ESIA for Exploratory Drilling in Block 52-Petronas 15 2664 ESIA Final Vol 1

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Exploratory Drilling in Block 52 Offshore Suriname

Prepared for: PETRONAS Suriname E&P B.V.

Hofstraat 1, Paramaribo Suriname c/o PETRONAS CARIGALI Level 52 Tower 1, PETRONAS Twin Towers Kuala Lumpur City Centre 50088 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Prepared by: CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219-3000

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Exploratory Drilling in Block 52 Offshore Suriname

Prepared for: PETRONAS Suriname E&P B.V.

Hofstraat 1, Paramaribo Suriname c/o PETRONAS CARIGALI Level 52 Tower 1, PETRONAS Twin Towers Kuala Lumpur City Centre 50088 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Prepared by: CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219-3000


Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Exploratory Drilling in Block 52 Offshore Suriname DOCUMENT NO. CSA-PETRONAS-FL-15-2664-10-REP-01-FIN

VERSION

DATE

DESCRIPTION

PREPARED BY

REVIEWED BY

APPROVED BY

01

10/12/15

Initial draft for review

J. Thompson

B. Balcom

J. Thompson

02

10/28/15

Revised draft

J. Thompson

K. Dunleavy L. Weekes

J. Thompson

FIN

10/30/15

Final

J. Thompson

K. Dunleavy L. Weekes

J. Thompson

The electronic PDF version of this document is the Controlled Master Copy at all times. A printed copy is considered to be uncontrolled and it is the holder’s responsibility to ensure that they have the current revision. Controlled copies are available on the Management System network site or on request from the Document Production team.


Samenvatting INTRODUCTIE PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. (PSEPBV), is voornemens om exploratieboringen te verrichten in Block 52 offshore Suriname (Figuur ES.1). Het exploratieprogramma in block 52 omvat 1 boorput en er wordt geanticipeerd dat het boren vroeg in April 2016 van start gaat.

Figuur ES-1. Lokatie van Block 52 Suriname. Het PSEPBV interessegebied, waar 3-D seismische data werd verzameld in 2013, aangegeven door het grijs gearceerd gedeelte. PROJECT OMSCHRIJVING De te verkennen putlocatie in relatie tot booroperaties van PSEPBV’s ligt voor de kust van Suriname in block 52 licentie gebied (Figuur ES-1). Aangemerkt als Roselle-1, ligt deze putlocatie in een waterdiepte van 87 m (285.4 ft). De oppervlakte locatie coördinaten en algemene kenmerken van het putgebied worden weergegeven in Tabel ES-1.

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-1

Tabel ES-1. Putlocatie, waterdiepte en algemene putkenmerken van het voorgestelde Block 52 Onderzoeksboor programma. Kenmerken Operator Locatie X (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Y (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Geografische breedte Geografische lengte Bron klasse Water diepte Voorgestelde datum van boring Totale boortijd Total diepte

Boorlocatie Roselle – 1 PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. Block 52 700225.0 m 799843.8 m 07° 13' 56.796" N 55° 11' 11.719" W Vertical exploration well 87 m (285.4 ft) 1 April 2016 90 days (not including additional operations) 5,030-m TVDDF (±100 m)

TVDDF = true vertical depth drill floor.

Het is te verwachten dat de boring aan het begin van april 2016 van start gaat. Voor een droog gat bij Roselle-1 wordt ingeschat dat er niet meer dan 90 dagen nodig zullen zijn voor het boren en dichten van de put. OMSCHRIJVING BOOREILAND De contractor die de boring bij Roselle-1 zal uitvoeren is nog niet geselecteerd geworden, maar MODU die voor dit project gebruikt zal worden is een jack-up booreiland, vergelijkbaar met de Le Tourneau class 240C (Photo 2-1). Dit type booreiland is berekend om te werken in waterdiepten tot 122 m (400 ft.) met een maximum boordiepte van 10667 m (35,000 ft). specifikatie van de boorinstallatie is inclusief een helihaven die geschikt is voor Sikorsky S-61 of S92 type helicopter. De leefaccommodatie voor maximaal 108 personeelsleden is gekoeld en weersbestendig en heeft een 5-bedden tellende behandelkamer, keuken- en eetfaciliteiten, twee recreatieruimten, wasserijfaciliteiten, conferentieruimte, bedrijfs- en contractanten kantoor.

Foto ES-1.

Le Tourneau class 240C jack-up drilling rig.

Het booreiland is geclassificeerd door de American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) en voldoet aan de Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) vereiste veiligheids- en brandweer apparatuur, waaronder brandbaar en H2S detectoren en een aan halon gelijkgesteld schoonmaakmiddel, en draagbare chemische blusmiddelen die gestationeerd zijn op het gehele schip. Noodademhalingsapparatuur voor de personen aan boord zal worden geplaatst op een aantal belangrijke lokaties aan boord van het booreiland (bijvoorbeeld werk-en leefruimte). Apparatuur dat goedgekeurd is door ABS zal op strategisch locaties van het boorschip geplaatst worden. Tijdens de booroperatie zal het team bestaan uit boorplatform personeel, catering personeel, operators, en anderen voor een totaal van ongeveer 80 reguliere personeelsleden ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-2

Enkele milieu beschermingsmaatregelen zijn inbegrepen in het voorgesteld project, en kunnen alsvolgt samengevat worden: • •

•

•

•

PSEPBV zal een noodplan hebben dat apart componenten belicht zoals routine operaties en verstoorde situaties, inclusief broncontrole, brand en explosie, ontsnapping van gassen die H 2 S bevatten, botsingen en andere. Een apart plan voor eventuele olievervuiling voorziet in een actieplan voor de operaties offshore-Suriname, waarin communicatie en vervuilings response hiërarchieën en responsemogelijkheden zijn opgenomen. Dit back-up plan zet uiteen de methoden van controle en response mogelijkheden bij on-site olievervuiling (v.b. dreun, sorbents, olieherstel capaciteiten, olieverspreidingen) van Suriname en van “Oil Spill Response Limited”, het internationaal bedrijf dat afgaat op olievervuilingen en waarvan PSEPBV ook ondersteunend lid is. Zowel de contractor van het boorschip en elke boot zal ook voorzien worden van een noodplan voor olievervuiling Alle sanitair- en binnenvuil zal verwerkt worden door een on-site vuil verwerkings systeem voordat het overboord wordt gegooid en moet voldoen aan de MARPOL ontladings standaarden. Alle afvoersystemen op het dek zullen door een olie/water afscheider d.m.v. zwaartekracht moeten gaan, waarbij water wordt ontladen in de oceaan met een olieinhoud van niet meer dan 15 ppm (delen per miljoen). Aparte olie zal opgeslagen worden tot aan de kust om ontladen of hergebruikt te worden. Alle vuil, behalve voedingsresten, zullen opgehaald, gescheiden en verscheept worden naar de kust om verwerkt en ontladen te worden. Noch vuil noch apparatuur mag opzettelijk overboord gegooid worden.

BESCHRIJVING VAN HET BESTAANDE MILIEU Deze milieu effecten studie (EIA) heeft historische (gedurende de laatste 5+ jaren) en recentelijk verzamelde meteorologische en fysieke oceanische data, en ook veldstudies om een accurate bepaling te ontwikkelen van de huidige fysieke, biologische en socioeconomische condities binnen het studiegebied. Om de bestaande condities op de zeebodem in Block 52 vast te leggen zijn een serie van korte (5 tot 10 minuten) videos en fotoopnames gemaakt gedurende de 2014 Milieu Baseline Survey, waarbij gebruik is gemaakt van een voorgetrokken video en camera slee (Foto ES-2). Foto ES-3 geeft weer een typische foto van de zeebodem in Block 52.

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-3

Foto ES-2.

voorgetrokkenVideo en Camera slee.

Foto ES-3.

Zeebodem in Block 52 tonen crinoids en broze sterren op een typische gladde ondergrond.

Als deel van de milieustudie, werd een kustlijn socio economische analyse uitgevoerd om vast te leggen hoe de plaatselijke bevolking gebruik maakt van de hulpbronnen langs de kust, die binnen 5 km van de kustlijn zijn. De resultaten van de huishoudonderzoekingen, focus- en belangengroepen bijeenkomsten die werden gehouden in de kustdistrikten wezen uit dat de ondervraagde mensen en groepen in het algemeen voor het project zijn en economische voordelen verwachten, zowel op het individueel als op het gemeenschapsnivo. Samenvatting van effecten. De verwachting is dat de meeste routine, project-gerelateerde activiteiten te verwaarlozen of minieme effecten zullen hebben. Een enkel gemiddeld effect (b.v. boorafval met op Synthetische Basis toegestaan (SBM) smeermiddel) en twee potentiele voordelige effecten (kunstmatige rif effecten-het aantrekken van plankton en vissen naar het boorplatform; de stimulans van economische ontwikkelingen-potentiele verhoging van het aantrekken van lokale arbeiders en lokale diensten) werden geidentificeerd Met betrekking tot ongevallen en verstoringen, werden 2 scenarios geëvalueerd. Het is te verwachten dat een diesel of SBM lekkage, te verwaarlozen of mimieme effecten zal veroorzaken aan enkele bronnen. Een bronuitbarsting, gepaard gaande met het vrijkomen van crude olie, zal, afhankelijk van de specifieke situatie, medium tot grote effecten aan het fysiek-chemisch, biologisch, en sociaal-economisch/cultureel milieu met zich meebrengen, onderstrepend het belang om in acht te nemen bepaalde veiligheidsprocedures, routineonderhoud en planning van onvoorziene gebeurtenissen, die voorgesteld zijn in het milieubeheersplan. AANBEVELINGEN Voorstellen met betrekking tot het voorgetselde exploratie boringen program in Block 52 zijn: •

•

De implementatie en het houden aan PSEPBV’s gezondheids, veiligheids en milieu beheerssystemen, welke ook het systeem is op het gebied van gezondheid, veiligheid en milieu voor de activiteiten m.b.t het boringsprogram. Zich houden aan PSEPBV’s plan van eventuele olievervuiling, inclusief de aangewezen verplaatsing van de nodige Tier-I response apparatuur en goederen en de coördinatie met Tier-II en Tier-III respondenten.


• • •

• •

Zich houden aan alle overige mogelijkheden, rampen en veiligheidsplannen van PSEPBV. De implementatie en zich houden aan het beleid m.b.t. Gezondheid, Veiligheid en Milieu van PSEPBV en de booroperaties op de MODU. Implementeren en zich houden aan project specifieke plannen (beheer van vaste stof en gevaarlijk afval) en de algemene, preventieve en beschermings maatregelen aangenomen of die nog aangenomen moeten worden, om de potentiele effecten op het milieu, veroorzaakt door de activiteiten binnen het exploratie boringsprogram en het verzekeren van het naleven van alle relevante surinaamse wetten, aangegeven in het Milieu Beheers Plan (EMP). Implementatie en zich houden aan project-specifieke mitigerende maatregelen; en Implementatie en zich houden aan PETRONAS gezondheids, veiligheids en milieu (HSE-Health Safety and Environment) en het Vereiste Controle Kader (MCF-Mandatory Control Framework).

PSEPBV heeft een bedrijfsverplichting om zaken te doen op een manier die het milieu respecteert en ook de gezondheid en de veiligheid van haar werknemers, clienten, contractanten en gemeenschappen waar ze opereert. PSEPBV zal zich houden aan geïdentificeerde, projekt specifieke mitigatie maatregelen en haar operatie uitvoeren op basis van standaard beheers procedures. Door zich te houden aan deze voorstellen, verwacht PSEPBV om haar exploratie operaties uit te voeren met minimale effecten aan het fysiek/chemisch, biologisch, sociaal-economisch en cultureel milieu van Suriname.



Executive Summary INTRODUCTION PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. (PSEPBV), proposes to conduct exploratory drilling in Block 52 offshore Suriname (Figure ES-1). The exploration drilling programme in Block 52 involves one well and drilling is anticipated to begin in early April 2016.

Figure ES-1. Location of Suriname Block 52 showing the PSEPBV area of interestand where 3D seismic data were collected in 2013 (indicated by grey crosshatching). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The exploratory wellsite for PSEPBV’s proposed drilling operations is located off the coast of Suriname in the Block 52 licence area (Figure ES-1). Designated as Roselle-1, the wellsite is located in a water depth of 87 m (285.4 ft). Surface location coordinates and general characteristics for the well are provided in Table ES-1. Drilling is expected to start in early April 2016. For a dry hole at Roselle-1, it is estimated that no more than 90 days will be required to drill and log the well.

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-7

Table ES-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme.

Characteristic Operator Location X (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Y (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Latitude Longitude Well class Water depth Proposed spud date Total drilling time Total depth

Roselle-1 Wellsite PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. Block 52 700225.0 m 799843.8 m 07° 13' 56.796" N 55° 11' 11.719" W Vertical exploration well 87 m (285.4 ft) 1 April 2016 90 days (not including additional operations) 5,030-m TVDDF (±100 m)


DRILLING RIG DESCRIPTION The drilling subcontractor for the Roselle-1 well has not yet been selected, but the MODU to be used for this project will be a jack-up drilling rig similar to the Le Tourneau Class 240C (Photo ES-1). This type of rig is rated for working in water depths up to 122 m (400 ft) and a maximum drilling depth of 10,667 m (35,000 ft). Rig specifications include a heliport suitable for a Sikorsky S-61 or S-92 type helicopter. Living accommodations for a maximum of 108 personnel are air conditioned and weatherised and include a five-bed treatment room, galley and messroom facilities, two recreation rooms, laundry facilities, conference room, and company and Photo ES-1. Le Tourneau Class 240C contractor offices. The rig is classified jack-up drilling rig. by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and complies with Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)-required safety and firefighting equipment, including both combustible and hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) detectors as well as Halon-equivalent clean agent and portable chemical extinguishers stationed throughout the vessel. Emergency breathing apparatus the persons on board will be located at several key areas on the drilling rig (e.g., work and living areas). ABS-approved lifesaving equipment will be positioned at strategic locations aboard the drilling rig. It is expected that the crew will consist of rig personnel, catering personnel, operators, and others for a total of approximately 80 regular personnel during drilling operations. • •

PSEPBV will maintain an Emergency Response Plan that outlines separate components covering routine operations and upset conditions, including well control, fire and explosion, escape of gases containing H 2 S, and collisions. A separate Oil Spill Contingency Plan provides an action plan for operations offshore Suriname, which outlines communication and spill response hierarchies and response capabilities. The Oil Spill Contingency Plan outlines spill surveillance methods and on-site oil spill response capabilities (e.g., boom, sorbents, oil recovery capability, and ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-8

• • •

dispersants) of Suriname and of Oil Spill Response Limited, the international oil spill response company, of which PSEPBV is a sustaining member. The rig contractor and each vessel also will have a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. All sanitary and domestic wastes will be processed through an on-site waste treatment plant before being discharged overboard and will meet International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) discharge standards. All deck drainage will be passed through a gravity oil-water separator, and water will be discharged to the ocean with an oil content not to exceed 15 ppm. Separated oil will be held for onshore disposal or recycling. All trash, except food wastes, will be collected, segregated, and shipped to shore for processing and disposal. No trash or equipment will be deliberately dumped overboard.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT This Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has drawn on historical (over the past 5+ years) and recently collected meteorological and physical oceanographic data as well as field studies to develop an accurate assessment of current physical, biological, and socioeconomic conditions within the study area. To document the existing conditions on the seafloor in Block 52, a series of short (5- to 10-minute) video and still camera drift tows were conducted during the 2014 Environmental Baseline Survey sampling effort using a towed video and still camera sled (Photo ES-2). Photo ES-3 shows a typical picture of the seafloor in Block 52.

Photo ES-2. Video and still camera tow sled.

Photo ES-3. View of seafloor in Block 52 showing crinoids and brittle stars on a typical soft substrate.

A coastline socioeconomic analysis was conducted as part of the ESIA. The purpose of the socioeconomic analysis was to determine the use of coastal marine resources, within 5 km of the shoreline, by local populations along the coast. The results of household surveys, focus groups, and stakeholder meetings conducted in the coastal districts indicated that respondents are generally favourable toward the project and expect some economic benefit, either on an individual or community level. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Most routine project-related activities are expected to produce negligible or low impacts. A single medium impact (i.e., drilling discharges of cuttings with adhering synthetic-based mud [SBM]) and two potentially beneficial impacts (artificial reef effect – attraction of plankton and fishes to the drilling rig; stimulation of economic development – an increase in local services and a potential increase in local hiring) also were noted. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-9

For accidents or upsets, two scenarios were evaluated. An SBM spill is expected to produce negligible to low levels of impact to several resources. A well blowout, accompanied by a release of crude oil, could produce moderate to high impacts on the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environment. The level of impact would depend on the specific situation and underscores the importance of adhering to established safety procedures, routine maintenance, and oil spill contingency planning presented in the Environmental Management Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations regarding the proposed exploratory drilling programme on Block 52 include the following: • • • • •

• •

Implementation and adherence to PSEPBV’s Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Mandatory Control Framework (MCF), which is the governing HSE system for the drilling programme activities; Adherence to PSEPBV’s Oil Spill Contingency Plan, including designated pre-deployment of necessary Tier 1 spill response equipment and supplies and coordination with Tier 2 and Tier 3 responders; Adherence to all PSEPBV’s remaining contingency, emergency, and safety plans; Implementation and adherence to PSEPBV’s HSE MCF policies for vessel and drilling operations on the MODU; Implementation and adherence to project-specific plans (e.g., solid and hazardous waste management) and the general preventative and protective measures in place, or to be enacted, to manage the potential impacts on the environment from the exploratory drilling programme activities and to ensure compliance with all relevant Suriname legislation, as outlined in the Environmental Management Plan; Implementation and adherence to project-specific mitigation measures; and Implementation and adherence to PETRONAS HSE MCF plans and policies.

PSEPBV has a corporate commitment to conduct business in a manner that respects the environment as well as the health and safety of its employees, customers, contractors, and communities where it operates. PSEPBV will adhere to identified project-specific mitigation measures and conduct its operations according to standard management procedures. Through its adherence to these recommendations, PSEPBV expects to conduct its exploratory operations with minimal impact to the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environments of Suriname.


Table of Contents Page Samenvatting .................................................................................................................. ES-1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ES-7 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... ix List of Photos ..................................................................................................................... xiii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................ xv 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 5 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE ESIA .................................................................................... 5 2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 9 2.1 WELL LOCATION AND SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 9 2.2 DRILLING RIG DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 11 2.3 DRILLING MUDS AND CUTTINGS DISCHARGES .............................................. 11 2.4 OTHER WASTES................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Sanitary Wastes ...................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Deck Drainage ......................................................................................... 16 2.4.3 Minor Discharges..................................................................................... 16 2.4.4 Solid Wastes............................................................................................ 17 2.5 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS .............................................................................. 17 2.5.1 Engines and Generators .......................................................................... 17 2.6 SUPPORT OPERATIONS ..................................................................................... 18 2.6.1 Onshore Support Bases .......................................................................... 18 2.6.2 Transportation Routes and Schedules .................................................... 20 2.7 PROTECTIVE MEASURES ................................................................................... 20 2.7.1 Environmental Protection Measures ........................................................ 20 2.7.2 Other Safety Systems and Features ....................................................... 20 3.0 Legal and Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................... 23 3.1 NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ............................................................... 23 3.1.1 Screening Phase ..................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Scoping Phase ........................................................................................ 25 3.1.3 Assessment Phase .................................................................................. 25 3.1.4 Reviewing Phase ..................................................................................... 25 3.1.5 Decision and Monitoring Phase ............................................................... 26 3.1.6 Key Government Stakeholders ................................................................ 26 3.1.7 Petroleum-Related Legislation ................................................................ 28 3.1.8 Relevant Environmental Legislation ........................................................ 28 3.1.9 National Biodiversity Strategy.................................................................. 31 3.2 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND GUIDELINES............ 31 3.2.1 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity .................................. 32 3.2.2 The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Convention) ........... 32 3.2.3 The Ramsar Convention .......................................................................... 32 3.2.4 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna ........................................................................ 33 3.2.5 Amazon Cooperation Treaty .................................................................... 33 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV i

Table of Contents (Continued) Page 3.2.6 3.2.7

3.3

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .................................. 33 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78/2012) ...................................................................... 33 3.2.8 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal ............................................. 35 3.2.9 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ................... 35 3.2.10 World Heritage Convention ..................................................................... 35 3.2.11 Other Relevant International Conventions ............................................... 36 3.2.12 International Effluent and Emissions Guidelines ..................................... 36 PSEPBV HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY ............................... 38

4.0 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................... 41 4.1 WELL LOCATION .................................................................................................. 41 4.2 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 42 4.3 DRILLING RIG ....................................................................................................... 42 4.4 DRILLING MUDS ................................................................................................... 42 4.5 DRILLING MUDS AND CUTTINGS DISPOSAL .................................................... 43 4.6 SANITARY WASTES ............................................................................................. 43 4.7 SUPPORT OPERATIONS ..................................................................................... 43 4.8 NO ACTION ........................................................................................................... 43 5.0 Scope of Assessment .................................................................................................. 45 6.0 Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation Programme............................. 47 6.1 INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS ..................................... 47 6.2 CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................................. 47 6.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS............................................................................................... 49 7.0 Description of Existing Environment ......................................................................... 51 7.1 REGIONAL SETTING ............................................................................................ 51 7.2 GEOLOGY AND BATHYMETRY ........................................................................... 52 7.2.1 Bathymetry and Seafloor Surface ............................................................ 53 7.2.2 Sediments................................................................................................ 55 7.3 METEOROLOGY, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE ..................................................... 74 7.3.1 Meteorology ............................................................................................. 74 7.3.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 88 7.3.3 Noise ....................................................................................................... 89 7.4 PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 89 7.4.1 Currents ................................................................................................... 89 7.4.2 Tides ........................................................................................................ 92 7.4.3 Hydrography ............................................................................................ 92 7.5 CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 96 7.6 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 97 7.6.1 Plankton................................................................................................... 97 7.6.2 Benthos ................................................................................................... 97 7.6.3 Fishes .................................................................................................... 112 7.6.4 Sea Turtles ............................................................................................ 114 7.6.5 Marine Mammals ................................................................................... 120 7.6.6 Other Surinamese Sensitive (Endangered or Threatened) Species ..... 125 7.6.7 Sensitive Ecosystems and Habitats ...................................................... 128

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-ii

Table of Contents (Continued) Page 7.7

SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS .......................................... 129 7.7.1 Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................... 129 7.7.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 147

8.0 Predicted Environmental Impacts and Risk Assessment ...................................... 155 8.1 RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................... 155 8.1.1 Risk Assessment ................................................................................... 155 8.1.2 Impact Identification............................................................................... 155 8.2 IMPACT CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 157 8.3 IMPACTS OF ROUTINE OPERATIONS.............................................................. 159 8.3.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................. 159 8.3.2 Sediment Quality and Seafloor Geology ............................................... 160 8.3.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 167 8.3.4 Biology ................................................................................................... 169 8.3.5 Socioeconomic and Cultural Conditions ................................................ 180 8.4 ACCIDENTS OR UPSETS ................................................................................... 181 8.4.1 Impacts from a Surface Diesel Spill ....................................................... 185 8.4.2 Crude Oil Spill........................................................................................ 187 8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 190 8.6 TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS ............................................................................ 190 8.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .................................................................................... 191 9.0 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 199 9.1 CONTINGENCY, EMERGENCY, AND SAFETY PLANS .................................... 200 9.2 RIG INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL ................................................................. 200 9.3 DRILLING OPERATIONS .................................................................................... 200 9.4 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT .......................................... 201 9.4.1 Waste Classification and Waste Management ...................................... 201 9.4.2 Waste Oil ............................................................................................... 201 9.4.3 Solid Waste ........................................................................................... 201 9.4.4 Hazardous Waste .................................................................................. 202 9.4.5 Shorebase Disposal of Waste ............................................................... 202 9.4.6 Waste Volumes ..................................................................................... 202 9.5 PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION ..................................................................... 202 10.0 Determination of Significance ................................................................................ 207 10.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACT SOURCES.................................................................... 207 10.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CLASSIFICATIONS .................................................... 207 10.3 IMPACT DETERMINATIONS............................................................................... 209 10.4 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS ............................................................ 209 10.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY ....................................................................... 210 11.0 Environmental Management Plan .......................................................................... 219 11.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 219 11.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND OPERATIONS ................. 219 11.3 ESIA ISSUES, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 221 11.3.1 ESIA Approach ...................................................................................... 221 11.3.2 Impact Determinations ........................................................................... 222 11.3.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 222 11.4 GENERAL PREVENTATIVE AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES .......................... 225 11.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING .................................................................. 226 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-iii

Table of Contents (Continued) Page 11.6 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANS............ 227 11.7 LIST OF MITIGATION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELEVANT TO OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ 228 11.8 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AUDITS OR REVIEWS PLANNED ........................................................................................... 228 11.9 POST-DRILL COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 229 12.0 Monitoring Programme ........................................................................................... 237 12.1 OPERATIONAL MONITORING ........................................................................... 237 12.2 POST-DRILL MONITORING ................................................................................ 237 13.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 243 13.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 243 13.1.1 Exploratory Drilling Programme Scope ................................................. 243 13.1.2 Scope of Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 243 13.1.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 245 13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 245 14.0 References Cited ...................................................................................................... 247 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 263 Appendix A: Approved Terms of Reference ..........................................................A-1 Appendix B: Approved Study Plan ........................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Environmental Baseline Survey Report ........................................... C-1 Appendix D: Socioeconomic Impact Assessment ................................................ D-1 Appendix E: Wave and Current Quarterly Reports ...............................................E-1 Appendix F: Dispersion Modelling of Drilling Discharges ...................................... F-1 Appendix G: Spill Trajectory Analysis for a Major Oil Spill (Blowout) Modelling ......................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: Emergency Response Plan ............................................................. H-1 Appendix I: Waste Management Plan .................................................................... I-1 Appendix J: Public Presentations and Comments ................................................ J-1 Appendix K: VASSA Toxicity Test Results and VASSA Materials Safety Data Sheet ........................................................................................K-1 Appendix L: Oil Spill Contingency Plan ................................................................. L-1 Appendix M: PETRONAS HSE Mandatory Control Framework........................... M-1

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV ES-iv

List of Tables Table

Page

ES-1.

Putlocatie, waterdiepte en algemene putkenmerken van het voorgestelde Block 52 Onderzoeksboor programma.................................. ES-2

ES-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. .................................. ES-8

2-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. ........................................ 9

2-2.

Anticipated timeline for drilling operations at the Roselle-1 wellsite. .............. 10

2-3.

Storage capacities and specifications of the Le Tourneau Class 240C jack-up drilling rig. ........................................................................................... 11

2-4.

Mud components potentially used in the Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. .................................................................................................... 13

2-5.

Types and volumes of mud products to be used and volumes discharged. ..................................................................................................... 14

2-6.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and a 90-day drilling duration. .......................... 16

2-7.

Estimated air pollutant emissions from drilling rig, supply vessels, and helicopter engines.* ........................................................................................ 17

3-1.

Role of key environmental government agencies in Suriname. ...................... 26

3-2.

Overview of MARPOL Annex V as revised in 2012. ....................................... 34

3-3.

MARPOL 73/78/2012 provisions relevant to oil and gas development.* ........ 37

3-4.

Effluent limits used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) for oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. .................................... 38

4-1.

Qualitative analysis of operational options versus factors considered important (including no action) for meeting objectives of the exploratory drilling project. ................................................................................................. 41

6-1.

Responses to the question: “Do you believe that this exploratory well can benefit this area generally?” ..................................................................... 48

6-2.

Responses to the question: “Do you have concerns about how this exploratory well might affect this area generally?” .......................................... 48

7-1.

Total organic carbon (TOC) content and grain size distribution in sediment samples collected during the May 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ..................................................................... 60

7-2.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) (total oil and grease) concentrations in sediment samples collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey......... 63

7-3.

Results of a linear correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) between individual organic analytes and the percentage contribution of fine sediments (silt plus clay). ........................................................................................................ 65

7-4.

Summary of metals concentrations (ppm) in 2010 Block 31 samples, 2014 Block 31 samples, and corresponding metals values from sediments analysed in Block 37 (From: Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010) and Block 30 (From: Repsol YPF, 2008)..................... 68 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV v

List of Tables (Continued) Table

Page

7-5.

Total metals concentrations in sediment samples collected in Block 31 during the 2014 Environmental Baseline Survey, average marine sediment (Salomons and Förstner, 1984), continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995), and sediment quality quick screening reference table values (Buchman, 2008). ........................................................................................... 71

7-6.

Results of principal components analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation for sediment metals and sediment particle size (major) classes..................... 73

7-7.

Temperature (°C) data for Paramaribo, Suriname (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 20 years of data). .................................................................. 75

7-8.

Rainfall data (cm) for Paramaribo, Suriname (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 39 years of data). .................................................................. 76

7-9.

Monthly rainfall in millimetres by station (From: Meteorology Department of Suriname)................................................................................ 77

7-10.

Summary of monthly wind directions offshore Suriname (From: Impact Weather, 2009). .............................................................................................. 80

7-11.

Average wind speed (kn) for Paramaribo (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 16 years of data). ............................................................................ 80

7-12.

Deployment and recovery dates of acoustic wave and current profilers in Block 52 offshore Suriname. ....................................................................... 81

7-13.

Acoustic water current profiler (AWCP) locations in Block 52. ....................... 82

7-14.

Hydrographic profile data collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ............................................................................................. 95

7-15.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) concentrations (µg L-1) from near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom water column samples collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ..................................................................... 96

7-16.

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations (mg L-1) from near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom water samples collected during the 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ............................................................................................. 97

7-17.

Top 20 individual taxa collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey ranked by total individuals.................................................... 99

7-18.

Top individual taxa collected during surveys offshore Suriname ranked by total individuals and feeding/motility characteristics................................. 101

7-19.

Feeding mode, motility, and feeding structures for the top 20 individual taxa collected during the 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. .......................................................................................................... 102

7-20.

Main commercially exploited marine fish and shrimp species recorded by the Suriname Fisheries Department (From: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). ................................................... 113

7-21.

Marine mammals known to occur within Suriname waters (listed alphabetically by scientific name). ................................................................ 120 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV vi


Page

7-22.

Threatened fish species found along the Suriname coast (From: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2014). ................................ 125

7-23.

Migratory birds of Suriname (From: Teunissen, 2002). ................................ 126

7-24.

Economically active population (15 to 64 years) by district, 2004 and 2012 (From: Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2012). ............................ 134

7-25.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected areas categories in Suriname, 2013 (From: Forest Service of Suriname, Division Nature Conservation). ..................................................................... 144

8-1.

Matrix of potential impacts. ........................................................................... 155

8-2.

Definitions of impact significance. ................................................................. 158

8-3.

Matrix combining impact consequence and likelihood to determine overall impact significance. ........................................................................... 159

8-4.

Estimated emissions from drilling rig, support vessels, and helicopter engines.* ....................................................................................................... 160

8-5.

Drilling mud and cuttings discharge scenario for the PSEPBV Block 52 well. ............................................................................................................... 162

8-6.

Summary of model parameters used for each scenario. .............................. 162

8-7.

Areal extent of seabed deposition (by thickness interval) for each model simulation at the Roselle-1 wellsite. ................................................... 165

8-8.

Maximum extent of thickness contours (distance from release site) for each model simulation at the Roselle-1 wellsite. .......................................... 166

8-9.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and 90-day drilling duration. ........................... 168

8-10.

Summary of impact producing factors identified for PSEPBV’s proposed exploratory drilling programme on Block 52 and the potential for transboundary effects. ............................................................................. 191

8-11.

Impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with proposed exploratory drilling operations in Suriname Block 52. ....................................................................................... 193

9-1.

Project-specific mitigation measures, by activity........................................... 204

10-1.

Definitions of impact significance. ................................................................. 208

10-2.

Matrix combining impact consequence and likelihood to determine overall impact significance. ........................................................................... 209

10-3.

Impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with proposed exploratory drilling operations, PSEPBV Suriname Block 52. ....................................................................... 211

10-4.

Summary of overall impact significance for project-related activities and accidents associated with the PSEPBV Suriname Block 52 exploratory drilling programme, based on residual impact determinations (i.e., after mitigation). .................................................................................................... 217

11-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. .................................... 220 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV vii


Page

11-2.

Types and volumes of mud products to be used and volumes discharged. ................................................................................................... 220

11-3.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and a 90-day drilling duration. ........................ 221

11-4.

Estimated air pollutant emissions from drilling rig, supply vessels, and helicopter engines*. ...................................................................................... 221

11-5.

Project-specific mitigation measures, by activity........................................... 223

11-6.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Exhaust and Ozone-Depleting Emissions.......................................................................... 230

11-7.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Marine Spills and Discharges. ............................................................................................ 231

11-8.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Seafloor Impacts. ........................................................................................................ 233

11-9.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Interactions with Wildlife. .................................................................................................. 234

11-10.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Social and Economic Impacts on Marine Users. ............................................................ 235

12-1.

Gulf of Mexico National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit requirements applicable for monitoring discharges in Block 52 offshore Suriname.................................................... 238

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV viii

List of Figures Figure

Page

ES-1.

Lokatie van Block 52 Suriname. ................................................................. ES-1

ES-1.

Location of Suriname Block 52 showing the PSEPBV area of interestand where 3D seismic data were collected in 2013 (indicated by grey crosshatching). ................................................................................... ES-7

1-1.

Location of Block 52 and the 1,767 km2 area (the PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. area of interest) where 3D seismic data were collected in 2013 and interpreted for the presence of potential oil and gas reserves. ...................................................... 2

1-2.

Area and stations where site-specific environmental data were collected within the PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. area of interest in Block 52........................................................................ 3

1-3.

Locations of acoustic water column profilers (AWCPs) were deployed relative to the Roselle-1 wellsite. ...................................................................... 4

2-1.

Roselle-1 wellbore schematic. ........................................................................ 12

2-2.

Schematic diagram of blowout preventer and control system typically installed on jack-up drilling platforms. ............................................................. 21

2-3.

Cameron 18¾" blowout preventer system used aboard the Le Tourneau Class 240C. .................................................................................... 21

3-1.

Flowchart of the National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname (NIMOS) Environmental Assessment (EA) process (From: NIMOS, 2009). .................................................................................... 24

3.2.

Petronas Carigali Health, Safety and Environment Policy. ............................. 39

3-3.

Petronas Carigali Environmental Objective Statement. .................................. 40

6-1.

Analysis of concerns by respondents, by survey area, regarding exploratory oil well drilling. .............................................................................. 48

7-1.

The Demerara Rise offshore Suriname. ......................................................... 52

7-2.

PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V Suriname shallow hazards survey location map. ......................................................................... 53

7-3.

Multibeam bathymetry and profile showing water depth variations across the area of the proposed wellsite (Gardline Marine Services, 2014). .............................................................................................................. 54

7-4.

Side-scan sonar rendering of the area of the proposed wellsite (Gardline Marine Services, 2014). .................................................................. 54

7-5.

Lease blocks off Suriname showing the location of Block 52 (Adapted from: Staatsolie, 2014a). ................................................................................. 55

7-6.

Sediment sampling quadrants and stations sampled during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ................................................................ 56

7-7.

Sediment grain size distribution samples grouped by quadrant in a) western Block 31; b) Block 37; and c) eastern Block 31.. ............................... 58

7-8.

Ternary diagram of sediment grain size for Block 52 samples, grouped by quadrant, based on Shepard’s classification scheme. ............................... 59

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV ix

List of Figures (Continued) Figure

Page

7-9.

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment total organic carbon (TOC) and grain size components at sampling stations in Block 52............... 61

7-10.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of sediment total petroleum hydrocarbons, total resolved hydrocarbons, unresolved complex mixture, and extractable organic matter (total oil and grease) at sampling stations in Block 31 from the 2010 Environmental Baseline Survey ............................................................. 62

7-11.

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) (µg g-1 dry weight) at sampling stations in Block 52 ................................................... 64

7-12.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of sediment aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt concentrations (ppm) in quadrants in Block 31. .......... 66

7-13.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of copper, iron, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc concentrations (ppm) in quadrants from Block 31. ......................................... 67

7-14.

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), and iron (Fe) (ppm) at quadrants in Block 52. .................................................................................... 69

7-15.

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) (ppm) at quadrants in Block 52. .................................................................................... 70

7-16.

Migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone over South America showing wind velocity and direction as well as rainfall (From: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 2011). .............................................. 75

7-17.

Average monthly meteorological parameters in Suriname, 2001 to 2005: a) temperature; b) relative humidity; and c) wind force (Beaufort Scale) (From: University of Suriname). ........................................................... 79

7-18.

Ellipsoid acoustic wave and current profiler (AWCP) mounting buoy (diameter 75 cm). ............................................................................................ 81

7-19.

Location of acoustic water current profilers (AWCPs) in Block 52 offshore Suriname. ......................................................................................... 82

7-20.

Station F2 current speed and direction 23 March through 6 April 2015.......... 83

7-21.

Station F2 current speed and direction 1 through 14 May 2015. .................... 84

7-22.

Station F2 current speed and direction 12 through 25 June 2015. ................. 84 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV x


Page

7-23.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 23 March through 6 April 2015. .................................................................................................... 85

7-24.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 1 through 14 May 2015. ............................................................................................................... 86

7-25.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 29 May through 11 June 2015. ................................................................................................. 87

7-26.

Hurricanes passing within 300 nmi of the project area between 1851 and 2013 (From: Impact Weather, 2009). ....................................................... 88

7-27.

Illustration produced by Eddy Watch of the location and progression of the North Brazil Current (NBC) rings (Data from: Horizon Marine, Inc., 2010). .............................................................................................................. 90

7-28.

Climatological near-surface currents for April 1st (top) and November 1st (bottom) (Source: Lumpkin and Garzoli, 2005). ........................................ 91

7-29.

Predicted tides for Paramaribo, Suriname for the period 18 to 19 May 2015. ............................................................................................................... 92

7-30.

Hydrographic profiles collected from Block 52 on 23 May 2014 at station L01. ..................................................................................................... 93

7-31.

Hydrographic profiles collected from Block 52 on 24 May 2014 at station H02. ..................................................................................................... 94

7-32.

Locations of the still and video camera drift tow transects conducted during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey between 22 and 23 May 2014. ................................................................................................ 104

7-33.

Sea turtle nesting beaches along the coast of Suriname (Adapted from: Goverse and Hilterman, 2005)............................................................. 116

7-34.

Tracking of turtle migration patterns in a) Guianas and from b) Matapica Beach, Suriname, in 2012 (From: WWF Guianas, 2012a). ........... 117

7-35.

Sea turtle tracking migration patterns in French Guiana (From: Ferraroli et al., 2004). .................................................................................................. 117

7-36.

Sea turtle tracking migration patterns in Suriname (2010 data) (From: World Wildlife Fund Guianas, 2012b)................................................ 118

7-37.

Age-sex pyramid for Suriname (From: Central Intelligence Agency, 2014). ............................................................................................................ 130

7-38.

Population growth rate (%) of Suriname from 2000 to 2012 (From: Central Intelligence Agency, 2014). .............................................................. 131

7-39.

Districts’ area as a percentage of the Suriname’s total area. ....................... 131

7-40.

Unemployment rates in Suriname from 1991 to 2012 (Modified from: World Bank, 2014). ....................................................................................... 132

7-41.

Mining sector government revenue by major industry (%) (From: Central Bank of Suriname, Ministry of Finance, and mining companies). .................................................................................................. 133

7-42.

Number of jobs by type of activity in Suriname from 2007 to 2010 (From: Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2010). ..................................... 133 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xi


Page

7-43.

Gold, bauxite/alumina, and oil extraction as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in Suriname. .......................................................... 135

7-44.

Total government revenue by sector (From: Central Bank of Suriname, General Bureau of Statistics, IMF, Ministry of Finance, and mining companies). .................................................................................................. 136

7-45.

Tourist arrivals in Suriname, 2003 to 2012 (From: Tourism Foundation, Suriname). .................................................................................................... 138

7-46.

Agriculture as percent of gross domestic production (From: http://www.Tradingeconomics.com). ................................................. 141

7-47.

Value of production of main agricultural commodities in Suriname (in million SRD and share of total) 2006 to 2010 (From: Agricultural Sector Support in Suriname 2013 by Christian Derlagen [United Nations Food and Agricultur Organization] for the Inter-American Development Bank). ..................................................................................... 142

7-48.

Suriname: single commodity transfer for livestock (%) (From: Derlagen et al., 2013). .................................................................................................. 143

7-49.

Location of Block 52 relative to maritime traffic routes. ................................ 146

7-50.

Protected areas in Suriname (From: Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname, 2015). ................................................................ 151

8-1.

Scenario 1 results—top: cumulative deposition thickness (muds and cuttings) from operational drilling discharges during the wet season (Q2) at the Roselle-1 wellsite; bottom: contours greater than 10 mm shown at expanded scale. ............................................................................ 163

8-2.

Scenario 2 results—top: cumulative deposition thickness (muds and cuttings) from operational drilling discharges during the dry season (Q4) at the Roselle-1 wellsite; bottom: contours greater than 10 mm shown at expanded scale. ............................................................................ 164

8-3.

Model simulation of an instantaneous 2,000-bbl diesel surface spill at the Roselle-1 wellsite: water surface oiling probabilities (top) and minimum travel times (bottom)...................................................................... 183

8-4.

Model simulation of a 21-day, 630,000-bbl subsurface crude oil release (water surface oiling probabilities and minimum travel times) modelled at the Roselle-1 wellsite. ............................................................................... 185

12-1.

Example data sheet for recording discharge measurements and observations. ................................................................................................ 241

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xii

List of Photos Photo

Page

ES-1.

Le Tourneau class 240C jack-up drilling rig. ...............................................ES-2

ES-2.

voorgetrokkenVideo en Camera slee..........................................................ES-4

ES-3.

Zeebodem in Block 52 tonen crinoids en broze sterren op een typische gladde ondergrond. .....................................................................................ES-4

ES-1.

Le Tourneau Class 240C jack-up drilling rig. ..............................................ES-8

2-2.

Nieuwe Haven planned shorebase in Paramaribo.......................................... 19

2-3.

Example blowout preventer stack (left) and hydraulic controls (right). ........... 22

7-1.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect J02 showing a smooth substrate with hydroids, brittle stars, and a crinoid colony............................ 105

7-2.

View of the seafloor along Transect J02 showing typical smooth substrate with an unidentified crustacean (center). ...................................... 105

7-3.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect N01 showing typical smooth substrate with brittle stars. ............................................................... 106

7-4.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect N01 showing crinoids and an unidentified fish. ....................................................................................... 106

7-5.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect P02 showing crinoids and brittle stars on the seafloor with fine- to medium-grained sediments. ........... 107

7-6.

An unidentified sea pen (lower left) observed along Transect P02 along with a small depression in the seafloor. ........................................................ 107

7-7.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing an unidentified antipatharian black coral. .............................................................................. 108

7-8.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing a virgulariid (Virgularia sp.) sea pen with extended polyps (left) and retracted polyps (right). Colors have been slightly altered to show detail. ............................. 108

7-9.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing crinoids and algae (Sargassum sp.) in a small depression on the seafloor. ............................... 109

7-10.

View of the seafloor along Transect E01 showing a black wire coral Cirrhipathes sp. on a soft bottom substrate. ................................................. 109

7-11.

Close-up view of extended polyps of a black wire coral (Cirrhipathes sp.) observed along Transect C01. ............................................................... 110

7-12.

Unidentified crinoids and a black wire coral (Cirrhipathes sp.) observed along Transect C01. ..................................................................................... 110

7-13.

View of the seafloor along Transect A01 showing an unidentified fish near a small seafloor depression. ................................................................. 111

7-14.

View of the seafloor along Transect L01 showing crinoids colonizing small rubble pieces. ...................................................................................... 111

7-15.

Images of the five species of sea turtles known to occur in Suriname. Top left: leatherback turtle; top right: hawksbill turtle; mid-left: green turtle; mid-right: loggerhead turtle; bottom: olive ridley turtle (From: World Wildlife Fund, 2014)............................................................................ 114

7-16.

Cathedral-Basilica of Saint Peter and Paul in Paramaribo (Photo courtesy of John Tiggelaar II, CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.). ........................... 138

7-17.

Guyana fishing boats (From: Google Images). ............................................. 139 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xiii

This page intentionally left blank.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations µPa ABS ACT ANOVA AWCP BHA BOD BOEM BOP CARICOM CL CITES CO COD CSA dB DOC DP EBS EEZ EMP ENSO EOM ERP ESIA FAO GDP H2S HSE MS HSE Hz IMO ITCZ IUCN MARPOL MAS MCF MDL MDL MEPC MMS MOC

micropascal American Bureau of Shipping Amazon Cooperation Treaty analysis of variance acoustical water column profiler bottom-hole assembly biological oxygen demand (U.S.) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management blowout preventer Caribbean Community confidence Level Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species carbon monoxide chemical oxygen demand CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. decibel dissolved organic compound dynamically positioned Environmental Baseline Survey Exclusive Economic Zone Environmental Management Plan El Niño Southern Oscillation extractable organic matter Emergency Response Plan Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations gross domestic product hydrogen sulphide Health, Safety and Environment Management System Health, Safety, and Environment hertz International Maritime Organization Intertropical Convergence Zone International Union for the Conservation of Nature International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Maritime Authority Suriname PETRONAS HSE Mandatory Control Framework method detection limit method detection limit Marine Environment Protection Committee (U.S.) Minerals Management Service meridional overturning cell EBS for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) MODU MRU MUMA NAAQS NBC NBS NCCR NECC NEDECO NIMOS NOAA NO X NTU OSCP PM PM POOH PSEPBV PSU Ramsar rms ROC SBM SEC SIMPROF SIMS SOLAS SO X SSTA STINASU TCT TOC TOG TOR TPH TRH TSS TVDDF UCM UNCLOS UNFCCC

mobile offshore drilling unit mud recovery unit Multiple Use Management Area National Ambient Air Quality Standards North Brazil Current National Biodiversity Strategy National Coordination Centre for Disaster Management North Equatorial Counter Current Netherlands Engineering Consultants National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname (U.S.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nitrogen oxides nephelometric turbidity unit Oil Spill Contingency Plan particulate matter particulate matter pool out of hole PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. practical salinity unit Convention on Wetlands of International Importance root mean square retention of oil on cuttings synthetic-based drilling mud South Equatorial Current similarity profile analysis Suriname Institute of Management Studies United Nations Convention for Safety of Life at Sea sulphur oxides sea surface temperature anomaly Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname Ministry of Transportation, Communication, and Tourism total organic carbon total oil and grease terms of reference total petroleum hydrocarbons total resolved hydrocarbons total suspended solids true vertical depth drill floor unresolved complex matter United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change EBS for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xvi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) USEPA VOC VSP VSP WBM WWF

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency volatile organic compound vertical seismic profile vertical seismic profiling water-based drilling mud World Wildlife Fund

EBS for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV xvii


1.0 Introduction PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. (PSEPBV) proposes to conduct exploratory drilling in Block 52 offshore Suriname (Figure 1-1). The Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme will involve one well, designated Roselle-1, to be drilled primarily in the second quarter (between April and August) of 2016. It is estimated that 90 days will be required to complete the drilling process for the Roselle-1 location. This Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was prepared by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. (CSA) for PSEPBV in accordance with the with the Environmental Act (draft) and Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volumes I, II, III, IV, and V (issued in March 2005 and updated in August 2009); Volumes VI and VII issued in 2013; and Volume VIII issued in 2014. These volumes outline the characteristics of Category A and selected Category B projects, which require a full ESIA. This ESIA has been prepared in accordance with the National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname (NIMOS)-approved Terms of Reference (TOR) (Appendix A) for this project, the NIMOS-approved Study Plan (Appendix B), and PSEPBV’s own standards for operational excellence. This ESIA covers the offshore exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Suriname and the coastal districts potentially affected by this project. Historic data collected from the offshore waters of Suriname over the past several decades were reviewed and summarised. Site-specific environmental and metocean data were collected within the area of proposed drilling activity (Figures 1-2, and 1-3), and current socioeconomic data were collected from within the coastal districts. Historical environmental and socioeconomic data were reviewed and summarised in order to discuss the newly collected field data in proper context with respect to the overall environment and the potential for impacts associated with this proposed project as well as the ongoing petroleum exploration efforts off the coast of Suriname. 1.1

DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this ESIA are to • • • • • •

identify national and international regulatory requirements; describe the proposed activities; describe the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic environment; identify and evaluate potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts; identify and describe mitigation and monitoring measures to minimise or avoid environmental and socioeconomic impacts; and provide an effective Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the activities.

