DET NORSKE VERITASTM
Report
VISUAL MAPPING IN THE BARENTS SEA 2012
STATOIL PETROLEUM AS TOTAL AS GDF SUEZ AS LUNDIN AS
REPORT NO./DNV REG NO.: 2013-0022 / 14MSJXA-17 REV 01, 2013-02-28
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Table of Contents Page
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Equipment and methodology ...... 2 1.3 Conclusions ...... 3
2 NORWEGIAN SUMMARY ...... 4 2.1 Innledning ...... 4 2.2 Utstyr og metodikk ...... 5 2.3 Konklusjoner ...... 6
3 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 3.1 Background ...... 7 3.2 Purpose ...... 9
4 MATERIAL AND METHODS ...... 10 4.1 Survey program ...... 10 4.2 Equipment ...... 12 4.2.1 Ship and ROV ...... 12 4.2.2 Positioning ...... 12 4.3 Sampling strategy ...... 12 4.4 Data collection ...... 14 4.4.1 Data logging system ...... 14 4.4.2 Substrate and fauna registrations ...... 14
5 RESULTS ...... 17 5.1 Apollo Main (Statoil) ...... 17 5.1.1 General description ...... 17 5.1.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 18 5.1.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 18 5.1.4 Conclusion ...... 19 5.2 Apollo Appraisal (Statoil) ...... 19 5.2.1 General description ...... 19 5.2.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 20 5.2.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 20 5.2.4 Conclusion ...... 21 5.3 Atlantis B (Statoil) ...... 21 5.3.1 General description ...... 21 5.3.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 22 5.3.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 22 5.3.4 Conclusion ...... 23 5.4 Norvarg (Total) ...... 23 5.4.1 General description ...... 23 5.4.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 24
DNV Report No: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page ii of iv
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.4.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 24 5.4.4 Conclusion ...... 24 5.5 Askepott (Statoil) ...... 25 5.5.1 General description ...... 25 5.5.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 26 5.5.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 26 5.5.4 Conclusion ...... 27 5.6 Drivis (Statoil) ...... 28 5.6.1 General description ...... 28 5.6.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 28 5.6.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 29 5.6.4 Conclusion ...... 30 5.7 Kramsnø (Statoil) ...... 30 5.7.1 General description ...... 30 5.7.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 31 5.7.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 32 5.7.4 Conclusion ...... 32 5.8 Iskrystall (Statoil) ...... 33 5.8.1 General description ...... 33 5.8.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 33 5.8.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 34 5.8.4 Conclusion ...... 34 5.9 Byrkje Central (GDF Suez) ...... 35 5.9.1 General description ...... 35 5.9.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 35 5.9.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 36 5.9.4 Conclusion ...... 36 5.10 Byrkje West (GDF Suez) ...... 37 5.10.1 General description ...... 37 5.10.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 37 5.10.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 38 5.10.4 Conclusion ...... 39 5.11 Gloppen 1 (GDF Suez) ...... 39 5.11.1 General description ...... 39 5.11.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 40 5.11.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 41 5.11.4 Conclusion ...... 42 5.12 Gloppen 2 (GDF Suez) ...... 42 5.12.1 General description ...... 42 5.12.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 43 5.12.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 44 5.12.4 Conclusion ...... 45 5.13 Skalle Nord (Lundin) ...... 45 5.13.1 General description ...... 45 5.13.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 46 5.13.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 47 5.13.4 Conclusion ...... 48
DNV Report No: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page iii of iv
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.14 Lavvo / Komag (Lundin) ...... 48 5.14.1 General description ...... 48 5.14.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 49 5.14.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 50 5.14.4 Conclusion ...... 51 5.15 Noaiden (Lundin) ...... 51 5.15.1 General description ...... 51 5.15.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 52 5.15.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 53 5.15.4 Conclusion ...... 54 5.16 Rein (Lundin) ...... 54 5.16.1 General description ...... 54 5.16.2 Sediment characteristics ...... 55 5.16.3 Fauna characteristics ...... 56 5.16.4 Conclusion ...... 57
6 COMPARISON OF FIELDS ...... 58 6.1 Sediment characteristics ...... 58 6.2 Fauna characteristics ...... 59 6.2.1 General description ...... 59 6.2.2 Multivariate similarity analyses ...... 60 6.2.3 Link between faunal community and abiotic environmental factors ...... 64
7 HUMAN IMPACT ...... 65 7.1 Trawling ...... 65 7.2 Human sourced debris and other impacts ...... 67
8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 68
9 REFERENCES ...... 69
APPENDIX 1: Species list APPENDIX 2: Fauna photographs APPENDIX 3: ROV specifications APPENDIX 4: GIS Resource map - DVD APPENDIX 5: Video highlighs from each field - DVD
DNV Report No: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page iv of iv
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction Background Increased focus on corals and potentially vulnerable natural resources has resulted in several visual habitat surveys related to petroleum activities. There are no general requirements to perform a baseline survey prior to any exploration drilling. However, according to the Activity Regulations (Requirements for Environmental Monitoring of the Petroleum Activities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf-regulation 2010-04-29 nr. 613) baseline surveys needs to be performed prior to:
Prior to exploration drilling - Exploration drilling in new areas with unknown nature types - Exploration drilling in areas where vulnerable environmental resources have been identified. - Production drilling
In the management plan for the Barents Sea (Melding til Stortinget no. 10, 2010-2011) vulnerability is defined as the ability of a species or the area where it is living to maintain its natural state related to external, often anthropogenic influences. Habitat-shaping or forming species like corals and sponges are addressed as potentially vulnerable, and some species and habitats are regarded as threatened in Norwegian red lists for species and habitat types. A definition of which species and habitats should be regarded as vulnerable will come from DN (The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management), based on the results from the joint project MAREANO. Visual sea bed surveys using remotely operated and towed observation gear for collection of environmental data comprise a favourable methodology for examining potentially vulnerable sea bed areas in a non-destructive way. To ensure sufficient quality and comparability a standard for visual surveys, NS9435 (2009), has been established. This report presents the results from a survey conducted by DNV in 2012, where 16 fields in the Barents Sea were mapped. The work was done on behalf of Statoil, Total, GDF Suez and Lundin.
Objective The objective of the survey was to identify the presence of potentially vulnerable species, in particular sponges and corals, as well as indicating any other noteworthy findings or characteristics with the survey area. Visual surveys, which comprise subsea video and still photos of the seabed and subsequent habitats, were undertaken to assess and characterise each field. The current assessment is based on the registrations of mega fauna (>1cm) observed on the seabed, with a particular focus on sponges, since corals are not present or only found in low concentrations in the investigated areas.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 1 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 1-1: Locations of fields surveyed in the visual mapping in 2012 and previous surveys. Other surveys refer to Akvaplan NIVA surveys in 2010.
1.2 Equipment and methodology The sea bed conditions were mapped using ROV equipped with high-definition zoom- and wide-angle video cameras as well as a still photo camera. Sonar equipment ensured that significant objects within a radius of 50 m were detected. The sizes of objects on video were estimated by laser. A transponder mounted on the ROV ensured +/- ~5 m accuracy in the depth and positioning of the ROV. Information about the position of planned drilling locations varied among the fields and the mapping pattern had to be planned to each specific field. The total length of the ROV-lines at the various fields varied from 2200 to 5700 meter. Occasional strong currents at locations made it necessary to alter the ROV-lines from the planned program. Detours from the planned ROV-line were also carried out to investigate special objects identified by the sonar. The sea bed conditions and fauna were recorded and photographed at each of the locations. In average one photograph was taken every 20 meter along the ROV-lines.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 2 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
An Excel registration form (video log) was utilised for each ROV-dive. The position of the ROV, video log registrations and freeze-frame camera were synchronised in order to ensure correct coordinates for each registration/photo. The division into substrate categories followed the guidelines for “Mapping/Trend monitoring” in NS9435 (Norsk Standard, 2009), with the exception that the substrate categories mud and sand are grouped together. The video registrations of sponges were categorised into two main groups; “soft bottom sponges” and “hard bottom sponges”. In addition to species registration by review of the video material, the species lists are mainly based on identification from the freeze-frame photos. The estimation of amount of each species and for the main categories of sponges is divided into 4 categories; “single species/rare”, “scattered”, “common” and “high density”. Species identification and estimation of amount from the various fields are calibrated for comparison purposes. Each field is given an overall sponge density rank, categorised as “High”, “Moderate”, and “Low”.
1.3 Conclusions Table 1-1: Summary of main results from fields surveyed summer 2012 in the Barents Sea. Field Depth Substrate Species Abundance of Sponge Trawl (m) richness individuals density marks/100m Apollo Main 454 Mud/sand Poor Low Low 0.00 Apollo Mud/sand Poor Low Low 453 Appraisal 0.08 Atlantis B 453 Mud/sand Poor Low Low 0.03 Norvarg 390 Mud/sand Moderate Low Low 0.00 Askepott Mud/sand with Moderate High Moderate 285 gravel, pebbles and boulders 1.32 Drivis Mud/sand with some Poor Low Low 350 gravel pebbles and boulders 0.26 Kramsnø Mud/sand with few Poor Low Low 405 pebbles and boulders 0.06 Iskrystall Mud/sand with Poor Low Low 346 gravel, pebbles and few boulders 0.03 Byrkje Mud/sand Poor Low Low 388 Central 0.07 Byrkje West Mud/sand with Poor Low Moderate 384 pebbles 0.06 Gloppen 2 351 Mud/sand Moderate Low Moderate 0.28 Gloppen 1 348 Mud/sand with gravel Poor Low Moderate 0.09 Skalle Nord Mud/sand with Moderate Moderate High 321 pebbles and some gravel 0.41 Lavvo/Komag 295 Mud/sand with Poor Moderate Moderate pebbles and gravel 1.18 Noaiden 329 Mud/sand Poor Low Moderate 1.42 Rein 341 Mud/sand Poor Low Moderate 1.44
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 3 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
2 NORWEGIAN SUMMARY
2.1 Innledning
Økt fokus på koraller og svamp (potensielt sårbare naturressurser) har ført til gjennomføring av flere visuelle undersøkelser i forbindelse med petroleumsvirksomhet. Det er ikke krav om grunnlagsundersøkelse for letebrønner, men iht. Aktivitetsforskriften skal det gjennomføres grunnlagsundersøkelse før leteboring i nye områder med ukjente naturtyper eller hvor det er påvist særlig sårbare miljøressurser i tilknytning til sedimentene. I forvaltningsplanen for Barentshavet (Stortingsmelding 10, 2010-2011) er sårbarhet definert som en arts eller et leveområdes evne til å opprettholde sin naturtilstand i forhold til ytre, ofte menneskeskapt påvirkning. Arter som eksplisitt er nevnt som potensielt sårbare i Barentshavet er habitatdannende arter som koraller og svamper. En del av disse er også i den senere tid blitt oppført i norske lister over truede arter og habitater (Norsk rødliste). DN (Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning) vil, basert på data fra samarbeidsprosjektet MAREANO, komme med endelige definisjoner på hvilke arter og habitater som skal regnes som sårbare. Visuelle undersøkelser med ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), senkekamera eller tauet video- plattform er gunstige metodiske alternativer for å undersøke potensielt sårbare havbunnsområder på en måte som ikke skader de aktuelle organismene (objektet). En standard for visuelle undersøkelser er etablert - NS9435 (Norsk Standard, 2009) - for å sikre god kvalitet og at undersøkelser gjennomføres på sammenlignbare måte.
Hensikt Hensikten med undersøkelsen har vært å påvise eventuelle svamp- og korallforekomster eller andre funn av sårbare faunagrupper i området. Arbeidet omfattet visuell undersøkelse (undervannsbilder og film) av bunnforhold og naturtyper for å vurdere og karakterisere området. Vurderingene baserer seg på registreringer av megafauna (organismer på havbunnen >1 cm). Undersøkelsen har hatt spesielt fokus på koraller og svamper, men registreringer av andre arter og miljøvariabler som sedimenttype, heterogenitet samt menneskelig påvirkning ble også utført.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 4 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figur 1-1 Kart som viser posisjoner til felt kartlagt visuelt i 2012, samt tidligere undersøkelser i Barentshavet.
