability at Terra Nova and for 20% of the variability at White Rose.

Near surface the magnitude of the tidal constituents for M2, S2, K1, and O1 have been calculated to vary from 0.9 to 7.0 cm/sec, 0.4 to 1.9 cm/sec, 1.5 to 5 .1 cm/sec and 0.8 to 3.1 cm/sec, respectively. At mid- depth, the values of M2, S2, K1, and O1 have been calculated to vary from 0.2 to 5.8 cm/sec, 0.2 to 2.8 cm/sec, 1.0 to 5.3 cm/sec, and 0.4 to 3.8 cm/sec, respectively. At 10 m above the sea bed the values of M2, S2, K1, and O1 have been found to vary from 0.2 to 6.1 cm/sec, 0.1 to 2.3 cm/sec, 1.0 to 5.1 cm/sec and 0.3 to 3.6 cm/sec, respectively. These tidal constituents have been calculated form a limited number of data sets. As more data becomes available the values will change slightly.

The currents in sub-area 2 will be influenced by the same driving forces as at Terra Nova. The low frequency oscillations in sub-area 2 as on a synoptic scale due to the passage of low pressure systems should be as prevalent in sub-area 2 as at Terra Nova in sub-area 1.

4.3.2.3. Sub-area 3

Sub-area 3 is located outside the White Rose field where the water depth is between 200 m and 400 m and includes the area to the northeast of the White Rose field. Data was processed from 7 current meter moorings in this area. However, only 2 instruments collected data in the near-surface waters.

Six of the moorings were located outside the White Rose field in the Labrador Current flowing along the upper edge of the Continental Slope. The other mooring was located on the Nose of the Banks at location 47.85°N; 48.02° W. The currents showed similar characteristics at all locations.

In this area there is less variability in the currents than at either Terra Nova or White Rose. The flow tends to be directed towards the south or southeast with higher velocities than found at White Rose or Terra Nova.

In the near-surface waters the maximum speed was 77.8 cm/sec. This value may be too low because there was only a total of 9 months of data collected in the near-surface waters. Table 4.8 shows that the maximum speed at mid-depth occurred in December with a value of 86.5 cm/sec. The maximum near- bottom current speed was 61.7 cm/sec which occurred at the same time and location as the maximum speed at mid-depth.

4.3.2.4. Sub-area 4

The current data in sub-area 4 comes from five moorings on the western slope of Flemish Pass, one mooring on the Sackville Spur, and from moorings at the well sites Tuckamore B-27 and Mizzen L-11.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 71 Near surface currents were measured at Mizzen L-11 between February and April 2003; at Tuckamore B-27 during May and June 2003, and at Lancaster F-70 between July and October, 1986. There is only one data record for each month between February and October. There is no data in the near-surface waters for November and December. The maximum current speed was measured in October with a value of 63.5 cm/sec. In all months the current was flowing either south or southwest or south with mean velocities that were similar in magnitude to the mean speeds. The mean speeds ranged between 14.0 cm/sec in April and 40.7 cm/sec in October.

At mid-depths, the mean current speeds were much lower, ranging between 8.4 cm/sec in February to 22.3 cm/sec in October. The maximum speeds ranged between 28.7 cm/sec in February to 46.1 cm/sec in June and September. In deeper waters, the mean current speeds ranged between 8.8 cm/sec in February and 12.5 cm/sec in October. The maximum speeds ranged between 23.3 cm/sec in August and 42.2 cm/sec in May.

The currents at mid-depth and near bottom usually flow towards the south or southwest. In 1986, the currents at Lancaster F-70 on the west side of Flemish Pass flowed towards the north-northeast during the last week of April and early May. During mid-May the currents reversed its flow back to southerly, the predominant direction for the area. During the occurrence of the northerly flow, the mean temperature were 3.2°C and 3.7°C at depths of 347 m and 589 m, respectively and the mean salinities were 37.74 psu and 34.92 psu, respectively. After the flow returned to its normal southerly direction; both the temperatures and salinities decreased, showing that the monthly flow was associated with an intrusion of warmer, more saline water from the south.

4.3.3. Water Mass Structure

The water structure on the north-eastern section of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is characterized by the presence of three identifiable features.

The first identifiable feature is the surface layer which is exposed to interaction with the atmosphere, and experiences temperature variations from sub zero values in January and February to above 15°C in summer and early fall. Salinity at this layer is strongly impacted by wave action and local precipitations. Considering that a water mass is a body of water which retains its well defined physical properties, over a long time period, the surface layer of variable temperature and salinity is usually left out of a water mass analysis for a particular region. During the summer, the stratified surface layer can extend to a depth of 40 m or more. In winter, the stratification in the surface layer disappears and becomes well mixed due to atmospheric cooling and intense mixing processes from wave action.

A second element of the thermohaline structure on the Grand Banks is the Cold Intermediate Layer (Petrie et al. 1988). In areas where the water is deep enough, this layer of cold water is trapped during summer between the seasonally heated upper layer and warmer slope water near the seabed (Colbourne 2002). Its temperatures range from less than -1.5°C to 0°C (Petrie and al., 1988; Colbourne et al., 1996)) and salinities vary within 32 and 33 psu. It can reach a maximum vertical extent of over 200 m (Colbourne 2004). The Cold Intermediate Layer is the residual cold layer that occurs from late spring to

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 72 fall and is composed of cold waters formed during the previous winter season. It becomes isolated from the sea surface by the formation of the warm surface layer during summer, and disappears again during late fall and winter due to the intense mixing processes that take place in the surface layer from strong winds, high waves and atmospheric cooling. In winter the two layer structure is replaced by a mixed cold body of water which occupies the entire water column.

A third element is the sharp density boundary near the Shelf break which separates the water on the shelf from the warmer, more saline water of the Continental Slope. The water over the Slope is the Labrador Sea water which is formed in the Labrador Sea as a result of the deep convection processes that take place during severe winters. The Labrador Sea has temperatures between 2°C to 4°C and salinities between 34.8‰ to 35‰.

During the last 50 years there have been three warming periods in the Labrador Sea; 1960 to 1971, 1977 to 1983, and 1994 to present. In 1994, the Labrador Sea water filled the entire central part of the Labrador Sea basin within the depth range of 500-2400 m (Yashayaev and Clarke 2006). The warming trend since 1994 has caused the water to become warmer, saltier, and more stratified; thus making it more difficult for winter renewal of Labrador Sea Water to take place. Unusual warming took place in 2004 believed to have originated from waters transported north and west by the North Atlantic Current and the Irminger Current (Yashayaev and Clarke 2006).

The temperature and salinity boundary between the water on the Shelf and the water in Flemish Pass is shown in Figure 4.30 from CTD data collected during April 2007 along the routinely sampled Flemish Cap transect. The offshore branch of the Labrador Current flows along the Shelf break in the region of this strong density gradient. Figure 4.31 shows the hydrographic properties along the same transect at the end of November 2007. In November the water is much warmer (8-10°C) in Flemish Pass as compared to April (4-5°C) of the same year. The salinity is lower in the in the top 50 m of the water column in November. The lower salinity is probably due to intense mixing from wave action in autumn.

4.3.4. Water Properties in the Project Area

The Project Area was divided into the same four sub-areas as described in Section 4.2. The sub-areas are those areas with depth ranges of 0 m to 100 m, 100 m to 200 m, 200 m to 400 m, and more than 400 m, respectively (Figure 3.3). Temperature and salinity data for each area was acquired from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. The data was used to produce statistics and T-S diagrams.

4.3.4.1. Sub-area 1

Sub-area 1 has a water depth less than 100 m. Hibernia, Terra Nova and L’Anse aux Meadows (EL 1101) are located within this area. The data shows that the warmest temperatures are between July and September near the surface with mean temperatures ranging between 10.7°C and 13.5°C. The coldest temperatures are in March with a mean value of -0.7°C and a minimum value of -1.6°C. The mean salinities ranged between 32.0 psu in October and 33.0 psu in March.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 73 Source: DFO Marine Environmental Data Service Website.

Figure 4.30. Hydrographic Contours of the Flemish Cap Transect during April 2007.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 74 Source: DFO Marine Environmental Data Service Website.

Figure 4.31. Hydrographic Contours of the Flemish Cap Transect during November 2007.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 75 At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures were always negative with the exception of May, when the mean temperature was 0.2°C. The coldest temperature was in March with a mean temperature of - 1.3°C. The mean salinities ranged between 32.8 psu in January to 33.2 psu in July.

T-S diagrams in Figure 4.32 show how the water properties vary with season throughout the water column. In summer and fall the water is stratified to a depth of 50 m. Below 50 m the water is less stratified and shows negative temperatures at 75 m, within the core of the Cold Intermediate Layer.

In winter and spring, there is little to no distinction between the water properties at the surface and at 25 m because the surface layer is well mixed. However, below 75 m the water is more stratified than during summer, indicating an intrusion and mixing by the Labrador Slope water.

Figure 4.32. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 1 (depth < 100 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 76 4.3.4.2. Sub-area 2

Sub-area 2 is the section of the northeast Newfoundland Shelf where the water depth is between 100 m and 200m. White Rose and most of River of Ponds (EL 1100) is located in this sub-area. The water properties in sub-area 2 were similar to those in sub-area 1 with the exception that the waters tend to be slightly colder in sub-area 2. The surface waters were warmest during the months of July to September with mean temperatures ranging from 9.6°C to 11.5°C. The coldest temperatures were in February and March with mean temperatures of -0.6°C and -0.8°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranged between 31.5 psu in August, to 32.9 psu in February.

At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures were always negative, ranging between -1.4°C in August to - 0.1°C in November. The colder waters in sub-area 2 indicate that the water in this area is being advected from the north by the Labrador Current rather than by vertical mixing through local cooling. The mean salinities ranged between 33.0 psu in April to 33.2 in the months of November to February.

The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.33 show two distinct water masses and the surface seasonally mixed layer. During summer and fall strong stratification occurs in the top 50 m which disappears to being well mixed surface layer during winter and spring. The core of the Cold Intermediate Layer occurs between the 75 m and 100 m depths. Below 100 m the water is mixed with Labrador Slope water.

4.3.4.3. Sub-area 3

Sub-area 3 is situated to the northeast of the White Rose field where the water depth is between 200m and 400 m. The mean surface temperatures during July to September range between 8.8°C and 10.4°C. During February and March, the mean surface temperatures were -0.4°C and -0.7°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranged between 31.7 psu in August to 33.3 psu in February. Salinities above 33 psu occurred in the months of November to February.

At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures are negative during all months with the exception of November and December. The mean temperatures ranged -1.2°C in August to 1.8°C in December. The mean salinities ranged between 33.2 psu in March to 33.8 psu in December.

In this region the Cold Intermediate Layer disappears in winter and is replace by warmer, higher salinity Labrador Slope water.

The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.34 show two distinct water masses and the surface seasonally mixed layer. The upper 50 m shows strong stratification in spring and winter. The Cold Intermediate Layer is more pronounced in spring and summer than during the fall, and disappears in the winter as mixing with the warmer and higher salinity water on the Slope intensifies.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 77 Figure 4.33. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 2 (100 m – 200 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 78 Figure 4.34. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 3 (200 m - 400 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres).

4.3.4.4. Sub-area 4

Sub-area 4 is the section within the Project Area where the water depth is more than 400 m (Figure 3.2). It includes the Slope region offshore the northeast Newfoundland Shelf and Flemish Pass. The warmest mean surface temperatures occur in the months of July to September with values ranging between 9.2°C to 11.3°C. The coldest mean surface temperatures occur during February to March with values of 0.3°C and 0.2°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranted between 32.4 psu in August to 34.1 psu in January.

At a depth of 75 m, the temperatures are warmer and the salinities higher than in the other three sub- areas. The mean temperatures are always positive ranging between 0.6°C in August to 3.5°C in December. The mean salinities range between 33.8 psu in May and June to 34.3 psu in October.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 79 The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.35 show that the Cold Intermediate Layer with temperatures below 0°C is no longer present. The two water masses are the cold, low salinity Labrador Current water in the upper 50 m and Labrador Slope water at deeper levels of the water column. Strong stratification in the surface water exists only during the summer season. Between 200 m and 500 m, the water is well mixed with temperatures between 3°C and 4°C and salinities between 34.5 psu and 34.9 psu. The core of the intrusion of warmer water is at a depth of approximately 500 m.

Figure 4.35. T-S Diagrams for Sub-area 4 (>400 m) (numbers on the curves represent the depths in metres).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 80 4.4. Ice and Icebergs

The following is a description of the ice environment on the Grand Banks in the vicinity of the Study Area and Project Area. This description uses information and data published in the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) as its basis. These data have been updated to include those collected since completion of the Comprehensive Study. Apart from some small numerical adjustments, most data and associated descriptions remain unchanged.

Sea ice and icebergs are two different forms of floating ice present in this marine environment. Sea ice is produced when the ocean's surface layer freezes. In the vicinity of the Project Area, sea ice, when present, is typically loosely packed and pressure-free. Floes are small and generally in advanced stages of deterioration.

Icebergs are composed of freshwater ice made from snow that becomes compacted in a glacier. When the leading edge of a glacier reaches the sea, slabs of ice fall off and become icebergs. The icebergs located on the Grand Banks typically originate from the glaciers of West Greenland. Ice management efforts focus on icebergs because they pose a hazard to offshore production facilities.

4.4.1. Sea Ice

The proposed Project Area occurs close to the extreme southern limit of the regional ice pack (Figure 4.36). In typical years, the ice edge reaches the Grand Banks in mid-February (Navoc 1986). The pack ice at the Project Area generally reaches annual peak coverage in March, just before water temperatures rise above the freezing point.

4.4.1.1 Sea Ice Duration

The median ice edge position shown in Figure 4.36 represents the ice edge for a typical year. Fifty percent of the time the ice occurs farther south than the median line and 50% of the time the ice occurs farther north. The maximum ice positions shown are composites of the most advanced ice-edge positions recorded. Sea ice covers part of the Grand Banks about one in every three years. The duration of these incursions varies from a low of one week to a high of five weeks, with an average duration of three weeks.

4.4.1.2 Sea Ice Concentrations

The seasonal movement of the southern pack ice edge could potentially affect the Project Area. Ice concentrations in the southerly edge are usually at the lower end of ice coverage, ranging from 2/10ths to 6/10ths. However, in extreme years the Project Area has experienced short periods of 9/10ths or more coverage (Figure 4.36).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 81 Source: Canadian Ice Services.

Figure 4.36. Mean and Composite Maximum Sea Ice Distribution.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 82 4.4.1.3 Sea Ice Floe Size

AES composite ice chart data for 1964 to 1998 indicate that, within 50 km of the Project Area, floes with diameters exceeding 100 m are present only 10% of the time. Estimates from an earlier study (Dobrocky Seatech 1985) indicate that mean floe diameters in offshore areas south of 49q N are less than 30 m, with only a few floes with diameters larger than 60 m being observed.

4.4.1.4 Sea Ice Thickness

Ice coverage thickness within 15 km of the Project Area typically ranges from 30 to 100 cm. This information was derived subjectively from CIS ice chart data for periods of ice coverage during the 1985-2007 period that exceeded 4 weeks in duration.

4.4.1.5 Sea Ice Drift Speeds

When present, pack ice in the Project Area is made up of non-continuous, mobile pack. Because of the loose concentrations and the lack of restraint, the pack ice is not subject to pressure. Pack ice drift rates on the Grand Banks virtually mirror the surface currents. Between 1984 and 1987, Petro-Canada conducted a series of studies using satellite tracked ice drifters. The resulting ice drift patterns and velocities are characteristic of currents on the slope region of the Grand Banks.

Eighty percent of the measured drift speeds were less than 0.6 m/sec with a preferred direction towards the southeast. Mean drift speeds were shown to be 0.25 m/s with extremes of 0.75 to 1.0 m/s. These measurements confirm observations made by mariners that have experience operating in ice on the Grand Banks (Seaconsult Ltd. 1988).

4.4.2. Icebergs

Glacial ice is formed from the accumulation of snow, which gradually changes form as it is compressed into a solid mass of large granular ice. This process produces a structure quite different from pack ice. The principal origins of the icebergs that reach the Grand Banks and the Study Area are the 100 tidewater glaciers of West Greenland. These glaciers account for about 85% of the icebergs.

4.4.2.1 Iceberg Distribution

According to the International Ice Patrol (IIP), the number of icebergs reaching the Grand Banks each year varied from none in 1966 and 2006 to a high of 2,202 in 1984. The average annual number of icebergs to reach the Grand Banks during the last ten years is 474. Of these, only a small proportion would have passed through the Project Area. For example, during the last ten years, the average annual number of icebergs sighted in a 1º grid area (46-47 N, 48-49 W) within the Project Area was 41.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 83 The long-term average number of icebergs that drift south of 48o N is highest in July. High levels are also observed from March through to September based on the data compiled by PAL from 1989 to 2007. On the Grand Banks, the long term average number of icebergs peak in April with a major flux from March to June. Iceberg sightings on the Grand Banks have been made in each month from January through December. In 1993, about 20% of the icebergs crossed 48q N in February. It should be noted that in the Project Area during the past ten years, three years have been completely iceberg-free.

Figure 4.37 indicates the annual iceberg distribution between 43q N and 50q N (8,232 km2), based on 1990-2007 PAL data (PAL 2007). The upper and lower numbers in each rectangle (1º x 1º grid) denote the annual maximum and the mean numbers of icebergs observed, respectively. The maximum numbers provide a worst-case representation of local annual iceberg severities.

When considering a 50 km radius area in the Project Area (roughly to the size of the typical MODU ice management zone) for the same period, the number of icebergs is reduced by 70 to 80%.

Source: PAL Iceberg Sighting Database 1990 – 2007.

Figure 4.37. Maximum and Mean Annual Numbers of Icebergs Observed.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 84 4.4.2.2 Iceberg Size Distribution

Two PERD studies: A Compilation of Iceberg Shape and Geometry Data for the Grand Banks Region (CANATEC 1999), and Grand Banks Iceberg Database (Fleet Technology 2000) lists dimensions for 872 icebergs measured on the Grand Banks and off the Labrador coast. These databases provide extensive measurement data (both above and below water) on icebergs. From this database measurement sets were extracted for icebergs within a 100 km radius of the Project Area. Additional data obtained over the previous ice seasons were added using the same criteria.

These data show that for the Project Area, 64% of measured icebergs are categorized as small or less, 24% are categorized as medium, and 12% are categorized as large.

4.4.2.3 Iceberg Draft

In off-shelf areas, icebergs can have drafts larger than 150 m while in on-shelf areas, iceberg drafts are in the 20 m to 100 m range. Mean on-shelf draft is 42 m, while the maximum is restricted by the water depth.

4.4.2.4 Iceberg Mass

A review of 224 icebergs measured on the Grand Banks from the PERD (CANATEC 1999) database shows similar results. For water depths less than 100 m the mean iceberg mass was 125,000 tonnes. The minimum and maximum masses were 1.6 million t and 3.9 million t, respectively.

4.4.2.5 Iceberg Drift Speeds

Iceberg drift speeds in the Project Area show a correlation with the sub-surface currents. Iceberg drift speeds measured from various drilling operations on the Grand Banks show speeds ranging from 0 to 1.3 m/s, with a mean drift speed equal to 0.3 m/s.

A study conducted by Seaconsult in 1988 showed that 65 percent of measured iceberg drift speeds were less than 0.4 m/sec regardless of water depth. Over the 2000 ice season, 1370 measurements of iceberg drift speeds were recorded. Speeds ranged from 0 to 1.3 m/s and again the mean drift speed was 0.3 m/s. Both of these observations agree with subsequent data sets obtained over recent ice seasons.

Using the extreme sub-surface currents as a base, and assuming the same relationship between iceberg and current speed, it would appear that the extreme iceberg drift speeds could reach as high as 1.8 m/s.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 85 4.4.2.6 Iceberg Scour

Icebergs whose drafts exceed water depth scrape along the sea floor, creating continuous or interrupted gouges and pits known as ‘iceberg scours’. When this occurs, the icebergs often become grounded in the seabed. Recent reports (Croasdale 2000) have quantified over 3,887 individual iceberg scours from the Grand Banks Scour Catalogue produced by Canadian Seabed Research Ltd. Data relating to the proposed Project Area indicate mean scour depth, width and length equal to 0.7 m, 26 m and 656 m, respectively. Maximum scour depth, width and length are 3 m, 200 m and 9,366 m, respectively.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 86 5.0 Biological Environment

This section describes the biological environment of the proposed Project Area and vicinity, including much of the Study Area. Detailed descriptions of the biological environment of this general area have been included in several recent oil and gas industry-related documents including the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study and Supplement (Husky 2000, 2001a), the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a), the Petro-Canada Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling EA (Petro-Canada 2002), various Husky exploration drilling EAs and update for the Jeanne d’Arc Basin (LGL 2002, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b), the Petro-Canada Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3-D Seismic Program EA (LGL 2007c), the Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling EA and Addendum (LGL 2005b, 2006c), the Orphan Basin 3-D Seismic EA and update (Buchanan et al. 2004a; Moulton et al. 2005a) and the Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3-D Seismic EA and update (LGL 2005c; Moulton et al. 2006a). Sections of many of these documents will be cross-referenced in the various biological environment component descriptions. In addition to updated information, summaries of relevant information from these documents are presented in the following sections for plankton, benthos, invertebrates/fish and related habitats, seabirds, marine mammals, sea turtles and Species at Risk.

5.1. Ecosystem

An ecosystem is an inter-related complex of physical, chemical, geological, and biological components that can be defined at many different scales from relatively small (may only contain one habitat type, e.g., a shelf) to relatively large (e.g., regional ecosystem) with complicated shelves, slopes, valleys, and several major water masses and currents (e.g., the northwest Atlantic). This EA focuses on components of the ecosystem such as selected species and stages of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals which are important economically and socially and have potential to interact with the Project. This is the valued ecosystem component (VEC) approach to EA which is detailed in Section 6.0. The VECs and/or their respective groups are discussed in the following sections.

5.2. Invertebrates and Fish

Most of the focus in this section is on commercially important invertebrates and fish although particular non-commercial species with well-recognized ecological importance are also discussed.

5.2.1. Marine Habitats

Both the Project and Study areas occur both on the shelf and beyond the 200 m depth contour (Figure 1.1). Thus, both areas include shelf and slope marine habitats and the larger Study Area also includes deep abyssal habitats within its borders. While depths in the Project Area range from <100 m to between 1,000 and 2,000 m, maximum depths in the Study Area exceed 4,000 m. Every substrate type common to the Grand Bank region likely occurs in both the Project Area and Study Area. Therefore, marine invertebrates and fish that occur in the Project Area and Study Area occupy a variety of marine habitats. Gross classification of these habitats includes benthic, demersal, and pelagic, each of which can be further divided into finer classifications as described below.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 87 5.2.1.1. Demersal and Pelagic

Pelagic and demersal invertebrate and fish species occur in the water column, the latter in the lower portion of the water column closest to the bottom substrate. Those species that occur primarily in the lower water column and remain in association with the bottom are referred to as demersal. Others that occur higher in the water column and have little or no association with the benthic habitat are referred to as pelagic species. A short discussion of plankton is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (Section 5.4 in LGL 2006a).

Zooplankton communities that occur in the Flemish Pass, including a Labrador Current-associated boreal-arctic zooplankton community dominated by the copepod Calanus finmarchius in fall and winter months are discussed in Section 4.3.2.2 of Petro-Canada (2002). Adult C. finmarchius have recently been found only in the Flemish Pass and Cap area, not on the Grand banks (Pepin and Maillet in Petro- Canada 2002). Other copepod species may be dominant in the Flemish Pass during the spring. In addition to copepods, hyperiid amphipods, chaetognaths, and euphausiids also make up a considerable portion of the zooplankton biomass. Because of the huge biomass and wide vertical and horizontal distribution of plankton, the proposed delineation/exploration drilling has virtually no potential to significantly affect phytoplankton or zooplankton at the ecosystem level. Thus, they are not assessed further in this EA other than through their relationship with VECs such as commercial fish or marine mammals/sea turtles.

Demersal and pelagic invertebrates include certain crustacean (e.g., shrimp) and cephalopod (e.g., squid) species. Relatively recent Spanish trawl surveys in the Flemish Cap region, reported 17 crustacean and eight cephalopod species over a depth range of 126 to 720 m (Torres and Loureiro 2001). The northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) was the most abundant invertebrate species caught during the survey, which occurred primarily between 182 and 253 m. The most abundant cephalopod in the catches was the northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus), which occurred primarily in the 344 to 618 m depth range. Both are key species in northwest Atlantic food webs. Redfishes are the most abundant ichthyoplankton species in the Flemish Pass area (Anderson 1983 and Husky 2000 in Petro-Canada 2002).

5.2.1.2. Benthic

A short discussion of benthos, particularly benthic species found in the Project Area, is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (Section 5.5.1.1 in LGL 2006a). Typical benthos that occurs within the Project Area includes the following:

x Micro- and macroalgae; x Infauna (animals occurring in the substrate) such as polychaete worms and bivalve molluscs; and x Epifauna (both sessile and motile animals occurring on the surface of the substrate) such as echinoderms (e.g., sea urchins, sand dollars), crustaceans (e.g., crabs, amphipods), bivalve molluscs (e.g., scallops), and corals.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 88 Benthic species known to occur in the Flemish Pass as well as those likely to occur in the area are discussed in Section 4.3.3 of Petro-Canada (2002). Marine worms (polychaetes, oligochaetes and nematodes) dominated the fauna found in a fines-dominated sediment sample collected at a depth of 1,025 m in the Flemish Pass (Imperial Oil 1976 in Petro-Canada 2002). At a location of similar depth just north of the Flemish Pass, sampled fauna included anemones, bivalve molluscs, gastropods, ophiuroids and echinoids (Carter et al. 1979 in Petro-Canada 2002).

Deep-water Corals

A general discussion of deep-water corals that occur in Atlantic Canada is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (Section 5.5.1.1.1 in LGL 2006a). It is noteworthy that the comprehensive summary report on deep-water corals and their habitats off Atlantic Canada (Mortensen et al. 2006) was made possible through the financial support of the oil and gas industry through the Environmental Studies Research Fund (ESRF).

The recent analyses of two datasets obtained from DFO Newfoundland Region (i.e., Fisheries Observer Program 2004-2006, and Scientific Survey, 2003-2005) indicated the occurrence of corals along the eastern slope region of the Grand Bank, the slope region proximate to the Bonavista Cod Box, and along the northern slope of the Flemish Cap (Edinger et al. 2007a). The slope area proximate to the Bonavista Cod Box lies in the southern part of an area identified by the authors as having potential for being important for coral conservation. The area identified by Edinger et al. (2007a) extends between Funk Island Spur and Tobin’s Point. The southern extent of this particular area is located about 100 km northwest of the Project Area and extends into the northwestern part of the Study Area.

Wareham and Edinger (2007) mapped the distribution and diversity of deep-sea corals off the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and southeast Baffin Island using incidental by-catch from scientific surveys (2002-2006) and fisheries observations aboard commercial vessels (2004-2006). While the scientific survey data alone did not identify the Funk Island Spur/Tobin’s Point area as an area rich in coral species, fisheries observations did indicate abundant or diverse corals around Tobin’s Point and the Flemish Cap. Most of the corals found in the vicinity of the Flemish Cap were non-gorgonian soft corals.

Using DFO scientific survey data (2003-2005) and shrimp industry scientific survey data (2005), Edinger et al. (2007b) mapped coral-rich areas in Newfoundland and Labrador waters and compared the diversity and abundance of ten groundfish species and two invertebrate species among five coral classes (i.e., large gorgonians [>1 m in height], small gorgonians [<1 m in height], seapens and/or cup corals, soft corals, and absence of corals). Preliminary analysis indicated that groundfish species richness was highest in sets containing small gorgonian corals. Many of the fish species included in the study were more abundant in coral classes than in non-coral classes in at least one depth range but no coral class had significantly higher fish abundances than other coral classes at all depths. Although Edinger et al. (2007b) did not find any dramatic relationships between corals and abundance of groundfish and invertebrates, there was a weak but statistically significant positive correlation between coral species richness and fish species richness. Analysis was not able to conclude whether the correlation is

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 89 coincidence or not. However, it does suggest that certain habitats that support diverse corals are also likely to support diverse assemblages of fish.

The DFO RV surveys in 2007 also collected deep-water coral data within the proposed Project Area (V. Wareham, DFO, pers. comm.). The RV surveys collected both large gorgonians (Paragorgia arborea) and antipatharians (Stauropathes arctica) within 50 km to the east and southeast of the proposed northern Flemish Pass drilling site at Mizzen. Corals collected most proximate to the Mizzen site (~ 10 km to the southeast) were sea pens, scleractinians (Flabellum alabastrum), and soft corals (e.g., Anthomastus grandiflorus). Large branching corals with robust skeletons collected most proximate to the Mizzen site was Paragorgia arborea, more than 25 km southeast of Mizzen. Antipatharians were collected about 40 km east and southeast of the proposed Mizzen drill site. Small and large gorgonians and antipatharians were collected throughout the Flemish Pass during the 2007 DFO RV surveys. Large gorgonians and antipatharians appeared to be most closely associated with slope areas while numerous small gorgonians were collected in the deepest portions of the Flemish Pass. As indicated in Section 4.1.2.2, it is likely that the surficial sediment in areas of the Flemish Pass where water depth exceeds 900 m is comprised predominantly of mud and silt (D. Piper, Research Scientist, NRCan, pers. comm.). This type of soft substrate does not appear to be the optimal habitat for the large branching corals (i.e., large gorgonians and antipatharians).

5.2.2. Profiles of Commercially-Important Species

Based on commercial fishery landings data within or near the proposed Project and Study areas, specific fish and invertebrate species have been selected and described in the following sections.

Based on commercial fishery landings data 2003-2005, invertebrate landings have accounted for almost all of the reported commercial landings weight in the Study Area during that period. Crustaceans and molluscs account for the invertebrate landings within the Study Area, including snow crab, northern shrimp, various clam species (e.g., Stimpsons surf clam, cockles, quahaugs and propeller clams) and Iceland scallops in 2005. More details concerning these commercial fisheries are discussed in Section 5.6.

The following invertebrate and fish species were profiled in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.2 in LGL 2006a, 2007a) which had spatial and temporal scopes similar to those of this proposed Project. These species include the following:

x Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio); x Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis); x Stimpson’s surf clams (Mactromeris polynyma); x Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus); x Ocean quahaugs (Arctica islandica); x Northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua); x Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandica);

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 90 x Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus); x Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides); x Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea); and x Large pelagic species (e.g., swordfish Xiphias gladius; various tunas Thunnus spp.).

The profiles presented in LGL (2006a, 2007a) remain current and relevant for this EA. Of these profiled species, northern shrimp, Atlantic cod, and Greenland halibut represent some of the main commercial species caught during regular stratified random bottom trawl surveys on the Flemish Cap (Casas and Troncoso 2007). Additional commercial species relevant to the Flemish Cap but not profiled in LGL (2006a, 2007a) include the following:

x American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides); x Redfishes (Sebastes spp.); and x Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax).

Additional information for some of species initially profiled in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.2 in LGL 2006a, 2007a), as well as profiles of American plaice, redfishes, and roughhead grenadier follow.

5.2.2.1 Snow Crab

While NAFO Division 3L offshore snow crab recruitment and exploitable biomass in 2006 remained low relative to levels of the late 1990s, the inshore recruitment and exploitable biomass on this Division increased in 2006 and recruitment prospects appeared promising. For Division 3O, survey indices for snow crab are unreliable. Recruitment in 3O has been low in recent years and short term prospects are uncertain (DFO 2007a,b). Essentially all of the 2006 commercial snow crab harvesting in the Project Area occurred within 50 km inside of the 200 m isobath (see Section 5.3.3.4).

5.2.2.2 Atlantic Halibut

An industry/DFO longline halibut survey that targets the Scotian Shelf and Southern Grand Banks includes the Southeast Shoal region which occurs in the southwestern part of the Study Area. Between 1999 and 2005, Atlantic halibut have been caught in this area on a consistent basis (DFO 2006a).

5.2.2.3 Greenland Halibut

Recent 2005 and 2006 DFO RV fall multi-species surveys had smaller catches of Greenland halibut in the 3L and 3N portions of the Study Area compared to catches in 2001. Reduced catches were most pronounced along the slope region of Division 3N and in the southern part of the Flemish Pass (Healey 2007). Greenland halibut biomass and abundance in NAFO Division 3N outside of the EEZ (southwestern part of Study Area) have shown decreasing trends since 1999 during annual Spanish surveys (González-Troncoso et al. 2007a).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 91 5.2.2.4 Yellowtail Flounder

Results of Spanish surveys conducted in the portion of Division 3N outside of the EEZ (southwestern Study Area) have indicated a constant biomass index for yellowtail flounder since 1998. This stock is now estimated to be at a level well above that of the mid-1980s (González-Troncoso et al. 2007b).

5.2.2.5 American Plaice

The American plaice typically inhabits depths ranging from 70 to 275 m, although it also occurs in shallower and deeper areas. Generally, this flatfish lives on soft substrate. Spawning by this dioecious species occurs in the spring, often in early April on the Flemish Cap. Fertilization is external and the developing eggs are buoyant and occur near the water’s surface. Time to larval hatch is temperature dependent but typically occurs within two weeks of fertilization. The larvae are planktonic during development until settlement to bottom occurs. The American plaice typically feeds on polychaetes, echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans and fish, and is preyed upon by various fish species and marine mammals (Fishbase website, http://www.fishbase.org; Scott and Scott 1988).

During bottom trawl surveys on the Flemish Cap in June and July 2006, the densest American plaice distribution was found at the shallowest portion of the Flemish Cap where water depth was less than 150 m. American plaice were also caught in areas where depth ranged up to 1,000 m. Catches were made in a relatively restricted area in the south-southeastern part of the Flemish Cap (Casas and Troncoso 2007).

5.2.2.6. Redfishes

Three species of redfish occur in the Flemish Cap part of the Study Area. They include the Atlantic golden redfish (Sebastes marinus), the deepwater beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella), and the Acadian beaked redfish (Sebastes fasciatus). Redfish are ovoviviparous, meaning that the eggs are fertilized internally and spawning is characterized by the direct extrusion of larvae in the water column. Redfish mating usually occurs in late fall/early winter, followed by larval extrusion during the following spring/summer (St. Pierre and de Lafontaine 1995).

Redfish typically feed on various species of zooplankton (e.g., euphausiids and other planktonic crustaceans, jellyfish, hydroids). The golden and deepwater redfish also prey on various species of nekton (e.g., herring, capelin, cod, grenadier) and the Acadian redfish prey includes various zoobenthic species (e.g., benthic crustaceans, amphipods, etc.) (Fishbase website, http://www.fishbase.org).

During bottom trawl surveys on the Flemish Cap in June and July 2006, the distribution of redfish varied by species. Sebastes marinus catches were highest in areas of the Flemish Cap where water depths ranged from 180 to 250 m. Sebastes mentella catches were highest in areas of the Flemish Cap where water depths ranged from 250 to 365 m, particularly on the southern and southwestern parts of the Cap. Sebastes fasciatus catches were highest in areas of the Flemish Cap where water depths ranged from 181 to 365 m. Catches of the latter two species were more widespread on the Flemish Cap than for S. marinus (Casas and Troncoso 2007).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 92 5.2.2.7. Roughhead Grenadier

The benthopelagic roughhead grenadier typically inhabits depths ranging from 200 to 600 m. It is thought that spawning by this dioecious deepwater species occurs in winter/early spring. Fertilization by roughhead grenadier is external. Prey species of the roughhead grenadier typically include amphipods, polychaetes and various natant crustaceans (Fishbase website, http://www.fishbase.org; Scott and Scott 1988).

Based on results of bottom trawl surveys on the Flemish Cap from 1991 to 2005, the highest estimated biomass of roughed grenadier occurred in areas where water depth exceeded 540 m. The surveys were conducted in areas with water depths ranging from 200 to 720 m (Murua and Gónzalez 2007).

5.2.2.8. Other Species Caught in 2006 Flemish Cap Survey

Most Atlantic cod catches occurred in areas of the Flemish Cap where water depths were less than 250 m while most Greenland halibut was caught around the periphery of the Flemish Cap in deeper water areas (Casas and Troncoso 2007).

5.2.3. Invertebrate and Fish Spawning

Spawning by invertebrate and fish species discussed above was also described in the recent Husky New Construction and Operations Program EA (Section 5.5.4 in LGL 2006a). Table 5.1 provides information on typical spawning times and vertical distribution of eggs and larvae for some of the invertebrate and fish species that occur in the Study Area.

5.2.4. DFO Research Survey Data, 2005-2006

Data collected during 2005 and 2006 DFO RV research surveys in areas overlapping with the Study Area were analyzed and catch weight results are presented in this section (Table 5.2). Data collected during the 2007 RV surveys were not yet available at the time this EA was prepared. Figures 5.1 to 5.11 indicate the distributions of catch weight for these species in the Study Area and Project Area.

All three species of wolffishes listed on Schedule 1 of SARA were captured during both years of RV surveys in the Project Area. In terms of abundance, more Atlantic wolffish (721) was caught than either of the other species (northern wolffish [63] and spotted wolffish [91]). See Figures 5.12 to 5.14 for distribution of wolffish catch abundance in Study Area and Project Area.

The depths at which the various species/groups were caught during the 2005 and 2006 RV surveys in the Study Area varied considerably. Table 5.3 presents the average mean depth of capture for both 2005 and 2006, and minimum and maximum depths of capture over the two years for species with highest catch weight. The three wolffish species are also included because of their SARA Schedule 1 listings. The species typically caught at greatest depth were roughhead grenadier, Greenland halibut, northern wolffish and Greenland shark. Those typically caught at the shallowest depths included yellowtail flounder, sand lance, and capelin.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 93 Table 5.1. Table Spawning Specifics of Notable Invertebrate and Fish Species Likely to Spawn Within or Near the Study Area.

Occurrence of Timing of Eggs/Larvae Depth Distribution of Species Planktonic in Plankton Eggs/Larvae Eggs/Larvae Snow crab Eggs: No Larval hatch generally occurs in Developing fertilized eggs Larvae: Yes late spring/summer. carried by female at bottom. Larvae remain planktonic for 3 to Larvae occur in upper water 4 months. column. Northern shrimp Eggs: Yes (attached to Spawning typically occurs in late Egg depth distribution depends female) June/early July. on location of females in the Larvae: Yes Eggs remain attached to females water column. from late summer/fall until larval Larvae are in upper water hatch the following column. spring/summer. Larvae remain planktonic in upper water column for a few months. Stimpson’s surf clam Eggs: Yes Late summer/fall spawning Eggs occur somewhere in water Larvae: Yes column Larvae occur in the upper water column. Greenland cockle Poorly understood Poorly understood Poorly understood Ocean quahaug Eggs: Yes Spawning from spring to fall, Eggs and larvae occur in upper Larvae: Yes depending on water temperature water column. Northern propeller clam Poorly understood Poorly understood Poorly understood Iceland scallop Eggs: Yes Spawning from spring to fall, Eggs: occur somewhere in water Larvae: Yes depending on water temperature column Larvae occur in the upper water column. Atlantic cod Eggs: Yes Spawning primarily between Fertilized eggs and larvae may Larvae: Yes April and June. occur anywhere within the upper 100 m of the water column, eggs generally most concentrated in the upper 10 m. American plaice Eggs: Yes Eggs and larvae planktonic during Eggs and larvae occur in upper Larvae: Yes spring/summer. water column. Redfishes Eggs: No Larval extrusion typically occurs Larvae are pelagic. Larvae: Yes in late spring/summer months. Atlantic halibut Eggs: Yes Spawning likely between January Fertilized eggs gradually move Larvae: Yes and May. up into the surface waters. Larvae hatch and remain near surface for approximately six to eight weeks. Yellowtail flounder Eggs: Yes Spawning typically between May Both eggs and larvae occur in Larvae: Yes and september, peaking in June the upper water column Wolffishes Eggs: No Spawning from early fall to early Eggs are typically Larvae: Yes winter. benthic/demersal while the larvae are semipelagic, sometimes occurring in near surface waters.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 94 Table 5.2. Species/Groups with Highest Catch Weights During DFO RV Surveys in Study Area and Project Area, 2005 and 2006.

Project Area Study Area 2005 2006 2005 2006 22,935 KG 28,469 KG 63,766 KG 54,692 KG Shrimp (22.7%) Shrimp (22.3%) Yellowtail flounder (19.9%) Yellowtail flounder (16.5%) Sand lance (14.8%) Greenland shark (14.1%) Shrimp (12.9%) Shrimp (16.3%) Deepwater redfish (14.2%) Deepwater redfish (10.4%) Deepwater redfish (12.2%) Deepwater redfish (10.0%) Roughhead grenadier Capelin (13.6%) American plaice (11.0%) American plaice (9.1%) (6.5%) Thorny skate (5.7%) Greenland halibut (5.2%) Sand lance (7.4%) Greenland shark (7.3%) Brittlestars (5.1%) American plaice (5.0%) Capelin (7.0%) Thorny skate (5.4%) Roughhead grenadier (4.4%) Thorny skate (3.7%) Thorny skate (5.4%) Sand lance (4.3%) Greenland halibut (3.5%) Sponges (3.2%) Roughhead grenadier (3.2%) Roughhead grenadier (4.1%) Unspecified invertebrates Yellowtail flounder (3.1%) Greenland halibut (2.5%) Greenland halibut (3.9%) (2.7%) Unspecified invertebrates Unspecified invertebrates American plaice (2.4%) Sand lance (3.1%) (2.2%) (2.3%)

Figure 5.1. Distribution of Shrimp Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 95 Figure 5.2. Distribution of Deepwater Redfish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.3. Distribution of Greenland Halibut Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 96 Figure 5.4. Distribution of Roughhead Grenadier Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.5. Distribution of Thorny Skate Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 97 Figure 5.6. Distribution of Sand Lance Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.7. Distribution of Capelin Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 98 Figure 5.8. Distribution of American Plaice Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.9. Distribution of Atlantic Cod Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 99 Figure 5.10. Distribution of Yellowtail Flounder Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.11. Distribution of Greenland Shark Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 100 Figure 5.12. Distribution of Atlantic Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Figure 5.13. Distribution of Northern Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 101 Figure 5.14. Distribution of Spotted Wolffish Catch Weights, DFO RV Surveys, 2005 and 2006 (Combined).

Table 5.3. Table Average ‘Mean Catch Depth’, and Minimum and Maximum Catch Depths during RV Surveys in Study Area, 2005 and 2006.

Catch Depth (m) Species/Group Average ‘Mean Catch Minimum Maximum Depth’ (for each year) Yellowtail flounder 69 42 331 Shrimp 247-406 45 1,401 Deepwater redfish 367-428 59 1,161 American plaice 167-197 42 1,160 Sand lance 94-106 42 479 Capelin 141-152 42 613 Thorny skate 205-245 42 1,196 Roughhead grenadier 501-728 166 1,401 Greenland halibut 376-572 45 1,401 Greenland shark 610 610 610 Atlantic cod 160 42 483 Atlantic wolffish 228-232 46 706 Northern wolffish 464-594 50 1,203 Spotted wolffish 265-269 79 1,166

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 102 5.3. Commercial Fisheries

This section describes commercial fisheries in the Study Area and Project Area. It focuses primarily on recent domestic fisheries (2004 – 2006) but also provides a more general historical overview. The Project Area fisheries are similar to those described and assessed in the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area EA and update (LGL 2005a, 2006b) and the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and update (LGL 2006a, 2007a). The Study Area used in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area, 2008-2017 EA (LGL 2007b) is identical to the Study Area being proposed by StatoilHydro. Relevant fisheries in this Study Area have changed little over the past several years.

5.3.1. Data

The description of fishing activities for the proposed StatoilHydro Project is based in part on data derived from the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's (DFO) Newfoundland and Labrador Region and Maritimes Region (mainly southern and eastern Nova Scotia) catch and effort datasets, 1987-20061, for the domestic harvest. Maritimes Region data are included because a portion of the harvest (about 8% in the Study Area and 6% in the Project Area), mainly shrimp, is typically landed in Nova Scotia. Foreign catches landed outside these areas are not included in the DFO data.

Most of these Study Area catch data are georeferenced,2 which allows plotting of past harvesting locations. Maps in the following sections show fish harvesting locations as dark points. The points are not “weighted” by quantity of harvest; rather they show locations of fishing effort.

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) datasets (STATLANT 21A data) for 1985 – 2004 are used to indicate and quantify harvesting by foreign and domestic fishers. The NAFO datasets capture NAFO-managed harvests by Canadian fishers and non-Canadian NAFO states at the fisheries management Division level.3

In the following data tables, the weight of the harvest (in tonnes) is given rather than value, since these quantities are directly comparable from year to year. Values (for the same quantity of harvest) may vary annually with species, negotiated prices, changes in exchange rates and fluctuating market conditions.

1 The data represent all catch landed within the Scotia-Fundy section of DFO Maritimes Region and for all Newfoundland and Labrador landed catch. Foreign catches landed outside these areas are not included. The data are still classified by DFO as preliminary though the species data shown in this report are not likely to change to any significant extent when the data are finalized. The most recent data were accessed in February 2007 (for 2006). Reliable 2007 data are not yet ready as of the end February, 2008. 2 The location given is that recorded in the vessel's fishing log, and is reported in the database by degree and minute of latitude and longitude; thus the position is accurate within approximately 0.5 nautical mile of the reported co-ordinates. It should be noted that for some gear, such as mobile gear towed over an extensive area, or for extended gear, such as longlines, the reference point does not represent the full distribution of the gear or activity on the water. However, over many data entries, the reported locations create a fairly accurate indication of where such fishing activities occur. 3 The Study Area includes most of NAFO Divisions 3L, 3M and 3N; the Project is about 85% within 3L. The portion of the Study Area that extends east of 42 degrees west longitude is outside all of the NAFO management areas (see following maps). StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 103 Value, however, would be very important, and carefully evaluated according to the current prices, if there were a compensation incident, as described in the mitigations sections of this assessment.

Other sources consulted include DFO species management plans, quota reports, other research reports and studies, and consultations with scientists, managers and fishing interests.

5.3.2. Consultations

Consultations for this assessment were undertaken with relevant fisheries agencies, harvesting firms and other industry representatives. These included consultations with DFO managers, One Ocean, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), the Association of Seafood Producers, Fishery Products International, the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, Clearwater Seafoods and Icewater Seafoods. Section 6.2 and Appendix 2 provide information on the consultations undertaken for this assessment.

5.3.3. Historical Overview of Area Fisheries

The majority of the harvesting in both the Study and Project Areas until the 1990s was by stern otter trawlers harvesting groundfish. This was primarily Atlantic cod, redfish, American plaice and several other demersal species. In 1992, with the acknowledgement of the collapse of several of these stocks, a harvesting moratorium was declared and directed fisheries for cod virtually ended in these areas. Today, COSEWIC lists the Atlantic cod (Newfoundland and Labrador population) as an endangered species.

A number of formerly underutilized species – mainly shrimp and snow crab – have come to replace several of the groundfish species since the collapse. These two species are now the principal harvest in the Study Area, as they are in many other areas offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

To illustrate this change, Figure 5.15 indicates the harvesting in the three Unit Areas (UA) (NAFO Division sub-zones) that make up most of the Project Area (UA 3Lt, 3Le and 3Li) over the last two decades. It compares the harvest for groundfish species and for all other species.

Figures 5.16 to 5.19 provide context for the foreign fisheries, primarily in the Study Area outside Canada’s 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for 1985 - 2004. They show harvests by foreign and domestic harvesters from NAFO Divisions 3L, 3M and 3N, most of which are within the Study Area, while the easternmost part is outside the NAFO Convention management area. The Project Area is about 85% within Division 3L, within Subarea 3. Subarea 3 and relevant Divisions are shown on the following map.

The principal species in 1985 were Atlantic cod, American plaice, capelin and redfish. In 2004 the species were mainly northern shrimp, capelin, cod and turbot (snow crab is not managed by NAFO). Other than Canadian ships, those fishing in these areas during this time included fishing vessels from Denmark, Iceland, Cuba, Japan, South Korea, Russia, the USA and various European Union nations.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 104 Project Area* Species Harvest, 1987-2006 Tonnes 18,000 Groundfish Other Species 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

* UAs 3Lt, 3Le and 3Li Figure 5.15. Project Area (main UAs) Harvest, Groundfish vs. Other, 1987-2006.

Figure 5.16. NAFO Subarea 3 and Divisions.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 105 NAFO Harvest 3L, 1985-2004 Tonnes 300,000 For e ign Canadian 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 5.17. Historical Harvest from Div. 3L, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks.

NAFO Harvest 3M, 1985-2004 Tonnes 300,000 For e ign Canadian 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 5.18. Historical Harvest from Div. 3M, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 106 NAFO Harvest 3N, 1985-2004 Tonnes 300,000 For e ign Canadian 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 5.19. Historical Harvest from Div. 3M, Foreign and Domestic, NAFO Managed Stocks.

5.3.4. Current Domestic Harvests

The 2004 - 2006 domestic harvests recorded from within the Study Area and Project Area are shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. As indicated, the principal fisheries (by quantity of harvest) within the Study Area are for snow crab (37.5%), northern shrimp (31%) and a variety of deep sea clams (21.5%). Groundfish – mainly yellowtail flounder – make up nearly all of the remaining 10%.

Inside the Project Area, the harvest is almost entirely northern shrimp (59.5%) and snow crab (39.1%) by quantity in the years indicated.

5.3.4.1. 2004-2006 Domestic Harvesting Locations

Figures 5.20 to 5.22 indicate georeferenced harvesting locations in relation to the Study and Project Areas for all species, all months, for 2004 to 2006. As the maps indicate, most of the fish harvesting within and near the Study Area and Project Area is concentrated on the shelf slope. Much of this is in depths between 200 and 500 m. There is very little domestic harvesting east of 47ºW. A comparison with earlier harvesting maps in previous EAs indicates that most of these locations are highly consistent from year to year.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 107 Table 5.4. Study Area Quantity of Harvest by Species, All Months, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged).

Species Tonnes % of Total Cod 31.5 0.1% Halibut 33.9 0.1% American Plaice 229.8 0.6% Yellowtail Flounder 3,023.2 8.1% Greenland Halibut/Turbot 326.9 0.9% Skate 7.5 0.0% Grenadier, Rough-Head 19.0 0.1% Swordfish 21.4 0.1% Clams, Propeller 146.8 0.4% Clams, Stimpson Surf 3,009.4 8.1% Cockles 4,830.6 13.0% Scallop, Icelandic 50.5 0.1% Northern Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis 11,465.9 30.9% Crab Snow 13,913.8 37.5% All Other 31.1 0.1% Total 37,141.1 100.0%

Table 5.5. Project Area Quantity of Harvest by Species, All Months, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged).

Species Tonnes % of Total Turbot/Greenland Halibut 62.5 0.4% Grenadier, Rough-Head 9.8 0.1% Clams, Stimpsons Surf 160.2 0.9% Cockles 16.4 0.1% Northern Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis 10,594.3 59.5% Snow Crab 6,955.3 39.1% All Other 1.4 0.0% Total 17,799.9 100.0% Source: DFO Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador Regions 2006. All data tables and graphs include both Newfoundland and Labrador and Maritimes Region DFO catch and effort data.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 108 Figure 5.20. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2004.

Figure 5.21. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 109 Figure 5.22. Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2006.

5.3.4.2. Timing of the Harvest

Timing of harvesting within the Study Area and the Project Area over the past few years (2004-2006) is indicated in Figures 5.23 and 5.24.

In both areas, overall harvesting effort was highest in May to July for most years and lowest during the fall. However, the timing of the harvests can vary from year to year with resource availability, fisheries management plans and enterprise harvesting strategies.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 110 Study Area Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Tonnes 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.23. Study Area Quantity of Harvest by Month, 2004-2006.

Project Area Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Tonnes 8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.24. Project Area Quantity of Harvest by Month, 2004-2006.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 111 The following maps in Figure 5.25 show the location of the domestic harvest (all species) by month for 2004 – 2006, aggregated.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 112 Figure 5.25. Location of Domestic Harvest, All Species, by Month, 2004-2006 (Aggregated).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 113 5.3.4.3. Fishing Gear

For the most part, the fishing gear used in the Study and Project Areas in 2004 to 2006 reflects the species’ fisheries. In the Study Area, crab pots for snow crab and shrimp trawls for northern shrimp made up nearly 70% of the harvesting gear, by quantity of harvest (Table 5.6). A further 22% of the catch was with dredges, which are used to harvest deep sea clams. Groundfish were taken almost entirely by stern otter trawls, though a relatively small amount was taken with gillnets and longlines.

In the Project Area, shrimp trawling predominated, taking nearly 60% of the harvest, followed by snow crab pots (39%) (Table 5.7). The limited groundfish harvest in this area was primarily (more than 90%) with fixed gill nets.

Table 5.6. Study Area Landings by Gear Type, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged).

Gear Tonnes % of Total Bottom Otter Trawl (stern) 3,425.2 9.2% Shrimp Trawl 11,474.7 30.9% Purse Seine 2.4 0.0% Gill Net (Set or Fixed)* 195.1 0.5% Longline* 92.7 0.2% Pot* 13,913.8 37.5% Dredge (Boat) 8,037.2 21.6% Total 37,141.1 100.0% Note: * Fixed Gear.

Table 5.7. Project Area Landings by Gear Type, 2004 – 2006 (Averaged).

Gear Tonnes % of Total Bottom Otter Trawl (stern) 1.1 0.0% Shrimp Trawl 10,594.3 59.5% Gill Net (Set or Fixed)* 72.1 0.4% Longline* 0.5 0.0% Pot* 6,955.3 39.1% Dredge (Boat) 176.6 1.0% Total 17,799.9 100.0% Note: * Fixed Gear.

In general, the fixed gears (crab pots and gillnets in this area) have a much greater potential for interacting with marine activities than mobile gears, since the former are hard to detect when there is no fishing vessel near by, and they may be set out over long distances in the water. In the case of a spill, for instance, fixed gear is much more difficult to be moved out of the way of a slick.

The following maps (Figures 5.26 and 5.27) show the locations of fixed and mobile gear harvesting locations during 2004 – 2006, aggregated.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 114 Figure 5.26. Fixed Gear Harvesting Locations, 2004-2006, Aggregated.

Figure 5.27. Mobile Gear Harvesting Locations, 2004- 2006, Aggregated.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 115 5.3.4.4. Principal Fisheries

The recent Husky Oil assessments and updates described the main area fisheries in detail. The following sections provide information on the principal Study and Project Area fisheries, relevant to these locations. They also update information about quotas and current catches for these species for 2008.

Snow Crab

This species was significant in both the Study and Project Areas. Figure 5.28 shows the crab quota areas and Table 5.8 shows the quotas for the 2008 snow crab fishery in relevant portions of 3L.

Figure 5.28. Newfoundland Snow Crab Fishing Areas.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 116 Table 5.8. Relevant 2008 Snow Crab Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*.

Quota Taken Remain. Licence Category / Quota Definition % Taken (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) 3L Full-Time Midshore 890 0 0 890 Midshore Extended (MSX) 1,540 0 0 1,540 Outside 170 and Inside 200NM (3LX) 1,110 0 0 1,110 Outside 200NM (3L200) 950 0 0 950 3L Supplementary Large Midshore 758 0 0 758 Midshore Extended (MSX) 1,585 0 0 1,585 Outside 200 NM (3L200) 1,990 0 0 1,990 Outside 170 and Inside 200NM (3LX) 1,585 0 0 1,585 3L Supplementary Small Midshore (MS) 3,440 0 0 3,440 Southern Avalon Outside of 50NM (8B) 680 0 0 680 8B Exploratory (8BX) 1,005 0 0 1,005 3N Full-Time Outside 200NM (3N200) 600 0 0 600 3N Supplementary Large Outside 200NM (3N200) 1,215 0 0 1,215 3N Offshore 3N Fixed Gear >65' (3NEX/3NO) 595 0 0 595

Note: *As of 1 March 2008. See http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Crab_2008.htm for current data.

Figures 5.29 to 5.31 show snow crab harvesting locations recorded for 2004, 2005 and 2006, during all months.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 117 Figure 5.29. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2004.

Figure 5.30. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 118 Figure 5.31. Snow Crab Harvesting Locations, 2006.

Figures 5.32 and 5.33 show the average harvest by month for the 2004 – 2006 for the Project and Study Areas. Project Area Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.32. Project Area Quantity of Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 119 Study Area Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.33. Study Area Quantity of Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

Northern Shrimp

Shrimp has been the major fishery by far in the Project Area and also makes up a large part of the Study Area catch. The Study Area overlaps shrimp fishing areas (SFA) 7, which has domestic quotas. Table 5.9 shows the relevant quotas for 2007.

Table 5.9. Area 7 2008 Northern Shrimp Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*.

Quota Taken Remain. Licence Category / Quota Definition % Taken (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Area 7 - Offshore > 100' and Special Allocations 6,028 1,537 25% 4,491 Area 7 - 2J Fishers 395 131 33% 264 Area 7 - 3K Fishers North of 50'30 395 87 22% 308 Area 7 - 3K Fishers South of 50'30 2,886 183 6% 2,703 Area 7 - 3L Fishers 8,621 742 9% 7,879 Note: *As of 1 March 2008. See http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Shrimp_2008.htm for current data.

Figures 5.34 to 5.36 show the northern shrimp harvesting locations recorded for 2004, 2005 and 2006, all months.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 120 Figure 5.34. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2004.

Figure 5.35. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 121 Figure 5.36. Northern Shrimp Domestic Harvesting Locations, 2006.

The average northern shrimp harvests by month for the 2004 – 2006 period for the Project and Study Areas are indicated in Figures 5.37 and 5.38, respectively.

Project Area Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month Tonnes 2004-2006 Average 3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.37. Project Area Quantity of Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 122 Study Area Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month Tonnes 2004-2006 Average 3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.38. Study Area Quantity of Northern Shrimp Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

Offshore Clams

Offshore deepwater clams made up a proportionally large part (21.5%) of the 2004-2006 harvest in the Study Area. In the Project Area, however, it accounted for only 1% of the overall harvest those years.

This fishery in the Study Area is primarily Greenland cockles (Serripes groenlandicus), Stimpson (Arctic) surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) and a small quantity of propeller clams (Cyrtodaria siliqua). In other areas (on the Scotian Shelf) the fishery also includes quahaugs (Artica islandica).

Over the past several years, the Grand Banks portion of this fishery has been largely confined to NAFO Division 3N, mainly within Unit Area 3Nd, but in 2006 the harvest expanded northward into 3Lr and 3Lt (Figures 5.39 to 5.41). Another recent change in this fishery is an increase in the Greenland cockle harvest, which accounted for 65% of the Grand Banks deep-sea clams harvested in 2006. In contrast, before 2004, no cockles were reported, and during 2004 and 2005 the species made up about 20% of the harvest. As a result of the increase in cockle harvesting, the overall deep-sea clam fishery increased by more than 50% in 2006 compared to the average recorded harvest from 2000 to 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 123 Figure 5.39. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2004.

Figure 5.40. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 124 Figure 5.41. Offshore / Deep-Sea Clams Harvesting Locations, 2005.

Figures 5.42 and 5.43 show the average timing of the harvest over the 2004 – 2006 period for the Project and Study Areas. As the graph indicates, harvesting effort is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. Project Area Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.42. Project Area Quantity of Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 125 Study Area Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.43. Study Area Quantity of Clam Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

Groundfish

Overall, groundfish harvests made up about 10% of the Study Area harvest, 2004 – 2006, but less than 1% of the Project Area harvest. Many groundfish species are harvested together, either as directed or bycatch fisheries. Figures 5.44 to 5.46 show the domestic harvesting locations for all groundfish species for 2004 to 2006. As these indicate, most occurs in the westernmost part of the Study Area, and very little in the Project Area.

Figure 5.44. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2004.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 126 Figure 5.45. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2005.

Figure 5.46. Groundfish Harvesting Locations, 2006.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 127 Figures 5.47 and 5.48 show the average timing of groundfish harvesting for 2004 – 2006 in the Project and Study Areas.

Project Area Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.47. Project Area Quantity of Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

Study Area Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average Tonnes 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.48. Study Area Quantity of Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Averaged.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 128 The three main domestic groundfish harvests (by quantity) in the Study and Project Areas are described below.

Yellowtail Flounder

This species makes up the largest groundfish harvest in the Study Area but is not recorded in the Project Area. It is managed under NAFO, and harvested using mobile gear in the area. Relevant quotas for 2007 are shown below (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10. 2007 Yellowtail Flounder Quotas.

Division Category Quota 3LNO Fixed < 65' - 3LNO Mobile >65-100' - 3LNO Vessels >100' 15,112 Source: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/commercial/quota_reports/2007/yel_e.htm.

Greenland Halibut

This species made up the largest part of the groundfish harvest in the Project Area in 2004-2006, though the total is small. The Study Area harvest is divided between mobile trawls and fixed gear gill nets. In the Project Area, it is harvested almost entirely with gill nets. Table 5.11 shows the quotas and current harvest status in the relevant quota areas.

Table 5.11. Relevant 2008 Turbot Quotas and Harvest-to-Date*.

Quota Taken Remain. Licence Category / Quota Definition % Taken (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) 3LMNO - Fixed Gear <65' (June) 274 0 0 274 3LMNO - Fixed Gear <65' (August) 820 0 0 820 3LMNO - Mobile Gear <65' 28 0 0 28 3LMNO - Fixed Gear 65'-100' 48 0 0 48 3LMNO - Mobile Gear 65'-100' 4 0 0 4 3LMNO - Vessels >100' 542 0 0 542 3LMNO - Scandinavian L/Ls >100' 62 5 9 57 3LMNO - Shrimp Fishery (discards) 0 1 0 -1 Note: *As of 1 Mar 2008. Source: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Halibut_2008.htm.

American Plaice

The American plaice harvest made up less than 1% of the Study Area harvest, but none in the Project Area. The Study Area harvest was taken with mobile trawls. This species is under moratorium and harvests are from by-catches, mainly within the Greenland halibut fishery.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 129 5.3.5. Fisheries Research

DFO research surveys in 3L and/or 3N overlap with parts of the Study Area and Project Area (Table 5.12). For 2008, DFO reports that the preliminary schedule expects the spring survey within NAFO Division 3LNO in May - June. The fall survey will operate in the area from early October to about mid December. DFO expects that the R/V Templeman will be used during the spring surveys and the Teleost, and either the Templeman or the Needler, in the fall. More specific plans are typically available later in the year, and may be modified as circumstances change. (B. Brodie, pers. comm. February 2008).

Table 5.12. Preliminary 2008 Schedule for DFO RV Surveys in NAFO Divisions 3LN that Overlap with Study Area.

Scientist / Ship Survey Start Date End Date R/V Templeman or R/V Needler Brodie Multi-species 3LNO 06-May-08 20-May-08 Brodie Multi-species 3LNO 21-May-08 03-Jun-08 Brodie Multi-species 3LNO 04-Jun-08 17-Jun-08 Brodie Multi-species 3LNO 18-Jun-08 28-Jun-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 01-Oct-08 07-Oct-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 08-Oct-08 21-Oct-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 22-Oct-08 04-Nov-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 05-Nov-08 18-Nov-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 19-Nov-08 02-Dec-08 Brodie Multi-species - 3KLNO 03-Dec-08 16-Dec-08 R/V Teleost Brodie Multi-species 3KLMNO 03-Dec-08 16-Dec-08

5.4. Seabirds

The Grand Banks shelf and slope have been identified as areas rich in abundance and diversity of seabirds (Brown 1986; Lock et al. 1994). Considerable mixing in the water column produced by the combination of the continental shelf edge of the Grand Banks and the Labrador Current flowing south along this edge provides abundant nutrients for phytoplankton, which forms the base of the marine food pyramid. Seabird observations from this area are few but significantly more than areas beyond the Continental Shelf or Flemish Cap, especially from October through March (Figure 5.49) (Lock et al. 1994). For the purposes of this report, the given abundances of birds in the Study Area are for the shelf areas. Data on the abundances of birds in the deep water areas east of Flemish Cap and south east of the Grand Banks are lacking. However, it can be expected that there are differences in bird abundance and species diversity in shelf waters versus the deep waters beyond the shelf edge.

5.4.1. Seasonal Abundance of Seabirds in the Study Area

Information pertaining to the seasonal abundance of seabirds in the Study Area has recently been presented in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Section 5.7.1 in LGL 2006a, 2007a). Table 5.13 provides abundances of the species expected in the Study Area by month.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 130 Figure 5.49. Geographic and Seasonal Distributions of Seabirds in the Study Area and Project Area.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 131 Table 5.13. Monthly Abundance of Bird Species Occurring in Shelf Waters of the Study Area.

Common Name Scientific Name Monthly Abundance Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Procellariidae Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis C C C C C CU-CU-CCC C C Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis U CCCCCS Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus S S-U S-U S-U S-U S-U S Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus S SSSSS Hydrobatidae Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa U-C U-C U-C U-C U-C U-C U-C S Wilson's Storm-Petrel Oceanites oceanicus SSSS Sulidae Northern Gannet Morus bassanus SS SSSSS Phalaropodinae Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius S SSSSS Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus S SSSS Laridae Great Skua Stercorarius skua S SSSSS South Polar Skua Stercorarius maccormicki S SSSSS Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus S SSSSS Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus S SSSSS Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus S SSSS Herring Gull Larus argentatus S S VS VS VS VS VS VS S S S S Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides SSSS SS Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus SSSS SSS Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus U U VS VS VS VS VS U U U U U Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea VS VS VS VS Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla CCCCS SSSSCCC Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea S SSSS Alcidae Dovekie Alle alle U-C U-C U-C U-C S VS VS VS S C C U-C Common Murre Uria aalge S-U S-U S-U S-U S S S S S S-U S-U S-U Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia U-C U-C U-C U-C VS-S VS-S VS-S VS-S VS-S U-C U-C U-C Razorbill Alca torda SS SSSSSS Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica S-U S S S S S-U S-U S-U Notes: C = Common, present daily in moderate to high numbers; U = Uncommon, present daily in small numbers; S = Scarce, present, regular in very small numbers; VS = Very Scarce, very few individuals or absent. Blank spaces indicate not expected to occur in that month. Predicted monthly occurrences derived from 2004, 2005 2006 and 2007 monitoring studies in the Orphan Basin and Jeanne d’Arc Basin and extrapolation of seabird distribution at sea in eastern Canada in Brown (1986) and Lock (1994). Sources: Brown (1986); Lock et al. (1994); Baillie et al. (2005); Moulton et al. (2005b); Lang et al. (2006); Moulton et al. (2006b); Abgrall et al. in prep. a.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 132 The Grand Banks’ high productivity attracts huge numbers of nesting seabirds on the Avalon Peninsula. (Table 5.14; Figure 5.50). More details relating to nesting seabirds are included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Section 5.7.1 in LGL 2006a, 2007a). Many of the seabirds nesting in eastern Newfoundland would reach the western portion of the Study Area during the breeding season. Densities of seabirds vulnerable to oil spills from the PIROP database in 15’N by 30’W blocks in the Study Area during April to June range from 0/linear km to 583/linear km (Figure 5.49) (Lock et al. 1994). During post-breeding dispersal the Study Area is within range of all seabirds breeding in eastern Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of this dispersal, bird numbers along the Shelf edge on the northern and northeastern Grand Banks peak in the July to September period (Figure 5.49) (Brown 1986; Lock et al. 1994). Densities tend to be higher at the shelf edge at all times of the year (Figure 5.49). During this time period, densities of vulnerable seabirds range from 0.10- 0.99/linear km to 1406/linear km (Figure 5.49) (Lock et al. 1994).

Leach’s Storm-Petrel is an abundant breeder in eastern Newfoundland (Cairns et al. 1989) and nesting birds range far from colonies on foraging trips. This species is uncommon but widespread across the Grand Banks and common in Orphan Basin during the nesting season and post-breeding dispersal and is expected to be uncommon to common in the Study Area from April to September and scarce during October through November (LGL 2006a). Common Murre, Atlantic Puffin, and Black-legged Kittiwake are also abundant nesting species in eastern Newfoundland but make relatively short foraging trips from the colonies. As a result, these three species are expected be scarce in the Study Area from May to September. Northern Gannet, Herring Gull, and Great Black-backed Gull are common breeders in the area but are scarce >100 km offshore until September, when the latter is uncommon in the Study Area (Baillie et al. 2005). Manx Shearwater is a scarce breeder in North America and Razorbill is an uncommon breeder in eastern Newfoundland. Both species are expected to be scarce from April to November in the Study Area.

In addition to local breeding birds, there are many non-breeding seabirds on the Grand Banks during the summer months. Most of the world’s population of Greater Shearwater is thought to migrate from South Atlantic breeding colonies to the Grand Banks and eastern Newfoundland to moult and feed during summer months after completion of nesting in the Southern Hemisphere (Lock et al. 1994). This species is expected to be common in the Study Area from May to early November (LGL 2006a). Sooty Shearwater, Wilson’s Storm-Petrel and South Polar Skua also migrate from Southern Atlantic colonies to the Grand Banks. Sooty Shearwater is expected to be uncommon from May to October (Brown 1986; Baillie et al. 2005), whereas Wilson’s Storm-Petrel and South Polar Skua are expected to be scarce in the Study Area from May to October.