EBS for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 1

Figure 1-1.

Location of Block 52 and the 1,767 km2 area (the PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. area of interest) where 3D seismic data were collected in 2013 and interpreted for the presence of potential oil and gas reserves. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 2

Figure 1-2.

Area and stations where site-specific environmental data were collected within the PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. area of interest in Block 52. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 3

Figure 1-3.

Locations of acoustic water column profilers (AWCPs) were deployed relative to the Roselle-1 wellsite. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 4

1.2

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This ESIA is based on the exploratory drilling plan prepared by PSEPBV, which has been submitted to the Government of Suriname. Environmental and socioeconomic impacts were evaluated based on literature review; collected field data, including 1 year’s worth of wave height and current data; and review of similar international activities as well as the best professional judgment of the authors. The ESIA process involves a systematic evaluation of the potential consequences of a given industrial activity or development, and was prepared in accordance with the legislative and regulatory framework prescribed by NIMOS for Suriname and the PSEPBV environmental policy. ESIA preparation occurred in three critical steps: • •

•

1.3

A Project Description was developed by PSEPBV that explains the entire exploratory drilling project (Chapter 2.0). A Description of the Environment (physical, biological, and socioeconomic) for the project site and surrounding area was prepared using historical data and new data collected during the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Socioeconomic Impact Assessment, and Wave and Current Monitoring (Chapter 7.0). Complete sets of all environmental data collected from Block 52 are presented in Appendices C, D, and E. The Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the project were identified and assessed. Risk of specific impacts occurring was assessed, and the significance of potential impacts based on impact consequences if they were to occur was analysed based on industry experience in similar conditions. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce or avoid identified potential impacts. These include measures planned or already in place as well as recommendations for additional measures (Chapters 8.0 and 9.0). STRUCTURE OF THE ESIA

The ESIA presents information following the NIMOS-approved Table of Contents from the Study Plan. The following information provides an overview of the ESIA structure and a brief discussion of each section. The Executive Summary is a non-technical summary of the project that briefly describes the baseline environment, describes the risk assessment methodology, notes potentially significant impacts, identifies mitigation measures, and provides recommendations to avoid significant environmental impacts. This summary has been written for an educated, non-specialist audience and is presented in both English and Dutch. The Table of Contents, including a List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, directly follows the Executive Summary and precedes the main body of the report. Chapter 1.0, Introduction, presents an overview of the project, including objectives, location, and scheduling. Chapter 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed narrative of the proposed activities from the planning phase to the proper abandonment of the exploratory well. Details of planned activities that may affect the environment are described within this section and appropriate management procedures to control and reduce these impacts are enumerated. Chapter 3.0, Legal and Regulatory Considerations, identifies and describes the national and international laws, regulations, guidelines, and PSEPBV standards applicable to maintaining environmental quality and socioeconomic stability, health, and safety relevant to the proposed project. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 5

Chapter 4.0, Alternatives Analysis, compares alternatives that were considered in developing the proposed action. The section documents the evaluation of each alternative, including the prevention and/or minimisation of significant negative impacts and the optimisation of positive impacts. The “No Action” alternative is also considered. Chapter 5.0, Scope of Assessment, describes the approach for the assessment of both the environmental and social impacts, positive as well as negative, and respective significance. The assessment will be conducted according to the TOR for the content of the ESIA approved by NIMOS. Chapter 6.0, Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation Programme, describes the process by which government agencies, communities, other entities, and the public were engaged to elicit comments and reactions to the proposed exploratory drilling activity. Chapter 7.0, Description of Existing Environment, characterises the affected (baseline) environment in the area of PSEPBV’s potential exploratory drilling interest in terms of physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic components. Rather than providing exhaustive detail, this section will present key information needed to understand the environmental setting, identify valued ecosystem components, and assess impacts. The text is organised logically by resource as follows: • • •

Physical Environment; Biological Environment; and Socioeconomic and Cultural Conditions.

Chapter 8.0, Predicted Environmental Impacts and Risk Assessment, identifies and assesses the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from this proposed project. The section includes the basis for impact designation, impacts from routine operations, and impacts from potential accidents or upsets. Cumulative and potential transboundary impacts are discussed also. Both beneficial and detrimental impacts are identified and discussed. Chapter 9.0, Mitigation Measures, presents in-place management and mitigation plans to be applied to this project. Mitigation measures are listed for each identified environmental and socioeconomic impact. Chapter 10.0, Determination of Significance, presents the criteria for evaluating the possible significance of impacts described in the NIMOS Environmental Assessment (EA) Guidelines and indicated potential residual impacts after mitigation. Chapter 11.0, Environmental Management Plan, lists and describes the EMPs prepared as an integral part of the ESIA process that summarise mitigation measures, including those required by laws or regulations as well as additional realistic, feasible, and cost-effective measures to prevent or reduce significant negative impacts from exploration drilling activities. Chapter 12.0, Monitoring Programme, is not generally required for an exploratory well unless the operator has failed to meet the requirements of their EMP (i.e., if the operator is in noncompliance). At the end of the drilling programme, PSEPBV will compile a summary report for submission to NIMOS that will report actual environmental management performance with reference to the Environmental Management Strategy objectives and targets. Specifics of a follow-up monitoring programme will be negotiated with NIMOS if such follow-up monitoring is deemed necessary. Chapter 13.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, presents recommendations for minimising negative impacts and optimising positive impacts during the proposed project.

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 6

Conclusions are reached regarding the conduct of this project in an environmentally sound manner. Chapter 14.0, Literature Cited, lists all published and unpublished data sources in this ESIA. Appendices presented in support of this ESIA consist of the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Appendix A – Approved Terms of Reference; Appendix B – Approved Study Plan; Appendix C – Environmental Baseline Survey Report; Appendix D – Socioeconomic Impact Assessment; Appendix E – Wave and Current Quarterly Reports Appendix F – Dispersion Modelling of Drilling Discharges; Appendix G – Spill Trajectory Analysis for a Major Oil Spill (Blowout) Modelling; Appendix H – Emergency Response Plan; Appendix I – Waste Management Plan; Appendix J – Public Presentations and Comments; Appendix K – VASSA Toxicity Test Results and VASSA Materials Safety Data Sheet; Appendix L – Oil Spill Contingency Plan; and Appendix M – PETRONAS HSE Mandatory Control Framework.



2.0 Project Description 2.1

WELL LOCATION AND SCHEDULE

The exploratory wellsite for PSEPBV’s proposed drilling operations is located off the coast of Suriname in the Block 52 licence area (Figure 1-1). Designated as Roselle-1, the wellsite is located in a water depth of 87 m (285.4 ft). Surface location coordinates and general characteristics for the well are provided in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 1-2. Table 2-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. Characteristic Operator Location X (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Y (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Latitude Longitude Well class Water depth Proposed spud date Total drilling time Total depth

Roselle-1 Wellsite -1 PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. Block 52 700225.0 m 799843.8 m 07°13'56.796" (N) 55°11'11.719" (W) Vertical exploration well 87 m (285.4 ft) 1 April 2016 90 days (not including additional operations) 5,030-m TVDDF (±100 m)


Drilling is expected to start in early April 2016. For a dry hole at Roselle-1, it is estimated that no more than 90 days will be required to drill and log the well. The Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme will involve the following three phases: 1. Pre-Drilling: •

Take delivery of the mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) in Trinidad and tow to Block 52 using two tugboats.

2. Drilling: • •

Rig positioning, anchoring, jack up, and preloading and prespud preparation upon arrival (position the MODU on the seafloor and land its legs into the sediments). Conduct exploratory drilling. Once the MODU is on location, the drilling operations will follow the anticipated time line shown in Table 2-2.


Table 2-2.

Anticipated timeline for drilling operations at the Roselle-1 wellsite. Well Operations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Approach location, soft pin, rig positioning, jack up and preloading, prespud preparation. Drill 8½" pilot hole to 800 m TVDDF. POOH. Pull out BHA to surface. M/U 36" BHA and open up hole to 36" to 72 m TVDDF. POOH. Run, set, and cement 30" conductor. WOC. Set conductor housing, N/U riser and diverter. M/U 26" BHA and open up hole to 26" to 800 m TVDDF. POOH. Run, set, and cement 20" casing. WOC. Cut casing, flush hanger. Install seals assembly/pack-off and test. N/U 18¾" BOP and test. M/U 17½" BHA, drill out shoe and new formation. LOT. Continue drill 17½" hole to 13⅝" casing point 2,200 m TVDDF. Run, set, and cement 13⅝" casing. Cut casing, flush hanger. Install seals assembly/pack-off and test. M/U and RIH 12¼" × 14¾" BHA; drill out shoe and new formation. LOT. Continue drill 12¼" × 14¾" hole to 11¾" casing point 3,200 m TVDDF. R/U and run open hole logging, POOH. R/D. Run, set, and cement 11¾" casing. M/U and RIH 10⅝ × 12¼" BHA. Drill out cement and shoe, LOT. Continue drilling 10⅝ × 12¼" hole to 4,500 m TVDDF. R/U and run open hole logging, POOH. R/D Run, set, and cement 9⅝" casing. M/U and RIH 8½" BHA. Drill out cement and shoe, LOT. Continue drilling 8½" hole to 5,030 m TVDDF. R/U and run open hole logging, POOH. R/D. Plug and abandon. Rig down and prepare for rig move. Rig move from Roselle-1 location. Total

Depth (m)

Dry Hole Days

Total Days

0

3.60

3.60

800 0

2.28 0.23

5.88 6.12

190

0.80

6.92

190 190

1.17 0.60

8.08 8.68

800

2.95

11.63

800

1.26

12.89

800

1.60

14.49

803

0.88

15.37

2,200

5.48

20.86

2,200

2.35

23.21

2,200

0.60

23.81

2,203

1.12

24.93

3,200

3.63

28.56

3,200 3,200

4.80 2.53

33.36 35.89

3,200

1.28

37.17

4,500 4,500 4,500 4,503 5,030 5,030 0

15.27 4.80 3.08 1.50 14.23 4.80 6.00

52.44 57.24 60.32 61.82 76.05 80.85 86.85

0

2.40

89.25

5,030.00

--

89.25

3. Post-Drilling: •

Well Abandonment o

o

In the event of a dry hole, casing will be isolated with cement and the casing pipe cut off below the mud line, leaving no potential hazard to fishing lines, nets, or other local activity that could take place in Block 52. In the event there is an indication of oil presence, the well will be evaluated by an extended logging programme before being plugged and permanently abandoned.


2.2

DRILLING RIG DESCRIPTION

The drilling subcontractor for the Roselle-1 well has not yet been selected, but the MODU to be used for this project will be a jack-up drilling rig similar to the Le Tourneau Class 240C (Photo ES-1). This type of rig is rated for working in water depths up to 122 m (400 ft) and a maximum drilling depth of 10,667 m (35,000 ft). Rig specifications include a heliport suitable for a Sikorsky S-61 or S-92 type helicopter. Living accommodations for a maximum of 108 personnel are air conditioned and weatherised and include a five-bed treatment room, galley and messroom facilities, two recreation rooms, laundry facilities, conference room, and company and contractor offices. The rig is classified by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and complies with Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)-required safety and firefighting equipment, including both combustible and hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) detectors as well as Halon-equivalent clean agent and portable chemical extinguishers stationed throughout the vessel. Emergency breathing apparatus the persons on board will be located at several key areas on the drilling rig (e.g., work and living areas). ABS-approved lifesaving equipment will be positioned at strategic locations aboard the drilling rig. It is expected that the crew will consist of rig personnel, catering personnel, operators, and others for a total of approximately 80 regular personnel during drilling operations. Drilling rig storage capacities and specifications of Le Tourneau Class 240C jack-up drilling rigs are provided in Table 2-3. Table 2-3.

Storage capacities and specifications of the Le Tourneau Class 240C jack-up drilling rig.

Rig Specification Fuel Drilling water Potable water Liquid mud Independent base oil storage Bulk bentonite/barite Bulk cement

2.3

Capacity or Characteristic 5,140 bbl 11,488 bbl 1,724 bbl 4,100 bbl 530 bbl 6,910 ft3 6,910 ft3

DRILLING MUDS AND CUTTINGS DISCHARGES

The proposed wellbore diagram (schematic) for the drilling operations at the planned wellsite is presented in Figure 2-1. Standard drilling technologies will be used, and though there may be minor changes in the drilling programme as executed, no significant deviations are anticipated.


Figure 2-1.

Roselle-1 wellbore schematic.

Drilling mud performs a number of important functions during drilling, including the following: • • • • • •

Lubricating the drill bit and drilling string; Cooling and cleaning the drill bit; Maintaining the stability of the borehole; Maintaining the pressure balance between the formation and the borehole; Removing drill cuttings from the hole and transporting them and other waste materials to the surface for disposal; and Keeping cuttings in suspension if drilling is stopped for any reason.

In preparation for well drilling, a detailed mud plan will be developed. Table 2-4 lists the mud components that may be used in Block 52.


Table 2-4. Hole Size 36"

26"

17½"

Mud components potentially used in the Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. Casing

Casing Type

X-52 30" 310 ppf conductor RL-4

8½"

Seawater spud mud (10 ppg)

Cementing/Centralization G-cement: 15.0 ppg Excess: 200% TOC = seabed Lead 12.6 ppg Tail 15.8 ppg Excess: 100% Top tail = 200 m above shoe Top lead = seabed

20" casing

X-56 WBM 166 ppf and (inhibited) 133 ppf 10.8 ppg RL-4S

13⅝" casing

Lead 12.6 ppg (top of lead at 1,300 m) SM125S Tail 15.8 ppg 88.2 ppf SBM 10.8 ppg Excess: 50% Vam SLIJ II Top tail = 200 m above shoe NO HC

P110 65.0 ppf 12¼" × 11¾" liner and 14¾" 60.0 ppf VAM FJL

10⅝" × 12¼"

Mud

9⅞" casing

Open hole

G Cement 15.8ppg SBM 11.7 ppg Top of Cement = Top of Liner = 1950m Excess: 35% OH or 15% Cal NO HC

SMC110 66.9 ppf VAM 21 and SBM 13.2 ppg SM125S 62.8 ppf VAM SLIJ II

--

SBM/WBM 13.6 ppg

G cement + silica Lead 12.6 ppg (150 m above previous csg shoe) Tail 15.8 ppg Excess 30%/ 10% OH caliper Top tail = 200 m above shoe Top lead = 150 m above previous casing shoe (If HC found, TOC = 150 m above topmost HC) *If 7” liner, run: G cement + silica 15.8 ppg Top of cement = top of liner = 4,100 m Excess: 15% Cal

SBM = synthetic-based mud; WBM = water-based mud.


The 36" hole section (the first 72 m drilled below the mud line) will be seawater with sweeps of a high-viscosity gel approximately every 10 m, or as required to clean the hole and prevent caving. A nondispersed gel polymer water-based mud (WBM) system will be used while drilling the 26" section. The nondispersed gel polymer system will be modified to a synthetic-based mud (SBM) to drill the 17½" hole. The 12¼" diameter well section will be drilled using an SBM. The base fluid to be used in these sections of the well is currently being evaluated; however, VASSA, a synthesised mineral-based drilling fluid has been used in previous drilling campaigns in Suriname. Based on lethal concentration test (LC 50 at 96 h), the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries approved VASSA for use in the waters of Trinidad and Tobago in 2008. VASSA was approved by NIMOS for use in the 2010 and 2011 drilling campaigns in Blocks 37 and 31 off Suriname. Alternative base fluids that could be utilised are ESCAID 110, IO-16/18, Synthetic B and Neoflo 2-48, each of which is as environmentally acceptable as VASSA or better. Contingency chemicals and lost circulation materials may be required during drilling operations in the event of any drilling difficulties such as a stuck pipe or loss of circulation. The following mud types are representative of the type and quantity of mud products planned for use in the Roselle1 well. Volumes of planned products to be discharged during each well interval are given in Table 2-5. Table 2-5.

Types and volumes of mud products to be used and volumes discharged.

Drilling Diameter Start Date Section duration (in.) (season) (days) 1

36

2

26

3

17½

4 5 6

12¼ × 14¾ 10⅝ × 12¼ 8½

2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter

Cuttings Discharge

Drilling Fluid (Mud) Discharge Vol. Rate (m3) (m3 d-1)

Mud Type

Release Depth

Vol. (m3)

Rate (m3 d-1)

3.08

137

44.5

191

62.0

Seawater

Seabed

2.95

192

76.8

401

135.9

WBM

Sea surface

5.48

182

33.2

n/a

n/a

SBM

Sea surface

3.63

144

39.7

n/a

n/a

SBM

Sea surface

17.45

105

6.0

n/a

n/a

SBM

Sea surface

7.23

21

2.9

205

28.4

SBM/WBM Sea surface

n/a = not applicable; SBM = synthetic-based mud; WBM = water-based mud.

Water-based mud will be dumped as each well section is completed. SBM will be reused for each section and sent back to the mud supply company after drilling is completed. During the drilling process, drilling muds are pumped from the mud storage tanks, down the center of the drill string through nozzles on the drill bit, and into the wellbore. The drilling muds and cuttings are returned to the drilling rig via the annulus between the casing and drill string, passing out through a flowline to the solids control system. The solids control system is designed to remove cuttings, gas, and silt so that the drilling mud may be recirculated downhole.


The muds containing the entrained cuttings flow onto the vibrating screens within a succession of cascading shale shakers. The shale shakers retain the larger cutting particles entrained in the mud. The mud then passes through the screens and falls into the mud pit. The underflow consisting of smaller sand particles and silts is recovered in the sand trap beneath the shale shakers. Provisionally, the muds will go through a degasser, a desander, and a desilter for removal of gas and the smallest solid particles. The collected mud can then be reconditioned and recirculated downhole. After passing through the solids control equipment (e.g., shale shakers, desander, and desilter), the drill cuttings with any attached residual drilling mud are discharged overboard to the ocean. Table 2-5 presents the estimated volumes of cuttings to be discharged over the course of drilling the Roselle-1 wellsite and indicates where these cuttings will be discharged. No SBMs will be discharged directly into the marine environment. At the completion of this project, all SBMs will be returned to the vendor and disposed of safely or recycled. Small amounts of mud typically are discharged with the cuttings. Based on the proposed mud formulations and depending upon the efficiency of the solids control system aboard the drill rig platform, total residual adhering SBM content of 6.9% or less would be expected to be discharged to the sea during drilling. To ensure a residual of less than 6.9% mud on discharged cuttings, a mud recovery unit (MRU) dryer will be utilised while drilling the sections of the well where SBMs are used. During the 2011 Aitkanti-1 drilling campaign in Block 31, measured retention of oil on cuttings (ROC) ranged from 2.70% to 2.77% over the life of the project (CSA International, Inc., 2012). In addition to the polymer mud discharged, residual barite and drilling mud additives will adhere to the discharged cuttings. Drilling muds and cuttings brought to the surface will be continuously tested for hydrocarbons as well as for information on the formation types and pressures encountered. Samples will be retained for analysis. Other data such as bit changes, drilling problems, or changes to mud additives will be recorded to aid in well interpretation. Further information on downhole conditions is obtained from sensors, which may be present in the bottom-hole assembly (BHA). Additionally, information is acquired by utilizing open and cased hole logging with sensors that can be introduced downhole on a wireline cable at the end of each section. These sensors will record rock properties and characteristics. Appropriate actions and procedures to minimise the risk of hazards to personnel, equipment, and the surrounding environment are identified in the project’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) (Appendix H). 2.4

OTHER WASTES

Other wastes generated during drilling include sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, minor discharges, and solid wastes (trash), as described in the following sections. Handling and disposal of all wastes will meet or exceed requirements of MARPOL and internal PSEPBV requirements. 2.4.1

Sanitary Wastes

Sanitary wastes or sewage (i.e., black water) consist of human body wastes from toilets and urinals. Domestic wastes (i.e., gray water) originate from showers, sinks, laundries, galleys, safety showers, and eye-wash stations. All sanitary and domestic wastes will be processed through an on-site waste treatment plant before being discharged overboard. It is assumed that one person generates 100 L of sanitary wastes and 220 L of domestic wastes per day. It is predicted that sanitary wastes will have an associated biochemical ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 15

oxygen demand (BOD) of 240 mg L-1. Table 2-6 outlines the volume of sanitary waste that will be generated on the drilling rig and the associated BOD using the above assumptions. Table 2-6.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and a 90-day drilling duration.

Waste Type Sanitary waste Domestic waste

Volume Generated (L) Per Day Project 8,000 720,000 17,600 1,584.000

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (kg) Per Day Project 1.92 172.80 ---

Sanitary and domestic waste from the drilling rig and support vessels will introduce suspended solids, nutrients, and chlorine into receiving waters, causing increases in BOD. However, these discharges are expected to dilute rapidly in the open ocean (USEPA, 1993; U.S. Minerals Management Service [MMS], 2002). 2.4.2

Deck Drainage

Drainage water on the drilling rig can originate from various sources, including • • • • • •

rainfall (deck runoff); clean area floor drains; machine area floor drains; overflow drains; bilge; and bunded areas beneath fuel and chemical storage areas.

Deck drainage also includes effluents from deck washings; tank cleaning operations; and runoff from kerbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pans in work areas. All drainage water could contain minor amounts of oily waste. The drilling rig is fitted with oil-filtering equipment with an alarm, automatic stopping device, and an oil content metre, which are ABS-certified in accordance with Resolution A.393 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Treated waters are decanted at less than 15-ppm oil levels. Bilge waters from machinery spaces are pumped to holding tanks, filtered, and discharged overboard with an oil-in-water level of less than 15 ppm, as required by MARPOL standards. Oil sludge is pumped to storage prior to removal from the rig. There will be no discharge of free oil in deck drainage that would cause a film, sheen, or discoloration of the surface of the water or a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the water surface. Contaminated deck drainage will be collected by a separate drainage system and treated for solids removal and oil/water separation. Separated oil will be held for onshore disposal or recycling; non-oily water will be discharged overboard. 2.4.3

Minor Discharges

The term “minor discharges” is defined by the USEPA (1993) to include point-source discharges such as desalinization unit discharge, fire control system test water, noncontact cooling water, ballast and storage displacement water, bilge water, boiler blowdown, test fluids, diatomaceous earth filter media, bulk transfer operations, painting operations, uncontaminated freshwater, water flooding discharges, and laboratory wastes. Small discharges from such sources may occur during the course of well drilling. All discharges will be in accordance with USEPA protocols.


2.4.4

Solid Wastes

A variety of waste materials made of glass, metal, paper, plastic, and wood are generated during drilling operations. Much of this waste is associated with galley and food service operations and operational supplies such as shipping pallets, containers (e.g., sacks, drums, buckets/pails, and reusable tanks) used for drilling muds and chemical additives, and protective coverings used on mud sacks, drilling pipes, and pallets (e.g., shrink wrap and pipe-thread protectors). The U.S. MMS (2002) estimated that the drilling of a typical offshore well in the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., to an average depth of 4,300 m) requires 100 pails, 250 pallets, 225 shrink-wrap applications, and two 55-gal drums, equivalent to several tons of drilling-related trash and debris. The daily estimated volume of garbage varies, depending on the number of crew and specialised personnel aboard the drilling rig. The daily estimated volume of garbage is 1,500 lb (680 kg). An analysis of jack-up rig drilling operations offshore California estimated production of approximately 110 lb (50 kg) of waste per day. Engine room wastes from a typical jack-up rig may contribute 0.7 bbl (30 gal) per day that require transport to shore for proper disposal (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1995). All noncombustible trash will be collected, segregated, and shipped to shore for processing and disposal. All combustible trash, excluding food trash, will be transported to shore for proper disposal. Food scraps comminuted to pass through a 25-mm mesh screen are the only solid wastes that will be discharged into the marine environment. 2.5

AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

The main source of air pollutant emissions during the project is combustion from drilling rig power generators, support vessels, and helicopter engines. No flaring is anticipated during drilling of the Roselle-1 well. Emission estimates for well drilling using an MODU such as the Le Tourneau Class 240C and support operations are provided in Table 2-7. Table 2-7.

Estimated air pollutant emissions from drilling rig, supply vessels, and helicopter engines.*

Source

Horsepower (hp)

Fuel Use (gal h-1)

PM

Air Pollutant Emissions (t) SO x NO x VOCs

519

4.30

19.84

148.83

4.45

32.45

695

7.72

35.48

265.98

9.96

58.02

171

0.48

2.11

16.36

0.49

35.70

1,385

12.50

57.43

431.17

14.90

126.17

Drill platform power generator** 2,150 per engine (six engines) Support vessels 14,400 per (three engines) vessel Helicopter (one 3,550 engine) Total --

CO

CO = carbon monoxide; NO x = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; SO x = sulphur oxides; t = metric tonnes; VOC = volatile organic compound. * Assumed project duration of 90 days, with a drilling rig operating 24 h d-1, one support boat operating 16 h d-1, and one helicopter 4 h d-1. Emission factors for diesel fuel from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management air quality spreadsheet (U.S. Minerals Management Service, 2007a), based on AP-42 and other industry sources. ** Assumes that each engine will operate 50% of the time over the course of the project.

2.5.1

Engines and Generators

Power on board the drilling rig is expected to be provided by six Caterpillar CAT 3516CHD 1,603 kW (2,150 hp) or similar type diesel electric engines. Two of these are assumed to operate 24 h d-1 during the project. Three supply vessels are assumed to operate for 16 h d-1 while the project is underway. One helicopter is assumed to operate for 4 h d-1. Based on these assumptions and emission factors used by the U.S. MMS (2002) for routine air quality calculations, estimated emissions over the maximum 90 days of this project are provided in Table 2-7. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 17

2.6 2.6.1

SUPPORT OPERATIONS Onshore Support Bases

Offshore operations will be supported by vessels and helicopters operating from the onshore support base and airport. Supplies will be transported to the drilling rig via supply boat, and personnel will be transported to and from the drilling rig by helicopter. The shorebase will be located at the Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo (Photo 2-2). The shorebase will include a storage area for tubular, wellheads, and miscellaneous supplies. Equipment, stores, and chemical supplies will be transferred to the drilling rig from the supply vessels with a pressurized hose (for fluids and dry powder bulk) or the drilling rig deck crane to lift containers and pallets. The helideck aboard the drilling rig is designed and rated for a Sikorsky S-92 or S-61 type helicopter. However, for the PSEPBV project, a medium type aircraft will be used for crew transport and emergency medical evacuations. It is anticipated that there will be five to six round-trip helicopter flights to and from the drilling rig per week while the rig is in Block 52. The helicopters will be based in the Paramaribo area with the intended operating base at either Johan Adolf Pangel International Airport or Paramaribo heliport.


Photo 2-2.

Nieuwe Haven planned shorebase in Paramaribo.


2.6.2

Transportation Routes and Schedules

The drilling rig will be towed to the Roselle-1 location by two towing vessels whose operating specifications will be determined at a later date. After completion of drilling operations, the drilling rig will be towed from Surinamese waters to its next area of operation. Supply vessels will be based in the Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo. A total of three vessel movements in and out of the port per week are estimated. Helicopters will be based in the Paramaribo area. At the present time, three to four round-trip flights per week are expected. Supply vessels and helicopters normally will travel via the most direct route to and from the wellsite. Rig and support vessel routes will be managed to avoid wildlife areas and sensitive habitats such as rockeries or nesting sites. The rig will be wet-towed from Trinidad via an open ocean route. Support vessel routing will be confined to the buoyed channel on the Suriname River so as to not impinge on any specific wildlife areas. All maritime journeys will be recorded in the respective vessel’s log. In addition, vessels will carry real-time tracking devices that will be actively monitored by PSEPBV. The tracking systems record all vessel positions and allow post-voyage playback for documentation. 2.7

PROTECTIVE MEASURES

2.7.1

Environmental Protection Measures

The following environmental protection measures are included in the proposed project: •

PSEPBV will maintain an ERP that outlines separate components covering routine operations and upset conditions, including well control, fire and explosion, escape of gases containing H 2 S, collision, and others.

•

A separate Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) provides an action plan for operations offshore Suriname, outlining communication and spill response hierarchies and response capabilities. The rig and vessel contractors also will have Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans. The OSCP outlines spill surveillance methods and on-site and on-call oil spill response capabilities (e.g., boom, sorbents, oil recovery capability, and dispersants) of Suriname and the specialist international company, Oil Spill Response Limited, of which the PSEPBV Corporation is a sustaining member.

•

All sanitary and domestic wastes will be processed through an on-site waste treatment plant before being discharged overboard and will meet MARPOL discharge standards.

•

All deck drainage will be passed through a gravity oil/water separator, and water will be discharged to the ocean with an oil content not to exceed 15 ppm. Separated oil will be held for onshore disposal or recycling.

•

All trash, except for food wastes, will be collected, segregated, and shipped to shore for processing and disposal. No trash or equipment will be deliberately dumped overboard.

2.7.2

Other Safety Systems and Features

As standard oilfield practice, BOP equipment will be used during drilling operations. BOPs essentially are hydraulic rams that can be used to close off the drilling pipe in the event of a potential loss of well control. On jack-up rigs such as the Le Tourneau Class 240C, the BOP is located on the platform itself rather than on the seafloor. If an emergency arises, the hydraulic rams can be manually or remotely activated. Figure 2-2 shows a typical BOP, and EBS for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 20

Figure 2-3 shows the Cameron 18¾" double hydraulic ram BOP system used aboard MODUs such as the Le Tourneau Class 240C. Photo 2-3 shows a typical BOP system and the manual controls that can be utilised to activate the BOP.

Figure 2-2.

Schematic diagram of blowout preventer and control system typically installed on jack-up drilling platforms.

Figure 2-3.

Cameron 18¾" blowout preventer system used aboard the Le Tourneau Class 240C. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 21

Photo 2-3.

Example blowout preventer stack (left) and hydraulic controls (right).

The site-specific well drilling plan will include detailed drilling, casing, and cementing programmes. These documents also summarise onboard safety equipment, safe drilling procedures, and potential drilling hazards. After the well has been drilled, it will be evaluated for the presence of hydrocarbons using electronic logging, including vertical seismic profiling, which uses an airgun for the sound source. At the end of the well, the borehole will be permanently plugged and the location abandoned, regardless of whether or not hydrocarbons are detected. Plugging by means of cement or mechanical plugs will be carried out to prevent flow of any hydrocarbons or formation fluid to the surface. In addition, zones in the wellbore known to contain moveable hydrocarbons will be plugged and isolated. The surface casing and the conductor will be cut below the mud line, leaving behind a clear seafloor as required by Suriname regulations or as otherwise approved by Suriname authorities. The permanent abandonment procedures for the well will be specifically designed for the well after drilling and evaluation. Abandonment procedures will be consistent with industry-wide practices and procedures and ensure environmental protection as well as safety as required by U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement standards.


3.0 Legal and Regulatory Considerations This section describes the environmental, legislative, and regulatory framework of Suriname relevant to the proposed exploratory drilling programme in Block 52, offshore Suriname. International conventions and agreements to which Suriname is a signatory, and the Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy of PSEPBV are discussed along with international standards, accords, and procedures that apply to this type of project. 3.1

NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

NIMOS is an executing arm of the National Council for the Environment (President’s Office). Under the Draft Environmental Act, the objectives for NIMOS are to act as the main governing body responsible for enforcing environmental laws and regulations as well as managing and effecting new laws and developing subsidiary legislation. The mission of NIMOS is to initiate the development of a national legal and institutional framework for environmental policy and management in the interest of sustainable development through the Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. Until this framework is in place, NIMOS will use its 2009 ESIA Guidelines (Volumes I through V) for projects, as applicable; where appropriate, international guidelines such as those issued by the World Bank will be utilised. NIMOS’s roles are as follows: • • • • • • • •

Development of an ESIA system of procedures and guidelines; Supervision of the ESIA process; Execution of environmental audits under the ESIA process; Development and monitoring of environmental standards and norms; Enforcement of environmental laws (in the absence of national environmental standards, comparable international environmental standards may be adopted); Coordination of government agencies with regard to environmental legislation and regulations; Drafting of environmental legislation and regulations; and Review of environmental conventions.

NIMOS has issued the following eight volumes of ESIA Guidelines: • • • • • • • •

Volume I: Generic; Volume II: Mining; Volume III: Forestry; Volume IV: Social Impact Assessment; Volume V: Power Generation and Transmission Projects; Volume VI: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Analysis Aquaculture Projects; Volume VII: Effective Analyses Agriculture Projects; and Volume VIII: Environmental Assessment Guidelines Road Projects.

These guidelines provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of the decisionmaking process by NIMOS in the context of relevant sectors (mining, forestry, social [socioeconomic], and power generation and transmission). Figure 3-1 illustrates NIMOS’s generic approach for the EA process. Each guideline includes the following phases: • • • • •

Screening; Scoping; Assessment; Reviewing; and Decision and monitoring. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 23

Figure 3-1.

3.1.1

Flowchart of the National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname (NIMOS) Environmental Assessment (EA) process (From: NIMOS, 2009).

Screening Phase

The screening process will determine the category of the project, which is the deciding factor on whether an ESIA is needed. There are three categories: •

Category A: An ESIA is mandatory. This includes projects likely to have adverse impacts that may be extensive, irreversible, and diverse. The extent and scale of the environmental impacts can be determined only after the ESIA has been completed. Mitigation measures can be formulated only after the results of the assessment are known. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 24

•

Category B: Either an ESIA or some other form of environmental document will be required; some environmental information is required before a decision can be made whether an ESIA is needed. This category includes projects whose impacts depend on the sensitivity of the location, project scale, and impact predictability. Projects must undergo a checklist after which the decision can be taken on whether an ESIA is required. The necessary environmental information is obtained from the project proponent.

•

Category C: No ESIA is required. This category includes projects whose impacts are well known, predictable, minuscule in scale, and can be mitigated.

Oil and gas activities such as the proposed exploratory drilling programme offshore Suriname in Block 52 fall under Category B, Path 2 projects where an ESIA and an EMP are required. NIMOS considers the scale and sensitivity (of the project) in making a determination of the Path. The bases for the three paths are as follows: • • •

If either scale and sensitivity are high If either scale or sensitivity are low If both scale and sensitivity are low

3.1.2

Path 3 Path 2 Path 1

Scoping Phase

If an ESIA is required, the scoping requires the applicant to prepare an appropriate TOR and Study Plan. The applicant has to publish a notification of intent to the public of the proposed project and conduct meetings with the identified stakeholders. To determine the scope of the project, NIMOS will use specific scoping guidelines developed for this phase. Several factors will be considered and will include the following: • • • •

Potential environmental impacts of the project; The significance of these impacts; Technically and economically feasible measures to mitigate any significant adverse impacts; and Alternatives to the project.

These guidelines will also be used to determine the sufficiency of the TOR and Study Plan proposed for a given project. After assessing the TOR, NIMOS will issue project-specific guidelines for the content of the EA to the Applicant. PSEPBV provided their Revised TOR and Study Plan on 04 August 2014 and NIMOS approved these documents on 15 August 2014 (Appendices A and B) 3.1.3

Assessment Phase

After completion of the scoping phase, the third step in the EA process is to assess the environmental impacts of the project. This consists of the following four tasks: • • • •

Description of the project; Description of the existing environment; Identification of project-environment interactions; and Formulation of an EMP.

3.1.4

Reviewing Phase

The responsibility for the reviewing phase also lies with NIMOS. The ESIA is assessed by NIMOS through a number of criteria using a review checklist. According to the ESIA Regulation for ESIA Review (Regulation 9.3), NIMOS must appoint a working group, ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 25

chaired by a representative of NIMOS and that includes a representative of the permitting agency and other relevant governmental bodies or institutes, to assist in the ESIA review. The working group must take into account any written comments received from members of the public pursuant to Regulation 8.3 and any reviews expressed orally by members of the public during any public hearing. An independent consultant may be appointed by NIMOS if expert advice is necessary. If the ESIA is considered to be deficient in any aspect, it will be returned to the Applicant, who will have to update the ESIA and resubmit it. If the ESIA is adequate, NIMOS will prepare an ESIA Review Report and acceptance letter to submit to the permitting agency. The permitting agency will then send a copy to the Applicant. 3.1.5

Decision and Monitoring Phase

This phase enables NIMOS and the permitting agency to make a decision on the outcome of the ESIA process as well as a post-decision evaluation of the proposed project. Apart from the information on the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the ESIA, it is suggested that the team responsible for the ESIA review also report on the justification of the approval (or denial) of the project. The advice from NIMOS is based on the Review Report and is compiled into a letter for the decisionmaker or the permitting agency (NIMOS, 2005, 2009). Within 14 business days after the NIMOS Review Committee has approved the ESIA, Staatsolie will issue a statement of No Objection to the proposed project. 3.1.6

Key Government Stakeholders

Several government stakeholders are involved in the management of environment-related activities in Suriname. The functions of these stakeholders are summarised in Table 3-1 while the pertinent legislation is discussed in Section 3.1.7. Table 3-1.

Role of key environmental government agencies in Suriname.

Government Stakeholder

Role

National Council for the Environment (Nationale Milieuraad [NMR])

• •

Environmental management and protection. Preparation of environmental policy at the national level and exercise of control in its implementation.

National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname (Nationaal Instituut voor Milieu en Ontwikkeling in Suriname [NIMOS])

• •

Environmental management and protection. Main governing body responsible for enforcing environmental laws and regulations as well as managing and effecting new laws and developing subsidiary legislation.

Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment (Ministerie van Arbeid, Technologische Ontwikkeling en Milieu [ATM])

• • •

Enforcement of occupational safety law. Development of a safe labour market. Contribute to sustainable development and has a role in environmental management and protection.

•

Responsible for policy direction, legislation, issuance of permits, budget allocation and inter-ministerial coordination, and for all matters relating to natural resources (not fisheries).

Ministry of Natural Resources (Ministerie van Natuurlijke Hulpbronnen)


Table 3-1.

(Continued).

Government Stakeholder Nature Conservation Division (Natuurbeheer) of the Suriname Forest Service

Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname (STINASU) Ministry of Spatial Planning, Land and Forest Management (Ministerie van Ruimtelijke, Ordening, Grond en Bosbeheer [ROGB]) Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Ministerie van Landbouw, Veeteelt en Visserij [LVV]) Sub-directorate of Fisheries (Onder Direkteur van de Visserij Dienst) Ministry of Health (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid [VGZ]) Maritime Authority Suriname (Maritieme Autoriteit Suriname [MAS])

Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V.

National Coordination Centre for Disaster Management (Nationaal Coördinatiecentrum voor Rampenbeheersing [NCCR])

Role • •

• •

Land use planning. Management and law enforcement with regards to conservation, nature reserves and wildlife.

•

Management of land and water used for agricultural purposes; management of fish resources; control of water quality.

• •

Management of fish resources. Enforces Fish Protection Act and Sea Fisheries Decree.

•

Management of environmental health (infectious diseases, food quality, water quality, industrial waste disposal, water-soil-air quality standards vis-à-vis human health).

•

Management of maritime traffic.

•

Develop Suriname’s hydrocarbon potential over the full value chain, to generate electricity, and to develop renewable sustainable energy resources. Assessment of hydrocarbon potential, promotion, contracting, and monitoring activities of other oil companies on behalf of the State.

•

•

A Division of the Ministry of Defence that develops national policies on disaster management through coordination and prevention of potential threats and disasters.

•

The NCCR contributes to the development of a resilient, confident, and therefore more secure society in which everyone takes responsibility. The NCCR has to fulfill a guiding role, in order to prevent, by means of policy development, coordination and direction, crises and disasters that need to be controlled. The NCCR’s commitment contributes to increasing the performance of the organisations in the security chain.

•

Ministry of Trade and Industries

•

•

Port Authority (Havenbeheer)

A non-governmental organisation established to assist the Forest Service in managing nature reserves. Responsible for nature tourism, promoting public environmental awareness campaigns.

• •

•

Ministry of Defense/NCCR

Management of natural reserves and parks (not Brownsberg Nature Park). Supports ROGB in management and law enforcement with regards to conservation, nature reserves and wildlife (below).

Promotion of domestic and foreign trade, including import and export policies, in cooperation with the relevant ministries. The matters of commercial policy and the granting of import-export and foreign exchange licenses, in cooperation with the relevant ministries. The operation and management of sites, jetties, and buildings as well as the construction, development, and operation of port areas. This includes installations and facilities within all port areas adjacent to public waterways in Suriname.


3.1.7

3.1.7.1

Petroleum-Related Legislation

The Petroleum Law

The Petroleum Law of 1990 governs petroleum operations in Suriname. The Law contains rules, regulations, and investment incentives for the execution of petroleum operations in Suriname. According to the Petroleum Law, State enterprises with petroleum concession rights are authorised to enter into petroleum agreements with other established petroleum companies for the prospecting, exploration, and exploitation of petroleum subject to approval by the Government. Under this provision, PSEPBV has entered into a production sharing contract with the national oil company Staatsolie for Block 52, offshore Suriname.

3.1.7.2

M ining Decree (Staastbesluit [S.B.; Governm ental Decision] 1986 no. 28)

Mining in Suriname is governed primarily by the Mining Decree of 8 July 1986, which carries the force of law. Under the Mining Decree, the State exercises jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of all minerals. Rights of Exploration and Rights of Exploitation may be granted to public or private parties under the terms of the Mining Decree by Ministerial Order. The Council in Suriname advises that the holder of a Right of Exploration enjoys a preferred right to eventually obtain a Right of Exploitation subsequent to any discovery of minerals made through the exercise of their Right of Exploration. This Decree also states that all natural resources in and above the ground, including the territorial sea, are property of the State. Several implementation regulations are issued under this decree. The Government Decree on Mining Installations makes provisions for mining installations placed on or above the sea area. It was formulated according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) conventions.

3.1.7.3

The State Decree on M ining I nstallations, S.B. 1989 no. 38 (Besluit M ijnbouw -installaties)

This Governmental Decision of 11 May 1989 deals with offshore mining operations, including petroleum exploration and development. There are seven chapters in this decree, and each chapter governs specific elements of offshore mining operations, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Installation of the platform; Installation methods and furnishing of the platform; Protection of the environment; Removal of the platform; Traffic and transportation; Safety and security; and Scientific research.

3.1.8

3.1.8.1

Relevant Environmental Legislation

Draft Environm ental Act

The Draft Environmental Act of 2002 is a framework law that was prepared as a result of the Rio Declaration of 1992 in order to introduce international legal requirements into Suriname’s environmental legislative scheme. This Draft Act establishes an Environmental Authority, a Supervisory Board, an Environmental Fund, and an Inter-Ministerial Advisory Committee. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 28

It also states the need for an ESIA for all new economic activities that might have an adverse impact on the environment. The ESIA must include tools for pollution control. It also requires permits for waste management and contingency plans for potential accidents that may cause environmental pollution. An important step in the Draft Act is the granting of public participation in the decisionmaking process related to projects that may have an adverse effect on the environment.

3.1.8.2

The Nature Protection Act

Suriname has 11 nature reserves, one nature park, and four Multiple Use Management Areas (MUMAs) that encompass a wide range of ecosystems from tropical forests to coastal formations, making Suriname’s nature conservation system one of the most representative in South America. This Act recognises that establishing protected areas is important to scientific knowledge, recreation, and education as well as for ethical and economic reasons. Section 2 of the Act states that …in order to be declared as a nature reserve, the area shall be such that it requires protection from public authorities for reasons of natural beauty or because there is a presence of fauna, flora, or geological objects of particular scientific or cultural importance. In general, management of these nature reserves is entrusted to the Chief of National Forestry Management, who is counseled by the Nature Conservation Division of the Suriname Forest Service (Section 3 of the Act). The Chief has the authority to close completely, or in part, a nature reserve under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 also prohibits fishing, hunting, and other activities without permission from the Chief. Sections 6 and 7 provide for certain exemptions from the prohibition to undertake activities. Special permission for scientific or educational purposes may be granted by the Chief under Section 6, whereas Section 7 grants powers to the Chief to approve certain commercial activities in parts of reserves that are not closed under Section 4, in particular fisheries, grazing, and keeping of livestock.

3.1.8.3

The Forest M anagem ent Act

The Forest Management Act of 1992 governs the conservation and exploitation of forests, including the trade of wood products. Regulations have been established by the Ministry of Natural Resources to legislate logging, deforestation, and other forest-related activities.

3.1.8.4

The Gam e Act

Suriname’s wildlife that is not found within a nature reserve is governed by the Game Act of 1954. This Act contains a list of species that are protected, including birds, sea turtles, and mammals. Other species are designated as game, cage, or harmful species and are exempt from protection under this Act. There are prescribed open hunting seasons for game species during which hunting is allowed for the specified species only.

3.1.8.5

The Planning Act

The Planning Act of Suriname, which originated in 1973, establishes procedures for national and regional land use planning and provides guidelines for drafting land use plans. This Act also empowers the Government to establish protected areas other than nature reserves such as the special management areas. Laws on the issuance of State-owned lands provide for the issuance of long-term leases for management of public lands including environmental management.


3.1.8.6

M aritim e Authority Act

This legislation establishes the Maritime Authority Suriname (MAS) as a corporation under Article 3 in the framework of privatisation of public services. The MAS shall be responsible for safe and efficient maritime traffic to and from Suriname in accordance with international conventions ratified by Suriname, and the supervision and control of maritime navigation in accordance with laws of Suriname. The MAS shall further render services to sea-going vessels, in particular with regard to exportation and importation of goods. The MAS shall have a Board of Directors, a Supervisory Board, and a Director.