2.2 Utstyr og metodikk Bunnforholdene ble kartlagt ved hjelp av en ROV utstyrt med zoom- og vidvinkelkamera samt stillbildekamera. Det ble i tillegg benyttet sonar som sikret identifikasjon av større objekter innenfor en radius på 50 m i flygeretning samt laser for beregning av objekters størrelse. Bruk av transponder sikret +/- ~5m nøyaktighet i posisjons- og dybderegistrering av ROV’en. Informasjon om plassering av planlagte borelokaliteter varierte for de ulike feltene og kartleggings- mønsteret måtte planlegges ut i fra dette. Totallengde på ROV-linjene på de ulike feltene varierte fra 2200 til 5700 meter. Det var tidvis sterk strøm på alle lokasjonene, ved flere anledninger måtte derfor transekter/kjørelinjer endres i forhold til opprinnelig program. Spesielle funn på sonaren ble undersøkt og eventuelle avstikkere fra planlagt linje gjennomført. På hver av lokasjonene ble fauna og bunnforhold filmet og fotografert. Det ble i snitt tatt ett bilde per 20 meter kjørelinje. Det ble benyttet et elektronisk registreringsskjema (videologg) for hvert ROV-dykk. ROV’ens posisjon, hendelser i videologgen og stillbildekamera ble synkronisert og koordinatfestet. Substrat-
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 5 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
inndelingen i videologgen fulgte kategorien for ”Kartlegging/Trend” i NS9435 (Norsk Standard, 2009) bortsett fra mudder og sand som er gruppert sammen. Videoregistreringene av svamp ble kategorisert i to grupper; ”bløtbunnssvamp” og ”hardbunnssvamp”. Foruten artsregistrering ved videogjennomgang, er artslistene i hovedsak basert på artsidentfisering fra stillbilder. Mengdeangivelse for hver art og for hovedinndelingen av svamp er delt inn i 4 kategoriene; ”enkeltindivid/sjelden”, ”spredt forekomst”, ”vanlig forekomst” og ”høy tetthet”. En felles kalibrering av artsindentifiseringer og mengdeangivelse er gjennomført for alle undersøkelsene som inngår i analysene.
2.3 Konklusjoner Tabel 1-1: Oppsummering av de viktigste resultatene fra feltene som ble undersøkt sommeren 2012. Felt Dyp Substrat Artsrikhet Antall Tetthet av Trålmerker / (m) individer svamp 100m Apollo Main 454 Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Lav 0.00 Apollo Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Lav 453 Appraisal 0.08 Atlantis B 453 Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Lav 0.03 Norvarg 390 Mudder/sand Moderat Lav Lav 0.00 Askepott Mudder/sand med grus, Moderat Høy Moderat 285 stein og blokker 1.32 Drivis Mudder/sand med stein Fattig Lav Lav 350 og noe grus, blokker 0.26 Kramsnø Mudder/sand med stein Fattig Lav Lav 405 og noe blokker 0.06 Iskrystall Mudder/sand med stein Fattig Lav Lav 346 og noe grus, blokker 0.03 Byrkje Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Lav 388 Central 0.07 Byrkje West 384 Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Moderat 0.06 Gloppen 2 351 Mudder/sand Moderat Lav Moderat 0.28 Gloppen 1 348 Mudder/sand med grus Fattig Lav Moderat 0.09 Skalle Nord Mudder/sand med stein Moderat Moderat Høy 321 og grus 0.41 Lavvo/Komag 295 Mudder/sand med stein Fattig Moderat Moderat og grus 1.18 Noaiden 329 Mudder/sand med stein Fattig Lav Moderat 1.42 Rein 341 Mudder/sand Fattig Lav Moderat 1.44
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 6 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
3 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Background In the later years there has been an increased focus on corals and seabed sponge assemblages and their vulnerability to human impact such as drilling operations or trawling. Sponges are known to be common I n the Barents sea while corals are generally uncommon. OSPAR (2010) has defined “Deepsea sponge aggregations” as a seabed community type that should be regarded as sensitive.
In the Barents Sea in particular, there are sponge aggregations that potentially can be regarded as sensitive habitats, when densities of sponges are high enough. Densities of 0.5-1 per m 2 of sponges in the class demopongiae can be regarded to fall inn under the OSPAR habitat “Deepsea sponge aggregations” (OSPAR 2010). These numbers are equal to maximum densities encountered in sponge bed habitats in the Barents Sea. Figure 3-1 shows a typical high density sponge bed habitat from the Barents Sea.
Figure 3-1: Typical high density sponge bed habitat in the Barents Sea. Picture taken relatively close to the seabed. Note that the brown nodules also are sponges.
Within Norwegian waters there are 260 species of sponges, with the class Demospongia accounting for most of the species present. The water depths that sponges are usually found in are between 250 and 1300m (Bett and Rice, 1992).
Sponges occur on both hard substrata such as boulders and cobble or on soft substrate. Higher densities are usually found in higher aggregates on hard bottom substrata. Sponges are often found in iceberg plough-mark zones because stable boulders and cobbles provide attachment for sponges.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 7 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Deep sea sponge aggregations are on the Sponges - Porifera OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining Sponges are benthic and filter-feeding animals that mainly live in the marine environment. In Norwegian waters have been recorded species and habitats (OSPAR Agreement more than 260 species. Sponges live from the tidal zone to the 2008 – 7). Deep sea sponge aggregates greatest depths, and found in all types of substrate, but the majority primarily are composed of the classes and the largest is more common on hard bottom than on the soft bottom. The class Demospongia is the largest group in terms of Hexactinellida and Demospongia (OSPAR both number of species and size. Larger sponges acts as protection 2008). There are 33 sponge species that are and nursery areas for other species. There are, for example registered over 16 000 different species of fish, crustaceans, etc. in classified on the Norwegian Red list (Kolås connection with a single specimen of sponge - notably in tropical et. al., 2010), and all but one species are areas. Sponges have a great ability to filter water, and some species classified as Data Deficient (DD). Twenty can filter 20,000 times its own volume in the course of a day. Up to 90 % of the bacteria in the water is filtered and taken up as food. of the species on the Red list belong to Bacteria are also an important ingredient in the sponge. Demospongia, with 19 classified as (DD) and one as Near Threatened (NT) Salinity, temperature, depth, current exposure and the type of bottom is crucial to how the various species live. In deep water, and (Norwegian Red list 2010). moderately current exposed sites sponges as Geodia, Isops, Mycale and Phakellia are often encountered. Less exposed areas can also be Deep sea corals have similar habitat dominated by sponges, but typically have patchy distributions of preferences as deep sea sponge individuals. When the sponges die the organic material break down aggregations, and both corals and sponges the remaining silicate spicules form mounds on the seabed and can make habitats by providing shelter and eventually form thick layers of sediments. substrate for other fauna groups. The stony Identification of sponges to species level can be difficult based on coral Lophelia pertusa as well as some external traits. Because of the highly various shapes one often rely Gorgonian corals ( Paragorgia arborea ) are on microscope preparation of spicules in order to ensure proper listed as threatened according to identification. The material and shape of the spicules forms the Norwegian Red List for threatened species basis for classification of sponges. In principle, the design of the sponge morphology is divided into three types based on water (Kolås et. al, 2010). channel system complexity. Cells with flagella located along the channels whips water through the pores, water channels and The joint project MAREANO has surveyed cavities before the water flows into a larger opening. Sponge skeleton consists of spicules and / or a protein called spongin, and the bottom topography, substrate and fauna is essential for systematics. Spicules consist of either calcium occurrence in parts of the Barents Sea. carbonate or silicate. Based on the results from the MAREANO survey, and studies carried out by University of Oslo and the Ministry of the Environment, DN (The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management), will bring forward a clear definition of which Examples of sponge spicules as seen under a microscope. species and habitats that should be treated as vulnerable.. A research program initiated by the Norwegian Deep Water program (NDP) aims on examining selected sponge species' ability to withstand increased inputs of sediment particles (SPONGEGRAM, UiB).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 8 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Benthic communities with sponges and corals cannot be adequately identified or monitored with the methods used in traditional sediment monitoring (grab sampling by grab or corer). Trawling and benthic sleds are also not suitable monitoring methods, as this might lead to destruction of vulnerable habitats. Visual surveys using an ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), drop camera, or towed video platform is favorable methodological options for investigating potentially vulnerable areas of the seabed in a manner that does not damage the object. A standard for visual examination has been developed (NS-9435, Norsk Standard, 2009) to ensure quality of work and to allow for repeatability so that comparable studies can be implemented. One of the challenges of research and analysis of visual monitoring of benthic communities is to identify the individual species' tolerance to impacts in relation to seasonal variation, distribution patterns, age/life stage, behavioral and biological properties, and then draw conclusions in a larger context. Comparisons of data from side scan sonar, multibeam sonar, catch statistics (catch data) from trawling activity, and comparison of research results and surveys conducted in the region, are important elements in this context. On behalf of Statoil, Total, GDF Suez and Lundin, DNV in summer 2012 conducted visual surveys of several locations in the Barents Sea. This report presents the results of these surveys.
3.2 Purpose The purpose of this study was to detect the presence of sponge and coral habitats, or any other significant observations in the area. The work included visual examination (underwater photography and video) of the seabed and habitats in order to assess and characterize the area. Assessments of diversity and abundances were made based on the records of the observed mega fauna (organisms on the seabed > 1 cm). The focus of the survey was towards abundances of sponge and coral species as well as associated biota and benthos.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 9 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
4 MATERIAL AND METHODS
4.1 Survey program The visual monitoring program in the Barents Sea included 16 surveys which were conducted as part of a larger project that also included sediment sampling. The surveys were conducted from the vessel Christina E from 4th June to 2 nd July 2012 using the following personnel: Sam-Arne Nøland (DNV) – Survey leader Øyvind Fjukmoen (DNV) – Shift leader, pilot/observer Lee Hankinson (DNV) – Shift leader, pilot/observer Lars Ulvestad (DNV) – pilot/observer Tone Nøklegaard (DNV) – pilot/observer Odd Strandvoll (MOLAB)
Thomas Trulsen (MOLAB) Martin Ludvigsen (Sperre AS) Eivind Jacobsen (Fugro surveyer) Endre Aas (Statoil) - Client's representative from 11 th to 18 th June Lars Petter Myhre (Statoil) - Client's representative from 18 th to 28 th June. Further details on the survey are provided in the survey report (DNV 2012-1152)
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 10 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Table 4-1: Locations and details of survey fields studied in the Barents Sea 2012. Start Stop Transect # Av. distance dep (km) Field Operator Licence Position* Time Date Time Date th (m) 1 423954 E, Apollo Main Statoil PL615 454 0737 12.06.12 1356 12.06.12 8198394 N 3.8 2 Apollo 428646 E, Statoil PL615 453 0836 13.06.12 1414 13.06.12 Appraisal 8197084 N 3.9 3 444174 E, Atlantis B Statoil 453 1104 14.06.12 2004 14.06.12 8208862 N 3.7 4 466397 E, Norvarg Total 390 0836 16.06.12 1331 16.06.12 8095573 N 3.8 5 492596 E, Askepott Statoil PL 448 285 1426 17.06.12 2007 17.06.12 7920088 N 4.4 6 470577 E, Drivis Statoil PL532 350 1204 19.06.12 1535 19.06.12 8034062 N 2.3 7 474446 E, Kramsnø Statoil 405 1042 20.06.12 1558 20.06.12 8054992 N 3.5 8 427769 E, Iskrystall Statoil PL608 346 1028 21.06.12 1523 21.06.12 8025573 N 3.4 9 419108 E, Byrkje Central GDF Suez PL 607 388 1014 22.06.12 1559 22.06.12 8029164 N 4.4 10 414570 E, Byrkje West GDF Suez PL 607 384 1322 23.06.12 2059 23.06.12 8028147 N 3.3 11 427769 E, Gloppen 2 GDF Suez PL 607 351 1412 24.06.12 2300 24.06.12 8022158 N 5.3 12 427718 E, Gloppen 1 GDF Suez PL 607 348 0927 25.06.12 1717 25.06.12 8020709 N 5.7 13 Skalle Nord 478791 E, Lundin PL438 321 1135 26.06.12 1727 26.06.12 7967332 N 4.1 14 Lavvo/Komag 472904 E, Lundin PL438 295 1111 27.06.12 1600 27.06.12 7966593 N 5.5 15 Noaiden 485875 E, Lundin PL438 329 1330 29.06.12 1938 29.06.12 7967609 N 5 16 Rein 487651 E, Lundin PL438 341 1052 30.06.12 1702 30.06.12 7971436 N 5.2 Total 67.3 * (ED50 UTM34)
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 11 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
4.2 Equipment
4.2.1 Ship and ROV The sea floor was surveyed using observation class ROV; SPERRE SUB-fighter 7500 ( which was equipped with one high-definition video camera and two conventional resolution video cameras (zoom and wide-angle camera). An 8 megapixel still camera with flash was used for still photos (Appendix 3). Simrad 9200 sonar on the ROV ensured identification of large objects within a radius of 50 m in the flight direction. In addition, two lasers with a spacing of 10 cm were used for calculating object's sizes. Other descriptions and specifications of the ROV are provided in the cruise report (DNV, 2012) and Figure 4-1: ROV type utilised during Appendix 3. 2012 visual survey visual mapping survey.