Many non-breeding sub-adult seabirds, especially Northern Fulmar and Black-legged Kittiwake, are present on the Grand Banks year-round. Northern Fulmar is expected to be common in the Study Area from September to May and uncommon during the remainder of the year, whereas the kittiwake is expected to be scarce from May to September but common following dispersal from the nesting colonies (October to April) (Brown 1986; Lock et al. 1994; Baillie et al. 2005). Common Murre and Herring Gull are scarce in the Study Area not only during the nesting season but are also present in small numbers during the remainder of the year. Thick-billed Murre is also present but scarce in the Study Area from May to September.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 133 Table 5.14. Number of Pairs of Seabirds Nesting at Seabird Colonies in Eastern Newfoundland.

Cape Freels Cape Middle Wadham Funk Baccalieu Witless Corbin Green Species and St. Lawn Islands Island Island Bay Islands Island Island Cabot Mary’s Island Island Procellariidae Northern Fulmar - 46a - 12a 22a,f Presenta - - - Manx Shearwater ------13k - - Hydrobatidae Leach’s Storm-Petrel 1,038d - 250j 3,336,000j 667,086,h,I,j - 13,879h 100,000j 65,280h Sulidae Northern Gannet 9,837b 1,712b - 12,156b - - - Laridae Herring Gull - 500j - Presenta 4,638e,j Presentj 20j 5,000j - Great Black-backed Presentd 100j - Presenta 166e,j Presentj 6j 25j - Gull Black-legged - 810j - 12,975j 23,606f,j 10,000j - 50j - Kittiwake Arctic and Common 376j - 250j ------Terns Alcidae Common Murre - 412,524c 2,600j 4,000j 83,001f,j 10,000j - - - Thick-billed Murre 250j - 181j 600j 1,000j - - - Razorbill 273d 200j 25j 100j 676f,j 100j - - - Black Guillemot 25j 1j - 100j 20+j Presentj - - - Atlantic Puffin 6,190d 2,000j 20j 30,000j 272,729f,g,j - - - - TOTALS 7,902 426,268 3,145 3,385,080 1,052,546 32,256 13,918 105,075 65,280 Sources: a Stenhouse and Montevecchi 1999; b Chardine (2000); c Chardine et al. (2003); d Robertson and Elliot (2002); e Robertson et al. (2001); f Robertson et al. (2004); g Rodway et al. (2003); h Robertson et al. (2002); I Stenhouse et al. (2000); j Cairns et al. (1989); k Robertson (2002).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 134 Figure 5.50. Locations of Important Bird Areas Nearest the Study Area.

Other seabird species migrate north in spring and south in autumn at sea over the Grand Banks between breeding sites in the low Arctic to wintering areas in the more southern latitudes. Pomarine Jaeger, Parasitic Jaeger, Long-tailed Jaeger, Great Skua, Arctic Tern, Red Phalarope, and Red-necked Phalarope are all expected to be scarce in the Study Area from May to October (LGL 2006a).

In October large numbers of Arctic breeding Thick-billed Murres, Dovekies, Northern Fulmars and Black-legged Kittiwakes arrive in eastern Newfoundland waters, including the Grand Banks, to spend the winter. Large percentages of the Eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland breeding populations of Dovekie and Thick-billed Murre winter in the western Atlantic, especially off Newfoundland and Labrador (Brown 1986; Lock et al. 1994). Black-legged Kittiwake is common in the Study Area during October to April, whereas Dovekie and Thick-billed Murre are uncommon (LGL 2006a). Small numbers of Glaucous Gull and Iceland Gull also migrate to Newfoundland waters from Arctic nesting colonies. These species are expected to be scarce from October to April. The densities of seabirds vulnerable to oiling in 15’N by 30’W blocks in the Study Area during October to December range from 0/linear km to 735/linear km. During January to March, densities of vulnerable seabirds in the Study Area range from 1.00 to 9.99/linear km to 402/linear km.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 135 Most of the information available has been collected by the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) through PIROP (Programme intégré de recherches sur les oiseaux pélagiques). These data have been published for 1969-1983 (Brown 1986) and up to the early 1990s (Lock et al. 1994). Additional seabird observations have been collected on the northeast Grand Banks by the offshore oil and gas industry (summarized for the period 1999-2002 by Baillie et al. 2005 and Burke et al. 2005). Since 2004, seabird data have been collected in areas located within this Project’s Study Area and Project Area during a research expedition and various oil and gas industry-related exploration surveys. Table 5.15 presents temporal and spatial information for the various projects and an indication of the seabird species with highest relative abundances during the surveys. Seabird observations were made aboard the CCGS Hudson Research Expedition in June and July 2004 (Lang and Moulton 2004).

Northern Fulmars, Greater Shearwaters, Sooty Shearwaters and unspecified jaegers and murres were observed in the southern Flemish Pass area (southern part of Project Area). Additional seabird distributional data were collected during Husky’s 2005 and 2006 3-D seismic program in Wildrose, located near the centre of the Project Area (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al. in prep. a). The five seabird species of highest observed abundance during October/November 2005 included Northern Fulmar, Black-legged Kittiwake, Dovekie, Thick-billed Murre and Greater Shearwater. In both 2004 and 2005, seismic programs were conducted just north of the Grand Banks in the Orphan Basin area for Chevron Canada Resources, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b). In both 2006 and 2007, controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) survey programs were also conducted in the Orphan Basin for ExxonMobil (Abgrall et al. in prep. b). Northern Fulmar and Leach’s Storm Petrel were more abundant in Orphan Basin than on the Grand Banks.

5.4.2. Prey and Foraging Habits

Seabirds in the Study Area consume a variety of prey ranging from small fish to zooplankton. Different methods for capturing food range from plunge diving from a height of 30 m above the water surface, feeding at surface, and diving from surface. Sections 5.7.2 in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a) present information on prey and foraging habits of a variety of seabirds that could occur in the Study Area. They include the following:

x Procellariidae (fulmars and shearwaters); x Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels); x Sulidae (Northern Gannet); x Phalaropodinae (phalaropes); x Laridae (gulls, terns); x Stercorariidae (skuas, jaegers); and x Alcidae (Dovekie, murres, guillemots, Razorbill, puffins).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 136 Table 5.15. Seabird Observations by LGL Biologists in Study Area and Project Area, 2004-2007. Approximate Water Location (Relative to Project Species with Highest Relative Abundances Project Time Period Depth Area and/or Study Area) during Observations (m) South Grand Banks (southwestern Greater Shearwater CCGS Hudson Research Expedition June 2004 < 100 Study Area) Salar Basin (southwestern Study Greater Shearwater CCGS Hudson Research Expedition June 2004 > 1,000 Area) Northern Fulmar Northern Fulmar Western Slope of Southern Flemish CCGS Hudson Research Expedition June 2004 ~ 500 Greater Shearwater Pass (southeastern Project Area) Sooty Shearwater Sackville Spur (northeastern Northern Fulmar CCGS Hudson Research Expedition June 2004 Project Area) ~ 1,000 Greater Shearwater Great Black-backed Gull Northern Fulmar Orphan Basin (northern Project Greater Shearwater CCGS Hudson Research Expedition June-July 2004 Area and Study Area) > 2,000 Great Black-backed Gull Leach’s Storm-Petrel North Grand Banks (northwestern Greater Shearwater CCGS Hudson Research Expedition July 2004 200-1,000 Study Area) Manx Shearwater Northern Fulmar Orphan Basin (northern Study Greater Shearwater Seismic Program for Chevron Canada June-September 2004 Area) 1,850-2,500 Leach’s Storm-Petrel Resources and ExxonMobil Canada Limited Sooty Shearwater Black-legged Kittiwake (Aug-Sept) Northern Fulmar Leach’s Storm-Petrel Greater Shearwater Seismic Program for Chevron Canada Orphan Basin (northern Project May-September 2005 1,108-2,747 Black-legged Kittiwake (May-June) Resources and ExxonMobil Canada Limited Area and Study Area) Dovekie (May-June) Thick-billed Murre (May-June) Great Black-backed Gull (Aug-Sept) Northern Fulmar Approximately 40 km northwest of Dovekie Seismic Program for Husky Energy Inc. October-November 2005 White Rose (southwestern Project 68-376 Black-legged Kittiwake Area) Thick-billed Murre Approximately 65 km northwest Greater Shearwater Seismic Program for Husky Energy Inc. July-August 2006 and 15 km south of White Rose 86-387 Leach’s Storm-Petrel (southwestern Project Area) Greater Shearwater CSEM Program for ExxonMobil Canada Orphan Basin (northern Project Leach’s Storm-Petrel August-September 2006 2,076-2,603 Limited Area and Study Area) Black-legged Kittiwake Northern Fulmar Approximately 30 km northwest of Greater Shearwater Seismic Program for Petro-Canada June-July 2007 White Rose (southwestern Project 61-171 Northern Fulmar Area) Leach’s Storm-Petrel Leach’s Storm-Petrel CSEM Program for ExxonMobil Canada Orphan Basin (northern Project July-September 2007 1,122-2,789 Greater Shearwater Limited Area and Study Area) Northern Fulmar Sources: Lang and Moulton (2004); Moulton et al. (2005b); Moulton et al. (2006b); Lang et al. (2006); Abgrall et al. (in prep. a,b); Lang and Moulton (in prep).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 137 5.5. Marine Mammals

At least 21 species of marine mammal are known or expected to occur in or near the Study Area including 18 species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and three species of phocids (seals) (Table 5.16). Additional species of marine mammal may occur rarely. Most marine mammals are seasonal inhabitants, the waters of the Grand Banks and surrounding areas being important feeding grounds for many of them.

Recent monitoring programs (2004 – 2007) of seismic and CSEM surveys conducted in Jeanne d’Arc Basin and areas adjacent to the Grand Banks provide new information on marine mammal spatial and temporal distribution. These programs include:

x Petro-Canada’s seismic program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin during June – July 2007 (Lang et al., in prep.); x Husky’s seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during October – November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006) and July – August 2006 (Abgrall et al., in prep. a); x ExxonMobil’s CSEM program in Orphan Basin during July – August 2006 and August – September 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b); and x Chevron and Co-venturers seismic program in Orphan Basin during July – September 2004 (Moulton et al. 2005b) and May – October 2005 (Moulton et al. 2006b).

Prior to these programs, marine mammal surveys conducted over 25 years ago in support of the Hibernia EIS (Parsons and Brownlie 1981) were the primary source of information on distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area. The results from these surveys were described in the Hibernia EIS in 1985 (Mobil 1985), updated in 1995 for the Terra Nova EIS (Petro-Canada 1996a,b), and updated again in 2000 for the White Rose EIS (Husky 2000). The detailed information from these surveys and other biological information presented in those EISs are not repeated in this report. As requested in the Scoping Document, summary descriptions of marine mammal spatial and temporal distributions as well as relevant life history details are provided. Figure 5.51 shows the locations of marine mammal and sea turtle sightings observed during recent seismic and CSEM monitoring programs, relative to the Study Area and Project Area for StatoilHydro’s proposed 2008 – 2016 drilling program. Results of these monitoring reports are summarized here and detailed in LGL (2006c).

Population estimates and feeding information of many of the marine mammal species that occur within the Project Area are provided in Tables 5.17 and 5.18 respectively. For most species of marine mammals there are no reliable population estimates for Atlantic Canada; most estimates provided in Table 5.17 are based on data collected in northeastern U.S. waters (Waring et al. 2007).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 138 Table 5.16. Marine Mammals with Reasonable Liklihoods of Occurrence in the Study Area, and their COSEWIC and SARA Status.

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Statusa (SARA listing/status) Baleen Whales Mysticetes Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered (Schedule 1) Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Special Concern (Schedule 1) Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Data Deficient (No status) Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Not At Risk (No status) Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Not At Risk (No status) North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered (Schedule 1) Toothed Whales Odontocetes Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Candidate Species—low priority (No status) Endangered—Scotian Shelf Population (Schedule 1); Not Northern Bottlenose Whale Hyperoodon ampullatus At Risk—Davis Strait Population (No status) Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon bidens Special Concern (Schedule 3) Killer Whale Orcinus orca Data Deficient (No status) Long-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melas Not assessed (No status) Atlantic White-sided Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus Not assessed (No status) Short-beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis Not assessed (No status) White-beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris Not assessed (No status) Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus Not assessed (No status) Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Not assessed (No status) Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus Not At Risk (No status) Special Concern (No schedule or status; referred back to Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena COSEWIC) True Seals Phocids Harp Seal Phoca groenlandica Candidate Species—low priority (No status) Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata Candidate Species—low priority (No status) Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus Not assessed (No status) a Based on COSEWIC (2007).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 139 Figure 5.51. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Sightings During Seismic and CSEM Surveys (2004 – 2007), Relative to the Proposed Study and Project Areas.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 140 Table 5.17. Population Estimates of Marine Mammals with Reasonable Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area. Northwest Atlantic (NW) Population Population Occurring in the Study Area Species Size Estimated Estimated Number Stock Source of Updated Information Number Baleen Whales 308 a (600 to 1500 in Blue Whale NW Atlantic Unknown Sears and Calambokidis (2002) North Atlantic) 2,814 b (CV=0.21); Waring et al. (2007); Lawson Fin Whale 1,103c (95% CI: Can. E. Coast Unknown (2006) 459-2,654) COSEWIC (2003a); Waring et al. Sei Whale Unknown Nova Scotia Unknown (2007) Whitehead (1982); Katona and 5,505 Beard (1990); Baird (2003); Humpback Whale (11,570 in North NF/Labrador 1,700 to 3,200 Stevick et al. 2003 Atlantic; CV=0.068) Minke Whale 2,998 d (CV=0.19) Can. E. Coast Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Toothed Whales Reeves and Whitehead (1997); Sperm Whale 4,804 e (CV=0.38) North Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Reeves et al. (1993); Waring et al. Northern Bottlenose Whale Tens of thousands? North Atlantic Unknown (2007) Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Unknown Katona et al. (1993) Lien et al. (1988); Waring et al. Killer Whale Unavailable Unknown (2007); Lawson et al. 2007 Nelson and Lien (1996); Waring et Long-finned Pilot Whale 31,139 f (CV=0.27) NW Atlantic Abundant al. (2007) Palka et al. (1997); Waring et al. Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 51,640 g (CV=0.38) NW Atlantic Unknown (2007) Katona et al. (1993); Waring et al. Short-beaked Common Dolphin 120,743 h (CV=0.23) NW Atlantic Unknown (2007) White-beaked Dolphin Unknown NW Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Bottlenose Dolphin 81,588 i (CV=0.17) NW Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2007) (offshore stock) Striped Dolphin 94,462 j (CV= 0.40) NW Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Risso’s Dolphin 20,479 k (CV=0.59) US East Coast Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Wang et al. (1996); COSEWIC Harbour Porpoise Unknown Newfoundland Unknown (2006); Waring et al. (2007) True Seals 5.9 million Harp Seal NW Atlantic Unknown ICES (2005) (CV=0.13) Hooded Seal 592,100 (±187,700) NW Atlantic Unknown ICES (2006) Grey Seal 154,000 E. Canada Unknown Mohn and Bowen (1996) a Based on surveys from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This estimate deemed unsuitable for abundance estimation. b Based on surveys from George’s Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. c Uncorrected point estimate derived from nearshore waters of Newfoundland (<172 km from shore) during September and October. d Based on surveys from George’s Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence plus a survey in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. e Based on surveys from Florida to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. f Based on surveys from Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida. Considers both long- and short-finned pilot whales. g Gulf of Maine Stock. h, j, k Based on surveys from Florida to Bay of Fundy i Based on surveys from Florida to Georges Bank. Numbers in Atlantic Canada unknown.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 141 Table 5.18. Prey of Marine Mammals with Reasonable Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area.

Species Prey Source of Updated Information Baleen Whales Blue Whale Euphausiids Fin Whale Fish (predominantly capelin), euphausiids Piatt et al. (1989) Sei Whale Copepods, euphausiids, some fish Humpback Whale Fish (predominantly capelin), euphausiids Piatt et al. (1989) Minke Whale Fish (predominantly capelin), squid, euphausiids Piatt et al. (1989) Toothed Whales Sperm Whale Cephalopods, fish Reeves and Whitehead (1997) Northern Bottlenose Whale Primarily squid, also fish Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Squid, some fish Pitman (2002) Killer Whale Herring, squid, seals, dolphins, other whales Lien et al. (1988) Long-finned Pilot Whale Short-finned squid, northern cod, amphipods Nelson and Lien (1996) Atlantic White-sided Dolphin Schooling fish (sand lance, herring), hake, squid Palka et al. (1997) Short-beaked Common Dolphin Squid, fish Katona et al. (1993) White-beaked Dolphin Fish (cod, capelin, herring), squid Hai et al. (1996) Bottlenose Dolphin Squid, fish (mackerel, butterfish) Gaskin (1992a) Striped Dolphin Cephalopods, shoaling fish Reeves et al. (2002) Risso’s Dolphin Squid Reeves et al. (2002) Harbour Porpoise Schooling fish (capelin, cod, herring, mackerel) True Seals Lawson and Stenson (1995); Lawson et Fish (capelin, cod, halibut, sand lance), Harp Seal al. (1998); Wallace and Lawson (1997); crustaceans Hammill and Stenson (2000). Fish (Greenland halibut, redfish, Arctic and Hooded Seal Ross (1993) Atlantic cod, herring), squid, shrimp, molluscs Benoit and Bowen (1990); Hammill et Grey Seal Fish (herring, cod, hake, pollock), squid, shrimp al. (1995) Source: Mobil (1985) with updates where indicated.

5.5.1. DFO Cetacean Sighting Database

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in St. John’s (J. Lawson, DFO Marine Mammal Research Scientist, 2007, pers. comm.) is compiling a database of cetacean sightings in waters around Newfoundland and Labrador. These data provide some indication of what species can be expected to occur in the area but they cannot, at this point in the development of the database, provide any fine-scale quantitative information as the database typically does not include observation effort. Table 5.19 contains the coarse summary data pertaining to sightings within the Study Area; caveats associated with the DFO data are also presented.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 142 Humpback whales accounted for most sightings in the Study Area followed by minke whales, fin whales, long-finned pilot whales, and sperm whales (Figure 5.18). Most sightings of humpbacks in the DFO database were recorded from oil development sites within the Study Area (Figure 5.18). There are relatively few sightings of dolphins and harbour porpoise recorded in the Study Area.

Table 5.19. DFO Database Cetacean Sightings within the Study Area, 1945 – 2007.

No. of No. of Species Month(s) Sighted Sightings Individuals

Blue Whale 1 1 June Fin Whale 166 345 March–Nov, mostly June to Oct Sei Whale 23 70 Feb, May-Sept, Nov Humpback Whale 704 2550 Jan-Dec Minke Whale 173 376 Jan, March-Dec Right Whale 1 2 June Sperm Whale 91 288 Jan-August, Oct-Dec Northern Bottlenose Whale 7 68 March, May, June, Sept Killer Whale 27 161 May-November Long-finned Pilot Whale 98 4060 Jan-March, May-Dec Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 28 474 Feb, June-Sept Common Dolphin 61 1540 March, June-Oct White-beaked Dolphin 28 179 Feb-March, June-Aug Striped Dolphin 1 15 Aug Harbour Porpoise 24 397 March, May-Nov *Note the following caveats associated with the tabulated data: (1) The sighting data have not yet been completely error-checked. (2) The quality of some of the sighting data is unknown. (3) Most data have been gathered from platforms of opportunity that were vessel-based. The inherent problems with negative or positive reactions by cetaceans to the approach of such vessels have not yet been factored into the data. (4) Sighting effort has not been quantified (i.e., the numbers cannot be used to estimate true species density or areal abundance). (5) Both older and some more recent survey data have yet to be entered into this database. These other data will represent only a very small portion of the total data. (6) Numbers sighted have not been verified (especially in light of the significant differences in detectability among species). (7) For completeness, these data represent an amalgamation of sightings from a variety of years (e.g., since 1945) and seasons. Hence, they may obscure temporal or areal patterns in distribution (e.g., the number of pilot whales sighted in nearshore Newfoundland appears to have declined since the 1980s but the total number sighted in the database included here suggest they are relatively common). Source: DFO (2007c).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 143 Figure 5.52. DFO Database Cetacean Sightings within the Study Area, 1945 – 2007.

5.5.2. Species Profiles

5.5.2.1. Baleen Whales(Mysticetes)

The five species of baleen whales that may occur in the Study Area include the blue, fin, sei, humpback, and minke whale (Table 5.16). It is possible, but highly unlikely, that a North Atlantic right whale may occur in the Project Area. Although nearly all of the baleen whales experienced depletion due to whaling, it is likely that many are experiencing some recovery (Best 1993). Detailed species profiles for baleen whales are provided in Husky’s Northern Jeanne d’Arc Basin seismic program EA (Section 5.7.1.2 in LGL 2005c).

Blue Whale

This species is considered endangered by COSEWIC and is listed as such on Schedule 1 of SARA. More information is found in Section 5.7 of this EA.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 144 Humpback Whale

Humpback whales are relatively common within and near the Study Area (Table 5.19; Figure 5.52); especially during summer and early fall. Humpback whales were the most commonly sighted whales during the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs with 240 sightings accounting for 81.6% of all confirmed baleen whale sightings (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a). Humpback whales were also the most commonly sighted whales during the 2007 Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program (five of the seven baleen whale sightings; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Two sightings (one and three individuals) of humpback whales were made in late May 2006, within 10 nautical miles of the Terra Nova FPSO (T. Lang, LGL Ltd, pers. comm.). Humpback whales were also the most commonly sighted baleen whale species in the Orphan Basin during seismic monitoring programs in 2004 and 2005 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b), and the second most commonly sighted baleen whale species in the Orphan Basin during ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring programs in 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). In terms of the number of sighting events recorded in the DFO database (DFO 2007c), humpback whales ranked first in the Study Area, with 704 sightings recorded (Table 5.19).

Fin Whale

This species is listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and is described in Section 5.7.

Sei Whale

Available information suggests that sei whales are uncommon visitors to the Project Area compared to other cetacean species. No sei whales were sighted during the 2005 and 2006 Husky, and during the 2007 Petro-Canada seismic monitoring programs in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Sei whales were, however, commonly sighted in the Orphan Basin during the Chevron seismic monitoring programs in 2004 and 2005 (6 and 15 sightings, respectively; Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b). In addition, sei whales were observed twice on the Orphan Basin during the ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring program in 2006, but not in 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). Based on the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c), 23 sei whale sightings have been reported in the Study Area (Table 5.19). The Atlantic population of the sei whale is considered by COSEWIC as data deficient (COSEWIC 2007).

Minke Whale

Minke whales commonly occur within and near the Study Area (Figure 5.52). Minke whales were sighted 21 times (7.1% of all confirmed baleen whale sightings) during the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs, and once during the 2007 Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Several minke whales were also sighted during the Orphan Basin seismic monitoring programs in July of 2004 and 2005 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b) and two minke whales were sighted during the Orphan Basin ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring programs in each of 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). Within the Study Area, minke whales were the second most commonly recorded mysticete in the DFO sightings database (DFO 2007c), with sightings predominantly recorded during summer months (Table 5.19).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 145 North Atlantic Right Whale

This species is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and is described in Section 5.7.

5.5.2.2. Toothed Whales (Odontocetes)

Twelve species of toothed whales may occur in the Study Area (Table 5.16). Most of these marine mammals are thought to occur seasonally in and near the Project Area and little is known regarding their distribution and population size in these waters. Detailed species profiles for toothed whales are provided in Section 5.7.1.2 of LGL et al. (2005c).

Sperm Whale

This species is listed as a low priority candidate species by COSEWIC and is described in Section 5.7.

Northern Bottlenose Whale

The Study Area is within the known range of the northern bottlenose whale and seven sightings have been recorded there in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19). This whale’s life history is poorly known and most records from Newfoundland are based on carcasses washed ashore. There have been several sightings of this species in the northern, deeper waters of the Project Area (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). None were sighted during the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs (Abgrall et al., in prep. a) or during the 2007 Petro-Canada program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang and Moulton, in prep.).

The northern bottlenose whale that inhabits the Scotian Shelf is considered endangered whereas the Davis Strait population is considered not at risk (COSEWIC 2007). It is uncertain to which population individuals sighted off eastern Newfoundland would belong, but available information suggests that it is unlikely that (potential) sightings of northern bottlenose whales in or near the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area would be from the Scotian Shelf population. However, there has been recent debate about this topic (J. Lawson, DFO, pers. comm., March 2007). Whales from the Scotian Shelf population are known to spend most of their time in the Gully, Haldimand and Shortland canyons on the Scotian Slope and their home ranges are thought to be a few hundred kilometers or less (COSEWIC 2002; Wimmer and Whitehead 2004).

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale

This species is listed as special concern on Schedule 3 of SARA and is described in Section 5.7.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 146 Killer Whale

The killer whale is a year-round resident that is thought to occur in relatively small numbers in the Study Area (Lien et al. 1988). Three killer whales were sighted within 20 km of the White Rose area on 24 August 1999 (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). A pod of eight killer whales was sighted south of the Study Area on 26 May 2006 (T. Lang, LGL Ltd, pers. comm.). There was a single sighting of six killer whales during the Husky seismic monitoring program in 2005 (Lang et al. 2006) and a single sighting of an individual killer whale in the Orphan Basin during the 2006 ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring program (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). In addition, 27 killer whale sightings in the Study Area have been recorded in the DFO sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19). There have been 363 killer whale sightings (n > 1,710 whales) reported in Atlantic Canada between 1864 and 2007, most of them since 1950 (Lawson et al. 2007). More than 30% of the sightings (i.e., 114) were recorded since 2000 during the June to September period. Based on photographic records analyzed to date, there are at least 63 individual killer whales in Newfoundland and Labrador (Lawson et al. 2007). This species is considered ‘data deficient’ by COSEWIC (2007).

Long-finned Pilot Whale

Long-finned pilot whales were regularly sighted in deeper waters (Orphan Basin) north of Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the summers of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). There were two confirmed sightings of long-finned pilot whales during each of the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring program (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a) and one sighting during the 2007 Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). There have been 98 sightings within the Study Area recorded in the DFO database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin

The number of white-sided dolphins in the Study Area is unknown. There were seven sightings of 250 individuals on the Grand Banks in August to September 1999, including several sightings within approximately 30 km of the White Rose site, during an offshore supply vessel surveys (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). There were 14 sightings of Atlantic white-sided dolphins during the Jeanne d’Arc Basin 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a), but none during the 2007 Petro-Canada monitoring program (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). This species was also commonly sighted in and near Orphan Basin in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). Twenty-eight sightings of this dolphin within the Study Area are recorded in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19). The most easterly recorded sighting for individuals from the NW Atlantic population occurred on the Flemish Cap (Gaskin 1992b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 147 Common (Short-beaked) Dolphin

Considering the water depth ranges in areas where this cetacean has been sighted in U.S. waters, common dolphins could potentially occur throughout most of the Study Area. There were 11 confirmed sighting of common dolphins in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a), but none during the 2007 Petro- Canada seismic monitoring program (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Nine other sightings of this species were recorded in the Orphan Basin during late summer 2005 (Moulton et al. 2006b) and single sightings of common dolphins were recorded in each of the two ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring surveys in 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). There were 61 sightings of this species recorded in the Study Area in the DFO database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

White-beaked Dolphin

White-beaked dolphin occurrence in the Study Area is not well documented. There were two and one sightings of white-beaked dolphins during the Jeanne d’Arc Basin 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring program, respectively (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a). Another five sightings of white-beaked dolphins were made during the Jeanne d’Arc Basin Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program in 2007 (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). White-beaked dolphins were also sighted north of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the Orphan Basin seismic and CSEM monitoring programs in 2004, 2005 and 2007, but not in 2006 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). There are 28 sightings of white-beaked dolphins in the Study Area in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

Bottlenose Dolphin

There was only one sighting of bottlenose dolphins (15 individuals) during recent marine mammal monitoring programs. It was made in 2005 during the Chevron seismic monitoring program in the Orphan Basin (Moulton et al. 2006b). There are no sightings of bottlenose dolphins in the Study Area in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

Striped Dolphin

This species’ preferred habitat seems to be deep water along the edge and seaward of the continental shelf, particularly in areas with warm currents (Baird et al. 1993). Offshore waters of Newfoundland are thought to be at the northern limit of its range. There were only three sightings of this species in Orphan Basin during Chevron seismic monitoring programs in 2004 and 2005 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b) and none were sighted during ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring programs in 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). None were sighted in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the 2005 and 2006 Husky seismic monitoring programs (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a) or during the 2007 Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). There is one sighting of striped dolphins recorded in the DFO sightings database, within the Study Area (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 148 Risso’s Dolphin

Risso’s dolphins are abundant worldwide but are probably rare in the Study Area (Reeves et al. 2002). None were observed during recent marine mammal monitoring programs in Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Orphan Basin and no sightings are recorded in the Study Area in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c; Table 5.19).

Harbour Porpoise

The harbour porpoise is considered of special concern by COSEWIC and is under consideration for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. This species is described in Section 5.7.

5.5.2.3. True Seals (Phocids)

Three species of seals are known or suspected to occur in the Study Area including harp, hooded, and grey seals (Table 5.16). Other seal species (ringed, harbour, and bearded) may occur rarely. Hooded and harp seals are listed as candidate species by COSEWIC and are described in Section 5.7. Grey seals may occur in the Study Area but the number that occurs there is believed to be low.

5.6. Sea Turtles

Sea turtles are probably not common in the Study Area but are important to consider because of their threatened or endangered status, both nationally and internationally.

Three species of sea turtles may occur in the Study Area: (1) the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), (2) the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and (3) the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) (Ernst et al. 1994). The degree of occurrence of these three sea turtle species within the Study Area is unknown. The leatherback turtle is listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA and by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Plotkin 1995). The Kemp’s ridley is also listed as endangered and the loggerhead turtle is listed as threatened by NMFS and FWS (Plotkin 1995). Detailed species profiles for sea turtles, other than for leatherbacks, are provided in Section 5.7 of LGL et al. (2005c). Leatherback turtles are reviewed in Section 5.7 of this EA.

5.7. Species at Risk

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was assented to in December 2002 with certain provisions coming into force in June 2003 (e.g., independent assessments of species by COSEWIC and June 2004 (e.g., prohibitions against harming or harassing listed endangered or threatened species or damaging or destroying their critical habitat). The information provided below is current as of November 2007 on the websites for SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm) and COSEWIC (http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/index.htm).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 149 Species are listed under SARA on Schedules 1 to 3 with only those listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule I having immediate legal implications. Nonetheless, attention must be paid to all of the SARA- listed species because of their sensitivities to perturbation and the potential for status upgrades. Schedule 1 is the official list of wildlife Species at Risk in Canada. Once a species/population is listed, the measures to protect and recover it are implemented. The two cetacean species/populations, one sea turtle species, and two fish species/populations that are legally protected under SARA and have potential to occur in the Study Area are listed in Table 5.20. Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) and Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) are listed as special concern on Schedule 1 (Table 5.20). Schedules 2 and 3 of SARA identify species that were designated “at risk” by COSEWIC prior to October 1999 and must be reassessed using revised criteria before they can be considered for addition to Schedule 1. Species that potentially occur in the Study Area and are considered at risk but which have not received specific legal protection (i.e., proscribed penalties and legal requirement for recovery strategies and plans) under SARA are also listed in Table 5.20 as endangered, threatened or species of special concern under COSEWIC. Other non-SARA listed marine species which potentially occur in the Study Area and are listed by COSEWIC as candidate species are also included in Table 5.20.

Under SARA, a ‘recovery strategy’ and corresponding ‘action plan’ must be prepared for endangered, threatened, and extirpated species. A ‘management plan’ must be prepared for species listed as special concern. Recovery strategies have been prepared for three species currently listed as either endangered or threatened under Schedule 1: the leatherback sea turtle (ALTRT 2006), the spotted wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007), and the northern wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007). A management plan has also been prepared for the Atlantic wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007), currently listed as special concern on Schedule 1. StatoilHydro will monitor SARA issues through the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the law gazettes, the Internet and communication with DFO and Environment Canada, and will adaptively manage any issues that may arise in the future. The company will comply with relevant regulations pertaining to SARA Recovery Strategies and Action Plans. StatoilHydro acknowledges the rarity of the Species at Risk and will continue to exercise due caution to minimize impacts on them during all of its operations. StatoilHydro also acknowledges the possibility of other marine species being listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 during the course of the Project. Due caution will also be extended to any other species added to Schedule 1 during the life of this Project.

Species profiles and related special or sensitive habitat are described in the following sections.

5.7.1. Profiles of SARA Schedule 1- and COSEWIC-Listed Species

5.7.1.1. Blue Whale

The blue whale is currently listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). There have been two sightings of blues whales in the Orphan Basin within the Study Area; both occurred in August 2007 and in water depths of 2366 m and 2551 m (Abgrall et al., in prep. b; Figure 5.53). One possible blue whale (recorded as a fin/blue whale) was sighted in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, within the Project Area, during the 2006 Husky seismic monitoring program (Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Figure 5.53). There is a single confirmed blue whale sighting in the Study Area based upon available data provided by DFO; on 17 June 1993, south of the Project Area (DFO 2007c; Figure 5.53). Based

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 150 Table 5.20. SARA Schedule 1 and COSEWIC-listed Marine Species that Potentially Occur in the Study Area.

Species SARA Schedule 1 COSEWIC Special Special Common Name Scientific Name Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Candidate Concern Concern Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus X X North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis X X Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea X X Northern wolffish Anarhichas denticulatus X X Spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor X X Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus X X Fin whale (Atlantic Balaenoptera physalus X X population) Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea X X Atlantic cod Gadus morhua X (NLc population) Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus X White shark Carcharodon carcharias X Cusk Brosme brosme X Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus X Sowerby’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bidens X Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena X Blue shark Prionace glauca X Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus High priority Spiny eel Notacanthus chemnitzi High priority Pollock Pollachius virens High priority Atlantic salmon Salmo salar High priority Ocean pout Zoarces americanus High priority Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Low priority Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Low priority Harp seal Phoca groenlandica Low priority Sources: a SARA website (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm) (as of 27 February 2008). b COSEWIC website (http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/index.htm) (as of 27 February 2008). c Newfoundland and Labrador.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 151 Figure 5.53. Sightings of Endangered Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles within the Study Area, Based on the DFO Cetacean Sighting Database (1945-2007) and Recent Seismic and CSEM Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs (2004-2007). upon the DFO sightings database, most sightings of blue whales in Newfoundland have occurred near the coast, which may, in part, be related to the lack of dedicated marine mammal surveys in offshore waters. Blue whales were regularly sighted in offshore waters (~100 to 3000 m deep) of the Laurentian sub-basin area during a seismic monitoring program in June to September 2005. In fact, blue whales were the most frequently sighted baleen whale species. The sighting rate of blue whales was highest in water depths ranging from 2000 to 2500 m (Moulton et al. 2006b). No blue whales were sighted during a seismic monitoring program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin in October and November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006) or in June and July 2007 (Lang and Moulton, in prep.); baleen whales are typically less abundant on the Grand Banks in late fall versus summer. It is possible that blue whales may occur in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin but numbers are expected to be low. A detailed profile of the blue whale is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.8.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 152 5.7.1.2. North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale is currently listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). It is a slow-moving whale prone to collisions with ships. It feeds on krill and other crustaceans. The right whale is among the most endangered whales and today it is distributed only in the NW Atlantic and numbers about 300 individuals (COSEWIC 2003b). Off Atlantic Canada, right whales typically concentrate in the Bay of Fundy and off southwestern Nova Scotia. However, some right whales are known to occur off Iceland and it is possible (although highly unlikely) that it may occur in the Project Area. Right whales were only recorded once in the Project Area; on 27 June 2003 (DFO 2007c; Figure 5.53).

5.7.1.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle

The leatherback sea turtle is currently listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Critical habitat has not been identified in the Recovery Strategy but studies are underway to do so (ALTRT 2006). Leatherbacks equipped with satellite tags did not occur in the Project Area but some did migrate through the Grand Banks south of Newfoundland (James et al. 2005). A tagged leatherback was also tracked approximately 50 miles east of St. John’s, NL, in 2005.

Two leatherbacks were sighted in mid-August 2006 in the Project Area during Husky’s seismic program (Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Figure 5.53); these are the first documented sightings in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin. To date, no sea turtles have been reported in or near the Terra Nova Development by observers on various platforms (U. Williams, Petro-Canada, pers. comm.). Also, no leatherbacks were sighted during monitoring programs in the Orphan Basin in 2004 – 2007 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b) and during other seismic monitoring program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin in fall 2005 and June – July 2007 (Lang et al. 2006; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). It is possible that leatherbacks may occur in the Study Area during StatoilHydro’s proposed drilling program but the frequency of sightings is expected to be low. A detailed profile of the leatherback turtle is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.8.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.4. Wolffishes

Two wolffish species, the northern wolffish, and the spotted wolffish, are currently listed as threatened on both Schedule 1 of the SARA, and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A third species, the Atlantic or striped wolffish, is currently listed as a species of special concern on both Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A Recovery Strategy for northern and spotted wolffishes and a Management Plan for Atlantic wolffish were recently published (Kulka et al. 2007).

Profiles of the three wolffish species are included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.1 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 153 5.7.1.5. Fin Whale

The Atlantic population of the fin whale is currently listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). One hundred sixty-six fin whale sightings have been recorded within the Study Area based upon the DFO sightings database (DFO 2007c; Figure 5.53). In 2004 – 2007, fin whales were commonly sighted in the deep waters (typically >2000 m) of Orphan Basin, during summer months, most commonly in July and August (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b; Figure 5.53). Fin whales were commonly sighted in the Study Area during Husky’s seismic monitoring programs in 2005 and 2006 (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a). They were the second most abundant mysticete (humpback whales were most common) observed. There was also a single sighting of a fin whale during the Petro-Canada seismic monitoring program in 2007 (Lang and Moulton, in prep.). It is likely that fin whales commonly occur in the Study Area at least during late spring to fall. A detailed profile of the fin whale is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.8.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.6. Ivory Gull

The Ivory Gull is currently listed as endangered by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A profile of the Ivory Gull is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.7.3 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.7. Atlantic Cod (NL Population)

The Newfoundland and Labrador population of Atlantic cod is currently listed as endangered by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A profile of the Atlantic cod is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.2 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.8. Porbeagle Shark

The porbeagle shark is currently listed as endangered by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). It is now under consideration for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. A profile of the porbeagle shark is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.3 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.9. White Shark

The great white shark is currently designated as endangered by COSEWIC but not listed under SARA (Table 5.20). A profile of the white shark is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.10. Cusk

In May 2003, the cusk was designated as threatened by COSEWIC but it is not on the official SARA list (Schedule 1) of wildlife at risk (Table 5.20). An allowable harm assessment for cusk in Atlantic Canada

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 154 was recently prepared by DFO (DFO 2004). A profile of the cusk is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.7 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.11. Shortfin Mako Shark

The shortfin mako shark is currently designated as threatened by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A profile of the shortfin mako shark is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.5 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.12. Sowerby’s Beaked Whale

The Sowerby’s beaked whale is currently listed as special concern by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Sowerby’s beaked whales are expected to occur more frequently in the deeper waters (but in relatively low numbers) of the proposed Project Area. During the 2005 seismic monitoring program in Orphan Basin, there was one sighting of four Sowerby’s beaked whales in September; it occurred in 2500 m of water (Moulton et al. 2006b; Figure 5.53). Sowerby’s beaked whales have not been observed during seismic monitoring on the Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). No Sowerby’s beaked whales were observed during the 2004, 2006 and 2007 monitoring programs in Orphan Basin (Moulton et al. 2005b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). No Sowerby’s beaked whales were observed in the proposed Study Area based on the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c). A profile of the Sowerby’s beaked whale is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.8.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.13. Harbour Porpoise

The harbour porpoise is currently listed as special concern by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). This porpoise is known to occur in the Study Area (Lang et al. 2006; DFO 2007c) but overall, distributional data for harbour porpoises in Newfoundland and Labrador waters is limited (COSEWIC 2006). During the fall 2005 seismic monitoring program for Husky in Jeanne d’Arc Basin, there was one sighting of harbour porpoise (two individuals) in an area with a water depth of 165 m (Lang et al. 2006). No harbour porpoise were recorded in Jeanne d’Arc Basin during seismic monitoring programs in 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Harbour porpoise have also been sighted in deep waters of Orphan Basin. During the 2005 monitoring program, there were nine sightings consisting of 24 individuals in areas where water depth ranged from 787 m to 2633 m (Moulton et al. 2006b). Of these nine sightings, seven occurred in July. An addition sighting of two harbour porpoise was made the previous year during the 2004 Orphan Basin monitoring program at a water depth of 2538 m (Moulton et al. 2005b). None were sighted in Orphan Basin during ExxonMobil CSEM monitoring programs in 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). A profile of the harbour porpoise is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.8.4 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 155 5.7.1.14. Blue Shark

The blue shark is currently designated as special concern by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A profile of the blue shark is included in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (Sections 5.5.3.6 in LGL 2006a, 2007a).

5.7.1.15. Atlantic Halibut

The Atlantic halibut is currently listed as a high priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Atlantic halibut, the largest of the flatfishes, is typically found along the slopes of the continental shelf. Atlantic halibut move seasonally between deep and shallow waters, apparently avoiding temperatures below 2.5ºC (Scott and Scott 1988). The spawning grounds of the Atlantic halibut are not clearly defined. The fertilized eggs are slightly positively buoyant so that they naturally disperse and only gradually float toward the ocean’s surface. Once hatched, the developing larvae live off their yolk for the next six to eight weeks while their digestive system develops so they can begin feeding on natural zooplankton. After a few weeks of feeding, they metamorphose from a bilaterally symmetrical larva to an asymmetrical flatfish, and are ready to assume a bottom-living habit. At this point they are approximately 20-mm long. As juveniles, Atlantic halibut feed mainly on invertebrates, including annelid worms, crabs, shrimps, and euphausiids. Young adults (between 30 to 80 cm in length) consume both invertebrates and fish, while mature adults (greater than 80 cm) feed entirely on fishes (Scott and Scott 1988).

5.7.1.16. Spiny Eel

The spiny eel is currently listed as a high priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). The spiny eel is a bottom-living fish that typically occurs over a depth range of 250 to 1,000 m, but has been caught in waters as shallow as 125 m on the Grand Bank to more than 3,000 m off the coast of Ireland (Scott and Scott 1988). Data suggests a northward migration of this species as individuals become older and larger. Ripe specimens of the spiny eel have been found near Iceland in September and October yet little is known about the specifics of eggs and young of this species. It is not known where in the water column the fertilized eggs develop or the young hatch from the eggs. Spiny eels appear to be bottom feeders. Identified stomach contents of this species include sea anemones. Predators of spiny eels are not known.

5.7.1.17. Pollock

The pollock is currently listed as a high priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). While its range extends off southern Labrador, and off southern Newfoundland, along the Scotian Shelf to about Cape Hatteras, pollock is most abundant on the Scotian Shelf and southern Grand Banks (DFO 2005). Relative to other cod-like fishes, the pollock spends less time on the bottom, moving freely through the water column. Spawning by pollock appears to occur during fall and winter in Canadian waters. Both the eggs and larvae are planktonic, and juvenile pollock appear to develop in coastal waters. Pollock typically display strong schooling behaviour (Scott and Scott 1988).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 156 5.7.1.18. Atlantic Salmon

The Atlantic salmon is currently listed as a high priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Perspectives on the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon in the northwest Atlantic were recently presented at a workshop sponsored by DFO-SARCEP (Species at Risk Committee) (DFO 2006b). Atlantic salmon spend time in both freshwater and the sea during its life cycle. As indicated by data storage tags, salmon at sea spend much of their time in surface waters but also dive to deeper areas of the water column probably in search of prey. They tend to be closer to surface at night than during the day. Figures from Reddin (1988) presented in DFO (2006b) indicate the likelihood of salmon passage through the eastern Grand Bank during movement to and from the marine waters off Greenland. Salmon moving from the freshwater would likely pass through in the fall while those returning to freshwater would likely pass through in early to mid-summer. A wintering area which overlaps with the eastern Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap is also indicated.

5.7.1.19. Ocean Pout

The ocean pout is currently listed as a high priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). The ocean pout is a bottom dweller that uses a wide variety of habitats. This fish typically spawns in protected habitats, such a rock crevices, where it lays eggs in a nest and subsequently guards the eggs as they develop. It has been suggested that ocean pout larvae remain close to the nest site. Juvenile ocean pout are often found in shallow coastal waters around rocks and attached algae (Steimle et al. 1999). Scott and Scott (1988) reported that adult ocean pout in Canadian waters typically occur at depths ranging from 55 to 110 m. Ocean pout tend to feed on benthic organisms.

5.7.1.20. Sperm Whale

The sperm whale is currently listed as a low priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). A detailed profile of the sperm whale is included in Section 5.7.1.2 of LGL (2005c). Sperm whales are known to feed in deep water and it is possible that they occur regularly beyond the continental shelf within the slope waters of the Project Area. Sperm whales were regularly sighted in deeper waters (Orphan Basin) north of Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the summers of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al. in prep. b). No sperm whales were sighted during the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seismic monitoring programs in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). There are 91 sightings of a sperm whale reported in the DFO cetacean sightings database (DFO 2007c) that occurred in the Study Area (Figure 5.53).

5.7.1.21. Hooded Seal

The hooded seal is currently listed as not at risk and is considered a low priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Hooded seals reproduce on the spring ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Labrador coast, and then migrate northwards to subarctic and arctic waters to feed during summer (Lydersen and Kovacs 1999). The most recent estimate of pup production at “the Front” off Labrador, made in 2005, was approximately 107,000 (ICES 2006), suggesting a current total population of hooded seals in the northwest Atlantic of approximately 537,000 (ICES 2006). Data collected from

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 157 satellite transmitters deployed on hooded seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence indicate that some females feed near the Flemish Cap after breeding while migrating to Greenland waters (G.B. Stenson, unpubl. data). Tagged males migrating to Greenland in early summer were recorded along the Grand Banks shelf edge near the Flemish Pass. It appears that males spend little time foraging in this area (G.B. Stenson, unpubl. data). Little is known regarding their winter distribution, although it is believed that the majority of seals remain offshore; they have been seen feeding off the Grand Banks in February. Surveys in the early 1990s suggested that the offshore waters on the northern edge of the Grand Banks might be an important over-wintering area for hooded seals (Stenson and Kavanagh 1994). No hooded seals were sighted in Jeanne d’Arc Basin during seismic monitoring programs in 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.) or in Orphan Basin during monitoring programs in the summers of 2004 – 2007 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b; Abgrall et al., in prep. b). Hooded seals consume a variety of prey. In nearshore areas of Newfoundland, prey (in decreasing order of total wet weight) includes: Greenland halibut, redfish, Arctic cod, Atlantic herring and capelin. Relatively small amounts of squid (Gonatus spp.) and Atlantic cod were also found (Ross 1993). Data from offshore areas are limited, but suggest that similar prey species are consumed (J.W. Lawson and G.B. Stenson, unpubl. data).

5.7.1.22. Harp Seal

The harp seal has not been assessed by COSEWIC and it is currently listed as a low priority candidate species by COSEWIC (Table 5.20). Harp seals whelp in the spring each year in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in an area known as the ‘Front’ and northeastern Newfoundland (Sergeant 1991). The total population estimate of harp seals in the northwest Atlantic is 5.9 million ± 0.75 millions (ICES 2005). Surveys conducted during the early 1990s suggested that offshore waters on the northern edge of the Grand Banks in NAFO fishing area 3L were an important over-wintering area for these animals during those years (Stenson and Kavanagh 1994). Seven harp seal sightings were observed in Orphan Basin during the summers of 2004 and 2005 (Moulton et al. 2005b, 2006b). However, none were observed in Orphan Basin during the summers of 2006 and 2007 (Abgrall et al., in prep. b). As well, no harp seals were sighted in Jeanne d’Arc Basin during seismic monitoring programs in 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al., in prep. a; Lang and Moulton, in prep.). Similarly, data from satellite transmitters deployed on harp seals suggest that the Grand Banks is an important wintering area for some seals (Stenson and Sjare 1997). During summer months, harp seals are thought to primarily occur in subarctic and arctic waters off Greenland. The diet of harp seals foraging off Newfoundland and Labrador appears to vary considerably with age, season, year and location. On the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf, capelin predominates, followed by sand lance, Greenland halibut and other flatfish (Wallace and Lawson 1997; Lawson et al. 1998).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 158 5.8. Sensitive/Special Areas

Although there are likely important feeding areas for fish, seabirds, marine mammals, and sea turtles, particularly in localized upwelling areas that may be associated with the channels and slopes, there are no designated Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Study Area. Figure 1.1 indicates the spatial relationships between proximate sensitive/special areas (i.e., the Bonavista Cod Box and eastern Newfoundland significant seabird breeding colonies) and the Project and Study areas. Edinger et al. (2007a) identified the section of slope between Funk Island Spur and Tobin’s Point as a possible area of conservation for deep water corals. This slope area occurs in the vicinity of the Bonavista Cod Box.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 159 6.0 Effects Assessment Methodology

Two general types of effects are considered in this document:

1. Effects of the environment on the Project; and 2. Effects of the Project on the environment (i.e., the valued ecosystem components, VECs).

Methods of effects assessment used here are comparable to those used in various oil and gas industry- related environmental assessments prepared in recent years. These effects assessment include the Hibernia EIS (Mobil 1985), the Terra Nova EIS and Supplement (Petro-Canada 1996a,b), the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study and Supplement (Husky 2000, 2001a), the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a), various Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin seismic and drilling EAs and addenda (LGL 2002, 2005a,c, 2006b; Moulton et al. 2006a), the Husky Lewis Hill Drilling EA (LGL 2003), various Orphan Basin seismic and drilling EAs and addenda (Buchanan et al. 2004a; LGL 2005b, 2006c; Moulton 2005a), the ConocoPhillips’ Laurentian Sub-basin seismic and drilling EAs and addenda (Buchanan et al. 2004b, 2006, 2007; Christian et al. 2005), and other east coast seismic and drilling EAs. These documents conform to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and it’s associated Responsible Authority’s Guide and the CEA Agency Operational Policy Statement (OPS-EPO/5-2000) (CEA Agency 2000). Cumulative effects are incorporated within the procedures in accordance with CEAA (CEA Agency 1994) as adapted from Barnes and Davey (1999) and used in the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000).

6.1. Scoping

Scoping of an assessment mainly includes determining the spatial and temporal extent of the assessment, selecting which components (i.e., sensitive and/or representative species or species-groups and associated habitats) of the ecosystem to assess, and which project activities to analyze. Scoping was conducted according to the following three steps:

1. Scoping document prepared by the C-NLOPB with input from relevant government agencies such as the CEA Agency, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, other government departments, and the interested public; 2. Key group consultations at various stages of the assessment; and 3. Review of all relevant information on project activities and literature on the effects of offshore oil and gas activities (with emphasis on previous EAs for Newfoundland and Labrador waters).

6.2. Consultations

StatoilHydro and Canning and Pitt Associates, Inc. consulted with relevant government agencies, representatives of the fishing industry and other interest groups. The purpose of these consultations was to describe the planned program, to identify any issues and concerns and to gather additional information relevant to the EA report.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 160 Copies of the Project Description describing the proposed drilling program, including a map of the Study Area and Project Area, were sent to all agencies and groups. The consultants asked each stakeholder to review this information and to provide any comments on these proposed activities. Note that the Project Description and Scoping Document for this proposed Project is posted on the C-NLOPB Public Registry and can be accessed and commented upon by anyone.

Consultations were undertaken with the following agencies and interest groups:

x Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); x Environment Canada (EC); x Natural History Society (NHS); x One Ocean; x Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW); x Association of Seafood Producers (ASP); x Fishery Products International (FPI); x Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council (GEAC) (Ottawa); x Clearwater Seafoods; and x Icewater Seafoods.

Appendix 2 provides a list of agency and industry officials consulted for this update.

6.2.1. Issues and Concerns

StatoilHydro and its consultants met with DFO managers and representatives of One Ocean, the FFAW and the Natural History Society in October 2007. Environment Canada managers received relevant project information but did not request a meeting with the consultants.

To date, fisheries industry stakeholders (FPI, Icewater Seafoods, GEAC and Clearwater) contacted for these consultations have not responded. The Association of Seafood Producers (ASP) reports that it did not have any specific concerns about the proposed exploration activities. The Association’s Executive Director indicated that he would like to receive a copy of the EA report noting that he was particularly interested in reading the section dealing with the assessment of fish and fish habitat in that document.

Specific comments and concerns raised and discussed with DFO, the Natural History Society, One Ocean and the FFAW are discussed below.

6.2.1.1 DFO

DFO raised several points including the nature and content of the “multi-year” EA approach, the timing of drilling activities, yearly “updates” to the EA document, and the need to provide advance notice to DFO managers (e.g., regarding annual RV survey operations).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 161 StatoilHydro’s consultants noted that there would likely be an annual update to the original EA document. Planned activities for a particular project year would be reviewed in light of expected changes in the commercial fisheries or RV surveys, for example. If no major changes in these or other VECs were anticipated, the annual EA update might be only a short “letter” report to the Board. If more significant changes to the project description were forecasted, the annual update might require preparation of a revised EA document.

It was also noted that the C-NLOPB had recently begun to encourage proponents to prepare shorter “summary-type” EAs with substantial cross-referencing of relevant documents. It is thought that this approach will make it easier for various agency managers to review and assess the information and discussion in the EA report. DFO managers suggested that these shorter EA documents should clearly identify the information being referenced by including section numbers of the documents being cross- referenced. Further, it would be helpful if electronic versions of the documents being cross-referenced were included on the CD containing the electronic version of the EA being reviewed. This information would be quite helpful for any agency reviewer, especially for a new manager who might not be familiar with some or all of the documents being cross-referenced.

Commenting on the size of the Study Area, the consultants noted that this relatively large area has been based on recent oil spill trajectory modeling. DFO managers asked what the basis was for the most recent trajectory modeling (i.e., 2007). The consultants noted that new databases (e.g., current and wind data) were used to update previous oil spill trajectory modeling. In addition, the most recent modeling used spill release locations different from those used for the original White Rose modeling. Therefore, more coverage of the proposed Study Area is now available.

DFO managers asked if the proponent has decided on well site locations and whether these would be identified in the EA report. The consultants noted that the proposed 27 well sites could be located anywhere within the Project Area and that the EA would be more specific on the prospective 2008 drill sites. DFO stated that it would be quite useful if relevant data from the proponent’s ROV surveys could be made available to DFO scientists. For example, the department would be particularly interested in any ROV data indicating the occurrence of corals in the vicinity of a drill site.

6.2.1.2 Natural History Society (NHS)

Most of the discussion at the NHS meeting dealt with the possibility and benefits of organizing an “all- operators” meeting which would allow NHS members and other independent scientists to meet with oil company personnel and discuss a number of multi-year EAs concurrently. It was suggested that this type of meeting would facilitate a more productive and comprehensive exchange of information and commentary between offshore exploration proponents and the scientific community. Such a gathering could take the form of a one-day seminar attended by various offshore firms and other agency personnel (e.g., the C-NLOPB). The NHS (i.e., E. Edinger, Memorial University of Newfoundland) would be interested in any ROV data indicating the occurrence of corals in the vicinity of a drill site.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 162 NHS suggested that such an arrangement would probably encourage more scientists to attend and participate in these discussions, and would perhaps be more interesting than the “single proponent” consultation meetings that have been the usual practice thus far.

6.2.1.3 One Ocean and FFAW

Following a short overview of the proponent’s proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program, One Ocean’s representative had several questions about the “multi-year” approach being proposed for this EA. These questions related to the appropriate process and information requirements for reviewing the proponent’s activities on an annual basis, as well as the procedures needed for monitoring these activities during the proposed 2008-2016 Project timeframe.

After some discussion, it was generally agreed that the present EA report should include a section specifying clearly what an annual review of a “multi-year” EA document would entail. It should also identify what factors and conditions would trigger the requirement for a substantial update of the original EA document. These points are further discussed below.

One Oceans’ representative stated that, with respect to monitoring a proponent’s ongoing activities and up-coming plans for any one year, the annual review or update report would need to identify key components such as the location of existing drill sites (or completed wells), and information about the location and timing of drilling operations being planned for the coming project year. One Ocean noted that this updated information could potentially be disseminated to fishers via the Union Forum. The annual update should also include a discussion of any significant changes that had recently occurred in the fisheries, or other environmental changes or events relevant to these harvesting activities.

The FFAW and One Ocean also suggested that the EA should also define what specific factors or events might be expected to trigger the need for a substantial update to the original EA document. These factors might include a major change in planned exploration activities (e.g., a new drilling technology, a significant change in the marine environment, harvesting of a new commercial species). It was further noted that if major changes did occur, the proponent might be required to undertake new or additional stakeholder consultations.

With regard to cumulative effects, One Ocean and FFAW representatives suggested that perhaps the time has come for the oil industry to publish a “blue sheet” (similar to the one used in the North Sea) that would show the geo-referenced location of every well that has been drilled, spudded or abandoned in the offshore area. As more wells are drilled, this kind of information will become more important to fishing interests. After some discussion it was agreed that, since it has all of this information in its files, the C-NLOPB is the logical agency to assemble and publish such a “blue sheet”.

There was some discussion about the potential requirement for fisheries observers (i.e., FLOs) on drill rigs. With respect to this, the FFAW’s representative referred to some problems between fishing boats and ice-towing vessels this past spring. He noted that this was possibly due to a “communications gap” between the supply vessel engaged in the tow and fishing boats in the vicinity of that operation. In any

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 163 case, the incident resulted in some “downtime” for the fishers in question. He noted that fishers had also reported some problems between their fishing activities and rig-towing operations in Conception Bay area and near Marystown. Such incidents, he suggested, would seem to require the need to have an FLO on board any drilling rig.

There was no agreement on this matter and the proponent’s representative suggested that the general issue of improved communications at sea between the two industries should be the topic of a “targeted” meeting between all operators and CAPP. In previous consultations, FFAW representatives had noted that such problems could become more of an issue in the future as offshore activities expand. It has suggested that it would be very useful if offshore operators (or CAPP) were to organize a one-day “operations” seminar for fisheries industry representatives in January or February 2008. Such a meeting could discuss and review relevant information about such drilling-related issues and activities as ice management, produced water and supply/service vessel routes as they pertain to potential problems for the fishing industry.

6.3. Valued Ecosystem Components

The Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) approach was used to focus the assessment on those biological resources of most potential concern and value to society.

VECs include the following groups:

x Species or habitats that are unique to an area, or are valued for their aesthetic properties; x Species that are harvested by people (e.g., commercial fish species); x Species that have at least some potential to be affected by the Project; and x rare or threatened species or habitats (as defined by SARA and COSEWIC).

VECs identified were based on those used in other oil and gas industry-related EAs (i.e., those EAs indicated at the beginning of this section). The VECs were selected based upon expressed public comments related to social, cultural, economic, or aesthetic values and scientific community concerns. From a local perspective, most concern for offshore oil and gas activities is related to the fishery and the seabirds. National and international issues may include deep sea corals and marine mammals. The VECs include:

x Fish Habitat; x Fish (with emphasis on key ecological and commercial species); x Commercial Fishery; x Seabirds; x Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles; and x Species at Risk (SAR).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 164 6.3.1. Fish Habitat VEC

‘Fish habitat’ is a wide-ranging concept that includes both physical and biological components. It includes water quality, plankton, and benthos. Both plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) and benthos (epifauna and infauna) are integral components of fish habitat, and, hence, of the marine ecosystem. Phytoplankton is mostly responsible for the primary production in the northwest Atlantic marine ecosystem and essentially all plankton species serve as food sources for a vast array of marine biota. Benthos, which includes macroalgae, also accounts for some primary production and plays a very important role in the cycling of organic material through the marine ecosystem. Benthos also provides food and shelter for many marine biota. Plankton and benthos can be considered the basis of the marine ecosystem food web. This EA will require focus on the benthic aspect of fish habitat considering the nature of the proposed activities (i.e., substantial interaction between the project activities and the ocean bottom). The fish habitat VEC as it relates to key species is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.2. Fish VEC

The fish VEC includes both invertebrates and fish. The commercial and SARA species previously profiled in this EA (i.e., snow crab, Greenland halibut, Atlantic cod, and wolffishes) are suitable examples to use in the effects assessment. Snow crab and Greenland halibut represent commercial species harvested within the proposed Study Area while Atlantic cod and wolffishes are included as Species at Risk. The fish VEC is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.3. Commercial Fishery VEC

The commercial fishery is a universally acknowledged important element in society, culture, economic and aesthetic environment of Newfoundland and Labrador. This VEC is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.4. Seabird VEC

Newfoundland supports some of the largest seabird colonies in the world and the Grand Banks area hosts very large populations during all seasons. They are important socially, culturally, economically, aesthetically, ecologically, and scientifically. Seabirds are a key component near the top of the food chain and are an important resource for bird watching (one of the fastest growing outdoor activities in North America), the tourist industry, local hunting, and scientific study. In addition, this VEC is more sensitive to oil on water than other VECs. This VEC is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national, and international scales.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 165 6.3.5. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC

Whales and seals are key elements in the social and biological environments of Newfoundland and Labrador. The economic and aesthetic importance of whales is evidenced by the large number of tour boats that feature whale watching as part of a growing tourist industry. Public concern about whales is evident in the media on an almost daily basis. Historically, seals have played an important economic and cultural role due to the large annual seal hunt. Newfoundland and Labrador is an internationally recognized location for marine mammal scientific research.

While sea turtles are typically scarce on the Grand Banks, they are included in this VEC because of their endangered and threatened status in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Of the three species known to occur on the Grand Banks, two are considered endangered and the other threatened. While they are of little or no economic, social or cultural importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, their status ensures local, national, and international scientific attention beyond their likely ecological importance to the Grand Banks ecosystem.

This VEC is also of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.6. Species at Risk VEC

“Species at Risk” are those listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule I of SARA. All SAR species in Newfoundland and Labrador offshore waters are captured in the VECs listed above. However, due to their special status, they are also discussed separately.

6.4. Other Issues

Offshore air quality also has been given some discussion because it may affect water quality and animal and human health, albeit in very minor ways. Although the seven VECs listed above represent very broad groups of organisms, consideration was given to individual species and life stages when data were sufficient and where warranted. In many cases, during effects analysis, species with similar life histories and sensitivities were grouped together.

6.5. Boundaries

The temporal and spatial (Project Area, Study Area, Potentially Affected Area, Regional Area) boundaries have been defined below using CEA Agency (2003) as guidance.

6.5.1. Temporal

Effects of the routine activities associated with the proposed Project have been assessed ‘year-round’ for the period 2008 to 2016. The potential effects of accidental events (i.e., blowouts and batch spills) have also been considered.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 166 6.5.2. Project Area

The Project Area is where project activities could occur during the 2008 the 2016 period (Figure 1.1).

6.5.3. Study Area

The Study Area boundary is based on the oil spill trajectory modeling recently conducted by SL Ross for this environmental assessment of the StatoilHydro’s proposed drilling program (see Section 8.2) (SL Ross 2008), for Husky (LGL 2007b), and for Petro-Canada (Petro-Canada 2002). The modeling for this StatoilHydro EA used one release point at Mizzen. LGL (2007b) had two release points modeled, one inside and one outside the 200 m isobath. Modeling for Petro-Canada (Petro-Canada 2002) also used two release points located within the Project Area proposed by StatoilHydro: Mizzen and Annieopsquatch. If not for the consideration of accidental events, the Study Area would be much reduced in size based on routine activities alone.

6.5.4. Potential Affected Areas

The Potential Affected Area is the geographic extent of a specific potential effect on a species or species group. It varies according to the timing and type of project activity in question and the sensitivities of the species. Thus, there are many potential affected areas or geographic extents defined in this EA.

6.5.5. Regional Area

The Regional Area, based on convention established by numerous previous EAs for Newfoundland and Labrador waters, includes the Study Area and the Grand Banks.

6.6. Effects Assessment Procedures

The systematic assessment of the potential effects of the Project phase involved three major steps:

1. Preparation of interaction (between Project activities and the environment) matrices; 2. Identification and evaluation of potential effects including description of mitigation measures and residual effects; and 3. Preparation of residual effects summary tables, including evaluation of cumulative effects.

6.6.1. Identification and Evaluation of Effects

Interaction matrices identify all possible Project activities that could interact with any of the VECs. The matrices include times and places where interactions could occur. The interaction matrices are used only to identify potential interactions; they make no assumptions about the potential effects of the interactions.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 167 For each VEC, only identified interactions are subsequently evaluated for their potential to cause effects. Any activity not considered to interact with a VEC is not considered any further in the assessment and significance tables associated with that VEC. In this way, the assessment only focuses on key issues and the more substantive environmental effects.

An interaction was considered to be a potential effect if it could change the abundance or distribution of VECs, or change the prey species or habitats used by VECs. The potential for effect was assessed by considering

x Location and timing of the interaction; x Modeling exercises; x Literature on similar interactions and associated effects (including the previous oil and gas EAs for Offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland); x Consultation with other experts (when necessary); and x Results of similar effects assessments, especially monitoring studies done in other areas.

When data were insufficient to allow certain or precise effects evaluations, predictions were made based on professional judgement. In such cases, the uncertainty is documented in the EA. For the most part, the potential effects of offshore oil and gas activities are reasonably well known.

6.6.2. Classifying Anticipated Environmental Effects

The concept of classifying environmental effects simply means determining whether they are negative or positive. The following includes some of the key factors that are considered for determining negative environmental effects, as per the CEA Agency guidelines (CEA Agency 1994):

x Negative effects on the health of biota; x Loss of rare or endangered species; x Reductions in biological diversity; x Loss or avoidance of critical/productive habitat; x Fragmentation of habitat or interruption of movement corridors and migration routes (It can be argued that while this is relevant for some terrestrial EAs, it is not relevant to the offshore where there are no confined corridors or routes.); x Transformation of natural landscapes; x Discharge of persistent and/or toxic chemicals; x Toxicity effects on human health; x Loss of, or detrimental change in, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; x Foreclosure of future resource use or production; and x Negative effects on human health or well-being.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 168 6.6.3. Mitigation

Most effects, including any significant ones, can be mitigated by additions to or changes in equipment, operational procedures, timing of activities, or other measures. Mitigation measures appropriate for each effect predicted in the matrix were identified and the effects of various Project activities were then evaluated assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are applied. Effects predictions were made taking into consideration both standard and project-specific mitigations and can thus be considered “residual effects.”

6.6.4. Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Several criteria were taken into account when evaluating the nature and extent of environmental effects. These (CEA Agency 1994) criteria include:

x Magnitude; x Geographic extent; x Duration and frequency; x Reversibility; and x Ecological, socio-cultural and economic context.

Magnitude describes the nature and extent of the environmental effect for each activity. Geographic extent refers to the specific area (km2) potentially affected by the Project activity, which may vary depending on the activity and the relevant VEC. Duration and frequency describe how long and how often a project activity and/or environmental effect will occur. Reversibility refers to the ability of a VEC to return to an equal, or improved condition, at the end of the Project. The ecological, socio- cultural and economic context describes the current status of the area affected by the Project in terms of existing environmental effects. A table is provided for each VEC, indicating the results of the effects analysis. Effects predictions for accidental events are also provided in Section 8.0 for all VECs.

Magnitude was defined as:

Negligible An interaction that may create a measureable effect on individuals but would never approach the 10% value of the ‘low’ rating. Rating = 0.

Low Affects >0 to 10 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 1.

Medium Affects >10 to 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 2.

High Affects more than 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 3.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 169 Durations are defined as:

1 = 1 month 2 = 1 – 12 month 3 = 13 – 36 month 4 = 37 – 72 month 5 = ! 72 month

Short duration can be considered 12 months or less and medium duration can be defined as 13 to 36 months.

6.6.5. Cumulative Effects

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment included:

x Within-project cumulative impacts, including the scenario that two MODUs could potentially be drilling concurrently for StatoilHydro in the Project Area. For the most part, and unless otherwise indicated, within-project cumulative effects are fully integrated within this assessment; x Between-project cumulative impacts that include the following activities besides the StatoilHydro Project:

o Hibernia and Terra Nova (other existing offshore oil developments); o Other offshore oil exploration activity (seismic surveys and exploratory drilling); o Commercial fisheries; o Marine transportation (tankers, cargo ships, supply vessels, naval vessels, fishing vessel transits, etc.); and o Hunting activities (seabirds and seals).

Within- and between-project cumulative effects of the deposition of drilling mud and cuttings on the seafloor around a well, and of exclusion/safety zones associated with production operations and exploratory MODUs will be quantitatively expressed, both in terms of absolute areas and as percentages of the total area of the Project Area.

6.6.6. Integrated Residual Environmental Effects

Upon completion of the evaluation of environmental effects, the residual environmental effects (effects after project-specific mitigation measures are imposed) are assigned a rating of significance for the following:

x Each project activity or accident scenario; x Cumulative effects of project activities within the Project; and

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 170 x Cumulative effects of combined projects on the Grand Banks, in the Orphan Basin, and on the Labrador Shelf.

These ratings are presented in summary tables of residual environmental effects. The last of these points considers all residual environmental effects, including project and other-project cumulative environmental effects. As such, this represents an integrated residual environmental effects evaluation.

The analysis and prediction of the significance of environmental effects, including cumulative environmental effects, encompasses the following:

x Determination of the significance of residual environmental effects; x Establishment of the level of confidence for prediction; and x Evaluation of the scientific certainty and probability of occurrence of the residual impact prediction.