3.1.8.7

Harbours Decree

This Law prohibits the discharge of waste, oil, and oil-contaminated water, and condemned goods into public waterways and harbours. The implementing agencies for the Harbours Decree of 1981 (S.B. 1981 No. 86) are as follows: • • • • •

Shipping Services of Suriname; MAS; District Commissioner, who is assisted by the Prosecutor’s Office; Police; and Ministry of Trade and Industry.

3.1.8.8

Law Containing the Ex tension of the Territorial Sea of the R epublic of Surinam e and the Establishm ent of a Contiguous Econom ic Zone

This Law is composed of 18 Articles and defines the territorial sea of Suriname at 12 nautical miles (nmi) from the nearest point on the line of the low-water mark along the shore and establishes the EEZ, 370 km from the shoreline for which Suriname claims sovereign rights concerning the exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of living and non-living resources. Provisions are also made for the granting and revocation of licences for activities in the EEZ. The Law gives a detailed description of the measures of enforcement that could be used and also prescribes offences and penalties. This Law may be amended by Government Decree “if matters dealt within this Law require amending for the sake of its proper execution” (Article 17).

3.1.8.9

Fisheries Law s

The Fisheries Laws form the legal basis for the protection of the sea (with the possibility for fishing quotas). They are enforced by the Underdirectorate of Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (LVV). Some of the current Fisheries Laws include: • • • •

The Fish Stock Protection Act, effective 1961, revised 1981; The Sea Fisheries Act, effective 1980, revised 2001; The Fish Inspection Act, effective 2000; and The Fish Inspection Decree, effective 2002.

The Fish Stock Protection Act protects eight species of fish by setting limits on the size to be captured and also determines non-fishing seasons for certain species. The Act also prohibits collecting or distributing eggs or nests. The Act covers only freshwater species, although it may apply to coastal fisheries. The Sea Fisheries Act is composed of 39 Articles and defines three categories of fishing vessels (Surinamese fishing vessel, foreign fishing vessel, and alien fishing vessel) for purposes of registration, licences for sea fishery, certificate of seaworthiness, and other requirements.


3.1.8.10 Hindrance Law The Hindrance Law (G.B. 1930 No. 64) is applicable to enterprises that can produce waste and cause nuisance, danger, or damage. The District Commissioners who enforce this Law have the power to refuse a permit or attach special conditions to the permit.

3.1.8.11 Occupational Safety Law The primary aim of the Occupational Safety Law (G.B. 1947 No. 142, as amended) is to advance safety and hygiene so that the chance of accidents and occupational diseases can be reduced to a minimum. This legislation is enforced by the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development, and Environment.

3.1.8.12 Environm ental I m pact Assessm ent Standards Impact significance evaluations are based on various criteria that distinguish the impacts associated with this specific project. Procedures for the scientific evaluation of impact significance have been developed over decades of study (Duinker and Beanlands, 1986). There are no international standards for impact assessment significance criteria; however, all international guidelines require that the following factors be considered in evaluating significance: 1) magnitude of the adverse environmental effect; 2) geographic extent of the adverse environmental effect; and 3) ecological context of the adverse impact. 3.1.9

National Biodiversity Strategy

Suriname has developed a National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS), which establishes the national vision and strategic directions to conserve and sustain rich biodiversity and biological resources. Moreover, the NBS sets out its goals for sustainable management of the nation’s natural resources and supports the equitable sharing of biodiversity related to services and benefits. The NBS provides a framework for the development of a Biodiversity Action Plan, which will identify the activities, tasks, outcomes, milestones, and implementation of a strategic programme. The use and management of biodiversity remains a critical element in the maintenance and development of traditional societies and an emerging modern economy in Suriname (NIMOS, 2006). 3.2

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND GUIDELINES

The Government of Suriname has ratified and complied with the terms of several international treaties and accords. These have been designed to formalise cooperation on regional and global environmental protection strategies. In this regard, Suriname has signed Agenda 21 and is party to the following conventions and agreements, which are described in the following sections: • • • • • • • • •

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity; The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Convention); The Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora; Amazon Cooperation Treaty (ACT); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78); Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);


• •

World Heritage Convention; and Other relevant international conventions.

Suriname is preparing to accede to the Cartagena Convention (Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region) and its Protocols (oil spills, specially protected areas and wildlife, and land-based sources of pollution). Additionally, Suriname is an official team member of the Caribbean Environment Programme. 3.2.1

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

Suriname signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in June 1992 and ratified it on 12 January 1996. Parts of the Convention on Biological Diversity are covered by provisions in the Nature Preservation Law (under the Forest Service), the Game Law and the Law on Forest Management (both under the Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Service), and the Fish Protection Law and the Sea Fisheries Law (both under the LVV Fishery Service). 3.2.2

The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Convention)

The objectives of this Convention are to preserve all species and genera of native fauna and flora from extinction, and to preserve areas of extraordinary beauty, striking geological formations, or aesthetic, historic, or scientific value. Summaries of the provisions are as follows: • • • • • •

Parties to establish national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, and strict wilderness reserves (Article 2); National parks to provide recreational and educational facilities to the public (Article 3); Strict wilderness areas to be maintained inviolate (Article 4); Cooperation to be maintained between Governments in the field of research (Article 6); Listed species to enjoy special protection (Article 8); and Controls to be imposed on trade in protected fauna and flora and any part thereof (Article 9).

Suriname is one of the 22 member countries of the Organisation of American States that is signatory to the Convention and one of the 19 member countries that has ratified the Convention. 3.2.3

The Ramsar Convention

The Convention on Wetlands (also known as the Ramsar Convention) is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. In order to qualify as a Ramsar site, an area must have “international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology, or hydrology.” The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Suriname on 22 November 1985. Suriname presently has one site designated as a Wetland of International Importance – the Coppenamemonding wetland. This wetland complex, which has a surface area of 12,000 hectares, is located on the coastline of Saramacca and is representative of natural or near-natural wetlands.


3.2.4

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

CITES was signed by Suriname in 1980 and ratified on 15 February 1981. CITES is regulated in the Game Law (animals) and the Law on Forest Management (plants) and is executed by the Forest Service, Nature Conservation Division (CITES Management Authority). The main objective of CITES is to protect certain endangered species from over-exploitation by means of a system of import/export permits. The provisions made in CITES are summarised as follows: • • • • • •

Includes animals and plants whether dead or alive, and any recognisable parts or derivatives thereof (Article 1); Appendix I covers endangered species, in which trade is tightly controlled; Appendix II covers species that may become endangered unless trade is regulated; Appendix III covers species that any party wishes to regulate and requires international cooperation to control trade; Appendix IV contains model permits; and Permits are required for species listed in Appendices I and II stating that export/import will not be detrimental to the survival of the species (Articles 3 and 4).

3.2.5

Amazon Cooperation Treaty

Suriname is a signatory to the ACT, along with Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Venezuela. Signed in July 1978, the Treaty established the Commission on the Amazonian Environment to address conservation in border areas. In 1995, the Permanent Secretariat for the ACT was created to reinforce the Treaty from an organisational point of view, which was later amended in 1998. 3.2.6

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNCLOS was signed on 10 December 1992. Under UNCLOS, Suriname can claim sovereign rights in a 370-km EEZ. This allows for exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of all natural resources on the seafloor, its subsoil, and overlaying waters. UNCLOS allows other states to navigate and fly over the EEZ, and to lay submarine cables and pipelines. The inner limit of the EEZ starts at the outer boundary of the territorial sea, which is defined as the 370-km zone from the baseline or low waterline along the coast. UNCLOS was ratified by Suriname on 9 July 1998. In accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention, Suriname, by ratifying the Convention, expressed its consent to be bound by that Agreement – the 90th state to have done so. Suriname made no declaration upon ratification. 3.2.7

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78/2012)

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by its Protocol in 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) limits and prohibits certain types of vessel-source pollution. MARPOL came into force in 1983 and initially comprised Annex I (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil Regulations) and Annex II (Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk). Four more annexes have been added; parties must accept Annexes I and II, but the other four are voluntary. Suriname has ratified Annexes I through V.


The MARPOL discharge provisions in Annex V were modified in 2012 entered into force on 1 January 2013. Table 3-2 presents an overview of the revised MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.201(62)) and the 2012 Guidelines for the Implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.219(63)). Table 3-2.

Overview of MARPOL Annex V as revised in 2012.

Type of Garbage

Ships Outside Special Areas

Discharge permitted ≥3 nmi Food waste from the nearest land, en comminuted or ground route and as far as practicable Discharge permitted ≥12 nmi Food waste not from the nearest land, en comminuted or ground route and as far as practicable Cargo residues1 not contained in wash water Discharged permitted ≥12 nmi from the nearest land, en 1 Cargo residues route and as far as practicable contained in wash water Cleaning agents and additivies1 contained in cargo hold wash water Cleaning agents and additivies1 in deck and external surfaces wash water Carcasses of animals carried on board as cargo and which dies during the voyage All other garbage including plastics, synthetic ropes, fishing gear, plastic garbage bags, incinerator ashes, clinkers, cooking oil, floating dunnage, lining and packing materials, paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuse Mixed garbage

Discharge permitted

Ships Within Special Areas Discharge permitted ≥12 nmi from the nearest land, en route and as far as practicable

Offshore Platforms (>12 nmi from land) and All Ships Within 500 m of such Platforms Discharge permitted

Discharge prohibited




Discharge permitted ≥12 nmi from the nearest land, en route and as far as practicable and subject to two additional conditions2 Discharge permitted ≥12 nmi from the nearest land, en route and as far as practicable and subject to two additional conditions2



Discharge permitted


Discharge permitted as far from the nearest land as possible and en route






When garbage is mixed with or contaminated by other substances prohibited from discharge or having different discharge requirements, the more stringent requirements shall apply

1

These substances must not be harmful to the marine environment. Discharge shall only be allowed if (a) both the port of departure and the next port of destination are within the special area and the ship will not transit outside the special area between these ports (Regulation 6.1.2.2); and (b) if no adequate reception facilities are available at those ports (Regulation 6.1.2.3). MARPOL Annex I also designates “special areas” where there are stricter controls on discharge of oily wastes. Waters offshore Suriname are not within a MARPOL special area.

2


3.2.8

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was adopted in Basel, Switzerland on 22 March 1989. The Convention was initiated in response to numerous international scandals regarding hazardous waste trafficking that began to occur in the late 1980s. The Basel Convention • • • • •

ensures that the generation of hazardous waste is reduced to a minimum as much as possible; ensures that hazardous wastes are disposed of within the country of generation; establishes enhanced controls on exports and imports of hazardous wastes; prohibits shipments of hazardous wastes to countries lacking the legal, administrative, and technical capacity to manage and dispose of them in an environmentally sound manner; and cooperates on the exchange of information, technology transfer, and the harmonisation of standards, codes, and guidelines.

Relevant institutions in Suriname, such as the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development, and Development, are engaged in the exchange of views on the Basel Convention, which should ultimately lead to the ratification of the Convention. 3.2.9

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, which was signed in 1992, is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system. Suriname ratified this convention on 14 October 1997 and has already filed its First National Communication. It is currently working on its Second National Communication. 3.2.10

World Heritage Convention

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention) was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) General Conference at its 17th session in Paris in November 1972. The Convention is considered the most successful global instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. The World Heritage Convention aims to promote cooperation among nations to protect heritage from around the world that is of such outstanding universal value that its conservation is important for current and future generations. It is intended that properties on the World Heritage List will be conserved for all time. In 2000, the Central Suriname Nature Reserve was placed on the list of world heritage sites, and in 2002 the historic inner city of Paramaribo was added to the list of world heritage sites because its architecture is highly characteristic of Dutch colonial design infused with traditional local techniques and materials.


3.2.11

Other Relevant International Conventions

•

International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 – Suriname acceded to this convention in 1975, which relates to water pollution from oil spills and the right to implement measures to protect the coastline in the event of such a casualty.

•

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 – This encompasses marine water quality and pollution and was acceded to in 2007.

•

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea – This convention was ratified in 1988 and refers to marine water quality and pollution control.

•

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 – Marine biodiversity is the focus of this convention and its associated protocol. Suriname signed and acceded to this convention in 2004.

•

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2001 – This convention deals with water and air pollution as well as waste management. It was ratified in 2011.

•

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer – Suriname acceded to this convention in 1997, which relates to the protection of air quality and climate.

3.2.12

International Effluent and Emissions Guidelines

At present there are no national effluent or emission standards for offshore oil and gas activities in Suriname. PSEPBV will comply with appropriate international standards and guidelines as well as explicit environment protection principles or criteria as stated in Suriname’s legislation. PSEPBV will also act in accordance with the company’s Health, Safety and Environmental policy to address emission and waste volumes. As noted previously, Suriname is party to MARPOL 73/78. MARPOL provisions that are relevant for oil and gas exploration.

Table 3-3 summarises

For effluents that are not covered by MARPOL requirements, PSEPBV will comply with USEPA (2012) guidelines used in the Gulf of Mexico. Table 3-4 summarises these requirements. With regard to air pollutant emissions and other aspects of offshore oil and gas operations, the project will be consistent with international industry best practice.


Table 3-3.

MARPOL 73/78/2012 provisions relevant to oil and gas development.*

Environmental Aspect

Provisions of MARPOL

Annex

Drainage water

Ship must be proceeding en route, not within a “special area,” and oil must not exceed 15 ppm (without dilution). Vessel must be equipped with an oil-filtering system, automatic cutoff, and an oil-retention system.

I

Accidental oil discharge Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan is required.

Bulked chemicals

Sewage discharge

Garbage

Food waste

Air pollutant emissions

Prohibits the discharge of noxious liquid substances, pollution hazard substances, and associated tank washings. Vessels required to undergo periodic inspections to ensure compliance. All vessels must carry a Procedures and Arrangements Manual and Cargo Record Book. Discharge of sewage is permitted only if the ship has approved sewage treatment facilities, the test results of the facilities are documented, and the effluent will not produce visible floating solids nor cause discolouration of the surrounding water. Disposal of garbage from ships and fixed or floating platforms is prohibited. Ships must carry a garbage management plan and shall be provided with a Garbage Record Book. Discharge of food waste ground to pass through a 25-mm mesh is permitted for facilities more than 12 nautical miles from land. Sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances including halons and chlorofluorocarbons. Sets limits on emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel engines. Prohibits the incineration of certain products on board such as contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls.

* Suriname has ratified MARPOL Annexes I through V.


I

II

IV

V

V

VI

Table 3-4.

Effluent limits used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) for oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Source

Discharge Limitation Drilling Fluids and Cuttings Free oil No free oil on discharged drilling fluids or cuttings Toxicity 96-h LC 50 of suspended particulate phase not to exceed 30,000 ppm Discharge rate 1,000 bbl h-1 maximum Cadmium in stock barite Not to exceed 3 mg kg-1 Mercury in stock barite Not to exceed 1 mg kg-1 Diesel fuel No discharge of diesel-contaminated fluids or cuttings Oil-based drilling fluids No discharge of oil-based fluids or associated cuttings No discharge of fluids. Cuttings may be discharged if residual Synthetic-based drilling synthetic-based fluids concentration on dry cuttings is <6.9% for internal fluids olefins or 9.4% for esters Other Effluents Completion and No free oil; oil and grease not to exceed 42 mg L-1 daily max or 29 mg L-1 workover fluids monthly average; no priority pollutants except in trace amounts Oil and grease not to exceed 42 mg L-1 daily maximum or 29 mg L-1 Produced water monthly average; also subject to toxicity limits Produced sand No discharge Treat with approved marine sanitation unit (achieves no floating solids Sewage and minimum residual chlorine of 1 mg L-1) Food waste No floating solids or foam Bilge waters No free oil Deck drainage No free oil Desalination brine No free oil

3.3

PSEPBV HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY

This ESIA is intended to ensure PSEPBV’s compliance with Petronas Carigali HSE policy and commitments and to engender Suriname’s environmental laws. HSE will be a high priority during all phases of PSEPBV’s operations. PSEPBV is committed to maintaining high standards for all its stakeholders including employees, contractors, and the general public. PSEPBV will accomplish this by having a positive impact, creating enduring value, and practising corporate social responsibility. PSEPBV will embody the principles of environmental stewardship to promote and participate in sustainable development. PSEPBV is committed to Petronas Carigali’s HSE policy and Environmental Objective Statement as outlined in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 and the PETRONAS HSE Mandatory Control Framework (MCF; Appendix M) as the minimal company requirements on air emissions, environmentally hazardous substances, hazardous waste, soil and ground, and waste water.


Figure 3.2.

Petronas Carigali Health, Safety and Environment Policy.


Figure 3-3.

Petronas Carigali Environmental Objective Statement.


4.0 Alternatives Analysis The purpose of this section is to discuss the alternatives that were evaluated when deciding on the proposed actions. On a broad scale, the proposed action is exploratory drilling; when this is compared with alternatives, including no action, the project objectives are not attainable because given present technology, exploratory drilling is the only way to determine the nature and extent of hydrocarbons in subsurface formations. Alternatives considered when selecting basic components of the exploratory drilling process are evaluated in this section. First, rationale used to select well location(s) and schedules are discussed. Then key operational elements outlined in the Project Description (Chapter 2.0) are considered, with a qualitative analysis of the potential benefits of these elements provided in Table 4-1. These elements include the following: • • • • •

Drilling rig; Drilling muds and cuttings disposal; Sanitary wastes; Support operations; and No action.

Availability

Practicality

Summary

Drilling rig – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 + 0 – 0 Drilling mud Water-based muds 0 0 + + Synthetic-based muds 0 0 – – Drilling muds and cuttings disposal Transport to shore – – 0 – Discharge overboard + 0 0 – Sanitary wastes On-site treatment 0 + – + No treatment 0 – – 0 Support operations Local shore base + + – + Out of country shore base – – + – No action No change in current situation 0 0 0 – Dynamically positioned drillship Semisubmersible drilling rig Movable offshore platform or jack-up rig

Cost

Socioeconom ic

Environment

Options

Health and Safety

Qualitative analysis of operational options versus factors considered important (including no action) for meeting objectives of the exploratory drilling project. Local Capability

Table 4-1.

– – +

– – +

– – +

– – +

– +

+ +

– +

+ +

– 0

0 0

– +

– +

+ 0

0 0

+ 0

+ –

+ –

0 0

+ –

+ –

0

0

0

0

– = negative effect; 0 = neutral effect; + = positive effect.

4.1

WELL LOCATION

Block 52 has clearly defined boundaries and is located near other lease blocks where previous hydrocarbon exploration has occurred. The final location of the Roselle-1 wellsite within Block 52 is the result of a flexible selection process that identified the best site for tapping the ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 41

potential hydrocarbon reserves anticipated to be present in the area. The location of the proposed exploratory well was selected based on careful analysis of three-dimensional seismic data collected in Block 52 in 2013 (CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2013) as well as the following: • • • • 4.2

Geophysical seafloor surveys; Direction of the wind and ocean currents; Safety and minimal amount of damage to the environment; and Legal boundaries of Block 52 relative to the smaller area of interest within the block. SCHEDULE

The schedule proposed herein is based on PSEPBV’s obligations to the Government of Suriname, the availability of a proper drilling platform, and the constraints of other drilling projects proposed for offshore Suriname. The timing for this project is influenced by a review of the collected wave and current meteorological data (Appendix E), physical oceanographic data, along with seasonal, and environmental data, which suggest there are intrinsic environmental and engineering disadvantages to moving a drilling rig onto or from a drilling location between the months of November and March offshore Suriname. 4.3

DRILLING RIG

There are several options for drilling petroleum exploratory wells in environments such as those in Block 52. Three alternatives were considered for this project: • • •

A dynamically positioned (DP) drillship; A semisubmersible drilling rig; and A movable offshore platform or jack-up rig.

A semisubmersible drilling rig is a marine self-propelled drilling unit capable of drilling in very deep water (1,000 to 5,000 m [3,280 to 16,404 ft]). Because the use of a semisubmersible or a DP drillship would greatly increase the project costs, these types of drilling vessels are not generally used when drilling in shallow water depths such as those seen in PSEPBV’s area of interest in Block 52. It is estimated that an additional United States Dollar (USD) 150,000 to USD 250,000 per day would be required to utilise this type of marine drilling unit. This cost, therefore, can be justified only if the exploration well indicates that there is a large enough petroleum reserve to subsidise this expenditure. From an environmental standpoint, a semisubmersible or a DP drillship would result in increased fuel consumption and, consequently, resultant emissions (i.e., air pollution). In addition, positioning these types of drilling platforms requires a number of anchors to be placed on the seafloor. In shallow water locations, this anchoring process may result in a wider footprint of environmental impact on the seafloor. Therefore, given the shallow depth of Block 52 on the Surinamese continental shelf, the proposed project timeline, and the uncertainty of the availability of such a marine unit, the use of a DP drillship or semisubmersible drilling rig is considered to be both impractical and uneconomical. A jack-up rig enables the working platform to be elevated over the drilling template, thus operations would take place entirely above sea level and allow for easy management and monitoring. 4.4

DRILLING MUDS

Drilling mud options are either WBM or SBM. WBMs present the least environmental harm but are not operationally practical in all geological situations. Engineering rationale for the use of both mud types during the exploratory drilling was presented in Section 2.3. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 42

To reduce potential environmental effects: • • • 4.5

PSEPBV is committed to use low-toxicity WBMs wherever practicable; Drilling muds will be recycled and reused to reduce the volumes discharged overboard; and When SBMs are used, cuttings will be treated to reduce the percent of residual muds on cuttings to 6.9% or less to comply with USEPA and U.S. BOEM standards. DRILLING MUDS AND CUTTINGS DISPOSAL

Two options were considered for the treatment and disposal of drilling muds and cuttings: 1) transport for onshore treatment and disposal; and 2) offshore treatment and discharge. Onshore treatment and disposal of drilling muds and cuttings was considered impractical based on the following: • • • • • •

There are no resources for treatment and disposal (land, approved facilities, and technical/human resources); High safety and environmental risk (heavy crane lifts, accidents, spills, and increased traffic); Increased vessel trip and port traffic leading to increased vessel emissions; Impractical logistics, i.e., transport vessels (marine and land); High costs; and Liability issues.

Based on the issues stated above, the best practical solution is treatment and disposal offshore. This option is relatively simple and cost effective, and the resources are readily available on any conventional drilling rig. The technology is recognised, used internationally, and is an acceptable method for disposal of drilling muds and cuttings. No whole SBMs will be discharged into the environment. Whole SBMs will be returned to the supplier for reuse. 4.6

SANITARY WASTES

All sanitary and domestic wastes will be processed through an on-site waste treatment plant before being discharged overboard and will meet MARPOL 73/78 discharge standards. This option was weighed against a no-treatment alternative, which is clearly inferior from an HSE standpoint. 4.7

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

Offshore operations will be supported by vessels and helicopters operating from the onshore support base and airport. Supplies will be transported to the drilling rig via supply boat, and personnel will be transported to and from the drilling rig by helicopter. The shorebase will be located at Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo and was considered against an out-of-country shore support base in Trinidad. The in-country option was considered superior because of positive effects to the local economy by using an existing and available facility in Paramaribo. 4.8

NO ACTION

The No Action alternative (i.e., not proceeding with drilling of the exploratory well in Block 52) would avoid impacts to the natural environment. However, under the No Action alternative, potential benefits to the socioeconomic environment would also be eliminated (i.e., in the absence of the proposed PSEPBV exploratory drilling project, there would be a loss of benefits to Suriname from the discovery of significant petroleum resources and reserves in Block 52). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 43


5.0 Scope of Assessment This ESIA has been prepared for PSEPBV in accordance with the with the Environmental Act (draft) and Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volumes I, II, III, IV, and V (issued in March 2005 and updated in August 2009) in accordance with the Environmental Act and the associated Regulations, and the requirements of the NIMOS-approved TOR (Appendix A), and Study Plan (Appendix B). The ESIA includes a determination of the environmental impacts to be addressed, including principal project, accessory physical works, and other undertakings in relation to the physical works. The document is concise and addresses environmental issues potentially associated with the proposed project – the drilling of one exploratory well in Block 52. Potential environmental and social impacts, both positive and negative, are described. The ESIA text focuses on pertinent studies and recommended actions to eliminate or minimise negative impacts to the physical, biological, and socioeconomic conditions in the project area. The stakeholder identification and consultation process has determined who is interested in the project, what their concerns are, and how they should be involved. All interested parties, including expert authorities, regional and local governments, private sector organisations, and the public, will be invited to participate in the public presentation of the ESIA and to provide written comments. All public comments on the ESIA will be recorded and addressed along with any NIMOS comments.



6.0 Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation Programme 6.1

INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

The Suriname Institute of Management Studies (SIMS) and PSEPBV conducted a preliminary scoping meeting with identified stakeholders in Paramaribo. This meeting took place at the SIMS facilities on 18 September 2014 and included representatives of the various Surinamese governmental ministries involved as well as several non-governmental entities with interest in the offshore environment and environmental protection. For a full report on these meetings, see Appendix J. The objective of the meetings was to give all stakeholders – namely government representatives, private companies, non-governmental organisations, associations, and residents of the districts – the opportunity to express their opinion on the planned activities of PSEPBV relative to the drilling of an exploratory well offshore Suriname. These meetings were an opportunity for stakeholders to express their opinion on any gap that might exist between this project and their experience on previous projects. 6.2

CONSULTATIONS

SIMS led and advised on the methodology, preparation, design, and running of these stakeholder meetings. Dennis Rusland from SIMS acted as lead facilitator at all meetings. Prior to these meetings, Mr. Rusland communicated with the different stakeholder representatives, and the following principles were agreed upon: •

Broad areas for consultation at the meetings would be presented through a PowerPoint presentation on o o o

•

general aspects of the project, responsibilities of each company involved in the ESIA process, and method of approach regarding the survey for the ESIA; and

The public would be allowed to ask questions and raise concerns.

In addition to the stakeholder meetings, SIMS and PSEPBV considered it necessary to obtain specific information from the public through public surveys using a structured questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered as face-to-face interviews, and five enumerators were trained for this task. Households were approached between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. local time. SIMS and PSEPBV considered it crucial to understand the views and opinions of residents regarding their community and the surrounding natural resources, and the information obtained provided a basis for making recommendations. Prior to executing the public survey, SIMS requested formal permission from the various District Commissioners’ offices to conduct the surveys. The results of these interviews are presented in the Socioeconomic Impact Assessment Report (Appendix D). Broadly speaking, the results of the interviews indicate that while the citizens of Suriname have environmental concerns relative to petroleum exploration, they generally feel that it is a good thing for the country. When asked if they thought that petroleum exploratory drilling would be beneficial to their area, approximately 78% of those questioned responded that it would be beneficial for the community (Table 6-1). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 47

Table 6-1.

Response Yes No Don’t know No response Total

Responses to the question: “Do you believe that this exploratory well can benefit this area generally?” Para Number % 37 71.2 6 11.5 8 15.4 1 1.9 52 100.0

Wanica Number % 119 77.8 18 11.8 16 10.5 0 0.0 153 100.0

Paramaribo Number % 239 78.4 36 11.8 30 9.8 0 0.0 305 100.0

All Sample Areas Number % 395 77.5 60 11.8 54 10.6 1 0.2 510 100.0

Approximately 17% of the respondents had concerns about the drilling of exploratory wells offshore Suriname (Table 6-2). Table 6-2.

Response Yes No Don’t know No response Total

Responses to the question: “Do you have concerns about how this exploratory well might affect this area generally?” Para Number % 14 26.9 25 48.1 11 21.2 2 3.8 52 100.0

Wanica Number % 34 22.2 77 50.3 37 24.2 5 3.3 153 100.0

Paramaribo Number % 38 12.5 163 53.4 95 31.1 9 3.0 305 100.0

All Sample Areas Number % 86 16.9 265 52.0 143 28.0 16 3.1 510 100.0

Further analysis showed that the citizens of the surveyed districts were concerned primarily about impacts to fisheries, the environment, and possible negative effects on tourism (Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-1.

Analysis of concerns by respondents, by survey area, regarding exploratory oil well drilling.


6.3

PUBLIC MEETINGS

Following submittal of this Draft ESIA to NIMOS in October 2015, SIMS, CSA, and PSEPBV will hold a major public presentation of the overall exploratory drilling programme and the results of the ESIA in Paramaribo. Additional meetings to present the results of the ESIA and socioeconomic research include a meeting with the fishing industry in Paramaribo. The purpose of these meetings is to present the entire project and results of the ESIA to the public and solicit their comments and questions. Appendix J presents the minutes from the identified stakeholders meeting that was conducted in 2014. The Final ESIA will contain minutes from all the public meetings, including those scheduled after this Draft ESIA is presented to NIMOS.



7.0 Description of Existing Environment 7.1

REGIONAL SETTING

Suriname is situated on the north coast of South America and neighbours Brazil on the south, Guyana on the west, and French Guiana on the east. The surface area of Suriname is 163,820 km2 and its population, which is concentrated near Paramaribo (the capital) and the coast, is approximately 573,311 people (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014). The Suriname-Guyana Basin is passive, sedimentary, and encompasses the coasts of French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname as well as the eastern part of Venezuela (Antillean Arch) (Staatsolie, 2012). The sedimentary section of the Basin is Mid-Cretaceous to Pliocene in age and ranges from Precambrian basement in the west to more than 9,000 m to the east, before thinning out in deepwater areas. The southern limit of the Basin is demarcated by the Guiana Shield, an outcrop of crystalline Proterozoic basement. Reserves in the Basin are estimated to be more than 13,600 million bbl of oil (Schenk et al., 2012). The marine zone of Suriname can be subdivided into the deep sea and the continental sea (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005). The continental sea is found above the continental shelf, between the continental slope and the coastline. From the relatively steep continental slope (between the 200- and 100-m depth contours), the continental seafloor gradually climbs over a distance of 150 km up to the coastline. The continental sea encompasses an area of approximately 65,000 km2 and is divided into three subzones parallel to the coast, each approximately 50 km wide, based on water depth, suspended material, water clarity, and presence of planktonic biota. The three subzones are characterised as follows (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005): •

The Blue Water Zone or Outer Zone is located between the continental slope and the 60-m depth contour and covers an area of approximately 25,000 km2. The water is clear and sunlight penetrates to the seafloor. Fossil coral reefs are found along the edge of the continental shelf. Shrimp trawling, snapper trawling, and snapper longlining takes place up to a depth of 80 m;

•

The Green Water Zone or Middle Zone is located between the 60- and 30-m depth contours and covers an area of 20,000 km2. The water in this zone is coloured green by the abundance of algae due to both nutrient availability and sufficient light penetration. Shrimp trawling occurs between depths of 30 and 50 m. Snapper trawlers and snapper longliners are active in the area. Food fish trawling is common practice to a depth of 50 m; and

•

The Brown Water Zone or Inner Zone is located between the 30-m depth contour and the coastline. The brown water is loaded with sediment from the Amazon River, carried by the Guiana Current, flowing west-northwest. Light penetration is less than 0.1 m with an associated decrease in biodiversity.

The marine zone of Suriname stretches between the boundary of the EEZ and the coastline. The study area covered in this ESIA was delineated in the context of the proposed efforts in Block 52 and all near and far field areas where impacts on the receiving environment have been considered. The total area covered by this ESIA includes the entire offshore EEZ of Suriname and extends 5 km inland from the coastline.

ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 51

7.2

GEOLOGY AND BATHYMETRY

Block 52 sits on the edge of the continental shelf within parts of the Suriname-Guyana Basin and the Demerara Rise. The continental shelf is covered partly by a huge mass of Amazonian mud, which extends from the coast to approximately 30 km offshore and has a thickness of up to 20 m. The area is sometimes referred to as a pelitic zone. To the north of the pelitic zone, sandy deposits are present in the shelf surface (Nota, 1958; 1967), often in the shape of cheniers along former coastlines. Traces of former coastlines were found 21 to 25 m below the present sea level. In the eastern section of the shelf region in Suriname, the submerged marine terrace appears to be related to an ancient delta system of the Marowijne River (Nota, 1971). Remnants of coral reefs are present inshore of the study area at a water depth of approximately 30 m, and reworked reef material occurs in abundance along the shelf at depths of 80 to 90 m. The Demerara Rise is situated just offshore of Block 52 (Figure 7-1). The Demerara Rise is a deepwater extension of the continental margin north of Suriname and French Guiana (Mosher et al., 2005). It is built on the continental crust from the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic age (Komex Environment and Water Limited, 2005). The northern extension of the geological feature was surveyed during the Ocean Drilling Program Leg 207. The northwestern ramp of the Demerara Rise has a nearly constant thickness of pelagic sediments down to a water depth of nearly 4,000 m (Komex Environment and Water Limited, 2005). Hydrocarbon deposits in the project area have their origin in natural ecosystem processes through the accumulation of residues of biological materials over geological time. Suriname is estimated to have potentially 17 times the oil deposits and an equal amount of gas reserves as Trinidad and Tobago. Although the progress toward developing an oil and gas extraction industry in Suriname has been slow, some offshore exploratory wells have been drilled (Repsol YPF, 2008; Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010; and CSA International, Inc., 2011).

Figure 7-1.

The Demerara Rise offshore Suriname.


7.2.1

Bathymetry and Seafloor Surface

Under contract to PSEPBV, CSA conducted an EBS, and in October 2014, Gardline Marine Services conducted a geophysical survey of the site surrounding the proposed well location (Figure 7-2) offshore of Suriname.

Figure 7-2.

7.2.1.1

PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V Suriname shallow hazards survey location map.

Bathym etry and Seafloor Gradients

The Block 52 seafloor in the vicinity of the Roselle-1 wellsite ranges from 86.4 m MSL in the south eastern corner of the site to 93.5 m MSL in the north western corner. The seafloor gently dips toward northwest with average gradient of 0.05° (Figure 7-3). Within the 1,500-m anchoring radius from the proposed Roselle-1 location the average gradient is 0.02°. Three fairly distinct areas of shallow seabed depressions (up to 370 m wide) occur in the northeastern part of the site where ambient water depths vary at 88 to 88.5 m (Gardline Marine Services, 2014).

7.2.1.2

Seafloor Features and Conditions

The multibeam rendering (Figure 7-3) and side-scan sonar mosaic (Figure 7-4) indicate that the seabed in general is smooth and comprises clay with occasional shell fragments. The sonar mosaic of low frequency data (Figure 7-4) indicates this seabed material is broadly uniform across the site. In the south eastern corner, the seabed is characterised by numerous irregular shaped bed forms. These depressions measure ~0.3 to 0.5 m in depth. High-frequency sonar data indicates possible pings in the water column that may relate to biogenic gas seeping from these pockmarks. Results from piston coring (RO-PC01) found shells, gravels and cobbles (calcarenite) within one of the central pockmarks of these areas. Magnetic anomalies occur in the centre of the site, though no corresponding features were detected on sonar data. No hazards or obstructions were observed on the seabed at the Proposed Roselle-1 Location (Gardline Marine Services, 2014) ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 53

The CSA 2014 EBS included the collection of video footage that confirmed the flat, featureless seafloor with no apparent topographic features or hard bottom in the Roselle-1 well area of interest. The subtle variations or darker reflective zones on the sonar mosaic are probably caused by subtle sediment shifts over slightly more reflective or coarser sediments. CSA has previously conducted EBS surveys offshore Suriname in Block 31 for Teikoku Oil (Suriname) in 2010 and Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd. (CSA International, Inc., 2011) prior to the drilling of exploratory wells in Block 31 and Block 37. The EBS conducted in 2014 (Appendix C) utilised the same basic sampling strategy in order to compare the physical and biological characteristics of Block 31 (CSA International, Inc., 2010; CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2014), Block 37, and Block 52. Figure 7-5 shows the current lease block map offshore Suriname.

Figure 7-3.

Multibeam bathymetry and profile showing water depth variations across the area of the proposed wellsite (Gardline Marine Services, 2014).

Figure 7-4.

Side-scan sonar rendering of the area of the proposed wellsite (Gardline Marine Services, 2014).


Figure 7-5.

7.2.2

Lease blocks off Suriname showing the location of Block 52 (Adapted from: Staatsolie, 2014a).

Sediments

Sediment quality in marine areas can be affected by onshore and offshore anthropogenic and natural processes. This section summarises the sediment quality results from the EBS and provides a detailed analysis of sediment quality within Block 52at the time. A total of 32 sediment samples were collected in PSEPBV’s area of interest in and surrounding Block 52 (Figure 7-6). The sampling design involved randomly locating two sediment sampling stations in the project’s area of interest in each cell of a 16-cell grid organised into four quadrants, resulting in a total of 32 stations. Details of the sampling design and methods are provided in the EBS Report (Appendix C). The EBS involved analysis of sediments for physical and chemical parameters, including sediment grain size distribution, total organic carbon (TOC), metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Infauna in sediment samples was analysed as well.


Figure 7-6.

Sediment sampling quadrants and stations sampled during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 56

7.2.2.1

Sedim ent Grain Size Distribution

Based on Shepard’s (1954) classification, the majority of the sediment samples from the 2010 Block 31 EBS primarily were slightly gravelly sand and gravelly sand with a single muddy sandy gravel sample (T02A). Figure 7-7a depicts the relative proportions of the primary sediment components from the various sampling stations organised by the quadrant of Block 31 where the grid cell was located (i.e., northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast). Sediments in Block 37 (Figure 7-7b), as analyzed during the 2010 Block 37 EBS were mainly sand, silty sand, and some sand/silt/clay (Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010). Samples from the 2014 Block 31 EBS in the western part of Block 31 were mostly sand and silty sand; no gravel was identified (Figure 7-7c). a)


Figure 7-7. (Continued). b)

c)

0 10

90

Clay

20

Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast

100

80

30 40

70 Silty Clay

Sandy Clay

60

50 60

50 40

Clayey Silt

Clayey Sand

70

Sand/Silt/Clay

30

80 90

20 Silty Sand

Sand

Sandy Silt

Silt

10

100 0

Figure 7-7.

0 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sediment grain size distribution samples grouped by quadrant in a) western Block 31; b) Block 37; and c) eastern Block 31. The gravel fraction from the 2010 Environmental Baseline Survey in Block 31 was lumped with sand. The coarser sediments in Block 31 are evident (From: CSA International, Inc., 2011; CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2014). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 58

Figure 7-8 provides a ternary diagram depicting the relative proportions of primary sediment components from various sampling stations collected during the 2014 EBS in Block 52, organised by the quadrant of the study area where the grid cell was located (i.e., northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast). Results of sediment grain size (particle distribution) analysis are presented in Table 7-1. Based on Shepard’s classification scheme (Shepard, 1954), the majority of the sediment samples are silty sand, with a few samples classified as sandy silt or sand/silt/clay. No gravel (>1.99 mm particle size) was present in any of the 32 sediment samples. Shepard’s sediment grain size classifications are presented in the ternary diagram (Figure 7-8) and in Table 7-1. The ternary diagram indicates that sediment grain size was relatively homogeneous across the study area, with most samples grouped in a single large cluster. However, within the large cluster, samples from each quadrant were loosely clumped together. This pattern is especially evident for samples from the northeast quadrant (which were generally silitier [>0.0309 to ≤0.0619 mm particle size]), and southwest quadrant (which were generally sandier [>0.0619 to ≤1.99 mm particle size])

0 10 20

Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast

100 90

Clay

80

30 40

70 Sandy Clay

60

Silty Clay

50

50

60

40 Clayey Sand

70

Clayey Silt

Sand/Silt/Clay

30

80

20

90

Silty Sand

Sand

Sandy Silt

Silt

10

100 0

Figure 7-8.

0 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ternary diagram of sediment grain size for Block 52 samples, grouped by quadrant, based on Shepard’s classification scheme.


Table 7-1.

Total organic carbon (TOC) content and grain size distribution in sediment samples collected during the May 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey.

Sample Identification A01 A02 B01 B02 C01 C02 D01 D02 E01 E02 F01 F02 G01 G02 H01 H02 I01 I02 J01 J02 K01 K02 L01 L02 M01 M02 N01 N02 O01 O02 P01 P02

TOC (%) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.19 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.37 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.32 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.26

Gravel (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sand (%) 45.4 68.5 43.9 49.2 46.9 68.5 45.0 39.6 37.3 36.4 36.3 47.2 44.1 22.0 43.7 39.2 54.8 48.6 47.9 55.0 54.5 45.0 53.8 49.8 44.1 48.0 47.4 46.7 50.3 43.4 41.2 40.6

Silt (%) 36.1 18.2 40.5 34.5 38.8 21.3 39.3 42.1 43.6 40.5 44.2 36.8 38.0 55.9 38.5 41.3 28.8 32.2 32.4 27.6 29.5 37.8 28.3 32.6 34.9 33.3 33.9 32.2 32.1 37.7 37.2 39.6

Clay (%) 18.5 13.2 15.6 16.3 14.3 10.2 15.7 18.3 19.1 23.1 19.5 16.0 17.9 22.1 17.8 19.5 16.3 19.2 19.7 17.4 15.9 17.2 17.9 17.5 21.0 18.7 18.7 21.1 17.6 18.9 21.6 19.8

Shepard’s Classification Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sand/Silt/Clay Sandy Silt Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand/Silt/Clay Silty Sand Sandy Silt Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand/Silt/Clay Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand/Silt/Clay Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand/Silt/Clay Silty Sand

Note: Cumulative gravel, sand, silt, and clay percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

7.2.2.2

Total Organic Carbon

TOC concentrations during the 2010 survey in the western part of Block 31 ranged from 0.010% to 0.625%. Average TOC content was lowest in the northwest quadrant (0.156%), compared to 0.304%, 0.322%, and 0.191% in the other quadrants. A non-parametric one-way ANOVA (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952, 1995) showed that sediment TOC differed statistically among the quadrants (H = 12.8; p = 0.005) with higher TOC in the eastern quadrants. Lower TOC concentrations in the northwest and southwest quadrants likely relate to the higher sand content of the sediment. This is also reflective of the grain size distribution and consistency, as higher quantities of finer components usually lead to higher levels of TOC. In comparison, TOC in Block 37 sediments with a greater fine fraction were slightly higher and ranged from 0.137% to 0.922% (Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010). Block 30 sediments sampled for an exploratory drilling EIA showed 0.015 to 0.40 mg kg-1 TOC, with an average of ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 60

0.18 mg kg-1 (Repsol YPF, 2008). TOC concentrations in the eastern part of Block 31 in 2014 ranged from 0.24% to 0.44% with good consistency among the values obtained.

0.40

70

0.35

60

0.30

Sand_pct

TOC_pct

TOC concentrations detected in Block 52 sediment samples are provided in Table 7-1, and Figure 7-19 illustrates the TOC levels at the four quadrants; TOC ranged from 0.11 to 0.37 ppm. TOC data were arcsin transformed and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA. Average TOC content differed significantly by quadrant (F = 5.804, df = 3, p = 0.003), with a post-hoc Tukey test revealing that TOC in the southeast quadrant was significantly higher than the northwest quadrant. TOC in the other quadrants were not significantly different from each other. The higher TOC concentration in the southeast quadrant likely relates to the lower sand content and higher silt content of the sediment, as higher quantities of finer components are usually associated with higher levels of TOC.

0.25

50 40

0.20 0.15

30

0.10

20

NW

NE

SW

NW

SE

NE

60

22.5 Clay_pct

Silt_pct

CLAY

25.0

SILT

50 40 30

20.0 17.5 15.0

20

12.5 10.0

10 NW

NE

SW quadrant

7.2.2.3

SE

quadrant

quadrant

Figure 7-9.

SW

SE

NW

NE

SW

SE

quadrant

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment total organic carbon (TOC) and grain size components at sampling stations in Block 52. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NW = northwest; NE = northeast; SW = southwest; SE = southeast. Thick horizontal blue lines at equal levels join quadrants that are not significantly different (p < 0.05); placement of lines varies for readability. No blue lines are present on Silt and Clay plots because analyses of variance were not performed for these analytes.

Organics

TPH are indicators of hydrocarbon pollution of natural and anthropogenic origin. TPH are a component of total oil and grease (TOG). Results of TPH, total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), and extractable organic matter (EOM) (equivalent to TOG) analyses of sediment from the 2010 ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 61

EBS in Block 31 are summarised by quadrant in Figure 7-10. TPH concentrations ranged from 1.67 to 13.08 µg/g with no apparent trends among the stations, while EOM/TOG ranged from below the detection limit to 487 µg/g. Statistical analysis of individual sediment hydrocarbon concentrations indicated that only EOM/TOG was significantly different across quadrants. Pairwise comparisons showed that differences in EOM/TOG values from the southeast and southwest quadrants were significant. These differences may be due to differential sources of organic matter from natural water column production or sediment supply (CSA International, Inc., 2011).

Figure 7-10.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of sediment total petroleum hydrocarbons, total resolved hydrocarbons, unresolved complex mixture, and extractable organic matter (total oil and grease) at sampling stations in Block 31 from the 2010 Environmental Baseline Survey. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NE = northeast; NW = northwest; SE = southeast; SW = southwest.

TPH concentrations from the 2014 EBS in the eastern part of Block 31 ranged from 7.8 to 25.9 µg/g (mean 12.9 µg/g), with no significant differences evident among the quadrants after application of a non-parametric one-way ANOVA followed by an SNK test to resolve quadrant differences. Similarly, TRH and EOM values had no significant differences among quadrants. EOM values were reported by the laboratory for all stations; however, most reported values were below the method detection limit. TPH concentrations in Block 37 sediments with a greater fine fraction were slightly higher and ranged from 4.0 to 28.2 µg/g (Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010), while TPH ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 62

(provided in mg kg-1, which is numerically equivalent to µg g-1) from Block 30 sediments containing greater fine fractions showed an average of 20.18 mg kg-1 and ranged from 5.36 to 31.20 mg kg-1, values that are consistent with Block 31 results (Repsol YPF, 2008). Results of sediment hydrocarbon analyses from samples collected during the May 2014 survey in Block 52 are provided in Table 7-2. Box plots showing sediment TPH, TRH, unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and EOM at sampling stations according to quadrant are provided in Figure 7-11. Table 7-2.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) (total oil and grease) concentrations in sediment samples collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey.

Sample Identification A01 A02 B01 B02 C01 C02 D01 D02 E01 E02 F01 F02 G01 G02 H01 H02 I01 I02 J01 J02 K01 K02 L01 L02 M01 M02 N01 N02 O01 O02 P01 P02 *Qualifier

TPH (µg/g dry) 7.2 5.2 6.9 8.9 7.0 6.2 8.9 7.3 5.7 10.0 9.6 6.1 4.6 14.4 12.1 8.6 60.4 13.7 11.9 10.5 12.8 12.6 11.8 32.3 40.4 18.9 15.9 21.0 45.6 14.7 19.4 17.5

TRH (µg/g dry) 3.7 2.9 4.2 4.0 4.2 3.2 5.7 6.8 5.2 9.7 5.5 2.5 4.0 12.3 6.0 6.8 8.8 6.7 9.1 6.7 9.8 7.0 7.8 8.5 7.3 9.9 8.9 11.3 5.9 6.1 10.9 9.2

UCM (µg/g dry) 3.5 2.2 2.7 4.9 2.8 3.0 3.2 0.5* 0.5* 0.3* 4.0 3.6 0.6* 2.1 6.1 1.9 51.6 7.1 2.8 3.8 3.0 5.6 4.0 23.8 33.2 9.1 7.0 9.7 39.7 8.5 8.5 8.4

concentration below method detection limit and estimated by the analytical laboratory.