4.2.2 Positioning A transponder (Kongsberg MST319) that communicated with the boat HiPAP 500 transducer system was mounted on the ROV. Offset of data between HiPAP 500 and GPS were measured and included in the navigation application. With this system +/- ~ 5m accuracy in position and depth recording of ROV was obtained.
4.3 Sampling strategy Information about the location of the planned drill sites varied for the different fields and mapping pattern was planned on the basis of this. Total length of ROV lines in the various fields ranged from 2.3 to 5.7 km. It was at times strong currents (> 1 knots) at many of the locations. ROV operation and positioning of Christina E had to be carefully planned and coordinated. The water movement over the seabed sometimes went opposite to the flow on the surface, which complicated the positioning of the vessel to control the ROV communications cable clear of the ship's bow thrusters. On several occasions the transects / run lines had to be changed from the original program after the launch of the ROV and assessment of current conditions. Survey pattern of ROV on the locations is shown for each field in the result chapter. Sonar data out to approx. 50 m radius from the ROV was recorded continuously during operation. Detours from the planned ROV-line were carried out to investigate special objects identified by the sonar. On each of the locations fauna and seabed conditions were filmed and photographed. Still images were taken regularly and usually with maximum 3-minute intervals. In addition, special observations were photographed. In total, 2780 digital images of the seabed were taken. On average, one image per 24.1 m of the seabed along the survey lines was obtained. The purpose of taking so many pictures was to form a good basis for species identification and analysis, while the video material gives a good overview of the relative amounts of different species. A Norwegian standard for visual seabed surveys has been developed (NS 9435:2009). The standard gives valuable general guidelines for quality assurance, nomenclature to be used and technical
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 12 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
requirements. DNV has for large parts adhered to these recommendations during the 2012 survey. Suggested requirements and methods for estimations of organisms are however not particularly adapted to estimating seabed sponge associations.
DNV uses ROV for visual mapping and recommend this over using drop camera. Conventional drop cameras usually have a smaller field of view compared to a ROV camera; this can make it difficult to estimate abundances accurately.
Drop cameras usually have a field of view pointing straight down on the seabed, while ROV’s angle of the field of view usually is directed forward, along the seabed ( Figure 4-2). Advantages with downward looking field of views are that sizes are the same all over the viewing frame.
Drop cameras usually have up and down movement due to waves. ROV’s generally yield more stable video footage, and are very maneuverable. With drop cameras there is only limited control over the movement of the camera.
Video footage can be regarded as still photos with a long dimension, as long as the observer is calculating or estimating exactly what is in each viewing frame (registering what is filmed when ROV moves over the area covered by the bottom of the screen to what was visible in top of screen). Still photos can also be obtained from video by freezing the video frame.
Still camera footage usually has high resolution while video camera footage has lower resolution and can appear grainy. In general, hi-resolution still pictures provide a good basis for species identifications and calibration of abundance estimates, while video footage is more suitable for rapidly estimating densities and cover over larger areas. Figure 4-2: Barents Sea Sponge bed habitat and typical field of view when Too high survey speed might lead to grainy or blurred photo using ROV or drop camera. and video material. This might lead to underestimation of sponge species that are hard to detect. A maximum survey speed of 0.5-1 knot is generally recommended (NS 9435:2009).
Personell experience and mindset can greatly affect density estimations at given points along the survey line. It is important that all personnel involved have undergone training in discriminating coverage of sponges on the seabed.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 13 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
4.4 Data collection
4.4.1 Data logging system An electronic registration form (video log) was used for each ROV dive. The log included date, time, type of seabed substratum, mega-fauna, and any special observations (e.g. garbage, fish. In parallel, ROV position was recorded every second in a navigation log. By merging these two logs all registrations from the video material was given a coordinate to be used in mapping. Still camera was synchronized at identical time with navigation logs so that all photos were geo referenced.
4.4.2 Substrate and fauna registrations A modified Udden Wenthworth scale (according to NS9435) was used in the continuous categorization of the substrate along the seabed (Table 4-1). Grain sizes less than 0.5 cm can be difficult to categorize from video. Substrate categorization in the survey followed categories according to "Mapping/Trend" in Table 4-1, - apart from mud and sand being grouped together in one category. In the areas consisting of various substrates the coarsest fraction was recorded, and assessments of proportion from each category were not carried out. All mega fauna species and habitat types encountered during the surveys were registered. In addition to species registration by review of the video material, the species lists are based on identification from still photos. Relative abundance of each species was given in following semi quantitative categories: “solitary/rare”, “scattered”, “common” and “high density”. A species list of all registrations is given in Appendix 1. In instances where fauna could not be identified to species, identifications were made to higher taxonomical levels, or “video species” were introduced in instances where the same type of unidentified fauna was encountered over several fields. The video registrations of sponges were categorised into two groups; “soft bottom sponge” and “hard bottom sponge” (see Figure 4-3). Species identification and estimation of amount from the various fields are inter calibrated and reflect relative amounts when comparing all fields in the Barents Sea. The methods used in 2012 were similar to those used earlier by DNV, and inter calibration between fields was supervised by personnel who undertook the earlier surveys. DNV uses following semi quantitative scale when logging sponges: “No sponges”, “single individuals”,“scattered”, “common” and” high”. Sponge individuals were logged as single when there were about 10 m or more between individuals (i.e. a couple of viewing frames in video between individuals). For illustrative purposes single individuals and no sponges are shown as a combined group in this report, so that seabed sponge cover classification in maps and figures are represented by four semi quantitative groups. Softbottom sponge classifications used by DNV are given in Figure 4-4. Approximate % cover is given. Although use of such semi quantitative categories can be subject to subjectivity that might impose bias in the sampled data, - DNV believes that the use of a four part classifications scheme is robust enough to give high enough accuracy when doing online sponge cover estimates. Graphs showing relative cover of sponges in each field reflect relative amount of survey line categorised in any of the semi quantitative cover classes. Basis for this is given by the videologg and nav log combined, with running categories logged every second (~20cm) of the survey line.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 14 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Table 4-1: Sediment characterization according to the Udden-Wenthenworth scale, and categories utilized during the 2012 visual survey (ref. NS9435). Udden-Wenthworth scale Type of survey and main category Grain size Bottom substrate Screening Mapping/trend 0,6 µm – 3,9 µm Clay Mud 3,9 µm – 63 µm Silt Mud/sand 0,063 mm – 2 mm Sand Sand 2 mm – 4 mm Granules 4 mm – 64 mm Gravel Gravel 6,4 cm – 25,6 cm Pebbles Boulder Pebbles 25,6 cm – 410 cm Boulder Boulder > 4 m Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock
Soft bottom sponges Hard bottom sponges Figure 4-3: Categorizing of main groups of sponges.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 15 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
No sponge/ single specimen (<~1% coverage)
0% 0.4% Scattered (~1- 5% coverage)
1.3% 4.8% Common (~5-10% coverage)
5.7% 7.4% High >~10% coverage
10% 18% Figure 4-4: Density categories of soft bottom sponges.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 16 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5 RESULTS This chapter presents the results from each of the 16 fields examined in the summer of 2012. Appendix 1 contains species lists, and in Appendix 2 are photographs of the various species identified during the surveys. In addition, two DVDs containing the transect line maps with links to still photos are also included (Appendix 5) as well as a summary video from all of the surveyed fields (Appendix 4). Raw data (video, still photographs and logs with corresponding coordinates and time) from the different fields are submitted to respective clients on hard drive, and are stored in DNV’s archives. This will form the basis for any possible future trend monitoring by use of visual methods.
5.1 Apollo Main (Statoil)
5.1.1 General description Apollo (PL 615) is centred on the coordinates 423954 E, 7428938 N (ED50 UTM 35). The depth range found at Apollo main was 451 m to 460 m. The transect lines covered a distance of 3800 meters in length. In total, it took 6.5 hours to complete visual mapping of the field, with subsequent collection of 230 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. Survey pattern is shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Apollo Main. Species of interest observed include Asteroidea spp (top left) and Colus spp (top right).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 17 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.1.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Apollo main was found to be relatively flat, with an average of 454 m depth. The sediments surveyed at Apollo Main consisted almost exclusively of mud/sand with only 2 additional recordings of boulders. Figure 5-2 identifies the sediment and biological registrations from the visual survey. No trawl marks were recorded from the field.
Figure 5-2: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Apollo Main.
5.1.3 Fauna characteristics Apollo Main is regarded as a species poor habitat. During the visual survey 25 taxa of benthic mega- fauna were identified. Density of individuals was low for most species. There were no recordings of any habitat comprising “high densities” or “common” occurrences of soft bottom sponges. “Scattered” sponge distribution only accounted for 1.56% of the area, the remainder was recorded as having no sponges present. The most predominant sponge was Petrosia crassa . There were no recordings of corals or protected species during the visual survey.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 18 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.1.4 Conclusion There were no recorded soft or hard coral species or other red-list species identified at Apollo Main. The habitat is considered species poor and the vast majority of the surveyed area contained no presence of sponge species (98.4%). The species with the highest registered densities was Petrosia crassa . Apollo Main, along with the adjacent Apollo Appraisal field contains very low sponge densities, and benthic mega fauna in general.
5.2 Apollo Appraisal (Statoil)
5.2.1 General description The drilling location for Apollo Appraisal (PL 615) is located at 428646 E, 8197084 N (ED50 UTM 35). Apollo Appraisal is a relatively flat, deep field with a seabed ranging in depth from 450 to 457 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 3900 m in length. The time spent on the visual survey at Apollo Appraisal was approximately 8.5 hours. A total of 176 photos were recorded for habitat analysis. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-3: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Apollo Appraisal. Species of interest in the field include the most abundant softbottom sponge in the field,
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 19 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Petrosia crassa, as well as the cephalopod species, Eldone cirrhosa.
5.2.2 Sediment characteristics The topography at Apollo Appraisal is described as flat and has an average depth of 453 m. The sediment characterisation at Apollo Appraisal resulted in almost exclusive “mud/sand” logging (99.98%). There were no recordings of “pebbles” as well as only 3 individual recordings of “boulders”. There was only one recorded trawl mark in the vicinity of Apollo appraisal (0.08 trawl marks per 100 meter). Figure 5-4 identifies the sediments and fauna encountered during the visual survey.
Figure 5-4: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Apollo Appraisal.