Ratings for level of confidence, probability of occurrence, and determination of scientific certainty associated with each prediction are presented in the tables of residual environmental effects. The guidelines used to assess these ratings are discussed in detail in the sections below.

6.6.7. Significance Rating

Significant environmental effects are those that are considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent, and/or reversibility to cause a change in the VEC that will alter its status or integrity beyond an acceptable level. Establishment of the criteria is based on professional judgement, but is transparent and repeatable. In this EA, a significant effect is defined as:

Having a high or medium magnitude for a duration greater than one year over a geographic extent greater than 100 km2

An effect can be considered significant, not significant, or positive.

6.6.8. Level of Confidence

The significance of the residual environmental effects is based on a review of relevant literature, consultation with experts, and professional judgement. In some instances, making predictions of potential residual environmental effects is difficult due to the limitations of available data (for example, technical boundaries). Ratings are therefore provided to indicate, qualitatively, the level of confidence for each prediction.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 171 6.6.9. Determination of Whether Predicted Environmental Effects are Likely to Occur

As per Husky (2000), the following criteria for the evaluation of the likelihood of predicted significant effects are used:

x Probability of occurrence, and x Scientific certainty.

6.7. Monitoring/Follow-Up

Pursuant to the OWTG, compliance monitoring of both the drilling and production effluent discharges will be conducted. In addition, in the unlikely event that an accidental release of oil occurs from a spill or blowout, a spill environmental effects monitoring (EEM) program may be instituted. Refer to the StatoilHydro Emergency Response Plan, Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador (ERP-ONL) for additional detail. Barring accidental events, no other follow-up monitoring is planned. However, environmental observers on Project vessels will continue to collect data on seabirds and marine mammals.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 172 7.0 Effects Assessment of Routine Activities

This section discusses the potential effects of the environment on the proposed project and focuses on the assessment of the potential effects of Project routine activities on the VECs. Specific sections of recently prepared oil and gas industry-related EAs will be cross-referenced in this section, particularly with respect to literature-based discussions of activities that potentially will affect VECs. All documents that will be cross-referenced have already been indicated in the introductions of Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0.

7.1. Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project

Effects of the physical environment on the Project include those caused by wind, ice, waves, and currents. These effects may differ somewhat by equipment type. For example, bottom-founded equipment is stable under all conditions whereas floating systems are subject to heaving due to wave action. A semi-submersible may be more affected by surface currents and not by bottom type whereas bottom equipment may be more affected by bottom currents and bottom substrate type. Aside from the obvious concerns associated with extreme wind and wave events, sea ice and icebergs are probably the greatest physical environmental and safety concerns affecting oil and gas operations on the Grand Banks. Refer to Section 4.5 for further discussion on ice and icebergs.

Weather, ice and icing, and wave conditions affect every project on the East Coast to some degree. It is anticipated that these effects will be mitigated by using rigs, vessels and equipment that are all certified by the appropriate authorities (e.g., DNV, Transport Canada, Coast Guard, C-NLOPB, and others) for use on the Grand Banks, by detailed project planning, by design in accordance with recognized and appropriate national and international standards, by operational scheduling, and by state-of-the-art forecasting. The residual effects of physical environmental factors are predicted to be adverse (i.e., in the form of delays) because they can cause delays to the Project, damage to equipment and thus economic losses, or because they can be a contributing factor to accidents. Accidental effects are discussed in detail in Section 8.0 of the EA.

The effects of ice on the Project will be minimal because most of the Project Area is often free of sea ice and subject to relatively few icebergs most of the year. Any potential effects on the Project from icebergs can be mitigated by the Ice Management Plan described below such that residual effects will be minimal.

Ice accumulations (superstructure icing) may cause delays while operations are slowed or suspended and ice accumulation is avoided or removed. Any delays are anticipated to be relatively short-lived compared to the Project’s timeline.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 173 There is some risk of seismic activity on the east coast (assessed in the White Rose Comprehensive Study). However, the risk is not abnormally high and is unlikely to significantly affect surface activities if a floating drill rig is used and the emergency systems disconnect as designed. Other geohazards (e.g., steep slopes, slumping, shallow gas, etc.) will be evaluated prior to drilling either through dedicated geohazard surveys or further analyses of 3-D seismic data.

Effects of the biological environment on the Project are primarily those related to biofouling. Biofouling may affect rig stability and encourage corrosion by establishing itself on exposed support structures or hulls and may also affect a similar effect on the interior of pipes as well as water intakes and outlets and tankage used for waste water storage and treatment, and possibly drill mud tankage. Apart from corrosion and stability concerns, establishment of sulphur reducing bacteria in closed tankage where low oxygen tensions in water occur can result in hydrogen sulphide gas evolution that has the potential for human safety risks.

Effects of the environment will be mitigated by the best available weather and ice prediction, selective timing; selection of suitable rigs, vessels, and equipment, all designed and maintained for the offshore environment. In addition, personnel will be trained to work offshore safely and responsibly and to adhere to StatoilHydro’s HSE Plan.

7.2. Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Environment

Routine project activities were previously described in the Project Description in Section 3.0 and are summarized in terms of frequency and duration in Table 7.1.

7.2.1. Potential Zones of Influence

The primary environmental concerns regarding the routine activities associated with the StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016, are the effects of drill mud and cuttings. Other environmental concerns include the effects of noise, light, air emissions and exclusion of fishery activity in the vicinity of the Project activity. These concerns, in the context of the proposed Project, are discussed in the following sections.

Note that there is a possibility that StatoilHydro will use two MODUs for concurrent exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling in the Project Area at some time over the temporal scope of the Project (2008-2016). Therefore, some of the routine activities described in the following sections could double in magnitude under such a scenario.

7.2.1.1. Geohazard/Site Survey

While the potential zones of influence associated with sediment sampling and ROV surveying are relatively restricted to the areas of substrate being disturbed, the potential zone of influence associated with the seismic survey component is larger, varying by VEC. The noise produced during the seismic surveying could potentially have effect on biota at a distance of tens of kilometres.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 174 Table 7.1. Drilling Project Activity Table to Aid in Developing Frequency and Duration Ratings.

Frequency/Duration Maximum Number of Maximum Total Project Activity Base Casea Events Duration (months) Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling 1 day 27 wells 1 ROV Surveying 2 day 27 wells 1-2 Seismic Testing 7 days 27 wells 6-7 Geotechnical Testing 1 day (for jackup only) - - Presence of Structures Safety Zone 100 days 27 wells 90 Artificial Reef Effect Lights 100 nighttime periods 27 wells 45 Flaring Periodic during testing 27 wells - Drill Mud/Cuttings 70 27 wells 63 Other Liquid and Solid Wastes 2 to 4 times per well, depending 27 wells 3-4 Cement on casing design Periodic during drilling by 27 wells - BOP Dischargeb semi-submersible Cooling Water 100 days 27 wells 90 Deck Drainage, Bilge Periodic daily 27 wells - Water Sanitary or Domestic 100 days 27 wells 90 Waste Water Produced Waterc 100 days - Rig, marine vessels 27 wells 90 Routine Atmospheric Emissions (typically 2; 1 on standby and 1 on resupply) and helicopters Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions 20-30 days testing 27 wells 18-27 Supply Boat Transits 3-4 per week 27 wells - Supply Boat On Standby 1 marine vessel 27 wells 36 Helicopter Flights 1 per day 27 wells - Noise Rig Operation 100 days 27 wells 90 Support Vessels 100 days 27 wells 90 Helicopters 100 flights 27 wells - VSP 2-3 days 27 wells 2 Geohazard Surveying 7 days 27 wells 6-7 Abandonment/Suspensiond 3-7 days 27 wells 6-7 Notes: a Based on one event (i.e., one well) b As per regulation c Produced water will either be atomized and flared, or brought to shore for disposal d Well head could be left in place for a maximum of six years.

7.2.1.2. Geotechnical Testing

The potential zone of influence associated with geotechnical drilling is also relatively restricted to the areas of substrate that are physically disturbed by the activity, if the noise component isn’t considered. Noise produced as a result of geotechnical drilling could potentially have effect on biota at some distance from the drilling vessel although to a much lesser degree compared to the seismic sound from the geohazard/site surveying.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 175 7.2.1.3. Presence of Structures/Safety Zone

The Project will use either a semi-submersible, a drillship, or a jack-up rig. The proposed safety zone could extend as much as 1.65 km from the semi-submersible rig (i.e., 50 m beyond the anchor locations of a new type of semi-submersible with a larger anchorage area) or approximately 500 m from the platform of the jack-up rig. The maximum areas of the semi-submersible and jack-up rig safety zones would be about 8.6 km2 and 1 km2, respectively. Under the scenario of two MODUs concurrently drilling exploration and appraisal/delineation wells in the Project Area, the maximum safety zone area at any one time due to this type of drilling would be approximately 17.2 km2. No one other than operational or C-NLOPB personnel will be allowed within the zone without the express permission of the offshore installation manager. A ‘Notice to Mariners’ regarding the safety zone will be issued for each exploration or delineation well executed during the program.

7.2.1.4. Lights and Flaring

Lights are used on the drill rig and supply/support vessels for navigation aids and work area illumination. Light and heat could also be emitted for short periods by flaring during well testing. Lights under certain conditions have the potential to affect some bird species, particularly storm petrels, by attracting them to the rig. Lights might also attract other biota such as squid, fish and sea turtles. The potential zone of influence associated with attraction to light is variable, depending on VEC and environmental conditions. For example, seabirds tend to become stranded on rigs and vessels more under foggy conditions than under clear conditions, even though seabirds likely detect the lights at greater distances under clear conditions.

7.2.1.5. Drill Muds

Drilling muds are needed to convey the drill cuttings out of the hole and keep formation fluids from entering the well. During the drilling of the top hole sections, the riser is not in place and drilling mud and cuttings (or sediments) from the top part of the hole are discharged from the hole to the seabed. Once the riser is in place the mud and cuttings are brought to the surface for cleaning and recycling.

After installation of the initial casing strings, the riser provides a conduit from the seabed to the rig through which drilling mud and cuttings move back to the surface mud system. Once on board the rig, the drill cuttings are removed from the mud in successive separation stages and discharged. Some mud remains with the discharged cuttings. The treated cuttings are discharged via a chute to just below the water’s surface. The mud and cuttings are dispersed in the water column and settle on the sea floor with the heavier particles near the hole and the fines at increasing distances from the rig.

All drilling on the East Coast is conducted using either water-based drilling muds (WBMs) or synthetic- based muds (SBMs). At present, highly deviated or deepwater wells require mostly SBMs during drilling. It is debatable which type of mud is more or less ‘environmentally friendly.’ It can be argued that WBMs are better because they consist of mostly water and cannot form sheens on the surface whereas SBMs may form a sheen under certain operational and/or sea state conditions. On the other hand, SBMs generally do not disperse as widely as WBMs and, therefore, accumulate closer to the

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 176 wellsite then WBMs. Compared to SBMs, WBMs remain suspended in the water column longer and therefore have greater potential to affect filter feeding organisms (Cranford 2005). At several stages during drilling and at the end of the drilling process, WBM is discharged. On the Grand Banks, used SBMs may be brought ashore for either treatment and subsequent disposal or reconditioning for reuse, or remain offshore for reconditioning and reuse. All drilling fluids will be handled and treated in accordance with C-NLOPB policies and the OWTG.

Drilling muds and cuttings, and their potential effects were discussed in detail in the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study and Supplement (Husky 2000, 2001a), and recent drilling EAs and updates for Husky (LGL 2002, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b). Modeling of the fate of drill mud and cuttings discharges was conducted for the Comprehensive Study. It analyzed the effects of the discharge of drilling wastes from development drilling of 25 wells using SBMs at multi-well drilling sites. The White Rose development drilling was deemed to create no significant effect on fish and fish habitat, the fishery, seabirds, marine mammals, or sea turtles. Additional relevant documents not available during the preparation of the White Rose Comprehensive Study include MMS (2000); CAPP (2001a,b), NEB et al. (2002), the White Rose baseline studies (Husky 2001b, 2003), Husky exploratory drilling EAs and updates (LGL 2002, 2003, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b), the reviews of Buchanan et al. (2003), Hurley and Ellis (2004) and Neff (2005), and the Husky EEM reports (Husky 2005, 2006, 2007 in LGL 2007b). All of these documents discuss the discharge of mud and cuttings and associated effects. The recent Husky EEM reports have further confirmed the conclusions of the White Rose work that routine drilling, particularly small scale drilling, has no significant effect on the marine environment of the Grand Banks (LGL 2007b). This conclusion is also supported by the studies carried out on fish health and fish habitat over a three-year period at the Terra Nova site where six wells were drilled using a combination of water-based and synthetic-based muds (Mathieu et al. 2005; Deblois et al. 2005).

During the 2004 field sampling of the White Rose EEM Program, seafloor sediment samples were collected at 30 locations along transect lines radiating from the centres of development (Husky 2005 in LGL 2007b). The observed elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and barium were within the range of levels observed at Terra Nova and did not extend beyond the zone of influence predicted by drill cuttings modeling (Hodgins and Hodgins 2000). Elevated hydrocarbon and barium concentrations in the sediment extended to five to eight kilometres and two kilometres from the source, respectively. Elevated levels of fines in the sediment were limited to within one kilometre of the source.

The 2005 White Rose EEM Program involved sediment sampling at 31 locations on the program transects (Husky 2006 in LGL 2007b). Again, the observed elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and barium near the drill centres were within the range of levels observed at other developments and did not extend beyond the zone of influence predicted by drill cuttings modeling (Hodgins and Hodgins 2000). Weak directional effects for both hydrocarbon and barium contamination were observed primarily to the southeast within one km of the Southern and Central drill centres.

In 2006, the White Rose EEM Program indicated elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and barium near the drill centres were within the range of levels observed at other developments and did not extend beyond the zone of influence predicted by drill cuttings modeling (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 177 Hydrocarbon and barium contamination extended to 6 km and 2 km from source, respectively. Hydrocarbon and barium dispersion was primarily to the southeast within 1 km of the Southern and Central drill centres. Sulphur contamination was limited to within 1 km of source and increased sulphide levels were noted only within 0.5 km of drill centres. Fine levels were also elevated near the drill centres.

The assessment of drill cuttings deposition is based on a modeling study of the potential deposition characteristics of cuttings produced by the White Rose Development (Husky 2000; LGL 2002) and the recent modeling for this EA of the settling and subsequent seafloor deposition of well cuttings and SBMs at the proposed Mizzen drill site (Lorax 2008). Results of the White Rose modeling of cuttings deposition indicated that the biological ‘zone of influence’ (ZOI) is generally confined within approximately 500 m of the drilling area. This has also been concluded by reviews of worldwide information contained in Buchanan et al. (2003), Hurley and Ellis (2004) and Neff (2005).

Lorax (2008) performed a set of eight computer model simulations of the settling and subsequent seafloor deposition of well cuttings, centrifuge barite and SBMs discharged near surface at the proposed Mizzen drill site. The upper two sections of the Mizzen well will be drilled using WBMs and extracted solids will be deposited directly to the seabed without being returned to the MODU at surface. Since these solids are not subject to the same dispersive forces arising from ocean currents and are expected to be contained within a small area surrounding the well, WBMs were not considered in the modeling.

Well cuttings, centrifuge barite and SBM produced from the drilling of the lower two sections of the Mizzen well will be returned to the MODU at surface, processed through the mud recovery system, and then discharged into the ocean at an estimated depth of 7 m. The principal modeling results are as follow:

x The maximum thickness of discharged material (treated well cuttings, centrifuge barite and SBM) deposited to the seafloor will be <0.25 mm; x Virtually all of the fine particles (diameter <0.1 mm), which comprise about 92% of the discharged particle mass, will be transported by ocean currents outside of a 10 km radius from the Mizzen well site; and x The remaining 8% of the discharged particle mass is predicted to settle on the seafloor inside of a 6 km radius from the Mizzen well site (113 km2). Within this area, all deposition is predicted to be <0.13 mm thick, with an area of any discharge deposition thickness exceeding 0.1 mm equal to only 0.1 km2.

The complete well cuttings/mud deposition modeling report for Mizzen (Lorax 2008) is included in Appendix 3.

Water-Based Muds

Presently, the first two hole sections (surface and conductor) of a well are drilled with WBM Composition of one typical WBM formulation for a Grand Banks drilling program is shown in Table 7.2.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 178 Table 7.2. Mud Components and Cuttings Discharge Volume for a Typical Grand Banks Development Well.

Casing Strings Unit Conductor Surface Production Hole Section Inch 36 16 12 1/4 Notes: DF System Gel/SW Gel/SW WBM 1. Three scenarios were taken Depth (See Note 4) Meter (brt) 220 1200 3600 into account. The 12 ¼" Volume Usage Bbl 897 4199 5246 hole section varies in depth Wash Out % 50% 30% 10% with each scenario. Products 2. 36" and 16" hole sections– Barite MT 58 115 Near seabed discharge. Bentonite MT 16 65 Calcium Carbonate Kg 3. WBM used for complete Caustic Kg 116 482 138 well. Fluid Loss Agent Kg 2385 4. All depths are measured Inhibitor Kg 4769 below rotary table (brt). Fluid Loss Agent Kg 9538 The rotary table is 145 m Potassium Chloride Kg 100153 above the seafloor. Lime Kg 116 482 Glycol Inhibitor L 25024 Soda Ash Kg 116 482 238 Viscosifier Kg 3577 Biocide L 72 Drilled Cuttings Kg 192032 429562 521786 Volume of Cuttings m3 74 165 201 Source: Husky (2003a) in Buchanan et al. (2003).

For riserless drilling (i.e., first two sections of a well; surface and conductor), WBM consists of seawater and bentonite (clay) and/or barite only. For the remainder of the well, the WBM additives include other chemicals such as potassium chloride, caustic soda, soda ash, viscosifiers, filtration-control additives and shale inhibitors are added to control mud properties. Low toxicity chemicals are used for the water- based drilling mud to reduce the effect on the environment.

Estimated volumes of water-based mud and cuttings discharges associated with initial casings for a typical Grand Banks (White Rose area) well are shown in Table 7.2. It should be noted that the muds/cuttings from the production casing phase are passed through the solids control system that consists of shale shakers and centrifuges.

The following points are relevant to the discharge of WBMs and cuttings.

x WBMs are essentially non-toxic. The main component of WBMs is seawater and the primary additives are bentonite (clay), barite and potassium chloride; x Chemicals such as caustic soda, soda ash, viscosifiers, and shale inhibitors are added to control mud properties. All constituents are normally screened using the Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines (NEB et al. 1999). Discharge of WBMs and associated cuttings is regulated by the C-NLOPB. Spent and excess WBMs and cuttings can be discharged without treatment (NEB et al. 2002). The discharge of WBMs may increase metals in sediments such as barium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc, generally

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 179 within 250 to 500 m of the drill site but occasionally farther (usually zinc and sometimes chromium) depending upon mud volumes and environmental conditions. However, these metals, with a few exceptions, are not bioavailable and few if any biological effects have been associated with these increases in metals due to drill rig discharges (CAPP 2001b); and x The primary effect of WBMs appears to be smothering of benthos in a small area proximate to the hole. The exact area of effect cannot be predicted because animals’ reactions will range from simply avoiding the immediate area of deposition to direct mortality of sessile organisms. Nonetheless, the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) indicated a worst-case scenario of an area of less than one km2 around each well having a depth of WBM sufficient to result in some smothering. Based upon the published literature (reviewed in Husky 2000, 2001a; LGL 2002, 2005a, 2006b; MMS 2000; CAPP 2001b), the benthos can be expected to recover over a period of several months to several years but most likely within one year after cessation of drilling. Monitoring data from other operators indicate that the actual area of smothering appears to be much less than predicted (Fechhelm et al. 2001; Marathon, unpubl. data in LGL 2003; JWEL 2002). Areas of smothering predicted for the immediate areas around the proposed wells sites are small.

Under the scenario of two MODUs concurrently drilling exploration/delineation wells in the Project Area, and assuming that WBM and cuttings will cover an area of the seabed of about 0.8 km2 to a thickness of at least one centimetre per well, an approximate total of 1.6 km2 of fish habitat could be concurrently smothered within the Project Area due to exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling by StatoilHydro. The 1.6 km2 of seabed represents about 0.0014% of the total area of the Project Area.

Synthetic-based Muds

Synthetic-based muds (SBM) will likely be used for drilling the majority of the wells in the proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program. Typical constituents of SBMs are shown in Table 7.3. In general, SBMs are essentially non-toxic and have the potential to biodegrade relatively rapidly (at least under certain conditions of oxygen, depth and temperature). Less SBM is required compared to WBM for the same distance drilled. SBMs tend to ‘clump’ cuttings together more than WBMs and, therefore, compared to WBM cuttings, SBM-associated cuttings tend to disperse less and fall closer to the rig.

Table 7.3. Typical Constituents of SBM.

Component Quantity (kg/m3) Base chemical (typically internal olefins or polymerized Major constituent but variable depending on system used, olefins) under various trade names such as Baker Hughes’ well conditions ALPHA-TEQ, M-I’s NOVAPLUS. Or Baroid’s PETROFREE SF, Qvert (Husky SBM System) Emulsifier 25.7 – 39.9 Rheological Modifier 2.9 – 5.7 Fluid Loss Additive 2.9 – 5.7 Lime 2.9 – 22.8 Organophilic Clay 15.0 – 21.0 Wetting Agent 0 – 2.9 Source: MMS (2000).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 180 The main component of the SBM used on the East Coast is a white synthetic based oil called Pure Drill IA-35. This drilling fluid is used by many operators on the East Coast and has been demonstrated to be not acutely or chronically toxic through operator testing or through government testing (Payne et al., 2001 a,b; Andrews et al. 2004). The other additives are primarily the same as WBMs, mostly barite (weighting agent) with other additives.

Synthetic based muds include those whose base fluids are composed of synthetic hydrocarbons (olefins, paraffins, and esters) (OGP 2003). Their persistence is related to the physical conditions on and near the sea floor (e.g., re-suspension and transport, current velocity, sediment characteristics), re-working of sediments by burrowing biota and biodegradation of the base fluids. The specific rates of biodegradation of all the different formulations of SBMs are mostly unknown under all environmental conditions but are known to be related to the type of base fluid, temperature, oxygen levels, the type of bacteria present (aerobic or anaerobic), the species of bacteria present, the history of the area viz a viz hydrocarbons, and the form, mass and topography of the material (OGP 2003; Roberts and Nguyen 2006). In general, biodegradation is expected to occur faster under aerobic conditions than anaerobic ones (OGP 2003).

Effects on benthic organisms may result from physical smothering or from the anoxic conditions created by the biodegradation which increases the oxygen demand in the sediments. Effects on benthic communities are not simply related to the rate of biodegradation. For example, esters have been found to biodegrade rapidly under laboratory conditions but to cause anoxia in the field whereas olefins which degrade slower may cause fewer effects on the benthos (Jensen et al. 1999 in OGP 2003).

A number of field and monitoring studies have been conducted that assessed the degradation rates of SBMs and the recovery rates of benthos [reviewed in Jensen et al. 1999 (Norwegian North Sea); Neff et al. 2000 (UK North Sea); OGP 2003; Roberts and Nguyen 2006). Ester-based fluids generally biodegrade rapidly and the benthos is mostly recovered within 11 months. Studies on olefin-based fluids have been conducted under a wide variety of conditions with varying results but degradation and benthic recovery may take from several months to several years depending upon a wide variety of factors. In general, benthos may require as many as three to five years to fully recover after discharge of SBMs (Neff et al. 2000). Results with paraffin-based fluids have been highly variable.

Researching the biodegradation rates of SBMs in the field is a complex process because of the different formulations and mixtures used in addition to the wide variety of environmental conditions encountered.

According to the above-mentioned reviews of information, simplified ideal conditions for biodegradation could be defined as:

x Physical Conditions

o Small cuttings piles, thus increasing exposure to aerobic bacteria; o High energy seabed, thus creating dispersion and increased exposure to aerobic conditions; and

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 181 o High temperature [Bacterial activity is often related to temperature and thus it is reasonable to assume higher rates of biodegradation at higher temperatures. Note, however, that biodegradation of at least certain types of SBM appears to occur relatively rapidly in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico which is on the order of 4ºC. Also, very rapid biodegradation can cause anoxia which could slow down degradation. Pressure appears to have no effect on degradation rates—Roberts and Nguyen 2006.].

x Biological Conditions

o High rate of bioturbation (e.g., by burrowing species); o Aerobic conditions (i.e., oxygenated sediments) [Aerobic degradation is usually faster than anaerobic. Aerobic biodegradation requires oxygen as an electron acceptor whereas anaerobic biodegradation mostly uses sulphate, or carbon dioxide in the absence of sulfate—Roberts and Nguyen 2006. Both types of biodegradation probably occur in the typical situation involving SBM and cuttings piles.]; o Presence of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria (e.g., Pseudomanoas spp., and others); and o Previous exposure of the area to similar types of hydrocarbons which appears to reduce the lag time.

The following points concerning SBMs are relevant to any drilling program on the East Coast.

x When SBMs are used, the cuttings are treated to remove oil on cuttings as per the OWTG prior to discharge. Discharges are subject to approval by the C-NLOPB and discharge of whole SBMs is not permitted. All synthetic based muds must be tested for toxicity as per the OWTG and the results sent to the C-NLOPB; x SBMs are essentially non-toxic given that the non-toxic white oil with <10 ppm aromatics component is the base fluid for the SBM; x Biological effects are not normally found beyond 250 to 500 m from the drilling platform (Husky 2000, 2001a; LGL 2002, 2003, 2005a, 2006b; MMS 2000; CAPP 2001b; NEB et al. 2002; Buchanan et al. 2003; Hurley and Ellis 2004). Recent Husky EAs (White Rose, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and South Whale Basin) have predicted a total area of impact of less than one km2 from multi-well drilling based on modeling and published literature; x Mitigation measures for drilling include the selection of non-toxic or low toxicity chemicals and muds, and treating any oil-contaminated cuttings to meet the OWTG and the Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines; and x In Nova Scotia, SBMs have been handled in a number of ways including shipping to shore, injection, and discharge. In deepwater (500+ m) Gulf of Mexico, organic enrichment with attendant increases in biota, including fishes and crabs, has been reported after a two year multi-well drilling program (Fechhelm et al. 2001). No large cuttings piles were observed by ROV during that study.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 182 As already indicated, Lorax (2008) performed modeling of the settling and subsequent seafloor deposition of well cuttings, centrifuge barite and SBMs discharged near surface at the proposed Mizzen drill site. Modeling results indicated that the maximum thickness of discharged material deposited to the seafloor will be <0.25 mm, that virtually all of the fine particles which comprise about 92% of the discharged particle mass will be transported by ocean currents outside of a 10 km radius from the Mizzen well site, and that the remaining 8% of the discharged particle mass is predicted to settle inside of a 6 km radius from the Mizzen well site to a maximum thickness of less than 0.13 mm.

7.2.1.6. Other Fluids/Solids

StatoilHydro will use an Offshore Chemical Management System (OCMS), similar to that in use by Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose whereby drilling utility or productions chemicals that have the potential to reach the environment are screened. The screening assesses the potential toxicity. Where chemicals are deemed to have unacceptable toxicity ratings, a substitution for that chemical is sought. This process is based on the Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines (NEB et al. 1999).

7.2.1.7. Atmospheric Emissions

Atmospheric emissions will occur during the Project. The main sources of emissions associated with routine activities of exploration drilling are associated with the drill rig itself and vessel traffic transiting the area:

x burning of diesel fuel for power generation on the drill rig x flaring during any required well testing x fugitive emissions will be a negligible source.

Exhaust gas will be emitted from diesel powered generators on drilling rigs and the support vessels. The exhaust gases contain carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N20), which are greenhouse gases (GHG). Fuel (normally diesel) and equipment will be carefully selected and maintained for maximum combustion efficiency. Emissions from a typical rig with two engines less than 600 horse power, performing development drilling year round are approximately 18,509 tonnes CO2E per year (CO2 [17,690.57] + N2O [2.58] + CH4 [0.90]). As an example for this program, if 3 of the 27 wells are completed a year for the nine year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program and each well could take as long as 100 days to complete, then the yearly emissions from power generation associated with the proposed drilling program will be approximately 300/365 x 18,509 tonnes or 15,213 tonnes CO2E.

Fugitive emissions of methane from valves, seals and open-ended piping on the drilling rig with diesel engines may be considered negligible. This source is typically less than 1-2% of overall GHG emissions, and less on newer rigs.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 183 Testing of the wells is critical to the determination of the reservoir and fluid conditions. Each test will produce up to approximately 1,000 m3 of mixed hydrocarbon liquids (oil and gas). Hydrocarbons produced by the tests and some completion fluid will be burned with burner booms. Flaring activities will be kept to a minimum reflecting only those tests necessary to determine reservoir parameters. If flaring must be carried out, the resulting greenhouse gas emissions are in the order of 1,650 tonnes CO2 E per test.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx, H2S, PM, PM2.5, PM10 and VOC’s are the Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC’s), emissions of which must be reported to Environment Canada under the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) by June 4th annually. This reporting is required for production operations but drilling operations are exempt from NPRI reporting. Greenhouse gas emissions for development drilling are reported to the C-NLOPB annually on March 31st.

7.2.1.8. Ship and Helicopter Traffic

Approximately three to four supply boat transits will occur every week and one supply vessel will remain at the drilling location on standby. There may be approximately six helicopter flights per week.

7.2.1.9. Noise

Underwater sound has the potential to affect marine animals in a variety of ways depending on source levels, duration of exposure, proximity of noise source, animal sensitivities, environmental conditions, and other factors. Marine mammals are generally believed to be the group most sensitive to underwater sound. The main sources of sound for the proposed Project include helicopters, supply/support vessels, drill rig machinery and thrusters, echo sounders, VSP seismic array, and wellhead removal explosives (if used). Dynamically positioned drill ships are typically noisier than semi-submersibles which, in turn, are nosier than jack-ups (Richardson et al. 1995). Some sound levels reported for routine offshore drilling and VSP activities are provided in Table 7.4.

The VSP uses an airgun array to assist in further defining a petroleum resource or locating well boreholes/tracks. Petroleum industry VSP arrays are similar to those employed during 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys but are typically smaller and have lower source sound pressure levels. VSPs are usually conducted in a small area relative to a full 2-D or 3-D seismic survey, and are conducted over shorter periods (i.e., several days).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 184 Table 7.4. Natural and Development-related Underwater Sound Levels.

Broadband Sound Level Sound Levels at Dominant Frequencies Source (dB re 1 µPa1) Frequency (Hz) Level (dB re 1 µPa1) Ambient Noise Wind < 1.8 km/h - 100 60 Wind 20.4-29.7 km/h - 100 97 Wind 40.8-50.0 km/h - 100 102 Heavy shipping - 50 105 Light shipping - 50 86 Remote shipping - 50 81 TNT Explosion 0.5 kg at 60 m 267 21 - Seismic Airguns 216-259 50-100 160-190 VSP Array Peak source level 233 50-100 160-190 Depth Sounder 180+ 12,000+ - Semi-submersible Drill Rig 154 7-70 - Drillship 174-185 < 600 - Supply Boats Reduction with propeller -10 - - nozzles Increase with bow thrusters +11 - - operating Rock Dumping Vessel (DP thrusters larger than typical 177 supply vessel)a Large Tanker 186 100-125 177 Supertanker 190-205 70 175 Super Puma Helicopter at 300 m Above Sea Level Received level at sea surface - 20-50 105-110 Received levels at 3 to 18 m - - 65-70 depth 1 3rd octave band level Source: Adapted from Richardson et al. (1995).

7.2.1.10. Well Abandonment/Suspension

Well abandonment procedures will consist of the removal of any wellhead and associated equipment. Offshore wells are abandoned in two stages. During the first stage, the wellbore is isolated using mechanical and cement plugs in accordance with existing regulations. During the second stage the wellhead and any associated equipment items are removed from the seabed. Removal of the wellhead will routinely involve the use of mechanical cutters. However, in some circumstances subsurface cutting (i.e., below the seabed) using shaped charges placed below the mudline may be required. On some occasions the wells may be suspended for future re-entry. This is similar to the abandonment process described above, but the wellhead is not removed. A suspension cap is installed to protect the wellhead connector. If the wellhead is to be left in place for any period of time after completion of well, the C- NLOPB will be advised and proper notification of the fishing industry will be made.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 185 7.2.2. Potential Effects of Routine Activities on VECs

This section cross-references the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and associated Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a), the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area EA and update (LGL 2005a, 2006b), and the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (LGL 2007b).

Despite the possibility that StatoilHydro will use two MODUs for concurrent exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling in the Project Area at some time over the temporal scope of the Project (2008-2016), the assessment of the residual effects of the various routine activities associated with the concurrent drilling of two wells does not differ from the assessment of the residual effects of the same activities associated with the drilling of only one well at any one time.

7.2.2.1. Fish Habitat

Fish habitat components include water, sediment, plankton and benthos. Section 6.4.3 of LGL (2005a) and Section 7.6.1 of LGL (2006a) provide discussions of the potential effects of delineation/exploration drilling routine activities on the fish habitat VEC. These discussions remain relevant to this EA.

Results of analyses of sediment samples collected in 2006 indicated a significant positive correlation of the concentrations of the two primary drilling mud tracers, barium and >C10-C21 hydrocarbons. The >C21-C32 hydrocarbon concentrations were positively correlated with the concentrations of both tracers. Barium and >C10-C21 hydrocarbon concentrations decreased significantly with distance from the drill centres. Concentrations of barium were greatest at several locations within one kilometre of the Central and Southern drill centres but were not markedly above background levels near the Northern drill centre. The spatial distribution of >C10-C21 hydrocarbons was similar. Both barium and >C10-C21 hydrocarbon concentrations were greater to the south and east around both the Central and Southern drill centres than to the north or west (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b).

Sulphur and sulphide concentrations in 2006 decreased significantly with distance from the drill centres. Sulphur concentrations were elevated above background at several stations located within one kilometre of the drill centres, particularly the Central and Southern drill centres. Sulphide concentrations, on the other hand, were elevated at only a few stations nearest the drill centres, usually within 0.5 km of the drill centre. Sulphur and sulphide may be considered secondary or weak tracers of drill cuttings discharges. Tracer effectiveness, in decreasing order of effectiveness, can be considered as follows: >C10-C21 hydrocarbon, barium, sulphur, and sulphide (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 186 The 2006 EEM report (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b) provided a sediment chemistry comparison among 2000, 2004, 2005 and 2006, based on the analyses of sediment samples at 37 stations common to all three years. The distances between sampling station and drill centre ranged from <500 m to >25 km. The mean barium concentrations increased relative to all three drill centres but most of the increase can be attributed to elevated concentrations very near the drill centres (i.e., within 2 km of drill centre), particularly at the Central and Southern Drill Centres. The six highest barium concentrations found within 1 km of the Central and Southern Drill Centres ranged from 420 to 3,100 mg/kg. The 2000 baseline barium concentrations ranged from 120 to 210 mg/kg. Barium concentrations at the more remote stations did not increase over time. Between 2000 and 2006, the overall increase of >C10-C21 hydrocarbon concentration in sediment was statistically significant. All sediment samples collected in 2000 had >C10-C21 hydrocarbon concentrations less than 0.3 mg/kg. In 2004, no concentrations exceeding 100 mg/kg were observed. However, in 2005 and 2006, concentrations exceeding 100 mg/kg were observed. These higher levels were seen only in sediments collected near the Central and Southern drill centres (i.e., within 500 m of drill centres). The three >C10-C21 hydrocarbon concentrations that exceeded 100 mg/kg in 2006 ranged from 190 to 570 mg/kg, all within 500 m of either the Central or Southern Drill Centre. Overall, discharge of drill cuttings had detectable and statistically significant effects on distance gradients of barium and hydrocarbons after drilling began at the Northern, Central, and Southern drill centres. As drilling continued, tracer concentrations increased mostly at a few stations near drill centres but showed either minimal or no increases at the stations located at intermediate distances from the drill centres and beyond. While the magnitude of contamination at near- field stations increased, the overall spatial extent of contamination did not substantially increase (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b).

Sulphur, a secondary tracer, decreased with distance from the Southern drill centre in both 2004 and 2006, but not in 2005. The decrease in sulphur concentration with distance was more obvious in 2004 than in 2006. While overall mean sulphur concentrations were relatively stable between 2004 and 2006, some elevated concentrations were observed in sediments collected within 500 m of the Central Drill Centre. Sulphur concentrations were not measured in 2000 (Husky 2007 in LGL 2007b).

The above results are consistent with those concluded during major reviews of the effects of offshore drilling (refs?) namely that most effects are confined to 500 m or less from the drill rig.

Project Residual Effects

There is potential for interaction between routine activities and fish habitat, as indicated in Table 7.5.

Except for safety zone, artificial reef effect, lights and flaring, the potential effects of interactions between fish habitat and routine activities indicated in Table 7.8 are negative. The safety zone and artificial reef effect would likely have positive effects on the fish habitat VEC (LGL 2006a). Lights and flaring have the potential to attract plankton but it is debatable as to whether the effect of attraction is negative or positive. Drilling mud and cuttings pose the greatest concern with respect to potential effects on the fish habitat VEC. However, the area proximate to a well site most susceptible to smothering by well cuttings and WBM is relatively small (likely <1 km2). Recent well cuttings/SBM

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 187 deposition modeling by Lorax (2008) indicated that post-treatment discharges near the ocean surface at Mizzen would not result in any substantial deposition thickness (<.25 mm) (full report in Appendix 3).

Table 7.5. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Fish Habitat Fish Habitat Components Project Activity Water Sediment Plankton Benthos Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling x x ROV Surveying x x Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing x x Presence of Structures Safety Zone x x x x Artificial Reef Effect x x x x Lights x Flaring x Drill Mud/Cuttings x x x x Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement x x x BOP Fluid x x Cooling Water x x Deck Drainage x x Bilge and Ballast Water x x Sanitary/Domestic Waste x x Water Small Transfer Spills x x Produced Waterb Garbagec Routine Atmospheric Emissions x x Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions x x Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation x x Support Vessels x x Helicopters VSP x x Geohazard Surveying x x Abandonment/Suspension x x Shore Facilitiesd Other Projects/Activities Hibernia x x x x Terra Nova x x x x White Rose x x x x Exploration x x x x Fisheries x x x x Marine Transportation x x x Hunting a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 188 As indicated in Table 7.6, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the fish habitat VEC include the following:

x Site selection that minimizes potential geohazards and conflicts with key biota; x Minimization of contact with the bottom substrate; x Pre- and post- drilling ROV survey; x Treatment of mud and cuttings; x Total fluids management; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal equipment design and maintenance; x Training and safe handling practices; x Cleanup protocols; x Spatial and temporal avoidance during geohazard surveying and VSP; and x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level.

Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with fish habitat (Table 7.6), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the fish habitat VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.7). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the fish habitat VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.1.1 in LGL 2007b).

Cumulative Effects

As already indicated, the primary concern associated with the routine activities of delineation/exploration drilling relates to the deposition of drilling mud and cuttings on the seafloor around a well. The total quantity of mud and cuttings that would be deposited on the seabed is on the order of 400-700 m3 per well (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Section 3.6.4.1). This will cover an area of seabed about 0.8 km2 to a thickness of one centimetre or greater (based on Figure 4.3-2 in Husky 2000).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 189 Table 7.6 Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Habitat

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) or Mitigation Project Activity Negative (N) Options Environmental Effect Extent Context Duration Frequency Magnitude Ecological/ Geographic Reversibility and Economic Socio-Cultural

Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement Contamination (N) 0 1 1 5 R 2 BOP Fluid Contamination (N) Selection criteria 0 1 6 4 R 2 Cooling Water Contamination (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Nutrients (P); Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Water Contamination (N) Small Transfer Spills Contamination (N) Oil spill response 1 1-2 1 1-2 R 2 Produced Waterb Garbagec Surface contamination Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions 0 2 6 5 R 2 (N) and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Surface contamination Equipment design 0 2 6 5 R 2 Emissions (N) and maintenance Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 190 Valued Ecological Component: Fish Habitat Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Support Vessels Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Disturbance (N) 1 1 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) 1 1 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Sea bottom disturbance Minimize activity Abandonment/Suspension 0-1 1 1 1 R 2 (N) time Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 191 Table 7.7. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Habitat Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone P 3 Artificial Reef Effect P 3 Lights NS 3 Flaring NS 3 Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement NS 3 BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste NS 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

Level of Confidence (professional judgement) Probability of Occurrence (professional judgement) 1 = Low level of confidence 1 = Low probability of occurrence 2 = Medium level of confidence 2 = Medium probability of occurrence 3 = High level of confidence 3 = High probability of occurrence

Level of Scientific Certainty (based on scientific information and statistical analysis or professional judgement) 1 = Low level of scientific certainty 2 = Medium level of scientific certainty 3 = High level of scientific certainty

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect b Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 c Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal d All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal e Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 192 Within-Project

Over the proposed 9-year period of the Project, a maximum of 27 wells could be drilled, resulting in a total of 27 x 0.8 km2 or 21.6 km2 of seabed being covered by at least one centimetre of mud and cuttings. This maximum area of coverage represents approximately 0.02 % of the total area of the proposed Project Area (i.e., ~107,360 km2). However, the 21.6 km2 would not be impacted at the same time. It is unlikely that more than three wells would be drilled in any one year. Considering that studies have indicated that the effects of the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings in the immediate vicinity of a well have typically lessened considerably 1 to 2 years after cessation of drilling (Kingston 1987, Mair et al. 1987, Davies et al. 1989, and Gray et al. 1990 in GESAMP 1993), no more than six well site areas would be affected by smothering during any two-year period of the nine-year period of the proposed Project. This equals 6 x 0.8 km2 or 4.8 km2 of seabed, approximately 0.0045% of the total area of the proposed Project Area. If two wells are ever drilled concurrently with two MODUs, then 1.6 km2 of bottom substrate could be smothered at the same time (0.0015% of Project Area).

It is not possible to predict the area with precision because it will depend upon the type and quantity of mud and cuttings, water depth, currents, and other physical conditions but it is clear that it will represent a small proportion of the proposed Project Area and that the benthos will recover relatively quickly.

Between-Project

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and existing production activity (e.g., White Rose, Hibernia, and Terra Nova) all have the potential to interact with fish habitat (See Table 7.5). Husky is currently proposing an 18 well exploratory drilling program, possibly beginning in 2008, of spatial and temporal scope similar to the one being proposed by StatoilHydro. Concerning the deposition of drilling mud and cuttings on the seafloor around a well, the only drilling to consider is that associated Husky and StatoilHydro. Drilling has ceased at Terra Nova and all cuttings are re- injected at Hibernia.

Between 2008 and 2017, as many as 45 exploration and appraisal/delineation wells could be drilled in the proposed Project Area, 27 by StatoilHydro and 18 by Husky. The total area of seabed that could potentially be covered by at least one centimetre of mud and cuttings approximates 45 x 0.8 km2 or 36 km2 (~ 0.034% of Project Area). Based on an average of 3 wells/year for StatoilHydro and 2 wells/year for Husky, and a maximum 2 year effects period associated with smothering, as many as 10 well site areas could be affected by smothering during any two year period between 2008 and 2017. This translates to 8 km2 or 0.0074% of the Project Area). If two wells are ever drilled concurrently with two MODUs by both StatoilHydro and Husky, then 3,2 km2 of bottom substrate could be smothered at the same time (0.003% of Project Area).

The addition of the affected areas associated with Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose to the 36 km2 calculated for all 45 wells does not account for much more proportion of the Project Area. If a maximum of 54 wells is considered for the Drilling Phase of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New drill Centre Construction and Operations Program (Section 7.6.1.5.5 in LGL 2007a), the

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 193 total area potentially affected by drill mud and cuttings deposition without consideration of well ZOI overlap is 54 x 0.8 km2 or 43.2 km2. This area added to the 36 km2 calculated above represents approximately 0.07% of the Project Area. While routine activities associated with other types of marine exploration (e.g., seismic surveying) and marine transportation likely affect fish habitat to some degree, the effects are temporary and minimal.

Commercial fisheries within the Project Area that employ mobile gear (e.g., trawls) are conducted primarily in the northeast area of the Project Area beyond the 200 m isobath. Given the use of shrimp trawls in this deep water area, impact of these fisheries on fish habitat is minimal.

Given the predicted minimal effects of other projects/activities, the larger Project Area and the prediction that the residual effects of the proposed Project’s routine activities on the fish habitat VEC are not significant, the cumulative effects on the marine fish habitat are predicted to be not significant. This is consistent with the predicted significance of between-project cumulative effects on the fish habitat VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.1.2 in LGL 2007b).

7.2.2.2. Fish

The life stages comprising the fish VEC are eggs/larvae, juveniles, adult pelagic fish, and adult benthic fish. The fish VEC includes macroinvertebrate species. Section 6.4.3 of LGL (2005a) and Section 7.6.2 of LGL (2006a) provide discussions of the potential effects of delineation/exploration drilling routine activities on the fish VEC. These discussions remain relevant to this EA.

Project Residual Effects

There is potential for interaction between routine activities and fish, as indicated in Table 7.8.

Except for the safety zone, artificial reef effect, lights and flaring, the potential effects of interactions between fish and routine activities indicated in Table 7.8 are negative. The safety zone and artificial reef effect would likely have positive effects on the fish VEC (LGL 2006a). Lights and flaring have the potential to attract fish but it is debatable as to whether the effect of attraction is negative or positive. Drilling mud and cuttings pose the greatest concern with respect to potential effects on the fish VEC. However, the area proximate to a well site most susceptible to smothering by well cuttings and WBM is relatively small (likely <1 km2). Recent well cuttings/SBM deposition modeling by Lorax (2008) indicated that post-treatment discharges near the ocean surface at Mizzen would not result in any substantial deposition thickness (<.25 mm) (full report in Appendix 3).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 194 Table 7.8. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Fish VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Fish Fish Life Stage Project Activity Eggs/Larvaea Juvenilesb Adult Pelagic Adult Benthic Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling x x x ROV Surveying x x x x Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing x x x Presence of Structures Safety Zone x x x Artificial Reef Effect x x x Lights x x Flaring x x Drill Mud/Cuttings x x x x Other Fluids/Solidsc Cement x x BOP Fluid x x Cooling Water x x Deck Drainage x x Bilge and Ballast Water x x Sanitary/Domestic Waste x x Water Small Transfer Spills x x Produced Waterd Garbagee Routine Atmospheric Emissions x x Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions x x Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation x x x Support Vessels x x x Helicopters VSP x x x x Geohazard Surveying x x x x Abandonment/Suspension x x x Shore Facilitiesf Other Projects/Activities Hibernia x x x x Terra Nova x x x x White Rose x x x x Exploration x x x x Fisheries x x x Marine Transportation x x x Hunting a Eggs of some species are closely associated with the bottom substrate b Often closely associated with the bottom substrate c Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 d Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal e All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal f Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 195 As indicated in Table 7.9, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the fish habitat VEC include the following:

x Site selection; x Minimization of contact with the bottom substrate; x ROV surveying, especially with respect to deep water corals; x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Total fluids management; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal equipment design and maintenance; x Safe handling practices; x Cleanup protocols; x Spatial and temporal avoidance during geohazard surveying and VSP; and x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level.

Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with fish (Table 7.9), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the fish VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.10). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the fish VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.2.1 in LGL 2007b).

Cumulative Effects

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and existing production activity (e.g., White Rose, Hibernia, and Terra Nova) all have the potential to interact with fish (see Table 7.6). It is unlikely that routine activities associated with other marine exploration, marine transportation and existing production areas have much adverse direct impact on marine invertebrates and fish. While commercial fisheries obviously impact marine invertebrates and fish, DFO’s fisheries management is intended to keep populations at sustainable levels.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 196 Table 7.9. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Geohazard/Site Survey Minimize contact Sea bottom disturbance Sediment Sampling with sea bottom; 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 (N) ROV surveys Minimize contact with sea bottom; Sea bottom disturbance Equipment ROV Surveying (N); 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 maintenance; Contamination (N) Use of benign hydraulic fluids Seismic Testing (see Noise) Minimize contact Sea bottom disturbance Geotechnical Testing with sea bottom; 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 (N) ROV surveys Presence of Structures No disturbance from Safety Zone - 1 3 1 5 R 2 fishing (P) Increased food and Artificial Reef Effect - 1 2 1 5 R 2 shelter (P) Attraction Lights - 0 2 5 4 R 2 (Undetermined) Attraction Flaring - 0 2 2 3 R 2 (Undetermined) Treatment; Contamination (N); Drill Muds and Cuttings Total fluids 1-2 1 6 4 R 2 Smothering (N) management Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement Contamination (N) 0 1 1 5 R 2 BOP Fluid Contamination (N) Selection criteria 0 1 6 4 R 2 Cooling Water Contamination (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Contamination (N); Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Water Increased Nutrients (P) Small Transfer Spills Contamination (N) Oil spill response 1 1-2 1 1-2 R 2 Produced Waterb Garbagec Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions Contamination (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Equipment design Contamination (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 Emissions and maintenance Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 197 Valued Ecological Component: Fish

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Support Vessels Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Sea bottom disturbance Minimize activity Abandonment/Suspension 0-1 1 1 1 R 2 (N) time Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 198 Table 7.10 Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Fish VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone P 2-3 Artificial Reef Effect P 2-3 Lights NS 2-3 Flaring NS 2-3 Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 2-3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement NS 3 BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste NS 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 199 Given the predicted minimal effects of other projects/activities, the large size of the Project Area, and the prediction that the residual effects of the proposed Project’s routine activities on the fish VEC are not significant, the cumulative effects on the fish VEC are also predicted to be not significant. This is consistent with the predicted significance of between-project cumulative effects on the fish VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008- 2017 EA (Section 7.2.2.2 in LGL 2007b).

7.2.2.3. Commercial Fisheries

The routine activities associated with exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling proposed by StatoilHydro could potentially affect the commercial fisheries, including research surveys. Potential effects include the following: (1) interference with fishing activities as a result of presence of structures in the water and/or on the seabed, safety zones, marine vessel traffic, and the use of seismic equipment during geohazard surveys and VSP, (2) behavioural effects on fish and invertebrates as a result of lights and noise resulting from drilling, marine vessels, and seismic airgun arrays, and (3) physical effects on commercial species and habitat as a result of structure presence, and routine emissions and discharges such as drilling muds and cuttings, BOP fluids, deck drainage, etc. Physical effects on fish and invertebrates and their habitats are not discussed here since they have already been assessed in Sections 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2 where the residual effects were predicted to be not significant.

The three aspects of the commercial fisheries that might be affected negatively by the proposed drilling program are considered here. These are

1. impacts on fishing gear and vessels (fouling or loss of gear, or vessel conflicts); 2. access to fishing grounds (“off limits” or unharvestable areas); and 3. fish “catchability” (issues related to scaring fish from the harvesting area or away from fishing gear).

The potential effects of routine activities on fisheries science/research surveys (industry-led and DFO) are also considered in this section because the effects pathways are the same (the surveys are conducted essentially by “fishing”), and these surveys are concerned primarily with investigating commercial stock status.

Details of the potential interactions between Project routine activities and the commercial fisheries/research surveys and the associated potential effects of the activities on the fisheries are discussed in the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and associated Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a) and remain relevant to this EA.

Project Residual Effects

There is potential for interaction between routine activities and commercial fisheries, as indicated in Table 7.11.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 200 Table 7.11. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys).

Valued Ecosystem Component: Commercial Fisheries Commercial Fisheries Component Project Activity Fishing Gear/Vessels Access to Grounds Catchability Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling - x - ROV Surveying - x - Seismic Testing x x (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing - x - Presence of Structures Safety Zone - x - Artificial Reef Effect - - - Lights - - - Flaring - - - Drill Mud/Cuttings - - - Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement - - - BOP Fluid - - - Cooling Water - - - Deck Drainage - - - Bilge and Ballast Water - - - Sanitary/Domestic Waste Water - - - Small Transfer Spills - - - Produced Waterb - - - Garbagec - - - Routine Atmospheric Emissions - - - Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions - - - Supply Boat and Other Operational Transits x - - Supply Boat on Standby x - - Helicopter flights - - - Noise Rig Operation - - x Support Vessels - - x Helicopters - - - VSP x Geohazard Surveying - - x Abandonment/Suspension - x - Shore Facilitiesd - - - Other Projects/Activities Hibernia - x - Terra Nova - x - White Rose - x - Exploration x - x Marine Transportation x - - a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or treated and brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

Section 4.9 of the C-NLOPB’s Guidelines Respecting Drilling Programs in the Newfoundland Offshore Area (C-NLOPB 2000) state, “the operator should provide for the advance notification of persons engaged in fishing activities in the proposed area of operations and the measures to be put in place to eliminate any potential mutual interference.”

In addition, the C-NLOPB Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2004) provide guidance aimed at minimizing any impacts of VSP / well-site surveys on commercial fish harvesting. These Guidelines were developed based on best practices during previous years' surveys in Atlantic Canada, and on guidelines from other national jurisdictions. The relevant Guidelines state (Appendix 2, Environmental Mitigative Measures):

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 201 1.a) The operator should implement operational arrangements to ensure that the operator and/or its survey contractor and the local fishing interests are informed of each other’s planned activities. Communication throughout survey operations with fishing interests in the area should be maintained. 1.b) Where feasible, a soft-start approach – a gradual ramp-up of airguns - should be implemented prior to survey. Ramp up procedures should follow measures outlined below in Section 2(e). 1.c) The operator should publish a Canadian Coast Guard “Notice to Mariners” and a “Notice to Fishers” via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast. 1.d) Operators should implement a gear and/or vessel damage compensation program, to promptly settle claims for loss and/or damage that may be caused by survey operations. The scope of the compensation program should include replacement costs for lost or damaged gear and any additional financial loss that is demonstrated to be associated with the incident. The operator should report on the details of any compensation awarded under such a program. 1.e) Procedures must be in place on the survey vessel(s) to ensure that any incidents of contact with fishing gear are clearly detected and documented (e.g., time, location of contact, loss of contact, and description of any identifying markings observed on affected gear). As per Section 4.2 of these Guidelines, any incident should be reported immediately to the 24-hour answering service at (709) 778-1400 or to the duty officer at (709) 682 4426.

The potential effects of interactions between commercial fisheries, including research surveys, and routine activities indicated in Table 7.11 are negative. Impacts on fishing gear and vessels could be caused by routine activities including the seismic testing component of geohazard/site surveying and the presence/movement of marine vessels associated with the proposed Project. Marine vessel transits include the possibility of iceberg towing if deemed necessary. Secondly, fisher access to fishing grounds could be affected by routine activities including geohazard/site surveying, the safety zone associated with each drilling site, and abandonment/suspension of wells. Thirdly, catchability of target species could be affected by routine activities that produce underwater noise such as rig operation, marine vessels, VSP and geohazard surveying.

As indicated in Table 7.12, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the commercial fisheries VEC include the following:

x Communications/notification; x Fisheries Liaison Officers (FLO); x Avoidance x Compensation for gear loss and/or damage (i.e., StatoilHydro Fisheries Damage Compensation Program); x Minimization of safety zone size; and x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 202 Table 7.12. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys).

Valued Ecological Component: Commercial Fisheries

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) or Negative Mitigation Project Activity (N) Environmental Effect Options Extent Context Duration Frequency Ecological/ Magnitude Geographic Reversibility and Economic Socio-Cultural

Geohazard/Site Survey Communications; Sediment Sampling Interference / disturbance (N) Avoidance 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2

Communications; ROV Surveying Interference / disturbance (N) Avoidance 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2

Communications; Avoidance; Seismic Testing (also see Noise) Interference / disturbance (N) 0-1 1-2 1 2 R 2 FLO; Gear compensation Communications; Geotechnical Testing Interference / disturbance (N) Avoidance 0-1 1 1 1 R 2

Presence of Structures Safety Zone Interference (N) Limiting size; Notification 1 3 1 5 R 2 Artificial Reef Effect Lights Flaring Drill Muds and Cuttings Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement BOP Fluid Cooling Water Deck Drainage Bilge and Ballast Water Sanitary/Domestic Waste

Water

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 203 Valued Ecological Component: Commercial Fisheries Small Transfer Spills Produced Waterb Garbagec Routine Atmospheric Emissions Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions Communications; Supply Boat and Other Operational Transits Interference (N) 0-1 1-2 5 5 R 2 Gear compensation Communications; Supply Boat on Standby Interference (N) 0 1 5 5 R 2 Gear compensation Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Support Vessels Disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Abandonment/Suspension Interference (N) Notification 0-1 1 1 4 R 2 Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or treated and brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 204 Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with commercial fisheries (Table 7.12), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the commercial fisheries VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.13). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the commercial fisheries VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.2.1 in LGL 2007b).

Cumulative Effects

Given the predicted minimal effects of other projects/activities and the prediction that the residual effects of the proposed Project’s routine activities on the commercial fish VEC are not significant, the cumulative effects on the commercial fisheries VEC are also predicted to be not significant.

This is also consistent with the predicted significance of between-project cumulative effects on the fisheries in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.2.2 in LGL 2007b).

7.2.2.4. Seabirds

Potential interactions of routine activities and seabirds are indicated in Table 7.14. These interactions and the potential effects of the routine activities associated with the proposed delineation/exploration drilling program on seabirds are considered in this section. Section 7.6.4 of LGL (2006a) provides discussion of the potential effects of various delineation/exploration drilling routine activities on the seabird VEC. These discussions remain relevant to this EA.

Project Residual Effects

The potential effects of interactions between seabirds and routine activities indicated in Table 7.14, except for that involving artificial reef effect, are negative. The artificial reef effect would likely have negligible but positive effects on the seabird VEC (LGL 2006a).

Recent seismic monitoring studies in Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Orphan Basin have shown that Leach’s Storm-Petrels regularly strand on seismic ships and appear to be attracted to the ship’s lighting (Moulton et al. 2005a; 2006a; Lang et al. 2006; Abgrall et al. 2007). However, with proper mitigation measures in place, most petrels were released in good condition and are assumed to have survived stranding. During the October-November 2005 and July-August 2006 Husky seismic programs in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, the percentages of stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels released and believed to survive were 69% (74 of 107) and 55% (6 of 11), respectively (Abgrall et al. 2007).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 205 Table 7.13. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Commercial Fisheries (inc. research surveys).

Valued Ecological Component: Commercial Fisheries Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Level of Probability of Significance Rating Scientific Certainty Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) NS 3 Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone NS 3 Artificial Reef Effect Lights Flaring Drill Mud/Cuttings Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement BOP Fluid Cooling Water Deck Drainage Bilge and Ballast Water Sanitary/Domestic Waste Water Small Transfer Spills Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions Supply Boat and Other Operational Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect b Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 c Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or treated and brought to shore for disposal d All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal e Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 206 Table 7.14. Potential Interactions of Routine Project Activities and Seabirds, Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles.

Valued Ecosystem Components: Seabirds, Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Biota Group Project Activity Seabirds Baleen Whales Toothed Whales Seals Sea Turtles Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling x x x x ROV Surveying x x x x Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing x x x x Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect x x x x Lights x x x x x Flaring x Drill Mud/Cuttings x x x x x Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement x x x x BOP Fluid x x x x x Cooling Water x x x x x Deck Drainage x x x x x Bilge and Ballast Water x x x x x Sanitary/Domestic Waste x x x x x Water Small Transfer Spills x x x x x Produced Waterb Garbagec Routine Atmospheric Emissions x x x x x Well Testing Atmospheric x x x x x Emissions Supply Boat Transits x x x x x Supply Boat on Standby x x x x x Helicopter flights x x x x x Noise Rig Operation x x x x x Support Vessels x x x x x Helicopters x x x x x VSP x x x x x Geohazard Surveying x x x x x Abandonment/Suspension x x x x Shore Facilitiesd Other Projects/Activities Hibernia x x x x x Terra Nova x x x x x White Rose x x x x x Exploration x x x x x Fisheries x x x x x Marine Transportation x x x x x Hunting x a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 207 As indicated in Table 7.15 in LGL (2006a), possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of routine activities on the seabird VEC include the following:

x Release of stranded birds; x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Discharge of mud and cuttings at depth; x Total fluids management; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal equipment design and maintenance; x Safe handling practices; x Cleanup protocols; x Spatial and temporal colony avoidance; x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level; and x Ramp up of air gun arrays used in geohazard surveys and VSP.

Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with seabirds (Table 7.15), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the seabird VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.16). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the seabird VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.4.1 in LGL 2007b).

Cumulative Effects

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and existing production activity (e.g., White Rose, Hibernia, and Terra Nova) all have the potential to interact with seabirds (see Table 7.14). Hunting of seabirds occurs outside of the Project Area in nearshore areas. It is very unlikely that routine activities associated with other marine exploration, existing production areas marine transportation and commercial fisheries have much impact on seabirds.

Given the predicted minimal effects of other projects/activities, the large size of the Project Area, and the prediction that the residual effects of the proposed Project’s routine activities on the seabird VEC are not significant, the cumulative effects on seabirds are also predicted to be not significant. This is consistent with the predicted significance of between-project cumulative effects on the seabird VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.4.2. in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 208 Table 7.15. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Seabird VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Seabirds

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) or Mitigation Project Activity Negative (N) Options Environmental Effect Extent Duration Context Context Frequency Magnitude Geographic Reversibility Ecological/ and Economic Economic and Socio-Cultural Socio-Cultural

Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling ROV Surveying Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Release of stranded Lights Attraction (N) 1-2 2 5 4 R birds 2 Attraction (N); Release of stranded Flaring 1 2 2 3 R Mortality (N) birds 2 Treatment; Drill Muds and Cuttings Health Effects (N) Total fluids 0 1 6 4 R 2 management Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement BOP Fluid Health Effects (N) Selection criteria 0 1 6 4 R 2 Cooling Water Health Effects (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Health Effects (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Health Effects (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Health Effects (N); Primary Treatment 0 1 4 5 R Water Increased Nutrients (P); 2 Safe handling practices; Small Transfer Spills Health Effects (N) 1 1-2 1 1-2 R Oil spill response 2 protocols b Produced Water c Garbage Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions Health Effects (N) 0 2 6 5 R and maintenance 2 Well Testing Atmospheric Equipment design Health Effects (N) 0 2 6 5 R Emissions and maintenance 2 Minimization of Supply Boat Transits Disturbance (N) 0-1 3 4 5 R number of transits 2 Supply Boat on Standby Disturbance (N) - 0-1 2 6 5 R 2 Minimization of Helicopter flights Disturbance (N) 1 3 5 5 R number of flights 2 Noise Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0 1-2 6 5 R 2 Support Vessels Disturbance (N) - 0 3 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Disturbance (N) 1 3 5 5 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 209 Valued Ecological Component: Seabirds Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Disturbance (N) 0 1-2 1 2 R Minimization of 2 sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) 0 1-2 1 2 R Minimization of 2 sound source Abandonment/Suspension Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 210 Table 7.16. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Seabird VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Seabirds Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling ROV Surveying Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Lights NS 3 Flaring NS 3 Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste NS 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights NS 3 Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters NS 3 VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 211 7.2.2.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Potential interactions of routine activities and marine mammals and sea turtles are indicated in Table 7.14. These interactions and the potential effects of the routine activities associated with the proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on marine mammals and sea turtles are considered in this section. Section 6.4.18 of LGL (2006a) provides discussion of the potential effects of various drilling routine activities on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC. These discussions remain relevant to this EA.

Project Residual Effects

As indicated in Table 7.14, most routine activities have potential to interact with marine mammals and sea turtles. The potential effects of the indicated interactions of marine mammals/sea turtles and the routine activities (except for safety zone and artificial reef effect) are negative. The safety zone and artificial reef effect interactions could potentially result in the attraction of prey for marine mammals and sea turtles.

As indicated in Table 7.17, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC include the following:

x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Total fluids management; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Safe handling practices; x Equipment design; x Ship avoidance of animal concentrations; x Maximization of helicopter flying altitude; x Geohazard survey and VSP temporal avoidance; x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level; x Geohazard survey and VSP delay start/shut down/safety zone; and x Ramp up of geohazard survey and VSP air gun array.

Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with marine mammals and sea turtles (Table 7.17), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.18). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the marine mammal and sea turtle VECs in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008- 2017 EA (Sections 7.2.5.1 and 7.2.6.1 in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 212 Table 7.17. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Mammals and Sea Turtles

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Geohazard/Site Survey Minimize contact Sediment Sampling Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 1 R 2 with sea bottom Minimize contact ROV Surveying Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 2 R 2 with sea bottom Seismic Testing (see Noise) Minimize contact Geotechnical Testing Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 1 R 2 with sea bottom Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Attraction of prey (P) - 0 2 6 5 R 2 Lights Attraction of prey (P) - 0 1 5 4 R 2 Flaring Treatment; Drill Muds and Cuttings Effect on health (N) Total fluids 0 1 6 4 R 2 management Other Fluids/Solidsa Disruption of sea bottom Cement - 0 1 1 5 R 2 (N) BOP Fluid Effect on health (N) Selection criteria 0 1 3 5 R 2 Cooling Water Effect on health (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Effect on health (N) Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Effect on health (N) Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Prey attraction (P); Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Water Safe handling Small Transfer Spills Effect on health (N) practices; 0-1 1 1-2 1-2 R 2 Oil spill response b Produced Water c Garbage Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions Contamination (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Equipment design Contamination (N) 0 2 6 3 R 2 Emissions and maintenance Avoidance of animal concentrations; Supply Boat Transits Collision (N) 0-1 1 5 5 R 2 Maintenance of steady speed and course Supply Boat on Standby Collision (N) Monitoring 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation Acoustic disturbance (N) - 0-1 2-3 6 5 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 213 Valued Ecological Component: Mammals and Sea Turtles Avoidance of animal concentrations; Support Vessels Acoustic disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 6 5 R 2 Maintenance of steady speed and course Maximization of Helicopters Acoustic disturbance (N) 0-1 1-2 5 5 R 2 flying altitude Ramp up; Delay start; Shut down; VSP Acoustic disturbance (N) Temporal and 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 spatial avoidance; Minimization of sound source Ramp up; Delay start; Shut down; Geohazard Surveying Acoustic disturbance (N) Temporal and 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 spatial avoidance; Minimization of sound source Sea bottom disturbance Minimize activity Abandonment/Suspension 0 1 1 1 R 2 (N) time Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Cumulative Effects

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and existing production activity (e.g., White Rose, Hibernia, and Terra Nova) all have the potential to interact with marine mammals (see Table 7.8). Hunting of marine mammals and sea turtles does not occur inside the Project Area. It is very unlikely that routine activities associated with other marine exploration, existing production areas marine transportation and commercial fisheries have much impact on marine mammals and sea turtles.

Given the predicted minimal effects of other projects/activities, the large size of the Project Area and the prediction that the residual effects of the proposed Project’s routine activities on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC are not significant, the cumulative effects on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC are also predicted to be not significant. This is consistent with the predicted significance of between- project cumulative effects on the marine mammal and sea turtle VECs in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Sections 7.2.5.2 and 7.2.6.2 in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 214 Table 7.18. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect P 3 Lights P 3 Flaring Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement NS 3 BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste P 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights NS 3 Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters NS 3 VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 215 7.2.2.6. Species at Risk

Section 7.6.7 in the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program Environmental Assessment Addendum (LGL 2007a) provides a thorough analysis of the potential effects of routine activities associated with drilling on those species currently listed as endangered, threatened or special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA. The species include the following:

x Blue whale; x North Atlantic right whale; x Leatherback sea turtle; x Northern wolfish; x Spotted wolfish; x Atlantic wolfish; x Ivory Gull; and x Fin whale (Atlantic population).

Species listed by COSEWIC as endangered, threatened, special concern, and candidate (see Table 5.11) are also included in this assessment section. Fish and marine mammal species are grouped for the purposes of the assessment of effects of routine activities on the Species at Risk VEC.

The potential interactions between the routine activities and the Species at Risk are presented in Table 7.19.

Table 7.19. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Species at Risk.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Species at Risk Biota Group/Species Project Activity Leatherback Fishes Ivory Gull Marine Mammals Sea Turtle Gehazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling x x x ROV Surveying x x x Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing x x x Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect x x x Lights x x x x Flaring x x Drill Mud/Cuttings x x x x Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement x x x BOP Fluid x x x x Cooling Water x x x x Deck Drainage x x x x Bilge and Ballast Water x x x x Sanitary/Domestic Waste x x x x Small Transfer Spills x x x x Produced Waterb Garbagec Routine Atmospheric Emissions x x x x

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 216 Valued Ecosystem Component: Species at Risk Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions x x x x Supply Boat Transits x x x Supply Boat on Standby x x x Helicopter flights x x x Noise Rig Operation x x x x Support Vessels x x x x Helicopters x x x x VSP x x x x Geohazard Surveying x x x x Abandonment/Suspension x x x Shore Facilitiesd Other Projects/Activities Hibernia x x Terra Nova x x White Rose x x Exploration x x Fisheries x x Marine Transportation x x Hunting a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events is in Section 8 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

Fishes

The potential interactions of Project routine activities and fishes of the Species at Risk VEC are indicated in Table 7.19. Rationale for the assessment is provided in Section 7.6.2 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a) where effects of routine activities on the fish VEC are discussed. As indicated in Table 7.20, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the fishes of the Species at Risk VEC include the following:

x Minimization of contact with the bottom substrate; x ROV surveying; x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Recycling of drilling muds; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal equipment design and maintenance; x Safe handling practices; x Cleanup protocols; x Spatial and temporal avoidance during geohazard surveying and VSP; and x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 217 Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with fishes of the Species at Risk VEC (Table 7.20), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on fishes of the Species at Risk VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.21). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the fishes of the Species at Risk VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.7 in LGL 2007b).