EOM (µg/g dry) 50* 52* 50* 56* 62* 44* 82* 70* 72* 80* 84* 120 62* 134 74* 88* 84* 96* 86* 56* 106 56* 76* 64* 80* 88* 70* 104 73* 74* 91* 84*

12.5 hcarbon_Total_Resolved

hcarbon_TPH_ugg

60 50 40 30 20 10

10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5

0 NW

NE

SW

NW

SE

NE

SE

quadrant

quadrant

UCM

60

150

EOM **

50 125 40 eom_ugg

hcarbon_Unresolved

SW

30 20 10

100 75 50

0

25 NW

NE

SW

SE

NW

NE

quadrant

Figure 7-11.

SW

SE

quadrant

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) (µg g-1 dry weight) at sampling stations in Block 52. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NW = northwest; NE = northeast; SW = southwest; SE = southeast. Thick horizontal blue lines at equal levels join quadrants that are not significantly different (p < 0.05); placement of lines varies for readability. ** Indicates data were not analyzed statistically because most samples were reported to be below the laboratory’s method detection limit.

TPH concentrations ranged from 4.6 to 60.4 µg/g, with a mean across all sample stations of 15.2 µg/g. A one-way ANOVA (with data natural log transformed) revealed significant differences in TPH concentrations between quadrants. A post-hoc Tukey test showed that TPH concentrations in southwest and southeast quadrants were significantly higher than in the northwest and northeast quadrants. Similarly, TRH concentrations were significantly higher in the southwest and southeast quadrants than in the northwest quadrant. UCM varied widely among samples, with a one-way ANOVA indicating significant differences by quadrant (F = 8.8407, df = 3, p = 0.0003). A Tukey HSD test identified the southeast quadrant as having significantly higher UCM concentrations than the northwest and northeast quadrants (Figure 7-12). EOM values were reported by the laboratory for all stations; however, all reported values except for three stations (F02, G02, and N02) were below the analytical laboratory’s MDL. Consequently, EOM data were not analyzed statistically. There are no defined standards or guidelines for TPH and EOM/TOG levels in marine sediment. Situations vary depending on location; anthropogenic activities; natural seeps of ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 64

hydrocarbons; and where applicable, the nature or composition of the hydrocarbons in question. TPH values from Suriname Blocks 52, 31, 37, and 30 generally are lower than TPH values from sediments offshore Trinidad and Tobago (Repsol YPF, 2008; Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010). Results of a linear correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) between individual organic analytes and the percentage contribution of fine sediments (silt plus clay) are shown in Table 7-3. Only TRH was significantly correlated with the quantity of finer sediments. Table 7-3.

Results of a linear correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) between individual organic analytes and the percentage contribution of fine sediments (silt plus clay). Values in bold indicate statistically significant results. Analyte TPH* TRH UCM* EOM

Pearson’s r 0.019 0.378 -0.266 N/A

df 30 30 30 N/A

Probability (n = 32) 0.92 0.033 0.140 N/A

EOM = extractable organic matter; TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons; TRH = total resolved hydrocarbons; UCM = unresolved complex mixture; df = degrees of freedom. N/A = not applicable. Nearly all EOM values reported were below the laboratory’s method detection limit. * Data were natural log transformed prior to analysis in order to meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance.

7.2.2.4

M etals

Metals concentrations in sediments from western part of Block 31 (CSA International, Inc., 2010) are summarised by quadrant in Figures 7-12 and 7-13. Mercury (Hg) concentrations were not plotted because values were below detection limits. The 2014 Block 52 EBS report (Appendix C) summarises metals concentrations in sediment samples collected during the Block 52 survey relative to average marine sediment, continental crust, and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sediment quality screening reference table values (Buchman, 2008). Concentrations of metals were generally low. Ten metals (Al, As, Ba, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn) were found to differ significantly among quadrants. Examination of the mean ranks among the four quadrants revealed that concentrations of metals tended to be highest in the northeast quadrant for all detected metals except arsenic, which was highest in the northwest quadrant. There were no differences among quadrants for manganese (or cadmium, which was not detected). Some metals (aluminum [Al], barium [Ba], cadmium [Cd], chromium [Cr], nickel [Ni], and lead [Pb]) were generally lower in northwest and southwest quadrant samples with higher sand content compared to northeast and southeast quadrants. Statistical analysis show that six trace metals – Al, Ba, Cr, copper (Cu), Ni, and Pb – differed significantly among quadrants. Examination of the mean ranks among the four quadrants revealed that Al, Ba, Cu, Ni, and Pb concentrations tended to be greater in the northeast and southeast quadrants compared to the other two quadrants. Chromium concentrations were greater in the northeast quadrant. In comparison, concentrations of four metals in Block 37 (Al, Cd, Cr, and iron [Fe]) were found to differ significantly among quadrants. Pairwise comparisons indicated that high values in the southwest quadrant and low values in the southeast quadrant were responsible for observed differences in aluminum. Low cadmium values in the southeast quadrant drove the differences for that variable. The difference between chromium measurements from the northeast and southwest quadrants was significant. Iron concentrations differed significantly between the southeast and southwest quadrants. None of the metal levels in the Block 31 sediments were of concern relative to sediment quality recommendations. Because sediment samples collected in the survey area consisted primarily of sand, most metals concentrations in these carbon-rich sediments were lower than or comparable to values typically reported for ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 65

average marine sediments (Salomons and Förstner, 1984). Average seafloor sediments consist of a mixture of abundant aluminosilicate clays and iron oxides, with minimal amounts of calcium carbonate and quartz sand. Calcium carbonate and quartz sand tend to be depleted in metal levels, thereby diluting the amount of aluminosilicate clay. Aluminum and iron in the Block 31 sediments were generally low.

Figure 7-12.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of sediment aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt concentrations (ppm) in quadrants in Block 31. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NE = northeast; NW = northwest; SE = sSoutheast; SW = southwest.


Figure 7-13.

Box plots showing median, 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles, and range of copper, iron, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc concentrations (ppm) in quadrants from Block 31. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NE = northeast; NW = northwest; SE = southeast; SW = southwest.

Of the 13 metals analysed, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, and zinc (Zn) are the heavy metals of concern and for which recommendations for threshold guidelines for sediment quality determinations are available. The other metals presently do not have threshold guidelines for sediment quality determinations or were included as analytes for technical reasons (e.g., enhance interpretations or generally considered as indicators of petroleum activity). Table 7-4 summarises the maximum, minimum, and average concentrations of the metals of concern from Block 52 and presents corresponding values from sediments analysed from Block 31 samples from 2010 and 2014,Block 37 samples (Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010) and Block 30 samples (Repsol YPF, 2008). All heavy metals in Block 31 sediments were of comparable, if not slightly lower, levels as those reported by Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd. (2010) from Block 37 samples and Repsol YPF (2008) from Block 30 sediments, and did not exceed the Canadian Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (CISQG). Similarly, the levels of heavy metals in sediments within Blocks 37 and 30 generally were below the prescribed standards outlined in the CISQG. It should be noted that a different analytical laboratory was used for the Block 52 samples and therefore the method detection limits (MDLs) for all analytes and tests below are not consistent. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 67

Table 7-4.

Block

Summary of metals concentrations (ppm) in 2010 Block 31 samples, 2014 Block 31 samples, and corresponding metals values from sediments analysed in Block 37 (From: Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd., 2010) and Block 30 (From: Repsol YPF, 2008).

Sample Maximum Block 52 Minimum Average Maximum Eastern Block 31 Minimum Average Maximum Western Block 31 Minimum Average Maximum Block 37 Minimum Average Maximum Block 30 Minimum Average CISQG

Cd ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.06 BDL 0.03 0.7

Cr 36.7 10.4 20.7 20.5 6.9 11.5 16.0 6.7 10.7 14.2 8.8 11.9 34.13 21.53 27.56 52.3

Cu 9.2 4.1 6.6 7.9 3.4 5.5 3.3 0.7 2.0 6.1 1.4 3.2 14.20 3.96 8.00 18.70

Hg 0.018 0.01 0.013 0.015 0.009 0.012 ND ND ND 0.03 <0.02 0.03 BDL BDL BDL 0.13

Pb 16.8 2.9 8.2 8.3 2.9 4.9 7.80 2.62 5.41 9.94 3.25 6.16 13.92 2.26 7.00 30.20

Zn 63.0 30.5 46.5 54.2 25.3 37.6 22.8 6.2 15.7 34.60 13.30 25.80 45.33 26.76 66.00 124.00

BDL = below detection limits; ND = not detected; Cd= cadmium; CISQG = Canadian Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; Cr = chromium; Cu = copper; Hg = mercury; Pb = lead; and Zn = zinc.

Sediment metals concentrations from the 2014 survey in Block 52 are represented by quadrant, and shown as box plots in Figures 7-14 and 7-15; individual sample concentrations are provided in Table 7-5. Cadmium levels were below detection limits in all samples and were not plotted. Sediment metals concentrations can often be correlated with sediment grain size. Based on grouped quadrant averages, sediments primarily consisted of sandy and silty sediments ranging from 38% to 51% sand and 31% to 42% silt. Table 7-5 summarises metals concentrations in sediment samples collected during the Block 52 survey relative to average marine sediment, continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sediment quality screening reference table values (Buchman, 2008). Average seafloor sediments generally consist of a mixture of abundant aluminosilicate clays and iron oxides, with minimal amounts of calcium carbonate and quartz sand. Calcium carbonate and quartz sand tend to be depleted in metal levels, thereby diluting the amount of aluminosilicate clay. Because most sediment samples collected in the survey area consisted primarily of sandy sediments, most other metals concentrations in these sediments were lower than, or comparable with, values typically reported for average marine sediments (Salomons and Förstner, 1984).


20

60000

15 As_ppm

Al_ppm

50000 40000 30000

10 5

20000

0

10000 NW

NE

SW

NW

SE

NE

SW

SE

40

300

35 Cr_ppm

250 Ba_ppm

SE

Quadrant

Quadrant

200 150

30 25 20

100

15

50

10 NW

NE

SW

SE

NW

NE

Quadrant

Quadrant

Cu

10 9

40000

8

35000

7 6

Fe

45000

Fe_ppm

Cu_ppm

SW

30000 25000

5

20000

4

15000

NW

NE

SW Quadrant

Figure 7-14.

SE

NW

NE

SW

SE

Quadrant

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), and iron (Fe) (ppm) at quadrants in Block 52. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NW = northwest; NE = northeast; SW = southwest; SE = southeast. Thick horizontal blue lines at equal levels join quadrants that are not significantly different (p < 0.05); placement of lines varies for readability.


20

300

18

275 Mn_ppm

Hg_ppb

250

16 14

225 200 175

12

150

10

125

NW

NE

SW

SE

NW

NE

SE

SW

SE

Quadrant

20.0

17.5

17.5

15.0 Pb_ppm

Ni_ppm

Quadrant

SW

15.0 12.5

12.5 10.0 7.5

10.0

5.0

7.5

2.5

NW

NE

SW

SE

NW

NE Quadrant

Quadrant

Zn

70

Zn_ppm

60 50 40 30 NW

NE

SW

SE

Quadrant

Figure 7-15.

Box plots showing median (horizontal bar in box), mean (asterisk in box), 25th, and 75th lower and upper quartiles (top and bottom of box), and range (capped vertical lines) of sediment mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) (ppm) at quadrants in Block 52. Tick labels represent sampling quadrants: NW = northwest; NE = northeast; SW = southwest; SE = southeast. Thick horizontal blue lines at equal levels join quadrants that are not significantly different (p < 0.05); placement of lines varies for readability. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Programme – Block 52 PSEPBV 70

Table 7-5.

Total metals concentrations in sediment samples collected in Block 31 during the 2014 Environmental Baseline Survey, average marine sediment (Salomons and Förstner, 1984), continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995), and sediment quality quick screening reference table values (Buchman, 2008). Metals Concentration (ppm)

Sample Identification A01 A02 B01 B02 C01 C02 D01 D02 E01 E02 F01 F02 G01 G02 H01 H02 I01 I02 J01 J02 K01 K02 L01 L02 M01 M02 N01 N02

Al

As

Ba

Cd

Cr

Cu

Fe

Hg

Mn

Ni

Pb

Zn

43,300 19,600 38,000 38,700 37,400 26,100 41,500 39,600 42,100 43,500 48,900 41,500 36,700 53,700 39,500 42,700 32,600 33,500 35,600 31,900 31,300 34,000 31,400 30,600 30,600 32,400 33,900 41,000

19.7 10.3 4.4 4.4 4.7 6.1 4.3 11.6 7.6 8.1 4.9 5.1 4 5.2 5 4.4 6.5 4.9 5.5 6.2 4.8 6 ND 5.1 4.4 3.9 ND 4.3

209 94 225 227 241 152 247 204 244 220 272 263 253 287 260 269 139 145 145 141 162 164 165 150 147 175 172 204

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

32.7 10.4 24.3 23.3 26.2 11.1 28.6 19.6 35.8 24.7 33.6 32.2 22.2 36.7 31.4 29.4 12.6 11 13.1 12.3 13 14.3 12.1 10.9 15.9 15.3 12.1 17.9

7.01 4.13 5.15 5.97 5.61 4.16 6.07 7.60 7.61 8.96 7.73 6.93 5.19 9.18 7.12 7.20 5.91 6.19 6.13 6.00 6.62 6.87 5.85 5.82 7.19 6.44 6.58 7.56

40,800 24,500 24,900 25,700 23,600 23,500 25,800 32,300 34,900 28,500 31,000 30,400 24,200 32,000 27,300 27,400 21,100 20,300 21,400 19,600 20,300 21,800 19,800 19,400 19,400 21,400 21,000 26,000

0.0124 0.0136 0.0103 0.0117 0.0100 0.0110 0.0115 0.0150 0.0150 0.0182 0.0174 0.0144 0.0108 0.0166 0.0123 0.0133 0.0156 0.0146 0.0133 0.0123 0.0127 0.0140 0.0139 0.0118 0.0126 0.0139 0.0135 0.0130

282 143 180 181 170 167 170 237 242 267 210 209 175 214 195 190 198 182 196 191 189 192 150 166 189 165 161 200

16.2 9.7 12.1 13.3 12.7 9.3 13.7 15.7 17.9 16.8 16.8 15.7 11.7 18.7 15.4 15.1 12.0 11.8 12.4 11.5 13.1 13.8 11.8 12.3 15.1 13.3 13.4 15.8

16.8 2.86 9.66 9.25 10 3.43 10.6 8.9 14.4 11.2 13.5 12.4 9.18 15 12.8 11.9 4.98 4.14 3.76 4.03 5.71 5.34 4.79 4.6 6.05 6.1 5.36 6.91

58.3 32.6 42.5 46.5 44.4 30.5 48.2 52.1 60.6 58.5 56.2 52.7 41.6 63 52.8 51.9 40.1 40.8 40.6 38.6 47.1 43.3 36.9 37.5 47.6 42.5 42.5 50


Table 7-5. (Continued). Metals Concentration (ppm) Sample Identification O01 O02 P01 P02 Average marine sediment Continental crust Threshold effects level1 Effects range low1 Effects range median1

Al

As

Ba

Cd

Cr

Cu

Fe

Hg

Mn

Ni

Pb

Zn

29,300 38,300 39,200 38,800 72,000 79,600 ----

ND 4.6 4.3 4.4 7.7 1.7 -8.2 70

147 218 192 213 460 584 130.1 ---

ND ND ND ND 0.17 0.1 0.68 1.2 9.6

12.7 23.4 19.3 23.6 72.0 126.0 52.3 81 370

6.48 7.00 6.91 7.26 33 25 18.7 34 270

18,400 26,300 24,300 25,400 41,000 44,300 ----

0.0122 0.0133 0.0129 0.0117 0.190 0.040 0.130 0.150 0.700

161 201 174 211 ------

13.2 15.1 14.7 15.7 --15.9 20.9 51.6

5.23 8.99 7.03 8.61 19.0 14.8 30.24 46.7 218

41.1 49 46.8 50.7 95 65 124 150 410

Al = aluminum; As = arsenic; Ba = barium; Cd = cadmium; Cr = chromium; Cu = copper; Fe = iron; Hg = mercury; Mn = manganese; Ni = nickel; Pb = lead; Zn = zinc. ND = not detected. 1 Data from Buchman (2008). -- = information not available.


Multivariate analyses of environmental variables performed with Principal Components Analysis with a varimax rotation (on fourth root transformed and normalised data) showed that the first three principal components had Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and accounted for more than 90% of the variation among the sampling sites (Table 7-6). In fact, the first two principal components accounted for 77.2% of the variation among sampling stations. Chromium and nickel were removed from the dataset prior to analysis because a collinear analysis showed that chromium was 97% correlated with lead, and nickel was 96% correlated with zinc. Because chromium and nickel were essentially contributing the same “explanation” as lead and zinc, respectively, they were removed to simplify the analysis. Table 7-6 shows the eigenvectors (“loadings”) and Pearson’s r correlation coefficients for each analyte on the first three principal components (PC1, PC2, PC3). Essentially, the Pearson’s r value is a correlation coefficient between the PC scores (derived composite scores for each observation based on eigenvectors for each PC; not shown) and the raw data for each original analyte. These correlations help measure the importance of each analyte when accounting for the variability in the PC. The three analytes which were the most strongly correlated (either positively or negatively) with the first three principal components are shaded in Table 7-6. Table 7-6.

Results of principal components analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation for sediment metals and sediment particle size (major) classes. Shaded cells indicate the three analytes with the strongest correlations to each principal component. Cadmium was not included in the analysis as it was not detected.

Principal Component 1

Eigenvalue

% Variation

Cumulative % Variation

7.52

62.7

62.7

2

1.78

14.8

77.5

3

1.52 Eigenvectors Pearson’s r PC1 -0.342 -0.946

12.7 Eigenvectors Pearson’s r PC2 -0.076 0.036

90.2 Eigenvectors Pearson’s r PC3 0.148 -0.168

Analyte Al As

-0.090

-0.157

0.675

0.435

-0.185

0.704

Ba

-0.294

-0.804

-0.064

0.304

0.437

-0.467

Cu

-0.315

-0.863

-0.179

-0.401

-0.290

0.163

Fe

-0.276

-0.757

0.423

0.541

0.129

0.257

Hg

-0.169

-0.478

-0.005

-0.329

-0.589

0.513

Mn

-0.284

-0.763

0.337

0.124

-0.213

0.536

Pb

-0.324

-0.878

0.110

0.400

0.304

-0.117

Zn

-0.353

-0.969

0.029

0.033

-0.018

0.074

Sand

0.330

0.914

0.213

0.238

0.006

0.204

Silt

-0.327

-0.9

-0.203

-0.059

-0.161

-0.297

Clay

-0.241

-0.652

-0.332

-0.634

-0.375

0.107

Al = aluminum; As = arsenic; Ba = barium; Cu = copper; Fe = iron; Hg = mercury; Mn = manganese; Pb = lead; Zn = zinc.

Many of the metal analytes and all three sediment categories (sand, silt, clay) were strongly correlated with the first principal component (PC1), with zinc and aluminum having the strongest correlations. All analytes in PC1 were negatively correlated except for sand, which was positively correlated. A positive correlation for PC1 indicates that an analyte is associated with the direction of the maximum amount of variation in the data; a negative correlation for PC1 indicates that an analyte is associated with the opposite direction of the maximum variation in the data. Arsenic, iron, and clay were the analytes with the strongest correlations ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 73

to the second principal component (PC2). Many of the analytes were correlated negatively on both PC1 and PC2 relatively equally, with clay, arsenic, manganese, and iron loading strongly on PC2. It was not surprising that many metal analytes, along with silt and clay, were negatively correlated with PC1 and that sand was positively correlated. This finding is indicative of the strong relationship between fine sediments and most metals. However, some metal analytes (e.g., arsenic and iron) were much more strongly correlated with PC2, where sand and silt were not strongly correlated, but clay showed a strong negative correlation. This indicates these analytes have a weak association with the distribution of the other metal analytes and coarse sediments. 7.3

METEOROLOGY, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE

7.3.1

Meteorology

Suriname is characterised by a humid tropical climate primarily influenced by the Northeast Trade Winds and the movement of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which varies in position relative to Suriname throughout the year (migrating twice a year over Suriname). The ITCZ is a cloudy band near the Equator where tropospheric air from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres converges (Fortuin, 2000). Southeasterly and northeasterly winds converge in the ITCZ causing convection and heavy rainfall. Figure 7-16 depicts the annual movement of the ITCZ and the resulting seasonal and rainfall patterns. Fluctuations in the position of the ITCZ result in differences in rainfall. Rains increase significantly from December to January and April to June when the ITCZ is overhead, with dry seasons in between. Suriname is characterised by the following four seasons: • • • •

Minor rainy season from early December to early February; Minor dry season from early February to late April; Major rainy season from late April to mid-August; and Major dry season from mid-August to early December (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2000).

Suriname’s water resources result from abundant annual rainfall. The mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 145 cm at the Coronie District to approximately 300 cm in central Suriname (Weatherbase, 2013). The high rainfall, together with topography, soil, and land cover, has resulted in many streams and large wetlands. Seven main rivers, originating in the hilly to mountainous interior of the country, convey approximately 4,800 m3/s of fresh water annually into the Atlantic Ocean. This represents approximately 30% of the area’s annual rainfall. The Marowijne and Corantijn Rivers (transboundary rivers) in the east and west, respectively, contribute 70% to the total fresh water discharge. Of the remaining rainfall, most evaporates and a small part percolates into the ground forming groundwater reserves. In addition to the ITCZ, variability of rainfall in Suriname is influenced by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The ENSO phenomenon, combined with inter-annual variations, coincides with the extreme dry years in the coastal area of Suriname and occurs once every 2 to 7 years. Studies conducted by several scientists have shown that the mean rainfall in the period of August to February in 22 El Niño years was 76.6% of the mean rainfall in the same months of non-El Niño years (Mol Jan et al., 2000). Between 1900 and 1999, 3 out of 4 years in which an extreme drought (rainfall less than 60% of the mean value) occurred were El Niño years. The 1997/1998 ENSO event caused the second most severe drought in 100 years. Drying up of brackish water lagoons, freshwater swamps, and rainforest creeks was observed during El Niño-related droughts (Mol Jan et al., 2000). The variability of rainfall in Suriname has been shown to be related to SSTAs during tropical Pacific ENSO events and also to Atlantic SSTAs. The strongest correlation in the December to January rainfall at a station ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 74

(Cultuurtuin) was with SSTAs in the Pacific while the beginning of the long wet season (March to May) was correlated with SSTAs in the tropical Atlantic (Nurmohamed et al., 2007).

Figure 7-16.

7.3.1.1

Migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone over South America showing wind velocity and direction as well as rainfall (From: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 2011).

Tem perature

Because of its tropical location, Suriname’s air temperatures are high during most of the year. Over 20 years, daytime temperatures in Paramaribo ranged between 22°C and 33°C, with an annual average temperature of 27°C. The range in average temperatures between the warmest months (September/October) and the coldest (January/February) is 2°C (Table 7-7). Table 7-7.

Temperature (°C) data for Paramaribo, Suriname (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 20 years of data). Annual

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average

27

26

26

26

27

27

27

27

27

28

28

27

26

Average high

31

30

30

30

31

30

31

31

32

33

33

32

30

Average low

22

22

22

22

23

22

22

23

23

23

23

23

22


7.3.1.2

R ainfall

Due to the ENSO phenomenon, Suriname experiences significant variation in rainfall throughout the year. The mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 145 cm in the Coronie District to approximately 300 cm in central Suriname. June is the wettest month, whereas the driest months are September and October, which average a monthly rainfall of approximately 9 cm. Approximately 50% of Suriname’s annual rainfall occurs during the 4 months of the major wet season, while 20% occurs during the major dry season. Approximately 67% of all rainfall in Suriname returns to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, while the other 33% drains into the Atlantic Ocean. Rainfall is highest in the central and southeastern parts of the country. Over a 40-year period, annual rainfall averaged 222 cm in Paramaribo (Table 7-8). Relative humidity is between 70% and 90% (FAO, 2000). Table 7-8.

Average Most recorded

Rainfall data (cm) for Paramaribo, Suriname (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 39 years of data). Annual 222 292

Jan 20 40

Feb 14 37

Mar 15 41

Apr 21 49

May 29 45

Jun 29 45

Jul 23 37

Aug 17 29

Sep 9 32

Oct 9 27

Nov 12 24

Dec 18 45

Monthly rainfall data with annual totals from six stations monitored by the Meteorology Department of Suriname are presented in Table 7-9. Data from 1999 to 2010 are available for four stations, from 2004 to 2010 for one station, and from 2006 to 2010 for one station. The highest annual rainfall was at the Langatabbetje station in 2007. Monthly rainfall generally was greatest between December and August. Red text indicates years when rainfall data are missing or incomplete. Meteorological data from 2001 to 2005 collected at a weather station of the University of Suriname are depicted in Figure 7-17.


Table 7-9.

Monthly rainfall in millimetres by station (From: Meteorology Department of Suriname). Red font indicates that rainfall data are missing or incomplete.

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

M 65.8 159.8 208.9 57.3 123.0

M 34.1 268.5 224.6 45.8 143.3

16.5I 147.5 172.4 248.3 99.4 166.9

M 102.4 205.7 173.5 158 159.9

1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

290.4 157.3 203.7 63.2 162.5 321.0 457.0 118 131 255 131 208.19

234.7 33.2 28.6 22 66.5 79.0 294.0 68 298 231 63.5 128.95

280.9 54.9 197.8 9.5 171 66.0 130.0 269.5 119 422.6 147.5 169.88

193.1 182.3 401.9 129.5 261.5 372.0 167.5 460 232.5 391.3 338.1 284.52

1999 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

239.9 147.8 255.5 M 211.4 114.5 240.1 125.5 190.67

394.1 127.2 138.6 261.3 37.5 243.7 174.3 108.9 185.7

253.6 66 159.2 216.7 331.1 197.7 398.7 145.1 221.01

321 125.6 M 223 252.7 275.5 301.2 345.2 263.46

May Jun Jul Aug K-ALBINA – 05:30’ N 054:03’ W 290.0 75.2 88.9 27.4 404.5 200.4 116.5 88.8 325.1 288.6 119.9 76.3 26.8 93.4 36.0 29.1 190.7 124.9 109.9 65.3 247.4 156.5 94.2 57.4 K-ALLIANCE – 05:53’ N 054:53’ W 165.6 493.4 328.5 266.3 274.9 309 163.7 97.3 M 402.2 249.6 175.2 356.5 588.5 201.5 123 320.5 409 170 156.5 401.0 244.0 327.0 280.5 444.5 511.5 196.0 139.0 648.4 355 180.5 141.5 405 307 209 85 29.4 192.9 158.5 M 416 204.5 220 222.5 346.18 365.18 218.57 168.68 LANGATABBETJE – 05:00’ N 054:26’ W M M M M 291.5 408.8 290.8 130.7 216.7 293.6 315 298.6 310.4 M 90.6 M 695.8 371.7 162.2 202.8 250.6 464.6 475.9 58.4 161.2 314.1 149.1 39.3 506.5 590.5 425.2 204.3 347.53 407.22 272.69 155.68


Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

3.8 49.2 14.9 3.2

1.2 68.6 2.6 15.2

88.3 182.2 0.0 21.3

41.6 166.5 114.6 126.1

17.8

21.9

73.0

112.2

616.4 1,626.5 1,748.4 1,206.4 851.3 1,373.4

M 118.2 159 85.5 63.5 60.5 38.5 60 114.5 34.3

M 52.4 67.4 23 36.5 65.0 59.5 M 54 69.2

M 42.1 186.7 180.5 101 101.5 141.0 93 21 136.3

M 186.9 395 152 79 347.5 179.0 337.5 200.5 162.6

81.556

53.375

111.46

226.67

M 57.3 137.3 15.1 178.8 82.5 54.1

M 25.6 77.1 81.1 93.7 38.4 25.1

M M 99 213.9 84.1 39.3 86.6

M 260.5 355.3 207.5 330.6 211.3 287.7

87.517

56.833

104.58

275.48

2,252.9 1,672.2 2,467.1 1,934.7 1,997.5 2,665.0 2,757.5 2,731.4 2,176.5 2,083.1 1,743.1 2,363.2 1,208.6 1,931.8 2,345.9 1,619.6 2,952.4 2,452.4 2,231.5 2,451.2 2,568.4

Table 7-9.

(Continued).

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

1999 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

373.4 269.5 64.3 348.6 433.6 143.4 88.9 242.2 151.3 235.02

100.3 281.6 51.1 101.5 213.4 42.0 145.1 239.2 71 138.36

194.5 138.2 94.1 51.2 102.6 173.8 145.1 334.8 125.6 151.1

220.4 329 260.3 314.6 72.8 360.4 189.5 226.1 296.7 252.2

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

78.1 M 412.3 126.7 85.1 151.9 171.3 170.9

60.8 M 228.7 91.6 219.6 180.4 M 156.22

133.5 M 95.7 241.4 138.7 419.6 150.7 196.6

241.6 M 134.4 386.8 202.8 266.7 470.4 283.78

1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

353 249.3 149 196.2 476.3 M 164.0 M 109.0 96.1 224.11

77 189.1 31 54.2 136 M 49.2 M 249.1 54 104.95

M 145.2 51.7 M 60.8 96.7 199.0 M 301.3 131 140.81

181.6 377.4 132.8 M 297 113.6 425.4 M 221.9 263.4 251.64

May Jun Jul Aug MEERZORG – 05:50’ N 055:10’ W 263.1 355.6 298.5 312.6 272.3 M M M 312.9 439.3 127.3 249.1 234.9 74.3 249.5 225.9 340.0 383.0 272.4 124.8 605.0 271.5 235.7 196.2 210.0 327.3 156.0 71.4 83.5 183.9 112.5 46.7 334 154.9 370.4 256.6 295.08 273.73 227.79 185.41 NW.AMSTERDAM – 05:53’ N 055:05’ W 258 329.3 94.8 113 M M M 135.6 307.3 298.3 171.1 179.3 486.8 339.0 205.6 77.4 395.9 327.6 121.8 64.2 45.5 146.2 104.5 72.6 395.4 134 191.4 200.3 314.82 262.4 148.2 120.34 PEPERPOT – 05:48’ N 055:09’ W 243.7 326.2 258.3 308 395.7 387.6 315.9 167.3 283 280.3 M M M M M M 193.4 53.3 266.5 373.4 253.0 443.6 282.5 163.4 427.5 303.1 240.2 126.0 M 415.8 148.3 54.6 34.5 268.4 93.8 28.8 340.5 173.5 326.3 276.7 271.41 294.64 241.48 187.28

M = missing.


Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

157.3 M 118 23.0 86.4 56.3 91.6 69.5

161.5 M M 70.3 15.9 119.2 55.9 102.2

105.1 M M 102.4 247.1 2.9 43.8 142.2

117.3 M M 226.7 158.6 141.6 143.8 173.2

86.014

87.5

107.25

160.2

2,659.6 1,290.6 1,716.4 2,022.9 2,450.6 2,348.0 1,668.4 1,956.0 1,760.5 2,199.6

21.7 85.8 43.0 40.5 57.9 58.8

52.2 105.0 44.0 51.6 55.2 129.8

83.6 76.8 138.7 123.3 45.1 93.5

58.7 206.6 211.4 320.8 282.3 167.1

51.283

72.967

93.5

207.82

106.3 87.8 M M 43.7 148.0 66.8 119.4 61.4

212.4 M M M 50 26.0 101.9 67.2 108.8

77.6 M 210 M 120.1 231.1 75.4 74.8 106.1

100.3 M M M 256.5 147.6 239.5 131.5 154.5

90.486

94.383

127.87

171.65

1,525.3 609.8 2,264.2 2,491.5 1,996.2 1,836.6 1,713.5 2,078.8 2,244.4 2,315.3 1,137.8 250.4 2,327.0 1,905.5 2,418.0 1,011.6 1,737.6 1,661.5 2,200.7

Figure 7-17.

Average monthly meteorological parameters in Suriname, 2001 to 2005: a) temperature; b) relative humidity; and c) wind force (Beaufort Scale) (From: University of Suriname). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 79

7.3.1.3

W ind Force and Speed

Winds in Suriname blow from a southeasterly and a northeasterly direction (Trade Winds), eventually converging and resulting in convection and heavy rainfall. The same pattern is observed offshore, where the predominant wind direction between January and May is from the northeast, and between June and December generally is from the east and northeast (Table 7-10). Wind patterns are important to offshore pollutant trajectory modelling, but the strong currents related to the Guiana Current and North Brazil Current (NBC) rings will likely dominate surface transport. Average wind speeds in Paramaribo range from 5 to 6.5 knots (kn) (Table 7-11). Higher wind speeds are experienced from February to April, while lower wind speeds occur from June to August; the wind data were compiled over a 20-year period. Of particular interest is that Suriname lies south of the hurricane belt, and no hurricanes are known to have hit the country. Offshore, where there would be less surface roughness to impede circulation, wind speeds are expected to be greater than reported for locations on land. Monthly average wind speeds for the project area range from 8 to 15 kn. Also, offshore where the “fetch” is greater, monthly average significant wave heights ranged from 3 to 6 ft. Additional discussion of wave data is provided in Section 7.4.1. Table 7-10.

Summary of monthly wind directions offshore Suriname (From: Impact Weather, 2009).

Month

N <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

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

Table 7-11.

NE 59 62 64 58 54 36 25 20 10 20 25 40

E 31 25 30 35 41 39 38 36 37 42 46 45

Wind Direction Frequency (%) SE S <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 <5 15 5 20 10 33 5 25 5 15 <5 5 <5

SW <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

W <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

NW <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Average wind speed (kn) for Paramaribo (From: Weatherbase, 2013; based on 16 years of data).

Annual

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

5

5

6.5

6.5

6.5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Wind force, as shown in plot (c) of Figure 7-17 and as monitored by the University of Suriname, is expressed based on the Beaufort Scale. Beaufort wind speeds and their equivalent ranges in metres per second are as follows: Beaufort Scale 0 1 2 3 4

Wind Speed (m/s) 0 – 0.2 0.3 – 1.5 1.6 – 3.3 3.4 – 5.4 5.5 – 7.9


At the request of NIMOS PSEPBV had CSA conduct block-specific wave height and current monitoring for a full year in Block 52. CSA deployed two Nortek (AWAC SN WAV 6860) acoustic wave and current profilers (AWCPs) on the seafloor in Block 52 the week of 21 July 2014. The schedule calls for recovery and redeployment of the instruments on a quarterly basis. Table 7-12 lists the deployment and recovery dates for the wave and current monitoring of Block 52 offshore Suriname for the full year of July 2014 through July 2015. Table 7-12.

Deployment and recovery dates of acoustic wave and current profilers in Block 52 offshore Suriname. Date 21 July 2014 26 October 2014 8 February 2015 1 May 2015 23 July 2015

Activity Initial deployment First recovery Second recovery Third recovery Final recovery

Ellipsoid buoys were used to house the AWCPs (Figure 7-18) to enhance stability and improve data quality. Ellipsoid buoys also help reduce the possibility of loss or damage to the equipment due to potential commercial trawling in the study area. Two AWCP mooring arrays were deployed around the Roselle-1 wellsite (Figure 7-19) for redundancy to ensure that, in the event of loss or failure of a unit, there would still be a means of collecting at least a regionally applicable four-season data suite to be provided to NIMOS at the end of the program in July of 2015. The AWCPs will be recovered and redeployed quarterly through July 2015, and their data will be downloaded for analysis.

Figure 7-18.

Ellipsoid acoustic wave and current profiler (AWCP) mounting buoy (diameter 75 cm).


Figure 7-19.

Location of acoustic water current profilers (AWCPs) in Block 52 offshore Suriname.

AWCP mooring arrays were deployed at Stations F2 and D1 in water depths of approximately 88 m. Stations F2 and D1 were selected because they bracket the proposed PSEPBV Roselle1 wellsite (Figure 7-19). Both stations were sampled during the PSEPBV EBS in May of 2014, and the water depth and bottom characteristics at these locations are known. The buoys were moored 2.0 m above the seafloor. Table 7-13 lists the geographic coordinates where the arrays were redeployed. Table 7-13. AWCP 1 2

Acoustic water current profiler (AWCP) locations in Block 52.

Station F2 D1

X1 694330.67 705361.53

Y1 802211.15 797926.36

Latitude2 7.25405719 N 7.21492006 N

Longitude2 55.23987224 W 55.14015499 W

Geodesy system information: 1 X and Y coordinates: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 21N in meters. 2 Latitude and longitude: WGS 1984 in decimal degrees.

The graphic products presented in Appendix E summarise the entire year’s worth of current and wave data collected in Block 52. Graphs were broken down into 2-week periods for readability. The entire water column was monitored but, for ease of interpretation, the summary graphs presented show only the current speed and direction within three representative depth ranges corresponding to the bottom, mid-water, and surface levels of the water column.


The wave graphs provide summarised results from the processed maximum and mean wave data collected over the year in 2-week intervals. The following wave parameters are presented in the various graphs. • • • • • •

Maximum wave height (Hmax): This is the largest wave in a record and is reported in meters. Peak direction (DirTp): This is the direction of the wave corresponding to the peak period. The direction is reported as “from” and is reported in degrees. Mean zero-crossing period (Tmax): This is the mean period associated with the largest wave (Hmax) in a record, where the period is calculated from the zero-crossing technique. The value is reported in seconds. Mean wave height (Hmean): This is the mean value (in meters) of all waves in a record. Mean direction (MeanDir): This value is a weighted average of all the directions in the wave spectrum. It is weighted according to the energy at each frequency. The direction is reported as “from” and is reported in degrees. Mean wave period (Tz): This is the mean period calculated from the zero-crossing technique. It is calculated as the mean of all the periods in the wave burst. The value is reported in seconds.

The Roselle-1 exploratory drilling period is anticipated to extend from April 1 (proposed spud date) through 22 June 2016. Figures 7-20 through 7-22 show the current speed and direction recorded from the F2 AWCP array at the beginning, middle, and end of this period. Figures 7-23 through 7-25 show the maximum and mean wave height for these same periods. Complete graphs for the entire year sampled at presented in the quarterly reports furnished in Appendix E.

Figure 7-20.

Station F2 current speed and direction 23 March through 6 April 2015.


Figure 7-21.

Station F2 current speed and direction 1 through 14 May 2015.

Figure 7-22.

Station F2 current speed and direction 12 through 25 June 2015.


a)

b)

Figure 7-23.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 23 March through 6 April 2015.


a)

b)

Figure 7-24.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 1 through 14 May 2015.


a)

b)

Figure 7-25.

Station F2 a) maximum and b) mean wave data from 29 May through 11 June 2015.


7.3.1.4

Severe Storm s

The history of severe storms offshore Suriname from 1851 to 2008 is available from the National Hurricane Center Best Track database. The project site is located just south of the Atlantic “Hurricane Belt.” According to the database, only one tropical storm has passed within 100 nmi of the project site (Flora in 1968), and only four hurricane-strength storms have passed within 300 nmi of the project site between 1851 and 2013 (Figure 7-26). No tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic has formed south of 7.2° N (Isidore 1990 in the eastern Atlantic). Squalls from a low latitude tropical storm or hurricane could potentially reach the site (Impact Weather, 2009).

Figure 7-26.

7.3.2

Hurricanes passing within 300 nmi of the project area between 1851 and 2013 (From: Impact Weather, 2009).

Air Quality

The ambient air quality of any given area depends on the type and intensity of operations and activities within that area, which will determine the potential for, and level of, air pollutants present at any given location and time. Air pollution is caused by the presence of any substance in the air that prevents the normal dispersive ability of the air and can, in high concentrations, harm humans or other animals, vegetation, or materials. Block 52 is located approximately 109 km from the shore, and there are no industrial activities taking place in any adjacent areas offshore of Suriname. The ambient air quality within Block 52 is expected to be good. Ambient air quality screening measurements were taken at two offshore locations within adjacent Block 30 during the Repsol EBS in March 2007 (Repsol YPF, 2008). Block 30 was located partially in what now is Block 52. Air quality during the Repsol survey was determined with a Multi Rae Plus Multigas Analyzer. The parameters monitored include hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), LELs (lower ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 88

explosive levels for combustible gases), and oxygen (O 2 ) levels. Data were collected in accordance with the USEPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Hydrogen sulphide and VOCs were below detectable levels in the study area. Carbon monoxide was detected at both of the sampling sites, but the values were below the maximum permissible limits outlined in the USEPA NAAQS. The presence of carbon monoxide may be as a result of the gaseous emissions from the engine of the marine vessel. Such ambient levels are insufficient to cause adverse human health effects and will likely dissipate quickly. Ambient atmospheres are considered “safe” where there is an oxygen concentration between 19.5% and 23.5%. The two monitored locations within Block 30 fell within the safe range for oxygen. 7.3.3

Noise

Elevated noise levels are expected during drilling operations from the use of heavy equipment such as generators, pumps, and cranes. The effect of increased noise levels on inland communities will be negligible due to the distance of the proposed project from shore. The effect on rig personnel would be minimal because operations will not take place in confined areas and sound waves disperse and dissipate quickly. The expected decibel levels will not exceed any standards set by the USEPA. 7.4 7.4.1

PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY Currents

Along the northern coast of Suriname, the current regime is influenced by two currents, namely the NBC and the Guiana Current, which are surface currents in the Atlantic Ocean. As the NBC flows north along the northeastern coast of South America, it reaches French Guiana, where part of it separates from the coast and retroflects to join the North Equatorial Counter Current (NECC). The remaining NBC flows northwestward to form the Guiana Current (Condie, 1991).

7.4.1.1

North Brazil Current

The NBC is a warm, northwesterly alongshore current system associated with the North Equatorial Current. It carries warm water of South Atlantic origin northwest along the coast of Brazil, across the Equator, and into the Northern Hemisphere. This current has two functions: 1) it closes the wind-driven equatorial gyre circulation and feeds a system of zonal counter-currents; and 2) it provides a conduit for cross-equatorial transport of upper-ocean waters as part of the Atlantic meridional overturning cell (Johns et al., 1998). The NBC is characterised by normal maximum surface speeds of 120 cm/s, although the current generally flows between 60 and 150 cm/s (Arnault et al., 1999; CSA International, Inc., 2011). Salinity ranges from 35 to 36.75 practical salinity units (psu), and average temperatures range from 22°C to 29°C. Near-surface waters in this region show enhanced nutrient content (phosphate, silicate, and nitrate). The NBC is also characterised by large anticyclonic eddies (or rings) that form seven to eight times per year in the retroflection zone predominantly during the period from June to January when a portion of the NBC turns eastward back into the Atlantic. The rings then propagate to the northwest under the influence of the NBC (Ffield, 2005; Ocean Numerics Limited, 2005). Figure 7-27 illustrates the location and progression of NBC rings in June and July 2010 (CSA International, Inc., 2010).


a)

b)

Figure 7-27.

Illustration produced by Eddy Watch of the location and progression of the North Brazil Current (NBC) rings (Data from: Horizon Marine, Inc., 2010).

NBC rings are large (300 to 400 km in diameter) anticyclones that pinch off from the NBC retroflection in the western tropical Atlantic Ocean near 8° N and translate northwestward along the coast of South America toward the Caribbean Sea (Johns et al., 1990; Didden and Schott, 1993; Richardson et al., 1994; Fratantoni et al., 1995). NBC rings have been proposed as one of several important mechanisms for the transport of South Atlantic upper-ocean water across the equatorial tropical gyre boundary and into the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Such transport is required to complete the meridional overturning cell (MOC) in the Atlantic forced by the high-latitude production and southward export of North Atlantic Deep Water. While recent observational and numerical studies have advanced knowledge of the MOC, considerable uncertainty remains regarding the vertical partitioning of the compensating northward MOC transport into surface, thermocline, and intermediate water classes (Glickson and Fratantoni, 2001). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 90

A high-resolution ocean general circulation model used to study the life cycle of NBC rings showed that radiating Rossby waves from the NECC reflect at the Brazilian coast and generate approximately six or seven anticyclones. The anticyclones intensify as they propagate westward along the Brazil coast because of potential vorticity conservation and become NBC rings. Approximately once per year, an NBC ring will reach a water depth of 1,000 m when a surface NBC ring merges with an intermediate eddy produced by the Intermediate Western Boundary Current that becomes unstable upon crossing the Equator (Jochum and Malanotte-Rizzoli, 2003). The vertical structure of the NBC rings is highly variable. High-resolution surveys have documented three types of eddies in this current system: • • •

A shallow, surface trapped structure with velocities confined to the top 200 m; A deep-reaching structure with significant swirl velocities (approximately 0.2 m s-1) and depths up to 2,000 m; and A thermocline-intensified structure with only a slightly detectable surface signature.

Lumpkin and Garzoli (2005) analysed a dataset of surface drifter observations in the tropical Atlantic Ocean (Figure 7-28). These drifter observations revealed the branches of the South Equatorial Current (SEC) that merge with the NBC correlated annually with fluctuations in the strengths of the NBC retroflection, western NECC and SEC, and flow along the Guyana Coast, and strong semiannual variations in the equatorial band of the central basin.

Figure 7-28.

Climatological near-surface currents for April 1st (top) and November 1st (bottom) (Source: Lumpkin and Garzoli, 2005).


7.4.1.2

Guiana Current

The Guiana Current develops from the SEC, the North Brazil Coastal Current, and the NBC. The NBC flows north along the northeastern coast of South America until it reaches French Guiana, where part of it separates from the coast and turns to join the NECC. The rest of the NBC continues flowing northwestward to form the Guiana Current (Condie, 1991). This current can extend as far as 300 nmi offshore, with highest velocities occuring along the edge of the continental shelf in April and May. The change in flow and a reduction of Amazon River discharge leads to a weakening of the Guiana Current in June, and minimum speeds occur in September due to the migration of the ITCZ (Febres-Ortega and Herrera, 1976; Fuglister, 1951). Speed varies between 10 and 216 cm/s (0.2 and 4.2 kn). In a study by Bulgakov et al. (1998) conducted between February and March 1990, the Guiana Current’s main stream was found to be over the shelf edge and upper part of the continental slope. Current velocity was 2 m/s (3.88 kn) at these locations. These currents, however, are not continuous but composed of a succession of westward limbs of eddies (Metcalf, 1968). 7.4.2

Tides

Tides along the coast of Suriname are semi-diurnal, having two high tides and two low tides during a tidal day (Netherlands Engineering Consultants [NEDECO], 1968). This tidal cycle has a period of approximately 13 h and is denoted by the symbol “M2.” The amplitude of these tides ranges between 1.3 and 2.3 m (Détante et al., 1987). However, according to NEDECO (1968), neap tidal amplitude is 1 m during the first and third quarters of the moon, whereas spring tides are much higher, with a maximum amplitude of 2.8 m (new and full moons). Figure 7-29 shows the predicted tides for Paramaribo for the projected well drilling period beginning in April 2016.

Figure 7-29.

7.4.3

Predicted tides for Paramaribo, Suriname for the period 18 to 19 May 2015. (From: University of South Carolina, 2012).