5.2.3 Fauna characteristics Apollo Appraisal is regarded as a species poor habitat. During the visual survey 16 taxa of benthic mega-fauna were identified. This was the lowest number of taxa identified for a single field during the survey. Density of individuals was low for most species. There were no recordings of any habitat comprising “high densities” or “common” occurrences of soft bottom sponges. “Scattered” sponge
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 20 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
distribution only accounted for 2.95% of the area, the remainder was recorded as having only “single” or no sponges present. The most abundant sponge was Petrosia crassa .
5.2.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard coral species recorded at Apollo Appraisal. Additionally, there were no red-list species identified within the field. The habitat is considered species poor and the vast majority of the surveyed area contained no presence of sponge species (97.05%). The species with the highest registered densities was Petrosia crassa . Apollo appraisal contains very low sponge densities and registered the lowest number of recorded benthic mega fauna.
5.3 Atlantis B (Statoil)
5.3.1 General description Atlantis B is located at 444174 E, 8208862 N (ED50 UTM 35). Atlantis B is a flat, deep field with a seabed ranging in depth from 449 to 458 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 3700 m in length. The time spent on the visual survey at Atlantis B was approximately 6.5 hours. A total of 195 photos were recorded for habitat analysis. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-5: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Atlantis
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 21 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
B. Photos show softbottom sponge, Mycale lingua as well as a sea spider (Pycnogonida spp.).
5.3.2 Sediment characteristics Atlantis B is regarded as a deep and relatively flat field. Atlantis B has an average depth of 453 m. The sediment composition found at Atlantis B consisted almost entirely of “mud/sand” (99.9%). There was no recordings of “pebbles” present in the field and only 2 individual recordings of “boulders” (0.01%). Furthermore, there was only one recorded trawl mark during the survey (0.03 per 100 meter). Figure 5- 6 shows the sediment and biology registrations from the visual survey at Atlantis B.
Figure 5-6: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Atlantis B.
5.3.3 Fauna characteristics Atlantis B is regarded as a species poor habitat with low abundances. There were 19 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded from the visual survey and still photos. There were no recordings of any habitat comprising “high densities” or “common” occurrences of soft bottom sponges in the area. “Scattered” soft bottom sponge distribution accounted for 1.06% of the area, the remainder was recorded as having no soft bottom sponges present. There was no hard bottom sponges recorded in the field. There were no recordings of corals or protected species during the visual monitoring.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 22 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.3.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals or red-list species at Atlantis B. Low densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with only 1.06% of the benthic habitat containing scattered densities of soft bottom sponge habitat. The species with the highest registered densities were the sponges Petrosia crassa and Mycale lingua . The species richness is poor and the abundance of individuals is low at Atlantis B. This is similar to the closest surrounding fields surveyed in the Barents Sea.
5.4 Norvarg (Total)
5.4.1 General description Norvarg is centred on the coordinates 466397 E, 8095573 N (ED50 UTM 3X). The depth range found at Norvarg was 387 m to 391 m. The transect lines covered a distance of 3800 meters in length. In total, the survey field took 6.5 hours to complete visual mapping, with subsequent collection of 131 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. Survey pattern is shown in Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-7: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Norvarg. Photos identify a sea spider (Pycnogonida spp.) as well as some plastic rubbish.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 23 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.4.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed topography at Norvarg was flat and the average depth in the area was 390 m deep. Some scour marks and depressions in the seabed were observed. The composition of the benthic sediments was found to be very homogenous. Mud/sand comprised of 99.9% of the benthic composition. Very few boulders were observed scattered on the sea bed. Figure 5-8 identifies the sediments and sponges encountered during the visual survey. Trawl marks were not observed during the survey at Norvarg.
Figure 5-8: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Norvarg.
5.4.3 Fauna characteristics Norvarg is regarded as a relatively species moderate habitat with 32 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded. The seabed at Norvarg had low densities of soft bottom sponges. Sponge cover category “Single” constituted 1.8% of the benthic habitat and hard bottom sponges were recorded over only 2.4% of the visual transect. There were no recordings of corals or red-listed species during the visual monitoring. The shrimp species Pandalus spp. was the most abundant mobile macro-fauna.
5.4.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard coral species recorded at Norvarg. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified. The habitat is considered species poor and the vast majority of the surveyed
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 24 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
area contained no presence of sponge species (95%). The species with the highest registered densities was deep water shrimps ( Pandalus spp.). The Norvarg field contains very low sponge densities, and benthic mega fauna in general.
5.5 Askepott (Statoil)
5.5.1 General description
The drilling location for Askepott (PL448) is located at 492596 E, 7920088 N (ED50 UTM 34). Askepott is a flat, shallow field with a seabed ranging in depth from 281 to 290 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 4400 m in length. The time spent on the visual survey at Askepott was approximately 7.5 hours. A total of 119 photos were recorded for habitat analysis. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-9.
Figure 5-9: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Askepott. Photos shows a specimen of coral species Primnoa resedaeformis (bottom right), as well as a cluster of hardbottom sponges.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 25 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.5.2 Sediment characteristics
The seabed topography at Askepott was relatively flat and the average depth in the area was 285 m deep. The composition of the benthic sediments was found to be more heterogenous compared to the other fields surveyed in 2012. Mud/sand comprised of 56.1% of the benthic composition, pebbles making up 41.2%. A few boulders were scattered on the sea bed. Figure 5-10 identifies the sediments and fauna encountered during the visual survey. Trawl marks were relatively common in the field with 58 recordings made during the survey. On average 1.32 trawl mark was observed every 100m (Figure 5-10).
Figure 5-10: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Askepott. Photos depict trawl tracks observed within sediments containing pebbles and mud / sand as well as sponges.
5.5.3 Fauna characteristics
Askepott is considered as a habitat with moderate species richness with 34 taxa identified but high abundances. Most species are observed at low to moderate densities. There were very low recordings of high densities of soft bottom sponges recorded in the region (0.49%). ‘Scattered’ and ‘common’ densities of soft bottom sponges were more represented (17.29% and 3.89% respectively). Figure 5-11
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 26 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
shows biology registrations at Askepott. The sponge species present were mainly hard bottom species (40.26%) such as Axinella infundibuliformis and Phakellia sp. which were attached to pebbles and the few boulders within the survey field. There were no recordings of coral species, other than a few specimens of Primnoa resedaeformis during the monitoring of this field. P resedaeformis is not regarded as threatened according to the Norwegian Red List for species (Kolås and Viken 2010). Brittle stars, Amphiura sp. as well as squat lobsters, Munida sp. were classified as common in Askepott survey.
Figure 5-11: Records of sponges found at Askepott. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart.
5.5.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any red-listed soft or hard corals or sponge species at Askepott although the coral species Primnoa resedaeformis was observed. Density of hard bottom sponge species was relatively high in the area with a moderate to low amount of soft bottom sponges. The sponge species present were mainly hard bottom species which were attached to the pebbles and boulders within the survey field. Hard bottom sponge species (40.26%) correlated well with the recordings of boulder and pebble coverage for Askepott (43.86%).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 27 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.6 Drivis (Statoil)
5.6.1 General description The planned drilling location at Drivis (PL537) has the following geographical coordinates: 470577 E, 8034062 N (ED50 UTM 34). Drivis has a depth range of 345 m to 356 m depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 2300 m in length. The monitoring program took 3.5 hours to complete. During the visual monitoring of the area 97 photos were taken of the benthos and fauna for further identification. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-12.
Figure 5-12: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Drivis. Photos depict a crater formed by a grab sample as well as the thornback ray, Raja sp.
5.6.2 Sediment characteristics Drivis is regarded as a deep and flat field. Drivis has an average depth of 350 m. Drivis has a sediment composition mainly of “mud/sand” (88.7%). There were 734 recordings of “pebbles” (7.64%) as well as a further 119 individual recordings of “boulders” present (1.21%). There were 6 recorded trawl marks during monitoring of the Drivis field. The number of observed trawl marks is quite low for the region (0.26 per 100 meter). Figure 5-13 shows the sediment registrations from the visual survey at Drivis.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 28 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-13 : Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Drivis. Photo depicts an area categorised with’pebbles’sediment type.
5.6.3 Fauna characteristics Drivis is regarded as a species poor habitat with 25 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded. The seabed at Drivis had low densities of soft bottom sponges. Sponge cover category “Scattered” constituted 1.4% of the benthic habitat and hard bottom sponges were recorded over 4.19% of the visual transect. Dominating sponge species were Geodia barretti, Asbestopluma pennatula, Axinella infundibuliformis, Phakellia sp. and Polymastia spp. All listed species are classified as low to moderate densities . Hard bottom sponges were found in connection with boulders and were quite common on this field. There were no recordings of corals or red-listed species during the visual monitoring. Shrimps ( Pandalus spp ) and hermit crabs ( Pagurus spp ) were the most abundant mobile macro-fauna. Figure 5-14 shows the distribution of sponges at Drivis.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 29 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-14: Records of sponges and biology found at Drivis. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Photo shows Hormathia sp.
5.6.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard coral species recorded at Drivis. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified at the field. The habitat is considered species poor and the vast majority of the surveyed area contained no presence of sponge species (93.88%). The species with the highest registered densities were Geodia barretti, Asbestopluma pennatula, Axinella infundibuliformis, Phakellia sp. and Polymastia spp . Drivis field contains low sponge densities, and benthic mega fauna in general was also low.
5.7 Kramsnø (Statoil)
5.7.1 General description Kramsnø is centred on the coordinates 474446 E, 8054992 N (ED50 UTM 34). The depth range found at Kramsnø was 402 m to 408 m. The transect lines covered a distance of 3500 meters in length. In total, the survey field took 5 hours to complete visual mapping, with subsequent collection of 131 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. Survey pattern is shown in Figure 5-15.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 30 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-15 : Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Kramsnø. Photo top right shows two Actinostola callosa, photo at bottom shows sun star from genus Crossaster.
5.7.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Kramsnø was found to be flat for the area, with an average of 405 m depth. The sediments surveyed at Kramsnø consisted extensively of mud/sand (94.42%) with a further 4.95% registered pebbles as well as 72 recordings of boulders. Figure 5-16 identifies the sediment and sponge registrations from the visual survey. Trawl marks were uncommon within this area with only 2 individual trawls recorded (0.06 trawl marks per 100m).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 31 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-16 : Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Kramsnø. Photo shows the hydroid species Tubularia larynx.
5.7.3 Fauna characteristics Kramsnø is a relatively species poor habitat with 25 mega-faunal benthic taxa identified. Soft bottom sponges were uncommon on the seabed, occurring in scattered to high densities at 2.36% of the seabed surveyed. Hard bottom sponges were recorded in 3.47% of the surveyed area and correlated well with areas logged containing pebbles and boulders. The sponges Asbestopluma pennatula and Petrosia crassa are classified as “common”. There were no recordings of red listed or coral species at Kramsnø.
5.7.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any red-listed soft or hard corals or sponge species at Kramsnø. Density of soft bottom sponge species was low in the area at 2.36%. The few sponge species present were mainly hard bottom species which were attached to the few boulders within the survey field. The species with the highest registered densities were pipe cleaner sponge Asbestopluma pennatula , softbottom sponge Petrosia crassa , deep water shrimp Pandalus spp. and sea stars, Asteroidea sp.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 32 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.8 Iskrystall (Statoil)
5.8.1 General description The centre of Iskrystall (PL608) benthic monitoring survey is located at 452183 E, 8025573 N (ED50 UTM 34). The sea bed at Iskrystall was found to be moderately homogeneous, without large variations in depth (342 m to 349 m). The transect lines of the monitoring survey covered a distance 3400 meters in length. In total, the visual mapping of the field took 6 hours to complete, with subsequent collection of 85 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-17.
Figure 5-17 : Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Iskrystall. Photo shows a large Actinostola callossa.
5.8.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Iskrystall was found to be moderately flat and shallow, with an average of 346 m depth. The sediments surveyed at Iskrystall consisted primarily of mud/sand (79.84%) with gravel (12.75%) also present as well as 17 recordings of boulders (0.57%). Figure 5-18 illustrates the sediment and biology encountered during the visual survey. Trawl marks were not common at Iskrystall with only one individual trawl mark recorded (0.03 trawls/100 m).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 33 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-18 : Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Iskrystall. Photo shows some of the numerous rust-red deposits found along transect lines.