Table 7.20. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Fishes)

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) or Mitigation Project Activity Negative (N) Options Environmental Effect Extent Context Duration Frequency Ecological/ Magnitude Geographic Reversibility and Economic Socio-Cultural

Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling Sea bottom disturbance Minimize contact (N) with bottom 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 substrate; ROV survey ROV Surveying Sea bottom disturbance Minimize contact (N) with bottom 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 substrate; ROV survey Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing Sea bottom disturbance Minimize contact (N) with bottom 0-1 1 1 1-2 R 2 substrate; ROV survey Presence of Structures No disturbance from Safety Zone - 1 3 6 6 R 2 fishing (P) Increased food and Artificial Reef Effect - 1 2 6 6 R 2 shelter (P) Attraction Lights - 0 2 5 4 R 2 (Undetermined) Attraction Flaring - 0 2 2 3 R 2 (Undetermined) Treatment; Contamination (N); Drill Muds and Cuttings Total fluids 1-2 1 6 4 R 2 Smothering (N) management Other Fluids/Solidsa

Cement Contamination (N) - 0 1 1 5 R 2 BOP Fluid Contamination (N) Selection criteria 0 1 6 4 R 2 Growth (P); Cooling Water Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Shock (N) Deck Drainage Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Contamination (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Nutrients (P); Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Water Contamination (N) Small Transfer Spills Contamination (N) Oil spill response 1 1-2 1 1-2 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 218 Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Fishes) b Produced Water c Garbage Surface contamination Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions 0 2 6 5 R 2 (N) and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Surface contamination Equipment design 0 2 6 5 R 2 Emissions (N) and maintenance Supply Boat Transits Supply Boat on Standby Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation Acoustic disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Support Vessels Acoustic disturbance (N) - 0-1 1 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Acoustic disturbance (N) 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Acoustic disturbance (N) 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Sea bottom disturbance Minimize activity Abandonment/Suspension 0-1 1 1 1 R 2 (N) time Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 219 Table 7.21. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Fishes) Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone P 2-3 Artificial Reef Effect P 2-3 Lights - - Flaring - - Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 2-3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement NS 3 BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste NS 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect b Effects assessment of offshore accidental events is in Section 8.0 c Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal d All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal e Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 220 Ivory Gull

The potential interactions of Project routine activities and the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC are indicated in Table 7.19. Rationale for the assessment was provided in Section 7.6.4 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a) where effects of routine activities on the seabird VEC are discussed. As indicated in Table 7.22, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of routine activities on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC include the following:

x Release of stranded birds; x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Discharge at depth; x Total fluids management; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal equipment design and maintenance; x Safe handling practices; x Cleanup protocols; x Spatial and temporal colony avoidance; x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level; and x Ramp up of air gun arrays used in geohazard surveys and VSP.

Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC (Table 7.22), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.23). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the seabird VEC in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Section 7.2.4.1 in LGL 2007b).

Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle

The potential interactions of Project routine activities and the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk VEC are indicated in Table 7.19. Rationale for the assessment was provided in Sections 7.6.5 and 7.6.6 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL (2006a, 2007a) where effects of routine activities on marine mammals and sea turtles are discussed. As indicated in Table 7.24, possible mitigations to minimize any negative effects of these routine activities on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC include the following:

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 221 Table 7.22. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Ivory Gull)

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling ROV Surveying Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Release of stranded Lights Attraction (N) 1-2 2 5 4 R 2 birds Attraction (N); Release of stranded Flaring 1 2 2 3 R 2 Mortality (N) birds Treatment; Contamination (N); Drill Muds and Cuttings Total fluids 0 1 6 4 R 2 Smothering (N) management Other Fluids/Solidsa Cement BOP Fluid Health Effects (N) Selection criteria 0 1 6 4 R 2 Cooling Water Health Effects (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Health Effects (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Health Effects (N) Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Health Effects (N); Primary Treatment 0 1 4 5 R 2 Water Increased Nutrients (P) Safe handling practices; Small Transfer Spills Health Effects (N) 1 1-2 1 1-2 R 2 Oil spill response protocols Produced Waterb Garbagec Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions Health Effects (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Equipment design Health Effects (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 Emissions and maintenance Minimization of Supply Boat Transits Disturbance (N) 0-1 3 4 5 R 2 number of transits Supply Boat on Standby Disturbance (N) - 0-1 2 6 5 R 2 Minimization of Helicopter flights Disturbance (N) 1 3 5 5 R 2 number of flights Noise Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0 1-2 6 5 R 2 Support Vessels Disturbance (N) - 0 3 6 5 R 2 Helicopters Disturbance (N) - 1 3 5 5 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 222 Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Ivory Gull) Temporal and spatial avoidance; VSP Disturbance (N) 0 1-2 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Temporal and spatial avoidance; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) 0 1-2 1 2 R 2 Minimization of sound source Abandonment/Suspension Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events is in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 223 Table 7.23. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Ivory Gull) Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling ROV Surveying Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Lights NS 3 Flaring NS 3 Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste NS 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights NS 3 Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters NS 3 VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 224 Table 7.24. Environmental Effects Assessment of Potential Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle)

Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Geohazard/Site Survey Minimize contact Sediment Sampling Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 1 R 2 with sea bottom Minimize contact ROV Surveying Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 2 R 2 with sea bottom Seismic Testing (see Noise) Minimize contact Geotechnical Testing Disruption of benthos (N) 0 1 1 1 R 2 with sea bottom Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect Attraction of prey (P) - 0 2 6 5 R 2 Lights Attraction of prey (P) - 0 1 5 4 R 2 Flaring Treatment; Drill Muds and Cuttings Health effects (N) Total fluids 0 1 6 4 R 2 management Other Fluids/Solidsa Disruption of sea bottom Cement - 0 1 1 5 R 2 (N) BOP Fluid Health effects (N) Selection criteria 0 1 3 5 R 2 Cooling Water Health effects (N) Monitoring 0 1 6 5 R 2 Deck Drainage Health effects (N) Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Bilge and Ballast Water Health effects (N) Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Sanitary/Domestic Waste Prey attraction (P); Primary Treatment 0 1 5 5 R 2 Water Health effects (N) Safe handling practices; Small Transfer Spills Health effects (N) 0-1 1 1-2 1-2 R 2 Oil spill response protocols Produced Waterb Garbagec Equipment design Routine Atmospheric Emissions Contamination (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 and maintenance Well Testing Atmospheric Equipment design Contamination (N) 0 2 6 5 R 2 Emissions and maintenance Avoidance of animal concentrations: Supply Boat Transits Collision (N) 0-1 1 5 5 R 2 Maintenance of steady speed and course Supply Boat on Standby Collision (N) Monitoring 0-1 1 6 3 R 2 Helicopter flights Noise Rig Operation Disturbance (N) - 0-1 2-3 6 5 R 2

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 225 Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle) Avoidance of animal concentrations: Support Vessels Disturbance (N) 0-1 2-3 6 5 R 2 Maintenance of steady speed and course When possible, Helicopters Disturbance (N) maintain minimum 0-1 1-2 5 5 R 2 altitude of 600 m Ramp up; Delay start; Shut down; VSP Disturbance (N) Temporal and 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 spatial avoidance; Minimization of sound source Ramp up; Delay start; Shut down; Geohazard Surveying Disturbance (N) Temporal and 1 2-3 1 2 R 2 spatial avoidance; Minimization of sound source Sea bottom disturbance Minimize activity Abandonment/Suspension 0-1 1 1 1 R 2 (N) time Shore Facilitiesd Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects a Effects assessment of offshore accidental events is in Section 8.0 b Produced water associated with well testing will either be flared or brought to shore for disposal c All garbage will be brought to shore for proper disposal d Existing onshore infrastructure will be used

x Treatment of mud and discharge cuttings; x Total fluids management; x Treatment of various liquid and solid wastes; x Minimization of discharge; x Optimal chemical selection; x Monitoring; x Safe handling practices; x Equipment design; x Ship avoidance of animal concentrations; x Maximize helicopter flying altitude; x Geohazard survey and VSP temporal avoidance; x Minimization of geohazard survey and VSP source level; x Geohazard survey and VSP delay start/shut down/safety zone; and x Ramp up of geohazard survey and VSP air gun array.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 226 Based on the ratings of magnitude geographic extent and duration for each routine activity that will potentially interact with the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk (Table 7.24), the reversible residual effects of the routine activities of the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program on the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk are predicted to be not significant (Table 7.25). This is consistent with the predicted significance of effects on the marine mammal and sea turtle VECs in the recently completed Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Sections 7.2.5.1 and 7.2.6.1 in LGL 2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 227 Table 7.25. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Project Routine Activities on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle) Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Geohazard/Site Survey Sediment Sampling NS 3 ROV Surveying NS 3 Seismic Testing (see Noise) Geotechnical Testing NS 3 Presence of Structures Safety Zone Artificial Reef Effect P 3 Lights P 3 Flaring Drill Mud/Cuttings NS 3 Other Fluids/Solidsb Cement NS 3 BOP Fluid NS 3 Cooling Water NS 3 Deck Drainage NS 3 Bilge and Ballast Water NS 3 Sanitary/Domestic Waste P 3 Water Small Transfer Spills NS 3 Produced Waterc Garbaged Routine Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Well Testing Atmospheric Emissions NS 3 Supply Boat Transits NS 3 Supply Boat on Standby NS 3 Helicopter flights NS 3 Noise Rig Operation NS 3 Support Vessels NS 3 Helicopters NS 3 VSP NS 3 Geohazard Surveying NS 3 Abandonment/Suspension NS 3 Shore Facilitiese Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 228 8.0 Accidental Events

This section assesses the potential effects of hydrocarbon-related accidental events in the Project Area, specifically blowouts and batch spills, on the VECs. The first part of this section discusses the probabilities of occurrence of various types of accidental events. The remainder of the section describes the potential fate, behaviour, and trajectories of released oil, and effects predictions for the six VECS.

Specific sections of recently prepared oil and gas industry-related EAs are cross-referenced in this section, particularly with respect to literature-based discussions of the potential effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on the various VECs. All documents cross-referenced were indicated in the introductions of Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0.

8.1. Probability of Accidental Events

StatoilHydro is proposing to drill a maximum of 27 exploration/appraisal/delineation wells during the 2008-2016 period. Two types of accidents that could occur during the Project are blowouts and batch spills. Blowouts are continuous spills lasting hours, days or weeks that could involve the discharge of petroleum gas into the air and crude oil into surrounding waters. Batch spills are short-duration discharges of oil that could occur from accidents on the drilling platforms or support vessels where fuel oil and other petroleum products are stored and handled. The purpose of this section of the EA is to provide estimates on the probabilities of spills.

8.1.1. General Oil Pollution Record of the Offshore Exploration and Production Industry

An in-depth study by the US National Academy of Sciences (Table 8.1 in NAS 2003) indicates that the oil extraction industry worldwide contributes <3% of the total petroleum input to the environment. The record is particularly good in the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) where 28,000 wells were drilled and over 10 billion (109) barrels of oil and condensate were produced from 1972 to 2000; yet only ten blowouts occurred that involved any discharge of oil or condensate. [The total oil discharged in the ten events was only 751 barrels. The international oil and gas industry primarily works with the oil volume unit of petroleum barrel (which is different than a US barrel and a British barrel). There are 6.29 petroleum barrels in one cubic metre (m3). Most spill statistics used in this report are taken from publications of the US Minerals Management Service (MMS), which works exclusively with the oil volume units of barrels.]

This EA derives blowout and spill statistics for the proposed drilling Project from worldwide statistics. Therefore, it is assumed that the practices and technologies that will be used during the proposed drilling will be at least as safe as those used in other offshore oil and gas operations around the world and in accordance with the accepted practices of the international petroleum industry. In particular, because statistics on US offshore oil and gas operations are used extensively in this analysis, it is also assumed that the Jeanne d’Arc Basin/Flemish Pass operations are comparable to operations in US OCS waters from a safety viewpoint.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 229 8.1.2. Sources of Information

Statisticians at the MMS have produced a large body of literature on marine oil-spill probability in the US OCS. Because these oil-spill statistics have been peer-reviewed and are updated regularly, they are used as the primary source for this review. Much of the data are now available on the Internet at http://www.mms.gov/stats/index.htm. Another reference is a study by Scandpower (2000), which analyzes blowout statistics related to activities in the Norwegian and UK sectors of the North Sea, as well as the US Gulf of Mexico OCS region (GOM OCS).

8.1.3. Categories of Accidental Event Size

For ease of analyses, five spill size categories were selected for detailed analyses. The first category is for "extremely large" spills, arbitrarily defined as spills larger than 150,000 bbl (23,800 m3). Good worldwide statistics are available for this size range. The second and third categories are for “very large” and “large” spills, defined by the US Minerals Management Service as spills larger than 10,000 barrels (1,590 m3) and 1,000 barrels (159 m3), respectively. The fourth category is for spills in the range 50 to 999 bbl, and the fifth category is for spills in the 1 to 49 bbl category. The spill size classifications used in this study are summarized in Table 8.1.

Note that the top three categories are cumulative (i.e., the large-spill category (>1,000 bbl) includes the very large and extremely large spills, and the very large category includes extremely large spills).

Table 8.1. Spill Size Categories.

Spill Size Range Spill Size Range Spill Category Name (in barrels) (in m3 and tonnes) Extremely Large spills >150,000 bbl (>23,850 m3 or >20,830 tonnes) Very Large spills >10,000 bbl (>1,590 m3 or >1390 tonnes) Large spills >1,000 bbl (>159 m3 or >139 tonnes) Medium spills 50 - 999 bbl (7.95 m3 - 158.9 m3) Small spills 1 - 49.9 bbl (0.16 m3 - 7.94 m3)

8.1.4. Extremely Large, Very Large and Large Accidental Events

8.1.4.1. Historical Statistics for Extremely Large and Very Large Spills

The main concern from a safety, environmental, and economic perspective is a well blowout that discharges large quantities of oil into the marine environment. In the US, only two moderate-size oil- well blowouts involving oil spills greater in size than 50,000 barrels have occurred since offshore drilling began in the 1950s. One must therefore look beyond the US to find a reasonable database on very large and extremely large oil-well blowouts. Table 8.2 lists all worldwide blowouts involving the spillage of more than 10,000 barrels each.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 230 Table 8.2. Historical Very Large (>10,000 bbl) Oil Spills from Offshore Blowouts, 1970- Present.

Area Spill Size (bbl) Date Operation Underway USA, Santa Barbara 77,000 1969 Production USA, S. Timbalier 26 53,000 1970 Wireline USA, Main Pass 41 30,000 1970 Production Dubai 2,000,000 1973 Development Drilling Trinidad 10,000 1973 Development Drilling North Sea/Norway 158,000 1977 Workover Mexico (Ixtoc 1) 3,000,000 1979 Exploration Drilling Nigeria 200,000 1980 Development Drilling Iran 100,000 1980 Development Drilling Saudi Arabia 60,000 1980 Exploration Drilling Irana ? 1983 Production Mexico 247,000 1986 Work-over Mexico 56,000 1987 Exploration Drilling USA, Timbalier Bay/Greenhill 11,500 1992 Production Note: :a The Iranian Norwuz oil-well blowouts in the Gulf of Arabia, which started in February 1983, were not caused by exploration or drilling accidents but were a result of military actions during the Iraq/Iran war. Source: Gulf 1981, updated to 2001 by reference to the Oil Spill Intelligence Report.

With respect to “extremely large” spills (i.e., oil spills 150,000 barrels in size), there have been five such spills in the history of offshore drilling, two of which occurred during development drilling and two of which occurred during production or work-over activities. The fifth was from exploration drilling, namely the 1979 Ixtoc 1 oil-well blowout in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. This largest oil spill in history was caused by drilling procedures (used by PEMEX, Mexico’s national oil company) that are not practiced in US or Canadian waters. These drilling procedures are contrary to US and Canadian regulations and to the accepted practices within the international oil and gas industry.

Spill frequencies are best expressed in terms of a risk exposure factor such as number of wells drilled. It is estimated from a number of Internet sources that the number of exploration wells drilled worldwide to date is approximately 35,000. There has been only one extremely large spill (>150,000 bbl) during offshore exploration drilling (Table 8.2), so the frequency up to the present is 2.85 x 10-5 spills per exploration well drilled (1/35,000). In this and other similar calculations in the report, spill frequency rates are kept as three-decimal data, and the probability numbers are rounded off to two decimal points.

A similar analysis can be done for so-called “very large” spills (i.e., those larger than 10,000 barrels). Table 8.2 indicates that three exploration drilling blowouts have produced spills in the “very large” spill category (including Ixtoc 1), resulting in a spill frequency for “very large” spills of 8.57 x 10-5 spills per well drilled (3/35,000).

8.1.4.2. Historical Statistics for Large Spills (>1,000 bbl) from Blowouts

Almost no historical information is available on blowout-related spills in the size range of 1,000 bbl to 10,000 bbl. These likely have occurred with greater regularity than very large spills (>10,000 bbl), but historical information is lacking. Certainly no large spills (>1,000 bbl) from blowouts have occurred in US GOM OCS operations since 1972. However, it seems likely that several have occurred elsewhere.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 231 To check this possibility, spill statistics published by the Oil Spill Intelligence Report (OSIR) (Cutter Information Corp., Arlington, MA) were analyzed. OSIR publishes annual lists detailing all worldwide spills larger in size than 10,000 gallons (238 bbl). Annual reports from 1994 to 1999 were available and surveyed.

Only one large spill (>1,000 bbl) from a blowout occurred during this six-year period. It happened on March 15, 1998 off India, and involved 100,000 gallons (2,380 bbl) of crude. It can be estimated that during this six-year period, approximately 20,000 exploration and development wells were drilled offshore on a worldwide basis. This translates to a frequency of 5.0 x 10-5 large spills (>1,000 bbl) per well drilled. This frequency is smaller than the above-calculated value for very large (>10,000) bbl spills, which is 5.33 x 10-5. The lower value can be explained by a number of factors including incompleteness of the data. It is certainly possible that better blowout prevention methods were developed and used in the 1990s compared to the 1970s and 1980s when most offshore blowout occurred (Table 8.2). For the purposes of this EA, spills in this size category are not discussed further because of uncertainties associated with the database.

8.1.4.3. Large Spills in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area (NLOA)

The lone recorded large spill of hydrocarbons in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area occurred in November 2004 at Petro-Canada’s Terra Nova production site (Table 8.3). The spill involved approximately 1,038 bbl (165,000 L) of crude oil. The spill was associated with the FPSO’s produced water separation process. No large spills have occurred as a result of exploration/delineation drilling.

8.1.4.4. Calculated Probabilities of Extremely Large, Very large and Large Spills for StatoilHydro’s Proposed Nine-Year Drilling Program

Based on 27 exploration and/or appraisal/delineation wells being drilled over a nine year period, the spill frequencies and probabilities estimated for the Project would be as follows.

x Predicted frequency of extremely large oil spills (>150,000 bbl) from blowouts during the proposed nine year period is 27 x 2.85 x 10-5 = 7.695 x 10-4 spills. This equates to an annual spill probability of one in 11,696 and a Project nine-year spill probability of 1-in-1,300.

x Predicted frequency of very large oil spills (>10,000 bbl) from blowouts during the proposed nine year period is 27 x 8.57 x 10-5 = 2.314 x 10-3 spills. This equates to an annual spill probability of one in 3,890 and a Project nine-year spill probability of 1-in-432.

x Predicted frequency of large oil spills (>1,000 bbl) from blowouts during the proposed nine year period is 27 x 5.0 x 10-5 = 1.35 x 10-3 spills. This equates to an annual spill probability of one in 6,667 and a Project nine-year spill probability of 1-in-741.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 232 Table 8.3. Oil Spill (> 1 Litre) Data Pertaining to the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2008.

Number of Spills by Oil Type Volume of Spills by Oil Type (L) Year Synthetic Synthetic Crude Diesel Hydraulic Based Others2 TOTAL Crude Diesel Hydraulic Based Others2 TOTAL Mud/Fluid1 Mud/Fluid1 2008 1 0 0 0 2 3 140 0 0 0 52 192 2007 0 0 0 2/0 3 5 0 0 0 75,089/0 93 75,182 2006 3 0 4 4/0 0 11 605 0 18 3,630/0 0 4,253 2005 4 0 6 1/0 1 12 17 0 24 4,030/0 140 4,211 2004 8 1 9 4/1 3 26 165,813 3 68 108,101/2 12 273,999 2003 2 1 8 3/1 1 16 11 100 275 30,100/2 925 31,413 2002 2 1 0 1/1 2 7 5 10 0 12,000/250 11 12,276 2001 0 2 4 1/1 1 9 0 5 118 5,000/600 3 5,726 2000 2 0 0 5/0 1 8 220 0 0 4,700/0 2 4,922 1999 12 7 4 3/5 7 38 983 924 690 7,340/32 265 10,234 1998 7 8 0 0/2 8 25 375 3,312 0 0/2,008 95 5,790 1997 2 6 2 0/0 1 11 1,004 476 211 0/0 40 1,731 TOTAL 43 26 37 35 30 171 169,173 4,830 1,404 252,884 1,638 429,929 Notes: 1 Includes both synthetic based mud and synthetic based fluid. Numbers and volumes of each separated by /. 2 Includes mixed oil, condensate, well bore fluids, unidentified oil, jet, lubricating oil Source: C-NLOPB website, 13 February 2008.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 233 8.1.5. Blowouts Involving Gas Only or Small Discharges of Oil

Gas blowouts from offshore wells that do not involve a discharge of liquid petroleum are generally believed to be relatively innocuous to the marine environment. However, such blowouts represent a threat to human life and property because of the possibility of explosion and fire.

Two sources are used for historical statistics on blowouts involving only gas or small oil discharges. A particularly good source for US blowouts is the MMS web site because MMS keeps track of spills down to one barrel in size. This is not the case in other parts of the world. A good source for blowouts in the North Sea and in the US GOM is Scandpower (2000), although no reference is given as to whether or not oil spills were involved in the reported blowouts.

8.1.5.1. MMS US GOM OCS Statistics

Data representing the 34-year period from 1972 to 2005 are contained in Table 8.4. Note that there are no large spills (>1,000 bbl) in the entire database. However, if the database had started in 1970, two very large blowout spills would have been included of 30,000 barrels and 53,000 barrels respectively (Table 8.2).

The total number of exploration and development wells drilled in the US OCS from 1972 to 2005 is not shown in Table 8.4, but it is derived from other sections of MMS (1997), the E&P Forum (1996), and from current Internet sources. The approximate numbers of exploration wells drilled in the US during the thirty four-year period are 10,000. The number of blowouts from exploration well drilling is indicated as 67. Therefore, the blowout frequency is 67/10,000 or 6.7 x 10-3 blowouts per exploration well drilled or one blowout for every 149 exploration wells drilled. Statistics suggest that most blowouts occurred in gas-prone fields or were shallow-gas blowouts.

8.1.5.2. Calculated Probability of Blowout During StatoilHydro’s Proposed Nine-Year Drilling Program

There are a maximum of 27 exploration/delineation wells to be drilled during the nine-year drilling Project between 2008 and 2016. The calculated blowout frequency is 27 x 6.7 x 10-3 = 1.809 x 10-1 or an approximate one-in-six chance of a blowout occurring over the 27-well Project. However, the chances of having an oil discharge associated with the blowout are extremely low, actually 4.5% (three oil spills from 67 exploration well blowouts) according to the statistics in Table 8.4. This means the chance of having a blowout involving any oil is 0.045 x 6.7 x 10-3 = 3.015 x 10-4 or a 1-in-3,317 probability per well drilled. Therefore, for the proposed 27 well Project, the predicted nine-year spill frequency is 27 x 3.015 x 10-4 = 8.141 x 10-3, or a 1-in-123 probability.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 234 Table 8.4. Blowouts and Spillage from US Federal Offshore Wells, 1972-2005.

Well Year Drilling Blowouts Non-drilling Blowouts Starts Exploration Development Production Workover Completion Total Blowouts OCS Production No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl MMbbl 1972 845 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 396.0 1973 820 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 384.8 1974 816 1 0 1 0 4 275 0 0 0 0 6 275 354.9 1975 372 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 325.3 1976 1,038 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 314.5 1977 1,064 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 9 0 296.0 1978 980 3 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 11 0 288.0 1979 1,149 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 274.2 1980 1,307 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 8 1 274.7 1981 1,284 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 64 3 0 10 64 282.9 1982 1,035 1 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 314.5 1983 1,151 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 350.8 1984 1,386 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 385.1 1985 1,000 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 6 40 380.0 1986 1,538 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 384.3 1987 772 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 60 8 60 358.8 1988 1,007 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 332.7 1989 911 2 0 15 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 313.7 1990 987 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 1 0 6 9 304.5 1991 667 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 326.4 1992 943 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 337.9 1993 7173 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 352.7 1994 7173 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 370.4 1995 7173 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 429.2 1996 921 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 433.1 1997 1,333 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 466.0 1998 1,325 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 7 2 490.5 1999 364 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 534.6 2000 1,061 5 200 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 200 551.6 2001 1,007 1 0 4 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 10 1 591.5 2002 828 1 0 2 0 2 350 1 1 0 0 6 351 602.1 2003 835 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 10 0 0 5 11 594.7 2004 861 2 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 17 567.0 2005 8594 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 557.34 Total 32,617 67 316 91 1 24 627 38 125 14 60 205 1,131 13520.7 Notes: 1 Two of the drilling blowouts occurred during drilling for sulphur. 2 Two of the drilling blowouts occurred during drilling for sulphur. 3 Estimated: cumulative total correct. 4 Forecast.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 235 8.1.6. Smaller Platform Spills

8.1.6.1. Historical Record

Smaller spills (i.e., 1 to 999 bbl) occur with some regularity at offshore platforms. Table 8.5 indicates the number of small (1 to 49 bbl) and medium (50 to 999 bbl) spills of hydrocarbons from facilities and operations on federal OCS leases from the period 1971 to 2006 (Cheryl Anderson, Operations Research Analyst, MMS, pers. comm.).

Table 8.5. Spill Frequency from Platforms for Spills in the Ranges of 1 to 49 bbl and 50 to 999 bbl (US OCS 1971 to 2006).

Spill Size Range Number of Spills Spills per Well Drilled 1 to 49 bbl 2,421 7.717 x 10-2 50 to 999 bbl 165 3.574 x 10-3 Note: Total volume of 2,421 + 165 spills = 43,630 barrels.

The spills involved various petroleum types including crude oil, condensate, refined product, mineral oil, and diesel. The period between 1971 and 2006 involved the drilling of 48,983 wells (MMS 2007). This means that 2,421/48,983 = 4.943 x 10-2 spills of 1 to 49 bbl occurred for every well drilled (1-in-20 probability), and that 165/48,983 or 3.368 x 10-3 spills of 50 to 999 bbl occurred for every well drilled (1-in-297 probability). Note that the 48,983 wells drilled include both exploration and production wells.

It is of interest to note that the small spill frequencies in the Gulf of Mexico OCS were relatively high in its early stages, but have decreased by almost a factor of ten over the past 25 years. This is shown in Figure 8.1.

3.50E-01

3.00E-01 small spills Trendline 2.50E-01

2.00E-01

1.50E-01 spills per wells drilled wells per spills

1.00E-01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 8.1. Frequency of Small Platform Spills (1 to 49 bbl) in the US GOM, 1971 to 1995.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 236 8.1.6.2. Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area

Spill statistics for 1997 through 2008 are shown for all oil and gas operations in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area (NLOA) in Table 8.3 (C-NLOPB web site; www.cnlopb.nl.ca). Six medium spills (50 to 999 bbl) occurred between 1997 and 2008, all of them involving synthetic based mud (one during exploration drilling and five during development/production drilling). Small and medium spill statistics associated with only exploration/delineation drilling in the NLOA are presented in Table 8.6.

Between 1997 and December 2007, 35 exploration/delineation wells have been drilled in the NLOA. Based on these NLOA statistics, the calculated frequency of ‘medium’ spills associated with exploration/delineation drilling is 1/35 or 2.856 x 10-2 (Table 8.7). This translates to the occurrence of one ‘medium’ spill for every 35 exploration/delineation wells drilled.

Between 1997 and December 2007, 39 ‘small’ spills were reported in the NLOA. Twelve of the reported ‘small’ spills occurred during exploration/delineation drilling. Based on these NLOA statistics, the calculated frequency of ‘small’ spills associated with exploration/delineation drilling is 12/35 or 3.429 x 10-1 small spills per exploration/delineation well (Table 8.7).

Table 8.6. Small and Medium Hydrocarbon Spills (1-1,000 bbl) During Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007.

Number of Year Exploration/Delineation Number of Small and Medium Spills Wells Drilled 1997 2 0 1998 1 3 1999 7 5 2000 4 1 2001 0 0 2002 3 0 2003 4 1 2004 0 0 2005 4 0 2006 8 1 2007 2 2 Total 35 13 Source: C-NLOPB September 2007.

Table 8.7. Small and Medium Spill Frequencies, Based on US GOM and NLOA Experiences.

NLOA Experience, US GOM Experience, 1997 to 2006, Spill Size Range 1971 to 1995, spills per exploration/delineation well spills/well drilled1 drilled Small Spill 4.943 x 10-2 (1-in-20 probability) 3.429 x 10-1 (1-in-3 probability) 1 to 49 bbl Medium Spill 3.368 x 10-3 (1-in-297 probability) 2.856 x 10-2 (1-in-35 probability) >50 to 999 bbl Note: 1 Exploration and production wells.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 237 8.1.6.3. Calculated Frequencies for StatoilHydro’s Proposed Nine-Year Drilling Program

Table 8.8 indicates the calculated accidental event statistics for this Project, based on US GOM statistics.

Table 8.8. Predicted Number of Blowouts and Spills for StatoilHydro’s Proposed Nine-Year Drilling Program, Based on US GOM Statistics.

No. of Events Probability Event Historical Frequencya (27 wells) (27 wells)

Gas blowout during exploration drilling 6.70 x 10-3 /well drilled 1.81 x 10-1 1 in 6 Exploration drilling blowout with oil spill 8.57 x 10-5/well drilled 2.31 x 10-3 1 in 432 > 10,000 bbl Exploration drilling blowout with oil spill 2.85 x 10-5/well drilled 7.70 x 10-4 1 in 1,300 > 150,000 bbl Platform-based oil spill, 50 to 999 bbl 3.368 x 10-3/well drilled 9.09 x 10-2 1 in 11 Platform-based oil spill, 1 to 49 bbl 4.943 x 10-2/well drilled 1.33 1 in 0.75 Note: a The US GOM.

Based on frequencies calculated for exploration/delineation wells in the NLOA (Table 8.7), the predicted number of small and medium oil spills that would occur during the 27-well Project is 9 and 0.77, respectively. Based on US GOM statistics (Table 8.8), the predicted number of small and medium spills during the proposed 27-well Project is 1.33 and 0.09, respectively. Newfoundland and Labrador statistics predict higher frequencies of small and medium spills than the US GOM statistics likely due to the smaller database compiled over a shorter duration.

8.1.7. Summary of Blowout and Spill Frequencies

The calculated oil spill frequencies are summarized in Table 8.8. The highest frequencies are for the smallest, platform-based spills (i.e., 1 to 49 bbl) which have a >100% chance of occurring during the 27- well Project. The average size of this small spill type can be expected to be less than 10 barrels. There is a 10% chance that a platform-based spill (50 to 999 bbl) might occur over the course of the entire drilling Project.

The chances of an extremely large (>150,000 bbl) and very large (>10,000 bbl) oil well blowouts from exploration/delineation drilling are very small: 0.07% and 0.14%, respectively. These predictions are based on worldwide blowout data and are strongly influenced by blowouts that have occurred in Mexico, Africa and the Middle East, where drilling and production regulations may be less rigorous than in North America. It might be reasonable to expect even lower frequencies for this Project in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin/Flemish Pass area given the significant improvement of technology and/or practice over the past 15 years. There is an estimated 12% chance of having a blowout involving gas only during the proposed nine-year Project.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 238 8.2. Oil Spill Fate/Behaviour and Trajectory Modeling

The results of three oil spill fate and behaviour modeling exercises are being used for this EA. All three modeling exercises were conducted by SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. (SL Ross). These include

1. The Fate and Behaviour of Hypothetical Oil Spills from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen Drilling Program (SL Ross 2008) for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd; 2. Oil Spill Fate and Behaviour Modeling in Support of Husky’s 2007 Drilling EA (SL Ross 2007b in LGL 2007b) for Husky Oil Operations Ltd.; and 3. The Fate and Behaviour of Hypothetical Oil Spills from the Petro-Canada Flemish Pass Exploration Project (SL Ross 2002 in Petro-Canada 2002) for Petro-Canada.

Hibernia crude oil property data (SL Ross 2006 in SL Ross 2008) were used for the StatoilHydro modeling, White Rose crude oil property data (SL Ross 2007a in LGL 2007b) for the Husky modeling, and Terra Nova crude oil property data (SL Ross 2001 in Petro-Canada 2002) for the Petro-Canada modeling. Hibernia crude was selected for the Mizzen modeling because it is most similar to crude oil taken from a previous exploration well in this area but for which detailed oil properties are not available. The Hibernia crude has a high pour point after 12 to 24 hours of weathering and it also forms a stable emulsion, resulting in very persistent oil.

8.2.1. 2008 Modeling for StatoilHydro

Spill scenarios used in the recent oil fate and behaviour modeling for StatoilHydro’s proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program included above-surface and deep water subsea crude oil/gas blowouts, and small platform or vessel fuel oil spills. A 5,000 m3/day oil flow and 80 m3/m3 of oil gas flow were selected for use in the blowout modeling. Diesel fuel volumes of 10 and 100 bbl were used in the batch spill modeling. Blowout modeling was conducted at one release location (i.e., Mizzen) during both summer and winter, and batch spill modeling was conducted using the two volumes of diesel fuel in both summer and winter. Monthly oil slick trajectory modeling was also conducted, using the one release location at Mizzen. Trajectories were modeled over a thirty day period (Appendix 4). The current (Han 2007) and wind/wave (Swail et al. 2006) databases used in the modeling for StatoilHydro are currently preferred to those used in the oil spill modeling for the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study in 2000.

The following sections summarize the results of oil spill fate and behaviour modeling recently conducted for the proposed StatoilHydro Project (SL Ross 2008).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 239 8.2.2. Blowouts

8.2.2.1. Above-Surface Blowouts

In above-surface blowouts, oil and gas discharges into the atmosphere from some point on the drilling platform above the water surface and subsequently falls on the water surface some distance downwind. The gas and oil will exit at high velocity and fragment into a cloud of fine droplets. The height of the cloud above the discharge point will vary depending on the gas velocity and the prevailing wind velocity. The fate of the oil and gas is determined by atmospheric dispersion processes and the settling velocity of the oil particles. The oil will rain down with larger droplets falling closer to the discharge point, a portion evaporating in the air and the remainder eventually landing on the water surface. Wind and water currents will affect the ultimate distribution of the oil on the water surface in the fallout zone (SL Ross 2008).

The predicted initial characteristics and behaviour of an oil slick resulting from an above-surface blowout at Mizzen during both winter and summer seasons are indicated in Table 8.9. The results shown for the two seasons are similar. There is slightly less in-air evaporation and a slightly wider initial slick predicted for winter. Initial slick thickness in summer is greater than in winter. The oil will be very persistent during both seasons and will not readily disperse. Rather it will be progressively broken into mats, blobs and particles of viscous oil that will diffuse over the water surface. The maximum dispersed oil concentrations predicted for above-surface blowouts in both winter and summer are less than 0.1 ppm.

Table 8.9. Characterisitcs of Surface Slick and In-Water Dispersed Oil Cloud for Winter and Summer Above-Surface Blowout at Mizzen.

Initial Slick Maximum In-Air Initial Slick Final Final Slick Survival Dispersed Oil Season Evaporation Thickness Evaporation Dispersion Width Time Concentration (%) (mm) (%) (%) (m) (hr) (ppm) Winter 16 70 2.3 >720 37 <1 <0.1 Summer 19 53 4.7 >720 37 <1 <0.1 Source: SL Ross (2008).

The characteristics of a summer surface patch of oil during the 30 days post-discharge at Mizzen are indicated in Table 8.10. A similar oil distribution can be expected for a winter scenario. After two days under average wind and wave conditions, the surface oil distribution is estimated at 0.6 g/m2 of water surface, the oil will have traveled about 35 km, the average slick thickness will be less than 1 µm, and less than 0.02% of the oiled zone’s surface will be covered with oil. The oil will be fragmented by wave action and will have spread over a wider area due to oceanic diffusion (13.6 km2).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 240 Table 8.10. Surface Oil Coverage Estimates for Summer Above-Surface Blowout at Mizzen.

Percentage of Time from Emulsion Total Oiled Average Oil Oiled Zone’s Oil Volume Oil Coverage Discharge Volume Area Coverage Surface Covered (m3) (g/m2) (days) (m3) (km2) (µm) with Oil (%) 0. 10.6 10.6 0.02 4,720 4,116 100 1 38.6 9.6 2.7 3.59 3.18 0.08 2 37.4 9.4 13.6 0.69 0.61 0.016 5 35.9 9.0 116 0.08 0.07 0.002 15 34.0 8.5 1,518 0.006 0.005 0.0001 30 32.8 8.2 7,686 0.0001 0.001 0.00003 Source: SL Ross (2008).

8.2.2.2. Deep Water Subsea Blowouts

In deep water subsea blowouts (>900 m), the high water pressure and low water temperatures will likely cause the gas to combine with the seawater to form solid, ice-like substances known as hydrates. Gas volume may also be depleted through dissolution into the water. Considering the potential loss of gas, the driving buoyancy of a rising gas bubble plume may be completely lost, resulting in oil droplets rising slowly towards the water surface under gravity forces alone. The movement of oil droplets will be affected by cross currents during their rise towards surface, resulting in the separation of oil droplets according to drop size. The larger diameter oil droplets will surface first and smaller droplets will be carried further down current before they reach surface. Oil droplet size distribution is one of the critical factors that will determine the characteristics of the surface slick that forms above the subsea blowout location (SL Ross 2008).

The predicted initial characteristics and behaviour of an oil slick resulting from a deep water subsea blowout at Mizzen during summer seasons are indicated in Table 8.11. It is predicted that the largest oil droplets will surface less than 0.5 km horizontal distance from source in about two hours. They will contain the highest percentage of total oil discharged, and, therefore, the surface slick will be thickest nearest the source (maximum of 18.4 mm in summer and 9.8 mm in winter). The smallest droplets are predicted to surface after more than 55 hours about 13 km horizontal distance from source. The width of the slick that initially forms will be about 50 m wide nearest source and about 2.5 km at its widest point.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 241 Table 8.11. Characterisitcs of Initial Surface Slick for Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen.

Horizontal Drop Diameter Range Rise Time Slick Width Slick Thickness Distance from (mm)a (hr) (m) (mm) Source (m) <0.00012 55+ 2,445 0.01 12,989 0.0003-0.00033 11.6 395 0.34 2,739 0.00051-0.0006 5.8 176 1.49 1,368 0.00146-0.002 2.0 51 18.35 478 Note: a Sample of drop diameter ranges. Source: Adapted from Table 6 in SL Ross (2008).

The behaviour of the oil will vary along its 12.5 km long rise zone (Table 8.12). The thicker oil accumulating nearer the source will persist longer than the thin oil slicks that form from the smaller oil droplets. Percentage evaporation of all surfacing oil will range from 32 to 36%. Oil in slick sections with thickness less than 0.5 mm will completely disperse within 64 hours in the summer and 277 hours in the winter. The thickest oil will not completely disperse after 30 days and will behave similarly to oil discharged above–surface as described above. In-water oil concentrations exceeding 0.1 ppm are predicted to occur only under the thick slick areas in summer and are predicted to last only six hours. During the six hours, the dispersed cloud is predicted to move 3.7 km and reach a width of 570 m.

Table 8.12. Characteristics of Slick and Dispersed Oil Cloud for Winter and Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen.

Cloud Initial Initial Slick Maximum Time Width Distance Slick Slick Survival Evaporation Dispersion Dispersed Oil to 0.1 Season at 0.1 to 0.1 ppm Thickness Width Time (%) (%) Concentration ppm ppm (km) (mm) (m) (hr) (ppm) (hr) (m) Winter 9.8 50 >720 32 2.5 <0.1 - - - Winter 0.5 230 277 36 64 <0.1 - - - Summer 18.4 50 >720 32 15 0.3 6 570 3.7 Summer 0.5 320 64 33 67 <0.1 - - - Source: SL Ross (2008).

The characteristics of thick oil portions from a summer deep water subsea blowout during the 30 days post-discharge at Mizzen are indicated in Table 8.13. After two days under average wind and wave conditions, the surface oil distribution is estimated at 1.54 g/m2 of water surface, the average slick thickness will be less than 2 µm, and less than 0.02% of the oiled zone’s surface will be covered with oil. The oil will be fragmented by wave action and will have spread over a wider area due to oceanic diffusion (15.5 km2).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 242 Table 8.13. Oil Coverage Estimates for Thick Oil Slick Portions from Summer Deep Water Subsea Blowout at Mizzen.

Percentage of Oiled Zone’s Time from Emulsion Total Oiled Average Oil Oil Volume Oil Coverage Surface Discharge Volume Area Coverage (m3) (g/m2) Covered with (days) (m3) (km3) (µm) Oil (%) 0 36 36 0.017 2,040 1,715 100 1 33 28 3.5 8.14 7.15 0.08 2 61 27 15.5 1.75 1.54 0.018 5 103 26 122 0.2 0.18 0.0023 15 91 23 1,546 0.015 0.014 0.00018 30 75 19 7,757 0.002 0.0018 0.000036 Source: SL Ross (2008).

8.2.3. Batch Spills

Batch diesel fuel spill characteristics predicted by modeling are indicated in Table 8.14. The percentages of spilled diesel that will evaporate approximate 36% in summer and 28% in winter. Higher winds tend to disperse the spills faster in winter compared to the summer scenario. Survival times for a 10 bbl batch spills in winter and summer are 14 and 24 hours, respectively. These increase to 21 hours in winter and 33 hours in summer for 100 bbl batch spills. Spill travel distances before dissipation are similar in summer and winter. A 10 bbl spill and a 100 bbl spill will dissipate at approximate distances of 14 to 16 km, and 20 to 25 km from source, respectively.

The peak diesel concentrations in the upper 10 m of the water column below the spill are estimated to be 1.0 to 2.0 ppm for the 10 bbl spill, and 1.9 to 3.7 ppm for the 100 bbl spills. As indicated in Table 8.14, the higher concentrations would be during the winter due to a higher dispersion rate as a result of stronger winds.

Within 16 hours, the oil clouds from the winter 10 bbl spill will expand to a width of about 1.2 km and diffuse to 0.1 ppm oil concentration (assuming a conservative 10 m mixing depth). The summer 10 bbl spill will diffuse to 0.1 ppm within 10.5 hours and have a width of about 0.76 km at this point. The dispersed oil clouds from the 100 barrel spills will diffuse to 0.1 ppm within about 40 hours. The dispersed oil clouds from the 100 barrel releases will reach diameters of about 3.7 km.

The dispersed oil clouds from the winter 10 barrel spills will travel a total of about 17 km prior to reaching 0.1 ppm. In the summer, the dispersed oil clouds will travel only about 7 km before concentrations drop below 0.1 ppm. The dispersed oil clouds from the 100 barrel spills will travel about 39 km in the winter and 24 km in the summer.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 243 Table 8.14. Characteristics of Batch Diesel Fuel Spills at Mizzen.

Peak Time to Time Cloud Initial Slick Maximum Total Distance Dispersed Distance Spill Peak Oil to Width Slick Survival Slick Evapor- to Loss Oil to 0.1 Volume Season Concent- 0.1 at 0.1 Width Time Width ation of Slick Concen- ppm (bbl) ration ppm ppm (m) (hr) (m) (%) (km) tration (km) (hr) (km) (km) (ppm) 10 Winter 10 14 50 29 16.5 2.0 1.5 16 1.2 17 10 Summer 10 24 54 37 14 1.0 1.5 10 0.76 7 100 Winter 32 21 122 28 25 3.7 3.0 42 3.8 39 100 Summer 32 33 130 36 20 1.9 3.0 40 3.6 24 Source: SL Ross (2008).

8.2.3.1. Spill Trajectory Modeling

Oil slick trajectories have been modelled for winter and summer conditions to provide an example of the motion of a single slick of oil over a 30-day tracking period using historical wind data (SL Ross 2008). The winter spill was started on February 1, 2005 and the summer spill on August 1, 2005. The MSC50 wind data for these dates was used in the trajectory analysis along with the February and August water current maps. The results of these trajectories are provided in Figure 6.

This spill modeling is similar to that completed in a previous study (SL Ross 2002 in Petro-Canada 2002) for Petro-Canada and EnCana in this area but with updated input parameters. New historical wind and water current data were used in the analysis. Surface blowouts were modeled using oil flows of 5000 m3/day and a gas flow of 80 m3 per m3 of oil. The detailed properties of Hibernia crude oil were used in the modeling as they more closely matched oil found in an earlier well drilled in the vicinity (Mizzen L-11).

Spill trajectories were run from the Mizzen site using the MSC50 historical wind data and the seasonal water current mapping indicated in Section 8.2.1. Oil spillets were released at the beginning of each day over the period of 1954 to 2005 and each spillet was tracked for a 90-day period. A total of 19,032 trajectories were run in this analysis. There were no shoreline contacts from any of the spill trajectories originating from this site.

A release of oil was tracked for every day of the year, for the 52 years of available wind data. The spills were tracked until they dispersed from the surface, were on the surface a minimum of 30 days and diffused to an average concentration on the surface of less than 1 gram of oil per 25 square metres of surface area, or exited the study bounds. The three criteria used to determine the duration of the slick tracking were selected to provide conditions at the end of the slick life that are unlikely to generate impacts.

The trajectory data have been further processed, on a monthly basis, to identify the probability of a slick reaching an area on the Grand Banks. None of the spill trajectory modeling results for the Mizzen release location indicated any oil contact with the Newfoundland coast. The slick movements for all spills released in a given month of the year, for the 52 years of data, have been processed to identify the percent of the spills released in the month that enter a 1 km x 1 km grid placed over the Grand Banks.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 244 Generally, surface releases at Mizzen resulted in easterly movement of the oil in summer and more southerly movement of oil in winter. The monthly trajectory probability maps are included in Appendix 4.

8.2.4. Other Modeling Relevant to the Project

As already indicated in this section, SL Ross recently conducted oil fate and behaviour modeling for Husky (SL Ross 2007b in LGL 2007b) and Petro-Canada (SL Ross 2002 in Petro-Canada 2002) which is relevant to the EA of the proposed StatoilHydro Project. Both release locations used for Husky and four of the release locations used for Petro-Canada occur within the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area.

8.2.4.1. 2007 Modeling for Husky

Details of the results of 2007 modeling for Husky are available in the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, and Appendix 2 in LGL 2007b). The two release locations used in the subsea blowout fate and behaviour modeling and the spill trajectory modeling occur in the southwest (85 m water depth) and central (285 m water depth) portions of the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area.

For the above-surface 15,900 bopd crude oil blowout fate and behaviour modeling, the predicted initial slick was wider and thinner in winter compared to summer. Slick survival exceeded 30 days during both seasons.

For the subsea crude oil blowout fate and behaviour modeling, the predicted initial slick was wider at the deeper release location. Slick survival exceeded 30 days regardless of release location and season. The predicted peak dispersed oil concentration was less than 0.001 ppm regardless of location and season. Details regarding slick differences due to discharge flow rate (4,170 and 20,250 bopd) are available in LGL (2007b).

Both diesel and crude oil were used in the batch spill modeling for Husky. Diesel slicks were predicted to survive longer in summer than winter although slick survival was less than one day in both seasons. The maximum predicted peak dispersed diesel concentration was higher in winter (5.0 ppm) than in summer (2.7 ppm). The predicted crude oil slick survival exceeded 30 days in both seasons, with more than 70% of the initial slick remaining at surface. The predicted peak dispersed oil concentration was less than 0.01 ppm in both seasons. Emulsification was predicted to begin sooner and continue at a greater rate in winter. Details regarding diesel and crude oil slick differences due to spill volume (10 and 100 bbl) are available in LGL (2007b).

None of the spill trajectory modeling results for Husky indicated any oil contact with the Newfoundland coast. Spill trajectory modeling results indicated a tendency for oil to move east and southeast, regardless of release location. Winter trajectories were more likely to extend further than those in summer. The highest likelihood of an oil spill reaching the Flemish Cap occurs with trajectories originating from the deeper release location.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 245 As indicated above, more details of the Husky modeling can be found in (SL Ross 2007b in the Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area 2008-2017 EA (LGL 2007b).

8.2.4.2. 2002 Modeling for Petro-Canada

Details of the results of 2002 modeling for Petro-Canada are available in the Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program EA (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.3, and Appendices C and E in Petro-Canada 2002). One of the release locations used in the above-surface blowout, subsea blowout, and batch spill fate and behaviour modeling (i.e., Tuckamore) occurs in the Flemish Pass portion of the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area. Three of the release locations used in the spill trajectory modeling for Petro-Canada occur in the StatoilHydro Project Area; Gambo near the western border of the Project Area, Mizzen in the northern Flemish Pass, and Annieopsquatch in the southern Flemish Pass.

For the above-surface blowout fate and behaviour modeling at Tuckamore (flow of 5,000 m3/day crude oil and 177 m3 gas/ m3 oil), the predicted initial slick was wider and thinner in winter compared to summer. Slicks were predicted to completely disperse in 4 to 6 days and persistence of oil was predicted to be similar in both seasons. The maximum dispersed oil concentrations predicted for the Tuckamore above-surface blowout ranged from 0.57 to 0.81 ppm, the highest being in winter. Dispersed oil was predicted to diffuse to 0.1 ppm in 9 to 12 hours at which point the cloud width would be 740 to 960 m. Time to 0.1 ppm and cloud width would be highest in summer. Dispersed oil clouds were predicted to travel 8 (summer) to 12 (winter) km before concentrations dropped to 0.1 ppm.

For the subsea crude oil blowout fate and behaviour modeling at Tuckamore (flow of 5,000 m3/day crude oil and 177 m3 gas/ m3 oil), the predicted slick behaviour did not vary by season. Slicks forming along the rise paths of the oil were predicted to disperse naturally within a maximum of 188 hours at the thickest part nearest the source and a minimum of 8 to 9 hours at the thinnest part furthest from source. The predicted maximum oil concentrations in the water column were estimated to be approximately 0.2 ppm in the vicinity of the thickest part of the slick and 0.08 ppm under the thinnest parts. Dispersed oil concentrations under the thick part of the slick were predicted to drop to 0.1 ppm within 3 to 6 hours at which time the dispersed oil cloud width would approximate 618 m and distance travelled by the dispersed oil cloud would range from 5 to 9 km.

Results of the batch diesel spill modeling at Tuckamore (10 bbl and 100 bbl spill scenarios) indicated that slick survival would be highest in summer (25 to 34 hours and that evaporation would be highest in summer. Peak in-water oil concentrations would range from 1.0 to 3.6 ppm but this concentration would decrease to 0.1 ppm within 10 to 42 hours.

None of the spill trajectory modeling results for releases at Gambo, Mizzen or Annieopsquatch indicated any oil contact with the Newfoundland coast. The spill probability areas associated with the Gambo release location were the largest of the three release locations while those associated with the Mizzen release location were smallest. Spill probability areas predicted for the Annieopsquatch release location were intermediate in size compared to the other two release locations. The spill trajectory modeling results associated with the Mizzen release location were very similar to those in the most recent StatoilHydro modeling for a Mizzen release location in LGL (2007b).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 246 As indicated above, more details of the Petro-Canada modeling can be found in (SL Ross 2002 in the Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program EA (Petro-Canada 2002).

8.3. Accidental Events in the Newfoundland Offshore

As indicated in Section 8.1, medium and large hydrocarbon spills have occurred in the Newfoundland offshore during recent years. These spills have involved both crude oil (single large spill) and synthetic based muds. Trajectory maps have been prepared for the oily water discharge at Terra Nova in November 2004 (165 m3 of crude), the crude oil spill at Terra Nova in April 2006 (0.303 m3), and the synthetic based mud surface spill at White Rose in October 2004 (96.6 m3). The following sections provide available information for each of these accidental events.

8.3.1. Terra Nova Crude Spills

The trajectory of the Argos tracker buoy deployed during the November 2004 oily water discharge event at Terra Nova is indicated in Figure 8.2. The tracker buoy operated for 101 days and traveled over 3,750 km at a drift rate exceeding 1.5 km/hr. The trajectory path between November 22 and December 13 2004 reflects the SL Ross oil spill trajectory results from the shallow water release location in November and December (SL Ross 2007b in LGL 2007b).

The movement of the small crude oil spill (303 l; 0.303 m3) at Terra Nova on 21 April 2007 is represented in Figure 8.3 by a tracker buoy positioning path and oil spill trajectory modeling by Oceans Ltd. The tracker buoy path and that modeled by Oceans Ltd are very similar. The crude oil initially moved to the northwest during 21 to 23 April, and then to the southwest.

8.3.2. Synthetic Based Mud Spills

Two synthetic based mud spills exceeding 5 m3 have occurred off Newfoundland since 2004. In 2004, approximately 96.6 m3 of synthetic based mud were spilled at surface at White Rose, and in 2007, 74.0 m3 of synthetic based mud were spilled in Orphan Basin during Chevron Canada’s exploratory drilling.

After the accidental spill of SBM, Husky initiated its Emergency Response and Oil Spill Response procedures, referenced in the East Coast Operations Incident Coordination Plan (EC-M-99-X-PR- 00003-001). It deployed its standby vessel to monitor the area and also deployed an aircraft. On 22 October 2004, Cougar Flight 551, while enroute to the GSF Grand Banks, was redirected by Husky to conduct an aerial surveillance flight south of the platform along the expected trajectory of the slick. Observations of the slick were made at a location approximately 40 km south of the platform. The slick was 300 m long, 150 m wide, teal in colour and moving at about 2.8 km/h. It appeared to be subsurface at this point. As part of the response, Husky initiated oil spill trajectories from both AMEC and Oceans Ltd. to assist in the monitoring of the release. These are described below.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 247 Source: Terra Nova (2007) in LGL 2007b.

Figure 8.2. Terra Nova FPSO Oily Water Discharge Tracker Buoy Trajectory, 22 November 2004 to 4 March 2005.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 248 Source: Terra Nova (2007) in LGL 2007b.

Figure 8.3. Spill Location and Trajectory Map Associated with Crude Oil Spill at Terra Nova in April 2006.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 249 Figure 8.4 provides a surface spill trajectory hindcast for the Husky spill covering the time period 22 to 26 October. The modeling was conducted by AMEC. SBM was observed at surface on 22 October, as indicated in Figure 8.5. Visual observations suggested that the SBM sank quickly as a result of its properties, including a higher density than sea water.

Source: White Rose (2007) in LGL 2007b.

Figure 8.4. Surface Spill Trajectory Hindcast for Synthetic Based Mud Spill at White Rose, 22 October 2004.

The hindcast trajectory was quite similar to a 108-hour oil spill trajectory prediction by Oceans Ltd. using refined oil of a density similar to that of SBM (Figure 8.5). Both surface slick trajectories initially showed movement to the south, followed by a swing to the southwest. The lengths of both trajectories for approximately 108 hours post-spill were also similar. The 108-hour period associated with the modeling results is a standard oil modeling output period and does not represent the amount of time the SBM remained on surface.

An investigation report relating to a 2004 accidental discharge of 354 m3 of SBM south of Sable Island indicated that due to its greater density relative to seawater, SBM settled to the sea bottom (C-NSOPB 2005). The SBM of the Marathon Canada spill dispersed in shallow streams on the seafloor flowing down slope away from the drillsite. Water depth at the Marathon spill location exceeded 2,000 m. The report indicated that the environmental impact of the spill was minor and that no remediation was required. The volume of SBM spilled by Marathon Canada was over 3.5 times that spilled at White Rose and almost 5 times that spilled in Orphan Basin.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 250 Terra Nova Overflight Polygon

Source: Oceans Ltd. (2005).

Figure 8.5. Oil Spill Trajectory Prediction (108 hours).

8.4. Spill Response

StatoilHydro’s spill response is discussed in detail in a document currently being prepared which will be on file with the C-NLOPB: Oil Spill Response Plan-Offshore Newfoundland.

8.5. Estimation of Potential Cleanup Effectiveness

For any major offshore oil spill there are environmental and technological constraints to response and cleanup. High sea states and visibility are examples of typical environmental constraints while examples of technological constraints include pumping capacity of oil recovery devices, effectiveness of chemical dispersants on viscous oils. These kinds of limitations apply even if the response organizations is perfectly prepared and trained and outfitted with the world's best available equipment.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 251 8.5.1. Best-Practicable Containment/Recovery System

For blowouts the typical approach involves the deployment of a collection boom at a point downstream of but as close to the source as safe and practicable. Typically the boom might be deployed in a V-configuration to provide a sweep width of one-third the total boom length. A suitable oil recovery skimming system would be positioned at the apex of the ‘V’ and would discharge recovered oil to a storage barge or the tanks of a suitable support vessel. Surface blowouts tend to form relatively narrow slicks while subsea blow outs tend to form wider slicks. The effectiveness of the operation is driven by the encounter rate that is affected by slick width at the downstream oil collection location and the capability of the skimmer system or skimming rate.

For batch-type releases, often the containment and recovery system would sweep through the slick, with the encounter rate driven by the sweep speed (typically 1 knot), the sweep width (typically one-third of the total boom length depending on the equipment used), and the slick thickness. Obviously, the encounter rate and hence oil recovery efficiency will tend to decrease over the days following the spill as batch spills tend to break up into patches of oil that spread and drift apart creating an affected area greater than that affected by a coherent slick.

Clearly either of the scenarios will be strongly influenced by weather conditions at the time as well as safety and practical tactical decisions made by the response organization.

8.5.2. FTRP: Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible

From the perspective of considering an ideal scenario for spill clean up operations containment and recovery operations are best conducted in daylight with visibility greater than 0.5 kilometres, and when waves are less than one metre high for all wave periods or alternatively and when waves are between one and two metres high but have periods of six seconds or greater. Table 8.15 summarizes the estimated frequency that these conditions occur in the Newfoundland Offshore Area.

Table 8.15. Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible.

Fraction Fraction Fraction Waves Season F Daylight Visibility1 Favorable2 TRP Summer 0.65 0.75 0.50 0.24 Winter 0.38 0.95 0.10 0.04 Average 0.50 0.85 0.30 0.13 Notes: 1 Visibility greater than 0.5 kilometres. 2 Waves less than 1 metre, or between 1 and 2 metres with period greater than 6 seconds.

8.6. Alternatives to Containment and Recovery

Dispersants and in situ burning are possible alternative countermeasures that offer some advantages in certain spill situations. Dispersants are specially-formulated chemicals that, when applied to an oil slick reduce the interfacial tension of the oil and enhance its dispersion into the water under the influence of wave action. Notwithstanding the fact that dispersants function by causing the oil to be dispersed from the sea

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 252 surface into the water column for spills in an offshore environment, this can be a good trade-off in that the lower concentrations of subsurface oil are generally less harmful to the environment, and more readily degraded naturally, than the relatively high concentrations of oil in a surface slick. In addition, the potential for seabirds to encounter oil on the sea surface can be reduced. The main advantages of dispersant use over containment and recovery are that with appropriate equipment slick that cover large areas can be treated, the logistics involved in storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and the rough sea conditions that prevail in the Newfoundland offshore complement and enhance the effectiveness of the dispersant.

To be most effective dispersants need to be used when the oil it is relatively fresh and before it emulsifies. Laboratory testing with other Grand Banks oils shows that fresh oil is highly dispersible in both summer and winter conditions and oil weathered to about 10% by volume is likely to be dispersible in both summer and winter conditions. However, in winter the oil would need to be treated as close to the spill site as possible before it weathers any further.

In general, this means that for situations where the oil has been subject to limited weathering, e.g., close to the source of subsea blow outs, dispersant use could be considered. In surface blowouts, where the oil is somewhat weathered by the time it lands on the water surface, dispersant use should be considered for summer conditions but less likely to be effective in winter conditions. In any situation where dispersant use might be indicated a monitoring program to evaluate its effectiveness and the environmental effects should be implemented. Dispersant testing on Husky crude was conducted by SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. in 2006.

For in situ burning the approach is to collect and thicken the oil slick with fire-resistant boom, ignite it, and burn the oil in place on the water surface. While its main advantage is that the logistics of storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and that much higher treatment rates (i.e., versus skimming) are possible it offers no advantage when it comes to encounter rates. The oil must still be collected with a containment boom the effectiveness of which is constrained by sea state conditions. Apart from the potential limited availability of fire resistant booms more limiting is that burning is generally only effective on oils that are not emulsified or have suffered little emulsification. Since the oils modeled for the White Rose scenarios form highly viscous emulsions rapidly in situ burning is not likely to be an effective option.

8.7. Potential Effects of Accidental Events

In this section, effects are assessed for the accidental event scenarios described in Section 8.2. It should be noted that the various scenarios likely represent situations much worse than those that could realistically occur. In addition, using the effects methodology from the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study to estimate geographic extents also over-estimates effects.

Sections in this EA discussing the literature-cited effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on the various VECs refer to the relevant sections of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a). Effects assessment in this EA is using the results of recently completed oil blowout and spill fate and behaviour modeling, and spill trajectory modeling (SL Ross 2008) (see Section 8.2).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 253 8.7.1. Fish Habitat

The fish habitat VEC includes plankton because it is a source of food for larvae and some adult fish thus, effects of an oil spill or blowout on plankton could affect fish. Dispersion and dissolution cause the soluble, lower molecular weight hydrocarbons to move from the slick into the water column. Effects of spills on pelagic organisms need to be assessed through examination of effects of water-soluble fractions of oil or light hydrocarbon products.

Individual zooplankters could be affected by a blowout or spill through mortality, sublethal effects, or hydrocarbon accumulation if oil concentrations are high enough. However, the predicted maximum concentrations for batch and blowouts are well below those known to cause effects.

Under some circumstances, oil spilled in nearshore waters can become incorporated into nearshore and intertidal sediments, where it can remain toxic and affect benthic animals for years after the spill (Sanders et al. 1990). Oil from an offshore spill in Jeanne d’Arc Basin area will not likely become incorporated in the sediments. Oil released from an offshore blowout should quickly rise to the surface. Drilling will occur in open water and because of the depths involved, there is little chance of oil adhering to suspended sediments and being deposited on the bottom. Thus, oil released during an offshore spill or blowout in the proposed Project Area is not likely to interact with the benthos.

Sections 8.7.2 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a) discusses the potential effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on the water, sediment, planktonic and benthic components of marine fish habitat. Table 8.16 presents the potential interactions of accidental event scenarios and the fish habitat VEC. All potential interactions between accidental events and fish habitat are likely to result in negative effects which are indicated in Table 8.17. The potential for contamination relates to the water and sediment components of the fish habitat VEC, and the potential for health effects and tainting relates to the biotic components of VEC (i.e., plankton and benthos). However, proper mitigation (e.g., spill prevention measures, proper spill response plan) would reduce the reversible effects. Mitigative measures that would reduce the effect of an accidental event on fish habitat are indicated in Table 8.17.

The residual effects of an accidental event on the fish habitat VEC is predicted to have negligible to low magnitude, regardless of the accident scenario. Geographic extent and duration of the residual effects are predicted to vary by scenario. Geographic extent and duration for the above-surface and subsea blowout scenario are predicted to be 1,001 to 10,000 km2 and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.17). Geographic extent and duration for the batch spill scenarios are predicted to be 11 to 100 to 101 to 1,000 km2 and <1 month, respectively (Table 8.17).

Based on these criteria ratings, the residual effects of an accidental event on the fish habitat VEC during the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project is predicted to be not significant (Table 8.18). As described in Section 8.1, the chance of an accidental event is quite low.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 254 Table 8.16. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Fish Habitat Fish Habitat Components Accidental Event Scenario Water Sediment Plankton Benthos Above-surface crude blowout x x x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout x x x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill x x x x (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill x x x x (100 bbl) Note: bbl = barrels

Table 8.17. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Habitat Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) Mitigation Accidental Event Scenario or Negative (N) Options Environmental Effect Extent Context Duration Frequency Ecological/ Magnitude Geographic Reversibility and Economic Socio-Cultural

Prevention; Contamination (N); Above-surface crude blowout Contingency plan; Health effects (N); 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response Tainting (N) protocols Prevention; Contamination (N); Subsea crude blowout Contingency plan; Health effects (N); 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response Tainting (N) protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Contamination (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 3 1 1 R 2 (10 bbl) Health effects (N) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Contamination (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 4 1 1 R 2 (100 bbl) Health effects (N) Spill response protocols Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating

bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 255 Table 8.18. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Habitat Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

8.7.2. Fish

Planktonic fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton) are less resistant to effects of contaminants than are adults because they are not physiologically equipped to either detoxify them or actively avoid them. In addition, many eggs and larvae develop at or near the surface where oil exposure may be the greatest (Rice 1985). Generally, fish eggs appear to be highly sensitive at certain stages and then become less sensitive just prior to larval hatching (Kühnhold 1978; Rice 1985). Larval sensitivity varies with yolk sac stage and feeding conditions (Rice et al. 1986). Eggs and larvae exposed to high concentrations of oil generally exhibit morphological malformations, genetic damage, and reduced growth. Damage to embryos may not be apparent until the larvae hatch.

However, the natural mortality rate in fish eggs and larvae is so high that large numbers could be destroyed by anthropogenic sources before effects would be detected in an adult population (Rice 1985). Oil-related mortalities would probably not affect year-class strength unless >50% of the larvae in a large proportion of the spawning area died (Rice 1985).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 256 The geographical and seasonal distribution of fish eggs and larvae in the region is highly variable. For example, in general, there are two peaks in abundance of ichthyoplankton on the Grand Banks. The first typically occurs in April-May and the second in August-September. As already indicated, the eggs and larvae of most of the above species are distributed in the upper 50 m of the water column. When all of the above ichthyoplankton are considered as a whole, the period of their occurrence in the plankton is quite broad (i.e., March to October).

There is an extensive body of literature regarding the effects of exposure to oil on juvenile and adult fish. Although some of the literature describes field observations, most refers to laboratory studies. Reviews of the effects of oil on fish have been prepared by Armstrong et al. (1995), Rice et al. (1996), Payne et al. (2003) and numerous other authors. If exposed to oil in high enough concentrations, fish may suffer effects ranging from direct physical effects (e.g., coating of gills and suffocation) to more subtle physiological and behavioural effects. Actual effects depend on a variety of factors such as the amount and type of oil, environmental conditions, species and life stage, lifestyle, fish condition, degree of confinement of experimental subjects, and others.

Section 8.7.3 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a) and Section 8.7.2 of its Addendum (LGL 2007a) provide more thorough discussions of the potential effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on the various life stages of fish (i.e., eggs/larvae, juveniles, adult pelagic fish, and adult groundfish).

All four accidental event scenarios indicated in Table 8.19 have potential to interact with ichthyoplankton (i.e., eggs and larvae) and adult pelagic invertebrates and fish. Only the subsea blowout scenarios have much potential to interact with juvenile and adult demersal invertebrates and fish, assuming that the juvenile stage occurs mostly near bottom. Juvenile (i.e., post-egg/larva) and adult fish can and probably will avoid any crude oil by swimming from the blowout/spill region (Irwin 1997). Eggs and larvae being essentially passive drifters cannot avoid oiled area voluntarily.

Although all potential interactions between an accidental event and the various life stages of invertebrates and fish are likely to result in negative effects, appropriate mitigative measures (e.g., spill prevention measures, proper spill response plan) would reduce the reversible effects. Mitigative measures that would reduce the effect of an accidental event on fish are indicated in Table 8.20.

The residual effects of an accidental event on the fish VEC is predicted to have negligible to low magnitude, regardless of the accident scenario. Geographic extent and duration of the residual effects are predicted to vary by scenario. Geographic extent and duration for the above-surface and subsea blowout scenario are predicted to be 1,001 to 10,000 km2 and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.20). Geographic extent and duration for the batch spill scenarios are predicted to be 11 to 100 to 101 to1,000 km2 and <1 month, respectively (Table 8.20).

Based on these criteria ratings, the residual effects of an accidental event on the fish VEC during the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project is predicted to be not significant (Table 8.21). As described in Section 8.1, the chance of an accidental event is quite low.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 257 Table 8.19. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Fish VEC.