Hydrography

Results of hydrographic profiling conducted at two Block 52 locations on 23 and 24 May 2014 are shown in Figures 7-30 and 7-31. The hydrographic profile collected on 23 May 2014 was taken in the southwest quadrant near station L01. The profile collected on 24 May 2014 was taken in the northeast quadrant at station H02 (Figure 7-6).


0

10

10

20

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0

30

30

40

40

50

50 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

29

30

0

0

10

10

20

20

30

40

50

50 1018

1020

1022

1024

5.0

1026

0

10

10

20

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0

30

40

50

50 8.05

8.10

pH

Figure 7-30.

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

30

40

8.00

38

Dissolved Oxygen (mg L-1)

Density (kg m-3)

7.95

36

30

40

1016

34

Salinity (PSU)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

o Temperature ( C)

32

8.15

8.20

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Turbidity (NTU)

Hydrographic profiles collected from Block 52 on 23 May 2014 at station L01.


0

20

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0

40

40

60

60

80

80

22

24

23

25

26

27

28

28

29

30

0

20

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0

40

60

80

80

1020

1022

1024

5.0

1026

0

20

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0

40

60

80

80

8.05

8.10

pH

Figure 7-31.

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

40

60

8.00

38

Dissolved Oxygen (mg L-1)

Density (kg m-3)

7.95

36

40

60

1018

34

Salinity (PSU)

o Temperature ( C)

1016

32

8.15

8.20

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Turbidity (NTU)

Hydrographic profiles collected from Block 52 on 24 May 2014 at station H02.


Hydrographic data from Block 52 generally are indicative of tropical open ocean conditions influenced by riverine input. The water was slightly less saline in the near-surface; surface waters were warm (27°C to 28°C) and only slightly cooler (approximately 25°C) at a depth of approximately 50 m. Neither hydrographic profile showed a strong thermocline. At station L01, the temperature was nearly constant from the surface down to approximately 35 m, whereafter it decreased slightly to 25°C at the bottom. The temperature profile at station H02 showed a slight increase in the first 10 m, followed by a nearly linear decrease down to the bottom at a depth of nearly 80 m. The water column was well oxygenated and generally clear, with a pH in the normal range for seawater (Figures 7-30 and 7-31). Salinity ranged from approximately 32 to 36.5 psu in both profiles. A halocline was evident at a depth of 10 to 20 m in all three profiles (Figures 7-30 and 7-31) where the salinity increased from approximately 32 to 33 psu in surface waters to approximately 36.5 psu in bottom waters. A pycnocline is present at the same location as the haloclines in both profiles. Given a generally isothermal water column, the density differences with depth can be attributed to the lower salinity levels of water at the surface. Both hydrographic profiles showed higher DO values near the surface (approximately 6.75 mg L-1), with levels declining to the oxygen minimums of approximately 5.0 to 5.5 mg L-1 near the bottom. Both profiles showed similar DO ranges, between approximately 5.0 and 6.75 mg L-1. Turbidity was low through the water column in both profiles, generally ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 NTU. Fine-scale variability with depth was evident in turbidity values relative to other hydrographic parameters that typically show less frequent changes with depth. Slightly elevated turbidity levels were noted at the near-surface in the profile from 24 May 2014 (Figure 7-31). The small turbidity spike is likely a result of localised surface productivity due to nutrient-rich riverine water input transported along the Guyana Current. A summary of hydrographic profile data is listed in Table 7-14. A complete listing of the 0.5-m bin-averaged values for each profile is provided in Appendix B of the EBS Reports (Appendix C). Table 7-14.

Date

Hydrographic profile data collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. Station

23 May 2014

L01

24 May 2014

H02

Metric Maximum Minimum Range Average SD± Maximum Minimum Range Average SD±

Depth Temperature Density (m) (°C) (kg m-3) 51.17 0.63 50.53 N/A N/A 86.23 0.20 86.03 N/A N/A

27.93 24.98 2.95 26.70 0.99 27.84 21.58 6.26 25.34 1.93

1,024.72 1,008.07 16.65 1,022.63 1.91 1,025.99 997.95 4.63 1,022.88 3.32

Salinity Turbidity (psu) (NTU) 36.57 15.81 20.76 34.60 2.15 36.91 20.93 15.98 34.29 3.67

0.44 0.20 1.34 0.31 0.06 0.99 0.00097 0.98 0.27 1.44

pH 8.16 7.99 0.18 8.11 0.03 8.19 7.79 0.40 8.08 0.49

Dissolved Oxygen (mg L-1) 6.94 4.78 2.16 6.08 0.50 7.38 4.63 2.75 5.66 0.61

N/A = not applicable; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units; psu = practical salinity units; SD = standard deviation.

The patterns observed in hydrographic data may be attributed to the influence of large riverine discharges and the Guiana Current/NBC that dominate the continental shelf of the region. The study area is located approximately 1,000 km northwest of the mouth and delta of the Amazon River and is within 500 km of seven other river drainages. The mouth and delta of the Orinoco River is located down current approximately 600 km to the west. River outflows from French ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 95

Guiana and Suriname bring freshwater as well as a large load of suspended sediments and nutrients onto the continental shelf of the project area. 7.5

CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

Results of organics analyses of near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom samples collected from the water column during the 2014 EBS are presented in Table 7-15. EOM represents total oil and grease, which includes all hexane EOM, while TPH is a component of the EOM that relates primarily to petroleum-based sources. The TRH and UCM are component subsets of TPH, and for the purposes of this discussion, TPH values will be the main focus. TPH concentrations in all samples were below the detection limit (12.4 to 16.7 μg L-1), while EOM and total oil and grease ranged from 133 to 281 μg L-1. The absence of detectable levels of TPH in the water column would be expected for open ocean conditions. EOM was detected above the method detection limit (MDL) from the near-bottom sample at station L01, and from all three sampling depths at station H02. Primary production in the water column is likely the source of organic matter in the survey area. Table 7-15.

Date

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total resolved hydrocarbons (TRH), unresolved complex mixture (UCM), and extractable organic matter (EOM) concentrations (µg L-1) from near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom water column samples collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey. Station

23 May 2014

L01

24 May 2014

H02

Sample Location Near-surface Mid-water Near-bottom Near-surface Mid-water Near-bottom

TPH1

TRH1

UCM1

EOM

ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND ND ND

652 322 153 270 152 210

ND = not detected. 1 All qualifier concentrations undetected. 2 Estimated. Reported value is below method detection limit of analytical laboratory.

Table 7-16 lists the dissolved organic carbon (DOC), TOC, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in water samples collected from near-surface, mid-water, and near bottom on the two sampling days in May 2014. DOC and TOC levels were low, ranging from 0.4 to 2.2 mg L-1 and 0.4 to 2.5 mg L-1, respectively, while COD ranged from 117 to 219 mg L-1. COD levels from the sample collected on 23 May 2014 were higher at the near-bottom depth than COD concentrations from any other samples. Near-surface and mid-water depth measurements on 23 May 2014 were higher for TOC. TSS values were low, ranging from 2.4 to 4.4 mg L-1. Values generally were higher than typical open-ocean values, which may reflect the swift current conditions and sediment input into the area from numerous riverine sources that elevate levels of suspended solids and promote water column productivity. The fluctuating values with day and depth for the DOC, TOC, COD, and TSS concentrations in water samples suggest a system with water masses that vary quickly in space and time.


Table 7-16.

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations (mg L-1) from near-surface, mid-water, and near-bottom water samples collected during the 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey.

Sample Date Station

1 2

23 May 2014

L01

24 May 2014

H02

Sample Location Near-surface Mid-water Near-bottom Near-surface Mid-water Near-bottom

DOC

TOC

COD

TSS

2.2 0.71 0.71 1.7 0.71 0.41

2.5 0.81 0.61 1.6 0.51 0.41

125 125 219 117 141 172

2.4 2.8 4.4 2.42 4.4 3.7

Estimated. Result is below laboratory method reporting limit. Result is below laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and is reported as the MDL.

7.6

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Suriname’s high biological diversity is composed of approximately 715 bird species; 192 mammal species; 102 amphibian species; 175 reptile species; 1,081 fish species; and 5,100 plant species (mostly higher plants) (Environmental Services and Support, 2009; Froese and Pauly, 2012). There are unknown ecosystems, fauna, and flora in large expanses in the interior of Suriname (the Guyana Shield). 7.6.1

Plankton

Phytoplankton production in coastal waters is stimulated by terrestrial nutrient runoff and by tidal mixing. Phytoplankton composition depends on hydrological seasons; stability, upwelling, coastal rains, and flood season all affect nutrient supply and vertical stratification. Sufficient nutrient supply and water column stability (calm weather) are required to stimulate phytoplankton growth. From satellite images of chlorophyll concentration in seawater, it can be interpreted that the primary producing phytoplanktonic community occurs near shore and in shallow waters. Phytoplankton production in turn supports zooplankton production that then provides food for plankton-eating fish. The Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) Project, part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Science Enterprise, uses satellite remote sensing to measure the concentration of phytoplankton in the ocean. The measurements are achieved by the satellite-based quantification of ocean colour, made possible because the colour in most of the world’s oceans in the visible light spectrum (wavelengths of 400 to 700 nmi) varies with the concentration of chlorophyll and other plant pigments present in the water (i.e., the more phytoplankton present, the greater the concentration of plant pigments and the greener the water). Based on the SeaWiFS global primary productivity analysis, the Caribbean Sea (Large Marine Ecosystem) is listed as a Class III, low productivity (<150 g C m-2 yr-1) ecosystem. Review of the data from offshore Suriname indicates seasonal variation, with the highest productivity occurring between March and August in the shallow waters to the north of Suriname. 7.6.2

Benthos

The general health of the benthic ecosystem can be assessed through a characterisation of infaunal community composition, an analysis of community characteristics (e.g., species diversity, evenness), and an understanding of the physical and chemical factors that may affect the community. Benthic community characterisation and species-specific feeding and motility characteristics also are important determinants in an assessment of potential impact. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 97

Fauna that generally are most sensitive to anthropogenic impacts, including those associated with oil and gas exploration activities, are the sessile organisms (e.g., corals, sponges, tube worms, bivalves, hydroids, and bryozoans) and soft-bodied organisms (e.g., echinoderms and non-tube worms). These fauna are unable to avoid impacts caused by excavation/jetting, crushing, or smothering (e.g., activities such as rig installation, drilling, muds and cuttings discharges). Mobile organisms (e.g., crustaceans and some errant worms, ophiuroids, and demersal fishes) often can avoid such events by relocating to more favourable conditions. Hard bottom benthic communities are considered to be at greatest risk of impact, as the fauna are almost exclusively attached, sessile forms. In addition, the presence of hard bottom features generally is very limited. Ubiquitous soft bottom benthic communities exhibit variable levels of impact to oil and gas operations, depending on their diversity and their feeding and motility characteristics.

7.6.2.1

R egional Benthic Com m unity Characteristics

Block 37 Site-Specific Benthic Community Characteristics Previous benthic sampling efforts in the general area of Block 52 include sampling within Block 37 (located i to the east of Block 52) An EBS completed in Block 37 included the collection of 56 grab samples at 28 stations. A total of 96 infaunal taxa and 3,775 individual organisms were identified. The number of taxa per grab sample ranged from 3 to 45 and averaged 21.3 (±8.5 standard deviations [SD]). Numbers of individuals in the samples ranged from 4 to 275 and averaged 67.0 (±48.5 SD). The density of infauna ranged from 32 to 2,184 individuals m-2, with an average of 536 individuals m-2. The average Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’) value was 2.6234 with a range between 1.0397 and 3.4000. Pielou’s Evenness Index (J’) averaged 0.8886 with a range between 0.6164 and 0.9724. Block 30 Site-Specific Benthic Community Characteristics While polychaetes and amphipods were the dominant taxa in Block 37, the benthic/infaunal community in the Block 30 study area was relatively homogeneous, characterised by the amphipod Dexamine and the bryozoan family Calloporidae, and termed the Dexamine-Calloporidae community (Repsol YPF, 2008). While differences were not considered significant and some natural variability in the community structure across the block would be expected, there were a few samples that departed from the Dexamine-Calloporidae community. For example, the gastropod Bullata was dominant at two stations. At one other station, sediment characteristics were distinctly different (i.e., the presence of coarser sediment and large boulders occupied by sponges, hydroids, and bryozoans). As in Block 37, the benthic communities identified within the Block 30 study area did not appear to be strongly associated with any gradients. It should be noted that since 2008, the offshore lease areas have been redistributed and Block 30 no longer exists. The area formerly included in Block 30 is now part of Blocks 50, 51, 52, and 53. Block 31 Aitkanti Site-Specific Benthic Community Characteristics from 2010 A total of 64 grab samples collected during a field survey in Block 31 yielded 96 infaunal taxa and 4,078 individual organisms. The number of taxa per grab sample ranged from 7 to 237 and averaged 63.7 (±49.3 SD). Numbers of individuals in the samples ranged from 4 to 275 and averaged 67.0 (±48.5 SD). Benthic infauna identified within Block 31 samples included annelid worms, crustaceans (i.e., amphipods, copepods, cumaceans, decapods, isopods, mysids, ostracods, pycnogonids, stomatopods, and tanaids), molluscs (i.e., bivalves), echinoderms (i.e., crinoids, holothuroids, and ophiuroids), and chordates (i.e., fishes) as well as some minor phyla (i.e., brachiopods, nematodes, nemerteans, porifera, and sipunculids). Brackish water influences in the area were evident, given the presence of several taxa known to be associated with fresh water (e.g., Alpheus sp., Macrobrachium sp., and larval mysids). Several rare species were noted (i.e., sea spiders [pycnogonids] and the brachiopod Lingula sp. A; Anuradha Singh, pers. comm., 2010). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 98

Block 31 Roselle-1 Site-Specific Benthic Community Characteristics from 2014 During a 2014 survey in eastern Block 31, a total of 32 grab samples were collected. These samples yielded 74 infaunal taxa and 2,775 individual organisms. The number of taxa per grab sample ranged from 25 to 40 and averaged 33 (±4.57 SD). Numbers of individuals in the samples ranged from 67 to 254 and averaged 173.4 (±57.2 SD). Benthic infauna identified within Block 31 during the May 2014 EBS included annelid worms, crustaceans (i.e., amphipods, copepods, cumaceans, decapods, ostracods, stomatopods, and tanaids), molluscs (i.e., bivalves), echinoderms (i.e., crinoids, holothuroids, asteroids, and ophiuroids), and chordates (i.e., fishes, lancelets) as well as some minor phyla (i.e., brachiopods, nematodes, nemerteans, chaetognaths, and sipunculids). Polychaetes were the dominant group by both abundance and number of taxa (66% by abundance and 54.1% by number of taxa). Block 52 Site-Specific Benthic Community Characteristics A total of 32 grab samples were collected from Block 52 during the May 2014 EBS. These samples yielded 78 infaunal taxa and 1,920 individuals. Two fish taxa (an unidentified eel and unidentified mullet), contributing a total of three individuals, were removed from the analysis because they are demersal or pelagic and are not considered to be infauna. The number of taxa per grab sample ranged from 12 to 35 and averaged 21.1 (±4.4 standard deviation [SD]). Numbers of individuals in the samples ranged from 18 to 147 and averaged 60.0 (±30.5 SD); the number of phyla in the samples ranged from 2 to 6 and averaged 4.1 (±1.1 SD). The complete matrix of taxa counts in each sample is provided in Appendix C. Benthic infauna identified within Block 52 during the May 2014 EBS included 10 phyla: annelid worms, arthropods, (i.e., amphipods, cumaceans, decapods, ostracods, stomatopods, and tanaids), molluscs (i.e., bivalves), echinoderms (i.e., crinoids, holothuroids, asteroids, and ophiuroids), and chordates (i.e., lancelets) as well as some minor phyla (i.e., nematodes, nemerteans, chaetognaths, poriferans, and sipunculids). Polychaetes were the dominant group of organisms in the infaunal community by both abundance and number of taxa (64.2% by abundance and 56.3% by number of taxa). Taxa that numerically dominated the samples are given in Table 7-17. Table 7-17.

Top 20 individual taxa collected during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey ranked by total individuals.

Phylum – Class/ Subclass or Order Arthropoda – Amphipoda Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Arthropoda – Amphipoda Annelida – Polychaeta Arthropoda – Decapoda Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Arthropoda – Cumacea Annelida – Polychaeta

Taxon

Individuals

Abundance % of Total Abundance

Cumulative (%)

Ampelisca paria

282

14.66

14.66

Prionospio sp. A Eunice sp. A Notomastus sp. A Amphipod sp. C (Aoridae) Lumbrineris sp. A Penaeus sp. A Marphysa sp. A Capitella sp. A. Aricidea sp. A. Nephtys sp. A. Diastylis sp. A Maldane sp. A

125 97 97

6.50 5.04 5.04

21.16 26.20 31.24

95

4.94

36.18

85 71 70 63 61 60 57 57

4.42 3.69 3.67 3.28 3.17 3.12 2.96 2.96

40.60 44.29 47.96 51.24 54.41 57.53 60.49 63.45


Table 7-17. (Continued). Phylum – Class/ Subclass or Order Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta EchinodermataOphiurida Annelida – Polychaeta Annelida – Polychaeta

7.6.2.2

Cirratulus sp. A Amphicteus sp. A Glycera sp. A Paraprionospio pinnata

56 54 46 46

Abundance % of Total Abundance 2.91 2.81 2.39 2.39

Ophionephtys sp. A

45

2.34

76.29

Melinna sp. A Nereis sp. A

36 36

1.87 1.87

78.16 80.03

Taxon

Individuals

Cumulative (%) 66.36 69.17 71.56 73.95

Dom inant Species and Feeding/ M otility Characteristics – Block 31

Table 7-18 compares the numerically dominant species identified from Blocks 52, 31, and 37 and the respective feeding and motility characteristics of the infaunal dominants from the surveys in those areas. In terms of rank presence, by abundance, three of the top five species present in Block 52 were similarly ranked in eastern Block 31, and two of the top five species present in Block 52 were similarly ranked in western Block 31 and Block 37, although the sequence of dominants varied. The most dominant species in Block 53 (Ampelisca paria) was also the most abundant in both Block 31 surveys and was the third most abundant in Block 37. Overall, 65% of the numerical dominants noted for Block 52 were also present as dominants in Block 31 and 80% of the numerical dominants for Block 52 were also present as dominants in Block 37. This trend suggests strong similarities in community composition between the three blocks. The dominant taxa present within Block 52 represent a diverse assemblage of infaunal feeding and motility types (Tables 7-18 and 7-19). All primary feeding modes are represented, including carnivores, surface and subsurface deposit feeders, omnivores, filter feeders, and a single herbivore. Motility of the dominant fauna includes sessile, motile, and discretely motile forms. The multivariate techniques cluster analysis and ordination (performed using PRIMER version 6 software) were performed on the taxa-by-stations data matrix to search for patterns in species composition across the study area. Group average cluster analysis revealed several outliers from a central group of samples. A similarity profile analysis (SIMPROF) superimposed on the cluster analysis dendrogram (Figure 7-13) indicated few significant differences between groups of samples at p < 0.05. Solid black lines indicate significant differences among groups, where dashed red lines indicate no significant difference based on the SIMPROF test. The results of the SIMPROF test imply that there are a few outliers from the central group of samples (namely samples A02 and E02), but there is little significant spatial separation of the infaunal samples based on taxonomic composition The top 20 taxa in terms of overall abundance accounted for more than 80% of all individuals collected. The list of numerical dominants was composed predominantly of polychaete worms (15 of the top 20 taxa), but also included amphipod and decapod crustaceans, an ophiuroid, and a cumacean. The amphipod Ampelisca paria and the polychaete Prionospio sp. A had the most total individuals in samples collected in Block 52. The most abundant species was the tubiculous amphipod A. paria, which made up 14.66% of all individuals collected. A. paria are tube-building deposit feeders that are dominant space competitors (Ruppert and Barnes, 1994). The large network of tubes built by A. paria can easily preclude all but the largest ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 100

polychaetes from colonizing an area. Consequently, large worms such as Prionospio sp. A, Eunice sp. A., Notomastus sp. A., and Lumbrineris sp. A were the dominant polychaetes, making up 6.50%, 5.04%, 5.04%, and 4.42% of all individuals, respectively. Table 7-18.

Top individual taxa collected during surveys offshore Suriname ranked by total individuals and feeding/motility characteristics. Rank Presence (Abundance) Eastern Western Block 37 Block 31 Block 31

Taxon

Block 52

Ampelisca paria

1

1

1

3

Prionospio sp. A

2

4

4

1

Eunice sp. A

3

6

16

19

Notomastus sp. A

4

7

7

6

5

5

10

NR

6 7 8

3 11 15

5 11 3

2 13 4

Capitella sp. A.

9

2

NR

10

Aricidea sp. A.

10

NR

NR

12

Nephtys sp. A. Diastylis sp. A

11 12

NR NR

19 NR

15 NR

Maldane sp. A

13

NR

NR

9

Cirratulus sp. A

14

12

12

5

Amphicteus sp. A

15

13

8

16

Glycera sp. A

16

20

9

8

Paraprionospio pinnata

17

NR

NR

NR

Ophionephtys sp. A

18

NR

6

17

Melinna sp. A

19

NR

NR

NR

Nereis sp. A

20

18

NR

11

Amphipod sp. C (Aoridae) Lumbrineris sp. A Penaeus sp. A Marphysa sp. A

Feeding Mode Deposit feeder; filter feeder Surface deposit feeder Carnivore Subsurface deposit feeder Deposit feeder; filter feeder Carnivore Omnivore Carnivore Surface deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder; suspension feeder Carnivore Unknown Surface and sub-surface deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder Carnivore Suspension feeder Surface/subsurf ace deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder; suspension feeder Omnivore

NR = not recorded.


Motility Sessile Discretely Motile Motile Motile Sessile Motile Motile Motile Motile

Motile Motile Motile Motile Motile Sessile Discretely Motile Motile Motile

Motile Motile

Table 7-19.

Feeding mode, motility, and feeding structures for the top 20 individual taxa collected during the 2014 Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey.

Taxon

Subclass or Order

Family

Ampelisca paria

Amphipoda

Ampeliscidae

Prionospio sp. A

Polychaeta

Spionidae

Notomastus sp. A

Polychaeta

Capitellidae

Eunice sp. A

Polychaeta

Eunicidae

Amphipod sp. C

Amphipoda

Aoridae

Lumbrineris sp. A Penaeus sp. A Marphysa sp. A

Polychaeta Decapoda Polychaeta

Lumbrineridae Penaeidae Eunicidae

Capitella sp. A

Polychaeta

Capitellidae

Aricidea sp. A

Polychaeta

Paraonidae

Nephtys sp. A

Polychaeta

Nephtyidae

Maldane sp. A

Polychaeta

Maldanidae

Diastylis sp. A

Arthropoda

Diastylidae

Cirratulus sp. A

Polychaeta

Cirratulidae

Amphicteus sp. A

Polychaeta

Ampharetidae

Glycera sp. A

Polychaeta

Glyceridae

Paraprionospio pinnata

Polychaeta

Spionidae

Ophionephtys sp. A Ophiuroidea

Amphiuridae

Melinna sp. A

Polychaeta

Ampharetidae

Nereis sp. A

Polychaeta

Nereididae

Motility

Feeding Structure

Sessile

Assorted

Discretely motile

Tentacles

Motile

Other

Motile

Jaws

Sessile

Assorted

Motile Motile Motile

Jaws Assorted Jaws

Motile

Other

Motile

Other

Motile

Jaws

Motile

Other

Motile

Unknown

Motile

Tentacles

Sessile

Tentacles

Carnivore

Discretely motile

Jaws

Suspension feeder

Motile

Tentacles

Motile

Assorted

Motile

Tentacles

Motile

Jaws

Feeding Mode Deposit feeder; filter feeder Surface deposit feeder Sub-surface deposit feeder Carnivore Deposit feeder; filter feeder Carnivore Omnivore Carnivore Surface deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder; suspension feeder Carnivore Surface and subsurface deposit feeder Unknown Surface deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder

Surface/subsurface; deposit feeder Surface deposit feeder; suspension feeder Omnivore

Notes: For gammarid amphipods, “assorted” feeding structures include a collective assortment of antennae, setae, gnathopods, pereopods, and various mouthparts (maxilliped palps, mandibles). Tubiculous amphipods are known to actively switch feeding modes (e.g., from filter feeding to surface deposit feeding) in response to changes in food availability. For ophiuroids, “assorted” feeding structures include arms and mouthparts. For polychaetes, other feeding structures typically include eversible sac-like pharynges.

While all feeding modes were represented in the Block 52 infauna, the predominant feeding modes were carnivores and deposit feeders. The dominant fauna were categorised as predominantly motile and discretely motile.

7.6.2.3

Video and Still Cam era I m ages of Seafloor

The drift tow video transects within each sampling grid were staggered across the study area to give a representation of the seafloor across the entire study area (Figure 7-32). A total of eight 10-minute drift transects were completed in Block 52 between 22 and 23 May 2014. Transects were designated by the grid cell in which they are located and are discussed in the chronological order which they video transects were completed during the survey. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 102

Throughout the study area, the substrate was relatively smooth and featureless with fine sediments typically overlying coarser material. Some small pieces of consolidated substrate and rubble were observed, often colonised by crinoids. However, other than small pieces of rubble, no hard bottom was seen. Small epibiota, including hydroids and serpulid worms, were abundant. Unidentified fishes, crinoids, brittle stars, and virgulariid sea pens were the most commonly observed organisms. The faunal composition was somewhat different in the northern and southern portions of the study area. Sargassum sp. algae was observed along several transects in the shallower southern portion of the study area. Similarly, echinoderms (primarily brittle stars) were frequently observed in the southern portion of the study area but were much less commonly observed along transects in the northern portion. Sea pens of genus Virgularia were relatively common along transects A01 and G02 in the northern portion of the study area, and were not observed along transects in the south. Virgularia sea pens are common throughout the world’s oceans in fine sediments up to 400 m depth (Hill and Wilson, 2000). Of note was the frequent observations of wire corals (genus Cirrhipathes) in four of the drift tow transects. Wire corals are antipatharians (black corals), which are an order of long-lived, slow-growing, and vertically elongated corals. Named for their dark-colored skeletons, antipatharians typically are found in waters deeper than 20 m (Bruckner et al., 2008). Wire corals occasionally observed along transects in the northern half of the study area in depths of 75 m or greater (Transects A01, C01, E01, and G02). Corals generally were seen as lone individuals and no substantial clustering of corals was observed. Coral densities were not calculated due to poor visibility along many of the transects; however, corals were particularly common along the A01 and C01 transects. No corals were observed in the southern half of the study area where the water depth ranged between approximately 45 and 60 m. Several antipatharian coral colonies that could not be identified as belonging to the genus Cirrhipathes were observed also. All Antipatharian black corals are listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily currently endangered, but may become so unless trade and/or harvesting is controlled. Historically, antipatharians have been harvested heavily for the jewelry trade and populations are decreasing in many areas due to continued harvesting as well as damage from commercial fish trawling (Bruckner et al., 2008). An exhaustive literature search revealed only one reported observation of antipatharians in Surinamese waters. Four specimens of Antipathes columnaris (now accepted as Stylopathes columnaris) were collected in 1969 in approximately 134 m of water offshore Suriname at approximately 7°28’ N, 55°11’ W (Opresko, 1974). This location is in the northwest corner of Block 52, approximately 19 km northwest from the northern edge of PSEPBV’s area of interest. More recently, antipatharians have been reported throughout the Caribbean Sea (Warner, 1981; Sánchez et al., 1998; Sánchez, 1999) as well as in countries nearby Suriname including Colombia (Sánchez, 1999; Reyes et al., 2005), Venezuela (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2012), Trinidad and Tobago (Warner, 1981), and Brazil (Echeverría, 2002).


Figure 7-32.

Locations of the still and video camera drift tow transects conducted during the Block 52 Environmental Baseline Survey between 22 and 23 May 2014. EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 104

Transect J02 Transect J02 was surveyed on 22 May 2014 on a heading of 82°. The substrate consisted of a flat, relatively featureless bottom of fine-grained sediments overlying coarser material (Photos 7-1 and 7-2) frequently colonised by crinoids, hydroids, and echinoderms. Fishes and crustaceans were observed occasionally.

Photo 7-1.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect J02 showing a smooth substrate with hydroids, brittle stars, and a crinoid colony.

Photo 7-2.

View of the seafloor along Transect J02 showing typical smooth substrate with an unidentified crustacean (center).


Transect N 01 Transect N01 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 88°. The bottom along this transect was a relatively featureless substrate consisting of fine-grained sediments (Photo 7-3). Brittle stars and crinoids were frequently observed along this transect, along with several unidentified fish (Photo 7-4).

Photo 7-3.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect N01 showing typical smooth substrate with brittle stars.

Photo 7-4.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect N01 showing crinoids and an unidentified fish.


Transect P 02 Transect P02 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 88°. The seafloor in this area showed a relatively featureless substrate consisting of fine-grained sediments overlaying coarser material (Photo 7-5). Crinoids, echinoderms, and sea pens (Photo 7-6) were frequently observed. The seafloor was relatively flat, though several small depressions were observed.

Photo 7-5.

Close-up view of the seafloor along Transect P02 showing crinoids and brittle stars on the seafloor with fine- to medium-grained sediments.

Photo 7-6.

An unidentified sea pen (lower left) observed along Transect P02 along with a small depression in the seafloor.


Transect G02 Transect G02 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 90°. The seafloor in this area showed a flat, relatively featureless substrate consisting of fine-grained sediments overlaying coarser material. Brittle stars, crinoids, virgulariid sea pens, and black wire corals (Cirrhipathes sp.), were frequently observed (Photo 7-7), along with occasional Sargassum sp. algae. The seafloor was marked by frequent bioturbation which resulted in an uneven substrate (Photos 7-8 and 7-9).

Photo 7-7.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing an unidentified antipatharian black coral.

Photo 7-8.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing a virgulariid (Virgularia sp.) sea pen with extended polyps (left) and retracted polyps (right). Colors have been slightly altered to show detail.


Photo 7-9.

View of the seafloor along Transect G02 showing crinoids and algae (Sargassum sp.) in a small depression on the seafloor.

Transect E01 Transect E01 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 90°. The substrate consisted of fine-grained sediment overlying coarser material, with frequent bioturbation resulting in an uneven seafloor. Black corals (Cirrhipathes sp.) and crinoids were frequently seen (Photo 7-10), along with Sargassum sp. algae.

Photo 7-10.

View of the seafloor along Transect E01 showing a black wire coral Cirrhipathes sp. on a soft bottom substrate. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 109

Transect C01 Transect C01 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 82°. The terrain was flat and relatively featureless, with common bioturbation. The sediments along Transect C01 were generally fine-grained, with occasional small pieces of rubble. Crinoids, fishes, and black corals (Cirrhipathes sp.) were frequently observed (Photos 7-11 and 7-12).

Photo 7-11.

Close-up view of extended polyps of a black wire coral (Cirrhipathes sp.) observed along Transect C01.

Photo 7-12.

Unidentified crinoids and a black wire coral (Cirrhipathes sp.) observed along Transect C01. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 110

Transect A01 Transect A01 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 79°. Visibility was generally poor, with fairly turbid water near the seafloor. The seafloor was uneven with occasional depressions often inhabited by fish (Photo 7-13) or Sargassum sp. algae. Commonly observed organisms along Transect A01 included fish, Sargassum sp. algae, black wire coral (Cirrhipathes sp.), virgulariid sea pens, and crinoids. No echinoderms were observed along this transect.

Photo 7-13.

View of the seafloor along Transect A01 showing an unidentified fish near a small seafloor depression.

Transect L01 Transect L01 was surveyed on 23 May 2014 on a heading of 89°. Crinoids and brittle stars were very prevalent along this transect. No fish, squid, or other large biota were observed. Some small rubble pieces were observed which were typically colonised by crinoids (Photo 7-14). Other than the occasional piece of rubble, the sediment along Transect L01 consisted of fine sediments.

Photo 7-14.

View of the seafloor along Transect L01 showing crinoids colonizing small rubble pieces. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 111

7.6.3

Fishes

The continental shelf off Suriname supports a diverse fish fauna. Marine fish species found offshore Suriname represent 5% of the world’s marine species, a high proportion compared to the relatively small area covered by Suriname’s territorial waters. There are 37 orders and 174 families of fish in Suriname and 727 identified marine species (Froese and Pauly, 2012). Surveys of marine fishes off the Suriname continental shelf were conducted by the FAO in 1988 (FAO, 1988). The survey effort covered the shelf from a depth of approximately 18 m to the shelf edge at approximately 200 m. Pelagic (species that live within the water column) and demersal (species that live on or near the seafloor) fishes were described separately and are briefly discussed in the following subsections. During the a 2009 3D seismic survey in Block 31, there were several sightings of fishes, most notably whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and manta rays (Manta birostris). Other sightings included tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), shark sp. (Galeomorphii), blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), sailfish (Istiophorus sp.), hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna sp.), flying fish (Exocoetidae), and mackerel and tuna (Scombridae) (RPS GeoCet, 2009).

7.6.3.1

Pelagic Fishes

Most of the biomass of small pelagic fishes on the Suriname continental shelf is restricted to the inner shelf area throughout the year. The inner shelf assemblage consists of a relatively large number of species from three main families: Engraulidae (anchovies), Clupeidae (herrings, shads, sardines, hilsa, and menhadens), and Carangidae (jacks, pompanos, jack mackerels, and scads). Other pelagic species that dominate this group include large-sized predators such as barracudas, scombrids (mackerels, tunas, and bonitos), and sharks (smalltail shark [Carcharhinus porosus], night shark [C. signatus], Caribbean sharpnose shark [Rhizoprionodon porosus], and scalloped hammmerhead [Sphyrna lewini]). Lower densities and fewer species of pelagic fishes were found over the outer shelf; these consisted mainly of round sardinella (Sardinella aurita), rough scad (Trachurus lathami), and other carangids. Open ocean pelagic species such as gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus), dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) are listed as Vulnerable according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (2014).

7.6.3.2

Dem ersal Fishes

The main demersal fish groups on the Suriname shelf include snappers, croakers, and grunts. The inner shelf is dominated primarily by lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), corocoro grunt (Orthopristis rubber), king weakfish (Macrodon ancylodon), acoupa weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa), dwarf goatfish (Upeneus parvus), American harvestfish (Peprilus paru), and Jamaica weakfish (Cynoscion jamaicensis), in decreasing order of quantity. The outer shelf is dominated primarily by vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), southern red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), and cardinal snapper (Pristipomoides macrophthalmus) (FAO, 1988).

7.6.3.3

Squids

Small squids were relatively uncommon and their distribution listed as “patchy” on the Suriname shelf. The most common species include Loligo species, primarily L. plei with smaller amounts of L. pealei (FAO, 1988). However, squid were commonly seen in Block 31 during a 2014 survey. No squid were observed during the Block 52 2014 Environmental Baseline Survey.


7.6.3.4

Shallow W ater Shrim ps

Four penaeid shrimps are found on the continental shelf off Suriname: brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), white shrimp (P. schmitti), red spotted shrimp (P. brasiliensis), and pink shrimp (P. notialis). The small seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) and white belly prawn (Nematopalaemon schmitti) are distributed more inshore than Penaeus spp. Brown shrimp dominated catch in all FAO (1988) surveys.

7.6.3.5

Com m ercial Fisheries

The Suriname commercial fishery comprises shrimp trawling fleets, finfish trawling fleets, red snapper and mackerel hand-liners, and large-pelagic longliners. Coastal fishing includes drifting gillnetters, pin seiners, and bottom longliners (Cervigón et al., 1993; FAO, 2008). The main commercially exploited species and categories are listed in Table 7-20. The main commercial fishing activities anticipated to occur in Block 52 is shrimp trawling. Surinamese waters hold 11% of the world’s total species used for game fishing, in contrast to only 0.1% of the commercial species. Table 7-20.

Main commercially exploited marine fish and shrimp species recorded by the Suriname Fisheries Department (From: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008). Family

Common or Local Name Scientific Name Koemakoema Arius couma Kodokoe A. grandicassis/A. quadriscutis Jarabaka Arius parkeri Ariidae Koepila Arius proops Pani Arius passany Barbaman Bagre bagre/B. marinus Other catfishes Ariidae Batoidea Rays All species Carangidae Zeezalm Caranx hippos Centropomidae Snoek Centropomus spp. Elopidae Dagoefisie Elops saurus Lobotidae Paoema Lobotes surinamensis Red snapper Lutjanus purpureus Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Lutjanidae Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Snapper (unidentified) Lutjanidae Megalopidae Trapoen Megalops atlanticus Mugilidae Aarder Mugil spp. Rachycentridae Batjawvis Rachycentron canadus Ban-Ban (acoupa weakfish) Cynoscion acoupa Blakatere Cynoscion steidachneri Kandratiki Cynoscion virescens Dagoetifi (king weakfish) Macrodon ancylodon Sciaenidae Krokus Micropogon furnieri Botrofisie Nebris microps Wit wittie Sciaenidae, juveniles Other croakers Sciaenidae, unidentified Scombridae Makreel Scomberomorus spp. Serranidae Graumurg Promicrops itajara Sharkoids Sharks All species Marine finfish (unidentified) Tri (miscellaneous small pelagics)


7.6.4

Sea Turtles

Five species of sea turtles are known to occur within the project area: leatherback, green, olive ridley, hawksbill, and loggerhead (Photo 7-15). The IUCN Species Program includes these species within their Red List, which is designed to catalog and highlight those plants and animals that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (IUCN, 2014). Current IUCN Red List designations for these species are as follows: • • • • •

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) – Vulnerable; Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) – Critically Endangered; Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) – Endangered; Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) – Endangered; and Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) – Vulnerable.

Photo 7-15.

Images of the five species of sea turtles known to occur in Suriname. Top left: leatherback turtle; top right: hawksbill turtle; mid-left: green turtle; mid-right: loggerhead turtle; bottom: olive ridley turtle (From: World Wildlife Fund, 2014).


The leatherback turtle is the most abundant of the five species in Suriname (Girondot et al., 2007). The other four species in decending order of population size are the green, olive ridley, hawksbill, and loggerhead turtles. The few high sandy beaches of Suriname, including Babunsanti, Eilanti, and the beaches between Matapica and the mouth of the Suriname River (Figure 7-33), provide nesting habitat for the five species of sea turtles known to occur within the project area (Goverse and Hilterman, 2005). There have been several claims that turtles nest in Coronie (Western District), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Suriname has investigated these claims, but no evidence of nesting has been documented. Green and leatherback turtles frequently nest in Suriname; olive ridley turtles show wide fluctuations, but nesting is declining; hawksbill turtles do not nest often in Suriname; and loggerhead turtles occur in Suriname waters, but have been observed nesting only once. Sea turtles in Suriname suffer from several human and natural threats, the most important being death caused by drowning in shrimp trawls and fish nets, and the over-exploitation of sea turtle eggs by local Amerindians. It was estimated by Tambiah (1994) that Surinamese shrimp trawlers capture 3,200 sea turtles per year, of which approximately 50% die. Additionally, of the 2,283 female sea turtles recorded nesting in 2002, 16.6% of them had injuries likely caused by fishing activities (Hilterman and Goverse, 2007). Turtle excluder devices (TEDs) have been mandatory in Suriname since 1992 and are thought to improve conservation efforts for sea turtles in the region (Mohadin, 2000; Kelle et al., 2009). In 1968, the Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname (STINASU) started a conservation programme in order to protect Suriname’s sea turtles. This programme consisted of a total ban on the harvest of olive ridley eggs and limited and controlled turtle egg harvesting for the other species in cooperation with the local Amerindians. This strategy was very successful as poaching dropped significantly in the following years; however, the number of nesting olive ridley turtles has not yet recovered. The nesting seasons for sea turtles in Suriname overlap, spanning February to July (Oceanic Society, 2007). Between February and June 2010, STINASU recorded approximately 32,000 sea turtles on the beaches of Galibi and Matapica, nearly double the number from the previous year, when approximately 17,000 sea turtles were counted (additionally, sea turtles counted during the months of July and August were included in the 2009 count). As part of the sea turtle monitoring programme, patrols are carried out on the beaches, data are collected, and sea turtles are counted and tagged with a flipper tag. The partners in this project are the WWF, Guyana’s Nature Management Department of the National Forestry Service, the indigenous community of Galibi, and the inhabitants of the Matapica area. A number of volunteers participated in the monitoring programme and knowledge was exchanged with the Guyanese organisation that protects sea turtles. WWF Guianas and other scientists have engaged in the satellite tracking of sea turtles in Suriname and neighbouring countries. Leatherback and green turtles follow different migration patterns. Green turtles follow the coastline to Brazil and leatherback turtles migrate north, broadly toward the Gulf Stream area, while others disperse to the east and remain in tropical waters (Ferraroli et al., 2004; Avanaisa Turney, 2012, pers. comm.). Figure 7-34 illustrates examples of migration patterns of sea turtles in the Guianas and from Matapica Beach, Suriname, based on 2012 tracking results from the WWF Guianas (2012a). Figure 7-35 illustrates the migration patterns of leatherback turtles from nearby French Guiana (Ferraroli et al., 2004). Figure 7-36 illustrates the movement patterns of a leatherback turtle (Gabi) and three green turtles (Wori, Amyja, and O’Tawa) during their nesting periods based on the 2011 tracking results from the WWF Guianas.


Figure 7-33.

Sea turtle nesting beaches along the coast of Suriname (Adapted from: Goverse and Hilterman, 2005). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 116

a)

b)

Figure 7-34.

Tracking of turtle migration patterns in a) Guianas and from b) Matapica Beach, Suriname, in 2012 (From: WWF Guianas, 2012a).

Figure 7-35.

Sea turtle tracking migration patterns in French Guiana (From: Ferraroli et al., 2004).


Figure 7-36.

Sea turtle tracking migration patterns in Suriname (2010 data) (From: World Wildlife Fund Guianas, 2012b).

In a seismic survey conducted by Kosmos Energy Suriname HC in Blocks 42 and 45 between August and October 2012, no sea turtles were sighted or recorded by Protected Species Observers positioned on the survey vessel (CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2013). During a 3D seismic survey in Block 31 from 12 June to 20 September 2013, 35 sea turtle sightings were recorded. The majority of the sea turtles recorded were hard-shelled sea turtles (green, loggerhead, or olive ridley turtle). Only on eight occasions could the sea turtles be identified as olive ridley turtles and on two occasions as green turtles (International Energy Consultants Organization, 2013). Leatherback turtle – Leatherback turtles are the largest of all living sea turtles, averaging 1.8 m in length and ranging in weight from 300 to 600 kg. Leatherback turtles are cosmopolitan and found in all tropical and subtropical oceans, with a range that extends well into the Arctic Circle (Márquez, 1990). Only a few beaches on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean provide nesting sites for leatherback turtles. The most significant Atlantic nesting sites are in Suriname, French Guiana, and Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean and Gabon in Central Africa. Off the northeastern coast of the South American continent, a few select beaches between French Guiana and Suriname ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 118

are primary nesting sites for several species of sea turtles, the majority of which are leatherbacks (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). Between 1968 and 1985, the number of leatherback turtles nesting in Suriname increased from 200 to 12,401 (Reichart and Fretey, 1993). This increase occurred due to the erosion of nesting beaches in neighbouring French Guiana (Schulz, 1975). Passive integrated transponder tagging studies have shown that at least 1,500 to 5,500 females per year nest in Suriname alone. In 2004, it was estimated that there were approximately 14,000 nests within the Suriname coast, based on nightly observations during tagging surveys, daily or incidental nest counts conducted by STINASU, extrapolations by scientists, and rough estimates. Leatherback turtle nesting season is from March to July, peaking from April to June. Eggs average 5.3 cm in diameter and each clutch contains an average of 85 yolked eggs, with a variable number of markedly undersized “yolkless” eggs present as well (Schulz, 1975). Hawksbill turtle – Hawksbill turtles are distributed in tropical waters throughout the central Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions. Adult hawksbill turtles range from 53 to 114 cm in length (Márquez, 1990), and they are carnivorous, feeding on corals, tunicates, algae, and sponges. Hawksbill turtles nest only sporadically in Suriname, with rarely more than 25 nests per year in the entire country. The nesting period typically takes place from May through July. Neither intra- nor interseasonal nesting frequency is known for Suriname. Schulz (1975) recorded an average of 146 eggs per nest. Green turtle – Green turtles are widely distributed in tropical and subtropical waters (Márquez, 1990). This species is a solitary nektonic animal that occasionally forms feeding aggregations in shallow water areas with abundant seagrasses and algae. Adult green turtles average 1.3 m in length and weigh approximately 200 kg. In Suriname, green turtles nest mainly on the beaches of Baboensanti and Galibi in the Galibi Nature Reserve and to a lesser extent at Matapica, Kat-kreek, and Diana. Their nesting season runs from February to July, peaking around April and May. The nesting population of this species is relatively stable and is estimated to be between 3,700 and 7,200 females (Schulz, 1975; Mohadin and Reichart, 1984). Loggerhead turtle – Loggerhead turtles are widely distributed in coastal tropical and subtropical waters around the world. This species commonly wanders into temperate waters and to the boundaries of warm currents (Márquez, 1990), and they are considered rare in waters off Suriname (Schulz, 1975). There are no data available for age or size classes present in Suriname waters, or whether these individuals are migratory or resident. Loggerhead turtle mating season is from late March to early June. These sea turtles nest at night, with the average interval between nesting seasons of 2 to 3 years, although this can vary from 1 to 6 years. Olive ridley turtle – Olive ridley turtles are the smallest sea turtles that occur in the project area. Adults average 68.5 cm in length and weigh from 35 to 50 kg. They are considered a facultative carnivore, feeding mainly on fishes, salps, crustaceans, molluscs, and algae (Márquez, 1990). Because the olive ridley turtle’s diet commonly includes shrimps, crabs, and other small crustaceans, they come into direct competition with humans for food resources in the area. The olive ridley turtle population in Suriname nests in the Galibi Nature Reserve. The nesting season in Suriname is from mid-May to the end of July, with only a few nests laid before and after this period. Olive ridley turtles sometimes nest in groups termed “arribadas.” Suriname’s olive ridley turtle population is the largest and most important olive ridley population in the Western Atlantic and was abundant enough to produce arribadas in the late 1960s. Most of ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 119

the eggs, however, were harvested by inhabitants of nearby villages. Conservation measures were put in place by STINASU to reduce poaching. Although these measures were successful, the numbers of nesting females still drastically decreased in subsequent years. In 1968, an estimated 3,065 olive ridley nests were laid in the Galibi Nature Reserve (Schulz, 1975). In 1989, the estimated number of nests laid was only 424 (Reichart and Fretey, 1993), a decrease of more than 80% in 20 years. In 1995, this number had declined to only 335. Limited data exists for the 2000s but have been estimated at 150 to 200 nests per year (Kelle et al., 2009). The number of olive ridley turtles elsewhere in the Guianas did not increase during this time, making it unlikely that the population had moved elsewhere. In addition to overharvesting of eggs, incidental catch from trawling has been suggested as a cause for decreased turtle populations (Kelle et al., 2009). Distribution of the olive ridley turtle nesting effort is shifting. Arribadas were described at Eilanti, the northernmost beach in the Galibi Nature Reserve, in the late 1960s. This traditionally has been the main nesting beach for the olive ridley in Suriname. Today, Eilanti appears to be less attractive as a nesting beach than the other beaches of Galibi. Studies have shown that the percentage of olive ridley turtles nesting at Eilanti has declined dramatically over the past decade. In 1995, for the first time on record, more olive ridley turtles nested elsewhere in Galibi, namely Pruimenboom and Baboensanti beaches. A possible cause for this may be that Eilanti is less accessible because of the recent formation of a sand bank (“the Spit”) offshore; high numbers of olive ridley turtles have been observed nesting on the Spit. All sea turtle species known to occur in waters off Suriname may be found within the middle shelf waters of the project area. Some species, such as green and hawksbill turtles, may transit through the project area during migrations or movements between feeding areas. Leatherback turtles actively feed within discrete areas on the shelf, based on the availability of prey. Loggerhead and olive ridley turtles also may occur on the middle shelf and could be temporarily disturbed by seismic survey activities during their search for epibenthic prey. 7.6.5

Marine Mammals

Thirty species of marine mammals are known to occur in Suriname waters (Table 7-21). These include baleen whales, toothed whales, dolphins, and West Indian manatees. Most of these species are distributed along the edge of the continental shelf and/or in waters of the continental slope, including the project area (De Boer, 2013). Exceptions include tucuxis, costeros, and West Indian manatees. Tucuxis are almost exclusively found within freshwater habitats and their congener, costeros, are distributed in coastal marine waters. West Indian manatees are distributed within coastal freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats (Jefferson et al., 2008). Common bottlenose dolphins generally are found over continental shelf waters, although offshore forms exist in some areas. Table 7-21.