5.8.3 Fauna characteristics Iskrystall is considered as a species poor habitat with presently 17 taxa identified. Most species were observed at low densities. There were no ‘common’ or ‘high densities’ of soft bottom sponges recorded in the region. Geodia baretti was the most registered soft bottom species within the field. The few sponge species present were mainly hardbottom species which were attached to the pebbles and few boulders within the survey field. There were no recordings of coral species during the monitoring of this field.
5.8.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any red-listed soft or hard corals or sponge species at Iskrystall. Density of soft bottom sponge species was very low in the area. The few sponge species present were mainly hard bottom species which were attached to the few boulders and pebbles within the survey field.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 34 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.9 Byrkje Central (GDF Suez)
5.9.1 General description The drilling location for Byrkje Central (PL607) is located at 419100 E, 8029164 N (ED50 UTM 34). Byrkje Central is a flat, moderately deep field with a seabed ranging in depth from 385 to 391 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 4400 m in length. The time spent on the visual survey at Wisting Central was approximately 6 hours. A total of 141 photos were recorded for habitat analysis. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-19.
Figure 5-19 : Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Byrkje Central. Photo at top shows a hardbottom sponge Axinella infundibuliformis, photo at bottom shows the sea star Hippasterias sp. As well as the hardbottom sponge Polymastia spp.
5.9.2 Sediment characteristics The topography at Byrkje Central is described as flat and has an average depth of 384 m. The sediment characterisation at Byrkje Central resulted in almost exclusive “mud/sand” logging (99.69%). There was an additional 50 individual recordings of “boulders” present. There were only three recorded trawl marks in the vicinity of Byrkje Central (0.07 trawl marks per 100 meter), which is considered very low. Figure 5-20 identifies the sediments and sponges encountered during the visual survey.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 35 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-20: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and biological findings registered at Byrkje Central.
5.9.3 Fauna characteristics Byrkje Central is regarded as a species poor habitat. During the visual survey 25 taxa of benthic mega- fauna were identified. Density of individuals was low for most species. There were no recordings of any habitat comprising “high densities” and “common” occurrences of soft bottom sponges only accounted for 0.01% in the field. “Scattered” sponge distribution only accounted for 3.2% of the area with the remainder being recorded as having single or no sponges present. Dominating sponge was the pipe cleaner sponge ( Asbestopluma pennatula ). There were no recordings of corals or protected species during the visual survey.
5.9.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard coral species recorded at Byrkje Central. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified. The habitat is considered species poor and the vast majority of the surveyed area contained no presence of sponge species (96.2%). The species with the highest registered densities was Asbestopluma pennatula . Byrkje Central, unlike the adjacent Byrkje West field contains very low sponge densities, and benthic mega fauna in general.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 36 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
5.10 Byrkje West (GDF Suez)
5.10.1 General description The planned drilling location at Byrkje West (PL607) has the following geographical coordinates: 414583 E, 8028150 N (ED50 UTM 34). Byrkje West has a depth range of 382 m to 387 m depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 3300 m in length. The monitoring program took 7.5 hours to complete. During the visual monitoring of the area 136 photos were taken of the benthos and fauna for further identification. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-21.
Figure 5-21: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Byrkje West. Top photo shows the large soft bottom sponge Geodia macandrevia, bottom photo shows a crater made from a van Veen grab sample.
5.10.2 Sediment characteristics Byrkje West is regarded as a moderately deep and flat field. Byrkje West has an average depth of 384 m. Byrkje West has a sediment composition predominately consisting of “mud/sand” (87.16%). The next highest sediment composition was’ pebbles” (12.7%) and there were also 20 recorded “boulders” present (0.12%). There were only 2 recorded trawl marks during monitoring of Byrkje West. Similarly
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 37 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
to Byrkje Central, the number of observed trawl marks is quite low for the region (0.06 per 100 meter). Figure 5-22 shows the sediment registrations from the visual survey at Byrkje West.
Figure 5-22: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Byrkje West. Photo shows an area containing a mixture of softbottom sponges and ‘Pebbles’
5.10.3 Fauna characteristics No corals or red-listed species were registered at Byrkje West. The field has relatively poor species richness when it comes to benthic macro fauna, with 19 taxa recorded. Abundance of individuals is also low. Byrkje West had large areas of scattered soft bottom sponges (60.56%), and cover of sponge category ‘common’ was also relatively high for the region (13.05%). ‘High density’ sponge classification was also present in low numbers. (Figure 5-23). Dominating sponge species was Geodia barretti . Hard bottom sponges were found in connection with boulders but were very uncommon on this field. Of special findings can be mentioned the carnivorous sponge Chondrocladia gigantea that was recorded at scattered densities on this field. This sponge has only been registered on Norvarg and Atlantis B in surveys conducted by DNV since 2006.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 38 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-23: Records of sponges found at Byrkje West. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows the characteristic carnivorous sponge Chondrocladia gigantea.
5.10.4 Conclusion No soft or hard coral species were recorded at Byrkje West. No red-list species were identified either. The habitat is considered relatively species and abundance poor with most of the seabed containing scattered or no sponge occurences. In comparison to the adjacent field Byrkje Central, Byrkje West contains moderate levels of sponge densities and abundances.
5.11 Gloppen 1 (GDF Suez)
5.11.1 General description The drilling location for Gloppen 1 (PL607) is located at 427705 E, 8020555 N (ED50 UTM 34). Gloppen 1 is a flat, comparatively shallow field with a seabed ranging in depth from 344 to 352 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 5300 m in length. The time spent on the visual survey at Gloppen 1 was approximately 8 hours. A total of
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 39 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
209 photos were recorded for habitat analysis. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-24
Figure 5-24: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Gloppen 1. Image shows softbottom species Phakellia rugosa.
5.11.2 Sediment characteristics The topography at Gloppen 1 is described as flat and has an average depth of 348 m. The sediment characterisation at Gloppen 1 resulted in mainly “mud/sand” logging (95.72%) as well as a further 4.21% classified with gravel present. There were 11 individual recordings of “boulders” accounting for 0.05% of the visual loggings. There were 15 recorded trawl marks in the vicinity of Gloppen 1 (0.28 trawl marks per 100 meter), which is considered moderate for the region. Figure 5-25 identifies the sediments and encountered during the visual survey.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 40 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-25: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Gloppen 1. Image shows one of the large pock marks found during the survey.
5.11.3 Fauna characteristics Gloppen 1 is regarded as a species poor habitat with 25 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded. The seabed at Gloppen 1 had moderate densities of soft bottom sponges. Sponge cover category “high density” constituted 1.6% of the benthic habitat with ‘common’ accounting for a further 13.18%. Geodia spp. and Asbestopluma pennatula were the most common soft bottom sponges. Figure 5-26 shows the distribution of sponges at Gloppen 1. There were no recordings of corals or red-listed species during the visual monitoring. The green spoon worm species Bonellia viridis was the most abundant mobile macro fauna and occurred in high numbers.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 41 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-26: Records of sponges found at Gloppen 1. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows numerous softbottom sponges.
5.11.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals at Gloppen 1. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified. The species with the highest registered densities were Munida spp. as well as sponge species Geodia spp. Relative moderate densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with 80.86% of the benthic habitat containing scattered to high density sponge habitat.
5.12 Gloppen 2 (GDF Suez)
5.12.1 General description The final drilling position for Gloppen 2 (PL 607) is 427750 E, 8022150 (ED50 UTM 34). The average depth of Gloppen 2 was 351 m. The transect lines covered a distance of 5700 m in length. In total, the field survey took 8.5 hours to complete visual mapping, with subsequent collection of 265 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. ROV survey pattern is presented in Figure 5-27.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 42 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-27: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Gloppen 2. Photo shows a split pipe cleaner sponge, Asbestopluma pennatula.
5.12.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Gloppen 2 was found to be relatively homogeneous without large variations in depth (347-357 m). The sediments found at Gloppen 2 were consisting primarily of mud/sand (99.53%) with small pebbles accounting for only 0.37% and twenty larger boulders recorded. Figure 5-38 illustrate the sediments encountered during the visual survey. Trawl marks were uncommon within this area with 5 recordings, which equates to 0.09 trawl marks per 100 m investigated (Figure 5-28).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 43 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-28: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Gloppen 2. Image shows a pipe cleaner sponge with rubbish tangled around it.
5.12.3 Fauna characteristics The survey at Gloppen 2 revealed a moderately rich habitat, with 28 taxa of benthic mega-fauna recorded. High densities of sponge communities were present for 1.12% of the visual transects at Gloppen 2 (Figure 5-29). The soft bottom sponges Aplysilla sulfurea and Mycale lingua were classified as moderately present in the area. The crustacean Pagurus bernhardus was dominating mobile fauna in the field. Figure 5-39 indicates the distribution of sponge densities throughout the survey area. There were no recordings of coral species during the monitoring of this field. High density to scattered distributions of soft bottom sponged was recorded as covering 75.6% of the transect.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 44 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-29: Records of sponges found at Gloppen 2. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows soft bottom sediment covered with a variety of sponges.
5.12.4 Conclusion There were no recorded soft or hard corals or red-list species at Gloppen 2. The species with the highest registered densities were Aplysilla sulfurea and Mycale lingua . Relatively high densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area (dominating sessile fauna). The abundance of soft bottom sponges is comparative to adjacent field, Gloppen 1 in the region. Relative high densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with 75.6% of the benthic habitat containing scattered to high density sponge habitat.
5.13 Skalle Nord (Lundin)
5.13.1 General description The drilling location for Skalle Nord (PL438) was situated at 411840 E, 8001155 N (ED50 UTM 34). Skalle Nord has a seabed which varies from 317 to 326 meters depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 4100 m in length. The visual monitoring program took 6 hours to complete and a total of 211 photos were captured for benthic and habitat analysis. ROV survey pattern is shown in Figure 5-30.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 45 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-30: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Skalle Nord. Image shows the soft bottom sponge, Mycale lingua positioned amongst the brachiopods, Macandrevia cranium.
5.13.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed topography at Skalle Nord was relatively flat and the average depth in the area was 321 m deep. Mud/sand comprised of 90.5% of the benthic composition, with pebbles making up a further 7.1%%. A few boulders were scattered on the sea bed. Figure 5-41 identifies the sediments and fauna encountered during the visual survey. Trawl marks were more prominent in the field with 17 recordings made during the survey. On average 0.41 trawl mark was observed every 100m (Figure 5- 31).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 46 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-31: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Skalle Nord. Image shows a cluster of hydroids.
5.13.3 Fauna characteristics Skalle Nord is regarded as a species moderate habitat with 30 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded. The seabed at Skalle Nord had high densities of soft bottom sponges. Sponge cover category “high density” constituted 16% of the benthic habitat. Hard bottom sponges were found on 4.77% of the survey. Only 13.8% of the field was recorded as having single or no sponges present. The soft bottom species with the highest registered densities were Geodia barretti and Geodia spp. Figure 5-32 shows the distribution of sponges at Skalle Nord. There were no recordings of corals or red-listed species during the visual monitoring. Brachiopod species Macandrevia cranium was prominent in the field. The squat lobster Munida spp. was the most abundant mobile macro fauna and occurred in high numbers between sponges and pebbles.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 47 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-32: Records of sponges found at Skalle Nord. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows an unknown softbottom sponge.
5.13.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals at Skalle Nord. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified. The species with the highest registered densities were Munida spp. as well as sponge species Geodia barretti and Geopia spp . Relative high densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with 86.2% of the benthic habitat containing scattered to high density sponge habitat or hard bottom sponges.