Valued Environmental Component: Fish Fish Life Stage Accidental Event Scenario Eggs/Larvae Juvenilea Adult Pelagic Adult Demersal Above-surface crude blowout x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout x x x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill x x (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill x x (100 bbl) Notes: a Often closely associated with the substrate bbl = barrels

Table 8.20. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fish VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Prevention; Above-surface crude blowout Health effects (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Tainting (N) Spill response protocols Prevention; Subsea crude blowout Health effects (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Tainting (N) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Health effects (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 3 1 1 R 2 (10 bbl) Tainting (N) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Health effects (N); Contingency plan; 0-1 4 1 1 R 2 (100 bbl) Tainting (N) Spill response protocols Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating

bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 258 Table 8.21. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fish VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Fish Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

8.7.3. Commercial Fisheries

The White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) concluded that effects of an oil spill or blowout on fish populations would be not significant. That study considered that a large (!10,000 bbl) oil spill or blowout would not cause significant effects on fish and fish habitat or result in tainting of fish flesh. As a result, effects on commercial fisheries as a result of physical effects on fish during an exploratory drilling-related spill were considered to be not significant. This assessment concludes the same as they relate to biophysical impacts on commercial and prey species (see Sections 8.7.1 and 8.7.2).

While such physical effects of a spill on fish are deemed not significant, economic impacts might still occur if a spill prevented or impeded a harvester’s ability to access fishing grounds (because of areas temporarily excluded during the spill or spill clean-up), caused damage to fishing gear (through oiling) or resulted in a negative effect on the marketability of fish products (because of market perception resulting in lower prices, even without organic or organoleptic evidence of tainting).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 259 Within the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area, there are areas where both intensive and limited fishing activity are typically recorded. Thus the extent of the impact from a spill is very much dependent on the location of the release site vis-à-vis the nearest fishing activity at the time of the release.

If a spill slick were to reach an area when fisheries were active there, it is likely that all fishing would be halted, owing to the possibility of fouling the buoy lines, or the crab pots if these were raised through the slick. If the release site were some distance from the snow crab fishing grounds, there would be time to notify fishers of the occurrence and prevent the setting or hauling of gear and thus prevent or minimize gear damage.

Exclusion from the spill area would be expected to be short-term, as typical sea and wind conditions in the Project Area would promote fairly rapid evaporation and weathering of the slick, and fishing vessels would likely be able to return within several days. Nevertheless, if fishers were required to cease fishing, harvesting might be disrupted (though, depending on the extent of the slick, alternative fishing grounds might be available in a nearby area). An interruption could result in an economic impact because of reduced catches, or extra costs associated with having to relocate crab harvesting effort.

Effects due to market perceptions of poor product quality (no buyers or reduced prices, etc.) are more difficult to predict, since the actual (physical) impacts of the spill might have little to do with these perceptions. It would only be possible to quantify these effects by monitoring the situation if a spill were to occur and if it were to reach snow crab harvesting areas.

Such economic effects (caused by loss of access, gear damage or changes in market value) could be considered significant to the commercial fisheries. However, the application of appropriate mitigative measures (e.g., economic compensation) would reduce the potential impact to not significant. This mitigation is further discussed below.

In the past several years, the oil industry has expended a great deal of effort in the development of programs designed to compensate Atlantic Canada’s fisheries industry in situations where offshore exploration and development activities might result in damage to fishing gear and vessels, or economic loss associated with interference to established fisheries harvesting activities.

These compensation programs (e.g., for the Sable and Hibernia projects, and those established by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), developed in consultation with the fishing industry, include measures and mechanisms to address both attributable and unattributable economic loss associated with offshore oil and gas activities (see Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board/Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board 2002). Their purpose is to provide fair and timely compensation to commercial fish harvesters and processors who sustain actual loss because of the accidental release of petroleum (spills). One of the basic principles of these programs is to compensate fisheries participants in a fair and timely manner for all actual loss with the aim of leaving them in no worse or better position than before the losses occurred.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 260 These programs have been adopted as an alternative to making a claim through the Courts, or to the regulatory boards pursuant to the Accord Implementation Acts and Regulations. Although claims for loss can be made under the laws of Canada, these industry programs offer a simpler, less expensive process for obtaining appropriate compensation. Thus their purpose is to provide a mechanism for a fair and swift resolution of all legitimate claims, and the opportunity for all parties to minimize costs.

These principles will be an important component of StatoilHydro’s response in the event that a spill results in economic consequences, and will ensure that any actual loss to the fisheries industry resulting from any oil spill is fully and adequately addressed.

Assessment of the residual effects of an accidental event associated with the proposed StatoilHydro Project on the commercial fisheries VEC is consistent with the assessment conclusions in recent drilling EAs (e.g., LGL 2005a, 2006a,b, 2007a,b).

8.7.4. Seabirds

Seabirds are the marine biota most at risk from accidental events resulting in releases of petroleum hydrocarbons. The Grand Banks is an important feeding and migration area for large numbers of seabirds (Section 5.4). Exposure to oil causes thermal and buoyancy deficiencies that typically lead to the deaths of affected seabirds. Although some may survive these immediate effects, long-term physiological changes may eventually result in death (Ainley et al. 1981; Williams 1985; Frink and White 1990; Fry 1990). Reported effects vary with bird species, type of oil (Gorsline et al. 1981), weather conditions, time of year, and duration of the spill or blowout. Although oil spills at sea have the potential to kill tens of thousands of seabirds (Clark 1984; Piatt et al. 1990), recent studies suggest that even spills of great magnitude may not have significant long-term effects on seabird populations (Clark 1984; Wiens 1995).

A description of the effects of oil spills on seabirds is provided in Section 8.7.6.1 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a). The description includes immediate effects, short-term effects, long-term effects, sensitive species, past oil spills in the vicinity of the Study Area, rehabilitation, and enhancement techniques.

Potential interactions of accidental events and seabirds are indicated in Table 8.22. These interactions, potential effects, mitigation measures, monitoring approaches, and potential cumulative effects are fully discussed in Section 8.7.5 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 261 Table 8.22. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Seabirds.

Accidental Event Scenario Seabirds Above-surface crude blowout x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill x (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill x (100 bbl) Note: bbl = barrels

Although all potential interactions between an accidental event and seabirds are likely to result in negative effects, appropriate mitigative measures (e.g., spill prevention measures, proper spill response plan) would reduce the effects. Obviously the residual effect of mortality is irreversible at the individual seabird level but it is reversible at the population level. Mitigative measures that would reduce the effect of an accidental event on seabirds are indicated in Table 8.23.

The residual effects of an accidental event on the seabird VEC is predicted to have low to high magnitude, regardless of the accident scenario. Geographic extent and duration of the residual effects are predicted to vary by scenario. Geographic extent and duration for the above-surface and subsea blowout scenario are predicted to be 1,001 to 10,000 km2 and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.23). Geographic extent and duration for the batch spill scenarios are predicted to be 11 to 100 to 101 to 1,000 km2 and <1 month, respectively (Table 8.23).

Based on these criteria ratings, the residual effects of an accidental event on the seabird VEC during the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project is predicted to be significant (Table 8.24). Because the significant negative effect is irreversible at the individual level but reversible at the population level, the population of seabirds, a renewable resource, will be able to meet future needs of resource users. As described in Section 8.1, the chance of an accidental event is quite low.

Similar predictions were made in the Hibernia EIS (Mobil 1985), the Terra Nova EIS and Supplement (Petro-Canada 1996a,b), the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study and Supplement (Husky 2000, 2001a), the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA and Addendum (LGL 2006a, 2007a), Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin drilling EAs and addenda (LGL 2002, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b), the Husky Lewis Hill Drilling EA (LGL 2003), Chevron’s Orphan Basin drilling EA and Addendum (LGL 2005b, 2006c), the ConocoPhillips’ Laurentian Sub-basin Drilling EA and Addendum (Buchanan et al. 2006, 2007), and other east coast drilling EAs.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 262 Table 8.23. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Ivory Gull of the Seabird VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Seabirds Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Potential Positive (P) Mitigation Accidental Event Scenario or Negative (N) Options Environmental Effect Extent Context Duration Frequency Magnitude Ecological/ Geographic Reversibility and Economic Socio-Cultural

Prevention; Above-surface crude blowout Contingency plan; Mortality (N) 1-3 5 1 2 Ia 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response protocols Prevention; Subsea crude blowout Contingency plan; Mortality (N) 1-3 5 1 2 Ia 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Contingency plan; Mortality (N) 1-3 3 1 1 Ia 2 (10 bbl) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Contingency plan; Mortality (N) 1-3 4 1 1 Ia 2 (100 bbl) Spill response protocols Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating a Effects on individuals irreversible but any population effects are likely reversible bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 263 Table 8.24. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Seabird VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Seabirds Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout S 3 1 2-3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout S 3 1 2-3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill S 3 1 2-3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill S 3 1 2-3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

8.7.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Most marine mammals, with the exception of fur seals, polar bears, and sea otters, are not very susceptible to deleterious effects of oil. However, newborn seal pups, and weak or highly stressed individuals, may be vulnerable to oiling. Other marine mammals exposed to oil are generally not at risk because they rely on a layer of blubber for insulation and oiling of the external surface does not appear to have any adverse thermoregulatory effects (Kooyman et al. 1976; 1977; Geraci 1990; St. Aubin 1990). Population-level effects are unlikely, as no significant long-term and lethal effects from external exposure, ingestion, or bioaccumulation of oil have been demonstrated.

Interactions of the various accidental event scenarios and marine mammals are indicated in Table 8.25.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 264 Table 8.25. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Mammal and Sea Turtles.

Valued Environmental Components: Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles Accidental Event Scenario Marine Mammals Sea Turtles Above-surface crude blowout x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill x x (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill x x (100 bbl) Note: bbl = barrels

A description of the effects of oil spills on cetaceans is provided in Section 8.7.6.1 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a). The description includes avoidance and behavioural effects, oiling of external surfaces, ingestion and inhalation of oil, and fouling the baleen.

Whales may interact with spilled oil (Table 8.25) but are not considered to be at high risk to the effects of oil exposure. There is no clear evidence that implicates oil spills with cetacean mortality. Both toothed and baleen whales present in the affected area could experience sublethal effects, through oiling of mucous membranes or the eyes if they swim through a slick. As referenced above, these effects are reversible and would not cause permanent damage to the animals. There is a possibility that the baleen of whales could be contaminated with oil, thereby reducing filtration efficiency. However, effects would be minimal and reversible. Based on available marine mammal data for the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area and the biology of marine mammals known to occur in the area, the Project Area is not likely an exclusive feeding area or breeding area. Some species are likely present in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area year round, but most species likely just occur there during summer months. However, there are limited available data for winter time. For marine mammals, it is likely that only small proportions of populations are at risk at any time.

A description of the effects of oil spills on seals is provided in Section 8.7.6.2 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a). The description includes avoidance and behavioural effects, oiling of external surfaces, ingestion and inhalation of oil, and factors affecting severity of oil exposure.

Seals may interact with spilled oil (Table 8.25) but are not considered to be at high risk from the effects of oil exposure. However, some evidence implicates oil spills with seal mortality, particularly young seals. As previously discussed, seals are present on or near portions of the Project Area for at least part of the year. The majority of the Project Area falls outside of the area were pack ice typically occurs. The pack ice that occurs in the proposed drilling area is distant from the primary harp seal breeding area known as the Front. It is unlikely that oil accidentally released at proposed drilling sites will reach the pack ice where harp seals breed. There is a possibility that aged oil could contact the southern edge of loose pack ice for a few weeks during years of very heavy ice conditions, but seals are much less common on the deteriorating southern extremities of the pack ice than they are farther north. Few seals

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 265 are expected to be exposed to oil from an accidental release at the drilling and production sites and most seals do not exhibit large behavioural or physiological reactions to limited surface oiling, incidental exposure to contaminated food, or ingestion of oil.

A description of the effects of oil spills on sea turtles is provided in Section 8.7.7 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a).

Sea turtles are likely uncommon in the Study Area and are even less likely to occur in the proposed Project Area. Sea turtles could interact with spilled oil (Table 8.25) but there is a very low likelihood that sea turtles will be exposed to oil from an accidental release near the proposed drilling area. Effects of oil on sea turtles will be reversible, but there is a possibility that foraging abilities may be inhibited by exposure to oil.

Although all potential interactions between an accidental event and marine mammals and sea turtles are likely to result in negative effects, appropriate mitigative measures (e.g., spill prevention measures, proper spill response plan) would reduce the effects. Mitigative measures that would reduce the effect of an accidental event on marine mammals and sea turtles are indicated in Table 8.26.

Table 8.26. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Prevention; Above-surface crude blowout Health effects (N) Contingency plan; 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response protocols Prevention; Subsea crude blowout Health effects (N) Contingency plan; 0-1 5 1 2 R 2 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Health effects (N) Contingency plan; 0-1 3 1 1 R 2 (10 bbl) Spill response protocols Prevention; Batch diesel spill Health effects (N) Contingency plan; 0-1 4 1 1 R 2 (100 bbl) Spill response protocols Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility (population level) 0 = Negligible 1 = < 1 km2 1 = < 11 events/year 1 = < 1 month R = Reversible 1 = Low 2 = 1-10 km2 2 = 11-50 events/year 2 = 1-12 months I = Irreversible 2 = Medium 3 = 11-100 km2 3 = 51-100 events/year 3 = 13-36 months 3 = High 4 = 101-1,000 km2 4 = 101-200 events/year 4 = 37-72 months 5 = 1,001-10,000 km2 5 = > 200 events/year 5 = > 72 months 6 = > 10,000 km2 6 = continuous Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 266 The residual effects of an accidental event on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC is predicted to have low to high magnitude, regardless of the accident scenario. Geographic extent and duration of the residual effects are predicted to vary by scenario. Geographic extent and duration for the above-surface and subsea blowout scenario are predicted to be 1,001 to 10,000 km2 and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.26). Geographic extent and duration for the batch spill scenarios are predicted to be 11 to 100 to 101 to 1,000 km2 and <1 month, respectively (Table 8.26).

Based on these criteria ratings, the residual effects of an accidental event on the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC during the proposed 9-year exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project is predicted to be not significant (Table 8.27). As described in Section 8.1, the chance of an accidental event is quite low.

Table 8.27. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Marine Mammal and Seabird VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Marine Mammals and Seabirds Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

8.7.6. Species at Risk

As indicated in Section 5.7, five marine animal species that potentially occur in the Study Area are listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA (i.e., officially ‘at risk’ according to Canadian law):

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 267 x Blue whale; x North Atlantic right whale; x Leatherback sea turtle; x Northern wolfish; and x Spotted wolfish.

Three marine species are also listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA:

x Atlantic wolfish; x Fin whale (Atlantic population); and x Ivory Gull

Sixteen other marine species (eleven fishes and five marine mammals) are listed as either endangered, threatened, special concern or candidate by COSEWIC.

Potential interactions of accidental events associated with the Project and these twenty-four marine species considered in the Species at Risk VEC are indicated in Table 8.28. Species are not listed individually unless they are the only representative of a specific biota group.

Table 8.28. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Species-at-Risk that Could Occur in the Study Area.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Species at Risk Species/Biota Group Accidental Event Scenario Leatherback Fishes Ivory Gull Whales sea turtle Above-surface crude blowout x x x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout x x x x (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill x x x x (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill x x x x (100 bbl) Note: bbl = barrels

8.7.6.1. Fishes

Table 8.28 indicates the potential interactions of accidental events associated with the proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project and the three species of wolffish currently listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. The potential contamination effects of accidental events on the fish VEC described in Section 8.7.6.2 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a) are relevant to these Species at Risk fishes.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 268 Prevention of accidental events is the primary mitigative measure (Table 8.29). However, in the case of an accidental event, appropriate response measures are required. Emergency response procedures are referenced in StatoilHydro’s Emergency Response Plan-Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador (ERP- ONL). StatoilHydro’s plans for spill response are discussed in detail in its Oil Spill Response Plan- Offshore Newfoundland which is currently being prepared and will be on file at the C-NLOPB.

Table 8.29. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Fishes) Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating

bbl = barrels

As with the fish VEC in Section 8.7.2, the worst-case magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the reversible residual impacts of the accidental event scenarios on wolffishes are negligible to low, 1,001 to >10,000 km2, and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.29). Based on these evaluation criteria and a high level of confidence in professional judgement, the residual impacts of each of the accidental event scenarios on fishes of the Species at Risk VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 8.30).

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 269 Table 8.30. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Fishes of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Fishes) Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout NS 3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill NS 3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

8.7.6.2. Ivory Gull

Table 8.28 indicates the potential interactions of accidental events associated with the proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project and the Ivory Gull currently listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. The potential contamination effects of accidental events on seabirds described in Section 8.7.5 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a) are relevant to the Ivory Gull.

Prevention of accidental events is the primary mitigative measure (Table 8.31). However, in the case of an accidental event, appropriate response measures are required. Emergency response procedures are referenced in StatoilHydro’s Emergency Response Plan-Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador (ERP- ONL). StatoilHydro’s plans for spill response are discussed in detail in its Oil Spill Response Plan- Offshore Newfoundland which is currently being prepared and will be on file at the C-NLOPB. Seabird handling procedures will be contained in this document.

As with the seabird VEC in Section 8.7.4, the worst-case magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the reversible residual impacts of the accidental event scenarios on the Ivory Gull are low to high, 1,001 to >10,000 km2, and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.31). Based on these evaluation criteria

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 270 ratings and a high level of confidence in professional judgement, the residual impacts of each of the accidental event scenarios on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC are predicted to be significant Table 8.32). The significant negative effect is deemed to be irreversible at the individual level but reversible at the population level. It is important to note that despite the possibility of occurrence, this species is not expected to occur in the Study Area.

Table 8.31. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Ivory Gull) Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating

bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 271 Table 8.32. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Ivory Gull of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Ivory Gull) Significance of Predicted Residual Likelihooda Environmental Effects Project Phase/Activity Significance Level of Probability of Scientific Certainty Rating Confidence Occurrence Above-surface crude blowout S 3 1 2-3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Subsea crude blowout S 3 1 2-3 (5,000 m3 oil/day and 80 m3 gas/ m3 oil) Batch diesel spill S 3 1 2-3 (10 bbl) Batch diesel spill S 3 1 2-3 (100 bbl) Significance Rating (significance is defined as a medium or high magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration > 1 year ( 3 rating) and geographic extent > 100 km2 ( 4 rating)

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

8.7.6.3. Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle

Table 8.28 indicates the potential interactions of accidental events associated with the proposed exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling Project and the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle currently listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. The potential contamination effects of accidental events on marine mammals and sea turtles described in Sections 8.7.6 and 8.7.7 of the Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (LGL 2006a) are relevant to the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk VEC.

As with the marine mammal and sea turtle VEC in Section 8.7.5, the worst-case magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the reversible residual impacts of the accidental event scenarios on the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk VEC are negligible to low, 1,001 to >10,000 km2, and 1 to 12 months, respectively (Table 8.33). Based on these evaluation criteria ratings and a high

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 272 level of confidence in professional judgement, the residual impacts of each of the accidental event scenarios on the marine mammals and leatherback sea turtle of the Species at Risk VEC are predicted to be not significant Table 8.34).

Table 8.33. Accidental Event Effects Assessment for the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC.

Valued Ecological Component: Species at Risk (Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle) Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context 1 = Relatively pristine area or area not negatively affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing negative anthropogenic effects

The absolute geographic extent varied by season for each scenario but both described by same criterion rating

bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 273 Table 8.34. Significance of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects of Accidental Events on the Marine Mammals and Leatherback Sea Turtle of the Species at Risk VEC.

S = Significant negative environmental effect NS = Not significant negative environmental effect P = Positive environmental effect

a Only considered in the event of significant (S) residual effect

bbl = barrels

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 274 9.0 Summary and Conclusions 9.1. Residual Effects of the Project

The predicted residual environmental effects of the proposed StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016, including possible accidental events on fish habitat/fish and the fishery are assessed as negative, but not significant.

The predicted residual environmental effects of routine activities associated with the proposed StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland, 2008- 2016, on seabirds are assessed to be negative, but not significant. The predicted residual environmental effect of an accidental event such as a major oil spill on seabirds, although very unlikely, is assessed to be negative and significant. The residual effect is irreversible at the individual level but reversible at the population level. The overall effect of the Project on seabirds is assessed as not significant.

The predicted residual environmental effects of the proposed StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016, including possible accidental events on marine mammals and sea turtles are assessed to be negative, but not significant.

In summary, after mitigation measures have been implemented, the overall predicted effects of the proposed StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016, on the biophysical environment and the fishery are assessed as not significant. The only exceptions are the potential effects of a large offshore oil spill on seabirds and on the marketability of offshore commercial fish. However, the likelihood of such an event is, as discussed previously, very low. In the event of an accidental blowout with release of oil, in calm conditions, some mitigation may be possible through oil spill response measures. Also, in the case of fishery losses directly attributable to the Project, actual loss would be mitigated through compensation to a not significant level. The capacity of renewable resources to meet present and future needs is not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project.

9.2. Cumulative Effects of the Project

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment included:

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 275 o Hibernia and Terra Nova (other existing offshore oil developments); o Other offshore oil exploration activity (seismic surveys and exploratory drilling); o Commercial fisheries; o Marine transportation (tankers, cargo ships, supply vessels, naval vessels, fishing vessel transits, etc.); and o Hunting activities (seabirds and seals).

CAPP predicted that there would be between one and four drill rigs per year operating on the Grand Banks between 2000 and 2010 (CAPP 1999). CAPP’s scenario for a moderate level of activity predicts two rigs drilling exploration, delineation and production wells on the Grand Banks each year over the ten-year period. It is reasonable to assume that there will be at least two exploratory drilling programs on the Grand Banks in 2008. Any cumulative effects on the Grand Banks ecosystem from drilling outside the proposed drilling area will probably not overlap in time and space and thus, will be additive but not multiplicative. This level of activity will not change the effects predictions when viewed on a cumulative basis unless significant oil spills or blowouts occur.

A potential scenario for cumulative effects from drill mud and cuttings discharge would be if the material settles on the ocean floor, smothers benthic communities partially or completely, and effects are persistent over time. This scenario is subject to numerous variables such as type of mud, weather conditions, water depth and velocity, discharge depth, species involved, biological and biodegradation activity. In order to obtain some order of magnitude of the area of seabed potentially affected by the proposed StatoilHydro exploration and appraisal/delineation drilling program for offshore Newfoundland during the 2008 to 2016 period, one can quickly calculate a very rough approximation of the total affected area.

The following quantification considers within- and between project cumulative effect of the deposition of drilling mud and cuttings on the seafloor around a well on the fish habitat VEC under the worst-case scenario of three exploratory wells being drilled concurrently in the Project Area; two by StatoilHydro using two MODUs and one by Husky using one MODU. Assuming that mud and cuttings would cover an area of the seabed of about 0.8 km2 to a thickness of at least one centimeter per well, an approximate total of 2.4 km2 of fish habitat will be smothered at the same time within the Project Area. The 2.4 km2 of seabed represents about 0.0021% of the total area of the Project Area.

A maximum of 27 wells would be drilled during the Project, all within the large (approximately 110,300 km2) Project Area. Assuming 500 m as the radius of each well’s biological zone of influence (ZOI) (i.e., potential smothering due to a minimum of 1 cm thickness of deposited cuttings and mud) and low likelihood of ZOI overlap given the size of the Project Area, the maximum total ZOI area for the entire Project would be 27 times 0.79 km2 (ZOI area of single well) or 21.3 km2. This maximum total ZOI area represents approximately 0.02% of the total area within the Project Area.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 276 Husky Oil is currently planning an 18 well exploratory drilling program of spatial and temporal scope similar to the one being proposed by StatoilHydro. The Project Area associated with the proposed Husky program occurs within the Project Area proposed by StatoilHydro. Therefore, if these 18 wells are considered from the perspective of between-project cumulative effects, the worst-case scenario cumulative affect area would equal approximately 35.6 km2. Obviously, all 45 wells will not be drilled concurrently so the 35.6 km2 is also an overestimation. The estimated between-project cumulative effect area represents less than 0.035% of the total area of the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area. If the maximum number of wells (54) associated with the Husky New Drill Centre Constructions and Operations Program are considered, the estimated between-project cumulative effect area still represents less than 0.07% of the total area of the proposed StatoilHydro Project Area.

9.3. Monitoring and Follow-up

Given that the likelihood of an oil well blowout or a significant oil spill occurring at the Project’s exploration/appraisal/delineation drilling sites is extremely low (Section 8.1), it is highly unlikely that simultaneous accidental events would concurrently occur at a drilling site, Hibernia, Terra Nova or White Rose.

In the unlikely event of a major spill, StatoilHydro has prepared a spill specific EEM that they would test specific hypotheses generated by the effects analysis. This would be part of StatoilHydro’s Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP).

All regulated discharges will be monitored for compliance under the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. Air emissions will be reported in accordance with the guidelines, the National Pollution Release Inventory, and federal regulations that may come into effect under the new “Air Action Plan”.

StatoilHydro will also monitor other aspects of the Project, as indicated by the following:

x Environmental Observers will be on board the drilling rig to record weather and ice conditions and to oversee mitigations such as seabird handling and documentation; x An Oceanographic Monitoring Program will be conducted in accordance with the C-NLOPB Guidelines Respecting Physical Environment Programs (e.g., current meter data will be collected during the Project and data archived at BIO); x Environmental Observers will conduct seabird and marine mammal observations on a daily basis in accordance with established protocols. The data compiled from these observations will be provided to the C-NLOPB, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and x All Project vessels will document and report any damaged fishing gear attributable to the Project. Reports on all of the above will be submitted to the C-NLOPB in a timely fashion.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 277 10.0 Final Comment 10.1. Environmental Assessment Validation Process

The issuance of a Drilling Program and/or a Geophysical/Geotechnical Work Authorization under the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act requires a screening level environmental assessment pursuant to the CEA Act.

The drilling, geotechnical, geo-hazard survey, and vertical seismic profiling activities described in this environmental assessment will be undertaken at various times over the coming nine years. This environmental assessment has been developed taking into account the expected period of time during which these project activities will occur.

Authorizations issued under the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act for the kinds of activities described in this assessment may be valid for one to five years at the discretion of the C-NLOPB. This environmental assessment addresses a nine year drilling program, based on the best available knowledge at this time. StatoilHydro recognizes the requirement to ensure that the environmental assessment is kept current and valid to support the renewal of any applicable authorizations and/or any significant changes in environment or resource use in Project Area during that time. To that end StatoilHydro, during the first quarter of each year for which this environmental assessment applies, will submit documentation to the C-NLOPB in order to confirm that:

x the scope and nature of activities planned and addressed under this environmental assessment have not changed; x the nature of the Species at Risk in the project activity and study areas have been validated and have not changed (including review of Recovery Strategies and Management Plans); x the nature and extent of the fishing activities in the project area have been validated and have not changed such that project activities pose any potential effects not previously assessed; and x the mitigation measures defined and committed to in the environmental assessment are still valid and will continue to be implemented.

Should changes to the Project activities or the environmental aspects noted above occur, the C-NLOPB, in consultation with StatoilHydro, will determine the need for submission of an amendment to the environmental assessment.

As part of its continuous improvement and stakeholder engagement, StatoilHydro will notify fishers through One Ocean of significant planned operations or relevant changes to operations that may impact fishing activity.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 278 11.0 Literature Cited

Abgrall, P., A.L. Lang, and V.D. Moulton. In prep. a. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Husky Energy’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2006 and 2005-2006 combined. LGL Rep. SA920. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 98 p. + appendices.

Abgrall, P., B.D. Mactavish and V.D. Moulton. In prep. b. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Orphan Basin controlled source electromagnetic survey program, 2006 – 2007. LGL Rep. SA904/939. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL. 95 p. + appendices.

Ainley, D.G., C.R. Grau, T.E. Roudybush, S.H. Morrell and J.M. Utts. 1981. Petroleum Ingestion Reduces Reproduction in Cassin’s Auklets. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12:314-317.

ALTRT. 2006. Recovery strategy for leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi +45 p.

Andrews, C., B. French, L. Fancey, J. Guiney, and J.F. Payne. 2004. Chronic toxicity study on snowcrab exposed to drilling fluid being used on the Grand Banks (abstract) Proc. 31st Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop: October 24-27, 2004, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.: 2562. 138 p.

Armstrong, D.A., P.A. Dinnel, J.M. Orensanz, J.L. Armstrong, T.L. McDonald, R.F. Cusimano, R.S. Nemeth, M.L. Landolt, J.R. Skalski, R.F. Lee and R.J. Huggett. 1995. Status of Selected Bottomfish and Crustacean Species in Prince William Sound Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. pp. 485-547. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 p.

Baird, R.W. 2003. Update COSEWIC status report on the humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii +25 p.

Baird, R.W., P.J. Stacey and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the Striped Dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107: 455-465.

Ballie, S.M., G.J. Robertson, F.K. Wiese and U.P. Williams. 2005. Seabird data collected by the Grand Banks offshore hydrocarbon industry 1999-2002: results, limitations and suggestions for improvement. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 434. Atlantic Region.

Barnes, J.L. and L.H. Davey. 1999. A practical approach to integrated cumulative environmental effects assessment to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Bell, G. D., and M. Chelliah, 2006: Leading Tropical Modes Associated with Interannual and Multidecadal Fluctuations in North Atlantic Hurricane Activity. J. Climate, 19, 590–612.

Benoit, D. and W.D. Bowen. 1990. Seasonal and geographic variation in the diet of Grey Seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Eastern Canada. pp. 215-226. In: W.D. Bowen (ed.), Population biology of sealworm (Pseudoterranova decipiens) in relation to its intermediate and seal hosts. Canadian Bulletin on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 222 p.

Best, P.B. 1993. Increase rates in severely depleted stocks of baleen whales. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 50: 169-186.

Brown, R.G.B. 1986. Revised atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds. 1. Shipboard surveys. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 111 p.

Buchanan, R.A., J. A. Cook and A. Mathieu. 2003. Environmental effects monitoring for exploration drilling. LGL Report No. SA735 by LGL Ltd., CEF Consultants Ltd., and Oceans Ltd. for Environmental Studies Research Funds, Calgary, Alberta.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 279 Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton and B. Mactavish. 2004a. Orphan 3-D seismic program, 2004-2006, environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA799. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Newfoundland, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, Alberta and ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas. 209 p. + appendices

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish and S. Dufault. 2004b. 2004 Laurentian 2-D seismic survey environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA816. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Newfoundland for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 274 p.

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish, R. Pitt, J. Bobbitt, S. Canning, R. Belore, P. Rudkin, D. Dunbar, and M. Wawrzkow. 2007. Laurentian sub-basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment addendum. LGL Rep. SA934. Rep. by LGL Limited with Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., Provincial Airlines Limited, SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd., Calixte Environmental Management and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL. for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 80 p. Kulka, D.W. and M.R. Simpson. 2003. Annual trends in abundance and bycatch removals of blue hake (Antimora rostrata Günther 1878) in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/022. + appendix.

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish, R. Pitt, J. Bobbitt, S. Canning, R. Belore, P. Rudkin, D. Dunbar, and M. Wawrzkow. 2006. Laurentian sub-basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA832. Rep. by LGL Limited with Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., Provincial Airlines Limited, SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd., Calixte Environmental Management and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL. for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 408 + appendices.

Burke, C.M., G.K. Davoren, W.A. Montevecchi and F.K. Wiese (2005) 'Surveys of seabirds along support vessel transects and at oil platforms on the Grand Banks.' pp. 587-614. In: P.J. Cransford and K. Lee (Editors). Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects Monitoring. Battele Press, Columbus, Ohio.

Cairns, D.K., W.A. Montevecchi and W. Threlfall. 1989. Researcher's guide to Newfoundland seabird colonies. Second edition, Memorial University of Newfoundland Occasional Papers in Biology No. 14. 43 p.

Canadian Ice Service. 1960-2007. Composite Ice Charts. Ottawa, ON.

Canadian Ice Service. 1971-2000. Sea Ice Climatic Atlas- East Coast of Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Canatec (Canatec Consultants). 1999. Panel on Energy Research & Development (PERD). A Compilation of Iceberg Shape and Geometry Data for the Grand Banks Region. PERD/CHC Report 20-43 (http://www.chc.nrc.ca/Cold Regions Technology/Cold Regions.html).

CAPP. 2001a. Offshore drilling rigs. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Calgary. 4 p.

CAPP. 2001b. Drilling an offshore well. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Calgary. 6 p.

Casas, J.M. and D.G. Troncoso. 2007. Results from bottom trawl survey on Flemish Cap of June-July 2006. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/10.

CEA Agency. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, addressing cumulative environmental effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, November 1994.

CEA Agency. 2000. Preparing project descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Operational Policy Statement OPS –EPO/5-2000. 6 p.

CEA Agency. 2003. The process for defining the spatial boundary of a study area during an environmental assessment of offshore exploratory drilling projects. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Operational Policy Statement. 3 p. www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/013/0002/drilling_ops_e.htm [As viewed 4 March 2004.]

Chardine, J.W. 2000. Census of Northern Gannet colonies in the Atlantic Region in 1999. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 361. Atlantic Region.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 280 Chardine, J.W., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan and B. Turner. 2003. Abundance and distribution of Common Murres breeding at Funk Island, Newfoundland 1972 and 2000. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 404. Atlantic Region.

Christian, J., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Laurentian sub-basin 3-D seismic program, environmental assessment update, 2005. LGL Rep. SA831. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 83 p. + appendix.

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of Oil Pollution on Seabirds. Environmental Pollution 33:1-22.

C-NLOPB. 2000. Guidelines Respecting Drilling Programs in the Newfoundland Offshore Area, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, 2000.

C-NLOPB. 2004. Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, April 2004.

Colbourne, E., 2000. Interannual variations in the stratification and transport of the Labrador Current on the Newfoundland Shelf. International Council for the Explorations of the Sea. CM 2000/L:2.

Colbourne, E., 2002. Physical Oceanographic Conditions on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves during 2001. CSAS Res.Doc. 2002/023.

Colbourne, E. B., 2004. Decadal Changes in the Ocean Climate in Newfoundland and Labrador Waters from the 1950s to the 1990s. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., V.34. p.41–59.

Colbourne, E. B., and D. R. Senciall, 1996. Temperature, Salinity and Sigma-t along the standard Flemish Cap. Transect. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrog. Oceans Sci. V.172, 222 p.

Colbourne, E. B., and K. D. Foote, 2000. Variability of the Stratification and Circulation on the Flemish Cap during the Decades of the 1950s-1990s. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., V.26, p.103–122.

Colbourne, E., B. deYoung, S. Narayanan, and J. Helbig, 1997. Comparison of hydrography and circulation on the Newfoundland Shelf during 1990–1993 with the long-term mean. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. V.54 (Suppl. 1), p. 68-80.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 p.

COSEWIC. 2003a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the sei whale Balaenoptera borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii +27 p.

COSEWIC. 2003b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 28 p.

COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Northwest Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii+ 32 p.

COSEWIC. 2007. Canadian Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, September 2007. 84 p.

Cranford, P.J. 2005. Scallops as sentinel organisms for off-shore environmental effects monitoring. Pp. 267-296. In: Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects Monitoring: Approaches and Technologies. Edited by S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford and K. Lee. Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 281 Croasdale, K.R. and Associates. 2000. Study of Iceberg Scour and Risk on the Grand Banks. PERD/CHC Report 31-26, Panel on Energy Research and Development),. Calgary, AB.

Deblois, E.M., C. Leeder, K.C. Penney, M. Murdoch, M.D. Paine, F. Power, and U.P. Williams. 2005. Terra Nova environmental effects monitoring program: from environmental impact statement onward. pp. 475-491. In: Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects Monitoring: Approaches and Technologies. Edited by S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford and K. Lee. Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.

DeTracey, B. M., C.L. Tang; P.C. Smith, 1996. Low-frequency currents at the northern shelf edge of the Grand Banks. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 101, Issue C6, p. 14223-14236.

DFO. 1987 - 2006. Newfoundland and Labrador Region and Maritimes Region Catch and Effort Database (digital version). Georeferenced harvest data, to 2006 (accessed February 2007).

DFO. 1999. 1999-2001 Integrated Management Plan, Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab.

DFO. 2003. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Northern Shrimp Northeast Newfoundland, Labrador Coast and Davis Strait (Effective 2003).

DFO. 2004. Allowable harm assessment for cusk in Atlantic Canada. Maritimes Region Stock Status Report 2004/044.

DFO. 2005. Stock assessment of Subdivision 3Ps pollock. Newfoundland and Labrador Region Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2005/049.

DFO. 2005. Stock Assessment on Subdivision 3Ps American Plaice. Can .Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/048.

DFO. 2005b. Stock Assessment Update on Groundfish in Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/051.

DFO. 2006a. Perspectives on the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/018.

DFO. 2006b. Atlantic Halibut on the Scotian Shelf and Southern Grand Banks (Div. 3NOPs4VWX). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/038.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007a. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/008.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007b. Proceedings of the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Advisory Process for snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2007/004.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007c. Cetacean sighting database. Marine mammal section, DFO, St. John’s, NL.

DFO. 2008b. Newfoundland and Labrador Region Species Quota Reports for 2008 (accessed February – March 2008).

Dobrocky Seatech. 1985. Field Data Report: Sea Ice Documentation in the Vicinity of the Hibernia Drilling Area. Report prepared for Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., Calgary, AB.

E&P Forum. 1996. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Data Sheet Directory. The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, 25-28 Old Burlington Street, London.

Edinger, E., Baker, K., Devillers, R., Wareham, V., 2007a. Coldwater corals in Newfoundland and Labrador waters: distribution and fisheries impacts. WWF-Canada, 41 p. plus enclosed map CD.

Edinger, E.N., Wareham, V.E., Haedrich, R.L., 2007b. Patterns of groundfish diversity and abundance in relation to deep-sea coral distributions in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. Bulletin of Marine Science. 81:289-313.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 282 Ernst, C.H., R.W. Barbour and J.E. Lovich (eds.). 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 578 p.

Fechhelm, R.G., B.J. Gallaway, G.F. Hubbard, S. MacLean and L.R. Martin. 2001. Opportunistic sampling at a deep-water synthetic drilling fluid discharge site in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science. 2: 97-106.

Fisher, J. and F. A. Scott. 2002. Labrador Sea Water Tracked by Profiling Floats – From the Boundary Current into the Open North Atlantic. J. Phys. Oceangr. V.32, No.2, p. 573-584.

Frink, L. and J. White. 1990. A perspective on the effects of oil on birds. In The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center, Washington.

Fry, D.M. 1990. Oil exposure and stress effects on avian reproduction. In: The effects of oil on wildlife: research, rehabilitation and general concerns, Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center, Washington.

Gaskin, D.E. 1992a. Status of the Common Dolphin, Delphinus delphis, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 106: 55-63.

Gaskin, D.E. 1992b. Status of the Atlantic White-sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus, in Canada. Canadian Field- Naturalist 106: 64-72.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: physiologic and toxic effects. pp. 167-197. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p.

González-Troncoso, D., F. González and X. Paz. 2007b. Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder indices from the Spanish survey conducted in Divisions 3NO of the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/36.

González-Troncoso, D., M. Sacau and F. González-Costas. 2007a. A study of Spanish Greenland halibut commercial effort and CPUE in 3LMNO using GIS with comparisons to the Spanish Div. 3NO and EU Flemish Cap survey catches. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/54.

Gorsline, J., W.N. Holmes, and J. Cronshaw. 1981. The Effects of Ingested Petroleum on the Naphthalene-metabolizing Properties of Liver Tissue in Seawater-adapted Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environmental Research 24:377-390.

Gulev, S. K., and L. Hasse, 1998: North Atlantic Wind Waves and Wind Stress Fields from Voluntary Observing Ship Data. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1107–1130.

Gulf Canada. 1981. Analysis of Accidents in Offshore Operations where Hydrocarbons were Lost. A report by the Houston Technical Services Center of Gulf Research and Development Company for Gulf Canada Resources, Inc. Calgary, Alberta.

Hai, D.J., J. Lien, D. Nelson and K. Curren. 1996. A contribution to the biology of the White-beaked Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in waters off Newfoundland. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110: 278-287.

Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), and in Atlantic Canada. Journal of Northwest Fisheries Science 26: 1-23.

Hammill, M.O., M.S. Ryg and B. Mohn. 1995. Consumption of cod by the Northwest Atlantic Grey Seal in Eastern Canada. p. 337-349. In: A.S. Blix, L. Walloe and O. Ulltang (eds.), Whales, seals, fish and man. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic. Developments in Marine Biology 4.

Han, G. 2007. Surface water current database developed by the Biological and Physical Oceanography Section of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 283 Hart, R. E., and J. L. Evans. 2001: A climatology of Extratropical Transition of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones. J. Climate, 14, 546-564.

Healey, B.P. 2007. Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in NAFO Subarea 2 and Divisions 3KLMNO: stock trends based on annual Canadian research vessel survey results during 1978-2006. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/45.

Hodgins, D. O. and S. L. M. Hodgins. 2000. Modelled Predictions of Well Cuttings Deposition and Produced Water Dispersion for the Proposed White Rose Development. Part Two Document by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited. 45 p.

Hurley, G. and J. Ellis. 2004. Environmental effects of exploratory drilling offshore Canada: Environmental effects monitoring data and literature review-final report.

Husky. 2000. White Rose oilfield comprehensive study. Report for Husky Oil Operations Ltd. St. John's, NF. 1011 p.

Husky. 2001a. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study Supplemental Report. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 265 p. + App.

Husky. 2001b. White Rose baseline characterization data report June 2001. Prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 109 p. + App.

Husky. 2003. Husky Lewis Hill Prospect Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment. Report by LGL Limited to Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s. 324 p.

Husky. 2005. White Rose Environmental Effects Monitoring Program 2004, Volume 1. June 2005.

Husky. 2006. White Rose Environmental Effects Monitoring Program 2005, Volume 1. March 2006.

ICES. 2005. Report of the ICES/NAFO Working Group on harp and hooded seals (WGHARP), 30 August-3 September 2005, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. ICES CM 2005/ACFM: 06. 54 p.

ICES. 2006. Report of the ICES/NAFO Working Group on harp and hooded seals (WGHARP), 12-16 June 2006, ICES Headquarters. ICES CM 2006/ACFM: 32. 28 p.

Irwin, R.J. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Crude Oil Entry. National Park Service, Water Resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch, Colorado

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmeyer and R.A. Myers. 2005. Identification of high-use habitat and threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecology Letters 8:195-201.

Jensen, T., R. Palerud, F. Olsgard, S.M. Bakke. 1999. Dispersion and effects of synthetic drilling fluids in the environment. Ministry of Oil and Energy Technical Report No. 99-3507. 49 p.

JWEL. 2001. Environmental review of ROV survey of Annapolis Well B24. Report by Jacques Whitford Environment, Dartmouth, NS to Marathon Canada Limited, Halifax, NS. 4 p.

JWEL. 2002. Post-drilling environmental observations of deepwater exploration drilling at Well H-23 Newburn. Report by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, Dartmouth, NS to Chevron Canada Resources. 6 p.

Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migration and feeding aggregation of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12): 295-305.

Katona, S.K., V. Rough and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises and Seals from Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, USA. 316 p.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 284 Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry and W.B. McAlister. 1976. Physiological impact of oil on pinnipeds. Unpubl. Final Rep., Res. Unit 71, to Outer Cont. Shelf Envir. Assess. Program, BLM/NOAA. 26 p.

Kooyman, G.L., R.W. Davis and M.A. Castellini. 1977. Thermal conductance of immersed pinniped and sea otter pelts before and after oiling with Prudhoe Bay crude. pp. 151-157. In: D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine ecosystems and organisms. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Krauss, W., 1986. The North Atlantic Current. J. Geophys. Res. V.91, C 4, p.5061-5074.

Kühnhold, W.W. 1978. Effects of the Water Soluble Fraction of a Venezuelan Heavy Fuel Oil (No.6) on Cod Eggs and Larvae. pp. 126-130. In: In the Wake of the Argo Merchant, Center for Ocean Management. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffihs (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada [Proposed]. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 p.

Lang, A.L. and V.D. Moulton. 2004. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring during the CCGS Hudson research expedition, June-July 2004. LGL Rep. SA818. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, ON, and St. John’s, NL, for ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB. 22p.

Lang, A.L. and V.D. Moulton. In prep. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Petro-Canada’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2007. LGL Rep. SA938. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL. 32 p. + appendices.

Lang, A.L, V.D. Moulton and R.A. Buchanan. 2006. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Husky Energy’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2005. LGL Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Husky Energy Inc., Calagary, AB. 63 p. + appendices.

Lawson, J.W. 2006. Preliminary information on distribution and abundance of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. SC/14/FW/21-SC/M06/FW21. Joint NAMMCO/IWC Scientific Workshop on the Catch History, Stock Structure and Abundance of North Atlantic Fin Whales. Reykjavik, Iceland, 23-26 March, 2006. 12 p.

Lawson, J.W. and G.B. Stenson. 1995. Historic variation in the diet of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) in the northwest Atlantic. 261-269. In A.S. Blix, L. Walløe and Ø. Ultang (eds.), Whales, seals, fish and man. Elsevier Science B.V. Tromsø, Norway. IV.

Lawson, J.W., J.T. Anderson, E.L. Dalley and G.B. Stenson. 1998. Selective foraging by Harp Seals Phoca groenlandica in nearshore and offshore waters of Newfoundland, 1993 and 1994. Marine Ecology Progress Series 163: 1-10.

Lawson, J., T. Stevens, and D. Snow. 2007. Killer whales of Atlantic Canada, with particular reference to the Newfoundland and labrador region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/xxx.

Lazier, J. R. N., and D. G. Wright, 1993. Annual velocity variations in the Labrador Current, J. Phys. Oceanogr., V.23, p.659-678.

LGL Limited. 2002. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin exploration drilling program project description and environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA723. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, and SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 179 p.

LGL Limited. 2003. Husky Lewis Hill prospect exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA746. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, and SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 324 p.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 285 LGL Limited. 2005a. Husky delineation/exploration drilling program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin area environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA845. Rep. by LGL Limited, Canning and Pitt Associates, Inc., and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 340 p. + appendix.

LGL Limited. 2005b. Orphan Basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA825. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Lorax Environmental, Vancouver, BC, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary, AB and Shell Canada Limited. 353 p.

LGL Limited. 2005c. Northern Jeanne d’Arc Basin seismic program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA836. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 241 p.

LGL Limited. 2006a. Husky White Rose Development Project: New drill centre construction and operations program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA883. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 299 p. + App.

LGL Limited. 2006b. Husky delineation/exploration drilling program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin area environmental assessment update. LGL Rep. SA886. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Services, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 67 p. + appendix.

LGL Limited. 2006c. Orphan Basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment addendum. LGL Rep. SA825. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Lorax Environmental, Vancouver, BC, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary, AB, and Shell Canada Limited. 142 p. + Appendices.

LGL Limited. 2007a. Husky White Rose Development Project: New drill centre construction and operations program environmental assessment addendum. LGL Rep. SA883a. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 126 p. + App.

LGL Limited. 2007b. Husky delineation/exploration drilling program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin area, 2008-2017, environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA935. Prepared by LGL, St. John’s, NL, in association with Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., Oceans Ltd., and PAL Environmental Services. Prepared for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 231 p. + Appendices.

LGL Limited. 2007c. Environmental assessment of Petro-Canada’s Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3-D seismic program. LGL Rep. SA882. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Services, St. John’s, NL, for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL. 264 p. + App.

LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc. 2005. Jeanne d’Arc Basin geohazard surveys environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA854. Rep. By LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., prepared for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 105 p. + appendix.

Lien, J., G.B. Stenson and P.W. Jones. 1988. Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, 1978-1986. Rit Fiskideildar. 11: 194-201.

Lock, A.R., R.G.B. Brown and S.H. Gerriets. 1994. Gazetteer of marine birds in Atlantic Canada. An atlas of seabird vulnerability to oil pollution. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada, Atlantic Region. 137 p.

Lorax (Lorax Environmental). 2008. Jeanne d’Arc Basin well cuttings/mud deposition modeling. Rep. by Lorax Environmental, St. John’s, NL for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 286 Lydersen, C. and K.M. Kovacs. 1999. Behaviour and energetics of ice-breeding, North Atlantic phocid seals during the lactation period. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 187: 265-281.

Mathieu, A., W. Melvin, B. French, M. Dawe, E.M. Deblois, F. Power, U.P. Williams. 2005. Health effects indicators in American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) from the Terra Nova development site, Grand Banks, NL, Canada. pp. 297-317. In: Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects Monitoring: Approaches and Technologies. Edited by S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford and K. Lee. Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 1997. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1995. Leasing, exploration, production and revenues to December 31, 1995. U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service, Operations and Safety Management, OCS Report MMS 97-0007.

MMS. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. U.S. Dept. Interior Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS region. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 121 p.

Mobil 1985. Hibernia Development Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Volume IIIa: Biophysical Assessment. Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. (Operator), Gulf Canada Resources Inc., Petro-Canada Inc., Chevron Canada Resources Ltd., and Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd. 258 p.

Mohn, R. and W.D. Bowen. 1996. Grey Seal predation on the Eastern Scotian Shelf: modelling the impact on Atlantic Cod. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2722-2738.

Mortensen, P.B., L. Buhl-Mortensen, S.E. Gass, D.C. Gordon Jr., E.L.R. Kenchington, C. Bourbonnais, and K.G. MacIsaac. 2006. Deep-water corals in Atlantic Canada: A summary of ESRF-funded research (2001-2003), March 2006, Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 143. Calgary. 83 p.

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005a. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Chevron Canada Resources’ 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2004. LGL Rep. SA817. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 90 p. + appendices.

Moulton, V.D., J.R. Christian, R.D. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005b. Orphan Basin 3-D seismic program, environmental assessment update, 2005. LGL Rep. SA839. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt, St. John’s, NL. 51 p. + appendix.

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2006a. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of ConocoPhilips' 3-D seismic program in the Laurentian Sub-basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA849. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John's, NL, for ConocoPhilips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, AB. 97 p. + appendices.

Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, R.E. Harris and R.A. Buchanan. 2006b. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Chevron Canada Limited’s 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA843. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 109 p. + appendices.

Moulton, V.D., J. Christian, R.A. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2006c. Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3D seismic program, environmental assessment update, 2006 - 2010. LGL Rep. SA884. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 56 p. + appendices.

Murua, H. and F. Gónzalez. 2007. A review of roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) biology and population structure on Flemish Cap (NAFO Division 3M) 1991-2006 based upon EU Flemish Cap bottom survey data. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/25.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Impacts, Fates and Effects. http://www.nap.edu.

Navoc (Naval Ocean Command). 1986. Sea Ice Climate Atlas, Vol. II, Arctic East. Document NAVAIR 50-1C-541. 147p.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 287 NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 1999. Guidelines respecting the selection of chemicals intended to be used in conjunction with offshore drilling and production activities on frontier lands. Prepared by National Energy Board, Canada – Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the, Canada – Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 16 p.

NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 2002. Offshore waste treatment guidelines. Prepared by National Energy Board, Canada – Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada – Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 11 p + App.

Neff, J.M. 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds and cuttings discharged to the marine environment: A synthesis and annotated bibliography. Prepared for Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) and American Petroleum Institute, MA.

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006- 064. 145 p.

Nelson, D. and J. Lien. 1996. The status of the Long-finned Pilot Whale, Globicephala melas, in Canada. Canadian Field- Naturalist. 110: 511-524.

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization STATLANT 21A datasets for 1985 – 2004, accessed February 2008.

Oceans Ltd. 2005. Meteorology and oceanography of the Orphan Basin. Unpubl. Report. Submitted to LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL. 153 p.

OGP. 2003. Environmental aspects of the use and disposal of non aqueous drilling fluids associated with offshore oil and gas operations. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers Report No. 342. 112 p.

PAL (Provincial Aerospace Limited). 2007. Iceberg Sightings Database, 1985-2007.

Palka, D., A. Read and C. Potter. 1997. Summary of knowledge of White-sided Dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) from US and Canadian Atlantic Waters. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47: 729-734.

Parsons. J.L. and J.E. Brownlie. 1981. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals of the Grand Banks, 1980-1981. Grand Banks Wildlife Study, Final Report. Chapter 4. Report by MacLaren Plansearch for Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.

Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, S. Whiteway, and K. Lee. 2001a. Definition of sediment toxicity zones around oil development sites: dose response relationships for the monitoring suurogates Microtox and amphipods, exposed to Hibernia source cuttings containing a synthetic base oil. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2577: iv + 10 p.

Payne, J.F., L.L. Fancey, C.D. Andrews, J.D. Meade, F.M. Power, K. Lee, G. Veinoff and A. Cook. 2001b. Laboratory exposures of invertebrate and vertebrate species to concentrations of IA-35 (Petro Canada) drill mud fluid, production water and Hibernia drill mud cuttings. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. In Press.

Payne, J.F., A. Mathieu, and T.K. Collier. 2003. Ecotoxicological studies focusing on marine and freshwater fish. pp. 191- 224. In: PAHs: an Ecotoxicological Perspective. Edited by P.E.T. Douben, John Wiley and Sons, London.

Petrie, B., S. Akenhead,. J. Lazier, and J. Loder, 1988. The cold intermediate layer on the Labrador and Northeast Newfoundland Shelves, 1978–1986. NAFO Sci. Counc. Stud. V.12, p.57–69.

Petro-Canada. 1996a. Development Application Terra Nova Development Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Petro-Canada on behalf of Terra Nova Proponents: Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited.

Petro-Canada. 1996b. Development Application Terra Nova Development Supplement A to the Application. Prepared by Petro-Canada on behalf of Terra Nova Proponents: Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited. 82 p.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 288 Petro-Canada. 2002. Flemish Pass exploration drilling program: environmental assessment. Rep. by Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited, St. John’s, NL for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL.

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. Auk 107:387-397.

Piatt, J.F., D.A. Methven, A.E. Burger, R.L. McLagan, V. Mercer and E. Creelman. 1989. Baleen whales and their prey in a coastal environment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1523-1530.

Pitman, R.L. 2002. Mesoplodont whales (Mesoplodon spp.). p. 84-87. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Plotkin, P.T. (ed.). 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 139 p.

Reeves, R. and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus, in Canada. Canadian Field- Naturalist 111: 293-307.

Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham and J.A. Powell (eds). 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 527 p.

Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the Northern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107: 491-509.

Rice, S.D. 1985. Effects of Oil on Fish. pp. 157-182. In: F.R. Engelhardt (ed.), Petroleum Effects in the Arctic Environment. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., NY.

Rice, S.D., M.M. Babcock, C.C. Brodersen, M.G. Carls, J.A. Gharrett , S. Korn, A. Moles and J.W. Short. 1986. Lethal and Sub-lethal Effects of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude on Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) Reproduction. Final report, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, NOAA.

Rice, S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds). 1996. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD.

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene Jr., C. I. Malme and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576 p.

Roberts, D.J. and A.H. Nguyen. 2006. Degradation of synthetic-based drilling mud base fluids by Gulf of Mexico sediments: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-028. 122 p.

Robertson, G. J. 2002. Current status of the Manx Shearwater, Puffinus puffinus, colony on Middle Lawn Island, Newfoundland. Northeastern Naturalist 9: 317-324.

Robertson, G.J. and R.D. Elliot. 2002. Changes in seabird populations breeding on Small Island, Wadham Islands, Newfoundland. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 381. Atlantic Region.

Robertson, G.J., D. Fifield, M. Massaro and J.W. Chardine. 2001. Changes in nesting-habitat use of large gulls breeding in Witless Bay, Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 79:2159-2167.

Robertson, G.J., J. Russell and D. Fifield. 2002. Breeding population estimates for three Leach’s Storm-Petrel colonies in southeastern Newfoundland, 2001. . Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 380. Atlantic Region.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 289 Robertson, G.J., S.I. Wilhelm and P.A. Taylor. 2004. Population size and trends of seabirds breeding on Gull and Great Islands, Witless Bay Islands Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland, up to 2003. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 418. Atlantic Region.

Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr and J.W. Chardine. 2003. Status of the largest breeding concentration of Atlantic Puffins, Fratercula arctica, in North America. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:70-75.

Ross, S.A. 1993. Food and feeding of the Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata) in Newfoundland. M.Sc. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF.

S.L. Ross (S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.). 2008. The fate and behavior of hypothetical oil spills from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen drilling program. Rep. by S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., Ottawa, ON for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL.

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price and C.C. Jones. 1990. Anatomy of an Oil Spill: Long- term Effects from the Grounding of the Barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research, 38: 265-380.

Scandpower A/S. 2000. Blowout Frequencies 2000, BlowFAM Edition, Report No. 27.20.01/R3, March 2000.

Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219. 731 p.

Seaconsult Ltd. 1988. Physical Environmental Data for Production Systems at Terra Nova. Report prepared for Petro- Canada Inc. Calgary, AB.

Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Ottawa. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1-32 pp.

Sergeant, D.E. 1991. Harp Seals, man and ice. Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 114: 153 p.

SL Ross (SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd). 2007a. Spill related properties of White Rose (2007) crude oil. Report for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.

SL Ross (SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd). 2007b. Oil spill fate and behaviour modeling in support of Husky’s 2007 drilling EA. Report for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.

St. Aubin, D.J. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on polar bears. pp. 235-239. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p.

St. Pierre, J.-F. and Y. de Lafontaine. 1995. Recundity and reproduction characteristics of beaked redfish (Sebastes fasciatus and S. mentella) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2059.

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C.A. Zetlin. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Ocean pout, Macrozoarces americanus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NE- 129.

Stenhouse, I.J., and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Increasing and expanding populations of breeding Northern Fulmars in Atlantic Canada. Waterbirds 22: 382-391.

Stenhouse, I.J., G.J Robertson and W.A. Montevecchi. 2000. Herring Gull Larus argentatus predation on Leach’s Storm- Petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa breeding on Great Island, Newfoundland. Atlantic Seabirds 2: 35-44.

Stenson, G.B. and B. Sjare. 1997. Seasonal distribution of Harp Seals, Phoca groenlandica, in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES. C.M. 1997/10 p.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 290 Stenson, G.B. and D.J. Kavanagh. 1994. Distribution of Harp and Hooded Seals in offshore waters of Newfoundland. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Scientific Council Studies 21: 121-142.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, M. Berube, P.J. Clapham, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsboll, J. Robbins, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, N. Oien and P.S. Hammond. 2003. Segregation of migration by feeding ground origin in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Journal of Zoology, London 259: 231-237.

Swail, V.R., V.J. Cardone, M. Ferguson, D.J. Gummer, E.L. Harris, E.A. Orelup, A.T. Cox. 2006. The MSC50 wind and wave reanalysis. 9th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting. Victoria, BC, Canada.

Torres, P. and I. Loureiro. 2001. Data on the bathymetric distribution of crustaceans and cephalopods in Flemish Cap Bank during summer 2000. NAFO SCR Doc. 01/41. 6 p.

United States Geological Survey, Conservation Division, 1979. OCS Platform Verification Program. Reston, Virginia.

Wallace, S.D. and J.W. Lawson. 1997. A review of stomach contents of Harp Seals (Phoca groenlandica) from the Northwest Atlantic: an update. International Marine Mammal Association 97-01.

Wang, J.Y., D.E. Gaskin and B.N. White. 1996. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, subpopulations in North American waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1632-1645.

Wareham, V.E., Edinger, E.N., 2007. Distribution of Deep-sea Coral in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of Marine Science. 81:101-122.

Waring, G.T., Josephson E, Fairfield CP, Maze-Foley K, editors. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammals Stock Assessments -- 2006. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS NE 201; 378 p.

Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of Humpback Whales in the Northwest Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission 32: 345-353.

Wiens, J.A. 1995. Recovery of Seabirds Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: An Overview. pp. 854-893. In P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 p.

Wiese, F. K. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Marine bird and mammal surveys on the Newfoundland Grand Bank from offshore supply vessels. Contract Report Prepared for Husky Oil. 23 p. + App.

Williams, A.S. 1985. Rehabilitating Oiled Seabirds. In J. Burridge and M. Kane (eds.). A Field Manual, International Bird Rescue Research Center, Berkely, CA. 79 p.

Wimmer, T. and H. Whitehead. 2004. Movements and distribution of northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus, on the Scotian Slope and in adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 82(11): 1782-1794.

Winterstein, S. R., T. Ude, C. A. Cornell, P. Jarager, and S. Haver, 1993. Environmental Parameters for Extreme Response: Inverse FORM with Omission Factors. ICOSSar-3, Paper No 509/11/3, Innsbruck, 3-12 August 1993.

Yashayaev, I, and A. Clarke, 2006. Recent warming of the Labrador Sea. DFO AZMP Bulletin, No. 5, 2006.

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 291 Electronic Database References

Panel on Energy Research & Development (PERD). Grand Banks Iceberg Update, 2005. PERD/CHC Report 20-40. Complied by: (Fleet Technology), Available at: http://www.chc.nrc.ca/Cold Regions Technology/Cold Regions.html

Panel on Energy Research & Development (PERD). A Compilation of Iceberg Shape and Geometry Data for the Grand Banks Region. PERD/CHC Report 20-43. Compiled by: (CANATEC Consultants 1999), Available at: http://www.chc.nrc.ca/Cold Regions Technology/Cold Regions.html

Provincial Aerospace Limited (PAL). Iceberg Sightings Database, 1985-2007. Available at: http://idns.provair.com/database.asp

Personal Communications

Anderson, C. Operations Research Analyst, MMS

Brodie, B. DFO, February 2008

Lang, T. LGL Limited Biologist

Lawson, J. DFO Marine Mammal Research Scientist

Piper, D. Research Scientist, NRCan

Wareham, V. DFO, pers. comm.

Williams, U. Petro-Canada

StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program LGL Limited Environmental Assessment Page 292 Appendices (See Attached CD)

Appendix 1: Physical Environmental Conditions on the Grand Banks in Support of StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program

Appendix 2: Report On Consultations

Appendix 3: Jeanne d’Arc Basin Well Cuttings / Mud Deposition Modeling

Appendix 4: Hypothetical Spill Trajectory Probabilities from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen Drilling Program Appendix 1

Physical Environmental Conditions on the Grand Banks in Support of StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program Physical Environmental Conditions on the Grand Banks in Support of StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program

Submitted To: StatoilHydro Scotia Centre 235 Water St. St. John’s, NL

March 2008 Physical Environmental Conditions on the Grand Banks in Support of StatoilHydro’s Drilling Program

Submitted To: StatoilHydro Scotia Centre 235 Water St. St. John’s, NL

Submitted By; Oceans Ltd. 85 LeMarchant Road St. John’s, NL A1C 2H1

March 2008 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction...... 1 2.0 Climate...... 3 2.1 Study Area...... 3 2.1.1 Extratropical Storm Systems...... 3 2.1.2 Tropical Storm Systems...... 4 2.1.3 Wind Climatology...... 5 2.1.4 Wave Climatology ...... 7 2.2 Project Area...... 10 2.2.1 Data Sources...... 10 2.2.2 Winds ...... 12 2.2.3 Waves...... 29 2.2.4 Air and Sea Temperature ...... 58 2.2.5 Precipitation ...... 63 2.2.6 Visibility ...... 66 2.2.7 Tropical Storms...... 69 2.2.8 Climate Variability...... 72 3.0 Wind and Wave Extreme Value Analysis ...... 77 3.1 Region 1...... 78 3.1.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution...... 78 3.1.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution...... 80 3.1.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods... 82 3.2 Region 2...... 83 3.2.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution...... 83 3.2.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution...... 85 3.2.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods... 87 3.3 Region 3...... 89 3.3.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution...... 89 3.3.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution...... 91 3.3.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods... 92 4.0 Physical Oceanography...... 95 4.1 General Description of the Major Currents ...... 95 4.2 Currents in the Project Area...... 102 4.3 Water Mass Structure...... 110 4.4 Water Properties in the Project Area ...... 117

Appendix 1 QuikSCAT Derived Monthly Wind Speed and Direction Climatology .... 128 Appendix 2 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 12595 ...... 135 Appendix 3 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 12595 ...... 142 Appendix 4 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10255 ...... 149 Appendix 5 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10439 ...... 156 Appendix 6 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 11421 ...... 163 Appendix 7 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10255 ...... 170 Appendix 8 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10439 ...... 177 Appendix 9 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 11421 ...... 184 Appendix 10 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10856 ...... 191 Appendix 11 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 13912 ...... 198 Appendix 12 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10856 ...... 205 Appendix 13 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 13912 ...... 212 Appendix 14 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 12595...... 219 Appendix 15 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 12595...... 226 Appendix 16 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10255...... 233 Appendix 17 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10439...... 240 Appendix 18 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 11421...... 247 Appendix 19 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10255...... 254 Appendix 20 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10439...... 261 Appendix 21 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 11421...... 268 Appendix 22 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10856...... 275 Appendix 23 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 13912...... 282 Appendix 24 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10856...... 289 Appendix 25 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 13912...... 296 Table of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of project and study area ...... 2 Figure 2.1 QuikSCAT satellite derived winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for January ...... 6 Figure 2.2 QuikSCAT satellite derived winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for July6 Figure 2.3 Annual mean wind wave (a) and swell (b) height and significant wave height estimate (c). Units are metres...... 8 Figure 2.4 January (a,c) and July (b,d) monthly mean wind wave height (a,b) and significant wave height estimate (c,d). Units are metres ...... 9 Figure 2.5 Annual mean wind wave (a) and swell (b)...... 10 Figure 2.6 Locations of the Climate Data Sources ...... 12 Figure 2.7 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 14 Figure 2.8 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 14 Figure 2.9 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 12595 ...... 15 Figure 2.10 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 17 Figure 2.11 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 17 Figure 2.12 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 18 Figure 2.13 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 18 Figure 2.14 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 19 Figure 2.15 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 19 Figure 2.16 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10255 ...... 20 Figure 2.17 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10439 ...... 21 Figure 2.18 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 11421 ...... 22 Figure 2.19 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 24 Figure 2.20 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 24 Figure 2.21 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 25 Figure 2.22 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 25 Figure 2.23 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10856 ...... 26 Figure 2.24 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 13912 ...... 27 Figure 2.25 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W ...... 31 Figure 2.26 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 31 Figure 2.27 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 12595... 33 Figure 2.28 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 12595 ...... 35 Figure 2.29 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W ...... 36 Figure 2.30 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W ...... 37 Figure 2.31 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W ...... 37 Figure 2.32 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 38 Figure 2.33 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 - 2005...... 38 Figure 2.34 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 39 Figure 2.35 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10255... 41 Figure 2.36 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10439... 42 Figure 2.37 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 11421... 43 Figure 2.38 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10255 ...... 46 Figure 2.39 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10439 ...... 46 Figure 2.40 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 11421 ...... 47 Figure 2.41 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W ...... 49 Figure 2.42 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W ...... 50 Figure 2.43 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N, 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 50 Figure 2.44 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005 ...... 51 Figure 2.45 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10856... 53 Figure 2.46 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 13912... 54 Figure 2.47 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10856 ...... 56 Figure 2.48 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 13912 ...... 57 Figure 2.49 Region 1 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature ...... 60 Figure 2.50 Region 2 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature ...... 61 Figure 2.51 Region 3 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature ...... 63 Figure 2.52 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 1 ..... 67 Figure 2.53 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 2 ..... 68 Figure 2.54 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 3 ..... 69 Figure 2.55 Frequency of Tropical Storm Development in the Atlantic Basin. 1958 – 2007...... 70 Figure 2.56 Storm Tracks of Tropical Systems Passing within 278 km of 47.5°N 47.5°W, 1956 to 2006...... 71 Figure 2.57 Winter North Atlantic Oscillation Index (1950 - 2006) ...... 73 Figure 2.58 Scatterplot of Seasonally Averaged NAO Index against Wind Speed at various Grid Points (Winter 1954 – 2004)...... 74 Figure 2.59 Scatterplot of Seasonally Averaged NAO Index against Wave Height at various Grid Points (Winter 1954 – 2004)...... 75 Figure 2.60 Frequency of Atlantic Basin Storms entering the Canadian Hurricane Centre Response Zone against Summer NAO Index ...... 76 Figure 3.1 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 12595 (47.5°N; 48.3°W)...... 82 Figure 3.2 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10255 (46.3°N; 48.4°W)...... 87 Figure 3.3 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10439 (46.4°N; 48.1°W)...... 88 Figure 3.4 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 11421 (46.9°N; 48.3°W)...... 88 Figure 3.5 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10856 (46.6°N; 46.3°W)...... 93 Figure 3.6 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 13912 (48.3°N; 46.3°W)...... 93 Figure 4.1 Mayor Ocean Circulation Features in the Northwest Atlantic ...... 96 Figure 4.2 Currents on the northeast Newfoundland Shelf as inferred from 149 drifting buoys by Pepin and Helbig (1997)...... 97 Figure 4.3 Model circulation fields at the 20 m depth for (2a) July and (b) November, representing the summer and fall respectively...... 98 Figure 4.4 A schematic indicating the Major Circulation Features around the Flemish Cap ...... 99 Figure 4.5 The Upper Layer (10-50 m) circulation around the Flemish Cap and adjacent Grand Bank during July 1996. Measured with a ship mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)...... 100 Figure 4.6 Tracks of Drifting Buoys placed in the Labrador Current ...... 101 Figure 4.7 Location and coverage of the project sub-area...... 102 Figure 4.8 Average near bottom temperature during spring from all available data for the decade 1991-2000 (adapted from Colbourne, 2004) ...... 112 Figure 4.9 Bottom temperature and salinity maps derived for the trawl-mounted CTD data...... 113 Figure 4.10 Hydrographic contours of the Flemish Cap transect during April 2007 .... 114 Figure 4.11 Hydrographic contours of the Flemish Cap transect during November, 2007 ...... 115 Figure 4.12 Hydrographic contours along the South East Grand Bank during April 2007 ...... 116 Figure 4.13 T-S diagrams for sub-area 1 (depth < 100 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres...... 119 Figure 4.14 T-S diagrams for sub-area 2 (100 m – 200 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres...... 121 Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.Figure 4.15 T-S diagrams for sub-area 3 (200 m - 400 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres...... 123 Figure 4.16 T-S diagrams for sub-area 4 (>400 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depths in metres...... 125 Table of Tables Table 2.1 Grid Point Locations...... 10 Table 2.2 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 13 Table 2.3 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 16 Table 2.4 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics...... 23 Table 2.5 Maximum Wind Speeds (m/s) Statistics...... 28 Table 2.6 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets...... 32 Table 2.7 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets .. 32 Table 2.8 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 12595 ...... 34 Table 2.9 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 12595...... 35 Table 2.10 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets...... 39 Table 2.11 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets 40 Table 2.12 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10255 ...... 44 Table 2.13 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10439 ...... 45 Table 2.14 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 11421 ...... 45 Table 2.15 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10255...... 47 Table 2.16 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10439...... 48 Table 2.17 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 11421...... 48 Table 2.18 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets...... 51 Table 2.19 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets 52 Table 2.20 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10856 ...... 55 Table 2.21 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 13912 ...... 55 Table 2.22 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10856...... 57 Table 2.23 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 13912...... 58 Table 2.24 Region 1 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 59 Table 2.25 Region 2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 61 Table 2.26 Region 3 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics...... 62 Table 2.27 Region 1 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 64 Table 2.28 Region 2 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 65 Table 2.29 Region 3 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation...... 65 Table 2.30 Tropical Systems Passing within 278 km of 47.5°N; 47.5°W, 1950 to 2006 71 Table 3.1 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 1 ...... 78 Table 3.2 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 79 Table 3.3 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 79 Table 3.4 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 80 Table 3.5 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 80 Table 3.6 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 81 Table 3.7 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 81 Table 3.8 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1...... 82 Table 3.9 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 2 ...... 83 Table 3.10 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 84 Table 3.11 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 84 Table 3.12 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 85 Table 3.13 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 in Region 2 ...... 86 Table 3.14 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 86 Table 3.15 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 86 Table 3.16 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2...... 89 Table 3.17 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 3 ...... 89 Table 3.18 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 89 Table 3.19 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 90 Table 3.20 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 90 Table 3.21 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 91 Table 3.22 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 91 Table 3.23 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 92 Table 3.24 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3...... 94 Table 4.1 Near-surface currents in Sub-area 1 (Terra Nova)...... 104 Table 4.2 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 1 (Terra Nova)...... 104 Table 4.3 Near-bottom currents in sub-area 1 (Terra Nova) ...... 105 Table 4.4 Near-surface currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose)...... 106 Table 4.5 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose)...... 106 Table 4.6 Near-bottom currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose)...... 107 Table 4.7 Near surface currents in sub-area 3...... 108 Table 4.8 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 3...... 108 Table 4.9 Near bottom current in sub-area 3 ...... 108 Table 4.10 Near surface currents in sub-area 4 (Flemish Pass)...... 109 Table 4.11 Currents between 100 m and 500 m in sub-area 4 (Flemish Pass)...... 110 Table 4.12 Current between 500 m and 1100 m in sub-area 4 ...... 110 Table 4.13 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 1...... 118 Table 4.14 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 2...... 120 Table 4.15 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 3...... 122 Table 4.16 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 4...... 124 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 1.0 Introduction The physical environment on the Grand Banks is being described in this report to support StatoilHydros’s exploration program for the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass. General descriptions of the climate and physical oceanography are given for the study area and more detailed information is provided for the project area. The project area shown in Figure 1.1 includes a large section of the north-eastern Grand Banks and Flemish Pass.