Marine mammals known to occur within Suriname waters (listed alphabetically by scientific name). Common Name

Scientific Name Baleen Whales

Minke whale Sei whale Bryde’s whale Blue whale Fin whale Humpback whale

Balaenoptera acutorostrata Balaenoptera borealis Balaenoptera edeni Balaenoptera musculus Balaenoptera physalus Megaptera novaeangliae


Table 7-21. (Continued). Common Name

Scientific Name

Toothed Whales and Dolphins Long-beaked common dolphin Delphinus capensis Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris Gervais’ beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus Killer whale Orcinus orca Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Tucuxi Sotalia fluviatilis Costero Sotalia guianensis Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Manatee West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus

During the 3D seismic survey in Block 31 from 9 April to 5 June 2009, there were eight sightings of protected species by trained observers. Five sightings of marine mammals were recorded: four of dolphin species from the Family Delphinidae, including pantropical spotted dolphin and tucuxi dolphin, and one of a minke whale. None of these sightings resulted in a delay to seismic operations (RPS GeoCet, 2009). During the 2012 Kosmos Energy Suriname HC seismic survey in Blocks 42 and 45, Protected Species Observers sighted more than 600 animals, mainly due to large groups of spinner dolphins. During the survey period, there were 33 sightings and 10 positive species identifications. Altogether there were 29 cetacean sightings: 6 baleen whales, 12 toothed whales, and 11 dolphins (CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2013). During a 3D seismic survey in Block 31 from 12 June to 20 September 2013, a total of 52 sightings of marine mammals were recorded. Six species of cetaceans were positively identified: Atlantic spotted dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Guiana dolphin. Where the confidence of species identification was not definite, the sighting was assigned to a more general species grouping, such as whale sp., dolphin sp., or Stenella sp. (International Energy Consultants Organization, 2013). The following sections provide brief life history information for each IUCN listed (Section 7.6.5.1) and non-listed (Section 7.6.5.2) marine mammal species. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 121

7.6.5.1

Listed Species

Three marine mammal species that occur off Suriname are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2014) as Endangered. All three species are baleen whales: sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) are listed as Vulnerable. Sei whale adults can reach lengths of 12 to 17 m. They are largely distributed in open ocean environments from the tropics to polar zones, but appear to prefer mid-latitude temperate zones. Sei whales are most commonly seen in small groups of two to five individuals. They generally feed on plankton (copepods) and other small prey, and feed by skimming, rather than lunging and gulping as other similar species (Horwood, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Fin whale adults of the northern hemisphere reach a length of approximately 24 m. They inhabit primarily oceanic waters of all major oceans, and they may be seen near the coast in areas of steep coastal bathymetry. Most populations are migratory with a general poleward shift for feeding in the summer and a shift toward the tropics for breeding in the winter. Fin whales appear to be more social than other similar species, sometimes gathering in groups of two to seven individuals, or more. They feed on plankton (e.g., euphausiids and copepods), schooling fishes, and squids, and are active lunge feeders (Aguilar, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Blue whale adults are 23 to 27 m in length. They tend to be found in open ocean environments, but venture close to shore to feed and possibly breed in some areas. They are distributed from the tropics to polar zones, but avoid most equatorial waters. Some individual blue whales are resident, whereas others are migratory with a general poleward shift for feeding in the summer and a shift toward the tropics for breeding in the winter. They are usually seen alone or in pairs. They feed on various species of krill (euphausiids) and are active lunge feeders (Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). The West Indian manatee reaches lengths of up to 4 m. They are found in coastal marine, brackish, and freshwater areas of the southern United States, Caribbean Sea, and the Atlantic coast of northeastern South America. They are most often seen alone or in groups of up to six individuals. West Indian manatees are herbivorous, feeding on a wide variety of aquatic plants, such as water hyacinths and seagrasses (Reeves et al., 2002; Reynolds and Powell, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).

7.6.5.2

Non-Listed Species

Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) are the smallest of the baleen whales and are widely distributed from the tropics to polar zones. Although they can be seen in offshore waters, they appear to prefer coastal and inshore areas. Adult length ranges from approximately 6.5 to 8.8 m. Group sizes are generally small (one to three individuals). Minke whales commonly feed on small invertebrates (euphausiids and copepods), small schooling fishes, and larger fish species (Perrin and Brownell, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni) reach lengths of 16.5 m. They inhabit the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, largely within tropical and subtropical zones, and can be found both offshore and near the coast in many areas, usually within areas of high productivity. Bryde’s whales primarily feed on schooling fishes, but may also take squids, krill, pelagic red crabs, and other invertebrates (Kato, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) adults reach 11 to 17 m in length. They are a cosmopolitan species that feeds and breeds in coastal waters. They migrate from wintering ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 122

grounds in the tropics to temperate and polar summer grounds. Humpback whales feed on krill and a wide variety of small schooling fishes (Clapham, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus capensis) reach 2.5 m in length. They are distributed in discrete areas and inhabit waters within 180 km of shore. They are highly gregarious, forming groups of less than 12 to several thousand individuals. Long-beaked common dolphins feed on a wide variety of schooling fishes and squids (Perrin et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata) reach lengths of up to 2.6 m. They are a tropical/subtropical species within the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, and they are rarely seen in nearshore waters. Pygmy killer whales are seen usually in groups of 12 to 50 individuals. They feed on mostly fishes and squids (Donahue and Perryman, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) adults reach 7.2 m in length. They are found in warm temperate to tropical waters of the world, generally in deep offshore areas. They form groups of up to several hundred individuals. Short-finned pilot whales feed on squids, but are also known to take fishes (Olson and Reilly, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) reach lengths of 3.8 m. They are widely distributed in deep waters of the outer continental shelf and slope from the tropics through the temperate zone. Most groups are relatively moderate in size (10 to 100 individuals), but groups of up to 4,000 individuals have been reported. Risso’s dolphins feed on crustaceans and squids (Baird, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia breviceps and Kogia sima) reach lengths of 3.8 and 2.7 m, respectively. They are distributed in waters of the continental shelf edge and slope, from tropical to warm temperate zones of all oceans. Group sizes of these species are up to five or six individuals. They feed on squids, deepsea fishes, and shrimps (McAlpine, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Fraser’s dolphins (Lagenodelphis hosei) reach lengths of 2.7 m. They are distributed in oceanic waters between 300° N and 300° S in all three major oceans. They are generally seen in large groups (hundreds to thousands of individuals), and are often mixed with other species. They feed on mid-water fishes, squids, and crustaceans (Dolar, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Blainesville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) reach lengths of 4.7 m. They occur in oceanic waters within temperate and tropical waters of all oceans. Blainesville’s beaked whales are usually seen alone or in pairs. They feed on squids and some deepwater fishes (Mead, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Gervais’ beaked whales (Mesoplodon europaeus) reach lengths of 4.8 m. They occur in oceanic waters within temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Their life history is very poorly known. They feed on squids and some deepwater fishes (Mead, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Killer whales (Orcinus orca) reach lengths of 9.8 m. They are cosmopolitan in their distribution. Killer whales are separated into three ecological and morphological types: residents, transients, and offshores. The relationships among the three types are complex. Transient killer whales feed on other marine mammals, whereas residents and offshores feed on fishes and squids (Ford, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 123

Melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) reach lengths of 2.8 m. They occur in oceanic waters within tropical waters of all oceans. Melon-headed whales are highly social and known to occur in groups of 100 to 500 individuals, often with other species. They feed on squids and small fishes (Perryman, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) reach lengths of 18.3 m. They occur in oceanic waters from polar to tropical zones of all oceans. Sperm whales are sometimes seen alone (males) but are more often found in groups of 20 to 50 individuals. They feed on squids, other invertebrates, and deepsea fishes (Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) reach lengths of 6 m. They occur in oceanic waters within temperate and tropical waters of all oceans. False killer whales are usually seen in groups of 10 to 60 individuals. They feed on fishes and squids (Baird, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Tucuxis (Sotalia fluviatilis) and costeros (Sotalia guianensis) are closely related species that are separated by ecological types. They reach lengths of 1.5 and 2 m, respectively. Tucuxis are almost exclusively freshwater animals and occur within the Amazon River drainage basin and possibly the Orinoco River system. Costeros are found along the Atlantic coast of Central and South America, primarily within shallow inner shelf waters and estuaries. Both species live in groups of up to four individuals, although at times they are seen in larger groups. They feed on fishes (Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) reach lengths of 1.6 to 2.6 m. They occur mostly in oceanic waters within tropical waters of all oceans, and are known to occur close to shore in areas where deep water approaches the coast. Pantropical spotted dolphins are seen in large groups of more than a thousand individuals. They feed on epipelagic and mesopelagic fishes, squids, and crustaceans (Perrin et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Clymene dolphins (Stenella clymene) reach lengths of approximately 2 m. They occur mostly in oceanic waters within tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They occur close to shore in areas where deep water approaches the coast. Very little is known of their life history. Clymene dolphins apparently feed on small fishes and squids (Jefferson, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) reach lengths of 2.6 m. They occur mostly in oceanic waters within temperate and tropical waters of all oceans, and are known to occur close to shore in areas where deep water approaches the coast. Striped dolphins are seen in groups ranging from 500 to more than a thousand individuals. They feed on small fishes and squids (Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) reach lengths of 2.3 m. They occur mostly within tropical and temperate zones of the Atlantic Ocean, over the outer continental shelf and upper slope. Atlantic spotted dolphins are seen in small to moderate-sized groups, usually less than 50 individuals. They feed on a variety of epipelagic and mesopelagic fishes, squids, and benthic invertebrates (Perrin et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) reach lengths of 2.0 to 2.4 m. They occur within tropical waters of all oceans. Much of their range is oceanic, but they often rest in shallow, coastal waters. Spinner dolphins are seen in groups of 50 to several thousands individuals. They feed on mid-water fishes, squids, and crustaceans (Perrin et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008).


Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) reach lengths of up to 2.7 m. They occur mostly in oceanic waters within tropical and subtropical waters of all oceans. Rough-toothed dolphins are usually seen in groups of 1 to 20 individuals. They feed on squids and fishes (Jefferson, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) reach lengths of 1.9 to 3.8 m. They occur mostly in coastal and continental shelf waters of tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Bottlenose dolphins are seen in groups ranging from less than 20 to more than several hundred individuals. They are generalist feeders, taking mostly fishes and squids, but also shrimps and other crustaceans (Reeves et al., 2002; Wells and Scott, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) reach lengths of 7 m. They occur in oceanic waters within polar to tropical waters of all oceans. They are usually seen alone or in groups of two to seven individuals. They feed on squids and some deepwater fishes and crustaceans (Heyning, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008). 7.6.6

7.6.6.1

Other Surinamese Sensitive (Endangered or Threatened) Species

Fishes

Threatened fish species found within Surinamese waters are listed in Table 7-22. Table 7-22.

Threatened fish species found along the Suriname coast (From: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2014). Species

Eyespot skate (Atlantoraja cyclophora) Queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus) Marbled grouper (Dermatolepis inermis) Itajara (Epinephelus itajara) Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) Snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) Lined seahorse (Hippocampus erectus) Daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus) Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) Cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus) Venezuelan grouper (Mycteroperca cidi) Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) Largetooth sawfish (Pristis microdon) Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) Rainbow parrotfish (Scarus guacamaia) Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) Smalleye hammerhead (Sphyrna tudes) Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Painted electric ray (Diplobatis pictus) Yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus)

Red List Status VU VU

Vulnerability

Resilience

Moderate to High Moderate

Very Low Medium

VU

High to Very High

Very Low

VU NT CR CR VU EN VU

Very High High Very High to High High to Very High High to Very High High Low to Moderate

Low Low Low Low Low Low High

CR

High to Very High

Very Low

VU VU VU DD EN CR CR VU NT EN VU VU VU

High to Very High Moderate to High High High to Very High Moderate to High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Moderate to High High to Very High Low

Low Low Low Very Low Medium Very Low Low Very Low Medium Low Very Low Medium Low

VU

High to Very High

Low

IUCN = International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Red List Status: CR = Critically Endangered; DD = Data Deficient; EN = Endangered; NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 125

7.6.6.2

Other M arine Species

The genus Manta has been split into two species, the reef manta ray (Manta alfredi) and the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) (Marshall et al., 2011). The giant manta ray is targeted in artisanal fisheries and sometimes taken as bycatch (IUCN, 2014). The species is classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN, and while not native to Suriname, there have been reported sightings by Protected Species Observers in 2009 (RPS GeoCet, 2009), by Yolanda Babb-Echteld in November 2011, and by Protected Species Observers on the M/V Western Regent in 2012 (Yolanda Babb-Echteld, pers. comm., 2012).

7.6.6.3

M arine and Coastal Birds

More than 700 species of marine and coastal birds have been sighted in Suriname. However, the location of the study area, more than 100 km offshore, reduces the number of bird species likely to be present. The Surinamese coast may be considered as the principal South American wintering ground for migratory shorebirds from nearctic regions. Between 1982 and 1986, by means of aerial surveys, Morrison and Ross (1989) counted more than 2.9 million nearctic shorebirds along the entire South American coastline (28,000 km), including the Surinamese coastline (375 km). Along Suriname’s coast alone, 1.5 million shorebirds were counted, 52% of the total of shorebird populations wintering in South America (Morrison and Ross, 1989 in United Nations, 2002). Many birds migrate to Suriname during wintering periods. A total of 32 species have been identified as migratory species seen in Suriname (Table 7-23) (Teunissen, 2002). They frequently inhabit the coastal mudflats along Suriname’s coast, forest edges, and other suitable habitat. De Jong and Spaans (1984) listed 118 bird species that can be found regularly in Suriname and ecologically depend on coastal wetlands. Of these, 77 are genuine waterfowl as defined by the Ramsar Convention, and they represent a total number of over 5 million birds in the saline and brackish zone, include approximately • • • • •

4,000,000 shorebirds; 600,000 ciconiiform birds; 100,000 ducks; 100,000 larids and skimmers; and 30,000 others.

(Figures obtained by addition of recorded or estimated maximum numbers for each species.) Table 7-23.

Migratory birds of Suriname (From: Teunissen, 2002).

Species American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Black-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus melacoryphus) Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) Blue-Winged Teal (Anas discors) Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) Dickcissel (Spiza Americana) Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) Eastern Wood-Pewee (Cantopus virens) ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 126

Abundance -R ---R --U ---

Table 7-23. (Continued). Species Gray-Cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) Lesser Nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) Purple Martin (Progne subis) Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) Sanderling (Caladris alba) Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) Semipalmated Sandpiper (Caildris melanotos) Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) Upland Sandpiper(Bartramia longicauda) Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonis) Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

Abundance R ----C -R ------R ----C --

R = rare; U = uncommon; C = common. -- = no data.

The coast of Suriname holds more colonies of ciconiiform birds than any other coast of the same length between the Amazon and Orinoco Rivers (Spaans, 1990). Suriname is of critical importance as a nesting area for the South American Scarlet Ibis (Eudocimus ruber), with up to 35,000 breeding pairs in the country’s coastal mangroves. The Wageningen breeding colony (30,000 pairs in 1986) in the Nickerie-Coronie swamp area is the second most important colony known for the species. Suriname is by far the most important wintering area within South America for shorebirds breeding in the boreal and arctic regions of North America (Morrison and Ross, 1989 in United Nations, 2002). The coast of Suriname is of special importance for the following species: • • •

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca); Lesser Yellowlegs (T. flavipes); and Pectoral Sandpiper (Caildris melanotos).

According to the IUCN Red List (2014), the following bird species, which are found along the Surinamese coast, are known to be Near Threatened: • • • • • • • •

Blue-Cheeked Amazon (Amazona dufresniana); Olive-Sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi); Rufous-Sided Pygmy Tyrant (Euscarthmus rufomarginatus); Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja); Crested Eagle (Morphnus guianensis); Orinoco Goose Tachuri (Neochen jubata); Bearded Tachuri (Polystictus pectoralis); and Buff-Breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis).


7.6.7

Sensitive Ecosystems and Habitats

Coral Reefs. Development of coral reef ecosystems is restricted on the Atlantic coast of South America by freshwater runoff from major rivers, including the Orinoco and Amazon Rivers. The coastal waters of South America receive large influxes of freshwater from extensive mainland river systems. High concentrations of nutrients are also deposited enabling the coastal waters to become mesotrophic (green) or eutrophic (brown). This results in high turbidity, which in turn reduces light penetration. High turbidity coupled with a high nutrient concentration along the coast causes coral growth to be almost absent. Reefs are best developed on Caribbean coasts where there are clear, shallow waters and warm stable temperatures (Dudley, 2003). Nearshore reef development off the coast of Suriname is generally poor. Typically, a few corals can be found within the blue water or outer zone of the coastal zone of Suriname. The water is clear and blue in colour in this zone, and sunlight penetrates to the ocean floor. These reefs are found mostly along the edge of the continental shelf. Several examples of wire corals (Cirrhipathes sp.) were observed during the Environmental Baseline Survey in Block 52 in waters deeper than 75 m. These corals were typically obvserved individually, with no clumping. Wire corals are a type of antipatharian, or “black coral”, named for its dark colored skeleton. For a complete discussion of the corals observed during the Environmental Baseline Survey, see Section 7.6.2.3. Seagrass Beds. Seagrasses are vascular plants that appear grass-like with shoots of three to five leaf blades attached to a horizontal stem. Seagrasses attach to the substrate via thick roots and rhizomes, which enable them to inhabit areas with wave action and strong currents. Seagrass is often closely associated with coral reefs and the sheltered waters on the landward side of coral reefs. Two main seagrass species are present in Suriname – turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). They occur either in mixed or monospecific beds. Clear water is an important requirement for the maintenance of healthy seagrass beds. Hence, the clear, blue outer zone waters of the Suriname coastal zone make it an ideal location for growth of these seagrass beds. Soft Mudflats. Mudflats are found along the entire coastline of Suriname. They comprise immense volumes of argillaceous mud, originating from the Amazon River. The Amazon discharges a large amount of fine sediments into the Atlantic Ocean (an estimated yearly load of 1 × 108 tonnes) (Spaans and Baal, 1990). The silt is then transported westward along the coast by the Guiana Current, causing the water to become turbid. When the silt concentration in the water has reached a certain value, a gel called “sling mud” is formed. The sling mud settles and forms expansive, soft tidal mudflats known as a muddy accretion coast (Spaans, 2003). Mudflats are totally covered in water during high tide and exposed during low tide. They are very soft, tens of kilometres long and a few kilometres wide (Spaans, 2003). Firm Clay Banks. The shoreline of Suriname is unstable, resulting from a cyclical succession of accretion and deposition. Under the influence of the Guiana Current and the Northeast Trade Winds, mudflats are abraded on the eastern side. The eroded material is subsequently deposited on the western side at rate of approximately 1 km/year according to Augustinus (1978). There is an apparent shifting pattern of mudflats along the coast in a westerly direction. Where the mudflats have passed, the approaching waves erode the shoreline, causing loss of land. During erosion, firm, tough banks of clay layers from older deposits may emerge, creating an irregular surface. Sandy Beaches. The beaches along Suriname’s coast comprise sand from French Guiana and the Marowijne River. The main beaches are therefore situated in the eastern part of the ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 128

country, particularly in the Commewijne and Marowijne Districts. The beaches can be stretches of sand more than 100 m wide, known as a sand accretion coast (Spaans, 2003). Sand dunes also may develop on the high parts of the beach. The sandy beaches, like the mudflats, move slowly westwardly due to the influence of currents and winds. This process can cause the mouth of a creek to be turned westward over many kilometres, resulting in a long, narrow sandy spit that lies parallel to the coastline. Mangroves. Mangroves develop on the higher parts of the mudflats. They consist of black (Avicennia germinans), red (Rhizophora mangle), and white (Laguncularia racemosa) mangrove trees and are also subjected to erosion. During periods of erosion, most black mangroves are uprooted, transported westward by the sea, and drift along the coast. Saltwater Pans. Saltwater pans are formed when the sea invades the inland mangrove vegetation. As the tide recedes, the mud bottom emerges. When the water is impeded by a sandy beach or when the clay beds behind the shoreline have shrunk, the pneumatophores of the mangroves remain permanently submerged in hypersaline water and the mangroves ultimately die. This results in a landscape of saltwater pans, incorrectly called “lagoons” by locals. Swamps. Farther inland, the zone of saltwater pans is bordered by a broad belt of herbaceous swamps, with decreasing salinity as the distance from the ocean increases. These habitats may consist of pure stands of club rush (Eleocharis mutate), which are found just behind the lagoon zone, or cattail (Typha angustifolia) and sedge (Cyperus articulatus), which are more inland. The swamps also consist of mud that originates from the Amazon River. They, like other coastal habitats, are subjected to erosion and deposition by the Guiana Current and the Northeast Trade Winds. Water reservoirs found in swamps and wetlands can be divided into saline and freshwater wetlands, including the man-made lake. Saline and freshwater swamps are located within a relatively small strip along the coast at the land-sea interface. At some locations, the saline/brackish wetlands and the freshwater swamps are linked together permanently or temporarily by artificial structure or by natural water divide, creating ideal conditions for aquaculture as well as a breeding and nursing place for shrimps, fisheries, and (migrating) birds. 7.7 7.7.1

SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS Socioeconomic Resources

Situated along the north coast of South America bordering the Atlantic Ocean, the Republic of Suriname, formerly Dutch Guyana, is one of the most eastern states of the wider Caribbean region. To the west, Suriname is bordered by (formerly British) Guyana, to the east by French Guiana, and to the south by Brazil. The total land area measures approximately 164,000 km2, including two disputed areas to the south. Suriname’s economy has been dominated by the exports of gold and oil, and to a lesser extent, alumina. Other export products include bananas, rice, and lumber. Due to rising world prices of fuel and record prices for gold, these sectors showed significant successes in 2010 and 2011. The bauxite sector continues to struggle as world demand for aluminum remains weak. According to the World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014), Suriname’s economy grew by 4.7% in 2011 (est.), 4.8% in 2012 (est.), and 4.7% in 2013 (est.).


7.7.1.1

Population

Suriname has a population of approximately 573,311 (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014), approximately 3.5 persons km-2. The annual population growth is 1.12% with a life expectancy of 71.7 years. More than 70% of the population lives in the urban and semi-urban coastal districts of Paramaribo and Wanica, which cover less than 1% of the total land area. The remaining population lives primarily in the forested interior region, which is the ancestral home and traditional territory of several indigenous peoples and Maroon communities. The following list provides an estimated (2014) breakdown of population age ranges and percent of total population (see Figure 7-37): • • • • •

0-14 years: 26.2% (male 76,565; female 73,676); 15-24 years: 17.6% (male 51,322; female 49,313); 25-54 years: 44.1% (male 128,620; female 124,034); 55-64 years: 6.5% (male 18,140; female 19,158); and 65 years and over: 5.6% (male 14,041; female 18,442).

Figure 7-37.

Age-sex pyramid for Suriname (From: Central Intelligence Agency, 2014).

Suriname is an upper medium-income country of approximately U.S. dollars (USD) 9,010 (Surinamese dollars [SRD] 30,184) per capita (General Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Approximately 70% of the population lives in poverty (General Bureau of Statistics, 2012) and it is common among government and other underpaid workers to complement their income through secondary jobs. Figure 7-38 shows that there was steady growth in the population of Suriname from 2007 to 2011, with a sharper increase in 2012. The majority (86%) of the Surinamese population lives along the coastline, and as a result, most economic and social activities of Suriname take ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 130

place in the coastal communities. The area and density were compared between the Districts of Paramaribo and Sipaliwini. Although the District of Sipaliwini is 80% of the total area of Suriname, Paramaribo has the most people per square kilometre (Figure 7-39) (Caribbean Development Institute, 2012).

Figure 7-38.

Population growth rate (%) of Suriname from 2000 to 2012 (From: Central Intelligence Agency, 2014).

Figure 7-39.

Districts’ area as a percentage of the Suriname’s total area.


7.7.1.2

Em ploym ent and Labour M arkets

Unemployment refers to the share of the labour force that is without work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of labour force and unemployment differ by country. The unemployment rate in 2008 was 13.0% compared to 12.7% in 2006 (World Bank, 2014). Figure 7-40 shows the unemployment rate in Suriname between 1991 and 2012 (World Bank, 2014) according to the strict International Labour Organization definition as the number of unemployed (i.e., people who are not employed but are willing to work and actively seeking work in the referenced period). Unemployment rates have stayed relatively flat since 2004, fluctuating between 12.4% and 13.1%. Suriname is one of the smallest economies in South America. The nation relies heavily on the mining industry; exports of alumina, gold, and oil accounting for approximately 85% of all exports and 25% of government revenues (Figure 7-41). Suriname also has a significant agriculture sector with rice and bananas among the most important products. Figure 7-42 depicts the number of jobs by type of activity in Suriname from 2007 to 2010. The Surinamese Government places employment at the centre of poverty reduction efforts and aims to develop human resources as one of its key strategies. In its 2011-2016 Development Plan, the Government highlights its belief that the creation of decent and supportable employment is crucial for the economic development of Suriname and is also the most effective means of reducing poverty. Comprehensive policies on employment have been delineated that signify the need to create structural employment and strengthen life-long learning. Other employment issues considered important include re-integration, diversification of employment for individuals, and skills development of low-educated persons in close cooperation with the private sector and trade unions.

Figure 7-40.

Unemployment rates in Suriname from 1991 to 2012 (Modified from: World Bank, 2014). ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 132

Figure 7-41.

Mining sector government revenue by major industry (%) (From: Central Bank of Suriname, Ministry of Finance, and mining companies).

Figure 7-42.

Number of jobs by type of activity in Suriname from 2007 to 2010 (From: Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2010).

The number of employed persons in Paramaribo increased from 53% in 2004 to 59% in 2012, while unemployment also increased from 48% to 59% (Table 7-24). Employment and unemployment in Marowijne more than doubled compared with figures from 2004 and 2012. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 133

In Commewijne, however, a slight decrease occurred in both employment and unemployment figures. One of the main metrics of poverty reduction is the transfer of economic growth into social development. While stabilising and increasing economic growth, Suriname is resolute in keeping a strong focus on the growth of decent and productive employment, decreasing economic and social inequalities to reach its central goal as a country. The Suriname Government believes that poverty reduction stresses a unified approach and should be a combined effort among government, civil society, and the private sector. Table 7-24.

District Paramaribo Wanica Nickerie Coronie Saramacca Commewijne Marowijne Para Brokopondo Sipaliwini District Suriname In Suriname Total

7.7.1.3

Economically active population (15 to 64 years) by district, 2004 and 2012 (From: Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2012). Economically Active Population Employed Persons Unemployed Total 2004 2012* 2004 2012 2004 2012 84,127 100,654 7,867 12,166 91,994 112,820 28,048 4,092 2,395 426 30,443 4,518 11,373 15,753 1,173 1,667 12,546 17,420 791 1,730 297 215 1,088 1,945 4,764 4,324 436 269 5,200 4,593 8,701 8,671 665 501 9,366 9,172 3,962 8,798 509 1,315 4,471 10,113 4,908 2,627 789 314 5,697 2,941 4,225 6,037 789 1,440 5,014 7,477 5,806 4,134 1,505 1,411 7,311 5,545 --

12,045

--

772

--

12,817

-156,705

615 169,480

-16,425

35 20,531

-173,130

650 190,011

M ajor I ndustry Sectors

Important sectors in the Suriname economy include mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and manufacturing. Agriculture is separated between commercial plantation crops, which are important regional exports, and domestic crops, mostly grown on small individual farms in the interior. Cattle, pigs, and chickens are raised on small farms. Fishing and forestry are growing industries, and the Suriname timber resources are plentiful. The mining sector has experienced significant growth since 2005. The economy has been dominated by the mining and energy sectors (gold, alumina, and oil), which account for approximately 40% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 85% of total exports (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014). Oil Sector Suriname is energy self-sufficient and imports less than 15% of its energy needs. Suriname’s high energy independence is due to fossil fuel extraction and a significant wealth of hydropower (Inter-American Development Bank, 2014). More than half of the country’s generated electricity (53% in 2009) comes from hydropower. Oil is a promising sector as well. Staatsolie, the state-owned oil company, produced 16,500 bbl d-1 (2,628 m3 d-1) in 2014 in addition to diesel, heavy vacuum gas-oil, and asphalt-bitumen (Staatsolie, 2014b). Staatsolie currently refines 7,350 bbl d-1 and has engaged Saipam to increase capacity. Suriname is the third largest oil producer in the Caribbean after Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, and Cuba. Domestic production of crude oil roughly meets domestic consumption. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 134

Current offshore exploration has not yet yielded commercial discoveries. Interest in the offshore resources of French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname has intensified following the discovery of crude oil off the coast of French Guiana by Tullow Oil in September 2012. Explorers are hoping to turn up similar finds in neighbouring Suriname and Guyana. Tullow Oil started drilling off French Guiana’s coast because of what is called the “Atlantic Mirror Theory” in oil explorations circles. A massive oil field was discovered off Ghana in 2007 (the Jubilee Field). The Atlantic Mirror Theory proposes that this field might extend across the Atlantic Ocean. According to Tullow’s Exploration Director, the French Guiana field may hold gross reserves of approximately 700 million bbl. Attention has now shifted to Suriname and Guyana, which lie directly east of Venezuela. In early 2012, Venezuela revealed that its proven oil reserves were estimated at 296.5 billion bbl, which would make it the world’s largest holder of oil reserves. Not surprisingly, many foreign oil companies have signed exploration production sharing agreements with Staatsolie in the last few year. Mining and Energy Sector From 2009 to 2012, gold, bauxite/alumina, and oil extraction accounted for 15.4%, 18.9%, 23.8%, and 20.2%, respectively by year, of the GDP (Figure 7-43; Millennium Development Goals Progress Report, 2014). The growth in real GDP has been variable, but on average, annual real GDP growth was approximately 4.1% between 2008 and 2012.

Figure 7-43.

Gold, bauxite/alumina, and oil extraction as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in Suriname.

Mining and agriculture, and forestry to a lesser extent, are the major industry sectors of Suriname’s economy that contribute the most to degradation of the environment. The mining sector accounted for 20.2% GDP in 2012. It is important in terms of foreign exchange earnings (88.7% in 2013) and employment (Figure 7-44).


Figure 7-44.

Total government revenue by sector (From: Central Bank of Suriname, General Bureau of Statistics, IMF, Ministry of Finance, and mining companies).

Bauxite mining has generated more than 100 km2 of wasteland while the activities are expanding on susceptible soils in east and west Suriname. Some negative effects of mining for bauxite and gold include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Deforestation/habitat destruction; Home range defragmentation; Increase of erosion and turbidity; Disturbance of hydrology; Threat to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity; Disturbance hydrology; Spongy bauxite cap; Acid soil drainage (coastal area); Dust; Forest decomposition causes oxygen depletion; Problem for downstream sections of rivers; Release of nutrients causes bloom of floating macrophytes; Release of heavy metals causes pollution of food chain; Fragmentation of ecosystems and waterways; and Exorbitant use of mercury extends beyond local mines to the coastal areas and leads to surface and groundwater pollution, causing damage to the entire food chain and both direct and indirect health hazards to fauna and humans.

Forest clearing and deforestation for gold mining also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Taking into account that the forest is a basin, the overall contribution of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use sector is much smaller than that of the Energy sector. Poverty-driven legal and illegal small-scale gold mining has delivered income to between 15,000 and 20,000 miners of mainly Maroon and Brazilian origin since the 1980s with an estimated production of 10 to 20 tons of gold per year. Most miners (mainly illegal) use large volumes of water and mercury. It has been estimated that each kilogram of gold recovered causes 1 to 3 kg of mercury to be discharged into the environment. The first large-scale gold mine has operated in Suriname since 2003. It is estimated approximately 40% of the total exports is produced by IAMGOLD and Rosebel, with ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 136

the remaining 60% originating from the “informal” gold sector, namely the small and medium-sized gold-mining enterprises (IMF Suriname Staff Report, October 2012). Small-scale gold-mining activities are mostly unrecorded. These operations include basic prospecting methods that use bulldozers, excavators, and metal detectors. The interior populations that largely depend on surface water and fish for protein are primarily affected. Without rehabilitation, mined out areas are breeding grounds for malaria and other waterborne diseases. Income earned from local ecotourism is affected because of the high health risk the interior poses for visitors. Tourism Sector Tourism in Suriname represents less than 5% of the GDP. However, tourism is becoming an important sector in the economy as more attention is focused on it. Suriname is promoting its rainforest of more than 90% of the country and the variety of wildlife within it. Suriname is one of the few countries where the rainforest is still almost intact. Suriname must therefore maintain its healthy natural resources to maximise its potential. Suriname’s exceptional cultural and natural assets are powerful attractions and the basis for sustainable specialty tourism. The World Travel and Tourism Council estimated that travel and tourism contributed a total of USD 125.3 million toward Suriname’s GDP in 2013 (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2014). The Suriname Tourism Foundation was established in 1996 by the Ministry of Transportation, Communication, and Tourism (TCT) and the Chamber of Commerce, and currently has 31 employees. The foundation is a semi-government organisation administered by TCT. The current annual budget is SRD 3 million (USD 1 million). The Tourism Union of the Republic of Suriname was established in 2001 and is the representative organisation for the hospitality and tourism industry. Members include hotels, guesthouses, restaurants, bars, tour operators, and other tourism-related companies. Established in 2006, the Suriname Hospitality and Tourism Training Centre provides vocational training and courses for tour guides, bartenders, and waiters. The Government of Suriname and various European governments fund the centre. Suriname is a member of the Combined Amazon Tourism Product, a cooperation among Suriname, French Guyana, and the Brazilian states of Para, Amapa, and Amazonas. The Amazon Caribbean Tourism Trail is a cooperation among Suriname, French Guyana, and the Brazilian state of Roralma. A number of international non-governmental organisations actively support tourism in Suriname. Conservational International-Suriname has been most prominent, completing a marketing study for overseas tour operators and developing a lodge with the Maroon community in the south of Suriname. It also supports the government in developing tourism in the Central Suriname Tourism Reserve. The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture received a grant from the Caribbean Aid for Trade and Integration Trust Fund where part of the grant was devoted to support a project with the objective to supporting the Carib community of Suriname’s Para District in developing an action plan for establishing community-based agro-ecotourism enterprises utilising the assets of the community. Other non-governmental organisations such as Sustainable Travel International, WWF, and the United Nations Development Programme also have a vested interest in tourism development in Suriname. According to the Tourism Foundation Suriname, a semi-autonomous governmental organisation, the number of tourists arriving in Suriname in 2003 was roughly 91,000 and growing to 240,000 in 2012 (Figure 7-45). Most tourists arriving in Suriname are from the Netherlands and France via French Guiana. Large numbers of tourists from French Guiana visit Suriname for shopping. Many expatriates from the Netherlands are part of this group, but an increasing number of Dutch tourists come with no family ties to Suriname. Many Dutch of European and Surinamese background have been investing in the tourism sector. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 137

Figure 7-45.

Tourist arrivals in Suriname, 2003 to 2012 (From: Tourism Foundation, Suriname).

The public and private sector partnership method to developing tourism in Suriname has been fruitful. The tourism industry in Suriname has made a noteworthy contribution to the national economy. Suriname was included in the 2010 issue of Lonely Planet’s Top Ten Best Travel Destinations. Paramaribo includes some notable architectural landmarks, including the Cathedral-Basilica of Saint Peter and Paul, which is the largest all-wooden structure in the western hemisphere (Photo 7-16). Suriname’s natural geographical riches range from Africa-like savannahs, to beaches that are home to endangered sea turtles, to some of the largest protected stands of tropical rainforest in the world; it is fast becoming a prime ecotourism and sport-fishing destination. Suriname has considerable and largely untapped potential for ecotourism.

Photo 7-16.

Cathedral-Basilica of Saint Peter and Paul in Paramaribo (Photo courtesy of John Tiggelaar II, CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.).

More tourists are visiting Suriname from other Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries. Suriname’s holiday celebrations have earned it the distinction of being one of the top 10 places in the world to visit on New Year’s Eve. The authorities are taking steps to professionalise the target new markets. Fishing Industry Suriname’s marine water and coastal areas are under increasing environmental stress from pollution, overfishing, and degradation of coastlines (Photo 7-17). Fish is an important source ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 138

of protein for human consumption and is used increasingly in animal feed, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals. There is concern that valuable fish stocks are being overfished. The proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits in Suriname is in alignment with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement. Inshore coastal fisheries between Matapica and Galibi are regulated by the Fish Protection Act of 1961 and the Fish Protection Resolution. The Directorate of Fisheries is responsible for managing fisheries resources. The Sea Fisheries Decree of 1980 provides the legal basis for the protection of fish species. The Decree provides enactment of regulations on fishing of certain species, the creation of minimum harvest sizes during open and closed seasons, and Photo 7-17. Guyana fishing boats (From: Google Images). maximum allowable catches; it also regulates the use of certain types of fishing gear and methods. The Act defines three categories of fishing vessels for purposes of registration, sea fishery licences, and certificate of seaworthiness: Suriname fishing vessels, foreign fishing vessels, and alien fishing vessels. In 2001, a provision was included to prohibit fishing between April and July north of the Galibi beach to protect sea turtles. The current law is not applicable in the territorial sea, so sea turtles are currently not protected while at sea. The Surinamese Seafood Association includes fishing companies, processing plants, and exporters, representing more than 90% of the fishing industry. Commercial fishing licences generated non-tax revenues of SRD 1.41 million in 2011 for the Ministry of Agriculture (Derlagen et al., 2013). Commercial fishing includes shrimp trawling fleets, finfish trawls, red snapper and mackerel hand lines, and large-pelagic longliners operating in water depths greater than 18 m. Coastal fishing includes drifting gillnetters, pin seiners, and bottom longliners (FAO, 2008). The fish-processing industry plays an important role in the national economy with approximately 450,000 to 550,000 tons of marine resources used annually. The fishing industry provides employment opportunities and income for both fisherman and food processors. The processing industry serves regional and international markets. Fishing fleets in Suriname consist of both artisanal and commercial ships. In total, approximately 1,100 ships are active in the coastal and inland waters, of which, 135 are trawlers and liners for catching shrimp, seabob, snapper, and pelagic species. Shrimp production has decreased over recent years while marine fish production (mainly fish fillets) has shown increases. The United States, Jamaica, and The Netherlands are the main export destinations for Surinamese fish (World Trade Organization, 2013). Coastal fishing is artisanal in nature and fisheries deploy drift gillnets and demersal longlines to catch inshore demersal species. Demersal longlines and drift gillnets also are set in ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 139

brackish water off the main estuaries. Suriname has no high seas longline operations. Major landing sites for marine capture fisheries are Cevihas, Domburg, Sluis II, Boomskreek, and the Paramaribo central market (FAO, 2006). Fishing operations in water depths less than 10 m are considered artisanal. Local artisanal fishermen working along the coast represent almost all ethnic groups living in the country. Most live in Paramaribo or in small settlements in the coastal plain. Most of the work in the fisheries is done by men, although women sometimes assist their husbands with cleaning and selling fish and shrimp. Artisanal fleets operate in rivers, brackish lagoons, and estuaries. Many artisanal fishermen use drifting gillnets of a length up to 4 km in the 3 to 10 m depth area and catch primarily Sciaenidae and Ariidae. Most popular fishing vessels are the 12- to 14-m long “Open Guyana” boats and the 14- to 18-m long “Closed Guyana” boats (Madarie, 2006). Although data on Suriname’s fish stocks are sparse, many believe that overfishing has depleted fish and shrimp populations, which have failed to recover after fishing seasons. An important factor in the depletion of fish and shrimp stocks is the difficulty in Maritime Authority Suriname (MAS) enforcing fishing regulations. This is due primarily to a lack of resources and the high numbers of illegal fishing vessels in Suriname’s waters, mostly from Venezuela and Guyana (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005). Confronted with a declining catch, fishermen are exploring alternatives such as other shrimp species in deeper waters. Agriculture, government jobs, and other types of employment are the key means of earning income in the study area. Fishing represents a small proportion of jobs. The role of the fisheries sector in Suriname’s economy is seen as assuring reasonable supply of animal protein (fish production) for the local population, providing jobs (primary and secondary sectors), assisting the balance of payment through export of fish and shrimp products, contributing to the national GDP, and contributing to the national budget through fees and income taxes (FAO, 2008). Mangroves protect the coast against erosion, enhance sedimentation, and stimulate coastal accretion. In addition, these areas provide direct socioeconomic benefits as a result of their ecosystem. Mangrove habitat is particularly important as spawning and nursery grounds for the marine fauna and add value to the nearshore small-scale and offshore commercial fisheries. Alteration of mangrove forests also means loss of free coastal protection. Recently, in the Weg naar Zee area (Paramaribo District), mangrove forest conversion (for agricultural purposes) resulted in severe coastal erosion and a significant loss of coastal land. Along the Coronie coast and at Zeedijk (Nickerie District) as well as along the entire east coast of the Republic of Guyana, costly construction and maintenance of sea defence works is required to substitute the lost mangrove forest. Agriculture Sector The relative importance of agriculture in Suriname’s economy is declining, mainly as a result of the stronger growth in other sectors, especially mining. The agricultural sector’s share in GDP rose from approximately 6% in 2004 to approximately 9% in 2012 (Figure 7-46). Agriculture employs approximately 17% of the labour force.


Figure 7-46.

Agriculture as percent of gross domestic production (From: http://www.Tradingeconomics.com).

Agriculture still remains an important sector for the following reasons: • • •

It is a major source of employment in rural areas; It provides approximately 5% of the country’s generation of foreign exchange; and It is responsible for the production of the population’s main staple food, rice.

Total agricultural exports, dominated by rice and bananas, have shown an upward leaning over the last 5 years and grew from USD 69 million in 2007 to USD 115 million in 2011. This growth has been encouraged by the reorganisation of the banana sector and also higher international market prices for fish and shrimp. Livestock commodities, including beef, poultry, pork and dairy, are all net imports and rice, bananas, cassava, and oranges are next exports (Figure 7-47). Companies in the agriculture, livestock, and fisheries sectors are eligible for a partial exemption of import duties (90%) for import of capital assets with a minimum value of USD 1,000. Suriname’s agricultural policy supports producers who are receive higher prices and budget transfers, which increase their gross receipts. The total support estimate amounted to 1.31% of the GDP, on average, between 2009 and 2011. This is higher than in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, European Union, Brazil, United States, and Ecuador, but it is average for the Latin America and Caribbean region and close to the levels of Colombia.


Figure 7-47.

Value of production of main agricultural commodities in Suriname (in million SRD and share of total) 2006 to 2010 (From: Agricultural Sector Support in Suriname 2013 by Christian Derlagen [United Nations Food and Agricultur Organization] for the Inter-American Development Bank).

Livestock Livestock management in Suriname is small scale and is often practised at the subsistence level throughout the country. Livestock imports are subject to a 20% import tariff. This tariff rate also applies to poultry, making the country’s poultry market the most open in the region. Suriname does not have significant areas under intensive or extensive livestock management. Livestock management is not currently recognised as a major contributing agent to land degradation processes. Producers of all types of livestock commodities benefit from agricultural policy, as is shown in Figure 7-48. Those sectors produce potentially import-substituting commodities and therefore are protected by import duties. They are excluded from the tariff liberalization schedule in CARICOM. Small-scale farming provides food security and risk spreading for low-income families while large-scale rice farmers tend to rely increasingly on government subsidies for production. Agriculture from this zone contributes to land degradation through land clearing as well as increasing and inefficient water use and management.


Figure 7-48.

Suriname: single commodity transfer for livestock (%) (From: Derlagen et al., 2013).

Forest Sector Suriname’s forestry sector contribution to GDP is less than 3% (www.indexmundi.com). The annual national wood production is 400,000 m3, contributing 3% GDP for the forest sector and 1% of total exports. Forests cover 94% of the land area with 13% designated as protected areas. The forest functions as a habitat for a key part of the population, mainly Maroons and native peoples, most of whom directly depend on the forest for their sustenance and livelihood. Tribal villages hold titles to community concessions for their own use. The forest sector is characterised by selective logging and primitive methods of felling and extraction using heavy logging equipment, which creates a disproportional amount of damage to the environment in loss of vegetation, habitat, and biodiversity as well as ecosystem disruption. The impacts of logging roads and skidding techniques are compaction and erosion of topsoil, temporary rise in soil temperatures (baking), and damage/breaking to productive stands and remaining trees leaving stands susceptible to diseases. Approximately 4 to 5 million ha of forest is designated as production forest, with approximately 2.3 million ha of forest (13% of total forest area) protected (FAO, 2010). Twenty terrestrial and seven marine protected areas have been selected for research and biodiversity protection in Suriname (Table 7-25). The national Biodiversity Action Plan of Suriname has identified the need of capacity building for the forest sector among other actions that have to be taken for the protection and sustainable utilisation of the forest compliance with the convention on biological diversity.


Table 7-25.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected areas categories in Suriname, 2013 (From: Forest Service of Suriname, Division Nature Conservation).

