Mapping, Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Seabed Resources (in

Øyvind Fjukmoen, Sabine CochraneOctober 2013

Mapping, Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Seabed Resources (in relation to Impact from the Oil and Gas Industry)

Key questions that needs answering

© Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Mapping, Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Seabed Resources (in relation to Impact from the Oil and Gas Industry)October 2013

Outline

� Site Specific Mapping (and Habitat Modelling)

� Risk Assessment

� Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements

2

Status at present Challenges/Key questions

Source: OD



MAPPING� Are there “sensitive” fauna present? - Need to take

special care?- Nature conservation act- Havmiljø.no- OSPAR- Red list for species- Red list for habitats

� Spatial patterns?- Are there particular areas within each field that should receive

special focus? Areas that can be considered safe or “background level”?

� How does one particular site compare to otherareas?- Miljødirektoratet will need to relate to this

3



Key Issues - Mapping

From KLIF FORUM 2012:

� Need clear understanding/interpretation of Havmiljø.no, OSPAR, Nature conservation Act, and the Red List for Norwegian waters

� Need further development on creating reliable resource maps

� Examples:- Categorisation of sponge bed habitats, what species and densities should

be considered to fall in under OSPAR habitat “Deepsea sponge aggregations”?

- New survey companies not following/misinterpreting Norsk Olje og Gassguideline for corals. Varying SSS and MBES interpretations.

- OSPAR habitat “Coral Garden” is loosely defined, “relatively dense aggregation of colonies or individuals of one or more coral species covering an area of at least 25m2”

- New category “Seapen and burrowing megafauna” vaguely described in OSPAR 2010. Umbellula encrinus receiving growing focus, what about other sea pens (E.g. kophobelemnon stelliferum)? And sand-eel?

- Havmiljø category 1 is defined by populations smaller than 250 km2

4



Problem

5

What is OSPAR habitat?What about hardbottom sponges?



Proposed Solution

� Expert groups need to continue to develop and refine guidelines for Norwegian waters (on behalf of Norsk Olje og Gass, Norsk Akkreditering). Guideline for sponges?

� All involved parties should use the guidelines

� Further develop methods for mapping (AUV’s, hyperspectral imaging, image recognition tools)

� Habitat modeling

This should make it easier for operators and Miljødirektoratet to evaluate environmental impact at specific sites more uniformly. As a basis for mitigating and monitoring requirements.

6



7



Survey strategy

- At present, surveys conducted on case-by case basis- Individual sites surveyed roughly

during baseline

- Then detailed survey in advance of drilling

- Should large-scale area mapping be coordinated?

Eni Norge: Bønna

Eni Norge: Bønna, SalinaLundin Norway: Juksa, GothaRENAS: Darwin



Large-scale mapping – e.g. sediment monitoring

�Regional approach to monitoring

�Coordination of- Reference stations- Sampling & reporting

� But would it work for pre-drilling visual surveys?- Spud locations not all known at once

� How important is the exactlocation?- Sponges have locally heterogeneous

distribution, but more «even» at largerscale

9



Large -scale mapping ?

�Sponge assemblages

�Havmiljø.no- MAREANO data- (Should we be contributing?)

�By-catch records exist

� How about investigatingpredictive habitat modelling?- Ground-truthing required

Ospar 2010, sponge aggregations



RISK ASSESSMENT

� Tools for decision support to minimise risk of impact to local fauna

� Probability x consequence = risk of adverse impact to seabed fauna communities

� Depending on- Geographical Distribution Fauna types to be evaluated (sponges?, Lophelia corals?, sea

pens?)- Available input data (sedimentation models? Modelled or historical current data?)- Threshold values for impact? (CORAMM, IMR, SINTEF, IRIS)

11



12



Key Issues - Risk Assessment Methods

Need to improve our knowledge on

� Threshold values for impact, particularly for sponges- Sedimentation- PNEC, EIF in water

� Long term effects on fauna

� Population dynamics of sponges

� Environmental impacts from pipe laying operations

Need to further develop technology and tools for

� Creating reliable, standardized resource maps

� Plume models taking into consideration small scale changes in seabed topography

� Better utilization of historical current data?

13



Acceptable deviation from reference

14

�What is an acceptable area ofdisturbance per well?- Smothering- Sub-lethal effects

�Does the density of disturbance need to be considered?- No. discharge sites in unit area- Eg. Licence block

� Issues of habitat fragmentation- Ecological and practical implications- Match monitoring with recolonisation?



Recolonisation of megafauna – Morvern field

15

Gates & Jones (2012); PLOS 1, 7(10).

27 days after

76 days after

3 years after



Laggan field (Faroes-Shetland)

� Reduced megafauna veryclose to well even after 10 years

� After 1, 3 and 10 years, gradual decline in gradient of disturbance 0 – 100+ m

� Partial recovery of sessile megafauna between 3 – 10 years

� In Barents Sea, spongesre-colonised old drill sites- (Kelley pers. com?)

16

Site A – 3 year since disturbance Site B 10 year sincedisturbance

Jones et al. (2012); MEPS 461: 71-82



MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

17

� Based on resource maps and risk assessments, detail ed mitigation measures can be implemented for- Spud locations- Anchor corridors- CTS systems (cuttings transportation systems)

� Communiction with Miljødirektoratet- Approval of discharge application- Requirements for monitoring



18



Key issues

19

� Discrepancies between what environmental requiremen ts each operator needs to fulfill at different sites . - Some cases receive very strict requirements others go relatively “easy”. - Strategy for harmonizing case to case environmental requirements?

� Need to improve our knowledge on risk associated wi th different mitigation scenarios- disposal alternatives for cuttings- CTS hoses of different lenghts, risk of leak - Anchor chain vs. fibre, risk of breakage- Buoy-up systems, risk of failure



So what IS the best deposition strategy?

20

Discharge all sections: tophole at location, lower sections from rig

Lundin: Gotha PL 492

Discharge all sections: tophole at location, lower sections from rig



Bottom topography

21

Bottom relief mapfrom Fugro Survey



Weighing up the options

• Deposition at site • max intensity/ least spatial extent

• Is CTS to lower sponge densities a good strategy?

• Top hole at site, lower from rig• deposition dynamics depend on

• depth• particle shape/density/ size etc.

• Transport to land• weighing up emissions to air and on-land

waste issues• marine vs coastal zone problem

•Let’s discuss!

22



23

Thank you for

your attention

Images, materials, discussions.

Documents

Mapping, Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Seabed Resources (in