The wind and wave climatology of the project area was prepared from MSC50 hindcast data. Since the climate varies throughout the project area, the project area was sub- divided into 3 regions and the climate presented for each region. Grid Point 12595 (47.5°N; 48.3°W) is located in Region 1 on the most north-eastern section of the Grand Banks. Three grid point (10255, 10439, and 11421) were chosen in Region 2 to give coverage of the area which includes EL 1101 (L’Anse aux Meadows), EL 1100 (River of Ponds) and SDL 1040 (West Bonne Bay). Grid points 13912 and 10856 are located in Flemish Pass; Grid Point 13912 in northern Flemish Pass at EL 1049 (Mizzen) and Grid Point 10856 is located in southern Flemish Pass.

The International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) was used for information on air temperature, sea surface temperature, wind speed and direction, waves, and visibility for each of the three regions in the project area.

The wind and wave extreme value analysis was carried out for the same six grid points that were used to describe the climatology.

In the physical oceanography section of this report the project area is sub-divided differently. Since currents tend to flow along the isobaths, the project area was divided into 4-sub-areas according to depth; < 100 m, 100 m – 200 m, 200 m to 400 m, and > 400 m. Characteristics of the currents and water mass properties are described for each of these sub-areas together with statistics.

Doc.ref 11977 1 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 1.1 Location of project and study area

Doc.ref 11977 2 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

2.0 Climate

2.1 Study Area

2.1.1 Extratropical Storm Systems The Grand Banks of Newfoundland experiences weather conditions typical of a maritime environment with the surrounding waters having a moderating effect on temperature. In general, maritime climates experience cooler summers and milder winters than continental climates and have a much smaller annual temperature range. Furthermore, a maritime climate tends to be fairly humid, resulting in reduced visibilities, low cloud heights, and receives significant amounts of precipitation.

The climate of the Grand Banks is very dynamic, being largely governed by the passage of high and low pressure circulation systems. These circulation systems are embedded in, and steered by, the prevailing westerly flow that typifies the upper levels of the atmosphere in the mid-latitudes, which arises because of the normal tropical to polar temperature gradient. The mean strength of the westerly flow is a function of the intensity of this gradient, and as a consequence is considerably stronger in the winter months than during the summer months, due to an increase in the south to north temperature gradient. [Meteorological convention defines seasons by quarters; e.g., winter is December, January, February, etc.]

Doc.ref 11977 3 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Rapidly deepening storms are a problem south of Newfoundland in the vicinity of the warm water of the Gulf Stream. Sometimes these explosively deepening oceanic cyclones develop into a “weather bomb”; defined as a storm that undergoes central pressure falls greater than 24 mb over 24 hours. Hurricane force winds near the center, the outbreak of convective clouds to the north and east of the center during the explosive stage, and the presence of a clear area near the center in its mature stage (Rogers and Bosart, 1986) are typical of weather bombs. After development, these systems will either move across Newfoundland or near the southeast coast producing gale to storm force winds from the southwest to south over the project area.

There is a general warming of the atmosphere during spring due to increasing heat from the sun. This spring warming results in a decrease in the north-south temperature gradient. Due to this weaker temperature gradient during the summer, storms tend to be weaker and not as frequent. Furthermore, the weaker tropical-to-polar temperature gradient in the summer results in the storm tracks moving further north. With the low pressure systems passing to the north of the region, the prevailing wind direction during the summer months is from the southwest to south. As a result, the incidences of gale or storm force winds are relatively infrequent over the project area during the summer.

2.1.2 Tropical Storm Systems The hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin normally extends from June through November, although tropical storm systems occasionally occur outside this period. On average, Atlantic Canada is influenced by cyclones of tropical origin four times per year, normally in the months of August to October. These storms usually achieve maximum intensity well south of the area and are losing their tropical characteristics and evolving into extratropical cyclones by the time they encroach on the region. However, tropical cyclones with storm, or even hurricane force winds, do occasionally affect the area. These systems typically approach the region from the south or southwest.

Once formed, a tropical storm or hurricane will maintain its energy as long as a sufficient supply of warm, moist air is available. Tropical storms and hurricanes obtain their energy from the latent heat of vapourization that is released during the condensation process. The capacity of the air to hold water vapour is dependent on temperature. Therefore as the hurricanes move northward over the colder ocean waters, they begin to lose their tropical characteristics, often transforming into vigorous, fast moving extratropical cyclones. Conditions within the study area associated with tropical cyclones and their remnants vary widely from relatively minor events to major storms producing windy and wet weather combined with high waves.

Doc.ref 11977 4 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 2.1.3 Wind Climatology The study area, covering nearly 162000 nm2 in the Northwest Atlantic, has a highly variable wind climate due to the large extent of the area. To present the wind climate of the entire study area, a 5-year (August 1999 – July 2004) data set with a spatial resolution of 0.5°x0.5°, from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite was used. Monthly wind climatology for January through December from QuikSCAT (extracted from the Climatology of Global Ocean Winds (COGOW) website) is presented in Appendix 1.

Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show the wind climatology over the Northwest Atlantic for the months of January and July, respectively. These winds fields are representative of winter and summer in the Northwest Atlantic. Figure 2.1 shows that during January, while there is little change in wind direction, there is an increase in wind speeds over the study area as you move eastward with winds reaching 12 m/s from the west-southwest. The lightest winds (near 8 m/s) within the study area occur in the south-western corner of the study area. The stronger, and slightly more westerly, wind field which occur in the eastern section of the study area may be attributed to the closer proximity of the area to two semi-permanent features in the North Atlantic: the Azores High and Icelandic Low.

Due to the stronger tropical to polar temperature gradient, winds in the mid-latitudes are typically stronger in the winter months. On a monthly basis, the strongest winds over the area occur during the months of January and February and are typically from the west- southwest to west. The weakest winds within the study area occur during the months of July and August when the tropical to polar temperature gradient is weakest. Mean wind directions vary over the area during July and August, with winds typically originating from the south to southwest in the western section and from the southwest to west- southwest in the eastern section of the study area. While winds during the summer are considerably lighter than in the winter months, an analysis of the July wind field (Figure 1.2) shows a similar trend of winds increasing towards the eastern section of the study area. These winds are considerably lighter than during winter with the strongest winds (near 8 m/s) occurring in the eastern section of the study area and the lightest winds (near 4 m/s) occurring in the southwest corner.

Doc.ref 11977 5 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.1 QuikSCAT satellite derived winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for January Source: http://numbat.coas.oregonstate.edu/cogow/

Figure 2.2 QuikSCAT satellite derived winds (m/s) over the Northwest Atlantic for July Source: http://numbat.coas.oregonstate.edu/cogow/

Doc.ref 11977 6 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 2.1.4 Wave Climatology The wave climate of the study area includes the effects of locally generated wind-waves and swell that propagates into the area from both nearby and distant locations. The highest sea states occur when severe storm systems track through the region, whether they are tropical or extratropical in nature.

Neu (1982) developed long-term annual and monthly wave height distributions for the offshore region of Atlantic Canada based on 11 years of data from 1970 – 1980. In his study, he found that there is a progressive increase in wave heights from west to east and that the greatest increase in wave heights is in the first 800 to 1000 km from the shore. Beyond 1000 km, wave height increases relatively slowly. This study indicates that the sea state near-shore is in a continuous state of development, while seas beyond the 1000 km approach the fully developed condition. Therefore, with the exception of the far eastern section of the study area, the majority of the study area falls within the 1000 km boundary and as such, according to Neu (1982), most of the study area would fall into an area of continuous wave development.

Figure 2.3 shows climatological mean values of visually estimated wind wave and swell heights. The highest annual mean wind wave (Figure 2.3a) for the study area occurs in the north-eastern corner of the study area, near 49.25°N; 40.0°W, while the smallest wind wave heights occur in the southwest corner of the study area, near 43°N; 51°W. Similarly, Figure 2.3b indicates that in the study area the highest mean swell height occurs in the northeast corner, and the smallest mean swell height occurs in the southwest corner. The resultant significant wave height is presented in Figure 2.3c with the highest significant wave height greater than 3.0 m occurring in the northeast corner of the study area. Since swell energy propagates to the area from another region, the wind wave maximums or minimums may not be located in the same general region as the swell maximums or minimum. The similarity in the positions of the wind wave and swell maxima and minima within the study area is the result of the many storms associated with the midlatitudinal storm track passing through the study area (Gulev, 1998).

Doc.ref 11977 7 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.3 Annual mean wind wave (a) and swell (b) height and significant wave height estimate (c). Units are metres (Source: Gulev (1998)

Maps of the monthly mean wind wave heights and significant wave heights for January and July are presented in Figure 2.4. The highest wave heights in the study area occur in January with mean wind wave values (Figure 2.4a) near 2.2 m and swell heights near 4.4 m (Figure 2.4c) in the northeast section. The smallest significant wave heights occur in July with mean wind wave values (Figure 2.4b) near 1.2 m and mean swell heights near 2.2 m (Figure 2.4d) in the northeast section.

Doc.ref 11977 8 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.4 January (a,c) and July (b,d) monthly mean wind wave height (a,b) and significant wave height estimate (c,d). Units are metres Source: Gulev (1998)

Figure 2.5 shows the annual mean wind wave period and swell period for the North Atlantic. These figures show that the mean wind wave period for the study area lies between 4.2 and 4.8 seconds, with the highest periods occurring in the eastern section of the study area. Similarly, swell periods range from a mean value of 7.8 seconds in the western section of the study area, to 8.4 seconds in the north-eastern section.

Doc.ref 11977 9 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.5 Annual mean wind wave (a) and swell (b) Source: Gulev (1998)

2.2 Project Area

2.2.1 Data Sources Wind and wave climate statistics for the project area were extracted from the MSC50 North Atlantic wind and wave climatology data set compiled by Oceanweather Inc under contract to Environment Canada. The MSC50 data set consists of continuous wind and wave hindcast data in 1-hour time steps from January 1954 to December 2005, on a 0.1q latitude by 0.1q longitude grid. Winds from the MSC50 data set are 1-hour averages of the effective neutral wind at a height of 10 m. In this study, six grid points were chosen to represent conditions within the study area. These points are listed below in Table 2.1 and presented in Figure 2.6.

Table 2.1 Grid Point Locations Grid Point Position 10255 46.3°N; 48.4°W 10439 46.4°N; 48.1°W 10856 46.6°N; 46.3°W 11421 46.9°N; 48.3°W 12595 47.5°N; 48.3°W 13912 48.3°N; 46.3°W

Grid Point 10439 located at 46.4°N; 48.0°W and Grid Point 10255 located at 46.3°N; 48.4°W were deemed to be most representative of conditions within block EL 1100 and block EL 1101, respectively. Grid Point 13912 located at 48.3°N; 46.3°W was chosen to represent conditions at Mizzen. The other points were chosen to give a representation of the remainder of the study area.

Doc.ref 11977 10 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Air temperature, sea surface temperature, wind speed and direction, visibility, and wave statistics for the area were compiled using data from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS). A subset of global marine surface observations from ships, drilling rigs, and buoys covering the period from January 1950 to December 2006 was used in this report. The ICOADS data subset was divided into three regions to give a better representation of conditions in the project area. Region 1 is bounded to the north by 49.0°N, to the south by 47.3°N, to the east by 47.0°W and to the west by 49.5°W. Region 2 covers an area encompassing EL 1100, EL 1101 and SDL 1040. This area (Figure 2.6) is bounded to the north by 47.3°N, to the south by 46.0°N, to the east by 47.0°W and to the west by 49.5°W. Region 3 encompasses the Flemish Pass area and is bounded to the north by 49.0°N, to the south by 46.0°N, to the east by 45.5°W and to the west by 47.0°W

Winds from the ICOADS data set are not directly comparable to the MSC50 data set because the winds in the ICOADS data set were either estimated or measured by anemometers at various heights above sea level. The wind speed is dependent on height since the wind speed increases at increasing heights above sea level. Also, winds speeds from each of the data sources have different averaging periods. The MSC50 winds are 1- hour averages while the ICOADS winds are 10-minute average winds. The adjustment factor to convert from 1-hour mean values to 10-minute mean values is usually taken as 1.06 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The ICOADS data set also has certain inherent limitations in that the observations are not spatially or temporally consistent. In addition, even though the data used in this report were subjected to standard quality control procedures, the data set is somewhat prone to observation and coding errors, resulting in some erroneous observations within the data set. The errors were minimized by using the standard filtering system using source exclusion flags, composite QC flags and an outlier trimming level of 3.5 standard deviations. The ICOADS data set is also suspected to contain a fair-weather bias, due to the fact that ships tend to avoid severe weather or simply do not transmit weather observations during storm situations.

Doc.ref 11977 11 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.6 Locations of the Climate Data Sources

2.2.2 Winds The Grand Banks experiences predominately southwest to west flow throughout the year. West to northwest winds which are prevalent during the winter months begin to shift counter-clockwise during March and April resulting in a predominant southwest wind by the summer months. As autumn approaches, the tropical-to-polar temperature gradient strengthens and the winds shift slightly, becoming predominately westerly again by late fall and into winter. Low pressure systems crossing the area are more intense during the winter months. As a result, mean wind speeds tend to peak during this season.

In addition to mid-latitude low pressure systems crossing the Grand Banks, tropical cyclones often move northward out of the influence of the warm waters south of the Gulf Stream, passing near the Island of Newfoundland. Once the cyclones move over colder waters they lose their source of latent heat energy and often begin to transform into a fast- moving and rapidly developing extratropical cyclone producing large waves and sometimes hurricane force winds. Since 1950, 46% of Atlantic Tropical cyclones transitioned into the extratropical stage. This extratropical transition occurs in the lower

Doc.ref 11977 12 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks latitudes in the early and late hurricane season and at higher latitudes during the peak of the season (Hart, 2001).

Region 1 Mean wind speeds in Region 1 at Grid Point 12595 in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reach its maximum value during the month of January (Table 2.2). Grid Point 12595 had January mean wind speeds of 11.2 m/s while the ICOADS dataset recorded the highest mean wind speed of 11.7 m/s during the month of January.

Table 2.2 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics Grid Point ICOADS Month 12595 Region 1 January 11.2 11.7 February 11.1 11.1 March 10.0 9.2 April 8.5 8.3 May 7.2 7.3 June 6.6 6.9 July 6.2 6.4 August 6.5 6.8 September 7.7 7.5 October 9.0 8.5 November 9.8 9.5 December 10.8 10.7

A wind rose of the annual wind speed and a histogram of the wind speed frequency for Grid Points 12595 are presented in Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8, respectively. Monthly wind roses along with histograms of the frequency distributions of wind speeds can be found in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3, respectively. There is a marked increase in the occurrence of winds from the west to northwest in the winter months as opposed to the summer months.

The percentage exceedance of wind speeds at Grid Point 12595 is presented in Figure 2.9.

Doc.ref 11977 13 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.7 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 Annual 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%)

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.8 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 14 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 12595 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 12595 Lat: 47.5°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.9 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 12595

Doc.ref 11977 15 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Region 2 Mean wind speeds in Region 2 at each of the grid points in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reaches its maximum during the month of January (Table 2.3). Mean wind speeds were similar at all three MSC50 grid points, with January means having values between 10.8 m/s and 11.0 m/s. The ICOADS dataset recorded the highest mean wind speed of 13.2 m/s during the month of January.

Table 2.3 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics Grid Point Grid Point Grid Point ICOADS Month 10255 10439 11421 Region 2 January 10.8 10.9 11.0 13.2 February 10.8 10.8 10.9 12.7 March 9.8 9.8 9.9 11.7 April 8.3 8.3 8.4 10.5 May 6.9 6.9 7.0 9.2 June 6.5 6.5 6.6 9.2 July 6.0 6.0 6.1 8.9 August 6.3 6.3 6.4 8.6 September 7.4 7.4 7.5 9.4 October 8.7 8.7 8.8 11.2 November 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.8 December 10.5 10.5 10.6 13.0

Wind roses of the annual wind speed for Grid Points 10255, 10439 and 11421 are presented in Figure 2.10 to Figure 2.12 and their associated histograms of the wind speed frequency in Figure 2.13 to Figure 2.15. Monthly wind roses along with histograms of the frequency distributions of wind speeds can be found in Appendix 4 through Appendix 9. There is a marked increase in the occurrence of winds from the west to northwest in the winter months as opposed to the summer months, which is consistent with the wind climatology of the other regions.

The percentage exceedances of wind speeds at Grid Points 10255, 10439 and 11421 are presented in Figure 2.16 to Figure 2.18.

Doc.ref 11977 16 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.10 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005

Figure 2.11 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 17 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.12 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 Annual 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%)

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.13 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 18 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 Annual 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%)

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.14 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 – 2005

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 Annual 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%)

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.15 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 19 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 10255 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance Percentage 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10255 Lat: 46.3°N Lon: 48.4°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.16 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10255

Doc.ref 11977 20 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 10439 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10439 Lat: 46.4°N Lon: 48.1°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.17 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10439

Doc.ref 11977 21 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 11421 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 11421 Lat: 46.9°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.18 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 11421

Doc.ref 11977 22 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Region 3 Mean wind speeds in Region 3 at each of the grid points in the MSC50 data set as well as in the ICOADS data set reach its maximum value during the month of January (Table 2.4). Mean wind speeds tended to be lower at Grid Point 10856 and in the ICOADS data set as compared with Grid Point 13912, located further north at the Mizzen site in Flemish Pass.

Table 2.4 Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Statistics Grid Point Grid Point ICOADS Month 10856 13912 Region 3 January 11.3 11.9 11.5 February 11.3 11.6 11.2 March 10.2 10.5 9.9 April 8.6 8.8 8.0 May 7.2 7.6 7.2 June 6.7 6.9 6.7 July 6.0 6.3 6.4 August 6.4 6.7 6.4 September 7.7 8.1 7.6 October 9.1 9.5 9.0 November 9.8 10.3 10.0 December 10.9 11.4 10.9

Wind roses of the annual wind speed for Grid Points 10856 and 13912 are presented in Figure 2.19 and Figure 2.20, and their associated histograms of the wind speed frequency in Figure 2.21 and Figure 2.22. Monthly wind roses along with histograms of the frequency distributions of wind speeds can be found in Appendices 10 through 13. There is a marked increase in the occurrence of winds from the west to northwest in the winter months as opposed to the summer months, which is consistent with the wind climatology in the other regions of the project area.

The percentage exceedances of wind speeds at Grid Points 10856 and 13912 are presented in Figure 2.23 and Figure 2.24, respectively.

Doc.ref 11977 23 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.19 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Figure 2.20 Annual Wind Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 24 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 Annual 50

Percentage Occurrence (%) 10

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.21 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 Annual 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.22 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wind Speeds for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 25 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 10856 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 >32.5 >35.0 >37.5 >40.0 >42.5 >45.0 >47.5 >50.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10856 Lat: 46.6°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.23 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 10856

Doc.ref 11977 26 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed Grid Point 13912 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >02.5 >05.0 >07.5 >10.0 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0 >32.5 >35.0 >37.5 >40.0 >42.5 >45.0 >47.5 >50.0 Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 13912 Lat: 48.3°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.24 Percentage Exceedance of 10 m wind speed at Grid Point 13912

Doc.ref 11977 27 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Intense mid-latitude low pressure systems occur frequently from early autumn to late spring. In addition, remnants of tropical systems have passed near Newfoundland between spring and late fall. Therefore, while mean wind speeds tend to peak during the winter months, maximum wind speeds may occur at anytime during the year. A table of monthly maximum wind speeds for each of the data sets is presented in Table 2.5.

Rapidly deepening storm systems known as weather bombs frequently move across the Grand Banks. These storm systems typically develop in the warm waters of Cape Hatteras and move northeast across Newfoundland and the Grand Banks. At 00Z on February 11, 2003 a 987 mb low pressure off Cape Hatteras deepened to 949 mb as it moved northeast, crossing eastern Newfoundland near 18Z. The low then began to weaken as it moved north of the forecast waters in the evening. With the exception of Grid Point 12595, the highest wind speeds at each grid point in the 52 years of data occurred on this date. Wind speeds ranged from 28.8 m/s at Grid Point 10856 to 31.1 m/s at Grid Point 13912. Wind speeds of 52.5 m/s from the southwest were recorded by the Henry Goodrich anemometer (located at a height of 90 m above sea level) as this system passed.

Grid Point 12595 had a maximum wind speed of 31.6 m/s at 00Z on March 08, 2003. This extreme wind was the result of a 972 mb low pressure lying over the Grand Banks at 18Z March 07, 2003, rapidly deepening as it slowly moved east-northeast to 948 mb by 06Z on March 08, 2003.

Another intense storm which developed south of the region passed east of the area on December 16, 1961. This storm resulted in wind speeds similar to that produced during the February 11th storm. During this event, wind speeds ranged from 28.7 m/s at Grid Point 10856 to 31.0 m/s at Grid Point 13912.

While mid-latitude low pressure systems account for the majority of the peak wind events on the Grand Banks, storms of tropical origin can also on occasion pass over the region. On August 06 1971, an unnamed Category 1 Hurricane passed west of the region with maximum sustained wind speeds of 38.6 m/s and a central pressure of 974 mb. During this event, wind speeds in the MSC50 data set peaked at 26.8 m/s at Grid Point 12595, 30.0 m/s at Grid Point 10255, and 30.6 m/s at Grid Point 10439.

Table 2.5 Maximum Wind Speeds (m/s) Statistics MSC50 ICOADS Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Point Point Point Point Point Point Region Region Region Month 12595 10255 10439 11421 10856 13912 1 2 3 January 28.4 27.4 27.0 27.1 28.1 28.8 33.4 36.0 37.0 February 30.0 29.9 30.1 30.5 28.8 31.1 32.9 38.1 36.0 March 31.6 27.0 27.6 29.1 28.1 30.7 30.0 36.5 33.4

Doc.ref 11977 28 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks April 24.3 25.0 25.2 24.5 25.6 25.7 26.8 29.8 29.8 May 23.7 21.6 22.0 22.6 24.0 25.4 25.7 25.2 25.0 June 23.7 22.7 23.0 23.6 23.1 23.1 22.1 23.2 22.1 July 18.1 21.1 21.0 17.6 20.4 19.9 20.6 22.6 20.6 August 26.8 30.0 30.6 27.7 28.1 28.4 20.6 23.2 22.6 September 28.4 23.6 23.4 26.4 23.7 26.7 27.3 27.3 23.2 October 31.7 27.7 27.8 26.9 27.3 27.8 28.3 30.9 28.3 November 26.8 27.4 27.6 27.4 28.7 27.7 30.9 34.0 36.0 December 29.1 29.9 30.0 30.3 28.7 31.0 32.9 37.0 42.0

2.2.3 Waves The main parameters for describing wave conditions are the significant wave height, the maximum wave height, the peak spectral period, and the characteristic period. The significant wave height is defined as the average height of the 1/3 highest waves, and its value roughly approximates the characteristic height observed visually. The maximum height is the greatest vertical distance between a wave crest and adjacent trough. The spectral peak period is the period of the waves with the largest energy levels, and the characteristic period is the period of the 1/3 highest waves. The characteristic period is the wave period reported in ship observations, and the spectral period is reported in the MSC50 data set.

A sea state may be composed of the wind wave alone, swell alone, or the wind wave in combination with one or more swell groups. A swell is a wave system not produced by the local wind blowing at the time of observation and may have been generated within the local weather system, or from within distant weather systems. The former situation typically arises when a front, trough, or ridge crosses the point of concern, resulting in a marked shift in wind direction. Swells generated in this manner are usually of low period. Swells generated by distant weather systems may propagate in the direction of the winds that originally formed to the vicinity of the observation area. These swells may travel for thousands of miles before dying away. As the swell advances, its crest becomes rounded and its surface smooth. As a result of the latter process, swell energy may propagate through a point from more than one direction at a particular time.

During autumn and winter, the dominate direction of the combined significant wave height is from the west. This corresponds with a higher frequency of occurrence of the

Doc.ref 11977 29 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks wind wave during these months, suggesting that during the late fall and winter, the wind wave is the main contributor to the combined significant wave height. During the months of March and April, the wind wave remains predominately westerly, while the swell begins to shift to southerly, resulting in the vector mean direction of the combined significant wave heights shifting to southwesterly. A mean southwesterly direction for the combined significant wave heights during the summer months is a result of a mainly southwesterly wind wave and a southwesterly swell. As winter approaches again, during the months of September and October, the wind wave will veer to the west and become the more dominant component of the combined significant wave height. This will result in the frequency of occurrence of the combined significant wave heights veering to westerly once again.

Mean monthly ice statistics were used when calculating the wave heights in the MSC50 data. As a result, if the mean monthly ice coverage for a particular grid point is greater than 50% for a particular month, the whole month (from the 1st to the 31st) gets “iced out”; meaning that no forecast wave data has been generated for that month. This sometimes results in gaps in the wave data.

Region 1 The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for Grid Point 12595 is presented in Figure 2.25. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west- southwest to south-southwest, and accounts for 35.3% of the wave energy. Waves were “iced out” for 3.71% of the time over the 50-year record; this value may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

The annual percentage frequency of significant wave height in specific ranges is presented in Figure 2.26. This histogram shows that the majority of significant wave heights (80.5%) are 4.0 m or less. There is a gradual decrease in frequency of wave heights above 4.0 m and only a small percentage of the wave heights exceed 7.0 m. Monthly wave roses along with histograms of the frequency distributions of wave heights can be found in Appendices 14 and 15, respectively.

Doc.ref 11977 30 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.25 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.26 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 12595 located near 47.5°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 31 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Significant wave heights on the Grand Banks peak during the winter months with the MSC50 mean monthly significant wave height of 4.0 m occurring in both December and January. The lowest significant wave heights occur in the summer with the month of July having a mean monthly significant wave height of only 1.7 m (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets

Grid Point 12595 January 4.0 February 3.4 March 2.7 April 2.6 May 2.2 June 1.9 July 1.7 August 1.8 September 2.4 October 3.0 November 3.5 December 4.0

Significant wave heights of 10.0 m or more occurred in each month between September and June, with the highest significant wave height of 14.1 m occurring during the month of February (Table 2.7). This event occurred at 00Z, February 12, 2003 and corresponds with a prolonged period of storm force winds over the region. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month. This was the case on September 19, 1982 when Category 1 Hurricane Debby crossed the region, resulting in significant wave heights reaching 11.4 m at Grid Point 12595.

Table 2.7 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets

Grid Point 12595 January 12.8 February 14.1 March 11.2 April 10.8 May 10.8 June 10.3 July 6.4 August 7.8 September 11.4 October 12.0 November 11.7 December 13.9

Doc.ref 11977 32 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Figure 2.27 shows percentage exceedance curves of significant wave heights for 12595. Percentage exceedance plots for the months of January through April show that the curves do not reach 100% because of the presence of ice on the Grand Banks during these months.

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 12595 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 12595 Lat: 47.5°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.27 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 12595

Doc.ref 11977 33 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds during the summer months to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 18.5% of the time. Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; though they may occur during the summer as well and account for 2.1% of the periods. The percentage occurrence of spectral peak period for each month at both grid points is shown in Table 2.8 and in Figure 2.28.

A scatter diagram of the significant wave height versus spectral peak period is presented in Table 2.9. From this table it can be seen that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds, and the second most common wave being 2 m and a peak spectral period of 7 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

Table 2.8 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 12595 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 5.1 8.9 15.0 18.2 21.0 12.5 11.5 5.4 0.8 0.2 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.3 7.2 9.9 16.0 18.1 19.0 12.5 8.6 4.6 0.7 0.4 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 3.1 8.7 10.4 17.2 19.5 17.6 11.5 5.7 4.1 0.3 0.4 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.6 9.2 13.9 22.7 21.5 14.6 7.7 3.6 1.6 0.2 0.1 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 7.5 17.2 22.8 23.5 15.0 6.2 4.2 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6 10.8 25.5 24.4 20.9 8.9 2.2 1.5 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.6 15.2 32.4 22.9 14.5 6.3 1.2 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.3 13.4 30.9 22.8 14.8 5.5 2.5 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 6.3 18.3 20.1 19.8 11.0 8.5 7.5 4.5 1.4 0.3 0.3 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.7 11.1 17.2 22.3 16.3 11.9 8.7 5.3 1.9 0.3 0.3 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.7 8.1 12.5 19.2 20.9 15.8 9.2 7.9 2.7 0.3 0.3 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 5.2 9.1 16.0 21.3 19.5 12.4 9.8 4.0 0.6 0.4 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.6 5.8 9.3 15.7 19.2 19.8 12.5 10.0 4.7 0.7 0.3 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 4.7 11.7 15.7 21.1 18.7 12.8 7.8 3.6 2.0 0.2 0.2 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.5 13.1 29.6 23.4 16.7 6.9 2.0 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4.2 12.5 16.6 20.4 16.1 12.1 8.5 5.9 2.0 0.3 0.3 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 5.9 14.9 16.2 18.5 15.2 11.7 7.5 5.3 2.2 0.3 0.2 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 12595 Lat: 47.5°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Doc.ref 11977 34 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 Percentage of Occurance(%) 10.0

5.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Period (s)

Figure 2.28 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 12595

Table 2.9 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 12595 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 3.69 3.69 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.16 5 0.00 1.04 0.69 0.03 1.77 6 0.00 1.64 3.82 0.38 0.02 5.85 7 0.00 4.51 6.34 3.51 0.28 0.01 14.64 8 0.00 3.79 5.41 4.54 2.00 0.14 0.00 15.87 9 0.01 1.78 7.52 3.73 3.56 1.16 0.07 0.00 0.00 17.83 10 0.00 0.72 4.60 3.86 2.37 2.24 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.47 11 0.00 0.20 1.89 3.85 2.05 1.24 1.19 0.47 0.07 0.00 10.96 12 0.00 0.20 1.40 1.97 1.36 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.03 0.00 7.09 13 0.00 0.25 0.68 1.14 1.18 0.66 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.03 0.00 5.02 14 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.34 0.58 0.41 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.00 2.09 Period (s) Period 15 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 16 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.71 14.35 32.57 23.42 13.51 6.67 2.97 1.33 0.63 0.41 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.01 100.00

Doc.ref 11977 35 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Region 2 The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for each of the grid points in Region 2 are presented in Figure 2.29 to Figure 2.31. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west-southwest to south-southwest, and accounts for 35.9% of the wave energy at Grid Point 10255, 35.8% of the wave energy at Grid Point 10439 and 36.0% of the wave energy at Grid Point 11421. Waves were “iced out” for 0.98% of the time at Grid Point 10255, 1.23% of the time at Grid Point 10439 and 2.12% of the time at Grid Point 11421 over the 50-year record. These values may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

The annual percentage frequency of significant wave heights is presented in Figure 2.32 to Figure 2.34. These histograms show that the majority of significant wave heights in Region 2 lie between 1.0 and 4.0 m. There is a gradual decrease in frequency of wave heights above 4.0 m and only a small percentage of the wave heights exceed 7.0 m. Monthly wave roses may be found in Appendices 16 to 18 and monthly histograms of frequency distributions of wave heights can be found in Appendices 19 to 21.

Figure 2.29 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W

Doc.ref 11977 36 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.30 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W

Figure 2.31 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W

Doc.ref 11977 37 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.32 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10255 located near 46.3°N; 48.4°W. 1954 – 2005

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.33 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10439 located near 46.4°N; 48.1°W. 1954 - 2005

Doc.ref 11977 38 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.34 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 11421 located near 46.9°N; 48.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Table 2.10 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets Grid Point 10255 Grid Point 10439 Grid Point 11421

Doc.ref 11977 39 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Significant wave heights of 10.5 m or more occurred in each month between September and April, with the highest waves at each of the grid points occurring during the month of February (Table 2.11). The highest significant wave heights of 13.9 m from the MSC50 Grid Point 10255 and 14.2 m from Grid Point 10439 occurred on February 23, 1967. A low pressure over Nova Scotia on February 22nd rapidly deepened as it moved northeast to lie off the northeast coast of Newfoundland on February 23rd resulting in a prolonged period of strong-gale to storm force WSW-W winds over the Grand Banks. Maximum significant wave heights of 14.0 m at Grid Point 11421 occurred during the storm of February 11, 2003. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month.

Table 2.11 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets

Grid Point 10255 Grid Point 10439 Grid Point 11421 January 13.3 13.6 13.0 February 13.9 14.2 14.0 March 11.9 11.9 11.0 April 10.8 10.7 10.8 May 9.9 10.0 10.3 June 9.6 9.8 10.0 July 6.2 6.2 6.1 August 8.1 8.2 8.6 September 10.9 11.1 10.9 October 11.8 12.0 11.9 November 11.3 11.5 11.5 December 13.7 13.9 13.5

Figure 2.35 to Figure 2.37 show percentage exceedance curves of significant wave heights for each of the grid points in Region 2. Percentage exceedance plots for the months of January through April show that the curves do not reach 100% because of the presence of ice on the Grand Banks during these months.

Doc.ref 11977 40 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 10255 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance Percentage 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10255 Lat: 46.3°N Lon: 48.4°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.35 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10255

Doc.ref 11977 41 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 10439 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10439 Lat: 46.4°N Lon: 48.1°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.36 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10439

Doc.ref 11977 42 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 11421 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 11421 Lat: 46.9°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.37 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 11421

Doc.ref 11977 43 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds in July and August to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 19.0% of the time at Grid Point 10255, 18.6% of the time at Grid Point 10439, and 18.2% of the time at Grid Point 11421 (Table 2.12 to Table 2.14). Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; though they may occur during the summer as well. The percentage occurrence of spectral peak periods for each month at the three grid points is shown in Figure 2.38 to Figure 2.40.

Scatter diagrams of the significant wave height versus spectral peak period for each grid point are presented in Table 2.15 to Table 2.17. From these tables it can be seen that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds, and the second most common wave being 2 m and a peak spectral period of 8 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

Table 2.12 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10255 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 5.0 8.5 15.6 18.8 22.4 11.8 10.9 4.7 0.6 0.1 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.5 7.1 10.1 16.5 18.3 20.2 11.7 8.0 3.8 0.6 0.2 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 3.5 8.9 11.7 18.0 19.0 17.5 9.8 6.1 3.6 0.2 0.3 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 4.1 8.8 15.1 24.6 19.7 14.1 7.0 3.2 1.6 0.2 0.1 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 6.8 16.3 25.7 23.4 14.0 6.2 3.8 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 11.0 24.9 27.4 20.0 7.8 2.2 1.4 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.7 14.1 30.5 27.5 13.7 5.6 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.2 12.9 30.0 26.1 14.1 5.0 2.5 1.9 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 6.8 17.3 21.4 20.6 10.2 8.5 7.0 4.2 1.3 0.3 0.2 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 3.8 11.1 17.6 23.1 16.1 12.0 8.0 4.9 1.9 0.2 0.2 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.8 7.8 11.6 20.9 20.5 16.4 9.0 7.3 2.6 0.2 0.2 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 5.1 9.0 17.0 21.7 20.5 11.5 9.5 3.4 0.5 0.2 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.7 5.7 9.2 16.4 19.6 21.0 11.7 9.5 4.0 0.5 0.2 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 4.8 11.3 17.5 22.0 17.5 12.6 6.9 3.6 1.9 0.1 0.1 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.5 12.7 28.5 27.0 15.9 6.2 2.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.5 12.1 16.9 21.5 15.6 12.3 8.0 5.5 2.0 0.2 0.2 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 5.9 14.4 17.7 19.0 14.7 12.0 6.9 5.0 2.0 0.2 0.1 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10255 Lat: 46.3°N Lon: 48.4°W, 1954 to 2005.

Doc.ref 11977 44 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 2.13 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10439 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 4.8 8.5 14.8 18.5 22.4 12.2 11.6 4.9 0.6 0.1 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.4 6.7 10.2 16.0 18.2 20.2 12.1 8.4 4.1 0.6 0.2 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 3.2 8.5 11.9 17.7 18.9 17.8 10.5 6.2 3.8 0.2 0.2 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 4.0 8.6 15.2 24.1 19.8 14.3 7.3 3.4 1.8 0.2 0.1 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 6.9 16.1 25.8 23.0 14.2 6.2 4.1 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4 10.7 24.8 27.6 20.0 7.9 2.2 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.5 14.2 30.4 27.6 13.7 5.7 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.0 13.0 29.6 26.3 14.0 5.1 2.6 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 6.6 17.1 21.7 20.1 10.3 8.6 7.3 4.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.6 10.9 17.5 22.7 16.3 12.0 8.6 5.1 2.0 0.2 0.2 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.6 7.7 11.7 20.2 20.2 16.6 9.3 7.8 2.8 0.2 0.2 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 4.9 9.0 16.3 21.1 20.7 12.2 10.0 3.7 0.5 0.2 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 5.5 9.2 15.7 19.3 21.1 12.2 10.0 4.2 0.6 0.2 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4.1 10.3 17.6 22.3 17.9 12.3 7.7 3.8 2.6 0.2 0.1 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.1 12.4 28.0 27.9 15.4 6.3 1.9 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4.0 11.5 17.5 21.0 15.6 11.9 8.9 5.2 2.9 0.4 0.2 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 5.5 13.7 18.0 18.6 14.7 11.6 7.8 4.9 2.8 0.4 0.2 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10439 Lat: 46.4°N Lon: 48.1°W, 1954 to 2005.

Table 2.14 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 11421 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 4.9 9.1 14.8 18.5 22.1 12.7 11.1 4.8 0.6 0.1 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.8 7.4 10.1 15.9 17.9 19.6 12.5 8.3 3.9 0.7 0.2 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 3.3 8.7 11.5 17.4 19.0 17.4 11.0 5.9 3.6 0.2 0.3 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 3.7 8.9 14.9 23.5 20.4 14.2 7.7 3.3 1.5 0.2 0.1 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 7.4 16.0 25.5 22.7 14.5 6.3 4.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 10.6 24.6 27.5 19.7 8.4 2.2 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.5 14.9 29.9 27.7 13.1 6.0 1.3 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.2 13.4 29.2 25.9 13.8 5.4 2.6 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 6.5 17.5 21.6 19.5 10.6 8.7 7.3 4.4 1.3 0.3 0.3 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.7 11.1 17.8 22.0 16.3 12.2 8.6 5.1 1.9 0.3 0.2 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.7 7.8 12.2 19.6 20.9 16.2 9.3 7.7 2.4 0.3 0.2 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 4.9 9.2 16.0 21.5 20.6 12.3 9.8 3.5 0.5 0.2 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.8 5.7 9.4 15.5 19.3 20.7 12.5 9.7 4.0 0.6 0.2 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 4.8 11.2 17.3 21.2 18.0 12.6 7.6 3.5 1.8 0.1 0.1 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.5 13.0 27.9 27.0 15.5 6.6 2.1 1.3 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.3 12.1 17.2 20.4 15.9 12.4 8.4 5.7 1.9 0.3 0.2 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 6.0 14.2 17.7 18.2 15.0 12.0 7.4 5.1 2.0 0.3 0.2 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 11421 Lat: 46.9°N Lon: 48.3°W, 1954 to 2005

Doc.ref 11977 45 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 Percentage of Occurance (%) of Occurance Percentage 10.0

5.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 1012141618 Period (s)

Figure 2.38 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10255

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 Percentage of Occurance (%) of Occurance Percentage 10.0

5.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Period (s)

Figure 2.39 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10439

Doc.ref 11977 46 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 Percentage of Occurance (%) 10.0

5.0

0.0 024681012141618 Period (s)

Figure 2.40 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 11421

Table 2.15 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10255 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.96 0.96 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.17 5 0.00 1.06 0.74 0.04 0.00 1.84 6 0.00 1.63 3.85 0.40 0.02 5.90 7 4.81 5.86 3.43 0.28 0.01 14.38 8 0.01 4.66 6.47 4.34 1.97 0.14 0.00 17.59 9 0.00 1.65 8.41 4.13 3.44 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 18.76 10 0.01 0.58 4.37 4.35 2.41 2.16 0.59 0.04 0.00 14.52 11 0.00 0.22 2.10 4.15 2.33 1.34 1.12 0.43 0.06 0.01 11.76 12 0.00 0.21 1.34 1.99 1.32 0.61 0.46 0.45 0.31 0.14 0.01 6.83 13 0.00 0.23 0.74 1.14 1.20 0.63 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.12 0.02 0.00 4.91 14 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.35 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 1.96 Period (s) Period 15 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 15.25 34.12 24.48 13.65 6.37 2.67 1.20 0.58 0.38 0.19 0.08 0.03 0.01 100.00

Doc.ref 11977 47 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 2.16 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10439 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1.22 1.22 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.14 5 1.01 0.70 0.04 0.00 1.74 6 0.00 1.65 3.75 0.38 0.02 0.00 5.80 7 0.00 4.65 5.84 3.35 0.27 0.01 0.00 14.13 8 0.01 4.67 6.52 4.34 1.95 0.14 0.00 17.63 9 0.00 1.58 8.18 4.02 3.41 1.04 0.07 0.00 18.30 10 0.00 0.60 4.30 4.31 2.41 2.17 0.58 0.04 0.00 14.42 11 0.00 0.21 2.01 4.17 2.41 1.39 1.15 0.42 0.05 0.00 11.81 12 0.22 1.35 2.02 1.41 0.69 0.50 0.48 0.33 0.14 0.01 7.14 13 0.00 0.22 0.73 1.18 1.23 0.68 0.33 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.00 5.14 14 0.04 0.15 0.43 0.59 0.39 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.00 2.09 15 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 1.24 15.01 33.61 24.32 13.80 6.59 2.81 1.25 0.61 0.40 0.22 0.09 0.03 0.01 100.00

Table 2.17 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 11421 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 2.11 2.11 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.17 5 0.00 1.02 0.76 0.04 1.82 6 1.63 3.89 0.38 0.02 0.00 5.92 7 0.00 4.37 5.96 3.49 0.29 0.01 14.11 8 0.01 4.49 6.37 4.46 2.04 0.15 0.00 17.53 9 0.00 1.61 7.69 3.81 3.44 1.13 0.07 0.00 17.76 10 0.00 0.66 4.50 4.12 2.41 2.19 0.61 0.04 0.00 14.52 11 0.00 0.20 2.02 4.09 2.22 1.33 1.16 0.45 0.08 0.00 11.55 12 0.00 0.21 1.36 2.05 1.41 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.33 0.16 0.02 0.00 7.18 13 0.00 0.23 0.68 1.14 1.20 0.66 0.32 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.00 4.96 14 0.03 0.12 0.36 0.55 0.37 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 1.91 15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 2.13 14.63 33.44 24.00 13.69 6.62 2.85 1.26 0.64 0.39 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.01 100.00

Doc.ref 11977 48 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Region 3 The annual wave rose from the MSC50 data for Grid Point 10856 and Grid Point 13912 are presented in Figure 2.41 and Figure 2.42, respectively. The wave roses show that the majority of wave energy comes from the west-southwest to south-southwest and accounts for 35.0% of the wave energy at Grid Point 10856, and 33.7% of the wave energy at grid point 13912. Waves were “iced out” for 0.61% of the time at Grid Point 10856 and 0.28% of the time at Grid Point 13912, over the 50-year record; this value may be somewhat high since monthly ice files were used when generating the waves.

The annual percentage frequency of significant wave heights is presented in Figure 2.43 and Figure 2.44. These histograms show that the majority of significant wave heights are between 2.0 and 5.0 m on the Grand Banks. There is a gradual decrease in frequency of wave heights above 4.0 m and only a small percentage of the wave heights exceeding 8.0 m. Monthly wave roses may be found in Appendices 22 and 23 and monthly histograms of frequency distributions of wave heights can be found in Appendices 24 and 25.

Figure 2.41 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N; 46.3°W

Doc.ref 11977 49 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 2.42 Annual Wave Rose for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.43 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 10856 located near 46.6°N, 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Doc.ref 11977 50 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 Annual 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2.44 Annual Percentage Frequency of Wave Height for MSC50 Grid Point 13912 located near 48.3°N; 46.3°W. 1954 – 2005

Significant wave heights on the Grand Banks are highest during the winter months with a mean monthly significant wave heights of 4.4 m at Grid Point 10856 and 4.5 m at Grid Point 13912. The lowest significant wave heights occur in the summer with the month of July having a mean monthly significant wave height of only 1.7 m at both grid points (Table 2.18).

Table 2.18 Mean Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets

Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 January 4.4 4.5 February 4.1 4.2 March 3.5 3.6 April 2.9 3.0 May 2.3 2.4 June 1.9 2.0 July 1.7 1.7 August 1.8 1.9 September 2.5 2.6 October 3.1 3.2 November 3.5 3.7 December 4.1 4.3

Doc.ref 11977 51 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Significant wave heights of 10.5 m or more occurred in each month between September and June, with the highest waves occurring during the month of February (Table 2.19). The highest significant wave heights of 14.7 m from the MSC50 Grid Point 10856 occurred on February 23, 1967. A low pressure over Nova Scotia on February 22nd rapidly deepened as it moved northeast to lie off the northeast coast of Newfoundland on the 23rd resulting in a prolonged period of strong-gale to storm force WSW-W winds over the Grand Banks. At Grid Point 13912, the highest significant wave height of 15.3 m occurred in both February and December. The February event occurred during the February 11, 2003 storm, while the December event was the result of a rapidly deepening low pressure over the Grand Banks on December 16, 1997. While maximum significant wave heights tend to peak during the winter months, a tropical system could pass through the area and produce wave heights during any month.

Table 2.19 Maximum Significant Wave Height Statistics (m) for the MSC50 data sets

Grid Point 10856 Grid Point 13912 January 14.1 13.4 February 14.7 15.3 March 12.3 13.1 April 10.9 11.0 May 11.2 11.7 June 10.8 10.5 July 6.5 7.1 August 10.1 8.2 September 11.3 12.3 October 12.8 12.4 November 13.0 13.5 December 14.2 15.3

Figure 2.45 and Figure 2.46 show percentage exceedance curves of significant wave heights for Grid Points 10856 and 13912, respectively. Percentage exceedance plots for the months of February through April show that the curves do not reach 100% because of the presence of ice on the Grand Banks during these months.

Doc.ref 11977 52 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 10856 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance Percentage 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10856 Lat: 46.6°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.45 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 10856

Doc.ref 11977 53 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height Grid Point 13912 Annual 100 January February March 90 April May June 80 July August September 70 October November December 60

Percentage Exceedance 40

0 >00.0 >00.5 >01.0 >01.5 >02.0 >02.5 >03.0 >03.5 >04.0 >04.5 >05.0 >05.5 >06.0 >06.5 >07.0 >07.5 >08.0 >08.5 >09.0 >09.5 >10.0 >10.5 >11.0 >11.5 >12.0 >12.5 Wave Height (m)

Source: MSC50 Grid Point 13912 Lat: 48.3°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Figure 2.46 Percentage Exceedance of Significant Wave Height at Grid Point 13912

Doc.ref 11977 54 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks The spectral peak period of waves vary by season with the most common period varying from 7 seconds in July and August to 11 seconds in January and February. Annually, the most common peak spectral period is 9 seconds, occurring 18.4% of the time at Grid Point 10856 and 18.5% of the time at Grid Point 13912. Periods above 12 seconds occur more frequently during the winter months; although they may occur during the summer as well. The percentage occurrences of spectral peak periods for each month at both grid points are shown in Table 2.20 and Table 2.21 and in Figure 2.47 and Figure 2.48.

Scatter diagrams of the significant wave heights versus spectral peak periods are presented in Table 2.22 and Table 2.23. These tables show that the most common wave is 2 m with a peak spectral period of 9 seconds. Note that wave heights in these tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the 1 m wave bin would include all waves from 0.51 m to 1.49 m.

Table 2.20 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 10856 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 3.8 8.1 13.6 19.1 21.1 13.2 13.3 5.7 0.9 0.2 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.7 5.0 9.4 15.4 17.9 19.3 13.7 10.2 5.7 1.1 0.4 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 2.4 5.8 10.5 18.1 18.6 18.0 11.7 8.3 4.6 0.5 0.2 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 3.0 8.0 14.8 24.7 19.7 14.2 7.6 4.6 2.3 0.3 0.1 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 6.5 16.3 25.7 23.9 14.3 5.7 3.6 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.3 9.8 25.7 27.7 19.7 7.8 2.3 1.4 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.1 14.0 30.7 26.7 14.3 6.0 1.0 0.5 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.3 12.9 29.0 27.2 14.2 5.3 2.4 2.0 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 5.8 16.4 23.0 19.9 9.8 8.8 7.2 4.7 1.9 0.3 0.3 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 9.6 18.9 22.6 16.6 11.8 7.7 6.1 2.6 0.5 0.2 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.2 6.6 12.8 19.5 20.4 16.3 8.8 8.8 3.7 0.3 0.2 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 4.2 9.0 15.4 21.1 19.9 12.1 11.1 4.8 0.8 0.3 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 4.4 8.8 14.8 19.4 20.1 13.0 11.6 5.4 0.9 0.3 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 3.9 10.0 17.0 22.2 17.5 12.6 7.6 4.9 2.5 0.3 0.1 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 12.2 28.5 27.2 16.0 6.3 1.9 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.6 10.9 18.2 20.7 15.6 12.3 7.9 6.5 2.7 0.4 0.2 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 5.2 13.4 17.8 18.4 14.7 11.7 7.5 6.2 2.7 0.4 0.2 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 10856 Lat: 46.6°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

Table 2.21 Percentage Occurrence of Peak Spectral Period of the Total Spectrum at Grid Point 13912 Peak Spectral Period (seconds) Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 5.1 8.9 15.0 18.2 21.0 12.5 11.5 5.4 0.8 0.2 February 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.3 7.2 9.9 16.0 18.1 19.0 12.5 8.6 4.6 0.7 0.4 March 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 3.1 8.7 10.4 17.2 19.5 17.6 11.5 5.7 4.1 0.3 0.4 April 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.6 9.2 13.9 22.7 21.5 14.6 7.7 3.6 1.6 0.2 0.1

Doc.ref 11977 55 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 7.5 17.2 22.8 23.5 15.0 6.2 4.2 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6 10.8 25.5 24.4 20.9 8.9 2.2 1.5 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.6 15.2 32.4 22.9 14.5 6.3 1.2 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.3 13.4 30.9 22.8 14.8 5.5 2.5 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 6.3 18.3 20.1 19.8 11.0 8.5 7.5 4.5 1.4 0.3 0.3 October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.7 11.1 17.2 22.3 16.3 11.9 8.7 5.3 1.9 0.3 0.3 November 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.7 8.1 12.5 19.2 20.9 15.8 9.2 7.9 2.7 0.3 0.3 December 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 5.2 9.1 16.0 21.3 19.5 12.4 9.8 4.0 0.6 0.4 Winter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.6 5.8 9.3 15.7 19.2 19.8 12.5 10.0 4.7 0.7 0.3 Spring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 4.7 11.7 15.7 21.1 18.7 12.8 7.8 3.6 2.0 0.2 0.2 Summer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.5 13.1 29.6 23.4 16.7 6.9 2.0 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 Autumn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4.2 12.5 16.6 20.4 16.1 12.1 8.5 5.9 2.0 0.3 0.3 Annual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 5.9 14.9 16.2 18.5 15.2 11.7 7.5 5.3 2.2 0.3 0.2 Source: MSC50 Grid Point 13912 Lat: 48.3°N Lon: 46.3°W, 1954 to 2005.

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 Percentage of Occurance (%) of Occurance Percentage 10.0

5.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 1012141618 Period (s)

Figure 2.47 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 10856

Doc.ref 11977 56 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

35.0 January February March April 30.0 May June July August September 25.0 October November December

20.0

15.0 PercentageOccurance of (%) 10.0

5.0

0.0 024681012141618 Period (s)

Figure 2.48 Percentage of Occurrence of Peak Wave Period at Grid Point 13912

Table 2.22 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 10856 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.59 0.59 1 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.14 5 0.00 0.87 0.61 0.03 0.00 1.51 6 0.00 1.57 3.30 0.36 0.02 5.25 7 0.00 4.36 5.73 3.05 0.30 0.01 13.45 8 0.00 4.49 6.76 4.41 1.97 0.15 0.00 17.78 9 0.00 1.38 7.88 4.25 3.59 1.12 0.08 0.00 18.30 10 0.48 3.91 4.51 2.66 2.32 0.65 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.58 11 0.00 0.18 1.58 3.89 2.49 1.58 1.37 0.45 0.05 0.00 11.58 12 0.00 0.19 1.22 1.74 1.63 0.87 0.62 0.61 0.34 0.13 0.01 0.00 7.37 13 0.23 0.81 1.23 1.36 0.89 0.50 0.31 0.27 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.00 6.11 14 0.05 0.13 0.47 0.67 0.52 0.25 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.00 2.69 Period (s) Period 15 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.41 16 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 17 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 13.97 32.01 24.00 14.78 7.58 3.55 1.59 0.76 0.52 0.34 0.16 0.07 0.04 99.99

Doc.ref 11977 57 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 2.23 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Significant Combined Wave Height and Peak Spectral Period at Grid Point 13912 Wave Height (m) Total <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 3.69 3.69 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.16 5 0.00 1.04 0.69 0.03 1.77 6 0.00 1.64 3.82 0.38 0.02 5.85 7 0.00 4.51 6.34 3.51 0.28 0.01 14.64 8 0.00 3.79 5.41 4.54 2.00 0.14 0.00 15.87 9 0.01 1.78 7.52 3.73 3.56 1.16 0.07 0.00 0.00 17.83 10 0.00 0.72 4.60 3.86 2.37 2.24 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 14.47 11 0.00 0.20 1.89 3.85 2.05 1.24 1.19 0.47 0.07 0.00 10.96 12 0.00 0.20 1.40 1.97 1.36 0.69 0.49 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.03 0.00 7.09 13 0.00 0.25 0.68 1.14 1.18 0.66 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.03 0.00 5.02 14 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.34 0.58 0.41 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.00 2.09 15 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 16 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Period (s) Period 3.71 14.35 32.57 23.42 13.51 6.67 2.97 1.33 0.63 0.41 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.01 100.00

2.2.4 Air and Sea Temperature The moderating influence of the ocean serves to limit both the diurnal and the annual temperature variation on the Grand Banks. Diurnal temperature variations due to the day/night cycles are very small. Short-term, random temperature changes are due mainly to a change of air mass following a warm or cold frontal passage. In general, air mass temperature contrasts across frontal zones are greater during the winter than during the summer season.

Region 1 Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 1 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. A monthly plot of air temperature versus sea surface temperature is presented in Figure 2.49. Temperature statistics presented in Table 2.24 show that the atmosphere is coldest in January and February with a mean temperature of -0.4qC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.0qC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 12.2qC and coldest in March with a mean temperature of 0.8qC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.5 to 1.3 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to September, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From October to March, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.2 to 1.9 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to September have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while

Doc.ref 11977 58 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from October to March tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

Table 2.24 Region 1 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January -0.4 14.5 -11.1 1.5 12.2 -2.8 February -0.4 14.1 -12.3 1.2 12.2 -2.8 March 0.6 13.8 -9.2 0.8 12.1 -2.8 April 1.9 13.5 -5.2 1.4 12.5 -2.6 May 4.0 15.0 -2.5 3.0 14.0 -2.2 June 6.6 17.5 0.0 5.4 16.4 -1.1 July 10.6 20.6 3.0 9.3 19.0 2.3 August 13.0 21.6 4.5 12.2 20.0 4.0 September 11.5 21.1 3.5 11.0 20.0 4.0 October 7.4 19.4 0.0 7.5 18.5 1.5 November 4.5 17.4 -4.0 4.9 16.1 -0.5 December 2.2 16.0 -7.8 3.1 14.8 -2.8 Winter 0.5 14.9 -10.4 1.9 13.1 -2.8 Spring 2.1 14.1 -5.6 1.7 12.9 -2.5 Summer 10.1 19.9 2.5 9.0 18.5 1.7 Autumn 7.8 19.3 -0.2 7.8 18.2 1.7

Doc.ref 11977 59 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

14 Temperature (°C) SST (°C)

6 Temperature

-2 July May April June March August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.49 Region 1 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature

Region 2 Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 2 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. A monthly plot of air temperature versus sea surface temperature is presented in Figure 2.50. Temperature statistics presented in Table 2.25 show that the atmosphere in Region 2 is coldest in February with a mean temperature of -0.3qC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 14.2qC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.8qC and coldest in February and March with a mean temperature of 0.4qC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.4 to 1.4 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to August, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From September to February, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.1 to 0.7 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to August have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from September to February tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

Doc.ref 11977 60 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 2.25 Region 2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January 0.3 15.0 -10.0 1.0 13.3 -2.8 February -0.3 14.0 -10.7 0.4 12.5 -2.8 March 0.4 13.8 -8.2 0.4 12.1 -2.8 April 2.1 13.9 -5.0 1.2 12.5 -2.8 May 4.2 15.2 -2.2 3.2 14.0 -2.2 June 7.3 17.8 -0.2 6.0 16.5 -1.0 July 11.8 20.9 3.5 10.4 19.8 3.0 August 14.2 21.6 4.4 13.8 20.6 5.6 September 12.5 21.1 3.5 12.6 20.0 4.4 October 9.0 19.5 0.4 9.4 18.5 2.0 November 5.1 17.8 -3.5 5.4 17.1 0.0 December 2.3 16.1 -7.2 2.8 14.5 -2.4 Winter 0.7 15.0 -9.3 1.4 13.4 -2.7 Spring 2.3 14.3 -5.1 1.6 12.9 -2.6 Summer 11.1 20.1 2.6 10.1 19.0 2.5 Autumn 8.9 19.5 0.1 9.1 18.5 2.1

16 Temperature (°C) SST (°C) 14

6 Temperature

-2 July May April June March August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.50 Region 2 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature

Doc.ref 11977 61 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Region 3 Air and sea surface temperatures for Region 3 were extracted from the ICOADS data set. Winter temperatures within this region are warmer than those of the other two regions. A monthly plot of air temperature versus sea surface temperature is presented in Figure 2.51. Temperature statistics presented in Table 2.26 show that the atmosphere in Region 3 is coldest in February with a mean temperature of 1.3qC, and warmest in August with a mean temperature of 13.3qC. The sea surface temperature is warmest in August with a mean temperature of 12.4qC and coldest in February and March with a mean temperature of 3.1qC. The mean sea surface temperature is in the range of 0.4 to 1.6 degrees colder than the mean air temperature from April to September, with the greatest difference occurring in the month of July. From October to March, sea surface temperatures are in the range of 0.2 to 2.1 degrees warmer than the mean air temperature. The colder sea surface temperatures from April to September have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, while relatively warmer sea surface temperatures from October to March tends to warm the overlying atmosphere.

Table 2.26 Region 3 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Statistics Air Temperature (°C) Sea Surface Temperature (°C) Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum January 1.7 18.0 -9.3 3.9 16.5 -2.5 February 1.3 17.2 -10.0 3.1 15.6 -2.3 March 2.2 17.2 -8.0 3.1 15.5 -2.8 April 3.8 16.6 -4.3 3.4 15.5 -2.5 May 5.4 17.4 -2.1 4.5 16.7 -2.0 June 7.8 19.8 0.5 6.7 18.8 0.0 July 11.1 22.2 4.0 9.5 21.6 3.0 August 13.3 23.2 5.0 12.4 22.0 5.0 September 12.4 22.3 3.5 12.0 21.5 4.8 October 9.2 21.1 0.0 9.4 20.5 2.8 November 6.6 20.2 -3.2 7.6 19.2 0.0 December 3.9 18.5 -6.0 5.3 17.5 -2.0 Winter 2.3 17.9 -8.4 4.1 16.5 -2.3 Spring 3.8 17.1 -4.8 3.7 15.9 -2.4 Summer 10.7 21.7 3.2 9.6 20.8 2.7 Autumn 9.4 21.2 0.1 9.6 20.4 2.5

Doc.ref 11977 62 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

14 Temperature (°C) SST (°C)

Temperature 6

0 July May April June March August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.51 Region 3 Monthly Mean Air and Sea Surface Temperature

2.2.5 Precipitation Precipitation can come in three forms and are classified as liquid, freezing or frozen. Included in the three classifications are Liquid Precipitation - Drizzle - Rain Freezing Precipitation - Freezing Drizzle - Freezing Rain Frozen Precipitation - Snow - Snow Pellets - Snow Grains - Ice Pellets - Hail - Ice Crystals The frequency of precipitation type for each region was calculated using data from the ICOADS data set, with each occurrence counting as one event. Precipitation statistics for

Doc.ref 11977 63 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks these regions may be low due a fair weather bias. That is, ships tend to either avoid regions of inclement weather, or simply do not report during these events.

Region 1 The frequency of precipitation type for Region 1 (Table 2.27) shows that annually, precipitation occurs 18.2% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 31.4% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 58.6% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 9.8%. Snow has been reported in each month except August in this region, occurring 0.1% of the time in June, July and September.

Table 2.27 Region 1 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation. Freezing Rain / Rain / Rain / Snow Drizzle Drizzle Mixed Snow Hail Total January 10.1 0.5 2.0 22.7 0.4 35.8 February 8.7 0.4 1.4 20.8 0.1 31.4 March 7.5 0.3 1.4 12.3 0.1 21.6 April 9.0 0.3 0.5 6.1 0.1 15.9 May 11.6 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 13.8 June 10.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.0 July 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.7 August 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 September 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 12.1 October 14.9 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 16.1 November 14.0 0.0 0.8 4.3 0.3 19.4 December 12.7 0.3 1.9 12.4 0.3 27.5 Winter 10.5 0.4 1.7 18.4 0.3 31.4 Spring 9.3 0.2 0.8 6.9 0.1 17.3 Summer 9.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.8 Autumn 13.7 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.1 15.9 Annual 10.8 0.2 0.7 6.5 0.1 18.2

Region 2 The frequency of precipitation type for Region 2 (Table 2.29) shows that annually, precipitation occurs in this region 22.5% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 35.6% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 58.4% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 12.7%. Snow was not recorded during the summer months in Region 2.

Doc.ref 11977 64 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 2.28 Region 2 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation. Rain / Freezing Rain / Snow Snow Hail Total Drizzle Rain / Mixed Drizzle January 13.8 0.6 0.6 24.0 0.2 39.2 February 9.9 0.9 0.5 22.9 0.1 34.3 March 12.2 1.1 0.5 15.2 0.0 28.9 April 13.3 0.2 0.2 5.3 0.1 19.1 May 14.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.0 15.7 June 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 July 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 August 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 September 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 16.8 October 21.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.2 22.6 November 20.5 0.1 0.4 6.4 0.2 27.5 December 16.2 0.2 0.8 15.8 0.3 33.3 Winter 13.4 0.6 0.6 20.8 0.2 35.6 Spring 13.4 0.4 0.3 6.7 0.0 20.8 Summer 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Autumn 19.4 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.1 22.3 Total 14.6 0.3 0.3 7.3 0.1 22.5

Region 3 The frequency of precipitation type for Region 3 (Table 2.29) shows that annually, precipitation occurs in this region 17.3% of the time. Winter has the highest frequency of precipitation with 26.6% of the observations reporting precipitation. Snow accounts for the majority of precipitation during the winter months, accounting for 47.7% of the occurrences of winter precipitation. Summer has the lowest frequency of precipitation with a total frequency of occurrence of 10.0%. Snow has been reported in each month except August in this region, occurring 0.1% of the time in June, July and September.

Table 2.29 Region 3 Percentage Frequency (%) Distribution of Precipitation. Rain / Drizzle Freezing Rain Rain / Snow Snow Hail Total / Drizzle Mixed January 12.2 0.3 1.6 13.1 0.2 27.6 February 10.8 0.3 1.4 14.5 0.2 27.1 March 10.9 0.1 0.7 8.2 0.1 20.0 April 10.2 0.1 0.7 3.7 0.2 14.9 May 12.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.1 13.5 June 11.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.3 July 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.5 August 9.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 September 12.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 12.6 October 16.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 16.8 November 16.5 0.1 0.6 2.1 0.2 19.4

Doc.ref 11977 65 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks December 13.5 0.0 1.0 9.8 0.3 24.6 Winter 12.1 0.2 1.3 12.7 0.2 26.6 Spring 10.9 0.1 0.6 4.9 0.1 16.6 Summer 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 10.0 Autumn 15.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 16.2 Total 11.7 0.1 0.6 4.8 0.1 17.3

2.2.6 Visibility Visibility is defined as the greatest distance at which objects of suitable dimensions can be seen and identified. Horizontal visibility may be reduced by any of the following phenomena, either alone or in combination:

- Fog - Mist - Haze - Smoke - Liquid Precipitation (e.g., Drizzle) - Freezing Precipitation (e.g., Freezing Rain) - Frozen Precipitation (e.g., Snow) - Blowing Snow

During the winter months, the main obstruction is snow; however, mist and fog may also reduce visibilities at times. As spring approaches, the amount of visibility reduction attributed to snow decreases. As the air temperature increases, so does the occurrence of advection fog. Advection fog forms when warm moist air moves over the cooler waters of the Labrador Current. By spring, the sea surface temperature in the project area is cooler than the surrounding air. As warm moist air moves over the colder sea surface, the air cools and its ability to hold moisture decreases. The air will continue to cool until it becomes saturated and the moisture condenses to form fog. The presence of advection fog increases until mid-summer when the temperature difference between the air and the sea begins to narrow and eventually decrease below the sea surface temperature. As the air temperature drops, the occurrence of fog decreases. Reduction in visibility during autumn and winter is relatively low and is mainly attributed to the passage of low- pressure systems. Fog is mainly the cause of the reduced visibilities in autumn and snow is the main cause of reduced visibilities in the winter. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility in all three regions since the air temperature has, on average, decreased below the sea surface temperature and it is not yet cold enough for snow.