Marine or Total Terrestrial Terrestrial Area ( hectare) Nature Reserve: Locations with significant biodiversity and/or geological attributes. Nature Reserves are managed as high-value natural areas with fairly restricted use. Boven Coesewijne IV: 1986 Terrestrial 27,000 Brinckheuvel IV: 1966 Terrestrial 6,000 Central Suriname IUCN Category Terrestrial 1,592,000 Copi IV: 1986 Terrestrial 28,000 Coppename Monding IV: 1966 Both 12,000 Galibi IV: 1969 Both 4,000 Hertenrits III: 1972 Terrestrial 100 Peruvia IV: 1986 Terrestrial 31,000 Sipaliwini IUCN Category Terrestrial 100,000 Wane Kreek IV: 1986 Terrestrial 45,000 Wia-Wia IV: 1961 Both 36,000 Nature Park: Relatively low-level conservation areas. Brownsberg II: 1970 Terrestrial 12,200 Mutiple Use Management Area (MUMA): Designated to maintain biological productivity, ensure the health of globally significant wildlife, and protect resources for sustainable livelihoods. Bigi Pan IV: 1987 Both 67,900 IV: 2001 Both 27,200 Noord Coronie IV: 2001 Both 88,400 Noord Saramacca IV: 2002 Both 61,500 Noord Commewijne-Marowijne 2,138,300 Total Area Site Name

IUCN Category

Shipping The bulk of ships in Suriname enter and clear through the Suriname River, which provides passage to Paramaribo, the capital city and main port of Suriname. The Suriname River is navigable for oceangoing vessels 68 km from the mouth. At the Port of Paramaribo, the greatest frequency of ship movements occurs in the springtime. The Port of Nieuw Nickerie, in the western district of Suriname, is also considered a major port. It is accessible via the Corantijn River estuary and the Nickerie River. The Nickerie River provides access to Wageningen, a rice-loading terminal, while the Corantijn River provides passage to Appoera/Wakay. In addition, there are privately owned ports such as Albina, Moengo, and Paranam. Albina is located in eastern Suriname on the Marowijne River and is situated approximately 47 km from the outer buoy. Moengo is a bauxite mining port located approximately 96 nmi from Paramaribo, up the Cottica River in eastern Suriname, which can be reached through the Commewijne River. Since 1985, the local Bauxite Mining Company has stopped using this port for oceangoing vessels. All bauxite is loaded on barges and brought to the private Port of Paranam. Marine transport is the principal mode of transportation used for goods to and from Suriname. There are no Surinamese ships operating in international trade. Direct maritime connections exist between Suriname and Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the United States, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Netherlands Antilles.


The state-owned Surinamese Shipping Company is active in tourism, providing cargo and passenger transport services on Suriname’s rivers and operating various ferry services, including those on the border river with Guyana. The Surinamese Shipping Company has started to operate another ferry service on the river between Suriname and French Guiana, and aims to realise a regular liner service between Europe and the Caribbean. The most important navigation routes depart from Paramaribo: northwest to Trinidad and Tobago, and northeast to Rotterdam in the Netherlands. In 2004, traffic on these two routes ranged between 800 and 1,000 vessels per year. On routes between Trinidad and Brazil and between Guyana and Suriname, vessels sail near the 20 m depth contour. A less-used northeasterly route to Belem, Brazil goes closer to shore (WorleyParsons, 2011). The main maritime traffic routes to and from Suriname are illustrated in Figure 7-49. These are not in proximity to the offshore survey block but would be crossed infrequently by the offshore support vessels. Maritime Operations The MAS was created in 1998 when the Department of Maritime Affairs of the Ministry of Transport, Communication, and Tourism was transformed into an independent entity. The MAS provides pilotage services and conducts periodic hydrographical surveys in the rivers that provide access to the ports of Suriname. The MAS is responsible for fairway marking and ensuring enforcement of regulations pertaining to shipping and maritime affairs. Additionally, the MAS completes registration, inspection, and supervision of all vessels operating in the Suriname waterways. In recent years, Suriname has committed capital to two main areas: 1. • • • • 2. • • •

Accessibility to the port: Placement of waterway markers; Establishment of communication resources for navigation; Pilotage; and Construction of roads. Port infrastructure: Construction of mooring and storage facilities; Purchase of equipment for cargo handling; and Construction of pipelines for oil and gas storage and facilities.

The aforementioned capital investment is to be recouped by the various charges on ships entering ports. They can be charged for the placement of waterway markers, pilot assistance, and mooring of vessels. In Suriname, those charges are set by the government. In addition, revenues can be generated by leasing of port facilities and services such as sanitation and supply ships. The operational costs of the ports in Suriname mainly consist of personnel costs and depreciation as well as financing. The mission of the MAS implies that sufficient resources must be generated to cover operating costs and investment protection. The revenue arises from the following: • • • • •

Piloting ships; Charging sailed ships; Welcoming and unloading cargo; Judging of vessels; and The certification of ports and jetties. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 145

Figure 7-49.

Location of Block 52 relative to maritime traffic routes. EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 146

The Ministry of Transport, Communication, and Tourism is responsible for all government ports in Suriname. The Government’s role in port management is performed by the N.V. Havenbeheer Suriname, a public enterprise founded in 1971. N.V. Havenbeheer is responsible for managing Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo, Nieuw Nickerie Harbour; and Oliesteiger. 7.7.2

7.7.2.1

Cultural Resources

The Surinam e Coastal Zone

The coastal zone of Suriname is characterised by vast intertidal mudflats, narrow sand and shell beaches, and extensive mangrove swamps that are bordered inland by shallow saline and brackish lagoons and swamps. Farther inland, the marshes become patches of swamp forest and mixed dryland forests on the sandy ridges. The mangrove forests and adjacent swamps along the coast form part of a continuous belt of coastal wetlands that stretches from the mouth of the Amazon River in Brazil to the Orinoco Delta in Venezuela, a region commonly referred to as “The Guianas”. The extensive mangroves and mudflats along this coast are some of the most productive on the continent. They contribute substantially to the diversity, productivity, and stability of fish communities in tropical coastal waters. Mangrove habitat also plays a variety of roles in the lives of fishes and shrimps. The estuarine zone of Suriname, with a coastal length of almost 400 km, a land surface area of more than 300,000 ha, and at least an equal area of marine waters, makes up a highly productive coastal wetland complex characterised by a complex mangrove ecosystem. The dominant features of the coastal zone are its fertility, low topography, and concentration of approximately 90% of human activities, including agriculture and one- and two-person enterprises. The role of coastal wetland ecosystems in maintaining shoreline stability and preserving biodiversity is well established. The specific properties of mangrove forests as natural coastal protection can be considered unsurpassable because, until now, no technological equivalent has been discovered for the protection of soft clay coastal areas such as the estuarine zone of Suriname. Mangrove forests protect the coast against erosion, enhance sedimentation, and stimulate coastal accretion. In addition, these areas provide direct socioeconomic benefits as a result of their ecosystem. Mangrove forests are particularly important as spawning and nursery grounds for marine fauna and add value to the nearshore small-scale fisheries and offshore commercial fisheries. In addition, Suriname’s mangrove forests are prime nesting and feeding sites for hundreds of bird species such as the Scarlet Ibis, egrets, and herons, and offer well-stocked “arrival and departure” facilities for hundreds of migratory species on their flights across oceans. More than 50% of the North American shorebirds that winter in South America can be found along the Suriname coast, which is only 1.5% of the total length of the South American coastline. The coast of Suriname is important for several hundreds of thousands of larger waterbirds such as herons and ibises, many of which also breed in the mangroves. Coastal areas comprise several types of estuarine ecosystems with the following functions: •

Coastal protection: Coastal vegetation (e.g., tropical mangrove forests) protects the coast against erosion, enhances sedimentation, and stimulates coastal accretion.

EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 147

•

Natural productivity: The primary value of coastal vegetation, particularly mangrove forests, lies in the production of organic matter (leaf litter) that forms the basis of a complex food web. Biologically, mangrove forests belong to the most productive ecosystems in the world. Their productivity is related to the tidal action and the mixing of ocean and inland waters, both providing these estuarine ecosystems with nutrients, organics, spawn, and juvenile life. For this reason, estuarine ecosystems are particularly important as spawning and nursery grounds for marine fauna.

•

Maintaining a high degree of biodiversity: Estuarine ecosystems in Suriname form important nesting sites for local coastal birds, such as several species of herons and the Scarlet Ibis, and feeding grounds for millions of migratory birds from the north. Estuarine ecosystems provide food for a number of fish, crab, and shrimp species living as juveniles in the brackish swamps, lagoons, tidal creeks, and river estuaries, and as adults in the sea. Sandy beaches are important nesting sites for four species of Endangered or Critically Endangered sea turtles.

•

Production of goods and services: Seafood abundance is directly related to the extent of the local mangroves. Up to 90% of marine fish and shrimp species are found in and near mangrove areas during one or more periods of their life cycle. Commercial deepsea fisheries are therefore largely depend on mangrove forests. Mangrove forests serve as links between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. There is generally an import of inorganic nutrients from the land to the mangroves and an export of organic matter from the mangroves to the sea.

High production of seafood is found in the adjacent zones where small-scale fisheries are practised: the shallow sea, the river estuaries, tidal creeks, lagoons, and brackish swamps. Mangrove forests and adjacent areas provide people with honey and wildlife, and may become a more important source for ecotourism, education, and scientific research. To protect these functions, the Government of Suriname established four nature reserves in the estuarine zone between 1961 and 1972. Presented in order from west to east, these are: 1) Hertenrits (Archaeological) Reserve (1972); 2) Coppename-Monding Nature Reserve (1966); 3) Wia-Wia Nature Reserve (1961 and enlarged in 1966); and 4) Galibi Nature Reserve (1969). The most important estuarine ecosystems known at that time represented in those reserves included sea turtle nesting beaches, nesting and feeding areas for coastal birds, feeding grounds for migratory birds, and nursery grounds for shrimps and fishes. The main purpose of the nature reserves is to protect the enormous numbers of migratory and resident waterfowl and the major sea turtle nesting beaches. Apart from research, other human activities are allowed in the above-mentioned nature reserves, as follows: •

Fishermen may obtain special permits to build their camps in order to fish on coastal mudflats (banknet and driftnet fisheries) and in the estuaries. These fishermen are also allowed to gather firewood for their own use. However, fishing and hunting within the nature reserves are not allowed.

•

Since 1969, the STINASU has been designated to build and manage tourist accommodations in the nature reserves and to guide ecotourists to turtle nesting beaches and feeding grounds of coastal birds.

•

Since 1969, in the Galibi Nature Reserve, which is a sea turtle sanctuary, the inhabitants of two nearby Amerindian villages have been allowed to fish and hunt in the reserve according to their traditions. During the months of April and May, the Amerindians are permitted to collect a limited number of inundated and destroyed eggs from leatherback and green turtles. STINASU pays a collecting fee to the Amerindians and takes care of EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 148

the distribution of the eggs in the local markets. STINASU uses part of the profit to hire guards to protect other nesting beaches. Inundated eggs of the olive ridley turtle are reburied at safer places.

7.7.2.2

M ultiple Use M anagem ent Areas

The Suriname Government realised that protection of a small part of the dynamic coastline by establishing a few nature reserves with fixed boundaries would not be adequate. Eventually, important nursery grounds for shrimps and fishes, breeding and feeding areas of coastal birds, and sea turtle nesting beaches migrate beyond the fixed borders of the nature reserves and shift to areas not properly protected. However, establishing a nature reserve along the entire coast would not be realistic. To meet the overall coastal management and protection goals, the concept of Multiple Use Management Areas (MUMAs) was introduced by the government. A MUMA is defined as the land and wetland area along the coast that directly drains into the Atlantic Ocean and into the estuaries of the larger rivers. MUMAs are therefore areas where special management by or on behalf of the government is needed to ensure a rational use of the natural resources, which includes the protection of vulnerable ecosystems and species. The goals of MUMAs are to • • •

optimise the long-term productivity and sustainable use by man; optimise the long-term natural productivity of the estuarine land zone and the bordering ocean. This will be achieved by maintaining or enhancing the quantity, quality, and diversity of the natural ecosystems and those of formerly cultured areas; and promote the development of sustainable production in man-made ecosystems (such as agriculture, animal husbandry, and oil exploration and production), taking into consideration the demands of unspoiled ecosystem areas. This will be achieved only by respecting the management rules and recommendations set for the area.

Currently, four MUMAs have been established in most of the estuarine zone of Suriname (Figure 7-50). Presented in order from west to east, these are: 1) Bigi Pan MUMA in the Nickerie District; 2) Noord Coronie MUMA; 3) Noord Saramacca MUMA; and 4) Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA. Bigi Pan MUMA in the Nickerie District Bigi Pan is situated in northwest Suriname between the Atlantic Ocean and the Nickerie River. Mudflats and extensive black mangrove forests several kilometres wide are found along its coast. Red and white mangrove forests flourish along the banks of the river and creek. Behind these are saltwater ponds, brackish ponds, and lagoons with seagrasses and water lilies. There are shallow saltwater swamps with halophytic herb vegetation and brackish to freshwater grass swamps and woods. Bigi Pan is owned by the Suriname Government and managed by the head of the State Forest Department and the Nature Conservation Division. It is a MUMA, serving functions besides wildlife protection such as fishing and recreation. Bigi Pan provides a nursery for fishes, water filtration, and protection of the mainland from rising seawater levels and storms. High biodiversity at this site makes it especially rewarding for recreation and tourism. Bigi Pan is part of an Endemic Bird Area due to the common occurrence of three range-restricted species: Guyanan Piculet (Picumnus minufissimus), Blood-colored Woodpecker (Veniliornis sanquineus), and Rufous Crabhawk (Buteogallus aequinoctialis). The mudflats and the swamps also provide important habitat for numerous North American shorebird species. EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 149

Noord Coronie MUMA Noord Coronie is classified as a MUMA, which means that it serves more functions other than nature protection. The Noord Coronie wetlands have been designated a Ramsar site. Other land uses for Noord Coronie include fishing on the mudflats as well as hunting in the swamps (both legally and illegally). The Noord Coronie wetland, like all wetlands, is important as it serves as a nursery for fishes, provides water filtering, and protects the inland from rising sea levels. In addition, three range-restricted species of birds, the Guyanian Piculet, Blood-colored Woodpecker, and the Rufous Crabhawk, are commonly seen here. The mudflats and the swamps are important for the numerous North American shorebirds that often migrate to these coasts. Because of its multiple uses, high productivity, and the current trends in overexploitation, this site is considered to be vulnerable. Noord Saramacca MUMA in the Saramacca District Noord Saramacca MUMA is bordered by the Coppename River to the west, the 6-m depth contour of the Atlantic Ocean to the north, and the boundary of the Saramacca District to the east. In the south, the area is bordered by the Wayambo Road (between the District’s border and Monkshoop Bridge), and by the right bank of the Saramacca River up to a point opposite Carl François. After crossing the river, the southern border follows the Coppename Road up to the village of Boskamp. The total land area is 920 km2. Fairly recently, the remnants of two military fortifications were rediscovered at the left bank of the Saramacca River mouth. Post Marquette (better known as Post Braak), established in 1792, is located 1.4 km west of Carl François. Post Nassau, established in 1802, is 3 km west of the main canal of plantation Caledonia. These remnants (earthen walls, several types of cannons, a grave, and a giant anchor) can be visited for a small charge. In addition, STINASU organises bird-watching tours into the Coppename River mouth area on request. The Lareco and Wayambo areas are famous swamp fishing areas for local sport fishermen. Recently a local tour operator developed “thrilling airboat rides” in the tall grass swamps and lagoons north of the Wayambo Road and east of the Tambaredjo oilfield, an area that has been advertised as the “Suriname Everglades.” Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA The entire coast of Commewijne-Marowijne was designated as a MUMA in 2002. The main goal of the Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA is to optimise its long-term productivity and sustainable use by man. For the estuarine land zone and the bordering shallow sea, the specific management goal is to optimise its long-term natural productivity and conservation. This will be achieved by maintaining or enhancing the quantity, quality, and diversity of its natural ecosystems and of the formerly cultivated estuarine areas. For the right bank areas of the Suriname, Commewijne, and Cottica Rivers (mostly abandoned plantations), the specific management goal is to permit development of sustainable production (such as agriculture, animal husbandry, and aquaculture), taking into consideration the demands of the surrounding natural ecosystems.


Figure 7-50.

Protected areas in Suriname (From: Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname, 2015).


7.7.2.3

Protected Areas and Archaeological R esources

There are eight protected natural areas found along the Suriname coast. These include the following four MUMAs and four nature reserves, presented in order from western-to-eastern Suriname: MUMAs: • • • •

Bigi Pan MUMA – located along the western Suriname coast; Noord Coronie MUMA – located approximately 125 km west of Paramaribo; Noord Saramacca MUMA – located along the central Suriname coast, approximately 50 km west of Paramaribo; and Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA – located along the eastern Suriname coast, approximately 65 km east of Paramaribo.

Nature Reserves (coastal): •

•

•

•

Hertenrits Nature Reserve – located in western coastal Suriname, this nature reserve was established in 1986. Occupying 310 km², the reserve accommodates a great number of Mauritia palms (Mauritia flexuosa), Possentri forests (Hura crepitans), and Blue-and-Yellow Macaws (Ara ararauna); Coppename-Monding Nature Reserve – designated as a Ramsar site, this nature reserve forms part of the estuarine zone of Suriname. The area has a high biological productivity, supporting large numbers of bird species, especially waterfowl, and serves as an important nursery ground for shrimp and fish species. The reserve is an important roosting and feeding area for Scarlet Ibises, egrets, and herons. It is also a wintering station for thousands of migratory birds, especially waders; Wia-Wia Nature Reserve – established in 1966, it occupies 360 km². This nature reserve is located west of Galibi, and was once important nesting grounds for sea turtles, but the beach no longer supports nesting. It does remain an important habitat for birds, especially water birds; and Galibi Nature Reserve – established in 1969, Galibi is situated on the northeast coast and is estimated to occupy 40 km². Galibi was established to conserve sea turtles, providing sandy beaches for nesting.

7.7.2.4

Archaeological R esources

Pre-Columbian History The archaeological resources of Suriname are based on the Amerindians and Indians that lived in the young coastal plain or the savannahs of the interior. Thus, the north coast of Suriname is archaeologically important. Relatively few remains of the ancient Indian culture have survived in Suriname: usually old pottery, stone, charcoal, shell, bone, soil discolourations, and major soil displacements such as mounds or raised fields. The mounds, also called terpen, are artificially raised hills in the coastal plain on which the prehistoric Indians built their villages. The fields are artificially raised agricultural plots surrounded by ditches and are found in coastal swamps only in the Coppename and Suriname River mouth areas. They are located in former plantation areas of Warapa, Matapica, Motkreek, and Oranjekreek. Archaeological sites found within the coastal zone include: •

The mounds Hertenrits-Wageningen I and II, Bucklebury I and II, and Peruvia Ridge in the western part of the coastal zone (Nickerie and Coronie). All pottery found belongs to the Hertenrits-style group. These sites also show raised fields used for agriculture in their neighbouring swamp areas; EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 152

• •

The Tingi-olo ridge in the Weg naar Zee area with pottery of the Kwatta-style group; and Raised field complexes in the eastern part of the coastal zone. Pottery found at these sites belongs to the Barbakuba-style group.

The different style groups refer to the various groups of Indians that inhabited the coastal areas. Dated strata of peat and pollen analysis show that between approximately 300 and 1000 A.D., freshwater conditions occurred in the western Surinamese coastal plain, including the area of the present Coronie District. In this area along the banks of small creeks, Amerindians, who produced Mabaruma pottery, had raised mounds to build their settlements. Near these mounds, in the freshwater swamps, they raised square-shaped fields of fertile clay, surrounded by trenches. The fields were raised for permanent cassava cultivation. Artifacts have been dated between 100 and 600 C.E. A few centuries before the European colonisation, a new group of Amerindians, this time coming from the east, invaded the area from the Marowijne River up to the Coppename River. They produced pottery belonging to the so-called “Koriabo” style group. Datings go back to approximately 1200 A.D. However, Koriabo pottery has never been found in the coastal area of western Suriname between the Coppename and Corantijn Rivers. Possibly, the Hertenrits culture was so powerful in this area that it was able to resist invasion by Koriabo Indians. Since 1986, the most important archaeological sites in eastern Coronie have been protected within the Peruvia Nature Reserve. Colonial and Recent History Spain officially claimed the area in 1593, but Portuguese and Spanish explorers of the time gave the area little attention. The area was initially settled by the English in the mid-17th century. Suriname became a Dutch colony in 1667. The new colony, Dutch Guiana, did not thrive. Historians cite several reasons for this, including Holland’s preoccupation with its more extensive (and profitable) East Indian territories, violent conflict between Europeans and native tribes, and frequent uprisings by the imported slave population, which was often treated with extraordinary cruelty. Barely, if at all, assimilated into European society, many of the slaves fled to the interior, where they maintained a West African culture and established the five major Bush Negro tribes in existence today – the Djuka, Saramaccaner, Matuwari, Paramaccaner, and Quinti. In 1822, Totness became the first Government settlement place for free slaves in Suriname. Between 1825 and 1830, peak production of cotton was reached. Teenstra-Mabé (1835) indicated there were 22 cotton plantations, 5 abandoned plantations, and a military post. In 1851, the name of the District “Upper Nickerie” was changed into District “Coronie.” Plantations steadily declined in importance as labour costs rose. Rice, bananas, and citrus fruits replaced the traditional crops of sugar, coffee, and cocoa. Exports of gold rose beginning in 1900. The Dutch Government gave little financial support to the colony. Suriname’s economy was transformed in the years following World War I, when an American firm (ALCOA) began exploiting bauxite deposits in eastern Suriname. Bauxite processing and then alumina production began in 1916. During World War II, more than 75% of U.S. bauxite imports came from Suriname. In 1951, Suriname began to acquire a growing measure of autonomy from the Netherlands. Suriname became an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 15 December 1954 and gained independence on 25 November 1975. Within the coastal zone, important historical features are found in the former plantation areas of Warapa, Matapica, Mot Creek, and Oranje Creek as well as other plantation areas along the coast of Nickerie and Coronie in the Coppename and Suriname River mouths. EIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 153

Several buildings of architectural importance include the following: Government Guesthouse at Totness; Office of the District Major at Friendship (1980); RK (Roman Catholic) Church at Burnside (1869); RK Church at Mary’s Hope (1982) and other buildings; EBG (Moravian Brotherhood) Church at Totness; RK Church at Welgelegen (1883); EBG Church at Hamilton (undated); and Traditional houses mainly at Totness and Friendship. At Totness, a statue of Tata Colin, the messianic leader of an aborted slave rebellion in 1836 was erected.


8.0 Predicted Environmental Impacts and Risk Assessment 8.1

RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

8.1.1

Risk Assessment

The main focus of this assessment was to ascertain the environmental risks associated with planned and unplanned events during different phases of the Block 52 exploratory drilling programme. The initial assessment of risk did not take into account any mitigation or controls. Mitigation or risk reduction measures are defined for the events and activities in which a risk of significant impact is identified. Risk assessment and recommendation of mitigation measures followed four basic steps: Step 1 – Identification of potential impacts (positive and negative) resulting from the proposed activities on the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic/cultural resources of the study area. Step 2 – Evaluating the nature of a potential impact in terms of exposure and variability of the resources of interest. Step 3 – Evaluation of the vulnerability of the resources as a basis for assessing the nature of the impact and its significance. Step 4 – Implementation of impact reduction measures (or mitigation measures) to manage any impacts that are found to be unacceptable. 8.1.2

Impact Identification

This project includes the drilling of one exploratory well in Block 52. Drilling is expected to start in April 2016. For a well where no commercially viable petroleum resources are found (i.e., a dry hole), it is estimated that 90 days will be required to move the drilling rig on location and drill, log, and plug and abandon the well. This analysis considers the impacts and associated risks resulting from routine project-related activities associated with the exploratory drilling operations. The analysis also considers the effects and associated risks of unlikely events (accidents or upsets) that may occur as a result of drilling, setting pipe, well testing, or abandonment activities or drilling support operations. Table 8-1 identifies routine activities and accidental events that could affect various resources. Sources of potential risk and associated impact from routine exploratory drilling operations are as follows: • • • • • • • •

Rig installation and removal; Rig physical presence (including noise and lights); Drilling discharges; Other discharges; Solid wastes; Combustion emissions; Support vessel and helicopter traffic; and Onshore support base activity.

Table 8-1.

Matrix of potential impacts. A “●” indicates a potential impact to a resource.


Environmental Resource

Onshore Socioeconomics

ROUTINE OPERATIONS Rig Installation and Removal Rig tow ● ● Rig placement and removal ● ● ● ● Well abandonment ● ● Rig Physical Presence (including lights and noise) Safety zone ● ● Physical presence including lights ● ● ● ● ● Noise from vertical seismic profiling of ● well Noise from routine operations ● Drilling Discharges Seafloor releases of cuttings and ● ● ● cement Subsurface release of cuttings ● ● ● ● Other Discharges Sanitary and domestic wastes ● ● Deck drainage (including treated ● ● drainage from machinery areas) Miscellaneous discharges ● ● Solid Wastes Marine debris (nonhazardous waste ● ● ● ● ● accidentally lost overboard) Hazardous and nonhazardous waste for onshore disposal Combustion Emissions Drilling rig engines and support vessel ● Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Support vessel traffic and noise ● ● Helicopter traffic and noise ● ● Onshore Support Base Activity Supply of goods and services Support vessel movements in the ● harbour Vessel pilot and dockage fees ACCIDENTAL EVENTS (The following impacts are “conditional,” occurring only in the unlikely event of a spill.) Diesel fuel spill (surface) ● ● ● ● Crude oil spill (blowout) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Recreation Aesthetics

Industry, Shipping and Maritime Operations

Protected Natural Areas

Marine and Coastal Birds

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Benthic Communities

Fishing

Socioeconomic and Cultural

Biological

Plankton and Fishes

Water Quality

Sediment Quality

Project Activity/ Source of Impact

Air Quality and Noise

Physical/ Chemical

-

-

●

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

●

-

-

● ●

-

-

●

-

-

-

●

●

●

To analyse accidents or upsets potentially resulting from exploratory drilling operations and identification of their potential impacts, two scenarios have been considered: •

An surface diesel spill; and ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 156

• 8.2

A subsurface crude oil spill (blowout). IMPACT CLASSIFICATIONS

The impact classifications used in this ESIA were broadly divided into negative and beneficial impacts, with negative impacts further subdivided based on severity of impact, spatial and temporal aspects of the impacts, and the sensitivity of various resources to the impacts. Impact categories range from 1 through 4; these numeric ratings are considered equivalent to negligible, low, medium, and high levels of significance, respectively. Definitions of each level of impact significance are outlined in Table 8-2. Impact consequence and impact likelihood are two factors used to determine the overall significance of an impact, which provides the foundation for an environmental risk assessment. Impact consequence reflects an assessment and determination of an impact’s characteristics on a specific resource (e.g., air quality, water quality, benthic communities). Such determinations take into account resource-specific sensitivity to an impact, recovery capability, and spatial and temporal occurrence. Impact consequence includes whether an impact is •

•

•

•

direct or indirect – direct impacts affect the resource in a straightforward manner (e.g., noise producing a behavioral reaction), while indirect impacts affect the resource via another mechanism (e.g., noise dispersing prey, making predator foraging more extensive); reversible or irreversible – reversible impacts affect the resource during the activity, and diminish shortly or immediately after the activity has ceased; irreversible impacts persist over time, extending well beyond the cessation of the activity; short term or long term – short term generally reflects the duration of drilling during a project, which typically is in the range of several weeks to several months per well; long term is longer than project duration, which is typically on the order of years to decades; and local or regional – local typically includes the project area (i.e., the extent of impact is limited to the project area) while regional encompasses a broader area (i.e., the impact extends well beyond the project area). In the case of socioeconomic resources, a regional impact may affect many local stakeholders while a local impact affects just a few.

Impact consequence classifications are beneficial, negligible, minor, moderate, and severe. Impact consequence represents the documented or anticipated impacts to a resource (i.e., individual, population, or community in a biological context; social, economic, or cultural element, attribute, or service in a socioeconomic context) arising from one or more impact-producing factors, regardless of impact likelihood. Impact likelihood is rated according to its estimated potential for occurrence based on a disproportionate range: • • • •

likely (>50% to 100%); occasional (>10% to 50%); rare (1% to 10%); or remote (<1%).


Table 8-2.

Definitions of impact significance.

Significance

Physical/Chemical Environment

Biological Environment

Socioeconomic and Cultural Environment

Beneficial (no numeric value Likely to cause some enhancement to the environment or the socioeconomic system assigned) 1 Changes unlikely to be noticed or measurable against background activities (Negligible) 2 Changes that can be monitored or noticed but are within the scope of existing variability and do not meet any of the High or Medium definitions (Low) One or more of the following impacts: Localised, reversible damage to sensitive habitats such as sensitive deepwater communities, One or more of the following impacts: hard/live bottom communities, seagrass beds, marshes, coral reefs, and other sites identified as Disruption of fishing activities at any location for One or more of the following impacts: more than 30 days or exclusion from more than MPAs, marine protected habitats, or areas of Occasional or localised violation of air or special concern 10% of the fishable area at a given time 3 water quality standards or guidelines Extensive damage to non-sensitive habitats to the Impacts leading to greater than a 10% change in (Medium) Persistent sediment toxicity or anoxia in a degree that ecosystem function and ecological fishery harvest small area Localised, reversible impacts on recreational relationships could be altered Death, injury, disruption of critical activities resources such as beaches, boating areas, or (e.g., breeding, nesting, nursing), or damage to tourist area critical habitat of individuals of a species listed by the IUCN as Endangered, Critically Endangered, Or Vulnerable One or more of the following impacts: Extensive, irreversible damage to sensitive One or more of the following impacts: habitats such as sensitive deepwater Extensive, irreversible damage to recreational One or more of the following impacts: communities, hard/live bottom communities, resources such as beaches, boating areas, or Widespread, persistent contamination of seagrass beds, marshes, coral reefs, and other tourism 4 air, water, or sediment sites identified as MPAs, marine protected Impacts posing a significant threat to public health (High) Frequent, severe violations of air or water habitats, or areas of special concern or public safety Death or injury of large numbers of a species quality standards or guidelines Impacts of a magnitude sufficient to alter the listed by the IUCN as Endangered, Critically nation’s social, economic, or cultural Endangered, or Vulnerable or irreversible damage characteristics, or result in social unrest to their critical habitat IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature; MPA = Marine Protected Area.


This ESIA considered impact consequence and impact likelihood to determine overall impact significance. Impact consequence is resource-specific, with determination ranging from 1 to 4, on an increasing scale of significance. Impact likelihood (i.e., probability of occurrence) was determined for each activity-based impact and was characterised as likely, occasional, rare, or remote. The matrix integrating impact consequence with impact likelihood (Table 8-3) provided the basis for determining overall impact significance. In other words, impact significance is determined based on the relationship between the likelihood of an impact and impact consequence: Impact Consequence × Impact Likelihood → Impact Significance To summarise the overall significance of each risk, an impact consequence and likelihood matrix was used (Table 8-3). The result is an overall impact significance rating that includes beneficial and several negative impact levels that have been assigned a numeric rating that ranges from 1 to 4. Impacts rated as 3 or 4 are priorities for mitigation. Mitigation was considered for some less significant impacts as well to further reduce the likelihood or consequence of impacts. Table 8-3.

Matrix combining impact consequence and likelihood to determine overall impact significance. Based on professional judgment, each combination of consequence and probability is assigned a significance value ranging from 1 to 4 (lowest to highest).

Decreasing Impact Likelihood

Likelihood vs. Consequence

8.3

Beneficial

Likely Occasional Rare Remote

Beneficial (no numeric rating applied)

Decreasing Impact Consequence Negligible Minor Moderate 1 2 3 (Negligible) (Low) (Medium) 1 2 3 (Negligible) (Low) (Medium) 1 1 2 (Negligible) (Negligible) (Low) 1 1 2 (Negligible) (Negligible) (Low)

Severe 4 (High) 4 (High) 4 (High) 3 (Medium)

IMPACTS OF ROUTINE OPERATIONS

8.3.1

Air Quality

Sources of air pollutant emissions include the following: • •

Rig engines; and Support vessel and helicopter engines.

8.3.1.1

R ig and Support Vessel Em issions

Routine emissions will include gases from the combustion of diesel fuel by engines, generators, and equipment on board the drilling rig. Drilling of the well in Block 52 is expected to require 90 days and is projected to start in April of 2016. Table 8-4 summarises estimated total emissions of particulate matter (PM), sulphur oxides (SO x ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), VOCs, and CO from the offshore drilling rig engines and equipment for a 90-day drilling program. For this analysis, a screening tool developed by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) was used to determine whether project emissions were below thresholds of concern, based on a project-specific emissions inventory and distance from shore. Emissions calculations were derived using the U.S. Gulf of Mexico ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 159

Air Emissions Calculations Instructions and accompanying worksheet (EP_AQ.XLS) developed by U.S. BOEM and the American Petroleum Industry/Offshore Operators Committee Air Quality Task Force using USEPA AP-42 emission factors. Table 8-4.

Estimated emissions from drilling rig, support vessels, and helicopter engines.*

Source

Horsepower (hp)

Drill platform power generator** 2,150 per engine (six engines) Support vessels 14,400 per vessel (three engines) Helicopter (one 3,550 engine) -Total

Fuel Use (gal h-1)

PM


519

4.30

19.84

148.83

4.45

32.45

695

7.72

35.48

265.98

9.96

58.02

171

0.48

2.11

16.36

0.49

35.70

1,385

12.50

57.43

431.17

14.90

126.17

CO

CO = carbon monoxide; NO x = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; SO x = sulphur oxides; t = metric tonnes; VOC = volatile organic compound. * Assumed project duration of 90 days, with a drilling rig operating 24 h d-1, one support boat operating 16 h d-1, and one helicopter 4 h d-1. Emission factors for diesel fuel from U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management air quality spreadsheet (U.S. Minerals Management Service, 2007a), based on AP-42 and other industry sources. ** Assumes that each engine will operate 50% of the time over the course of the project.

These emissions are expected to disperse rapidly in the offshore atmosphere. There may be some decrease in air quality within several hundred metres downwind from the rig during drilling. No detectable impacts to air quality onshore are expected based on the relatively small quantities of pollutants emitted, the distance from shore, and the prevailing wind patterns. Block 52 is approximately 109 km (68 statute miles) offshore from the nearest Suriname shoreline. The corresponding U.S. BOEM exemption levels for a block this distance from shore would be: • • •

33.3 (D) = 2264.4 t y-1 for PM, SO x , NO x , and VOCs; and 3,400 (D0.667) = 56,723 t y-1 for CO. where D = distance from the nearest shoreline in statute miles

The estimated air pollutant emissions for the proposed well are significantly less than the U.S. BOEM exemption levels and therefore would not require further analysis in the U.S. regulatory scheme (Table 8-4). Overall, exploratory drilling emissions are not expected to have any impact on air quality in Suriname. The overall impact significance of air emissions on air quality is expected to be low. 8.3.2

8.3.2.1

Sediment Quality and Seafloor Geology

R ig I nstallation and R em oval

Bottom sediments will be disturbed during rig positioning and emplacement, and during departure (rig demobilisation and removal from the wellsite) due to the placement and removal of the jack-up drilling rig legs. The area disturbed will be approximately the total area of the jack-up drilling rig leg footprints (i.e., 47.2-ft diameter per spud can; total area: 1,750 ft2 [162.6 m2]). After the drilling rig is removed, bottom scars will likely remain on the seafloor for a few months to years (EG&G Environmental Consultants, 1982; Shinn et al., 1990, 1993; Dustan et al., 1991). There should be no lasting effects on seafloor geology from rig placement ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 160

at the wellsite. Overall impact significance of rig installation and removal on sediment quality is low.

8.3.2.2

Drilling Discharges

Seafloor Release of Muds and Cuttings The only time drilling muds and cuttings will be released directly to the seafloor is during the initial drilling of the 36" and 26" sections, or “spud” phase of the well drilling process using WBMs. The drill-in fluid will be seawater with occasional sweeps using a high-viscosity gel approximately every 9 m, or as required to clean the hole and prevent caving. This initial surface bore hole (36" and 26") will be drilled to approximately 700 m below the mudline. Seafloor Release of Excess Cement Slurry During setting of the casing, cement slurry will be pumped into the well to bond the casing to the walls of the hole. Although quantities of cement are carefully calculated to ensure that all cement will remain downhole, a small quantity may be released at the seafloor when the casings are cemented back. This excess cement slurry will emerge from the hole and accumulate on the seafloor, generally within 10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft) of the wellbore (Shinn et al., 1990). Cement slurry components typically include cement mix and some of the same additives used in WBMs (Boehm et al., 2001). Drilling Rig Release of Muds and Cuttings After spudding of the initial two well intervals is complete, the marine riser will be set, allowing muds and cuttings to be returned to the drilling rig where they will be processed through solids control equipment. At this point, the drilling program will shift from WBM to low toxicity SBMs. Cuttings will be separated and discharged from the drilling rig below the ocean surface, whereas muds will be recirculated into the hole until their properties become degraded and they are discharged (WBM) or recovered for recycling (i.e., low toxicity SBM). Cuttings typically are coarse particles of the formation being drilled that settle rapidly to the seafloor near the discharge point, primarily with a few hundred metres of the wellbore. A layer of fine particles (primarily WBMs) will be dispersed and deposited over a much broader area (Boothe and Presley, 1989). During intervals when the SBM system is used, only the cuttings will be discharged, along with small percentages of adhering muds. In general, cuttings with adhering non-aqueous muds tend to clump together and form piles close to the drilling rig. However, the water depth in the project area is a natural mitigating factor that is expected to reduce the chance for thick cuttings piles to accumulate. Also, use of a cuttings dryer is expected to reduce the chance of producing discernable cuttings piles (Getliff et al., 1997; Hanni et al., 1998). A drilling mud dispersion model (MUDMAP) was used to predict the extent and thickness of discharges deposited on the seafloor at the wellsite based on the well plan and historical current data (Appendix F). The parameters used in the modelling are presented in Table 8-5.


Table 8-5. Section

Drilling mud and cuttings discharge scenario for the PSEPBV Block 52 well. Diameter (in.)

Drilling Start Date1 Dry Season 1 Oct. 5 Oct. 18-Oct.

Drilling Duration (days)

Drilling Discharges (m3)

1 2 3

36 26 17½

Wet Season 1 April 5 April 18 April

4

12¼ × 14¾

3 May

2 Nov.

3.63

144.0

--

5 6

10⅝ × 12¼ 17 May 16 Nov. 8½ 13 June 13 Dec. Total discharges

17.45 7.23

105.0 21.0 781.0

-205 606.0

Cuttings

Mud2

3.08 2.95 5.48

137.0 192.0 182.0

-401 --

Release Depth

Seafloor Rig (2 m below surface) --

Two types of data used for environmental forcing in the discharge simulations: 1 Observational current data collected in Block 52 using acoustic wave and current profilers (AWCPs) in Block 52 over the July 2014 to July 2015 time period; and 2 Model currents combined from a hydrodynamic model and tidal velocity model using HYCOM current data.

The fate of mud and cuttings released from the Roselle-1 wellsite were assessed through two model scenarios (Table 8-6). For each scenario, MUDMAP was used to model the trajectory of cuttings particles released from each drilling section and track the far-field dispersion for a minimum of 72 h after the release, to account for settling of very fine material (e.g. mud particles) from the water column. The resulting thickness grids were aggregated outside the model to produce maps of cumulative deposition for wet and dry season drilling periods. Table 8-6.

Summary of model parameters used for each scenario.

Model Scenario

Site

1

Roselle-1

2

Roselle-1

Discharge Period

Hydrodynamic Dataset

April−June (wet season) Oct.−Dec. (dry season)

F2 Mooring ( April−June 2015) F2 Mooring ( Oct.−Dec. 2014)

Discharged Discharged Cuttings Mud (m3) 3 (m )

Drilling Duration (d)

781

606

39.8

781

606

39.8

Figures 8-1 and 8-2 show the plan view extent of seabed deposition predicted during the wet and dry season periods, respectively. For all results, deposition thickness was computed by dividing the mass accumulation on the seabed with a mass-weighted average of solid particle density values for the various muds and cuttings and assumes no void ratio (zero porosity).


Figure 8-1.

Scenario 1 results—top: cumulative deposition thickness (muds and cuttings) from operational drilling discharges during the wet season (Q2) at the Roselle-1 wellsite; bottom: contours greater than 10 mm shown at expanded scale.


Figure 8-2.

Scenario 2 results—top: cumulative deposition thickness (muds and cuttings) from operational drilling discharges during the dry season (Q4) at the Roselle-1 wellsite; bottom: contours greater than 10 mm shown at expanded scale.


Seabed impacts generally remain confined to a near-field zone within approximately 1 km of the drilling site. Both simulations produce a tightly confined cuttings pile (>10 mm) that surrounds the wellhead and a fine blanket of sediment that extends up to ~800 m from the release site at a thickness level of 0.1 mm. In both cases, the pattern of deposition shows elongation toward the north and west, in general alignment with the prevailing offshore currents. The gradient of contours ≥20 mm is uniform and concentric around the drillsite, which indicates that dispersion processes are nearly as influential as advection from currents for the top hole releases. The stronger and more consistent upper water column currents during the wet season (Scenario 1; Q2) result in a cumulative deposit that is more elongated and generally extends farther north and west of the release site. By contrast, discharges modelled during the dry season (Scenario 2; Q4) produces a deposit that remains more compactly distributed around the wellhead. Drilling during, the dry season is predicted to cover a larger extent of the seafloor at the 2- to 10-mm level. Stronger currents during the wet season months have the effect of dispersing the cuttings as they settle, resulting in a deposit that is thinner and more extended from the wellhead (i.e., a greater extent of the deposit falls within the 0.1- to 2-mm range). The area of seabed covered by the deposition blanket is summarised in Table 8-7 and the maximum distance that individual thickness contours extend from the site for each model scenario is listed in Table 8-8. For Scenario 1 (Q2), the discharge results in • •

deposition of 100 mm to 16 m from the well and an aerial extent of 0.060 ha; deposition at 10 mm extends a maximum of 45 m and covers an area of 0.501 ha; and

deposition at a thickness of 1 mm extends a maximum of 415 m and covers 10.329 ha of the seabed. For Scenario 2 (Q4), the discharge results in • • •

thicknesses of 100 mm or greater confined to a distance of 14 m from the discharge site and an aerial extent of 0.057 ha; deposition at 10 mm extends up to 105 m and covers an area of 0.846 ha; and deposition at thickness of 1 mm extends 284 m and covers 8.468 ha of the seabed.

Table 8-7.

Areal extent of seabed deposition (by thickness interval) for each model simulation at the Roselle-1 wellsite.

Deposition Thickness (mm) 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 150

Cumulative Area Exceeding (ha) Scenario 1 (Q2) 33.291 24.145 15.615 10.329 5.923 1.936 0.501 0.317 0.157 0.060 0.007

Scenario 1 (Q4) 24.048 17.686 11.861 8.468 5.571 2.577 0.846 0.359 0.157 0.057 0.010


Table 8-8.

Maximum extent of thickness contours (distance from release site) for each model simulation at the Roselle-1 wellsite.

Deposition Thickness (mm) 0.1 1 10 100

Maximum Extent from Discharge Point (m) Scenario 1 (Q2) Scenario 1 (Q4) 792 456 415 284 45 105 16 14

Drilling muds and cuttings will accumulate on the seafloor, resulting in changes in bottom contours, grain size, barium concentrations, and perhaps concentrations of other metals (National Research Council, 1983; Boothe and Presley, 1989; Hinwood et al., 1994). These changes occur primarily within a few hundred metres around the wellsite and may persist for several years (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). Cuttings and WBMs will be released almost continuously from drilling rigs during drilling. Cuttings typically are coarse particles that settle rapidly to the seafloor near the discharge point, primarily within a few hundred metres. A layer of fine particles (mostly drilling muds) will be dispersed and deposited over a much broader area (Boothe and Presley, 1989). Due to the water depth and the potential effects of currents in the area, it is likely that muds will be widely dispersed and only the coarse cuttings will settle near the drillsite. During intervals when SBM is used, only the cuttings will be discharged along with small percentages of adhering mineral oil. The behaviour of these cuttings will differ somewhat from that of WBM cuttings (Neff et al., 2000; International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2003). In shallow water, cuttings with adhering non-aqueous-based fluids tend to clump together and form piles close to the drilling rig. However, the use of a cuttings dryer is expected to reduce the clumping of cuttings discharges, subsequently reducing the chance of producing discernable cuttings piles around wellsite (Getliff et al., 1997; Hanni et al., 1998). Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (2006) studied drilling discharge impacts at several sites in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., at continental slope in water depths of 1,033 to 1,125 m) where both WBMs and SBMs were used. At both post-exploration and post-development sites, areas of SBM cuttings deposition were associated with elevated organic carbon concentrations and anoxic conditions. Balcom et al. (2012) evaluated the fate and effects of drill cuttings resulting from completion of a development well in deepwater offshore Ghana using SBM. The physicochemical and macroinfaunal sampling of sediments at varying distances from the wellsite offered insight into the benthic fate and effects of SBM-based cuttings discharges. Benthic impacts were limited to within several hundred meters of the wellsite and included increases in hydrocarbon levels (including SBM tracers) and elevated levels of drilling-related metals. Physicochemical (and macroinfaunal) metrics returned to ambient levels within approximately 500 m of the wellsite. SBM cuttings discharges are subject to effluent limits. These include a requirement for no free oil (visual sheen test), limitations on cadmium and mercury concentrations in stock barite, and maximum base oil retention on cuttings of 6.9%. Solids control equipment including a cuttings dryer will be used to minimise ROC in accordance with these limits. During the 2011 drilling of a well in Block 31, the monitored ROC on discharged cutting ranged from 2.70% to 2.77% over the life of the SBM discharge period (CSA International, Inc., 2012). Overall impact significance of drilling discharges on sediment quality fishes is low for WBM and medium for SBM. No additional mitigation is recommended. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 166

8.3.2.3

W ell Abandonm ent

Bottom sediments will be disturbed during well abandonment due to the removal of the rig and the permanent abandonment of the well (e.g., placement of cement between hydrocarbon zones; cement plug in the upper hole). The area of disturbed seafloor footprint for the well will be small (~1,750 ft2 [162.6 m2]) for the spud cans and several tens of square metres for cement released at the wellsite. Overall impact significance of well abandonment to sediment quality is low. 8.3.3

8.3.3.1

Water Quality

R ig I nstallation and R em oval

Placement and removal of the drilling rig will produce temporary, localised turbidity near the bottom as sediments are resuspended by the raising and lowering of jack-up rig legs. Impacts to water quality from two platform installations off California studied by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1985) showed these effects were of very short duration. Overall impact significance of rig installation and removal to water quality is low.