5.14 Lavvo / Komag (Lundin)
5.14.1 General description Lavvo/Komag (PL438) is situated at the following geographical coordinates: 472304 E, 7965794 N (ED50 UTM 34). Lavvo/Komag has a varying depth range of 280 m to312 m depth. The distance covered by the transect lines during the visual monitoring covered an area of 5500 m in length. The monitoring program took 5 hours to complete. During the visual monitoring of the area 246 photos were taken of the benthos and fauna for further identification. General survey pattern with photo positions is shown in Figure 5-33.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 48 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-33: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Lavvo/Komag. Image shown an indidual spotted wolffish, Anarhicas minor.
5.14.2 Sediment characteristics Lavvo/Komag is regarded as a relatively uneven field, and has an average depth of 295 m. The sediments comprised mainly of “mud/sand” (70.86%) with gravel accounting for a further 21.8% cover). Boulders occurred at scattered intervals along the transect lines (50 registrations). Trawl marks at Lavvo/Komag were registered in relatively high numbers with 65 registrations. Trawl marks occurred on average 1.18 marks per 100 meter. Figure 5-34 identifies the sediments encountered during the visual survey.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 49 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-34: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Lavvo/Komag. Image at top left shows a boulder, commonly found in the area. Photo bottom right shows one of the many trawl marks seen.
5.14.3 Fauna characteristics No corals or red-listed species were registered at Lavvo/Komag. The field has poor species richness when it comes to benthic macro fauna, with 27 taxa recorded. Abundance of individuals is moderate, as is the cover of soft bottom sponges on the seafloor. Almost half of the seabed at Lavvo/Komag had scattered occurrences of soft bottom sponges (46.2%), and cover of sponge category common and high density accounted for a further 18.84%. (Figure 5-35). Dominating sponge species were Asconema spp . and Geodia spp. Hard bottom sponges were found in connection with boulders and pebbly seafloor and were quite common on this field (4.7%). The squat lobster Munida spp . was dominating mobile mega fauna, falling in category “common”.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 50 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-35: Records of sponges found at Lavvo/Komag. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows an area with high density sponges (Asconema spp., Geodia spp. Aplysilla sulphurea).
5.14.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals or red-list species at Lavvo/Komag. Relatively high densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with 65.04% of the benthic habitat containing scattered to high densities of soft bottom sponge habitat. The species with the highest registered densities were Asconema spp ., Geodia spp . and Munida spp . The species richness is moderate and the abundance of individuals is high at Lavvo/Komag compared to the other fields surveyed in the Barents Sea.
5.15 Noaiden (Lundin)
5.15.1 General description Noaiden survey area (PL438) is situated approximately at the coordinates 485875 E, 7967609 N (ED50 UTM 34). The depth range found at Noaiden was 323 m to 332 m. The transect lines covered a distance of 5000 meters in length. In total, the visual survey took 6 hours to complete the mapping,
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 51 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
with subsequent collection of 198 still photographs taken for habitat and species classification. Survey pattern is shown in Figure 5-36.
Figure 5-36: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Noaiden. Image shows a mixture of softbottom sponge species
5.15.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Noaiden was found to be relatively flat, with an average of 329 m depth. The sediments surveyed at Noaiden consisted almost exclusively of mud/sand (98.89%) with a few classifications of the presence of pebbles and a further 18 recordings of boulders along the transect. Figure 5-47 identifies the sediment registrations from the visual survey. Trawl marks were common within this area with 71 individual trawls recorded, which equates to 1.42 trawl marks per 100 m investigated (Figure 5-37).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 52 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-37: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Noaiden. Images depict trawl marks with accompanying softbottom sponges.
5.15.3 Fauna characteristics Noaiden is regarded as a species poor habitat with 19 taxa of benthic mega fauna recorded. The seabed at Noaiden had moderate overall densities of soft bottom sponges. Sponge cover category “high density” constituted 3.29% of the benthic habitat with common occurrences of sponges representing an additional 22.54%. Figure 5-38 shows the distribution of sponges at Noaiden. There were no recordings of corals or red-listed species during the visual monitoring. Softbottom sponges Aplysilla sulfurea, Asbestopluma pennatula, Asconema spp., Geodia macandrewi, Geodia barretti and Geodia spp. were present within the field. Sea star species Asteroidea sp., brittle star species Ophiothrix fragilis and the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus were the most abundant mobile macro fauna at Noaiden.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 53 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-38: Records of sponges found at Noaiden. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image to the left shows an area of high density softbottom sponges. Image to the right shows the sponge species Isops spp. and Geodia macandrevia.
5.15.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals at Noaiden. Furthermore, there were no red-list species identified. The species with the highest registered densities was Geodia barretti . Relatively moderate densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area with 79.66% of the benthic habitat containing scattered to high density sponge habitat.
5.16 Rein (Lundin)
5.16.1 General description The survey field Rein is situated approximately at 487651 E, 7971436 N (ED50 UTM 34). The depths recorded at Rein were 338 m to 347 m depths recorded in the survey region. The transect lines at Rein covered an area of 5200 meter. The survey took approximately 6 hours to complete with the subsequent collection of 187 photos for further species and habitat classification. ROV survey pattern and photo positions are given in Figure 5-39.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 54 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-39: Map of the survey track and still-photo positions taken during the monitoring at Rein. Image shows scattered softbottom sponges.
5.16.2 Sediment characteristics The seabed at Rein (PL438) was found to be relatively flat, with an average of 341 m depth. The sediments surveyed at Rein consisted almost completely of mud/sand (99.98%) with only two observations of boulders. Figure 5-50 identifies the sediment registrations from the visual survey at Rein. Trawl marks were common within this area with 75 individual trawls recorded. The amount of trawls observed equates to 1.44 trawl marks per 100 m investigated (Figure 5-40).
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 55 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-40: Records of sediment types, tracks in the sediment and other non-biological findings registered at Rein. Image shows an old trawl scar accompanies by some softbottom sponges.
5.16.3 Fauna characteristics Rein has a species poor habitat, with 20 taxa of benthic mega-fauna recorded. However, there are relatively moderate overall densities of sponge communities present. The abundance of soft bottom was measured as representing 82.94% of the benthic habitat at Rein. The softbottom sponge communities are dominated by Geodia barretti and are classified as “common”. Hermit crabs Pagurus bernhardus, deep water shrimp Pandalus spp. and brittle star species Amphiura sp. were the dominating mobile fauna. There were no recordings of coral species during the visual mapping of this field. Figure 5-41 shows the distribution of sponges at Rein.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 56 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 5-41: Records of sponges found at Rein. The relative amounts of the various categories of sponge densities are shown in the pie chart. Image shows softbottom sponge species, Geodia barretti.
5.16.4 Conclusion There was not recorded any soft or hard corals or red-list species at Rein. Relatively moderate densities of soft bottom sponge species were registered in the area. The abundance of soft bottom sponges is comparative to adjacent fields in the region. Species richness was relatively poor at this field.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 57 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
6 COMPARISON OF FIELDS
6.1 Sediment characteristics The fields surveyed in Region IX 2012 were in 4 main areas with different depths and sediment composition: Askepott (shallowest, roughest sediment), Apollo Main, Apollo Appraisal and Atlantis B (Deepest, finest sediment). Figure 6-1 indicates the contrast of sediment compositions which were registered at each field.
Figure 6-1: a) Comparison of sediment characteristics in fields visually monitored in the Barents Sea. b) The distribution fields in the Barents Sea with individual field sediment compositions shown in the pie charts.
In general, the sediment is finer with depth. This is due to lower flows and less wave effect compared to what is common in shallower areas (Boesch, 1972; Fresia a. al 1983; Gray, 1974; Gray et. al. 1988, Jansson, 1967; Josefson, 1981; Parker, 1975; Sanders, 1968, Thorson, 1955 and 1957). On a smaller scale, the visual surveys identified that small-scale changes in topography can have a large influence on the local heterogeneity in the bottom sediment.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 58 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
6.2 Fauna characteristics
6.2.1 General description Overall a total of 88 taxa of benthic macro-fauna were recorded during the visual surveys in the fields in the Barents Sea, 2012, (Appendix 1). The field with the highest number of recorded taxa was Askepott (34), while Apollo Appraisal had the fewest recorded taxa (16).
The fields Skalle Nord and Lavvo/Komag had the most registrations of ‘high density’ soft bottom sponges. Askepott was an interesting field as is shown by the high percentage cover of hard bottom sponges. This is approximately 8 times higher than any other field surveyed during 2012. Figure 6-2 indicates the varying sponge compositions identified during the surveys in the Barents Sea, 2012.
Figure 6-2: Relative abundances of sponges, baseline surveys in the Barents Sea 2012.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 59 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
6.2.2 Multivariate similarity analyses Based on semi quantitative abundance estimations for each species or taxa at each field, similarity analyses were carried out (by use of PRIMER-E software). Analyses were performed on abundance estimations from the 2012 survey, registered species abundances on the specific fields were also compared to other surveys done by DNV in the years 2008-2011. Cluster diagram and MDS plot resulting from the analyses of fields surveyed in 2012 are shown in Figure 6-3. The analyses show that the fields can be placed in three main groupings (Gr. 1, 2 and 3) according to similarities in macro fauna composition, this branching into groups occurs at 40% similarity. Group 3 can further be subdivided into two subgroups, 3a and 3b. The MDS plot shows similar groupings as in the cluster analysis (dendrogram). Main reasons for groupings are shown in Table xx. Main reasons for groupings of stations (see Tabble 6-1) are generally higher number of large bodied sponge species dominating in group 1, these stations are also located in the perimeter of Tromsøflaket that is an area generally regarded to be relatively sponge rich compared to other areas in the Barents Sea. Group 3 consists of three deep sites with seabed consisting of muddy sediments with relatively low density of specimens and few filter feeders, while group 2 consists of sites located at intermediate deeps, with generally low number of sponges.
Figure 6-3: Dendrogram and MDS plot resulting from similarity analyses based on semi quantitative abundance estimations at fields visually surveyed by DNV, 2012. Bray-Curtis similarity index used in calculations.
Table 6-1: Main reasons for groupings, 2012 visual surveys. Group Description 1 Species and sponge rich group. Generally more of the sponges (Gloppen 1, Glopppen 2, Noaiden, Geodia baretti, Geodia spp. Asconema spp., Aplysilla sulphurea Byrkje W, Lavvo/Komag, Askepott, compared to other groups. Skalle Nord) 2 Generally lower abundances of dominant species in group 1. (Iskrystall, Norvarg 2, Byrkje Hermit crab Pagurus relatively common. More of the sponges Central, Drivis, Kramsnø) Asbestopluma pennatula and Aplysilla sulphurea compared to group 3 . 3 Relatively species poor and low abundance. More of the (Apollo Appraisal, Apollo Main, sponges Petrosia crassa and Axinella infundibiliformis , and the Atlantis B) cnidarian Liponema multicornis compared to other groups.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 60 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
A cluster diagram resulting from similarity analyses of fauna registrations in fields surveyed by DNV 2008-2012 (38 fields visually mapped) is shown in (Figure 6-4). The analysis was carried out on a species list containing semi quantitative abundance estimations for about 70 different taxa. Very mobile fauna such as fish and shrimps were omitted from the data set. The analysis shows that stations can be placed in five main groups at 50% similarity in fauna composition (Groups A-E). Reasons for groupings are described in Figure 6-4. The stations group mainly in relation to abundance of sponge species, but also in relation to depth, amount of hard bottom and geographical position. Group A consists of relatively shallow stations with somewhat coarse sediments. The stations are located at Tromsøflaket and have high number of species and relatively high abundance scores of many sponge species. Sponges are moderately common in group C, while sponge communities in group B consists mostly of single individuals scattered over large areas. Groups D and E are located in deep waters in the Barents Sea and are generally species and individual poor with different species dominating in each group.