Region 1 A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 1 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 2.52. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 41.9% of the recorded observations had reduced visibilities. The

Doc.ref 11977 66 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks month of July has the highest percentage (61.2%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometer 42.2% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 24.7% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities.

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations (%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.52 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 1

Region 2 A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 2 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 2.53. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 39.9% of the recorded observations had reduced visibilities. July has the highest percentage (66.9%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometre 49.5% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 24.7% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities.

Doc.ref 11977 67 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations (%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.53 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 2

Region 3 A plot of the frequency distribution of visibility for Region 3 from the ICOADS data set is presented in Figure 2.54. This figure shows that obstructions to vision can occur in any month. Annually, 38.6% of the recorded observations in Region 3 had reduced visibilities. July has the highest percentage (59.8%) of obscuration to visibility, most of which is in the form of advection fog, although frontal fog can also contribute to the reduction in visibility. On average, fog reduces visibility below 1 kilometre 41.5% of the time in July. October has the lowest occurrence of reduced visibility with only 28.6% of the observations in October reporting reduced visibilities. Visibility statistics from Region 3 are slightly higher than reported in Regions 1 and 2. This improvement may be the result of higher sea surface temperatures, resulting in less advection fog forming over the region.

Doc.ref 11977 68 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 < 1km 1 <= 2km 40.0 2 <= 4km 4 <= 10km 30.0 10km+

20.0 Percentage of Obervations (%) 10.0

0.0 July May April June March Annual August January October February November December September Month

Figure 2.54 Monthly and Annual Percentage Occurrence of Visibility for Region 3

2.2.7 Tropical Storms The hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin normally extends from June through November, although tropical storm systems occasionally occur outside this period. While the strongest winds typically occur during the winter months and are associated with mid-latitude low pressure systems, storm force winds may occur at any time of the year as a result of tropical systems. Once formed, a tropical storm or hurricane will maintain its energy as long as a sufficient supply of warm, moist air is available. Tropical storms and hurricanes obtain their energy from the latent heat of vapourization that is released during the condensation process. These systems typically move east to west over the warm water of the tropics, however, some of these systems turn northward and make their way towards Newfoundland and the Grand Banks. As the hurricanes move northward over the colder ocean waters, they begin to lose their tropical characteristics, since the capacity of the air to hold water vapour is dependent on temperature. By the time these weakening cyclones reach the Grand Banks, they are usually embedded into a mid-latitude low and their tropical characteristics are usually lost.

Doc.ref 11977 69 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Since 1995 the number of hurricanes that have developed within the Atlantic Basin has been increasing as shown in Figure 2.55. This increase in activity has been attributed to naturally occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator called the tropical multi-decadal signal and typically lasts 20 to 30 years (Bell, 2006). As a result of the increase in tropical activity in the Atlantic Basin, there has also been an increase in tropical storms or their remnants entering the Canadian Hurricane Centre Response zone, and consequently, a slight increase in the number of tropical storms entering the study area. It should be noted that the number of storms in 2006 and 2007 have shown a decrease with only 10 tropical storms developing in the Atlantic Basin in 2006 and 17 tropical storms in 2007. This time period is not of sufficient length however to determine whether this decrease will continue.

s 25

Number of Hurricane of Number 10

0 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Atlantic Basin Atlantic Canadian Response Zone Within 278km of 47.5°N, 47.5°W

Figure 2.55 Frequency of Tropical Storm Development in the Atlantic Basin. 1958 – 2007

Since 1950, 38 tropical systems have passed within 278 km of 47.5°N; 47.5°W. The names are given in Table 2.30 and the tracks over the Grand Banks are shown in Figure 2.56. It must be noted that the values in the table are the maximum 1-minute mean winds speeds occurring within the tropical system at the 10-m reference level.

Doc.ref 11977 70 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks On occasion, these systems still maintain their tropical characteristics when they reach Newfoundland. On October 02, 1975, Hurricane Gladys, a Category 4 Hurricane as it passed east of Cape Hatteras tracked northeast towards the Grand Banks. Gladys, still a Category 2 Hurricane with 43.7 m/s winds and a central pressure of 960 mb on October 03 moved northeast across the Grand Banks and maintained Hurricane strength until it moved north of 50° latitude when it weakened to a post-tropical storm. As this system passed over the region it passed closest to Grid Point 12595 which recorded a mean wind speed of 31.69 m/s and a significant wave height of 8.3 m.

Figure 2.56 Storm Tracks of Tropical Systems Passing within 278 km of 47.5°N 47.5°W, 1956 to 2006

Table 2.30 Tropical Systems Passing within 278 km of 47.5°N; 47.5°W, 1950 to 2006 Hour Latitude Longitude Wind Pressure Year Month Day (Z) Name (N) (W) (kts) (mb) Category 1950 10 5 1800Z Georges 49.5 46.0 60 N/A Extratropical 1952 9 8 1200Z Baker 47.8 49.3 60 N/A Extratropical 1954 9 3 1200Z Dolly 46.8 47.4 50 N/A Extratropical 1955 8 21 1200Z Diane 45.0 49.3 35 N/A Extratropical 1963 8 28 0000Z Beulah 45.8 48.3 70 N/A Category 1 1963 10 13 0000Z Flora 47.0 45.0 70 N/A Extratropical 1964 9 4 1800Z Cleo 46.9 49.8 70 N/A Category 1 1967 9 4 1200Z Arlene 46.6 46.0 60 N/A Extratropical 1969 8 13 0000Z Blanche 47.1 49.0 50 N/A Extratropical

Doc.ref 11977 71 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 1971 7 7 1800Z Arlene 46.5 53.0 45 N/A Extratropical 1971 8 6 1200Z NotNamed 46.0 49.0 75 974 Category 1 1974 7 20 0600Z SubTrop2 46.7 48.0 40 N/A Extratropical 1975 7 4 0600Z Amy 44.5 51.6 50 986 Tropical Storm 1975 10 3 1200Z Gladys 46.6 50.6 85 960 Category 2 1976 8 24 0600Z Candice 47.3 45.5 65 N/A Category 1 1977 9 30 0000Z Dorothy 47.0 51.0 50 995 Extratropical 1978 9 5 0600Z Ella 47.2 50.2 80 975 Category 1 1980 9 8 1200Z Georges 45.6 51.1 68 993 Category 1 1982 9 19 1200Z Debby 48.5 47.1 70 987 Category 1 1984 9 2 1200Z Cesar 46.0 50.4 50 994 Tropical Storm 1990 9 3 0000Z Gustav 46.0 46.5 55 993 Tropical Storm 1992 10 26 1800Z Frances 46.0 46.9 55 988 Tropical Storm 1993 9 10 0600Z Floyd 45.4 48.3 65 990 Category 1 1995 7 21 0000Z Chantal 47.7 45.2 50 1001 Extratropical 1995 8 22 1800Z Felix 49.0 46.0 50 985 Extratropical 1999 9 19 0600Z Floyd 48.5 52.5 35 994 Extratropical 1999 10 19 1200Z Irene 48.0 48.0 80 968 Extratropical 2000 9 25 1200Z Helene 44.0 55.5 55 988 Tropical Storm 2001 8 29 0000Z Dean 47.0 48.5 45 999 Extratropical 2001 9 20 0000Z Gabrielle 48.5 48.5 60 988 Extratropical 2003 10 7 1800Z Kate 47.5 47.2 60 980 Tropical Storm 2004 8 6 0000Z Alex 44.5 49.3 75 978 Category 1 2004 9 2 0000Z Gaston 47.0 50.0 45 997 Extratropical 2005 7 30 1800Z Franklin 46.4 48.8 40 1006 Extratropical 2005 9 19 0600Z Ophelia 49.0 48.8 45 1001 Extratropical 2006 7 19 0600Z NotNamed 49.2 49.4 25 1012 Tropical Low 2006 9 14 0600Z Florence 48.6 48.3 60 967 Extratropical 2006 10 3 0600Z Isaac 48.6 49.0 45 998 Extratropical

2.2.8 Climate Variability Climate is naturally variable and can change over a range of time scales from the very short term, to seasonally, and to longer time periods in response to small and large-scale changes of atmospheric circulation patterns. Short-term meteorological variations are largely a consequence of the passage of synoptic scale weather systems: low pressure systems, high pressure systems, troughs and ridges. The energetics of these features varies seasonally in accordance with the changes in the strength of the mean tropical - polar temperature gradient. Long-term changes occur in response to small and large- scale changes of atmospheric circulation patterns and in the past in the Northern Hemisphere were mainly the result of changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). While the NAO still has an effect on climate patterns, there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that Greenhouse Gas emissions have played a significant role in the climate during the last 50 years. However, the high degree of climate variation naturally experienced makes it difficult to identify, with any degree of certainty, trends that are a direct result of climate change. (Environment Canada, 1997)

Doc.ref 11977 72 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks The dominate features of the mean sea level pressure pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean are the semi-permanent area of relatively low pressure in the vicinity of Iceland and the sub-tropical high pressure region near the Azores. The relative strengths of these two systems control the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks in the North Atlantic and therefore play a significant role in the climate of the North Atlantic. The fluctuating pressure difference between these two features is known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

A measure of the North Atlantic Oscillation is the NAO Index, which is the normalized difference in pressure between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. A large difference in pressure results in a positive NAO Index and can be the result of a stronger than normal subtropical high, a deeper than normal sub-polar low, or a combination of both. A time-series of the Winter (DJF) North Atlantic Oscillation Index is presented in Figure 2.57 and shows that during the period of 1950 to 2006 there is a general trend towards increasing NAO Index indicating that in recent years either the Icelandic low is deeper or the Azores high is stronger than on average. This trend is also present in the Summer (JJA) North Atlantic Oscillation index, albeit significantly weaker.

Winter North Atlantic Oscillation Index (1950 - 2006)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 x

0.00 NAO Inde -0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

NAO Index Linear (NAO Index)

Figure 2.57 Winter North Atlantic Oscillation Index (1950 - 2006)

Doc.ref 11977 73 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks In general, over the Northwest Atlantic during the winter season, a positive NAO index brings with it an increase in frequency and strength of westerly winds in the upper atmosphere, which tends to steer storm systems in a more west to east direction. As a result, a positive NAO index results in an increase in storm systems coming off of the continent resulting in colder temperatures, increased precipitation, and relatively stronger winds. Due to the weaker trend in NAO index and other atmospheric patterns however, conclusions could not be drawn about correlations between summer NAO indices and temperature, precipitation and winds during the summer months.

Figure 2.58 depicts the seasonally averaged winter NAO Index versus mean wind speed for each of the grid points analyzed in this study. Linear trend lines are also presented in the plots. This figure shows that mean wind speeds increase with increasing NAO index in accordance with general expectations.

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 x

0.00 NAO Inde -0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 Wind Speed (m/s)

10255 10439 10856 11421 12595 13912 Linear (10255) Linear (10439) Linear (10856) Linear (11421) Linear (12595) Linear (13912)

Figure 2.58 Scatterplot of Seasonally Averaged NAO Index against Wind Speed at various Grid Points (Winter 1954 – 2004)

Doc.ref 11977 74 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks With a positive correlation in wind speed and NAO index, it would be expected that significant wave heights would also be positively correlated. However, wave heights show a negative correlation at each of the grid points (Figure 2.59). In some instances, no correlation is observed between wave height and the winter NAO index. Further examination into the correlation between wind wave and swell height with the NAO index yielded no further insight. It is uncertain why no noticeable correlation exists with wave heights; however, these results are typical of other studies done in the waters surrounding Newfoundland (Swail 1996 and Swail et al. 1999).

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 x

0.00 NAO Inde -0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00 22.533.544.555.5 Wave Height (m)

10255 10439 10856 11421 12595 13912 Linear (10255) Linear (10439) Linear (10856) Linear (11421) Linear (12595) Linear (13912)

Figure 2.59 Scatterplot of Seasonally Averaged NAO Index against Wave Height at various Grid Points (Winter 1954 – 2004)

During the summer months, there appears to be little relationship between the NAO index and the climate of Eastern Canada. However, studies have shown that the NAO can be related to the position of the track of hurricanes in the North Atlantic. During seasons with a negative NAO index, hurricanes tend to favour a track that parallels lines of latitude often ending up in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean (Elsner, 2003), while during seasons with a positive NAO index, hurricanes tend to curve northward (Elsner & Bosak, 2004) along the United States Eastern Seaboard. An analysis of the number of

Doc.ref 11977 75 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks tropical storms entering the Canadian Hurricane Centre Response Zone shows that tropical storm frequency decreases with increasing summer NAO index. Likewise, the number of tropical storms coming within 278 km of the centre of the project area also decreases during summers with positive NAO index.

120.00

100.00

80.00

60.00 Frequency (%) Frequency 40.00

20.00

0.00 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 NAO Index CHC Response Zone Within 278 km of 47.5°N 47.5°W CHC Response Zone Trend Linear (Within 278 km of 47.5°N 47.5°W)

Figure 2.60 Frequency of Atlantic Basin Storms entering the Canadian Hurricane Centre Response Zone against Summer NAO Index

Doc.ref 11977 76 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

3.0 Wind and Wave Extreme Value Analysis

An analysis of extreme wind and waves was performed for each region using the MSC50 data set. This data set was determined to be the most representative of the available datasets, as it provides a continuous 52-year period of hourly data for the study area. The extreme value analysis for wind speeds was carried out using the peak-over-threshold method. For the extreme wave analysis, two methods were used; the peak-over-threshold method using discrete values and the joint probability method using the complete data set.

After considering four different distributions, the Gumbel distribution was chosen to be the most representative for the peak-over-threshold method as it provided the best fit to the data. Since extreme values can vary, depending on how well the data fits the distribution, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on each grid point to determine how many storms to use in the analysis.

The maximum individual wave heights for the peak-over-threshold method were calculated within Oceanweather’s OSMOSIS software by evaluating the Borgman integral (Borgman 1973), which was derived from a Raleigh distribution function. The variant of this equation used in the software has the following form (Forristall 1978):

1.063 ª 2 º § h · T M 0 Pr{H ! h} exp«1.08311¨ ¸ » ; « ¨ 8 ¸ » ¬ © M 0 ¹ ¼ M 1 where h is the significant wave height, T is the wave period, M0 and M1 are the first and second spectral moments of the total spectrum. The associated peak periods are calculated by first plotting the peak periods of the chosen storm peak values versus the corresponding significant wave heights. This plot is then fitted to a power function (y = axb), and the resulting equation is used to calculate the peak periods associated with the extreme values of significant wave height.

In order to examine the period ranges of storm events, an environmental contour plot was produced showing the probability of the joint occurrence of significant wave heights and the spectral peak periods using the methodology of Winterstein et al. (1993). A 3-hour subset of the MSC50 data was used in the analysis. The wave heights were fitted to a Weibull Distribution and the peak periods to a lognormal distribution. The wave data was divided into bins of 1 m for significant wave heights and 1 second for peak periods. Since the lower wave values were having too much of an impact on the wave extremes, the wave heights below 2 m were modeled separately in a Weibull Distribution. The two

Doc.ref 11977 77 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Weibull curves were combined near 2 m, the point where both functions had the same probability.

Three-parameter Weibull distributions were used with a scaling parameter D, shape parameter E, and location parameter J. The three parameters were solved by using a least square method, the maximum log likelihood, and the method of moments. The following equation was minimized to get the coefficients

2 13 h J ª ª i ºº LS DEJ « ln ln 1 FP Eln« »» ¦ ¬ i ¬ D ¼¼ i 0 where hi is the endpoint of the height bin (0.5, 1.5, …) and FPi is the cumulative probability of the height bin. Using a minimizing function the three parameters D, E and J were calculated.

A lognormal distribution was fitted to the spectral peak periods in each wave height bin. The coefficient of the lognormal distribution was the calculated. Using the coefficients and the two distribution functions, the joint wave height and period combinations were calculated for the various return periods.

3.1 Region 1

3.1.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution

Grid Point 12595 located at 47.5°N; 48.3°W was deemed to be the most representative for the area defined as Region 1 in Figure 2.6. A sensitivity analysis was performed and the number of storms determined to provide the best fit annually and monthly for each grid point is presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 1 Annually Monthly Wind 264 62 Grid Point 12595 Wave 273 63

The extreme value estimates for wind were calculated using Oceanweather’s software program for the return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years. The annual and monthly calculated values for 1-hour, 10-minutes and 1-minute are

Doc.ref 11977 78 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks presented in Table 3.2 to Table 3.4. The analysis used hourly wind values for the reference height of 10 m above sea level. These values were converted to 10-minute and 1-minute wind values using a constant ration of 1.06 and 1.22 respectively (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The annual 100-year extreme 1-hour wind speed for Grid Point 12595 was determined to be 32.4 m/s.

Table 3.2 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Wind Speed 1-hr (m/s) Month 1.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 100.00 January 22.4 26.1 27.3 28.1 29.0 February 21.8 27.2 28.9 30.2 31.5 March 20.0 25.4 27.1 28.3 29.5 April 18.1 22.5 23.8 24.8 25.9 May 15.4 20.3 21.8 22.9 24.0 June 14.2 18.0 19.2 20.1 21.0 July 13.1 16.3 17.3 18.1 18.8 August 13.7 19.2 20.9 22.2 23.4 September 16.6 23.2 25.2 26.8 28.3 October 17.8 24.4 26.4 27.9 29.5 November 19.6 24.5 26.1 27.2 28.4 December 21.4 26.5 28.1 29.3 30.4 Annual 25.2 28.9 30.3 31.4 32.4

Table 3.3 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Wind Speed 10-min (m/s) Month 1.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 100.00 January 23.8 27.7 28.9 29.8 30.7 February 23.1 28.9 30.7 32.0 22.7 March 21.2 26.9 28.7 30.0 31.3 April 19.2 23.8 25.3 26.3 27.4 May 16.3 21.5 23.1 24.3 25.5 June 15.0 19.1 20.4 21.3 22.2 July 13.8 17.3 18.4 19.2 20.0 August 14.5 20.3 22.1 23.5 24.8 September 17.6 24.5 26.7 28.4 30.0 October 18.9 25.8 28.0 29.6 31.2 November 20.8 26.0 27.6 28.8 30.1 December 22.7 28.1 29.8 31.0 32.2 Annual 26.7 30.6 32.1 33.2 34.4

Doc.ref 11977 79 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.4 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Wind Speed 1-min (m/s) Month 1.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 100.00 January 27.4 31.8 33.2 34.3 35.3 February 26.6 33.2 35.3 36.8 26.2 March 24.4 31.0 33.0 34.5 36.0 April 22.1 27.4 29.1 30.3 31.5 May 18.8 24.7 26.5 27.9 29.3 June 17.3 22.0 23.4 24.5 25.6 July 15.9 19.9 21.1 22.1 23.0 August 16.7 23.4 25.5 27.0 28.6 September 20.2 28.2 30.8 32.6 34.5 October 21.8 29.7 32.2 34.1 35.9 November 23.9 29.9 31.8 33.2 34.6 December 26.2 32.3 34.2 35.7 37.1 Annual 30.8 35.2 37.0 38.2 39.6

3.1.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution The annual and monthly extreme value estimates of significant wave height for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 3.5. The annual 100-year extreme significant wave height for Grid Point 12595 is 15.1 m. Monthly, the highest extreme significant wave height occurs during February with an extreme height of 15.1 m. The highest significant wave height of 14.1 m in the MSC50 data set occurred during a storm on February 11, 2003 and corresponds with the February 50-year extreme significant wave height of 14.3 m. The maximum wave heights, and associated peak periods are presented in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7.

Table 3.5 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Significant Wave Height (m) Month 1.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0 January 9.2 11.9 12.7 13.3 14.0 February 8.4 12.2 13.4 14.3 15.1 March 7.0 10.0 10.9 11.6 12.3 April 5.6 8.7 9.7 10.4 11.1 May 4.6 7.6 8.5 9.2 9.8 June 3.7 6.2 6.9 7.5 8.0 July 3.3 5.3 5.9 6.4 6.8 August 3.7 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.7 September 5.2 9.3 10.6 11.5 12.5 October 6.1 10.1 11.4 12.3 13.2 November 7.5 10.9 11.9 12.7 13.5 December 9.0 11.9 12.8 13.5 14.1 Annual 10.9 13.0 13.9 14.5 15.1

Doc.ref 11977 80 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.6 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Maximum Wave Height (m) Month 1.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0 January 17.0 21.9 23.4 24.6 25.7 February 15.6 22.7 24.9 26.5 28.2 March 13.0 18.3 19.9 21.1 22.3 April 10.6 16.1 17.8 19.1 20.4 May 8.6 14.7 16.6 18.0 19.4 June 7.2 11.5 12.8 13.8 14.7 July 6.4 10.1 11.2 12.1 12.9 August 7.1 11.2 12.5 13.4 14.4 September 9.9 17.1 19.4 21.1 22.7 October 11.6 18.7 20.9 22.6 24.2 November 13.9 20.1 22.0 23.4 24.8 December 16.8 22.0 23.6 24.7 25.9 Annual 20.1 24.1 25.6 26.8 28.0

Table 3.7 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Associated Peak Period (sec) Month 1.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0 January 12.8 14.4 14.8 15.1 15.5 February 12.2 14.5 15.1 15.5 15.9 March 11.7 13.3 13.7 14.0 14.3 April 10.8 12.4 12.8 13.1 13.4 May 9.9 12.0 12.6 13.0 13.4 June 8.8 10.9 11.4 11.8 12.2 July 8.4 10.7 11.3 11.7 12.1 August 8.9 11.4 12.1 12.6 13.1 September 10.7 13.3 14.0 14.5 14.9 October 11.4 13.3 13.8 14.2 14.5 November 12.2 13.6 13.9 14.1 14.4 December 12.8 14.3 14.8 15.1 15.4 Annual 13.8 14.9 15.3 15.6 15.9

Doc.ref 11977 81 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 3.1.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods A contour plot depicting the combination of extreme wave heights and periods for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years is presented in Figure 3.1. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 3.8. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel distribution. For a 100-year return period, the Gumbel distribution gave an extreme significant wave height of 15.1 m, whereas the Weibull distribution gave a value of 16.0 m.

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 12595 47.5°N 48.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 100 Year 13 50 Year 12 25 Year 11 10 Year 10 1 Year 9

Spectral Peak Period (s) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 3.1 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 12595 (47.5°N; 48.3°W)

Table 3.8 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 1 Combined Significant Spectral Peak Return Period Wave Height Period Median (years) (m) Value (s) 1 11.6 14.2 10 13.9 15.3 Grid point 13912 25 14.7 15.8 50 15.4 16.1 100 16.0 16.4

Doc.ref 11977 82 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 3.2 Region 2

3.2.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution

Three grid points, deemed to give an accurate depiction of conditions within Region 2, were used in this analysis: Grid Point 10255 located at 46.3°N; 48.4°W, Grid Point 10439 located at 46.4°N; 48.1°W and Grid Point 11421 located at 46.9°N; 48.3°W. Since extreme values can vary depending on how well the data fits the distribution, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the number storms to use. The number of storms determined to provide the best fit annually and monthly for each grid point is presented in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 2 Annually Monthly Grid Point Wind 314 71 10255 Wave 323 73 Grid Point Wind 317 72 10439 Wave 309 70 Grid Point Wind 288 66 11421 Wave 310 71

The extreme value estimates for wind were calculated using Oceanweather’s Osmosis software program for the return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100- years. The calculated annual and monthly values for 1-hour, 10-minutes and 1-minute are presented in Table 3.10 to Table 3.12. The analysis used hourly mean wind values for the reference height of 10 m above sea level. These values were converted to 10- minute and 1-minute wind values using a constant ration of 1.06 and 1.22, respectively (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The annual 100-year extreme 1-hour wind speed was determined to be 31.5 m/s Grid Point 10255, 31.6 m/s at Grid Point 10439 and 31.9 m/s Grid Point 11421. Monthly, the highest extreme winds occur during February at each of the grid points..

A comparison of these values, with actual values measured by platforms on the Grand Banks was not possible. Logarithmic profiles for adjusting wind speeds from anemometer height to the surface are valid only in neutral or unstable conditions. Observations from platforms on the Grand Banks over the past ten years frequently show stable conditions in which the surface layer wind speed profiles are not valid. Using a logarithmic profile to adjust wind speeds between the 10 m and anemometer level would therefore introduce an unnecessary source of error in the results.

Doc.ref 11977 83 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.10 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 22.1 25.6 26.7 27.6 28.5 22.2 25.7 26.8 27.7 28.5 22.5 25.9 27.1 27.9 28.7 February 21.9 26.8 28.3 29.5 30.7 22.0 26.7 28.3 29.5 30.7 22.1 27.1 28.8 30.0 31.2 March 20.0 24.5 25.9 27.0 28.1 20.1 24.5 25.9 27.0 28.1 20.1 25.1 26.8 27.9 29.1 April 18.0 22.1 23.5 24.5 25.5 18.0 22.3 23.7 24.8 25.8 18.1 22.5 23.9 25.0 26.0 May 15.3 19.2 20.5 21.4 22.4 15.4 19.4 20.8 21.8 22.8 15.4 19.7 21.1 22.2 23.2 June 14.1 17.6 18.8 19.7 20.5 14.1 17.8 19.0 19.9 20.8 14.2 18.3 19.6 20.5 21.5 July 13.0 17.1 18.4 19.4 20.4 13.1 17.0 18.3 19.3 20.2 13.3 16.5 17.6 18.4 19.2 August 13.7 20.6 22.9 24.6 26.3 13.6 20.6 22.9 24.7 26.4 13.6 20.1 22.2 23.7 25.2 September 16.7 22.0 23.8 25.1 26.3 16.8 21.9 23.6 24.9 26.1 16.7 22.5 24.3 25.7 27.1 October 17.9 23.3 25.1 26.4 27.7 18.0 23.2 24.9 26.2 27.5 18.1 23.6 25.3 26.6 27.9 November 19.6 24.4 26.0 27.1 28.3 19.6 24.4 26.0 27.2 28.4 19.7 24.6 26.1 27.3 28.4 December 21.4 26.2 27.8 29.0 30.1 21.5 26.3 27.9 29.0 30.2 21.6 26.5 28.1 29.3 30.5 Annual 24.7 28.1 29.5 30.5 31.5 24.8 28.2 29.5 30.5 31.6 25.1 28.5 29.9 30.9 31.9

Table 3.11 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 23.4 27.1 28.3 29.3 30.2 23.5 27.2 28.4 29.3 30.2 23.8 27.5 28.7 29.5 30.4 February 23.2 28.4 30.0 31.3 32.6 23.3 28.3 30.0 31.3 32.5 23.4 28.8 30.5 31.8 33.0 March 21.2 25.9 27.5 28.7 29.8 21.3 25.9 27.5 28.6 29.8 21.3 26.6 28.4 29.6 30.9 April 19.1 23.5 24.9 26.0 27.1 19.1 23.6 25.1 26.2 27.4 19.2 23.9 25.4 26.5 27.6 May 16.2 20.3 21.7 22.7 23.7 16.3 20.6 22.0 23.1 24.1 16.3 20.9 22.4 23.5 24.6 June 14.9 18.7 19.9 20.9 21.8 14.9 18.9 20.2 21.1 22.1 15.1 19.4 20.7 21.8 22.8 July 13.7 18.1 19.5 20.6 21.6 13.8 18.0 19.4 20.4 21.5 14.0 17.5 18.7 19.5 20.3 August 14.5 21.8 24.3 26.1 27.9 14.4 21.8 24.3 26.1 28.0 14.4 21.3 23.5 25.1 26.7 September 17.7 23.3 25.2 26.6 27.9 17.8 23.2 25.0 26.4 27.7 17.7 23.8 25.8 27.2 28.7 October 18.9 24.7 26.6 28.0 29.4 19.1 24.6 26.4 27.8 29.2 19.2 25.0 26.8 28.2 29.6 November 20.7 25.8 27.5 28.8 30.0 20.7 25.9 27.5 28.8 30.1 20.9 26.0 27.7 28.9 30.1 December 22.7 27.8 29.4 30.7 31.9 22.8 27.9 29.5 30.8 32.0 22.9 28.1 29.8 31.1 32.3 Annual 26.2 29.8 31.2 32.3 33.4 26.2 29.9 31.3 32.4 33.4 26.6 30.3 31.7 32.8 33.8

Doc.ref 11977 84 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.12 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 26.9 31.2 32.6 33.7 34.7 27.1 31.3 32.7 33.8 34.8 27.4 31.6 33.0 34.0 35.0 February 26.7 32.6 34.6 36.0 37.5 26.8 32.6 34.6 36.0 37.4 26.9 33.1 35.1 36.6 38.0 March 24.4 29.9 31.6 33.0 34.3 24.5 29.9 31.6 32.9 34.2 24.5 30.7 32.6 34.1 35.6 April 22.0 27.0 28.7 29.9 31.1 22.0 27.2 28.9 30.2 31.5 22.0 27.5 29.2 30.5 31.8 May 18.7 23.4 25.0 26.1 27.3 18.7 23.7 25.3 26.6 27.8 18.8 24.1 25.8 27.1 28.3 June 17.2 21.5 22.9 24.0 25.1 17.2 21.7 23.2 24.3 25.4 17.3 22.3 23.9 25.0 26.2 July 15.8 20.8 22.4 23.7 24.9 15.9 20.7 22.3 23.5 24.7 16.2 20.2 21.5 22.4 23.4 August 16.7 25.1 27.9 30.0 32.1 16.6 25.1 28.0 30.1 32.2 16.6 24.5 27.0 28.9 30.8 September 20.4 26.9 29.0 30.6 32.1 20.4 26.7 28.8 30.4 31.9 20.4 27.4 29.7 31.3 33.0 October 21.8 28.4 30.6 32.2 33.8 21.9 28.3 30.4 32.0 33.6 22.1 28.8 30.9 32.5 34.1 November 23.9 29.7 31.7 33.1 34.6 23.9 29.8 31.7 33.2 34.6 24.0 30.0 31.9 33.3 34.7 December 26.2 32.0 33.9 35.3 36.7 26.3 32.1 34.0 35.4 36.9 26.3 32.4 34.3 35.7 37.2 Annual 30.1 34.3 36.0 37.2 38.4 30.2 34.4 36.0 37.3 38.5 30.6 34.8 36.5 37.7 38.9

3.2.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution The annual and monthly extreme value estimates for significant wave height for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 3.13. The maximum wave heights, and the associated peak periods are given in Table 3.14 and Table 3.15. The annual 100-year extreme significant wave height ranged from 15.2 m at Grid Points 10255 and 11421 to 15.4 m at Grid Point 10439. The 50-year extreme significant wave heights vary between 14.5 m and 14.7 m. These significant wave heights correspond with a significant wave height of 14.66 m recorded over a 20-minute interval by a waverider buoy in the area on February 11, 2003. A storm with a return period of 50 years means that the calculated significant wave height will occur once every 50 years, averaged over a long period of time. It is entirely possible that this event was a 50-year or longer return period storm. The value recorded on February 11, 2003 was the highest recorded significant wave height in a near continuous waverider data set extending back to early 1999. The previous highest recorded value in this data set was 12.47 m, which occurred on January 25, 2003. The maximum significant wave heights measured during the “Ocean Ranger” storm of 1982 was approximately 12 m. If more occurrences of an event of this magnitude were observed, the calculated statistics would consequently begin to increase.

During a storm event on January 08, 2007 a maximum individual wave height of 22.63 m was recorded by a waverider in the Terra Nova field. This is greater than the January maximum 10-year return period estimate of 21.8 m for Grid Point 10255, which is the closest grid point to the Terra Nova waverider. However the value is less than the 25- year return period estimate of 23.7 m. The significant wave height during this event was 9.72 m.

Doc.ref 11977 85 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.13 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 8.8 11.9 12.9 13.7 14.4 9.0 12.1 13.1 13.9 14.6 9.0 11.9 12.8 13.5 14.2 February 8.3 11.9 13.1 14.0 14.9 8.4 12.1 13.3 14.2 15.1 8.3 12.1 13.3 14.2 15.1 March 7.1 10.1 11.1 11.8 12.6 7.2 10.3 11.3 12.0 12.8 7.1 10.0 10.9 11.6 12.3 April 5.8 8.6 9.5 10.2 10.9 5.8 8.7 9.7 10.4 11.2 5.7 8.6 9.6 10.3 11.0 May 4.6 6.9 7.7 8.3 8.9 4.6 7.1 7.9 8.5 9.1 4.7 7.3 8.1 8.8 9.4 June 3.7 5.8 6.5 7.0 7.6 3.7 5.9 6.7 7.2 7.7 3.8 6.0 6.7 7.2 7.8 July 3.4 5.3 6.0 6.4 6.9 3.4 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.0 3.4 5.3 5.9 6.4 6.5 August 3.8 6.2 7.0 7.6 8.2 3.8 6.3 7.1 7.7 8.3 3.8 6.1 6.9 7.4 8.0 September 5.3 8.5 9.6 10.4 11.2 5.3 8.6 9.7 10.5 11.3 5.3 8.9 10.0 10.9 11.8 October 6.2 9.6 10.7 11.6 12.4 6.2 9.8 11.0 11.8 12.7 6.3 9.8 11.0 11.9 12.7 November 7.4 10.3 11.2 11.9 12.7 7.4 10.5 11.5 12.3 13.0 7.5 10.5 11.5 12.2 12.9 December 8.6 11.6 12.5 13.2 14.0 8.8 11.8 12.8 13.5 14.3 8.8 11.7 12.6 13.3 14.0 Annual 10.5 12.9 13.8 14.5 15.2 10.7 13.1 14.0 14.7 15.4 10.7 12.9 13.8 14.5 15.2

Table 3.14 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 16.4 21.8 23.7 25.0 26.4 16.6 22.2 24.0 25.4 26.8 16.8 21.8 23.5 24.7 25.9 February 15.5 22.1 24.3 25.9 27.5 15.9 22.4 24.6 26.2 27.8 15.5 22.4 24.7 26.4 28.1 March 13.5 19.3 21.2 22.6 24.0 13.6 19.3 21.1 22.5 23.9 13.3 18.5 20.2 21.5 22.7 April 11.0 15.9 17.5 18.7 19.9 11.1 16.3 18.0 19.3 20.5 10.9 16.0 17.7 19.0 20.2 May 8.6 13.9 15.7 17.0 18.3 8.8 14.3 16.1 17.5 18.8 8.9 14.6 16.5 17.9 19.2 June 7.1 11.0 12.3 13.3 14.3 7.1 11.2 12.5 13.5 14.5 7.4 11.4 12.7 13.7 14.7 July 6.4 9.9 11.1 12.0 12.8 6.4 10.0 11.2 12.1 13.0 6.6 10.0 11.1 11.9 12.8 August 7.2 11.6 13.0 14.1 15.2 7.1 11.2 12.6 13.6 14.6 7.1 11.0 12.3 13.3 14.3 September 10.3 16.0 17.9 19.4 20.8 10.1 15.9 17.8 19.2 20.7 10.1 16.3 18.4 19.9 21.5 October 11.7 17.8 19.8 21.3 22.8 11.9 18.3 20.4 22.0 23.5 11.9 18.4 20.6 22.2 23.7 November 13.9 19.1 20.7 22.0 23.3 14.0 19.5 21.3 22.6 23.9 14.1 19.5 21.2 22.6 23.9 December 16.4 21.7 23.5 24.8 26.1 16.4 21.9 23.7 25.0 26.3 16.6 21.6 23.3 24.5 25.7 Annual 19.5 23.8 25.5 26.7 28.0 19.8 24.2 25.9 27.2 28.4 19.7 23.9 25.5 26.7 27.9

Table 3.15 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 GridPoint #10255 GridPoint #10439 GridPoint #11421 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 12.6 14.3 14.8 15.1 15.4 12.6 14.5 15.0 15.4 15.8 12.7 14.4 14.9 15.2 15.6 February 12.2 14.4 15.0 15.5 15.9 12.3 14.4 15.0 15.5 15.9 12.2 14.3 14.9 15.3 15.7 March 11.4 13.3 13.8 14.2 14.6 11.9 13.3 13.7 13.9 14.2 11.8 13.2 13.6 13.9 14.1 April 11.1 12.5 12.9 13.2 13.5 10.7 12.3 12.8 13.1 13.4 10.8 12.3 12.7 13.0 13.3 May 10.0 11.4 11.8 12.0 12.3 10.2 11.8 12.2 12.5 12.8 9.9 11.9 12.5 12.9 13.2 June 9.4 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.1 8.8 10.7 11.2 11.5 11.9 8.9 10.7 11.2 11.5 11.9 July 8.5 10.2 10.7 11.1 11.4 8.4 10.6 11.3 11.7 12.2 8.5 10.7 11.3 11.8 11.9

Doc.ref 11977 86 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks August 8.9 11.5 12.2 12.8 13.3 9.3 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.8 9.0 11.4 12.1 12.6 13.0 September 10.6 13.1 13.8 14.3 14.8 10.9 12.9 13.4 13.8 14.2 11.0 12.9 13.5 13.8 14.2 October 11.4 13.6 14.2 14.6 15.0 11.4 13.4 14.0 14.4 14.7 11.4 13.4 13.9 14.3 14.7 November 11.9 13.4 13.8 14.1 14.4 12.1 13.5 13.9 14.2 14.4 12.2 13.3 13.7 13.9 14.1 December 12.8 14.0 14.4 14.6 14.9 13.0 14.1 14.4 14.7 14.9 12.7 14.2 14.6 15.0 15.3 Annual 13.6 14.8 15.2 15.5 15.8 13.7 14.9 15.3 15.5 15.8 13.6 14.8 15.2 15.5 15.8

3.2.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods A contour plot for each grid point depicting the combination of extreme wave heights and periods for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years is presented in Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.4. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 3.16. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel distribution.

For a 100-year return period the Gumbel distribution gave extreme significant wave heights at 15.2 m, 15.4 m, and 15.2 m for Grid Points 10255, 10439, and 11421, respectively. The Weibull distribution gave values of 16.1 m, 16.0 m and 16.2 m, respectively.

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10255 46.3°N 48.4°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

Figure 3.2 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10255 (46.3°N; 48.4°W)

Doc.ref 11977 87 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10439 46.4°N 48.1°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 100 Year 15 50 Year 14 25 Year 13 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 3.3 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10439 (46.4°N; 48.1°W)

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 11421 46.9°N 48.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 100 Year 15 50 Year 14 25 Year 13 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) Period Peak Spectral 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 3.4 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 11421 (46.9°N; 48.3°W)

Doc.ref 11977 88 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.16 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 2 Combined Significant Wave Spectral Peak Period Median Height (m) Value (s) Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Grid Return Point Point Point Point Point Point Period 10255 10439 11421 10255 10439 11421 1 11.5 11.5 11.6 14.2 14.1 14.2 10 13.8 13.8 13.9 15.5 15.2 15.4 25 14.7 14.7 14.8 16.0 15.7 15.8 50 15.4 15.4 15.4 16.3 16.0 16.2 100 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.7 16.3 16.5

3.3 Region 3 Grid Point 13912 located at 48.3°N; 46.3°W in northern Flemish Pass and Grid Point 10856 located at 46.6°N; 46.3°W in southern Flemish Pass were chosen to represent Region 3. A sensitivity analysis was performed and the number of storms determined to provide the best fit annually and monthly for each grid point is presented in Table 3.17.

Table 3.17 Number of Storms Providing Best Fit for Extreme Value Analysis of Winds and Waves in Region 3 Annually Monthly Grid Point Wind 285 66 13912 Wave 260 62 Grid Point Wind 288 68 10856 Wave 339 77

3.3.1 Extreme Value Estimates for Winds from the Gumbel Distribution The extreme value estimates for wind were calculated using Oceanweather’s software program for the return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years. The annual and monthly calculated values for 1-hour, 10-minutes and 1-minute are presented in Table 3.18 to Table 3.20. The analysis used hourly wind values for the reference height of 10-metres above sea level. These values were converted to 10-minute and 1-minute wind values using a constant ration of 1.06 and 1.22, respectively (U.S. Geological Survey, 1979). The annual 100-year extreme 1-hour wind speed was determined to be 30.9 m/s at Grid Point 10856 and 33.1 m/s at Grid Point 13912.

Table 3.18 1-hr Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 23.0 26.4 27.5 28.3 29.1 23.1 26.8 28.0 28.9 29.8

Doc.ref 11977 89 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks February 22.5 27.0 28.4 29.5 30.5 22.8 28.1 29.8 31.1 32.4 March 20.4 24.8 26.2 27.3 28.3 20.7 25.9 27.5 28.8 30.0 April 18.3 22.7 24.0 25.1 26.1 18.7 22.7 24.0 25.0 26.0 May 16.1 20.4 21.8 22.8 23.8 16.4 21.2 22.7 23.8 25.0 June 14.4 18.3 19.5 20.4 21.4 14.9 18.7 19.9 20.8 21.7 July 13.1 17.2 18.5 19.5 20.5 13.4 16.8 17.9 18.7 19.5 August 13.5 20.4 22.6 24.3 26.0 13.6 20.5 22.7 24.3 26.0 September 17.2 21.9 23.4 24.6 25.7 17.5 23.5 25.4 26.8 28.2 October 18.4 23.7 25.4 26.7 27.9 18.7 24.3 26.1 27.4 28.7 November 19.5 24.6 26.2 27.4 28.6 20.4 25.1 26.5 27.6 28.8 December 22.0 27.1 28.7 30.0 31.2 22.3 27.9 29.7 31.0 32.3 Annual 25.3 28.6 29.9 30.9 31.9 25.9 29.6 31.0 32.1 33.1

Table 3.19 10-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 24.4 28.0 29.1 30.0 30.9 24.4 28.4 29.7 30.7 31.6 February 23.9 28.6 30.1 31.2 32.4 24.2 29.8 31.6 33.0 34.3 March 21.7 26.3 27.8 28.9 30.0 21.9 27.4 29.2 30.5 31.8 April 19.4 24.0 25.5 26.6 27.7 19.8 24.1 25.5 26.5 27.5 May 17.1 21.6 23.1 24.1 25.2 17.3 22.4 24.0 25.3 26.5 June 15.3 19.4 20.7 21.7 22.6 15.8 19.8 21.1 22.0 23.0 July 13.8 18.2 19.6 20.6 21.7 14.2 17.8 19.0 19.8 20.6 August 14.4 21.6 24.0 25.8 27.5 14.4 21.7 24.0 25.8 27.5 September 18.2 23.2 24.8 26.0 27.2 18.5 24.9 26.9 28.4 29.9 October 19.5 25.1 26.9 28.3 29.6 19.9 25.7 27.6 29.0 30.4 November 20.7 26.0 27.8 29.0 30.3 21.6 26.6 28.1 29.3 30.5 December 23.3 28.7 30.4 31.8 33.1 23.6 29.6 31.5 32.9 34.3 Annual 26.8 30.3 31.7 32.8 33.8 27.5 31.4 32.9 34.0 35.1

Table 3.20 1-min Extreme Wind Speed Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 28.0 32.2 33.5 34.5 35.5 28.1 32.7 34.2 35.3 36.4 February 27.5 32.9 34.6 36.0 37.3 27.8 34.3 36.4 38.0 39.5 March 24.9 30.2 32.0 33.3 34.5 25.2 31.5 33.6 35.1 36.6 April 22.4 27.6 29.3 30.6 31.9 22.8 27.7 29.3 30.5 31.7 May 19.7 24.9 26.5 27.8 29.0 19.9 25.8 27.7 29.1 30.5 June 17.6 22.3 23.8 24.9 26.0 18.2 22.8 24.3 25.4 26.4 July 15.9 20.9 22.6 23.8 25.0 16.4 20.5 21.8 22.8 23.8 August 16.5 24.9 27.6 29.6 31.7 16.6 25.0 27.7 29.7 31.7 September 20.9 26.7 28.6 30.0 31.4 21.3 28.6 31.0 32.7 34.4 October 22.4 28.9 31.0 32.5 34.1 22.9 29.6 31.8 33.4 35.0 November 23.8 30.0 31.9 33.4 34.9 24.9 30.6 32.4 33.7 35.1 December 26.8 33.0 35.0 36.6 38.0 27.2 34.0 36.2 37.8 39.4

Doc.ref 11977 90 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Annual 30.8 34.9 36.5 37.7 38.9 31.6 36.1 37.8 39.1 40.4

3.3.2 Extreme Value Estimates for Waves from a Gumbel Distribution The annual and monthly extreme value estimates for significant wave height for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100-years are given in Table 3.21. The annual 100-year extreme significant wave height for Grid Point 10856 and Grid Point 13912 is 16.2 m and 16.4 m respectively. The maximum wave heights, and associated peak periods are presented in Table 3.22 and Table 3.23.

Table 3.21 Extreme Significant Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 9.8 12.8 13.8 14.6 15.3 10.0 12.8 13.7 14.3 14.9 February 9.3 12.7 13.9 14.8 15.6 9.2 13.1 14.3 15.2 16.1 March 7.7 10.6 11.6 12.3 13.0 7.8 10.7 11.5 12.2 12.9 April 6.3 9.3 10.3 11.1 11.9 6.3 9.3 10.2 10.9 11.6 May 5.0 7.7 8.7 9.3 10.0 5.0 8.3 9.4 10.1 10.9 June 4.0 6.4 7.2 7.8 8.4 3.9 6.5 7.4 8.0 8.6 July 3.5 5.5 6.2 6.7 7.2 3.5 5.5 6.1 6.5 7.0 August 3.9 6.5 7.4 8.1 8.8 3.8 6.3 7.1 7.6 8.2 September 5.7 9.1 10.2 11.1 11.9 5.7 10.0 11.4 12.4 13.4 October 6.7 10.7 12.0 13.0 14.0 6.4 11.0 12.4 13.5 14.6 November 7.8 11.2 12.3 13.2 14.1 8.0 11.6 12.7 13.5 14.4 December 9.5 12.6 13.6 14.4 15.1 9.7 13.1 14.1 14.9 15.7 Annual 11.4 13.8 14.8 15.5 16.2 11.8 14.1 15.0 15.7 16.4

Table 3.22 Extreme Maximum Wave Height Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 18.2 23.6 25.4 26.8 28.1 18.6 23.9 25.6 26.8 28.0 February 17.4 23.8 26.0 27.6 29.2 17.2 24.3 26.6 28.2 29.9 March 14.4 19.7 21.5 22.8 24.2 14.3 19.8 21.5 22.8 24.1 April 11.8 17.2 19.1 20.4 21.8 11.9 17.2 18.9 20.1 21.4 May 9.4 14.9 16.8 18.2 19.6 9.4 16.0 18.1 19.6 21.1 June 7.6 12.2 13.7 14.9 16.0 7.5 12.1 13.6 14.7 15.7 July 6.7 10.4 11.7 12.6 13.5 6.8 10.2 11.2 12.0 12.8 August 7.3 11.8 13.3 14.4 15.6 7.3 11.9 13.4 14.4 15.5 September 10.9 16.8 18.8 20.3 21.8 10.7 18.3 20.7 22.4 24.2 October 12.7 20.1 22.7 24.6 26.4 12.1 20.4 22.9 24.9 26.8 November 14.6 20.7 22.8 24.3 25.9 14.8 21.4 23.4 24.9 26.4 December 17.6 23.4 25.3 26.8 28.3 18.1 24.1 26.0 27.4 28.8 Annual 21.1 25.7 27.5 28.8 30.1 21.8 26.3 28.0 29.3 30.5

Doc.ref 11977 91 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.23 Extreme Associated Peak Period Estimates for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 GridPoint #10856 GridPoint #13912 Period 1 10 25 50 100 1 10 25 50 100 January 13.2 14.9 15.4 15.8 16.1 13.3 14.9 15.3 15.6 15.9 February 12.8 14.9 15.6 16.0 16.5 12.5 15.0 15.7 16.2 16.7 March 12.2 13.5 13.9 14.1 14.4 12.1 13.4 13.8 14.0 14.3 April 11.3 12.8 13.2 13.5 13.8 11.3 12.9 13.3 13.5 13.8 May 10.3 12.1 12.6 12.9 13.3 10.1 12.4 12.9 13.3 13.7 June 9.0 11.1 11.8 12.2 12.6 8.9 11.2 11.8 12.2 12.6 July 8.7 10.7 11.3 11.8 12.2 8.5 10.7 11.3 11.7 12.2 August 9.6 11.3 11.8 12.1 12.4 9.2 11.2 11.7 12.1 12.4 September 11.4 13.6 14.3 14.7 15.2 11.0 13.7 14.4 14.9 15.4 October 11.8 14.0 14.6 15.0 15.5 11.7 13.9 14.5 14.8 15.2 November 12.5 13.9 14.4 14.7 15.0 12.1 14.1 14.6 15.0 15.4 December 13.2 14.8 15.3 15.6 16.0 13.2 14.9 15.4 15.8 16.1 Annual 14.2 15.4 15.9 16.2 16.5 14.3 15.6 16.1 16.4 16.8

3.3.3 Joint Probability of Extreme Wave Heights and Spectral Peak Periods A contour plot for both grid points in Region 3 depicting the joint wave height and period combinations values for return periods of 1-year, 10-years, 25-years, 50-years and 100- years is presented in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6. The annual values for the significant wave height estimates and the associated spectral peak periods are given in Table 3.24. The extreme wave height for all return periods was higher using the Weibull distribution when compared to the Gumbel Distribution. For the 100-year return period the Gumbel distribution gave significant wave heights of 6.2 m and 16.4 m for grid points 10856 and 13912, respectively whereas the Weibull distribution gave values of 17.4 m and 17.7 m, respectively.

Doc.ref 11977 92 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 10856 46.6°N 46.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 100 Year 13 50 Year 12 25 Year 11 10 Year 10 1 Year 9

Spectral Peak Period (s) Period Peak Spectral 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 3.5 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 10856 (46.6°N; 46.3°W)

Annual Environmental Contours for Grid Point 13912 48.3°N 46.3°W Data from MSC50 Hindcast 1954 - 2005

26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 100 Year 14 50 Year 13 25 Year 12 10 Year 11 1 Year 10

Spectral Peak Period (s) Period Peak Spectral 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 012345678910111213141516171819 Combined Significant Wave Height (m)

Figure 3.6 Environmental Contour Plot for Grid Point 13912 (48.3°N; 46.3°W)

Doc.ref 11977 93 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 3.24 Annual Extreme Significant Wave Estimates and Spectral Peak Periods for Return Periods of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 Years in Region 3 Combined Spectral Peak Significant Wave Period Median Height (m) Value (s) Grid Grid Grid Grid Return Point Point Point Point Period 10856 13912 10856 13912 1 12.4 12.7 14.8 14.8 10 15.0 15.3 16.0 16.2 25 15.9 16.3 16.5 16.7 50 16.7 17.0 16.8 17.0 100 17.4 17.7 17.1 17.4

Doc.ref 11977 94 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 4.0 Physical Oceanography

4.1 General Description of the Major Currents The large scale circulation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador is dominated by well established currents that flow along the margins of the Continental Shelf. The main circulatory feature near the study area is the Labrador Current, which transports sub-polar water to lower latitudes along the Continental Shelf of eastern Canada (Figure 4.1). Oceanographic studies show a strong western boundary current following the shelf break with relative low variability compared to the mean flow. Over the Grand Banks a weaker current system is observed where the variability often exceeds that of the mean flow (Colbourne, 2000).

The Labrador Current consists of two major branches. The inshore branch is located on the inner part of the shelf and its core is steered by the local underwater topography through the Avalon Channel. The stronger offshore branch flows along the shelf break over the upper portion of the Continental Slope. Lauzier and Wright (1993) found that the offshore branch of the Labrador Current offshore Labrador was located in a 50 km wide band between the 400 m and 1200 m isobaths. This branch of the Labrador Current divides between 48°W and 50°W, resulting in one sub-branch flowing to the east around Flemish Cap and the other flowing south around the eastern edge of the Grand Banks and through Flemish Pass. Characteristic current speeds on the Slope are in the order of 30 cm/sec to 50 cm/sec (Colbourne, 2000), while those in the central part of the Grand Banks are generally much lower, averaging between 5-15 cm/s.

The outer branch of the Labrador Current exhibits a distinct seasonal variation in flow speeds (Lazier and Wright, 1993), in which the mean flows is a maximum in October and a minimum in March and April. This annual cycle is reported to be the result of the large annual variation in the steric height over the continental shelf in relation to the much less variable internal density characteristic of the adjoining deep waters. The additional freshwater in spring and summer is largely confined to the waters over the shelf. In summer, the difference in sea level between the shelf and open ocean is 0.09 m greater than in winter (Lazier and Wright, 1993). This difference produces a greater horizontal surface pressure gradient and hence stronger mean flows.

Doc.ref 11977 95 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.1 Mayor Ocean Circulation Features in the Northwest Atlantic Source: Colbourne et al., 1997

Figure 4.2 shows the trajectories and mean current velocities calculated by Pepin and Helbig (1997) of 41 satellite tracked drifting buoys that were placed the Labrador Current near Hamilton Bank during 1992 and 1994. This figure illustrated the general pattern of the spatial distribution of the surface currents in the northeast sector of the Newfoundland Shelf.

Doc.ref 11977 96 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.2 Currents on the northeast Newfoundland Shelf as inferred from 149 drifting buoys by Pepin and Helbig (1997) Left Panel: Low-pass-filtered drifting buoys tracks. Drop locations are indicated by circles and terminal positions by asterisks. Right Panel: Mean surface currents derived from spatial averages of all drifting buoy tracks. The principal axes of variation are indicated by crosses.

Another major current system is situated to the south of the Grand Banks. In the area of the Southeast Newfoundland Rise, the Gulf Stream branches into two streams. The southern branch continues east at approximately 40°N. The northern branch, known as the North Atlantic Current, turns north and flows along the Continental Slope southeast of the Grand Banks and continues north-eastward along the east side of Flemish Cap. This circulation pattern is captured in the nonlinear finite element model produced by Han and Wang (2005) and shown in Figure 4.3.

Doc.ref 11977 97 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.3 Model circulation fields at the 20 m depth for (2a) July and (b) November, representing the summer and fall respectively (from Han and Wang, 2005)

The circulation in the project area is also influenced by a branch of the North Atlantic current (Figure 4.4) after is splits off from the Gulf Stream further south. The North Atlantic Current transports warmer, high salinity water to the northeast along the southeast slope of both the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap (Colbourne and Foote, 2000). This circulation pattern has been supported by geostrophic calculations from the temperatures and salinity transects of the Flemish Section and by ship mounted acoustic Doppler current profiler measurements (Figure 4.5).

Doc.ref 11977 98 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.4 A schematic indicating the Major Circulation Features around the Flemish Cap Source: Colbourne and Foote (2000) adapted from Anderson (1984)

Doc.ref 11977 99 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.5 The Upper Layer (10-50 m) circulation around the Flemish Cap and adjacent Grand Bank during July 1996. Measured with a ship mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). Source: Colbourne and Foote (2000)

South of the Flemish Pass where the southward flowing Labrador Current meets the northward flowing North Atlantic Current, the currents are complex and variable. Figure 4.6 presenting the tracks of seven drifting buoys (Petrie and Isenor, 1984) shows that four of the seven buoys which were placed in the core of the Labrador Current were deflected northeast at a latitude of approximately 45°N by the North Atlantic Current. Similar drift patterns by satellite tracked buoys were observed by Krauss (1986) and Rhein et al. (2002).

Doc.ref 11977 100 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.6 Tracks of Drifting Buoys placed in the Labrador Current Source: Petrie, B. and A. Isenor, 1984

Current meter data from five locations in the study area south of Flemish Cap were obtained from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. The presence of a north-eastward flowing current was observed only at the location closest to Flemish Cap at 45°32"N; 44°30"W. At this location in 1981 the average current speed was 11 cm/sec at 2005 m and 8 cm/sec at 4038 m, and the maximum current speeds were 20 cm/sec. There are no measurements closer to the surface at this location. However, in the near surface waters the North Atlantic Current near Flemish Cap is described as a frontal jet reaching a maximum speed of about 1 m/sec by Krauss (1986). Fisher and Schott (2002) show that the North Atlantic Current, south of Flemish Cap is a narrow band current reaching 1.2 m/sec. The higher speeds occur in the upper 500 m of the water column.

Doc.ref 11977 101 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Currents at depth of 542 m and 634 m were measured in the Newfoundland Basin at locations 44°6"N and 44°46"W and 44°23"N; 45°41"W for a period of 1 year in 1986/87. At both locations the current usually flowed toward the southeast, south, or southwest. At a depth of 542 m the current flowed towards the northeast during April. The mean speeds were 21 cm/sec at 542 m and 15 cm/sec at 634 m. At deeper levels the current flowed in a southerly direction with mean speeds varying between 10 cm/sec and 20 cm/sec. Similar current values were observed at depths of 2000 m and below at the other two deep water moorings sites in the Newfoundland Basin during the same period.

4.2 Currents in the Project Area The project area was divided into four sub-areas with depth ranges of 0 m to 100 m, 100 m to 200 m, 200 m to 400 m and more than 400 m, respectively. The location and coverage of each sub-area is shown in Figure 4.7. The data for the following descriptions came from current data collected by Petro-Canada and Husky Energy, and from data archived at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography.

Figure 4.7 Location and coverage of the project sub-area.

Sub-area 1

Doc.ref 11977 102 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Sub-area 1 is the shallow section of the Grand Banks where Terra Nova and L’Anse aux Meadows (EL 1101) are located. In this area of the Grand Banks the currents are mainly due to wind stress, tides and low frequency oscillations related to the passage of storm systems.

Wind stress is an important driving force for the currents on the Continental Shelf, with a distinct annual cycle of comparatively strong winds in winter and weaker more variable winds in summer. An analysis of an array of current meter data collected from January to May 1992 by De Tracey et al. (1996) on the north-eastern section of the Grand Banks showed that the near-surface currents and local wind are highly coherent in the shallow region of the Grand Banks, suggesting that the currents on the Grand Banks have a strong wind driven component.

Tables 4.1 to 4.3 present current values at Terra Nova measured 20 m below the surface, at mid-depth, and at 10 m above the bottom. Tables 4.1 to 4.3 present mean speeds, mean velocities, and maximum speeds and directions for each month. The identifier in

Doc.ref 11977 103 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks the table is only for the maximum speeds and directions to identify the data set from which the values were extracted. The mean speeds and velocities have been averaged from different data sets covering a few years for each month and depth. Since the degree of variability at Terra Nova is high, different data sets will have the maximum currents in different directions and the mean velocities may also be different in both magnitude and direction. Due to the high degree of variability, the magnitude of the mean velocity is very low at all depths. The mean velocity tends to be directed in a southerly direction between southwest and southeast. The maximum current speeds reached 79.9 cm/sec in the near-surface waters, 73.6 cm/sec at mid-depth, and 45.1 cm/sec near the bottom. The maximum speeds occurred during September at each depth.

Table 4.1 Near-surface currents in Sub-area 1 (Terra Nova) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 9 1408 6.4 S 50.3 SE HED-94 Feb 8 12.3 2.5 S 59.0 ENE TN0301 March 8 12.0 2.9 SSW 44.6 SSW TN0201 April 5 11.2 0.6 S 41.0 N TN0101 May 5 12.1 1.5 SW 57.2 N TN0302 June 5 12.4 1.1 S 52.5 S TN0102 July 6 13.3 1.0 SSE 52.4 E TN9901 August 10 15.7 1.9 SE 70.7 NW TN-K18 Sept 6 19.3 2.0 S 79.9 WNW TN0103 Oct 9 16.9 3.2 SSE 61.8 N TN0403 Nov 9 14.8 1.2 SSW 56.3 S TN0004 Dec 9 14.8 1.4 SSW 66.8 SSE TN0004

Table 4.2 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 1 (Terra Nova) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Directio Identifier months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed n (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 8 10.3 3.1 SSW 33.7 SW TN04-04 Feb 7 11.0 2.2 SW 43.7 SW TN0001 March 8 12.5 4.2 S 44.2 SSW BNB-75 April 6 9.9 1.8 S 48.2 SW TN8401 May 9 9.6 0.9 SSW 40.6 W TN8401 June 9 11.9 0.6 SSW 36.6 N TN8401 July 8 10.2 0.6 ESE 34.8 S TN8002 August 12 11.2 0.8 SE 40.8 WNW TNK-18 Sept 9 13.6 4.0 SSW 73.6 SW TN9901 Oct 9 13.6 2.6 SSW 47.8 SE TNK-17 Nov 8 12.2 5.5 SSW 43.4 ESE TNK-18 Dec 6 8.5 3.7 S 55.5 WSW BNB-75

Doc.ref 11977 104 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 4.3 Near-bottom currents in sub-area 1 (Terra Nova) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Directio Identifier months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed n (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 10 13.1 1.5 S 36.1 N TN 0104 Feb 11 11.7 1.0 SSW 42.2 E TN0301 March 7 11.2 1.1 SW 40.0 SSW BN8403 April 5 8.8 0.7 S 27.3 N TN8801 May 7 7.2 0.6 S 27.7 E TN0002 June 9 7.6 0.5 SE 35.9 ESE TN8002 July 9 8.5 0.3 ESE 25.3 ESE TN8002 August 11 9.7 0.7 SE 32.0 SE TN8002 Sept 9 11.4 1.6 S 45.1 SSE TN9901 Oct 10 12.1 0.8 S 43.0 N TN9901 Nov 8 12.0 2.5 SSW 33.1 SW TNK-17 Dec 6 13.0 1.6 S 34.5 SE BN8403

Sub-area 2 Sub-area 2 (Figure 4.7) is the section of the Grand Banks where the White Rose field and River of Ponds (EL 1100) is located. Table 4.4 to Table 4.6 shows the typical mean current speeds, mean velocities and maximum speeds and directions for each month in sub-area 2. The maximum current speeds have been selected from particular data sets while the mean speeds and velocities have been averaged over the available data.

There are some fundamental differences in the circulation regime at White Rose as compared with Terra Nova. At Terra Nova, the currents are characterized by a very weak residual flow because the main flow is overshadowed by the magnitude of the variabilities. At White Rose there are less variabilities overall, but near surface (20 m) the currents are more likely to be flowing in unexpected directions for a long period of time. For instance, near surface, the currents may flow towards the northeast for weeks at a time before reversing to flow south again.

The percentage of the variability of the flow attributable to the tidal currents is similar at White Rose and Terra Nova. At both locations the tidal currents are responsible for about 30% of the flow at mid-depth and for about 20% near bottom. Near the surface the tidal currents account for about 30% of the variability at Terra Nova and for 20% of the variability at White Rose.

Doc.ref 11977 105 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks have been found to vary from 0.2 to 6.1 cm/sec, 0.1 to 2.3 cm/sec, 1.0 to 5.1 cm/sec and 0.3 to 3.6 cm/sec, respectively. These tidal constituents have been calculated form a limited number of data sets. As more data becomes available the values will change slightly.

Table 4.4 Near-surface currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) s (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 1 19.5 8.6 SSE 33.0 SSE TRE-87 Feb 2 15.1 11.8 SSE 38.0 SSE TRE-87 March 1 18.7 12.3 SSE 40.0 E TRE-87 April 1 10.5 3.9 NNW 40.0 S WRL-08 May 5 11.5 2.4 S 50.0 E WRH-20 June 6 13.1 1.0 SE 67.0 SW WRH-20 July 10 12.5 1.7 SSE 43.0 SSE FOG-57 August 11 15.5 0.8 NNE 52.0 SSE WRN-22 Sept 5 20.8 8.9 SE 89.9 N WRN-30 Oct 3 20.1 10.4 SE 64.0 W WRN-22 Nov 4 17.5 7.5 SSE 66.3 S WR 8402 Dec 2 16.1 4.9 SE 47.0 W TRE-87

Table 4.5 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) s (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 3 12.0 3.6 SSE 33.0 ENE TRE-87 Feb 3 13.0 4.3 SSE 35.0 ESE WRE-09 March 1 12.1 7.8 S 26.0 SSE TRE-87 April 2 12.3 4.1 S 29.4 SSE WRL-08 May 5 10.1 3.6 S 31.9 SSE WRE-09 June 4 10.5 2.1 SSE 39.0 SSE WRE-09 July 9 9.2 1.3 SSW 31.0 NW CRN-68 August 9 9.5 0.9 ENE 31.0 SE TRJ-91 Sept 6 10.9 3.1 ENE 40.8 NNE WRN-30 Oct 5 10.9 1.1 SW 32.6 SSE WRE-09 Nov 5 12.7 5.0 SE 43.7 SSE WRJ-49 Dec 2 13.9 4.6 SE 46.0 S TRE-87

Doc.ref 11977 106 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 4.6 Near-bottom currents in sub-area 2 (White Rose) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 4 10.3 2.5 SE 35.0 E TRE-87 Feb 4 10.0 3.2 SE 34.5 S WRE-09 March 2 8.9 3.0 ESE 29.0 SW TRE-87 April 4 10.3 2.5 SSE 39.0 SW BBC-73 May 6 9.1 2.2 SE 29.4 SW WENBS June 6 8.7 2.0 ESE 32.6 ESE WRE-09 July 10 7.9 1.1 S 26.0 SSE BBC-73 August 9 8.4 0.5 SE 30.0 NW TRJ-91 Sept 5 8.7 2.1 SW 30.0 NNW GMC-17 Oct 4 10.2 3.3 SSW 36.2 SW WRE-09 Nov 5 12.2 3.7 SSW 69.6 SSE WRE-09 Dec 2 11.6 3.9 SE 39.0 SSE TRE-87

Sub-area 3 Sub-area 3 is located outside the White Rose field where the water depth is between 200 m and 400 m and includes the area to the northeast of the White Rose field. Data was processed from 7 current meter moorings in this area. However, only 2 instruments collected data in the near-surface waters. The data is summarized in Table 4.7.

Six of the moorings were located outside the White Rose field in the Labrador Current flowing along the upper edge of the Continental Slope. The other mooring was located to the northeast of White Rose at location 47.85°N; 48.02° W. The currents showed similar characteristics at all locations.

In the near-surface waters the maximum speed was 77.8 cm/sec. This value may be too low because there was only a total of 9 months of data collected in the near-surface waters. Table 4.8 shows that the maximum speed at mid-depth occurred in December with a value of 86.5 cm/sec. The maximum near-bottom current speed was 61.7 cm/sec (Table 4.9), which occurred at the same time and location as the maximum speed at mid- depth.

Doc.ref 11977 107 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 4.7 Near surface currents in sub-area 3 Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifi months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) er (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 1 28.1 19.0 SSE 47.8 SE 8301 Feb 1 21.3 14.4 SSW 62.3 SW 8301 July 1 18.6 13.7 SSE 57.7 SE 8301 August 1 28.5 3.3 NW 67.5 SE 8301 Oct 1 14.6 14.5 SW 26.3 SW 8604 Nov 2 26.4 22.8 S 77.8 SSE 8301 Dec 1 18.3 18.1 SW 44.6 SW 8604

Table 4.8 Mid-depth currents in sub-area 3 Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 6 31.1 23.6 S 79.3 S 8504 Feb 5 26.1 11.4 S 72.5 SE F143 March 1 25.2 23 ESE 70.4 SE F143 April 1 23.9 22 ESE 52.9 SE F143 May 1 20.3 18 ESE 40.4 SE F143 July 2 11.6 10.9 SSE 34.3 SSW 8301 August 2 13.0 12.0 S 47.2 SSE 8301 Sept 2 16.1 15.3 S 40.4 SSE 8301 Oct 3 29.2 24.2 S 59.8 SSE 8301 Nov 5 32.3 28.1 SSE 79.1 S 8504 Dec 6 31.5 26.6 S 86.5 S C100

Table 4.9 Near bottom current in sub-area 3 Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Jan 5 24.3 21.5 S 54.1 E,NE F293 Feb 2 17.1 11.8 S 46.5 NE F293 March 2 16.8 12.0 S 54.7 S 60F2934 April 2 13.1 9.7 S 37.4 NE F293 May 2 11.6 7.9 S 34.8 E,SE 8602 June 1 7.2 5.7 S 19.5 S 8602 July 1 8.5 6.7 S 22.8 S 8602 August 1 8.4 6.7 S 21.3 S 8602 Sept 1 9.8 8.7 S 22.9 S 8602 Oct 5 19.3 18.8 S 38.7 S C300 Nov 4 25.4 24.2 S 56.1 S C300 Dec 4 24.8 23.4 S 61.7 S C300

Doc.ref 11977 108 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Sub-area 4 The current data in sub-area 4 comes from five moorings on the western slope of Flemish Pass, one mooring on the Sackville Spur, and from moorings at the well sites Tuckamore B-27 and Mizzen L-11.

Near surface currents were measured at Mizzen L-11 between February and April 2003; at Tuckamore B-27 during May and June 2003, and at Lancaster F-70 between July and October, 1986. There is only one data record for each month between February and October. There is no data in the near-surface waters for November and December. The data for the near-surface waters in Flemish Pass is summarized in Table 4.10. The maximum current speed was measured in October with a value of 63.5 cm/sec. In all months the current was flowing either south southwest or south with mean velocities that were similar in magnitude to the mean speeds. The mean speeds ranged between 14.0 cm/sec in April and 40.7 cm/sec in October.