Description E: Few species. Dominated by the sponge Petrosia crassa and Axinella infundibiliformis. Presence of the cnidarian Liponema multicornis seperates this group from the others. D: Species poor group with few individuals. Dominated by the sponges Asbestopluma pennatula and some Phakellia ventilabrum. C: More Geodia baretti than group B, D and E. Higher abundance of hermit crab Pagurus spp compared to other groups. B: Dominated by Bryozoa, the brachiopod Macandrewia cranium and the sponge Asbestopluma pennatula. Generally fewer of dominant sponges in group A. More Stylocordyla borealis compared to A. A: Species and individual rich group. Dominated by the sponges Geodia baretti , Geodia spp ., Aplysilla sulphurea , Mycale lingua and Axinella spp. More Bryozoa, squat lobsters (Munida spp.) than the two other groups. Figure 6-4: Dendrogram resulting from similarity analyses based on semi quantitative abundance estimations at fields visually surveyed by DNV, 2008-2012.Main reason for groupings is given.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 61 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
A map symbolizing grouping of fields in relation to the results from the cluster analysis in Figure 6-4 is given in Figure 6-5. The figure shows that grouping of stations based on fauna similarity can be linked to geographical placement in the Barents Sea. Relative cover of large bodied soft bottom sponges at each field is expressed as relative distance of seabed classified into different semi quantitative cover classes at each site. As can be seen, group A and to some extent group C have higher cover of sponges compared to the other groups.
Figure 6-5: Map showing grouping of stations according to classifications given in the cluster analysis in Figure 6-4 (color coded lines).Bars show relative cover of softbottom sponges in the entire survey line at each field. Color codes given according to amount of surveyed seabed classified into the different cover categories (“Scattered”,”common” and “High”). Note that cover category: “No sponge/ single individual” is not presented.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 62 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
A correspondence analysis illustrates how explanatory variables (environmental variables) and fauna (response variables) correlate with each other. Such an analysis was performed on species lists and available environmental data collected at the different fields during surveys from the years 2006-2012 (software program Brodgar). The results are presented in a CCA plot (Figure 6-6). The figure shows reciprocal similarities and differences in fauna composition between fields, and illustrates how this is linked to patterns in the explanatory variables depth, sediment type, substrate heterogeneity (number of shifts in sediment log), and geographical placement. Vectors for each explanatory variable indicate increased value in the direction of where the label denoting the variable is placed. Deep stations with high amounts of mud/ sand for example are placed towards the lowermost left corner while shallow fields with coarse sediments are placed in the upper right corner. In between you find most of the sponge rich fields dominated by large bodied sponge species, suggesting that the large bodied sponges in the Barents Sea prefer intermediate depths and as an effect intermediate current strengths, thus also moderately coarse sediments.
Figure 6-6: CCA plot showing similarities between different fields with respect to composition of macro fauna communities, and how this relates to the explanatory variables depth, sediment type, substrate heterogeneity and geographical placement. The figure shows all fields surveyed by ROV by DNV from 2006 – 2012.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 63 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
6.2.3 Link between faunal community and abiotic environmental factors The fields examined in the Barents Sea are spread over a large area and are different from each other in many respects. The fields are located at varying depths, and have very different sediment compositions. In addition they are situated at different distances from the shore, and in different latitude and longitude, which determines the abiotic variables surrounding the seabed. Water masses physical properties (salinity, temperature and density) and bottom current mean speeds will have a major impact on the fauna communities found in each field. In the Barents Sea there are three main masses of water circulating; Arctic water, Atlantic water and coastal water (see Sakshaug et. al., 1992 and Sætre, 2007 for detailed information). In areas where the water currents meet, convection often occurs. The result is nutrient-rich bottom water mixed with higher water layers creating increased levels of bioproduction. High production of phytoplankton will benefit benthic communities through sedimentation of carbon and nutrient-rich particles. Figure 6-7 shows the various positions of the fields relative to the main currents in the Barents Sea.
Figure 6-7: Location of the surveyed fields in the Barents Sea, in relation to the water currents.2012 fields are color coded orange.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 64 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
7 HUMAN IMPACT
7.1 Trawling
It is widely known that demersal activities involving the use of trawling devices have physical impact on the seabed (Kaiser et al., 2000). On a global basis, it is suggested that 75% of the area on the continental shelves subjected to trawling. The ecological impacts of trawling disturbance is disputed (Dayton et al., 1995, Watling & Norse, 1998; Kaiser et al., 2000), and empirical experimental studies where trawling is conducted showed varying results that can lead to different conclusions (Kaiser et al., 2000; Trusha & Dayton, 2002).
Trawling by-catch of large, sessile, benthic organisms such as sponges, echinoderms, barnacles and tunicates have been shown to reduce the complexity fauna, and indirectly provide sites for species with shorter generation time (Engel & Kvitek, 1998; Freese et al., 1999, Smith et al., 2000; Tanner, 2003). Kaiser (1996) showed that the percentage of damaged individuals of starfish and bivalves are higher in areas with trawling activities. Of the several types of commercial trawling, otter trawling causes the least damage (Hall, 1994). Yet studies that measure regular trawling state the practise can lead to a chronic change of faunal composition (Rumohr & Kujawski, 2000), while the fauna community can maintain balance with fewer than three trawls per year (Collie et al., 2000). In contrast, other studies have shown that a single trawl pull can have long term effects on benthos (Collie et al., 2000; Fosså et al., 2002). In commercial bottom fishing for shrimp, cod and haddock in the Barents Sea bottom trawls are used primarily. The gear varies in size (depending on ship) and the heaviest trawl doors can weigh up to 7 tons with a width between the doors of up to 300 meters. Much of Region IX has low to medium fishing activity, while the coastal areas in the region vary from intermediate to extra high activity. Trawl door weight and speed, bottom topography and sediment characteristics are critical to how deep into the sediment the trawl doors penetrates.
There are recorded traces of trawling in all fields apart from Apollo Main and Norvarg. Number of trawl tracks per 100 m ranged from 0 to less than 1.5 (Figure 7-1). No trawls were recorded at Apollo Main and Norvarg, while Noaiden, Rein, Askepott and Lavvo/Komag were recorded with the highest density of trawl tracks (>1.4 tracks per 100 m). The locations closest to the coast (distance to Hammerfest) were found to have the highest density of trawl tracks.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 65 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Figure 7-1: Number of trawl marks recorded per 100m of surveyed sea floor in the Barents Sea, 2012
In recently trawled areas traces from the trawl doors are often observed. These tracks have sharp edges in contrast to older trawl tracks which have a more rounded shape. "Rock Hopper" equipment can also be used to reduce damage to the equipment by stones, etc. The tracks left by "Rock Hopper" equipment are very conspicuous as they leave groomed path covering a much larger area than the trawl doors. Examples of different traces trawling shown in Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-2: Trawl marks observed during visual surveys. a )trawl mark, b) grooves left from ‘Rock hopper’ and c) large sponges found within trawl scar.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 66 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Surveys conducted by DNV in the Barents Sea have indicated that trawling activity can be responsible for the removal of larger organisms from the seabed. In some areas that are examined, there are clear examples that sponge communities are directly affected from trawling (Figure 7-3). For example, the unusually flat and species poor bottom identified at Snøhvit field has been directly attributed to trawling activity (DNV, 2006).
7.2 Human sourced debris and other impacts Other than trawling, there was evidence of other anthropogenic impacts observed in the Barents Sea. Rubbish such as plastic and metallic objects were identified, as well as ropes and discarded fishing lines. The majority of these observations were scarce within each field and so are considered as having a low impact on the benthic fauna present in the Barents Sea. Figure 7-3 gives some examples of the observed debris and other impacts seen during the survey, 2012.
Figure 7-3: Observed rubbish and debris seen during the visual surveys in the Barents Sea, 2012. a) Rusted can, b) log with attached polychaeta, c) discarded rope and wire, d) plastic strip.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 67 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
8 CONCLUSIONS The investigation has shown that: • The locations mapped during the visual survey were situated in four main areas with different depths and sediment composition. • There were no observations of red listed coral species or habitat types. Single registration of Primnoa resedaeformis in the Askepott field do not fall in sensitive habitat criteria (OSPAR habitat coral gardens). • A total of 88 different taxa of benthic macrofauna were identified in the visual surveys carried out by DNV in the Barents Sea, 2012 (fish excluded). The fields with the highest number of recorded taxa was Norvarg, while Iskrystall had the fewest taxa. • Askepott was an anomaly in the area, as indicated by the high amounts of pebbles and hard bottom sponges. • Fields Rein, Noaiden, Lavvo/Komag, Skalle N, Byrkje West Gloppen 1 and 2 have relatively high amounts of sponges compared to other fields in the Barents Sea. These fields are located at moderate depths in areas with good water exchange. Askepott is shallower and the distinguishing features of fauna consisting of hard-bottom species. The remaining fields lie deeper and consist mainly of mud and sand. • Trawling was not observed at all the surveyed fields. Average number of trawl tracks per 100 m of the various fields ranged from 0 to 1.44. There were no recordings observed at Apollo Main and Norvarg. Noaiden, Rein, Lavvo/Komag and Askepott which are located closest to the land, stands out with the highest density of trawl tracks (>1.0 tracks per 100 m). In some areas that DNV surveyed there were clear indications that the sponge communities were affected by trawling. • Besides trawling, other anthropogenic effects were observed such as rubbish and fishing ropes. None of these records are considered to have significant effects on the benthic megafauna.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 68 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
9 REFERENCES Boesch DF. 1972: Species diversity of marine macrobenthos in the Virginia area. Chesapeake Sci., Vol. 13:206- 211.
Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, M.J. & Poiner, I.R. (2000). A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 785-798.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Mexico Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at Selected Continental Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, 2006
Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. & Hofman, R.J. (1995) Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5: 205-232.
DNV. 2006. Habitatundersøkelse Snøhvit, Report for STATOIL ASA Stavanger. Report no.: 2006- 1996, Rev 01.
DNV. 2012. Toktrapport. Grunnlagsundersøkelser i Region IV, Norskehavet og Barentshavet 2012. DNV report no.: 2012-1152.
Norsk Standard. 2009. NS9435, Vannundersøkelse, Visuelle bunnundersøkelser med fjernstyrte og tauete observasjonsfarkoster for innsamling av miljødata. Under utarbeiding
Engel, J. & Kvitek, R. (1998) Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community on Monterey Bay marine sanctuary. Conservation Biology, 12: 1204-1214.
Fosså, J.H., Mortensen, P.B. & Furevik, D.M. (2002) The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia, 471: 1-12.
Freese, L., Auster, P.J., Heifetz, J. & Wing, B.L. (1999) Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 182: 119-126.
Fresi, E. Gambi, M.C., Focardi, S., Bargagli, R., Baldi, F & Falciai, L. 1983. Benthic community and sediment types: A structural analysis . Mar. Ecol. 4 (2): 101-121.
Gray, J.S. 1974. Animal- sediment relationships. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann.Rev. 12: 223-261.
Gray, J.S., M. Aschan, M.R. Carr, K.R: Clarke, R.H. Green, T.H. Pearson, R. Rosenberg & R.M. Warwick 1988: Analysis of community attributes of the benthic macrofauna of Frierfjord/Langesundfjord and in a mesocosm experiment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 46: 151-165.
Hall, S.J. (1994) Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: Life in unconsolidated sediments. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 32: 179-239.
Jansson, B.O. 1967: The availability of oxygen for the interstitial fauna of sandy beaches. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 1: 123-143.
Josefson A. B. 1981: Persistence and structure of two deep macrobenthic communities in the Skagerrak (west coast of Sweden). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. Vol,. 50: 63-97.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 69 of 70
Det Norske Veritas
Report for Statoil Petroleum AS Total AS GDF Guez AS
Lundin AS Visual Mapping in the Barents Sea 2012 MANAGING RISK
Kaiser, M.J. (1996) Starfish damage as an indicator of trawling intensity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 134: 303-307.
Kaiser, M.J., Ramsay, K., Richardson, C.A., Spence, F.E. & Brand, A.R. (2000) Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic community structure. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 494-503.
OSPAR, 2010. Background Document for Deep-sea sponge aggregations.
OSPAR, 2008 . OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. Descriptions of Habitats on the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (Reference Number: 2008-7, Replaces agreement 2004-7).
Parker, R.H. 1975: The study of benthic communities: A model and Review. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Com., Amsterdam.
Rumohr, H., Kujawski, T. 2000. The impact of trawl fishery on the epifauna of the southern North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1389-1394.
Sakshaug E. et. al. 1992. Økosystem Barentshavet . Mesna trykk. Lillehammer. 294 pp.
Sanders, H.L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: A comparative study. Am. Nat., Vol. 102: 243-282.
Sætre R. (Red). 2007. The Norwegian Coastal current – Oceanography and Climate . Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim. 159 pp.
Smith, C.J., Papadopoulou, K.N. & Diliberto, S. (2000) Impact of otter trawling on an eastern Mediterraenean commercial trawl fishing ground. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1340-1351.
Tanner, J.E. (2003) The influence of prawn trawling on sessile benthic assemblages in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60: 517-526.
Thorson, G. 1955: Modern aspects of marine level-bottom animal communities. J, Mar. Res., 14, 387-397.
Trush, S. F. & Dayton P. K. (2002) Disturbance to Marine Habitats by Trawling and Dredging: Implications for Marine Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33: 449-473.
Watling, L. & Norse, E.A. (1998) Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology, 12: 1180-1197.
DNV Report nr: 2013-0022 Revision No.: 01 Date : 2013-02-28 Page 70 of 70
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
APPENDIX 1
Species list
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 1 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Taxa ApolloMain Apollo Appraisal B Atlantis Norvarg 2 Askeppott Drivis Kramsnø Iskrystall ByrkjeCentral BYRKJE W Glopppen 1 2 Gloppen Skalle Nord LavvoKomag Noaiden Rein Porifera Aplysilla sulfurea 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Asbestopluma pennatula 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 Axinella infundibuliformis 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Chondrocladia gigantea 1 1 2 Porifera brun skorpedannende Tetilla spp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asconema spp. 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 Geodia macandrewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Geodia barretti 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 Geodia spp. 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 Hymedesmia spp 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Isops spp. Mycale lingua 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 Petrosia crassa 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Axinella rugosa 1 Phakellia ventilabrum 1 1 1 1 1 Phakellia sp. 2 2 1 1 Polymastia spp. 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Stryphnus ponderosus Stylocordyla borealis 1 3 1 1 2 Tethya spp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Porifera indet 1 1 1 1 1 Porifera indet 2 Porifera indet 3 1 1 Porifera indet 4 Porifera indet 5 1 2 2 Porifera indet 6 Porifera indet 7 1 1 2 Porifera indet 8 Porifera indet 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Porifera indet 10 i 1 Porifera indet 11 1 3 2 1 Cnidaria Actinostola callosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Anthozoa indet. 1, 1 1 Actiniaria indet. 2 1 1 Actiniaria indet. 3, rød m hvit hard fot Caryophyllia smithii Cerianthus spp. 1 1 1 1 Corymorpha sp. Edwardsiidae indet 1 1 Gersemia spp. 1 Protanthea simplex 1 1 1 1 Primnoa resedaeformis 1
A1-1
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 1 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Taxa ApolloMain Apollo Appraisal B Atlantis Norvarg 2 Askeppott Drivis Kramsnø Iskrystall ByrkjeCentral BYRKJE W Glopppen 1 2 Gloppen Skalle Nord LavvoKomag Noaiden Rein Bolocera tuediae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Hormathia nodosa/digitata 1 1 1 1 Liponema multicornis 1 2 1 Aphrodita aculeata 1 Tubularia larynx 1 1 Tubularia spp. 1 1 2 1 Polychaeta Branchiomma spp. Ditrupa arietina Harmothoe indet. Serpulidae indet, stor 1 Sabellidae indet. 1 Chaetopterus norvegicus Hydroides norvegicus Nemertina Crustacea Brachyura indet. (Hyas spp.) Crangonidae indet. Lebbeus polaris Lithodes maja 1 Munida spp. 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 Pagurus bernhardus 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pandalus spp. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pycnogonida spp. 1 1 Spirontocaris spp 1 Mollusca Axinulus sp. Buccinum spp. 1 1 1 Chlamys spp. Colus spp. 1 1 Delectopecten vitreus 1 1 Polyplacophora indet. Eldone cirrhosa 1 1 Alloteuthis subulata 1 Rossia sp. 1 1 1 1 Echinodermata Amphiura sp. 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 Astropecten sp. 1 1 Asteroidea sp. 1 1 Asteroidea sp. 2 - lilla 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Asteroidea sp. 3 Asteroidea sp. 5 Ceramaster granularis 1 1 1 1 1 1 Crinoidea indet. 1 Crossaster papposus 1 Echinus acutus
A1-2
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 1 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Taxa ApolloMain Apollo Appraisal B Atlantis Norvarg 2 Askeppott Drivis Kramsnø Iskrystall ByrkjeCentral BYRKJE W Glopppen 1 2 Gloppen Skalle Nord LavvoKomag Noaiden Rein Echinus sp. 1 1 1 Henricia spp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hippasterias phrygiana 1 1 1 1 Holothuroidea indet. 1 1 1 1 Mesothuria intestinalis Ophiothrix fragilis 1 2 2 1 Ophiuroidea indet. 1 Ophioscolex sp. Parastichopus tremulus 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Poraniomorpha sp. Pseudarchaster parelii 1 Solaster endeca 1 1 1 Stichastrella spp. 1 1 1 1 Varia Bonellia viridis 1 2 Macandrevia cranium 1 2 2 Novocrania anomala 1 Bryozoa indet. 1 Bryozoa hvit treforgrenet 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Dendrobeania spp. 2 1 Reteporella beaniana Antedon spp 1 Didemnum 1 Pisces Gadus morhua 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Lophius piscatorius Lycodes esmarkii 1 1 1 Melanogrammus aeglefinus 1 1 1 1 1 Merlangius merlangus 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 Pleuronectiformes indet 1 1 1 1 Pollachius virens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Raja clavata 1 Raja spp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Sedbastes sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Anarhichas minor 1 1 1 1 Mallotus villosus 2 1 1 1 Hippoglossus hippoglossus 1 1 1
A1-3
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
APPENDIX 2
Fauna photographs
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Porifera
Antho dichotoma Geodia spp. covered by Aplysilla Stylochordyla borealis Sulphurea
Polymastia sp Tetilla sp Asbestopluma pennatula
Tethya spp Hexactennelida indet Geodia barretti
Mycale lingua Hymedesmia sp Phakellia ventilabrum
A2-1
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Asconema spp. Geodia macandrevia Axinella infundibuliformis
Porifera indet 1 Porifera indet 4 Porifera indet 5
Cnidaria
Bolocera tuediea Protanthea simplex Actinostola callossa
Corymorpha sp Ceranthius sp1 Ceranthius sp2
A2-2
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Tubularia larynx Hormathia sp Cf Caryophyllia smithii
Primnoa resedaeformis Crustacea
Crangonidae indet Lithodes maja Pandalus borealis
Pagurus cf bernhardus Pagurus cf bernhardus 2 Pandalus cf. propinquus
A2-3
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Munida sp Hyas sp
Varia
Colus sp Macandrevia cranium Cf Rossia
Sertella beaniana Filigrana implexa Serpulidae
Bonellia viridis
Bryzoa indet - forgrenet
Echinodermata
A2-4
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Echinus acutus Hippasterias phrygiana Stichastrella sp
Ophioscolex sp Asteroidea sp. 1 Ceremaster granularis
Asteroidea sp 2 Asteroidea sp 3 Asteroidea sp4
Henricia sp Asteroidea sp 5 Poranimorpha sp
Parastichopus tremulus
Ophiuroidae sp Parastichopus tremulus Mesothuria intestinalis Pisces
A2-5
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Appendix 2 to report No. 2013-0022
MANAGING RISK
Lophius piscatorius Sebastes sp Pollachius virens
Gadus morhua Lycodes esmarkii Brosme brosme
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Pisces indet Pleuronectiformes indet Raja 1
Raja 2 Anarhicas minor
A2-6
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
APPENDIX 3
ROV specifications
SPERRE A.S Merdeveien 2F Postboks 44 3676 Notodden Norway
SUB-fighter 4500
• ROV designed for Norwegian
conditions • Reliable and well proven design • Quick and easy mobilization • Very good stability • Plenty of power • Interface for standard tools • Quality at an affordable price • Made in Norway I SPECIFICATION SUB-fighter 4500 Speed: Horizontal > 2.6 knot Vertical > 1.1 knot Size LWH: 118x73x72 cm. Lateral > 1,2 knot Camera : 4 camera interfaces Frame: Aluminum Standard camera colour LL. CCD, Housings: 2 x electronic pressure 460 TV lines, 0.1 lux. bottles, Optional: Zoom camera 480 lines,1 lux Weight: 190 kg. (approx) HD-SDI Camera complete vehicle 3CCD camera Still camera 8Mbit Payload: 15 kg Viewing P/T: Pan angle 0-90 deg Depth: 700 m. Tilt angle 0-140 deg. Other ratings available Light: 2 x 250W halogen light Buoyancy: Solid cell structure 4 channel light dimmer
Power input: 230Vac, 1phase, 4.5 kW. Sensors: 60 bar depth sensor, fluxgate compass, Thrusters: 2 horizontal thruster, leakage detektor 1000 W Vertical thruster, 1500 W Other: Auto depth. Lateral thruster, 1000 W Auto heading pressure compensated, Digital control of 250 - 340 N thrusters and lights Electronic resetable overcurrent protection for thrusters
Telephone: +4735025000 Telefax+4735025120 Visitor address Bygg 90 E-mail: [email protected] Mobil.+4793425700 Hjartdal Sparebank 2699.05.11119 http://www.sperre-as. com Organisasjonsnummer 968 411 438
SPERRE A.S Merdeveien 2F Postboks 44 3676 Notodden Norway
Switches for camera, light, SURFACE EQUIPMENT manipulator, remote functions on ROV, and other external functions. Power control: Umbilical : Height 34 cm. Width 37 cm. Kevlar armored cable Length 57 cm. Length 0-1500 meters, Weight 38 kg. Weight in air 170 kg/km. Weight in seawater 0 kg/km. Splash proof aluminum cabinet Outer diameter 13-17 mm. Power input: 220V 50Hz. 1 phase, 4.5 Braking strength 3000 N kW. Monitoring of Volt, Amp and Hz. Additional gear : Fuses and ground fault system Connections for umbilical. Sonar HPR position system Surface viewing: Fibre optic umbilical Auto altitude Height 64 cm Lighting Width 54 cm. Belt module Length 60 cm. Manipulators Weight 72 kg. Rotating brush system TMS and LARS Splash proof 19` rack with PC, 14" PC Sub bottom profiler monitor and video monitor. Viga Option NDT equipment to measure overlay system for data presentation. steel thickness etc. Depth, heading, date, time, twist Wire cutting gear counter and screen writer. Customer specified gear Video TWP receiver and connection for umbilical, sonar, control console and RS232 communication ports
Control console:
Height 40 cm Width 21 cm. Length 43 cm. Weight 4 kg.
Glass fiber portable ROV pilot control console with two XY joysticks for thruster control.
Telephone: +4735025000 Telefax+4735025120 Visitor address Bygg 90 E-mail: [email protected] Mobil.+4793425700 Hjartdal Sparebank 2699.05.11119 http://www.sperre-as. com Organisasjonsnummer 968 411 438
Det Norske Veritas:
DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management, and so turn risks into rewards for our customers. From our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best practices. This helps our customers to safely and responsibly improve their business performance.
Our technology expertise, industry knowledge, and risk management approach, has been used to successfully manage numerous high-profile projects around the world.
DNV is an independent organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries. Our purpose is to safeguard life, property and the environment. DNV serves a range of industries, with a special focus on the maritime and energy sectors. Since 1864, DNV has balanced the needs of business and society based on our independence and integrity. Today, we have a global presence with a network of 300 offices in 100 countries, with headquarters in Oslo, Norway.
Global impact for a safe and sustainable future:
Learn more on www.dnv.com
Please do not delete the Bookmark named “numPages” on this last page in the report.