At mid-depths, the mean current speeds were much lower, ranging between 8.4 cm/sec in February to 22.3 cm/sec in October (Table 4.11). The maximum speeds ranged between 28.7 cm/sec in February to 46.1 cm/sec in June and September. In deeper waters, the mean current speeds ranged between 8.8 cm/sec in February and 12.5 cm/sec in October (Table 4.12). The maximum speeds ranged between 23.3 cm/sec in August and 42.2 cm/sec in May.

Table 4.10 Near surface currents in sub-area 4 (Flemish Pass). Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifi months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) er (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Feb 1 16.6 10.2 SSE 41.0 S MIL-11 March 1 16.1 13.2 SSW 50.4 S MIL-11 April 1 14.0 11.8 SSW 47.5 SSW MIL-11 May 1 19.6 13.0 SSW 44.4 SSE TUB-27 June 1 13.2 13.0 SSW 23.1 S TUB-27 July 1 19.9 19.5 SSW 34.4 S,SW LAF-70 August 1 21.5 20.1 SSW 40.7 S,SW LAF-70

Doc.ref 11977 109 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Sept 1 32.3 30.9 SSW 53.2 S,SW LAF-70 Oct 1 40.7 39.1 SSW 63.5 S,SW LAF-70

Table 4.11 Currents between 100 m and 500 m in sub-area 4 (Flemish Pass) Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier months Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Feb 3 8.4 2.0 SSW 28.7 S MIL-11 March 3 8..6 6.6 SSW 35.6 S MIL-11 April 7 11.0 2.2 SW 32.3 SW MIL-11 May 5 10.9 5.6 S 43.0 SW FP8602 June 4 13.6 9.1 SSW 46.1 S FP8602 July 6 13.9 13.7 S 39.8 S FP8602 August 3 13.4 10.3 SSW 43.0 SW LAF-70 Sept 3 17.6 14.1 SSW 46.1 S LAF-70 Oct 3 22.3 19.4 SSW 43.1 S LAF-70

Table 4.12 Current between 500 m and 1100 m in sub-area 4 Month No. of Mean Mean Direction Max Direction Identifier month Speed Velocity (°T) Speed (°T) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Feb 7 8.8 3.9 SW 25.5 S MIL-11 March 7 9.2 4.7 SW 32.2 WSW MIL-11 April 14 9.3 4.8 SW 37.3 S A767 May 12 10.2 7.1 SSW 42.2 SW FP8602 June 12 10.0 8.7 SSW 31.7 SW FP8602 July 7 10.3 9.5 SSW 37.7 SW FP8062 August 5 9.0 7.3 SSW 23.3 S LAF-70 Sept 3 10.7 6.8 SSW 28.2 S LAF-70 Oct 3 12.5 12.6 SSW 40.6 SW LAF-70

4.3 Water Mass Structure The water structure on the north-eastern section of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is characterized by the presence of three identifiable features.

Doc.ref 11977 110 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks and becomes well mixed due to atmospheric cooling and intense mixing processes from wave action.

A second element of the thermohaline structure on the Grand Banks is the Cold Intermediate Layer (Petrie et al., 1988). In areas where the water is deep enough, this layer of cold water is trapped during summer between the seasonally heated upper layer and warmer slope water near the seabed (Colbourne, 2002). Its temperatures range from less than -1.5°C to 0°C (Petrie and al., 1988; Colbourne et al., 1996)) and salinities vary within 32 and 33 psu. It can reach a maximum vertical extent of over 200 m (Colbourne, 2004). The Cold Intermediate Layer is the residual cold layer that occurs from late spring to fall and is composed of cold waters formed during the previous winter season. It becomes isolated from the sea surface by the formation of the warm surface layer during summer, and disappears again during late fall and winter due to the intense mixing processes that take place in the surface layer from strong winds, high waves and atmospheric cooling. In winter the two layer structure is replaced by a mixed cold body of water which occupies the entire water column.

Figure 4.8 shows average bottom temperature during the decade from 1991 to 2000. The figure shows that positive bottom temperatures are found south of 46°N. The blue area to the north of 46° N in Figure 4.8 corresponds to the average spread of the Cold Intermediate Layer. The variabilities in temperature and salinity in the area have been the subject of systematic research (Colbourne, 2004; Colbourne et al., 1997; Colbourne and Foote, 2000). These studies suggest that the water properties on the Grand Banks experience notable temporal variability. Colbourne (2004) explains that bottom temperatures ranged from near record lows during 1991 to very high values in the late 90’s. The areal coverage of the Cold Intermediate Layer was highest on the Newfoundland Shelf during years 1972, 1984 and 1991 (Colbourne, 2004).

Bottom temperature and salinity maps were produced by Colbourne et al. (2007) by trawl-mounted CTD data from approximately 700 fishing tows during the fall of 2005. These maps are presented in Figure 4.9. Both Figures 4.8 and 4.9 shows that the Cold Intermediate Layer is still present near the bottom in the Project Area and in EL 1100, 1101 and SDL 1040.

Doc.ref 11977 111 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks During the last 50 years there have been three warming periods in the Labrador Sea; 1960 to 1971, 1977 to 1983, and 1994 to present. In 1994, the Labrador Sea water filled the entire central part of the Labrador Sea basin within the depth range of 500-2400 m (Yashayaev and Clarke, 2006). The warming trend since 1994 has caused the water to become warmer, saltier, and more stratified; thus making it more difficult for winter renewal of Labrador Sea Water to take place. Unusual warming took place in 2004 believed to have originated from waters transported north and west by the North Atlantic Current and the Irminger Current (Yashayaev and Clarke, 2006).

The temperature and salinity boundary between the water on the Shelf and the water in Flemish Pass is shown in Figure 4.10 from CTD data collected during April 2007 along the routinely sampled Flemish Cap transect. The offshore branch of the Labrador Current flows along the Shelf break in the region of this strong density gradient. Figure 4.11 shows the hydrographic properties along the same transect at the end of November 2007. In November the water is much warmer (8-10°C) in Flemish Pass as compared to April (4-5°C) of the same year. The salinity is lower in the top 50 m of the water column in November. The lower salinity is probably due to intense mixing from wave action in autumn.

Figure 4.8 Average near bottom temperature during spring from all available data for the decade 1991-2000 (adapted from Colbourne, 2004)

Doc.ref 11977 112 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.9 Bottom temperature and salinity maps derived for the trawl-mounted CTD data (from Colbourne et al. 2007)

Doc.ref 11977 113 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.10 Hydrographic contours of the Flemish Cap transect during April 2007 (from DFO Marine Environmental Data Service Website)

Doc.ref 11977 114 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.11 Hydrographic contours of the Flemish Cap transect during November, 2007 (from DFO Marine Environmental Data Service Website)

Doc.ref 11977 115 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Figure 4.12 shows the temperature and salinity contours along the transect between Station 27 and the Tail of the Grand Bank. The salinity is lower along this transect due to the influence of the inshore branch of the Labrador Current. In the deeper water offshore the Tail of the Grand Bank, the water has temperature of 6-7°C in the top 200 m of the water column; indicating the presence of the North Atlantic Current.

Figure 4.12 Hydrographic contours along the South East Grand Bank during April 2007 (from DFO Marine Environmental Data Service Website)

Doc.ref 11977 116 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks 4.4 Water Properties in the Project Area The project area was divided into the same four sub-areas as described in Section 4.2. The sub-areas are those areas with depth ranges of 0 m to 100 m, 100 m to 200 m, 200 m to 400 m, and more than 400 m, respectively (Figure 4.7). Temperature and salinity data for each area was acquired from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. The data was used to produce statistics and T-S diagrams.

Sub-area 1 Sub-area 1 has a water depth less than 100 m. Hibernia, Terra Nova and L’Anse aux Meadows (EL 1101) are located within this area. Table 4.13 shows the mean, minimum, and maximum values plus the standard deviation on a monthly basis for the surface waters, and for a depth of 75 m. The majority of the data is for the months of April to July and for October to December. There is no data for February and only a few observations for January, March, August and September.

The data shows that the warmest temperatures are between July and September near the surface with mean temperatures ranging between 10.7°C and 13.5°C. The coldest temperatures are in March with a mean value of -0.7°C and a minimum value of -1.6°C. The mean salinities ranged between 32.0 psu in October and 33.0 psu in March.

At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures were always negative with the exception of May, when the mean temperature was 0.2°C. The coldest temperature was in March with a mean temperature of -1.3°C. The mean salinities ranged between 32.8 psu in January to 33.2 psu in July.

T-S diagrams in Figure 4.13 show how the water properties vary with season throughout the water column. In summer and fall the water is stratified to a depth of 50 m. Below 50 m the water is less stratified and shows negative temperatures at 75 m, within the core of the Cold Intermediate Layer.

Doc.ref 11977 117 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Table 4.13 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 1 SUB-AREA 1, <100m, 0m SUB-AREA 1, <100m, 0m TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 10 1.02 -0.69 1.90 0.68 January 10 32.58 32.23 32.72 0.15 February 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 12 -0.72 -1.64 0.89 0.96 March 12 32.96 32.70 33.19 0.14 April 245 0.46 -1.10 2.55 0.73 April 245 32.84 32.48 33.38 0.18 May 264 2.82 -0.22 6.52 1.66 May 264 32.68 31.97 33.46 0.27 June 1369 5.52 1.10 14.36 1.15 June 1369 32.62 30.11 33.68 0.20 July 232 10.74 5.60 14.21 2.01 July 232 32.48 31.29 33.10 0.18 August 9 13.29 11.62 15.39 1.35 August 9 32.30 32.06 32.46 0.13 September 51 13.49 7.31 18.20 2.47 September 51 32.07 31.37 32.56 0.23 October 219 9.67 5.72 12.96 2.16 October 219 32.04 30.28 32.50 0.25 November 330 6.49 3.08 10.62 1.98 November 330 32.14 30.60 33.03 0.25 December 134 3.68 1.27 6.95 1.87 December 134 32.32 31.90 32.91 0.22

SUB-AREA 1, <100m, 75m SUB-AREA 1, <100m, 75m TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 1 -0.78 -0.78 -0.78 0 January 1 32.76 32.76 32.76 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 7 -1.279 -1.66 0.03 0.63 March 7 33.07 32.99 33.26 0.11 April 248 -0.62 -1.72 1.16 0.53 April 248 32.94 32.54 33.7 0.22 May 532 0.152 -1.64 1.45 0.69 May 532 33.02 32.67 33.57 0.12 June 1218 -0.087 -1.62 1.68 0.57 June 1218 33.04 32.56 33.63 0.14 July 414 -0.016 -1.52 0.74 0.52 July 414 33.16 32.75 33.5 0.16 August 10 -0.673 -0.88 -0.3 0.15 August 10 33 32.93 33.06 0.04 September 44 -0.743 -1.47 0.48 0.42 September 44 33.03 32.76 33.39 0.17 October 490 -0.874 -1.38 1.36 0.35 October 490 33.1 32.77 33.22 0.09 November 265 -0.104 -1.42 1.55 0.69 November 265 33.13 32.52 35.16 0.28 December 184 -0.475 -1.27 1.69 0.66 December 184 33.1 32.57 33.41 0.17

Doc.ref 11977 118 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.13 T-S diagrams for sub-area 1 (depth < 100 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres.

Sub-area 2 Sub-area 2 is the section of the northeast Newfoundland Shelf where the water depth is between 100 m and 200m. White Rose and most of River of Ponds (EL 1100) is located in this sub-area. Table 4.14 presents the temperature and salinity data by month for this area. The water properties in sub-area 2 were similar to those in sub-area 1 with the exception that the waters tend to be slightly colder in sub-area 2. The surface waters were warmest during the months of July to September with mean temperatures ranging from 9.6°C to 11.5°C. The coldest temperatures were in February and March with mean temperatures of -0.6°C and -0.8°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranged between 31.5 psu in August, to 32.9 psu in February.

Doc.ref 11977 119 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures were always negative, ranging between -1.4°C in August to -0.1°C in November. The mean salinities ranged between 33.0 psu in April to 33.2 in the months of November to February.

The colder waters in sub-area 2 indicate that the water in this area is being advected from the north by the Labrador Current rather than by vertical mixing through local cooling.

The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.14 show two distinct water masses and the surface seasonally mixed layer. During summer and fall strong stratification occurs in the top 50 m which disappears to being well mixed surface layer during winter and spring. The core of the Cold Intermediate Layer occurs between the 75 m and 100 m depths. Below 100 m the water is mixed with Labrador Slope water.

Table 4.14 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 2. TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 27 -0.19 -1.80 1.06 0.76 January 27 33.15 32.36 34.02 0.37 February 33 -0.42 -1.78 0.68 0.59 February 33 33.29 32.75 35.15 0.43 March 17 -0.65 -1.63 0.77 0.77 March 17 32.96 32.76 33.42 0.16 April 181 -0.24 -1.61 2.44 0.84 April 181 32.90 31.81 33.87 0.26 May 314 1.22 -1.12 5.52 1.26 May 314 32.78 31.81 33.52 0.27 June 775 4.24 0.56 9.55 1.69 June 775 32.60 30.93 33.98 0.31 July 134 9.31 3.42 13.70 1.96 July 134 32.10 30.95 33.02 0.33 August 63 10.40 5.55 13.80 1.91 August 63 31.74 30.28 33.04 0.58 September 51 8.76 5.60 14.31 1.94 September 51 31.97 30.77 33.46 0.47 October 61 5.68 2.32 8.24 1.49 October 61 32.68 31.50 33.67 0.49 November 409 3.74 -0.58 7.42 1.55 November 409 33.03 31.63 34.35 0.54 December 138 2.12 -0.01 4.57 0.95 December 138 33.24 32.06 34.25 0.46

SUB-AREA 3, 200-400m, 75m SUB-AREA 3, 200-400m, 75m TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 65 -0.046 -1.76 2.05 0.76 January 65 33.52 32.82 34.18 0.31 February 23 -0.094 -1.82 1.69 0.85 February 23 33.58 32.85 34.34 0.33 March 28 -0.854 -1.76 1.59 0.88 March 28 33.18 32.77 33.89 0.25 April 322 -0.794 -1.78 1.77 0.9 April 322 33.26 32.62 34.15 0.3 May 455 -0.673 -1.75 5.78 1.07 May 455 33.23 32.74 34.3 0.3 June 1109 -0.594 -1.88 4.02 0.83 June 1109 33.27 32.48 34.4 0.31 July 207 -0.999 -1.77 1 0.55 July 207 33.24 32.75 34.15 0.29 August 158 -1.222 -1.72 0.58 0.56 August 158 33.34 32.84 34.1 0.23 September 34 -0.821 -1.65 1.43 0.61 September 34 33.5 32.99 34.14 0.26 October 78 -0.047 -1.53 4.04 1.17 October 78 33.67 33.07 34.42 0.33 November 636 1.568 -1.38 6.64 1.91 November 636 33.67 32.81 34.5 0.35 December 209 1.832 -1.36 4.39 1.29 December 209 33.79 32.75 34.45 0.37

Doc.ref 11977 120 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.14 T-S diagrams for sub-area 2 (100 m – 200 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres.

Sub-area 3 Sub-area 3 is situated to the northeast of the White Rose field where the water depth is between 200 m and 400 m. Table 4.15 presents the temperature and salinity data by month for this area. Similar to sub-areas 1 and 2, the highest temperatures in the surface waters are in the months of July to September and the coldest temperatures are in February and March. The mean surface temperatures during July to September range between 8.8°C and 10.4°C. During February and March, the mean surface temperatures were -0.4°C and -0.7°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranged between 31.7 psu in August to 33.3 psu in February. Salinities above 33 psu occurred in the months of November to February.

Doc.ref 11977 121 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks At a depth of 75 m, the mean temperatures are negative during all months with the exception of November and December. The mean temperatures ranged -1.2°C in August to 1.8°C in December. The mean salinities ranged between 33.2 psu in March to 33.8 psu in December.

In this region the Cold Intermediate Layer disappears in winter and is replace by warmer, higher salinity Labrador Slope water.

The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.15 show two distinct water masses and the surface seasonally mixed layer. The upper 50 m shows strong stratification in spring and winter. The Cold Intermediate Layer is more pronounced in spring and summer than during the fall, and disappears in the winter as mixing with the warmer and higher salinity water on the Slope intensifies.

Table 4.15 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 3 TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 27 -0.19 -1.80 1.06 0.76 January 27 33.15 32.36 34.02 0.37 February 33 -0.42 -1.78 0.68 0.59 February 33 33.29 32.75 35.15 0.43 March 17 -0.65 -1.63 0.77 0.77 March 17 32.96 32.76 33.42 0.16 April 181 -0.24 -1.61 2.44 0.84 April 181 32.90 31.81 33.87 0.26 May 314 1.22 -1.12 5.52 1.26 May 314 32.78 31.81 33.52 0.27 June 775 4.24 0.56 9.55 1.69 June 775 32.60 30.93 33.98 0.31 July 134 9.31 3.42 13.70 1.96 July 134 32.10 30.95 33.02 0.33 August 63 10.40 5.55 13.80 1.91 August 63 31.74 30.28 33.04 0.58 September 51 8.76 5.60 14.31 1.94 September 51 31.97 30.77 33.46 0.47 October 61 5.68 2.32 8.24 1.49 October 61 32.68 31.50 33.67 0.49 November 409 3.74 -0.58 7.42 1.55 November 409 33.03 31.63 34.35 0.54 December 138 2.12 -0.01 4.57 0.95 December 138 33.24 32.06 34.25 0.46

Doc.ref 11977 122 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.15 T-S diagrams for sub-area 3 (200 m - 400 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depth in metres.

Sub-area 4 Sub-area 4 is the section within the project area where the water depth is more than 400 m (Figure 4.7). It includes the Slope region offshore the northeast Newfoundland Shelf

Doc.ref 11977 123 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks and Flemish Pass. Table 4.16 presents the temperature and salinity data by month for this area. The warmest mean surface temperatures occur in the months of July to September with values ranging between 9.2°C to 11.3°C. The coldest mean surface temperatures occur during February to March with values of 0.3°C and 0.2°C, respectively. The mean salinities ranged between 32.4 psu in August to 34.1 psu in January.

At a depth of 75 m, the temperatures are warmer and the salinities higher than in the other three sub-areas. The mean temperatures are always positive ranging between 0.6°C in August to 3.5°C in December. The mean salinities range between 33.8 psu in May and June to 34.3 psu in October.

The T-S diagrams in Figure 4.16 show that the Cold Intermediate Layer with temperatures below 0°C is no longer present. The two water masses are the cold, low salinity Labrador Current water in the upper 50 m and Labrador Slope water at deeper levels of the water column. Strong stratification in the surface water exists only during the summer season. Between 200 m and 500 m, the water is well mixed with temperatures between 3°C and 4°C and salinities between 34.5 psu and 34.9 psu. The core of the intrusion of warmer water is at a depth of approximately 500 m.

Table 4.16 Temperature and salinity statistics at the surface and at a depth of 75 m in sub-area 4 SUB-AREA 4, >400m, 0m SUB-AREA 4, >400m, 0m TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 190 2.34 -1.71 4.83 1.28 January 190 34.06 32.69 34.57 0.39 February 109 0.27 -1.72 5.06 1.27 February 109 33.57 31.80 34.31 0.42 March 86 0.17 -1.68 4.06 1.48 March 86 33.51 32.75 34.60 0.42 April 452 0.99 -1.60 11.99 1.79 April 452 33.45 31.41 34.76 0.55 May 430 2.14 -1.00 7.24 1.66 May 430 33.26 32.08 34.73 0.51 June 955 4.52 0.74 9.89 1.73 June 955 32.94 31.37 34.70 0.49 July 242 9.17 4.21 13.70 2.18 July 242 32.65 30.91 34.57 0.56 August 142 10.51 6.30 14.70 1.74 August 142 32.35 30.67 34.05 0.60 September 46 11.32 7.14 14.31 1.96 September 46 32.46 31.31 34.06 0.77 October 333 7.49 2.15 12.26 2.09 October 333 33.48 29.64 34.31 0.52 November 729 4.66 0.07 10.43 1.61 November 729 33.55 31.07 34.55 0.60 December 528 3.84 0.49 7.97 1.54 December 528 33.71 32.64 34.52 0.37

SUB-AREA 4, >400m, 75m SUB-AREA 4, >400m, 75m TEMPERATURE (deg. C) SALINITY (PSU) Month obs mean min max stdev Month obs mean min max stdev January 400 2.529 -1.65 5.02 1.41 January 400 34.2 32.79 34.55 0.35 February 94 0.777 -1.69 4.04 1.01 February 94 33.9 33.09 34.48 0.29 March 117 0.432 -1.56 3.51 1.27 March 117 33.87 33.23 34.61 0.36 April 783 0.867 -1.69 9.11 1.5 April 783 33.91 32.76 34.76 0.39 May 682 0.59 -1.71 5.31 1.53 May 682 33.79 32.84 34.72 0.44 June 1556 0.72 -1.7 5.59 1.46 June 1556 33.79 32.85 34.72 0.43 July 458 0.959 -1.63 5.19 1.61 July 458 33.9 32.99 34.76 0.42 August 256 0.908 -1.5 4.47 1.8 August 256 34 33.09 34.74 0.42 September 44 1.968 -1.5 4.45 1.44 September 44 34.22 32.94 35.46 0.47 October 815 3.299 -1.42 7.34 1.54 October 815 34.28 33.25 34.9 0.31 November 1122 3.295 -0.87 6.94 1.68 November 1122 34.14 31.89 35.07 0.3 December 624 3.448 0.09 6.86 1.41 December 624 34.09 33.35 34.8 0.28

Doc.ref 11977 124 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Figure 4.16 T-S diagrams for sub-area 4 (>400 m). The numbers on the curves represent the depths in metres.

Doc.ref 11977 125 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks References

Anderson, J., 1984. Early life history of redfish (Sebastes spp.) on Flemish Cap. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci., V.41, p.1106-1116 Bell, G. D., and M. Chelliah, 2006. Leading Tropical Modes Associated with Interannual and Multidecadal Fluctuations in North Atlantic Hurricane Activity. J. Climate, 19, p.590–612. Borgman, L. E. 1973. Probabilities for the highest wave in a hurricane. J. Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Div., ASCE, 185-207 Colbourne, E., 2000. Interannual variations in the stratification and transport of the Labrador Current on the Newfoundland Shelf. International Council for the Explorations of the Sea. CM 2000/L:2. Colbourne, E., 2002. Physical Oceanographic Conditions on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves during 2001. CSAS Res.Doc. 2002/023. Colbourne, E. B., 2004. Decadal Changes in the Ocean Climate in Newfoundland and Labrador Waters from the 1950s to the 1990s. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., V.34. p.41–59. Colbourne, E. B., and D.R. Senciall, 1996. Temperatures, Salinity and Sgma-t along the standard Flemish Cap. Transect. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrog. Ocean Sci. V.172, 222p. Colbourne, E. B., and K. D. Foote, 2000. Variability of the Stratification and Circulation on the Flemish Cap during the Decades of the 1950s-1990s. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., V.26, p.103–122. Colbourne, E., B. deYoung, S. Narayanan, and J. Helbig, 1997. Comparison of hydrography and circulation on the Newfoundland Shelf during 1990–1993 with the long-term mean. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. V.54 (Suppl. 1), p.68-80. DeTracey, B. M., C.L. Tanf, and P. C. Smith, 1996. Low-frequency currents at the northern edge of the Grand Banks. J. Geophs. Res., V.101, C6, P.12,223-14,236. Elsner, J. B., 2003: Tracking Hurricanes. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 84 pp 353-356. Elsner, J. B., and B. H. Bossak, 2004: “Hurricane landfall probability and climate”, in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, R. Murnane & K.-b. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press. Environment Canada, 1997. The Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation, Atlantic Canada Summary. Fisher, J. and F. A. Scott, 2002. Labrador Sea Water Tracked by Profiling Floats – From the Boundary Current into the Open North Atlantic. J. Phys. Oceangr. V.32, No.2, p.573-584. Forristall, G. Z., 1978. On the statistical distribution of wave heights in a storm. J. Geophys. Res., v.83, p.2353-2358. Gulev, S. K., and L. Hasse, 1998: North Atlantic Wind Waves and Wind Stress Fields from Voluntary Observing Ship Data. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1107–1130.

Doc.ref 11977 126 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks Han, G. and Z. Wang, 2005. Monthly-mean circulation in the Flemish Cap region: A modeling study. In: Malcolm L. Spaulding (Ed.) Estuarine and Coastal Modeling. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling held in Charleston, South Carolina, Oct 31 - Nov 2, 2005. Hart, R. E., and J. L. Evans, 2001: A climatology of Extratropical Transition of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones. J. Climate, 14, 546-564. Krauss, W., 1986. The North Atlantic Current. J. Geophys. Res. V.91, C 4, p.5061-5074. Lazier, J. R. N., and D. G. Wright, 1993. Annual velocity variations in the Labrador Current, J. Phys. Oceanogr., V.23, p.659-678. Marshall J., et al. 2001. North Atlantic Climate Variability: Phenomena, Impacts and Mechanisms. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 21, pp1863 - 1898 Neu, H. J .A., 1982. 11-year deep-water wave climate of Canadian Atlantic waters. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrogr. Ocean Sct. 13: vii + 41 p. Pepin , P., and J. A. Helbig, 1997. Distribution and drift of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) eggs and larvae on the northeast Newfoundland Shelf. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. V.54. p.670-685. Petrie, B., S. Akenhead,. J. Lazier, and J. Loder, 1988. The cold intermediate layer on the Labrador and Northeast Newfoundland Shelves, 1978–1986. NAFO Sci. Counc. Stud. V.12, p.57–69. Petrie, B. and A. Isenor, 1984. An Analysis of Satellite – Tracked Drifter Observations Collected in the Grand Banks Region. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrogr. Ocean Sci. V.39, 69p. Rhein, M., J. Fischer, W. M. Smethie, D. Smythe-Wright, R. F. Weiss, C. Mertens, D. H. Min, U. Fleishmann, and A. Putzka, 2002. Labrador Sea Water: Pathways CFC Inventory , and Formation Rates. J. Phys Oceanogr. V.32, No. 2, p.648- 665.Stein, M., 2007. Oceanography of the Flemish Cap and Adjacent Waters. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., V. 37, p.135–146 Rogers, E. and L. F. Bosart. 1986. An Investigation of Explosively Deepening Oceanic Cyclones. Monthly Weather Review, V. 114, p.702-718. Swail, V. R., 1996. Analysis of Climate Variability in Ocean Waves in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Proc. Symposium on Climate Change and Variability in Atlantic Canada, Dec. 3-6, Halifax, N.S., Environment Canada, p.313-318. Swail, V. R., A. T. Cox and V. J. Cardone. Analysis of Wave Climate Trends and Variability. CLIMAR 1999 Preprints. Sept. 8-15, 1999, Vancouver, Canada. United States Geological Survey, Conservation Division, 1979. OCS Platform Verification Program. Reston, Virginia. Winterstein, S. R., T. Ude, C. A. Cornell, P. Jarager, and S. Haver, 1993. Environmental Parameters for Extreme Response: Inverse FORM with Omission Factors. ICOSSar-3, Paper No 509/11/3, Innsbruck, 3-12 August 1993. Yashayaev, I, and A. Clarke, 2006. Recent warming of the Labrador Sea. DFO AZMP Bulletin, No. 5, 2006.

Doc.ref 11977 127 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 1 QuikSCAT Derived Monthly Wind Speed and Direction Climatology

Doc.ref 11977 128 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 129 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 130 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 131 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 132 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 133 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Doc.ref 11977 134 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 2 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 12595

Doc.ref 11977 135 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 136 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 137 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 138 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 139 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 140 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 141 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 3 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 12595

Doc.ref 11977 142 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 January 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 February 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 143 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 March 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 April 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 144 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 May 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 145 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 July 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 August 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 146 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 September 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 October 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 147 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 November 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 December 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 148 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 4 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10255

January

Doc.ref 11977 149 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

February

March

Doc.ref 11977 150 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

April

May

Doc.ref 11977 151 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

June

July

Doc.ref 11977 152 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

August

September

Doc.ref 11977 153 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

October

November

Doc.ref 11977 154 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

December

Doc.ref 11977 155 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 5 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10439

January

Doc.ref 11977 156 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

February

March

Doc.ref 11977 157 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

April

May

Doc.ref 11977 158 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

June

July

Doc.ref 11977 159 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

August

September

Doc.ref 11977 160 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

October

November

Doc.ref 11977 161 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

December

Doc.ref 11977 162 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 6 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 11421

January

Doc.ref 11977 163 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

February

March

Doc.ref 11977 164 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

April

May

Doc.ref 11977 165 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

June

July

Doc.ref 11977 166 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

August

September

Doc.ref 11977 167 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

October

November

Doc.ref 11977 168 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

December

Doc.ref 11977 169 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 7 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10255

Doc.ref 11977 170 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 January 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 February 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 171 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 March 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 April 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 172 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 May 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 173 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 July 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 August 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 174 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 September 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 October 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 175 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 November 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 December 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 176 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 8 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10439

Doc.ref 11977 177 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 January 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 February 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 178 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 March 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 April 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 179 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 May 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 180 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 July 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 August 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 181 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 September 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 October 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 182 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 November 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 December 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 183 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 9 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 11421

Doc.ref 11977 184 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 January 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 February 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 185 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 March 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 April 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 186 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 May 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 187 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 July 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 August 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 188 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 September 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 October 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 189 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 November 50

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 December 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 190 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 10 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10856

Doc.ref 11977 191 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 192 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 193 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 194 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 195 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 196 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 197 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 11 Wind Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 13912

Doc.ref 11977 198 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 199 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 200 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 201 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 202 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 203 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 204 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 12 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10856

Doc.ref 11977 205 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 January 3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 February 3

2.5

1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 206 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 March 3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 April 4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 207 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 May 6

2 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 June 10

3 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 2

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 208 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 July 14

4 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 August 10

3 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 2

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 209 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 September 6

3 W

2 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 October 4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 210 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 November 4

3.5

2.5

2 W

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 December 3.5

2.5

W 1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 211 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 13 Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 13912

Doc.ref 11977 212 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 January 4

3.5

2.5

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 February 3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 213 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 March 3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 April 4

3.5

2.5

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 214 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 May 6

2 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 June 12

4 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 215 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 July 14

4 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 August 12

4 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 216 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 September 7

W 3

2 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 October 4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 217 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 November 4.5

3.5

2.5

W 2

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Speed Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 December 4

3.5

2.5

2 W

1.5

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 1

0.5

0 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Doc.ref 11977 218 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 14 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 12595

Doc.ref 11977 219 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 220 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 221 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 222 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 223 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 224 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 225 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 15 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 12595

Doc.ref 11977 226 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 227 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 March 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 228 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 May 50

25 W 20

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 June 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 229 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 July 80

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 20

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 230 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 October 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 231 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 November 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 12595 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 232 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 16 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10255

Doc.ref 11977 233 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 234 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 235 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 236 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 237 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 238 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 239 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 17 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10439

Doc.ref 11977 240 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 241 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 242 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 243 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 244 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 245 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 246 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 18 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 11421

Doc.ref 11977 247 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 248 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 249 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 250 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 251 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 252 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 253 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 19 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10255

Doc.ref 11977 254 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 255 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 March 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 256 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 May 50

25 W 20

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 June 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 257 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 July 80

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 20

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 258 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 October 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 259 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 November 40

20 W

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10255 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 260 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 20 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10439

Doc.ref 11977 261 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 262 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 March 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 263 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 May 50

25 W 20

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 June 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 264 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 July 80

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 20

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 265 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 October 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 266 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 November 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10439 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 267 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 21 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 11421

Doc.ref 11977 268 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 269 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 March 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 270 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 May 50

25 W 20

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 June 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 271 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 July 80

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 20

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 272 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 October 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 273 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 November 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 11421 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 274 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 22 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 10856

Doc.ref 11977 275 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 276 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 277 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 278 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 279 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 280 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 281 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 23 Wave Roses for MSC50 GridPoint 13912

Doc.ref 11977 282 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks January

February

Doc.ref 11977 283 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks March

April

Doc.ref 11977 284 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks May

June

Doc.ref 11977 285 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks July

August

Doc.ref 11977 286 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks September

October

Doc.ref 11977 287 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks November

December

Doc.ref 11977 288 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 24 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 10856

Doc.ref 11977 289 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 290 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 March 30

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 291 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 May 50

25 W 20

15 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 292 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 July 80

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 20

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 293 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 October 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 294 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 November 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 10856 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 295 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Appendix 25 Wave Height Frequency Distributions for MSC50 GridPoint 13912

Doc.ref 11977 296 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 January 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 February 35

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 297 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 March 30

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 April 45

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 298 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 May 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 June 60

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 299 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 July 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 August 70

20 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 300 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 September 45

W 20

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 October 40

Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage 10

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 301 Physical Environmental Conditions on Grand Banks

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 November 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height Percentage Occurrence Grid Point 13912 December 35

W 15

10 Percentage Occurrence (%) Occurrence Percentage

0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

Wave Height (m)

Doc.ref 11977 302 Appendix 2

Report On Consultations Report On Consultations

Appendix 2.

Persons Contacted During Consultations

The following agencies and persons were consulted about StatoilHyrdo’s planned 2008- 2016 exploration programs.

Environment Canada (Environmental Protection Branch)

Glenn Troke, EA Co-ordinator

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Sigrid Kuehnemund, Acting Senior Regional Habitat Biologist Randy Power, Senior Regional Habitat Biologist Bill Brodie, Research Scientist, RV Science Surveys

Natural History Society

Dr. Len Zedel, MUN

One Ocean

Maureen Murphy, Director of Operations

Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAWU)

Jamie Coady, Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinator

Association of Seafood Producers

E. Derek Butler, Executive Director

Fishery Products International

Derek Fudge, Manager, Fleet Administration and Scheduling

Icewater Seafoods

Michael O’Connor, Fish Harvesting Consultant Tom Osbourne, Plant Manager, Arnold’s Cove

Clearwater Seafoods Rik Scheffers, Director of Fleet Operations

Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council (Ottawa)

Bruce Chapman, Executive Director Appendix 3:

Jeanne d’Arc Basin Well Cuttings / Mud Deposition Modeling JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS / MUD DEPOSITION MODELING

February, 2008 Executive Summary Executive Summary

A set of eight computer model simulations were performed of the settling and subsequent seafloor deposition of well cuttings, centrifuge barite, and synthetic drilling muds discharged to the ocean at the proposed Mizzen drill site. Mizzen is located at 46q 17.44’ W, 48q 16.00’ N, in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin at the north end of the Flemish Pass in approximately 1100 m of water (UTM Zone 22 coordinates: 849,437 5,356,679).

The purpose of the model is to predict the thickness and spatial distribution of material deposited to the seafloor in the vicinity of the Mizzen site taking into account the effect of discharge composition and density, temporal and spatial variability of ocean currents, turbulence, and other relevant physical effects.

The following is a summary of the principal model results: x The maximum thickness of material deposited to the seafloor will be less that 0.25 mm everywhere. x Virtually all of the fine particles (i.e., with diameter less than 0.1 mm) comprising 92% of the discharged mass will be transported by ocean currents outside of a 10 km radius from the Mizzen site and will make no significant contribution to the deposit thickness. The proposed shallow well drilling scenario for Mizzen consists of four sections, with the two upper sections (Conductor and Surface) utilizing WBMs, and the two lower sections (Intermediate and Main) utilizing either WBMs (option 1) or SBMs (option 2). Treatment and near-surface ocean discharge only occurs with the use of SBMs; hence, the deposition model was only used to simulate the consequences of drilling the Intermediate and Main sections with SBMs. These two sections extend below the seafloor from 1700–2550 m and from 2550–3800 m, respectively. Discharges to the ocean surface resulting from the use of SBMs would consist of well cuttings, centrifuge barite, and mud, with specific gravities of 2250, 4250, and 1400 kg/m3 respectively. The total volumes discharged in option 2 are 250.7 m3 (674,065 kg) for the Intermediate Hole, and 367.1 m3 (1,065,750 kg) for the Main Hole. The cuttings are divided into four categories based on particle diameter: pebbles (7 mm), coarse sand (1 mm), medium sand (0.25 mm), and fines (0.1 mm or less). These categories correspond to Particle Size Distribution data from drill cores taken at Hibernia K-18 that are used in this report to determine the PSD for the well cuttings. In turn, the

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING ii

particle diameter and density determines the particle settling rate. Both the mud and barite are assumed to consist entirely of fines with particle diameters less than 0.1 mm. Cuttings particles in the fines category, together with all of the barite and mud particles, are assumed to form uniform conglomerates (flocs) in the ocean. In the model these flocs are assigned a diameter of 0.1 mm, and a uniform settling rate of 100 m/day. By mass, 92.8% of the combined discharge are fines (91.0% by volume). Ocean current measurements made by Oceans Ltd. at depths of 20, 465, 965, and 1150 m between January 1 and April 13, 2003 near the Mizzen site were used to prescribe currents in the model. Horizontal currents, and to a much lesser degree turbulence, completely determine the lateral motion of the discharge. The schedule used in the modeling includes 5.5 days for drilling the Intermediate hole, 6.8 days for changeover, and 17.8 days for drilling the Main Hole; for a total of 30.1 days. Sufficient time was added to each simulation to ensure that all particles had either settled to the seafloor, or moved laterally to a position outside the model grid. The computer model simulates the lateral transport and bottom deposition of the combined surface discharge over a 20 km square grid centred on the Mizzen drill site. The grid is divided into 401 columns and rows that form 160,801 50 m square cells. The model keeps track of the total mass that settles inside each cell, as well as the total mass that drifts outside the 20 km square grid and is therefore effectively lost. The spatial distribution of discharged material in the model, and in particular the final bottom deposition pattern, is strongly dependent on the sequence of ocean currents that is specified in a simulation. To remove any bias in the results introduced by selecting one particular start time, a series of eight simulations was performed with start times staggered 5 days apart. The results of these were subsequently combined by both averaging and selecting the maximum deposited mass in each model grid cell.

LGL Ltd. LORAX Table of Contents Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILL CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS 2.1 THE MIZZEN DRILL SITE...... 2-1 2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...... 2-2 2.3 THE WELL DRILLING SEQUENCE ...... 2-4 2.3.1 WELL DATA...... 2-4 2.3.2 MUD/CUTTING WEIGHT DISTRIBUTIONS BY PARTICLE SIZE...... 2-6 2.3.3 PARTICLE SETTLING VELOCITIES...... 2-6 2.4 OCEAN CURRENTS ...... 2-9 2.5 THE DEPOSITION MODEL ...... 2-10 2.5.1 THEORY AND SOLUTION METHOD ...... 2-10 2.5.2 KEY MODEL PARAMETERS ...... 2-11 2.5.3 CURRENTS ...... 2-12 2.5.4 WELL LOG DATA...... 2-12 2.5.5 COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHM ...... 2-13 2.5.6 MODEL VERIFICATION...... 2-13

3. MODEL RESULTS 3.1 CAUTIONARY NOTES ...... 3-6

REFERENCES...... R-1

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 PROPOSED MIZZEN WELL LOCATION AND ASSOCIATED 20 X 20 KM MODEL GRID (YELLOW); LOCATIONS OF CURRENT METER DATA AVAILABLE FROM THE BEDFORD INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY (RED); AND FROM OCEANS LTD.(GREEN)...... 1-1

FIGURE 2-1 PERSPECTIVE VIEW AND CONTOURS SHOWING BATHYMETRY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED MIZZEN DRILL SITE (YELLOW)...... 2-1

FIGURE 2-2 TIME-SERIES OF CURRENT SPEED DERIVED FROM THE OCEANS LTD. CURRENT MEASUREMENTS.HORIZONTAL RED LINES DEMARK THE TIME INTERVALS FOR THE EIGHT MODEL SIMULATIONS ...... 2-7

FIGURE 3-1 RESULTS DERIVED FROM THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF VALUES TAKEN FROM THE EIGHT SIMULATIONS.TOP:LOG10 OF MEAN PARTICLE SIZE (MM). BOTTOM:LOG10 OF DEPOSIT THICKNESS (MM) ...... 3-2

FIGURE 3-2 RESULTS DERIVED FROM THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF VALUES TAKEN FROM THE EIGHT SIMULATIONS.TOP:DISTRIBUTION OF DEPOSITED MASS WITH DISTANCE FROM THE MIZZEN WELL LOCATION.BOTTOM:AREA COVERED AND DEPOSIT THICKNESS ...... 3-3

FIGURE 3-3 RESULTS DERIVED FROM THE MAXIMUM OF VALUES TAKEN FROM THE EIGHT SIMULATIONS.TOP:LOG10 OF MEAN PARTICLE SIZE (MM). BOTTOM:LOG10 OF DEPOSIT THICKNESS (MM) ...... 3-4 FIGURE 3-4 RESULTS DERIVED FROM THE MAXIMUM OF VALUES TAKEN FROM THE EIGHT SIMULATIONS.TOP:DISTRIBUTION OF DEPOSITED MASS WITH DISTANCE FROM THE MIZZEN WELL LOCATION.BOTTOM:AREA COVERED AND DEPOSIT THICKNESS ...... 3-5

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 MODELED DRILL LOCATION ...... 2-2

TABLE 2-2 EXPLORATORY WELL DATA FOR THE MIZZEN DRILL SITE...... 2-3

TABLE 2-3 DISCHARGE MASS LOADING PARAMETERS...... 2-3

TABLE 2-4 HIBERNIA K-18 PARTICLE SIZE DATA USED TO DETERMINE THE MEAN PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION USED IN MODEL SIMULATIONS ...... 2-8

TABLE 2-5 OCEAN’S LTD.CURRENT METER DATA USED IN THE DEPOSITION MODEL...... 2-9

TABLE 2-6 SETTLING VELOCITIES FOR EACH PARTICLE SIZE ...... 2-12

LGL Ltd. LORAX 1. Introduction 1. Introduction

This report describes the methods and results related to modeling of solids deposition at the proposed Mizzen exploratory well site located at the north end of the Flemish Pass in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Figs. 1-1 and 2-1). Chapter 2 includes a description of the methods used to define the mass loadings; the drilling sequence and parameters for the well; and the model methodology and inputs. The spatial distribution of deposited material predicted by the model is discussed in Chapter 3.

Figure 1-1: Proposed Mizzen well location and associated 20 x 20 km model grid (yellow); locations of current meter data available from The Bedford Institute of Oceanography (red); and from Oceans Ltd. (green).

1-1 2. Modeling Deposition of Drill Cuttings and Water-Based Muds 2. Modeling Deposition of Drill Cuttings and Water-Based Muds

2.1 The Mizzen Drill Site The Mizzen well site is located near the north end of the Flemish Pass at 46° 17.44’ W, 48° 16.00’ N (UTM Zone 22 849437, 5356679) (Table 2-1; Figs. 1-1 and 2-1). The ocean depth at this location is approximately 1100 m. The yellow areas in Figures 1-1 and 2-1 correspond to a 20 km square region centred on the Mizzen site that shows the area covered by the model grid.

Figure 2-1: Perspective view and contours showing bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed Mizzen drill site (yellow).

2-1 MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-2

The model grid consists of a 401 x 401 array of 50 m square cells within which the spatial distribution of deposited material is determined. All properties are considered to be uniform within each cell, including water depth and the volume and mass of deposited material. Water depth within each cell was determined by interpolation from the 2 arc- minute resolution (approx. 2.5 x 3.7 km) ETOPO2 bathymetry/topography database. Table 2-1: Modeled drill location

Drill Site Longitude Latitude UTM (E) UTM (N) Ocean Depth (m) Mizzen 46q 17.44’W 48q 16.00’N 849,437 5,356,679 1100

2.2 Definition of Terms The proposed shallow well drilling scenario consists of four sections characterized by hole diameter and depth, with the two upper sections (Conductor and Surface holes) utilizing Water Based Muds, and the two lower sections (Intermediate and Main holes) utilizing either WBMs (option 1) or Synthetic Based Muds (option 2). Treatment and near-surface ocean discharge only occurs with the use of SBMs; hence, the model was only used to simulate the consequences of drilling the Intermediate and Main sections with SBMs. These two sections extend below the seafloor from 1700–2550 m and from 2550–3800 m, respectively (Table 2-2). Discharges to the ocean surface resulting from the use of SBMs would consist of three types of material: well cuttings, centrifuge barite, and mud. Mud and barite consist entirely of fines, whereas cuttings are divided into four categories based on particle diameter: pebbles (7 mm), coarse sand (1 mm), medium sand (0.25 mm), and fines (0.1 mm or less). These categories correspond to particle size distribution data from drill cores taken at Hibernia K-18 that are used in this report to determine the PSD for the well cuttings. Particle diameter and density determine the particle settling rate. Particles in the fines category, with a nominal diameter of 0.1 mm, are assumed to form conglomerates (flocs) in the ocean. In the model these flocs are assigned a uniform settling rate of 100 m/day. By mass, 92.8% of the particles in the combined discharge are fines (91.0% by volume). The model inputs specifying the mass flux of discharged material are defined in terms of the dry material density. The corresponding discharged mass is determined by multiplying the prescribed volume fluxes by the appropriate specific gravity (Table 2-2).

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-3

Table 2-2: Exploratory well data for the Mizzen drill site

Volume S.G. Mass Description (m3) (kg/m3) (kg) Intermediate Hole Diameter (mm) 445 Cuttings 123.6 2250 278,100 Start day 1 C. Barite 76.5 4250 325,125 End day 6.5 Mud 50.6 1400 70,840 Duration (d) 5.5 Total 250.7 2689* 674,065 Start depth (m) 1700 End depth (m) 2550 Fines 215.2 2761* 594,250 Section length (m) 850 M. Sand 3.8 2250 8,621 Section Vol (m3) 528.8 C. Sand 13.0 2250 29,201 Discharge depth (m) 7 Pebbles 18.7 2250 41,993

Changeover Duration (d) 6.8

Main Hole Diameter (mm) 311 Cuttings 69.8 2250 157,050 Start day 13.3 C. Barite 172.8 4250 734,400 End day 31.1 Mud 124.5 1400 174,300 Duration (d) 17.8 Total 367.1 2903* 1,065,750 Start depth (m) 2550 End depth (m) 3800 Fines 333.1 2761* 989,424 Section length (m) 1250 M. Sand 4.5 2250 10,051 Section Vol (m3) 379.8 C. Sand 18.4 2250 41,304 Discharge depth (m) 7 Pebbles 11.1 2250 24,971

Total Duration (d) 30.1 Cuttings 193.4 2250 435,150 Combined length (m) 2100 C. Barite 249.3 4250 1,059,525 Combined Vol (m3) 908.6 Mud 175.1 1400 245,140 Total 617.8 2816** 1,739,815

Fines 548.3 2888* 1,583,674 M. Sand 8.3 2250 18,672 C. Sand 31.4 2250 70,505 Pebbles 29.8 2250 66,964

*Calculated by dividing total mass by total volume **Value used for seafloor bulk density

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-4

Table 2-3: Discharge mass loading parameters.

Parameter Symbol Unit Description

total mass of deposit Mj,k kg dry mass of deposit in cell j,k grid indices j,k x,y coordinates of the model cell 2 deposit density Uj,k kg/m dry density of deposited material

deposit thickness hj,k mm assuming consolidation

In this report it is assumed that all drilling will be carried out with synthetic- and water- based muds. Accordingly, a negligible amount of oil is expected to be discharged to the ocean, and therefore the oil concentration is ignored.

The numerical model calculates the total mass of material Mj,k deposited to the seafloor in each cell (j,k) of the model grid. Details of the model formulation and the methods

used in calculating Mj,k are presented in Section 2.5. Additional parameters are

calculated from Mj,k based on several assumptions. In particular, the bottom mass density 2 U j,k (kg/m ) and deposit thickness hj,k (m) are given by:

3 U j,k 10 M j,k / A (2.1)

hj,k U j,k / J (2.2) where A is the area of a cell (2,500 m2), and J is the in situ consolidated bulk density determined from the volumes and densities of the mud, cuttings and barite using:

(VMJ M VCJ C VBJ B) J . (2.3) VM VC VB

where VM , VC and VB are the total volumes of discharged mud, cuttings, and barite, 3 3 3 respectively, and J M 1400kg / m , J C 2250kg / m and J B 4250kg / m are their respective dry weight densities. The calculated bulk density is J 2816kg / m3 (Table 2-2). The actual density will deviate from this amount slightly, depending on the proportion of the three types of material in the deposit. However, this variation is quite small and is ignored.

2.3 The Well Drilling Sequence

2.3.1 Well Data The proposed exploratory well has four planned drilling sections designated by hole diameter and depth. Near-surface discharge of material only occurs during drilling of the lower two sections. The upper two sections will be drilled using water based muds and the extracted solids will be deposited directly to the seabed without being returned to the

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-5 drilling unit at the surface. These solids are not considered in this report since they are released to the environment at the seabed and are not subject to the same dispersive forces arising from the ocean currents. These solids are expected to be contained within a very small area surrounding the well. The bottom two sections of the well produce mud, centrifuge barite and cuttings that will be discharged from the drilling unit. These solids will be returned to the surface, processed through the mud recovery system, and then discharged into the sea at an estimated depth of 7 m. The two lower sections are each characterized by their particle size distributions and mud, barite and cuttings content. These are entered into a data file together with the volume fluxes and other information required to run the model, including: x A well identifier giving the sequence number and well designation x The drilling centre name (proposed well location) x The drilling centre UTM coordinates (NAD83) x The water depth at the drill site x The start and end dates for each section x Specific weights of dry cuttings, barite and drilling mud (kg/m3) x The number of drilling activities. The final two records contain the following data for each activity: x The drill sequence number, x The start and end dates after spud x The start and end depth in the hole x The estimated cuttings, barite and mud volumes x The composition by weight of mud, barite and cuttings in four particle size categories, and x The corresponding mass of discharged mud, barite and cuttings in the same four size categories The masses of each size fraction are calculated from the particle size distribution, volumes, and specific gravities; and form the basic input to the deposition model. The results of a simulation are strongly dependent on the characteristics of the ocean currents specified at the times when discharged particles are settling and therefore depend on the simulation start date. To minimize the bias introduced by specifying a specific start date, a series of eight simulations was completed with the start of the first simulation

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-6 set to the first date (January 1) in the current meter record, and with the remaining seven simulations spaced five days apart. The drilling sequence for each modeled scenario was specified to begin within the period January 1 to April 13 corresponding to the dates of the Oceans Ltd. current meter data. The start and end times for the two drill sections comprising each simulation are shown together with the measured current speeds in Fig. 2-2.

2.3.2 Mud/Cuttings Weight Distributions by Particle Size Particle size distributions, in the form required for deposition modeling, are not available from the Mizzen well site. However, suitable proxy samples were collected and preserved for the K-18 well drilled at the Hibernia site and were analyzed in April 1993 by AGAT Laboratories in Calgary to give percent dry weight in four particle size categories. The samples cover a depth range of approximately 1000 - 5000 m with a resolution of about 100 m. The cuttings particle size distributions used in the model simulations for this report were derived from the K-18 data by averaging the values over the appropriate depth ranges for each section (Table 2-5). All discharged mud and centrifuge barite is assumed to be contained in the “fines” fraction.

2.3.3 Particle Settling Velocities It is assumed that the discharged cuttings will enter the water in a disaggregated form, consistent with the high level of mechanical agitation of the mud recovery system and the discharge chute; and further, that the coarse fractions and the medium sand will remain disaggregated as they settle. Sinking velocities for these size fractions are calculated using conventional relations from Sleath (1984), which are presented in Section 2.5. Observations made by Kranck et al., (1992, 1996) and Milligan (1995), suggest that individual clay and silt particles with diameters less than about 100 µm (0.1 mm) will flocculate in the marine environment. The formation of biologically-facilitated flocs is expected for the wells drilled on The Grand Bank1. Plankton cells excrete organic substances that glue inorganic grains of clay together, producing resilient floc particles that resist disaggregation once formed. The floc particles grow in size until they reach a critical diameter at which they begin to sink. Within reasonable limits, the critical diameter and sinking velocity are known. At smaller diameters they are kept in suspension by turbulence in the water column.

1 T. Milligan & K. Muschenheim, Bedford Institute of Oceanography and P. Hill, Dalhousie University, pers comm., 1996

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-7

Figure 2-2: Time-series of current speed derived from the Oceans Ltd. current measurements. Horizontal red lines demark the time intervals for the eight model simulations.

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-8

Table 2-4: Hibernia K-18 Particle size data used to determine the mean particle size distribution used in model simulations.

Drill Coarse Medium Depth Pebbles sand sand Fines Total (m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1000 14.1 0.9 0.7 84.3 100 1110 4.8 2.9 0.7 91.6 100 1200 11.5 3.6 0.6 84.4 100 1300 6.0 2.2 0.6 91.2 100 1400 8.5 1.6 1.0 88.9 100 1500 8.5 15.4 2.1 74.0 100 1600 32.9 12.2 3.3 51.5 100 A I 1700 24.0 10.1 2.0 64.0 100 c n 1800 9.2 12.1 1.5 77.2 100 t t e 1890 4.0 5.2 2.5 88.2 100 i r 2000 10.8 10.6 2.6 76.0 100 v m 2090 4.0 7.6 4.4 84.1 100 i e t d 2200 18.8 10.2 3.0 68.0 100 i y 2310 29.1 14.0 5.6 51.3 100 a t 2400 11.8 10.0 2.6 75.7 100 1 e 2500 24.3 14.6 4.0 57.1 100 2600 10.9 13.4 4.3 71.5 100 2700 17.7 17.9 3.9 60.5 100 A M 2800 25.6 22.9 3.3 48.2 100 c a 2900 25.9 16.1 3.6 54.4 100 t i 2990 24.2 51.2 7.9 16.7 100 i n 3100 1.0 14.3 4.3 80.4 100 v 3210 11.5 33.3 3.8 51.5 100 i H 3320 8.9 32.4 4.3 54.4 100 t o 3430 1.6 35.8 20.9 41.6 100 y l 3490 4.1 33.6 12.7 49.6 100 e 3600 22.8 24.7 5.8 46.7 100 2 3710 15.8 30.3 4.7 49.2 100 3800 37.4 16.1 4.0 42.5 100 3900 32.4 17.0 3.4 47.2 100 4000 39.9 18.3 2.0 39.9 100 4100 24.1 23.1 6.7 46.0 100 4200 31.6 19.4 6.8 42.2 100 4310 28.4 18.7 5.4 47.6 100 4400 33.3 13.8 3.5 49.4 100 4490 40.6 16.5 5.3 37.5 100 4590 3.5 32.4 19.5 44.6 100 4700 10.5 51.5 7.4 30.6 100 4770 2.8 40.1 15.5 41.6 100 4930 2.3 32.9 12.7 52.2 100 5010 15.4 25.0 7.7 51.9 100 Start End Depth Depth Mean Mean Mean Mean Total Mizzen 1700 2550 15.1 10.5 3.1 71.3 100 2550 3800 15.9 26.3 6.4 51.3 100

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-9

Based on information from the literature and discussions with experts, it has been assumed that: x Floc formation will occur at the concentrations of fine cuttings and drilling mud expected during drilling. Further, floc formation is expected to be rapid, and can therefore be modelled as an “instantaneous process” that is complete at the point where buoyant plume mixing into the ocean stops. x Particles in the disaggregated size range of 0.5-100 µm typically form flocs in the surface layer of the ocean with an in situ diameter of about 100 µm (0.1 mm). When organic matter is relatively abundant (spring-summer months), the flocs will consume all of the fines. Although the simulations completed for this report correspond to winter and early spring conditions, the assumption is still made that all of the fines form flocs. Since the flocs settle faster than disaggregated particles, this is a somewhat conservative approximation. x A single sinking velocity for the flocs of 100 m/day is the best available estimate, and is consistent with a floc having a narrow size range at about 100 µm.

2.4 Ocean Currents Ocean currents are required in the model to transport discharged material laterally as it settles through the water column towards the bottom. Although there is an extensive archive of current meter data at The Bedford Institute of Oceanography, none are located closer than 60 km from the Mizzen site (Fig. 1-1). However, current data collected by Oceans Ltd. (St. John’s, NL) in 2003 are located within a few km of the Mizzen site (Table 2-6). The current data extend from Feb 1 to April 13, 2003 and thus reflect conditions during winter and early spring. Vertical coverage is good – extending from near-surface (20 m) to a depth of 1150 m, or slightly below the depth of the Mizzen drill site. Table 2-5: Ocean’s Ltd. Current Meter Data Used in the Deposition Model

Meter 1249 1300 1231 1245 Type Neil Brown Neil Brown Neil Brown Neil Brown Depth (m) 20 m 465 m 965 m 1150 m Latitude 48°12'29.9" N 48°12'29.9" N 48°12'29.9" N 48°12'30.6" N Longitude 46°14'30.1" W 46°14'30.1" W 46°14'30.1" W 46°13’01.9" W Year 2003 2003 2003 2003 First record (UTC) Jan 31 16:40 Jan 31 18:20 Jan 31 18:00 Feb 01 01:00 Last record (UTC) Apr 13 10:20 Apr 13 11:00 Apr 13 10:20 Apr 13 14:20 No. of records 5166 5163 5162 5153

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-10

2.5 The Deposition Model

2.5.1 Theory and Solution Method The dispersion of particulates released from a source point in the ocean is governed by advection by currents and small-scale turbulent diffusion in the horizontal and vertical planes. The governing transport-diffusion equation is solved using a particle tracing technique. Discrete particles having a fixed mass are continuously released in the model over the simulated time period. Each particle is defined by its diameter (d) and position (x,y,z), which is governed by its velocity (u,v) according to: wx u(x, y,z,t) u (t) u (x, y,z,t) u' (2.4) wt t r wy v(x, y,z,t) v (t) v (x, y,z,t) v' (2.5) wt t r wz w(d) (2.6) wt where x,y are the horizontal coordinates (m) relative to the grid origin, z is the vertical coordinate (m) relative to sea surface, d is the particle diameter (m),

ut,vt are the tidal components of the current (m/s),

ur,vr are the residual (non-tidal) components of the current (m/s), u',v' are the turbulent current components (m/s), w is the fall velocity of a particle (m/s).

These equations are solved in a sequence of discrete time steps (denoted by index n) with time increment 'tp for all of the discharged particles. During each increment, equations 2.4 through 2.6 are solved using an adaptive numerical algorithm that automatically adjusts the time increment to maintain sufficient accuracy. The starting position for each particle is the well site location (xo,yo) at the discharge depth (zo = 7 m). The turbulent component of the flow field u',v' arises from small-scale random motions that are not resolved in the current data, and lead to a random movement of particles within the grid that is analogous to molecular diffusion and that can be simulated as a random walk. For a particle which moves a distance that is a uniformly distributed random displacement in the range (-x',...,x') in time step 'tp, the probability of the particle being at location x at time t satisfies the diffusion equation

w p w 2p AH (2.7) w t w x 2 2 where AH is the turbulent eddy diffusivity coefficient (m /s) and is related to the displacements by

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-11

xc, yc 6AH 't p (2.8)

Equations (2.13) and (2.14) are solved in the form

xn+1 = xn + (uc) 'tp + x'R (2.9)

yn+1 = yn + (vc) 'tp + y'R (2.10)

where R is a random number in the range (-1,1). This procedure constitutes a Monte Carlo method (Bauer, 1958) where the diffusive effects of u',v' are simulated by a random walk consisting of m trials each with N random displacements. The z' component is a uniformly distributed random displacement in the vertical, in the range r0.05w't; in other words, an uncertainty of ±5% in the distance fallen each time step.

2.5.2 Key Model Parameters (a) Grain Size, Settling Velocity and Integration Time Step

The deposition model tracks the discharge of a single sediment class with a known characteristic grain size (I in m). This parameter determines settling velocity w(I) (m/s) according to

w = 4.2 (I)0.5 I>0.1 mm (2.11) w = 0.0012 Id0.1 mm

Because the discharged grain sizes vary from pebbles to fines, the model integration time step 'tp also depends on settling velocity. The trajectory of coarse material must be well resolved in space and thus requires a relatively short time step compared to variations in the flow field. The numerical algorithm used to integrate the transport equations (2.4) – (2.6) utilizes an adaptive, 4th order Runge Kutta scheme that ensures that accuracy is maintained, despite the wide range of settling velocities. Fall velocity for each particle sizes are given in Table 2-6:

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-12

Table 2-6: Settling velocities for each particle size.

Material Diameter Fall Velocity pebble 7 mm 0.351 m/s coarse sand 1 mm 0.133 m/s medium sand 0.25 mm 0.066 m/s fines 0.1 mm 0.0012 m/s

(b) Mass Injection Rates As described in Section 2.3, the drilling schedule is represented as a set of consecutive activities separated by a time gap, with each activity having a specific duration and discharge mass for each grain size class. The mass per particle for a specific grain size and activity depends on the grain size distribution; the volume of cuttings, barite, and mud; and the activity duration. In this report, the particle mass is specified in terms of dry weight (kg) of discharged material, determined by multiplying the cuttings, barite, or mud volume by the corresponding specific weight. (c) Grid Domain and Horizontal Positioning Georeferencing of the 20 km square model grid is based on UTM (NAD83) coordinates. The grid centre was positioned at the specified well location. (d) Bathymetry and Vertical Layer Depths Bathymetry was derived from the ETOPO2 digital terrain and bathymetry database covering the entire Earth’s surface. Bathymetry is available on a 2 arc-minute resolution grid, which provides for a maximum spacing between points of approximately 3.7 km. These data were then interpolated to the centres of the 160,801 (401 x 401) 50 m square cells comprising the model grid.

2.5.3 Currents The current data obtained from Oceans Ltd. is spaced at 20 minute intervals. Ocean currents at four depths were prescribed in the simulations (Table 2-6). Orthogonal current velocity components at depths located between those of the inputted current data were linearly interpolated.

2.5.4 Well Log Data As the drilling events list is processed during execution of the model, the well log files are read to extract the well centre ID (defining source location xo,yo), and from the current activity record the injection depth (zo), the total mass added (dry weight in kg) for

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODELING DEPOSITION OF DRILLING CUTTINGS AND WATER-BASED MUDS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 2-13

the particular grain size being modelled, and the actual grain size (which need not be exactly equal to the standard grain size). From the mass added, the mass per particle is calculated, and from the actual grain size, the corresponding fall velocity is determined using equation (2.11).

2.5.5 Computational Algorithm The deposition model uses a time-stepping algorithm, with time parameters defined by the start and stop times in the event list and the time step determined automatically by the adaptive numerical scheme. At each time step, an appropriate number of new particles is introduced at the discharge point and the currents are updated, if necessary. The three- dimensional velocity field is expressed as a continuous function of space and time, and includes contributions from measured currents and turbulent diffusion. A 4th-order Runge Kutta algorithm integrates the velocity field from one model time step to the next; thus advancing each particle to a new position in the water column, or to a resting location on the bottom. Once on the bottom, particles may no longer be moved. If the particle's new location (x,y,z) is deeper than the water depth at that location, deposition is assumed. The particle's mass is accumulated in the model grid cell corresponding to its horizontal position (x,y) and its coordinates are removed from the list of suspended particles. Any particle that attempts to move beyond the model grid boundaries is considered to have permanently left the area and its mass does not contribute to the bottom deposit. At the end of an event, which corresponds with the end of a drilling activity, there are usually particles still in suspension. The transport, diffusion and settling calculations continue until either all particles have been deposited on the seabed or the next event commences.

2.5.6 Model Verification To verify that the deposition model conserves mass correctly, a simulation was performed with the current field set to zero. In this case all of the discharged material, including the fines, should accumulate in a small area around the drill site. Only the small contribution from turbulence prevents the particles from accumulating at a single point. The results of this simulation confirm that the model correctly accounts for all of the discharged mass.

LGL Ltd. LORAX 3. Model Results 3. Model Results

The outputs from the eight deposition model simulations have been combined to provide maps (Figs. 3-1 and 3-3) and summary graphs (Figs 3-2 and 3-4) of particle size and mass distribution for the Mizzen site. The output from the eight model simulations are combined in two ways: 1. The arithmetic means of the deposited mass and particle size were calculated in each 50 m square model cell (Figs 3-1 and 3-2). 2. The maximum values of the deposited mass and particle size were calculated in each 50 m square model cell (Figs 3-3 and 3-4). The spatial distribution maps (Figs 3-1 and 3-3) consist of two panels: an upper panel displaying the particle size distribution, and a lower panel displaying the thickness of the seafloor deposit based on the mass deposited in each cell and the bulk density. The summary graphs (Figs 3-2 and 3-4) also consist of two panels. The upper panel shows the amount of mass deposited as a function of distance from the well site. Two scales are provided: the scale on the left shows the percentage of mass deposited within the model grid and excludes any mass that was transported out of the grid. The scale on the right represents the percentage of mass deposited relative to the total mass discharged, and thus includes mass that was transported outside the grid. The bottom panel shows the seafloor area that is covered by material of a minimum thickness given on the y-axis. Care is required in interpreting the results based on maximum values, since taking the maximum does not preserve the total mass of the deposit. The model results suggest that ocean currents in the vicinity of the Mizzen site would transport virtually all of the discharged fine material out of the 20 km square model grid, leaving only 8% of the original mass to settle on the seafloor over a radius of approximately 6 km (113 km2). Within this 6 km, however, all deposits are less than 0.13 mm thick (Fig. 3-4), and the area in which the deposit thickness is greater than 0.10 mm is approximately 0.1 km2 (Fig. 3-4).

3-1 MODEL RESULTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 3-2

Figure 3-1: Results derived from the arithmetic mean of values taken from the eight simulations. Top: Log10 of mean particle size (mm). Bottom: Log10 of deposit thickness (mm).

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODEL RESULTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 3-3

Figure 3-2: Results derived from the arithmetic mean of values taken from the eight simulations. Top: Distribution of deposited mass with distance from the Mizzen well location. Bottom: Area covered and deposit thickness.

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODEL RESULTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 3-4

Figure 3-3: Results derived from the maximum of values taken from the eight simulations. Top: Log10 of mean particle size (mm). Bottom: Log10 of deposit thickness (mm).

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODEL RESULTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 3-5

Figure 3-4: Results derived from the maximum of values taken from the eight simulations. Top: Distribution of deposited mass with distance from the Mizzen well location. Bottom: Area covered and deposit thickness.

LGL Ltd. LORAX MODEL RESULTS JEANNE D’ARC BASIN WELL CUTTINGS /MUD DEPOSITION MODELING 3-6

3.1 Cautionary Notes The following comments should be considered when interpreting the model results. 1. The maps of thickness and particle size neglect all material deposited from the first two drilled sections at the top of the well since these are deposited directly on the bottom rather than from near-surface and therefore are expected to occupy a very small area near each drill site. 2. Deposit thickness is calculated by dividing the mass concentration within each 50 m square model cell by the volume weighted composite density of 2816 kg/m3. The calculation is valid only if the deposited material is fully consolidated. Thicknesses may be greater if this assumption is not satisfied. 3. The grain size distribution used is based on the Hibernia K-18 well data and may not be representative of the material to be discharged at the specified drill sites. A significant difference in fine sand component, or large changes in the volume or size of the fines may significantly alter the predicted deposition patterns. 4. Mud flocs and fine sand may be subject to sediment transport following initial deposition. There is no direct evidence to suggest whether movement of parent seabed sediments (and by inference the deposited mud/cuttings) takes place or not; however, sediment transport of parent sand and mud/cuttings in the benthic boundary layer is not expected on a regular basis at these relatively great sea bed depths. Infrequent sediment transport, if it were to occur, would not be expected to materially alter the predicted deposition patterns. 5. Currents used in the model simulation provide a reasonably good proxy for expected currents at the Mizzen drill site because of their close proximity to the site. However, it is possible that seasonal and inter-annual variations in currents, especially those resulting from episodic extreme storm events, may result in different deposition patterns than those presented in this report. It is unlikely, however, that these differences would significantly alter any conclusions drawn from the model results.

LGL Ltd. LORAX References References

Bauer, W.F., 1958. The Monte Carlo method. J. Soc Indust. Appl. Math., 6(4), 438-451.

Kranck, K., E. Petticrew, T.G. Milligan and I.G. Droppo, 1992. In situ particle size distributions resulting from flocculation. In: A.J. Mehta, Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive Sediment Transport. Coast. Estuarine Studies Series, 42, AGU, Washington, pp. 60-75.

Kranck, K., P.C. Smith and T.G. Milligan, 1996. Grain-size characteristics of fine-grained unflocculated sediments I: ‘One-round’ distributions. Sedimentology, 43:1-8.

Milligan, T.G., 1995. An examination of the settling behaviour of a flocculated suspension. Neth. J. of Sea Res., 33(2): 163-171.

Sleath, J.F.A., 1984. Sea Bed Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

T. Milligan & K. Muschenheim, Bedford Institute of Oceanography and P. Hill, Dalhousie University, pers comm., 1996

R-1 Appendix 4

Hypothetical Spill Trajectory Probabilities from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen Drilling Program Hypothetical Spill Trajectory Probabilities from the StatoilHydro 2008 Mizzen Drilling Program

for

StatoilHydro Canada E&P

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. Ottawa, ON

January 2008 Figure 1. January Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 2. February Trajectory Probabilities

1 Figure 3. March Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 4. April Trajectory Probabilities

2 Figure 5. May Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 6. June Trajectory Probabilities

3 Figure 7. July Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 8. August Trajectory Probabilities

4 Figure 9. September Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 10. October Trajectory Probabilities

5 Figure 11. November Trajectory Probabilities

Figure 12. December Trajectory Probabilities