8.3.3.2

Drilling Discharges

Drilling muds and cuttings released initially at the wellbore will produce a turbidity plume near the seafloor. Following the initial 36" and 26" diameter spud phase drilling (i.e., with no surface returns), subsequent sections of the wellbore will realise surface returns while using WBMs and SBMs. Drilling muds and cuttings will be returned to the drilling rig and not discharged at the seafloor. Drilling fluid and cuttings discharges will produce a visible plume that will move with the currents as these materials are diluted and settle to the seafloor. In general, turbid water may extend between a few hundred metres to several kilometres downcurrent from the discharge point and persist for several hours after each bulk discharge. Studies have demonstrated reductions in water clarity within a few hundred metres to approximately 2 km of drilling rigs during drilling fluid discharges (Ayers et al., 1980a,b; Ray and Meek, 1980). Dispersion to background levels typically requires several minutes to several hours (Neff, 1987). During well intervals when SBM is used, only the cuttings and a low percentage of adhering drilling fluids will be discharged. Drilling fluids associated with nonaqueous-based drilling fluids cuttings typically adhere tightly to cuttings particles and probably would not produce much turbidity as the cuttings sink through the water column (Neff et al., 2000). Discharges of WBM and cuttings at the sea surface will create localised turbidity near the water surface, dispersing and diminishing as the discharge is affected by surface currents and settling. Near surface discharges of cuttings with small amounts of adhering SBM will produce very little turbidity in surface waters. Localised, minor impacts to water quality in near-surface and near-bottom waters are expected from WBM discharges and spudding operations, respectively, while very low turbidity is expected from SBM cuttings discharges. Overall impact significance of drilling discharges to water quality is low.

8.3.3.3

Other Discharges

Other discharges will include the following: • • •

Sanitary and domestic wastes (including food waste); Deck drainage; Miscellaneous discharges; and


Sanitary and Domestic Wastes. Sanitary waste, or “black water,” consists of human body wastes from toilets and urinals. Sanitary waste will be treated using a marine sanitation device that produces an effluent with a minimum residual chlorine concentration of 1.0 mg L-1 and no visible floating solids or oil and grease. The MODU sewage treatment plant will be a Hamworthy/ST8VS (International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee [IMO MEPC 2] (VI)) Vacuum Biological Type or similar unit that conforms to MARPOL Annex IV. Domestic waste, or “grey water,” includes water from showers, sinks, laundries, galleys, safety showers, and eye-wash stations and does not require treatment before discharge. Support vessels will be equipped with an approved marine sanitation device (U.S. Coast Guard Type I or equivalent). Food waste, a type of domestic waste, will be ground prior to discharge in accordance with MARPOL requirements. It is assumed that one person generates 100 L d-1 of sanitary wastes and 220 L d-1 of domestic wastes. It is predicted that sanitary wastes have an associated BOD of 240 mg L-1. Table 8-9 shows the amount of sanitary waste that will be generated on the drilling rig and the associated BOD based on the assumptions, given an estimated crew of approximately 120 persons on board for a project duration of 90 days. Table 8-9.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and 90-day drilling duration.




Sanitary and domestic waste from the drilling rig and support vessels may affect concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients, and chlorine as well as generate BOD. However, these discharges are expected to dilute rapidly in the open ocean (USEPA, 1993; U.S. MMS, 2002). Impacts would likely be undetectable beyond tens of metres from the source. Deck Drainage. Deck drainage consists of all waste resulting from rainfall, rig washing, deck washings, tank cleaning operations, and runoff from curbs and gutters, including drip pans and work areas. Drilling rigs are designed with curbs and gutters to contain runoff and prevent oily drainage from being discharged. The flow is diverted to separation systems, depending on the area from which it is collected. For example, in the drilling-process areas, runoff is passed through a muddy water drain system. This separates out the mud chemicals, with the remaining flow passing over a sensor to detect oil. If oil is detected, the flow is automatically stopped and diverted to the oil-water separator. There will be no discharge of free oil in deck drainage that would cause a film, sheen, or discolouration on the surface of the water, or a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the water surface. Only non-oily water (<15 ppm) will be discharged overboard. If the deck becomes contaminated, oily deck drainage will be contained by absorbents or collected by a pollution pan under the rig floor for recycling and/or disposal. The volume of deck drainage varies with the amount of rainfall. An analysis of 950 Gulf of Mexico platforms determined that deck drainage averaged 7,950 L d-1 (USEPA, 1993). In a conservative estimation, Block 52 drilling rig operations may produce up to 10,000 L d-1, all of which will be monitored and processed through an oil-water separator. Because of the separation and treatment of water from oily areas prior to discharge, deck drainage is not ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 168

expected to produce a visible sheen or any other detectable impacts on water quality. The impact to water quality from deck drainage is, therefore, considered negligible. Miscellaneous Discharges. Additional miscellaneous discharges typically occur from numerous sources on a drilling rig. Examples include BOP fluids, desalination unit discharges, boiler blowdown discharges, and uncontaminated freshwater and seawater used for cooling water and ballast (USEPA, 1993). These discharges must meet international effluent limits (e.g., MARPOL). Seawater used for cooling equipment will not come into contact with any contaminants, but the discharge will be slightly warmer than ambient water. Discharges will meet the criterion of <3°C change in temperature at 100 m (328 ft) from the discharge point. Impacts of the effluent on water quality are considered negligible (U.S. MMS, 2002). Overall impact significance of other routine discharges to water quality is low. 8.3.4

8.3.4.1

Biology

Plank ton and Fishes

Rig Installation and Removal Demersal (benthic) fishes may be disturbed during drilling rig positioning and departure due to the physical process of positioning the rig legs and the re-suspension of bottom sediments; however, this area of potential disturbance is very small. Mobile fishes could avoid physical impacts of the platform placement and return to the area after the brief disturbance. Impacts would be at the locations where the rig legs are placed on the bottom and may persist from minutes to a few hours. Overall impact significance of rig installation and removal to plankton and fishes is negligible. Rig Physical Presence Zooplankton and ichthyoplankton may be attracted to lights associated with offshore structures. Fish larvae are strongly attracted to lights at night (Victor, 1991). Light emissions from operations are likely to have negligible impacts on planktonic communities because of the small area affected. The presence of the drilling rig will attract fishes, providing shelter and food in the form of attached fouling biota (Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982). Offshore structures typically attract epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994). This “artificial reef effect” is generally considered a beneficial impact. However, artificial reefs may enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species, and this alteration could be considered a negative effect in areas with large numbers of artificial reefs. The effect, either positive or negative, is probably negligible for a single drilling rig. Overall impact significance of rig physical presence to plankton and fishes is beneficial. Drilling Discharges Drilling mud and cuttings discharges will produce a visible plume that will move with the currents as these materials dilute and settle to the seafloor. In general, turbid water may extend between a few hundred metres and several kilometres downcurrent from the discharge point and persist for several hours after each bulk discharge. Studies have demonstrated reductions in water clarity within a few hundred metres to approximately 2 km of drilling rigs during drilling mud discharges (Ayers et al., 1980a,b; Ray and Meek, 1980). Dispersion to background levels typically requires several minutes to several hours (Neff, 1987).


During well intervals when SBM is used, only the cuttings and small amounts of adhering drilling muds will be discharged. Non-aqueous drilling muds typically adhere tightly to cuttings particles and are not expected to produce much turbidity as the cuttings sink through the water column (Neff et al., 2000). Discharges of drilling muds and cuttings are likely to have little or no impact on plankton or fishes due to the low toxicity and rapid dispersion of these discharges (National Research Council, 1983; Neff, 1987; Hinwood et al., 1994). For plankton and fishes present within a muds and cuttings discharge plume, potential fouling of gills and feeding appendages may occur; photosynthetic efficiency among phytoplankton will be reduced where light levels have been diminished in surface- and near-surface waters. Planktonic organisms typically are very abundant in surface and subsurface waters. Fishes can actively move out of a plume. Turbidity plumes will disperse relatively rapidly and will be localised in close proximity to the discharges. Therefore, impacts to plankton and fishes should be negligible. Overall impact significance of drilling discharges (WBM and cuttings; SBM cuttings) to plankton and fishes is negligible. Other Operational Discharges Fishes and other water-column organisms are unlikely to be affected by minor discharges from the drilling rig and support vessels. These discharges include sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage and miscellaneous discharges. However, these discharges are expected to dilute rapidly in the open sea, and would likely be undetectable beyond tens of metres from the source. Therefore, potential overall impact significance from other operational discharges on plankton and fishes are negligible.

8.3.4.2

Benthic Com m unities

Activities and factors that may affect the benthic community include drilling rig installation, the presence of structures, and drilling fluid and cuttings discharges. Rig Installation and Removal Installation and removal of jack-up legs may crush, injure, bury, or stress benthic organisms in surface sediments. The area of disturbed seafloor footprint for the well will be small (i.e., ~1,750 ft2 [162.6 m2]) for the spud cans and several tens of square metres for cement released at the drillsite. Impacts to benthic communities from rig placement and removal are considered to be minor. Disturbed sediments will be recolonised through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas, and no mitigation measures are recommended. Occasionally, scrap debris such as welding rods and pieces of pipe may accidentally fall overboard from a drilling rig (Shinn et al., 1993). These could alter the benthic community by providing hard surfaces for colonisation by epibiota and by attracting demersal fishes. Overall impact significance of rig installation and removal to benthic communities is low. Rig Physical Presence Over time, the submerged portions of the drilling rig will develop fouling biota. Potential colonists typically include ascidians, barnacles, bryozoans, hydroids, and sponges. Data from offshore platforms (Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982) and fouling plate studies (Danek and Lewbel, 1986) indicate that the biomass of fouling biota decreases with increasing water depth. The development of a mature, climax fouling community typically requires several years on newly exposed hard substrates (Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, 1984). Due to the brief time on site, the drilling rig is not likely to develop a significant fouling community.


Sloughing of fouling biota from the rig, should it occur, may produce limited, localised benthic enrichment underneath the drilling rig. Such effects have been noted in shallow water under a production platform off southern California (Wolfson et al., 1979) and under an exploratory drilling rig off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast (EG&G Environmental Consultants, 1982). The impacts of the physical presence of the drilling rig on benthic communities will be negligible and beneficial. Overall impact significance of rig physical presence to benthic communities is beneficial. Drilling Discharges Effects of drilling discharges on benthic communities have been reviewed extensively by the National Research Council (1983), Neff (1987), and Hinwood et al. (1994). Because of the low toxicity of most drilling fluids, the main mechanism of impact to benthic communities is increased sedimentation, possibly resulting in burial or smothering. Monitoring programmes have shown that benthic impacts of drilling are minor and localised within a few hundred metres of the wellsite (EG&G Environmental Consultants, 1982; National Research Council, 1983; Neff, 1987; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). Seafloor Releases. During the initial phase of well drilling, drilling mud and cuttings will be released at the seafloor. These initial discharges will create a mound with a diameter of several metres to tens of metres. During setting of the casing, cement slurry will be pumped into the well to bond the casing to the walls of the hole. Excess cement slurry will emerge from the hole and accumulate on the seafloor around the wellbore, generally within a few metres around the wellbore. The vast bulk of the cement mixture is composed of cement, while certain other chemicals are added in very small proportions to achieve the required performance. Cement slurry components typically include cement mix and some of the same additives used in WBMs (Boehm et al., 2001). The main impacts resulting from the release of these materials will be burial and smothering of benthic organisms within several metres to tens of metres around the wellbore. Soft bottom sediments disturbed by cuttings, drilling muds, and cement slurry will eventually be recolonised through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas. Recovery may require several years. Drilling Rig Muds and Cuttings Discharges. After the initial well intervals, the marine riser is set, allowing muds and cuttings to be returned to the drilling rig where they will be processed through solids control equipment. Cuttings will be separated and discharged overboard, whereas muds will be recirculated into the hole until their properties become degraded; WBM are subsequently discharged, while SBM are stored and returned to shore for recycling. Benthic communities within a few hundred metres of each drillsite and surface releases of muds and cuttings may be buried or smothered (EG&G Environmental Consultants, 1982; National Research Council, 1983; Neff, 1987; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). Soft bottom areas buried by cuttings and drilling fluids eventually will be recolonised through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas. Recovery may require several years. Barite (barium sulphate) is a major insoluble component of drilling fluid discharges, therefore, barium concentrations will increase in bottom sediments around the wellsite. Concentrations of other metals in drilling fluids are similar to those in marine sediments, but some metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc may be elevated within a few hundred metres of the wellsite (Boothe and Presley, 1989). However, metals in drilling fluids show very low bioavailability to marine animals and do not pose a risk to benthic organisms or their predators (Neff et al., 1989a,b). According to Neff (2008), only a small percentage of the metals in WBM are in readily exchangeable forms except for chromium, which may be present as soluble chrome lignosulfonate clay deflocculant. Consequently, toxicity or bioaccumulation is generally not a concern for WBMs and their associated releases or discharges. Burial and the ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 171

potential for changes in sediment oxygen concentration are the primary impact agents associated with WBM and cuttings deposition. Regarding the potential for bioaccumulation, Neff (2010) noted that metals and hydrocarbons introduced into the marine environment via WBM and cuttings discharges are not likely to enter food webs in ecologically significant amounts. None of the metals and hydrocarbons measured in tissues of invertebrates and fishes during previous drilling muds and cuttings monitoring programs were bioaccumulated to higher than background concentrations. Because drilling mud chemicals are not bioaccumulated, they do not transfer through the marine food web (i.e., via predator consuming contaminated prey). There is no evidence of trophic transfer or biomagnification of drilling-related discharge chemicals. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (2006) studied drilling discharge impacts at several sites in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., at continental slope in water depths of 1,033 to 1,125 m) where both WBMs and SBMs were used. At both post-exploration and post-development sites, areas of SBM cuttings deposition were associated with elevated organic carbon concentrations and anoxic conditions. Areas within approximately 500 m of drillsites had patchy zones of disturbed benthic communities, including microbial mats, areas lacking visible benthic macroinfauna, zones dominated by pioneering stage assemblages, and areas devoid of surface-dwelling species. Infaunal and meiofaunal densities generally were higher near drilling, although some faunal groups were less abundant near drillsites. Some stations near drilling had lower diversity, evenness, and richness indices compared with stations away from drilling. Some stations affected by drilling were dominated by high abundances of one or a few deposit feeding species, including known pollution indicators. The severity of these impacts was greatest at two post-development sites that had the largest discharge volumes of SBM cuttings during drilling. Balcom et al. (2012) evaluated the fate and effects of drill cuttings resulting from completion of a development well in deepwater offshore Ghana using SBM. Benthic impacts were limited to within several hundred meters of the wellsite and included reduced numbers of species, and reduced species diversity and evenness. Macroinfaunal (and physicochemical) metrics returned to ambient levels within approximately 500 m of the wellsite. The seafloor in the vicinity of the wellsite consists of soft bottom benthic habitat. The main concern for potential impacts is the accumulation of cuttings around the wellsite in areas such as deepwater hard bottom communities or chemosynthetic communities. These areas are associated with elevated densities of epifauna and fishes and are considered relatively rare and ecologically important. However, some wire corals (Cirrhipathes sp.) were observed in the southern portion of the PSEPBV’s area of interest during the 2014 Environmental Baseline Survey. The distribution of these corals was patchy and limited to the areas of the survey deeper than 75 m. A shallow hazards assessment study conducted in 2014 indicated that no hard bottom areas or features that could support chemosynthetic communities in the project area (Gardline Marine Services, 2014). The currents present in the Block 52 region are expected to facilitate the dispersion of drilling fluids and cuttings discharged from drilling rigs and should minimise benthic impacts (Appendix E). Use of a cuttings dryer is expected to reduce the chance of producing discernable cuttings piles. The thickest accumulations may result from release of cuttings and water-based “spud mud” during the initial well interval before the marine riser is set. These materials will bury and smother benthic organisms around the wellbore. Select muds and cuttings thicknesses and their respective areal extent were summarised in Tables 8-7 and 8-8. Simulation modelling results indicated that deposition thicknesses will range from 0.01 to 100 mm. Cutting deposits of approximately 0.01 mm in thickness are predicted to be confined within a radius of approximately 4.5 to 7.9 km and cover an area of ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 172

24 to 33 ha. Results also indicated that the deposition patterns will be oriented toward the west due to the predominant westward current direction (Figures 8-1 and 8-2). Adverse effects on benthic communities may occur as a result of several factors associated with muds and cuttings deposition, including: • • • •

Direct burial; Changes in sediment texture and grain size; Toxicity associated with chemical constituents in the deposited material; or Changes in interstitial oxygen concentration.

The adverse effects of direct burial depend on the composition of the indigenous soft bottom benthic community (e.g., relative composition of filter feeders, surface deposit feeders, and subsurface deposit feeders) as well as the normal depositional characteristics of the benthic environment. Most benthic fauna live in the upper few centimetres of offshore, fine-grained sediments, with maximum bioturbation ranging from 4 to 5 cm, although larger infaunal burrowers are known to extend 20 cm or more into the sediment. Infaunal feeding guilds are important in determining impacts from sediment deposition (i.e., filter feeding species are highly susceptible to increased sedimentation compared with deposit feeders). Barlow and Kingston (2001), assessing the effects of exposure to intermittent doses of barite (a major component of drilling fluids) to several benthic invertebrate species, documented adverse effects to filter feeding bivalves at drilling mud deposition levels of 1 mm d-1. In contrast, Smit et al. (2008), in their risk assessment of drilling discharges noted that the 50% and 5% hazardous levels for burial effects were 0.63 cm (0.31 to 1.06 cm, 5% to 95% confidence level [CL]) and 5.4 cm (3.7 to 7.9 cm, 5% to 95% CL), respectively. Infauna in Block 52 appear to be dominated by deposit feeders, suggesting that they will be tolerant of direct burial (CSA Ocean Sciences Inc., 2014; Appendix C). Further, the expected maximum muds and cuttings deposition thicknesses are well below the typical bioturbation range for most infauna. Changes in sediment texture will be restricted to the upper 20 mm maximum, with deposited material to be reworked into the sediment column over time via bioturbation. Results of sediment grain size (i.e., particle distribution) analysis conducted from samples collected at and near the Block 52 wellsite indicate that most sediments are muddy sand or sandy mud with a small gravel component. Sediments in the southeast quadrant of the block tend to be sandier, while sediments from the northwest and southwest quadrant showed silty-sand with a wide range in silt content. Changes in oxygen concentration within the sediment column (e.g., redox potential) may be expected to decrease at 1 cm or more below the sediment-water interface. For SBM cuttings, the toxicity of cuttings ingredients, the organic enrichment of sediments from biodegradation of organic matter, direct smothering of benthic fauna by the accumulation of cuttings solids on the seafloor, and alteration of sediment texture and physical/chemical properties, may all act to affect the benthic community. However, previous analyses have indicated that such alterations of sediments by SBM deposition render the sediments less suitable for some species and more suitable for others. Given the low deposition thicknesses expected from muds and cuttings discharges, the relatively low toxicity of the WBMs and cuttings and SBM-associated cuttings, and the nature of the indigenous benthic community, drilling discharges are expected to produce minor impacts to the benthic community. Overall impact significance of drilling discharges to benthic communities is low for WBM and cuttings, and medium for SBM cuttings.


8.3.4.3

M arine M am m als

As many as 24 marine mammal species may be present off the coast of Suriname (Section 7.6.5), including three species listed on the IUCN Red List as Endangered (blue, fin, and sei whales) and one categorized as Vulnerable (West Indian manatee). Rig Physical Presence Although there is no indication that marine mammals are attracted to offshore structures, some might be attracted to fish populations around the rig. Others may avoid the project area due to noise. The most likely impacts would be short-term behavioural changes, such as diving and evasive swimming, disruption of activities, or departure from the area. Overall impact significance of rig physical presence to marine mammals is low. Noise from Routine Rig Operations and Vertical Seismic Profiling upon Well Completion At the drillsite, noise will be produced from the drilling rig during positioning, while on site during drilling and non-drilling periods, and during rig removal. Noise from the drilling rig will be generated both during drilling and during non-drilling periods. Sound emanating from a drilling rig can be expected to be continuous, at levels between 145 and 191 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m while drilling, with most energy in the low-frequency bands. During non-drilling periods, sound source levels from the drilling rig will originate from diesel generators, cranes, and crew activity aboard the drilling rig; noise levels during non-drilling may be expected to be lower than during drilling (Nedwell et al., 2001). Low-frequency noise from offshore drilling activities can be detected by marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Mysticetes (baleen whales, such as the humpback, minke, and Bryde’s whales) are more likely to detect low-frequency sounds than are most odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins), which hear best in high frequencies. However, noise associated with drilling is relatively weak in intensity, and the animals’ exposure to the sounds would be transient. Some of the noise (from vessel engines and propellers) would be similar to the existing noise associated with shipping traffic in the region. Richardson et al. (1995) defined four zones of potential noise effects on marine mammals. In order of increasing severity, they are 1) audibility; 2) responsiveness (behavioural effects); 3) masking; and 4) hearing loss, discomfort, or injury (physical effects). The levels of sound produced during drilling are sufficient to be audible and produce behavioural responses, but much lower than those known to cause hearing loss, discomfort, or injury. Machinery noise generated during offshore drilling can be continuous or transient and vary in intensity, ranging from 20 to 40 dB above background levels within a frequency spectrum of 30 to 300 Hz at a distance of 30 m (98 ft) from the source (Gales, 1982). The levels vary with type of rig or platform and water depth. Based on the limited duration of drilling activities, this project would represent a temporary contribution to the overall noise regime in the project area and potential impacts to marine mammals from noise associated with routine rig operations are predicted to be minor. After the well has been drilled, and when commercial reserves are encountered, a vertical seismic profile (VSP) will be conducted in order to produce detailed seismic images of the well strata. VSP is carried out by lowering geophones into the wellbore and firing an airgun suspended in the water off the rig or a support vessel. A typical VSP may require up to 200 activations of the airgun over a period of 6 to 12 h. Unlike regular seismic surveys, the airgun in a VSP represents a fixed sound source and the geophone lowered into the wellbore is a single receptor source, not an array.


VSP could produce temporary or permanent auditory trauma to marine mammals – a potentially significant impact; however, this risk is limited to within a few hundred metres around the sound source and can easily be minimised through mitigation measures. The most effective mitigation measure recommended to prevent marine mammal impacts during VSP is the “soft start” procedure. This process involves initializing the airgun at its lowest possible power level over a period of 20 to 40 minutes then gradually increasing the power to the desired operational level. The soft start procedure allows time for marine mammals to move away from the sound source without being subjected to excessive sound levels. Behavioural responses such as avoidance (or in some cases, approach to operating sound sources) can be expected to occur within several kilometres of an operating array. While the biological importance of behavioural changes is not well understood, the consequences are not significant under most circumstances (McCauley et al., 2000; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004). The overall impact significance of rig and VSP noise to marine mammals is low. Solid Waste Marine mammals can become entangled in and ingest trash and debris, including materials lost overboard during offshore oil and gas operations (Laist, 1996). Marine debris is among the threats affecting the population status of both humpback and sperm whales (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1991, 2006). Disposal of trash and debris in the ocean is prohibited under MARPOL, and the drilling rig will operate under a Solid Waste Management Plan to ensure adherence to MARPOL. All solid waste will be transported to shore for disposal and will not be disposed of overboard. Accidental release of debris remains possible. Therefore, overall impact significance of solid waste, primarily associated with the accidental loss of debris, on marine mammals is low. Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic At the drillsite and along transit corridors between the rig and shore, noise will be generated by support vessels and helicopters. Noise will be generated from support vessels and helicopter traffic during transit to the location where drilling rig installation will occur. Vessel traffic is a major contributor to noise in the world’s oceans (National Research Council, 2003, 2005), especially at low frequencies between 5 and 500 Hz. Low-frequency vessel noise sources include propeller noise and propulsion machinery (e.g., diesel engines, gears, and major auxiliaries such as diesel generators). Supply vessels in transit to and from the drilling rig will produce transient sounds ranging from 128 to 158 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, with predominant low-frequency components. The support vessel remaining on standby near the drilling rig will produce lower, but continuous sound levels, as it is expected to be idling while on station. In similar fashion, helicopter visits to the drilling rig will produce predominantly low-frequency sound source levels of 162 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, with highest sound levels to be experienced directly below the aircraft. Helicopter noise, typically ranging from 160 to 162 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, root mean square (rms), is predominantly in the lower frequencies (i.e., 500 to 2,000 Hz). Aircraft noise refracts off the ocean surface except when directly overhead; airborne sounds attenuate relatively rapidly with depth. Vessel traffic is a major contributor to noise in the world’s oceans, especially at low frequencies between 5 and 500 Hz, (Ocean Studies Board, 2003). Sources of low-frequency from ships include noise from propellers, propulsion machinery such as diesel engines, gears, and major auxiliaries such as diesel generators. Odontocetes (and mysticetes, to a lesser extent) show some tolerance of vessels, but may react at distances of several kilometres or more under some circumstances, or when they learn to associate the noise with harassment (Richardson et al., 1995). Due to the short duration of the project and the infrequent nature of the support ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 175

vessel traffic, the occasional of vessel traffic significantly disturbing marine mammals is considered negligible. Overall impact significance of noise to marine mammals is low. There is a small possibility of a support boat striking a marine mammal during routine operations. The risk is similar to that associated with existing vessel traffic in the region. Collisions with dolphins or whales are considered highly unlikely; most dolphins are agile swimmers and are unlikely to collide with vessels. Of the 11 marine mammal species known to have been hit by vessels, fin whales were struck most frequently, sperm whales were hit commonly, and records of collisions with Bryde’s whales were rare (Laist et al., 2001). Although all sizes and types of vessels can collide with whales, the most lethal or severe injuries are caused by ships 80 m or longer and travelling 14 kn or faster (Laist et al., 2001). Helicopters will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and normally will take the most direct route of travel between the airport and the lease area when air traffic and weather conditions permit. Offshore support helicopters typically maintain a minimum altitude of 213 m while in transit offshore, 305 m over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 610 m over populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. Additional U.S. BOEM (2012) guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain an altitude of 305 m within 91 m of marine mammals. Due to the limited duration of the project and the relatively infrequent nature of the support vessel traffic, the likelihood of striking a marine mammal is considered occasional. Overall impact significance of vessel strike to marine mammals is low.

8.3.4.4

Sea Turtles

The eastern coastal areas of Suriname consist of sandy beaches, which are used as nesting sites for sea turtles. The beaches and adjacent marine waters are home to five species of sea turtles: • • • • •

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); Green turtle (Chelonia mydas); Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea); Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); and Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).

According to the 2014 IUCN Red List, hawksbill turtles are Critically Endangered, green and loggerhead turtles are Endangered, and olive ridley and leatherback turtles are Vulnerable (IUCN, 2014). Nesting in the region by green and leatherback turtles is quite extensive (Girondot et al., 2007). The olive ridley turtle shows wide fluctuations in nesting but is declining, and approximately 30 hawksbill turtle nests are seen per year. Loggerhead turtles occur in Suriname waters, but nesting has been observed only once (Schulz, 1975). Rig Physical Presence Some sea turtles, especially loggerheads, may be attracted to offshore structures (Rosman et al., 1987; Lohoefener et al., 1990; Gitschlag et al., 1997). It has been suggested that sea turtle hatchlings could be attracted to brightly lit offshore platforms, where they may be subject to increased predation by birds and fishes (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001). However, considering the drilling rig will be a single, temporary structure, any impacts on sea turtle populations are likely to be minor. Overall impact significance of rig presence to sea turtles is low.


Noise from Routine Rig Operations and Conducting the Vertical Seismic Profile upon Well Completion Auditory testing and behavioural studies show that sea turtles can detect low-frequency sounds (Ridgway et al., 1969; Bartol et al., 1999). Most common sound frequencies produced by rig operations and VSP overlap with the frequency range in which sea turtle hearing is most sensitive (100 to 700 Hz). It is likely that sea turtles would be able to hear noise associated with a drilling rig at a considerable distance from the source and possibly experience some disturbance. Only two sea turtle species, loggerhead and green, have undergone auditory investigations. The anatomy of the sea turtle ear does not lend itself to aerial conduction; rather, it is structured for sound conduction through two media: bone and water (Békésy, 1948; Lenhardt, 1982; Lenhardt and Harkins, 1983). In the absence of criteria for auditory trauma in sea turtles, the criteria for marine mammals usually are assumed to apply. VSP could produce temporary or permanent auditory trauma to sea turtles, but this risk is limited to within a few hundred metres around the sound sources and can easily be minimised through mitigation measures. The most effective mitigation measure recommended to prevent sea turtle impacts during VSP is the “soft start” procedure. This process involves initializing the airgun over a period of 20 to 40 minutes at its lowest possible power level then gradually increasing the power to the desired operational level. The soft start procedure allows time for sea turtles to move away from the sound source without being subjected to excessive sound levels. Behavioural responses such as avoidance (or in some cases, approach to operating sound sources) can be expected to occur within many kilometres of an operating array. While the biological importance of behavioural changes is not well understood, the consequences are not significant under most circumstances (McCauley et al., 2000; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004). Overall impact significance of rig and VSP noise to sea turtles is low. Solid Waste Ingestion of, or entanglement with, accidentally discarded debris can kill or injure sea turtles (Laist, 1996; Lutcavage et al., 1997). Marine debris is among the threats affecting the endangered population status of several sea turtle species (National Research Council, 1990). Leatherback turtles are especially attracted to floating debris, particularly plastic bags because they resemble their preferred food: jellyfish. Ingestion of plastic and Styrofoam can result in drowning, lacerations, digestive disorders or blockage, and reduced mobility. Disposal of trash and debris in the ocean is prohibited under MARPOL, and the drilling rig will operate under a Solid Waste Management Plan to ensure adherence to MARPOL. All solid waste will be transported to shore for disposal and will not be disposed overboard. Accidental release of debris remains possible. Therefore, overall impact significance of solid waste, primarily associated with the accidental loss of debris, on sea turtles is low. Support Vessel Traffic There is a remote possibility of a support vessel striking a sea turtle during routine operations. Vessel strikes are among the threats affecting the endangered population status of several sea turtle species (National Research Council, 1990). The risk for this project is similar to that associated with existing vessel traffic in the region. Studies indicate that sea turtles are at the sea surface only 10% of the time and readily dive to avoid approaching vessels (Byles, 1989; Lohoefener et al., 1990; Keinath and Musick, 1993; Keinath et al., 1996). Due to the limited duration of the project and the infrequent nature of the support vessel traffic, the likelihood of ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 177

striking any sea turtle is considered occasional. Overall impact significance of vessel strike on sea turtles is low.

8.3.4.5

M arine and Coastal Birds

Suriname contains Western Hemispheric Reserves for shorebirds. In 1989, the Bigi Pan Multiple Use Management Area MUMA, the Coppename-monding Nature Reserve, and the Wia-Wia Nature Reserve received the status of “Hemispheric Reserve” within the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Since then, these areas are twinned with two protected areas in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, which are used as breeding areas by the same flyway populations of Nearctic shorebirds visiting Suriname during northern winters. The estuaries of Suriname are also especially important for waterfowl. Rig Physical Presence Both positive and negative impacts of offshore structures on birds have been noted. Some birds may be attracted to offshore structures because of the lights and the fish populations that aggregate around these structures. Birds may use offshore structures for resting, feeding, or as temporary shelter from inclement weather (Russell, 2005). However, birds migrating over water at night have been known to strike offshore structures, resulting in death or injury (Wiese et al., 2001; Russell, 2005). The presence of a single drilling rig for a period of several months is unlikely to have any significant impact, either positive or negative, on seabirds or migratory birds. Overall impact significance of rig physical presence on marine and coastal birds is low. Solid Waste Debris accidentally lost overboard from offshore operations can injure or kill birds that ingest or become entangled in it. Disposal of trash and debris in the ocean is prohibited under MARPOL, and the drilling rig will operate under a Solid Waste Management Plan to ensure adherence to MARPOL. All solid waste will be transported to shore for disposal and will not be disposed overboard. Accidental loss of marine debris remains possible. Overall impact significance of solid waste, primarily associated with the accidental loss of debris, on marine and coastal birds is low. Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Vessel and helicopter traffic could periodically disturb individuals or groups of birds. However, it is likely that individual marine and pelagic birds would experience, at most, a short-term, behavioural disruption. Overall impact significance of support vessel and helicopter traffic on marine and coastal birds is low.

8.3.4.6

Protected Natural Areas w ithin the Study Area

The northern coastal plain of Suriname and nearshore waters comprise a mixture of diverse habitats that includes coral reefs, seagrass beds, mudflats, clay banks, sandy beaches, mangroves, lagoons, and swamps. As noted in Chapter 7.0, the following habitats are found along the Suriname coast or in nearshore waters: •

Coral reefs. Limited coral reefs are found in Suriname, primarily within the Blue Water or Outer Zone of the coastal zone of Suriname.

•

Seagrass beds. Seagrass species present in Suriname, including turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), occur in either mixed or monospecific beds in areas of clear water; Suriname seagrass beds are found in the clear, blue waters of the Outer Zone of Suriname’s coastal zone.


•

Soft mudflats. Mudflats are found along the entire coastline of Suriname.

•

Firm clay banks. The unstable shoreline of Suriname results from a cyclical succession of accretion and deposition, under the influence of the Guiana Current and the Northeast Trade Winds.

•

Sandy beaches. A few high sandy beaches exist in Suriname, including Babunsanti, Eilanti, and the beaches between Matapica and the mouth of the Suriname River; these beaches are important nesting areas for several species of sea turtles.

•

Mangroves, lagoons, and swamps. Mangroves develop on the higher parts of the mudflats and are composed primarily of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Lagoons are areas of restricted saltwater flow (saltwater pans). Suriname’s lagoons are bordered by a broad belt of herbaceous swamps, with decreasing salinity as the distance from the ocean increases; these habitats may consist of pure stands of club rush (Eleocharis mutate), which are found just behind the lagoon zone, or cattail (Typha angustifolia) and sedge (Cyperus articulatus), which are more inland.

Eight protected natural areas are found along the Suriname coast. These include the following four MUMAs and four nature reserves, presented in order from western to eastern Suriname: •

Multiple Use Management Areas: 1. Bigi Pan MUMA – located along the western Suriname coast; 2. Noord Coronie MUMA – located approximately 125 km west of Paramaribo; classified as a MUMA, the North Coronie wetlands have been designated as a Ramsar site; other land uses for North Coronie include fishing (mudflats) and hunting (swamps). The North Coronie wetland provides fish nursery habitat, migratory bird habitat, and water filtering, and it protects inland areas from rising sea levels. It is also home to three range-restricted bird species: Guyanian Piculet (Picumnus minufissimus), Blood-Colored Woodpecker (Veniliornis sanquineus), and Rufous Crabhawk (Buteogallus aequinoctialis). This site is considered to be vulnerable; 3. Noord Saramacca MUMA – located along the central Suriname coast, approximately 50 km west of Paramaribo; and 4. Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA – located along the eastern Suriname coast, approximately 65 km east of Paramaribo.

•

Nature Reserves (coastal): 1. Hertenrits Nature Reserve – located in western coastal Suriname, this nature reserve was established in 1986. Occupying 310 km², the reserve accommodates a great number of Mauritia palms (Mauritia flexuosa), Possentri forests (Hura crepitans), and Blue and Yellow Macaos (Ara ararauna). 2. Coppename-monding Nature Reserve – designated as a RAMSAR site, this nature reserve forms part of the estuarine zone of Suriname. The area has a high biological productivity, supporting large numbers of bird species, especially waterfowl, and serves as an important nursery ground for shrimp and fish species. The reserve is an important roosting and feeding area for scarlet ibises, egrets, and herons. It is also a wintering station for thousands of migratory birds, especially waders. 3. Wia-Wia Nature Reserve – established in 1966, it occupies 360 km². This nature reserve is located west of Galibi and was once important nesting grounds for sea turtles, but the beach no longer supports nesting. It remains an important habitat for birds, especially water birds. 4. Galibi Nature Reserve – established in 1969, Galibi is situated on the northeast coast and is estimated to occupy 40 km². Galibi was established to conserve sea turtles, providing sandy beaches for nesting. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 179

None of the protected natural areas lie within or adjacent to support vessel routes or helicopter flight routes out of Paramaribo. The closest protected natural area to Paramaribo is Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA. Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Vessel and helicopter traffic could periodically disturb individuals or groups of birds if their travel routes pass close to the Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA. However, it is likely that individual nesting or migrating birds would experience, at most, a short-term, behavioural disruption. Overall impact significance of support vessel and helicopter traffic on protected natural areas is low. 8.3.5

8.3.5.1

Socioeconomic and Cultural Conditions

Fishing

Rig Installation and Removal When the drilling rig is towed to the site, there will be limited vessel access around the drilling rig. Vessels typically operating in the area, including fishing boats, will be required to maintain a safe distance from towing operations. Any inconvenience associated with the rig tow is expected to be minimised by advance consultation with local port authorities and provision of Notice to Mariners in advance of rig arrival. Overall impact significance of rig installation and removal on fishing is low. Safety Zones All vessels (including fishing boats) will be excluded from a 500-m (1,640-ft) radius around the drilling rig for safety reasons. The support vessel will monitor the safety zone to help minimise the potential for other vessels to enter this zone. Any inconvenience associated with a safety zone is expected to be minimised by advance consultation with local port authorities and provision of Notice to Mariners in advance of rig arrival. Overall impact significance of the safety zone on fishing is low. Rig Physical Presence The presence of the drilling rig will attract fishes by providing shelter and food in the form of attached fouling biota (Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982). Offshore structures typically attract epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks (e.g., Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994). This “artificial reef effect” generally is considered a beneficial impact. However, artificial reefs may enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species, and this alteration could be considered a negative effect in areas with a large number of artificial reefs. Fishing may be enhanced near the drilling rig, but will be excluded within a 500-m radius around the rig. The overall effect of rig presence would be beneficial with regard to fishing activity. Impacts, either positive or negative, are probably negligible for a single drilling rig. Overall impact significance of rig physical presence on fishing is beneficial.

8.3.5.2

I ndustry, Shipping, and M aritim e Operations

The drilling rig will not be positioned near any major shipping lanes and will be marked with all the appropriate navigational markers. Negligible impacts on shipping or maritime operations are expected while the drilling rig is on site within Block 52. Towing of the drilling rig to the wellsite has the potential for impact through interaction with other vessels. The rig and its tow vessels will be properly lighted, visible on marine radar, and in compliance with ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 180

appropriate requirements for vessels under tow. Overall impact significance to industry, shipping, and maritime operations from towing the drilling rig will be low. Support vessels will use existing facilities and take the most direct route from the shorebase to the wellsite, as practical. The level of traffic associated with this project represents a small fraction of the existing vessel traffic in the area and is not expected to result in any impacts on shipping or maritime operations.

8.3.5.3

R ecreation and Aesthetics

The drilling rig will be located 109 km from the nearest coastline and will not be visible from shore. Offshore structures, such as drilling rigs and platforms, typically are visible from shore at distances of 5 to 16 km, with small structures (e.g., a single drilling rig) barely visible 5 km from shore. On a clear night, lights on top of offshore structures could be visible to a distance of approximately 32 km (20 mi) (U.S. MMS, 2002). Vessel and helicopter traffic could periodically disturb individuals using recreational beaches on a short-term basis. Typically, corporate helicopter policies advise helicopters to maintain a minimum altitude of 213 m (700 ft) while in transit offshore and 152 m (500 ft) when working between platforms. When flying over land, the specified minimum altitude is 305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and biologically sensitive areas. Overall impact significance of support vessel and helicopter traffic on recreation and aesthetics is low.

8.3.5.4

Onshore Socioeconom ic Conditions

Socioeconomic impacts that might result from offshore exploration activities will generally be considered positive by stimulating economic development associated with job creation. Localised socioeconomic impacts will vary depending on the nature, size, and location of the shorebase that will determine the number and extent of required local services and the subsequent need for local hiring. Local services could include supply of goods and services such as land; waterborne and airborne transportation; food, fuel, and water supply; solid waste handling, recycling, and disposal; water treatment; medical services; stevedoring; construction; warehousing; vehicle maintenance and repair; and security. The extent of local hiring for direct support of offshore exploration activities and the availability of local skilled workers is not known but may be limited due to specific technical, experience, and training requirements. The extent of local hiring may be limited to the shorebase, local transportation, and support vessels. Overall impact significance of the project to onshore socioeconomic conditions is beneficial. 8.4

ACCIDENTS OR UPSETS

This section focuses primarily on potential impacts of hydrocarbon spills. Two potential spill sources are considered: 1) a surface diesel spill, which might occur from a ship collision; and 2) a light crude subsurface release at a depth of 80 m resulting from a loss of well control (i.e., blowout). There are several considerations in evaluating potential spill impacts: • • • •

What is the probability of a spill occurring? If a spill occurs, where will it go, and how rapidly will the oil be weathered? If a spill occurs, what response measures are planned to deal with it? If a spill contacts shorelines or sensitive habitats, what are the potential impacts?


The simulation period requested by PSEPBV was for April through September, which represents the most likely drilling period. This period also encompasses portions of both the wet and dry seasons in the region and thus captures the varying conditions found during both seasons. Surface Diesel Spill. No diesel from a surface spill reaches shore because of the light nature of diesel and the local winds causing significant entrainment. The diesel surface spill footprint is seen to stretch primarily toward the west and northwest, though some trajectories are seen to move east and northeast. A diesel scenario shows a high probability of oiling in the waters of Suriname and a very low probability of any significant oiling in the waters beyond the Suriname Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Figure 8-3). Crude Oil Spill (Blowout). A blowout is an uncontrolled flow of reservoir fluids into the wellbore and, sometimes catastrophically, to the surface. A blowout may consist of saltwater, oil, gas, condensate, and drilling fluids, or a mixture of these components. During drilling, the well will be equipped with a blowout preventer (BOP), a special assembly of high-pressure valves fitted to the top of a well to prevent high-pressure oil or gas from escaping. Blowouts are rare events, and most of them do not result in spills. Statistics from offshore drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico provide a reasonable basis for evaluating spill risk. According to Holand (1997), the average blowout frequency for exploration drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is 0.00593 blowouts per well drilled, or 1 blowout per 169 exploration wells drilled. The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (2010) conducted an updated analysis using the SINTEF 1 database and estimated a blowout frequency of 0.0017 per exploratory well for non-North Sea locations. As noted by the U.S. MMS (2007b), from 1992 to 2005, 50% of blowouts lasted less than half a day, and less than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil. Historically, most blowouts have not resulted in oil spills; of 151 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico from 1971 to 1995, only 18 (12%) resulted in oil spills. The total volume released from all of these spills was 1,000 bbl of crude oil and condensate (U.S. MMS, 2001). Between 1964 and 1999, almost all offshore spills (94%) from drilling-and-production-related operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf were ≤1 bbl in size (Anderson and LaBelle, 2000). Although a blowout resulting in a large oil spill is a highly unlikely event, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico showed that significant blowouts are possible. That incident underscores the importance of contingency planning to respond effectively in the event of an uncontrolled release of crude oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons.

1 Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning (Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research, Norwegian Institute of Technology).


Figure 8-3.

Model simulation of an instantaneous 2,000-bbl diesel surface spill at the Roselle-1 wellsite: water surface oiling probabilities (top) and minimum travel times (bottom).


Spill Modelling. To address the questions of environmental impact and response time for a potential spill from an exploratory well in Block 52, a series of oil spill trajectories were computed from the proposed wellsite location. The purpose of developing multiple scenarios was to evaluate how long it would take for a potential spill to reach landfall under predicted oceanographic and meteorological conditions, and to assist PSEPBV in determining how much time it may have to respond to a spill before it reaches shore. This information can be used for the purpose of oil spill contingency planning. Spill trajectories considered the catastrophic release of crude oil resulting from a blowout. Modelling results for both trajectory and weathering are presented in Appendix G. The only conditions under which modelling indicates that released oil would reach the coast of Suriname would be when there is no current (i.e., zero current). Block 52 lies along the southern boundary of the North Brazilian Current and conditions of zero current virtually never exist there. Modelling was conducted based on a release of 30,000 bbl d-1 for a period of 21 days, or a total release of 630,000 bbl. Modelling was continued over a 30-day period. Modeling results indicate that 56.5% of the crude oil would reach shore with more than 0.001% of the initial spilled volume. These spill scenarios reached shore in an average of 20.8 days and a minimum of 12.4 days (Appendix G). The footprint extends primarily toward the west-northwest, though some trajectories move north and northeast from the spill site (Figure 8-4). The crude oil oil scenarios indicate a high probability of oiling within the waters of Suriname and Guyana. A low probability of oiling is observed in the waters of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, and a very low probability of oiling is observed in the waters of Venezuela, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Martinique, Dominica, Guadeloupe, Monserrat, Antigua, and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis. For all model runs, entrainment and evaporation are the dominant fate and weathering mechanisms, primarily due to the strong winds observed in the region. Wind direction in the study area is predominantly onshore (Appendix G). However, because of the high amounts of entrainment, most oil is transported northwest along the coast by the strong currents present in the region, thus avoiding the shorelines to the southwest and west of the spill site (Figure 8-4).


Figure 8-4.

8.4.1

8.4.1.1

Model simulation of a 21-day, 630,000-bbl subsurface crude oil release (water surface oiling probabilities and minimum travel times) modelled at the Roselle-1 wellsite.

Impacts from a Surface Diesel Spill

Air Quality

A diesel fuel release would affect air quality in the vicinity of the oil slick by introducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through evaporation. Evaporation is greatest within the first several days following a diesel spill, typically during the first 24 to 48 h. The more toxic, light aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons are lost rapidly by evaporation and dissolution (National Research Council, 1985; Payne et al., 1987). Evaporated hydrocarbons are degraded rapidly by sunlight. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 185

Biodegradation of diesel fuel on the water surface and in the water column by marine bacteria and fungi initially removes the n-alkanes and subsequently the light aromatics. Other components are biodegraded more slowly. Photooxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of a diesel release. The extent and persistence of impacts on air quality would depend on meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time. Little or no impact on air quality in coastal areas would be expected due to the distance of drillsite from shore as well as the degree of weathering expected. A surface diesel spill would have an effect on local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the spill, but these effects should dissipate rapidly. Overall impact significance of a diesel spill on air quality is expected to range from negligible to low.

8.4.1.2

W ater and Sedim ent Quality

A diesel spill would affect marine water quality by increasing hydrocarbon concentrations due to dissolved components and small oil droplets. Most dissolution occurs with the first 3 to 5 days following a diesel spill. Dispersion and natural weathering processes are expected to rapidly remove the hydrocarbons from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels.Overall impact significance of a diesel spill on water quality is expected to range from negligible to low. Diesel releases are unlikely to affect sediments unless carried into shallow water. Trajectory modeling projections indicate that spilled diesel fuel will not reach shore. Diesel reaching nearshore waters, where it may adsorb to suspended particulates in the water column, will have undergone significant weathering. Such deposition, should it occur, will occur 7 to 14 days after the initial spill release. Adsorbed diesel will have undergone extensive evaporation and lesser amounts of dissolution and biodegradation, with most toxic components evaporated. Due to spill spreading and weathering, diesel fuel available for sedimentation will be present in relatively low concentrations. The less volatile fractions remaining in spilled diesel will retain some toxicity (e.g., PAHs), although the level of toxicity is expected to be low as a result of dispersion and resulting low concentration levels. No impacts on sediments are predicted.

8.4.1.3

M arine Biota

Plankton and Fishes A diesel spill would not be expected to have significant impacts on plankton and nekton because of the strong currents and rapid dispersion. Planktonic communities drift with water currents and recolonise from adjacent areas. Because of these attributes and their short life cycles, plankton usually recover relatively rapidly to normal population levels following disturbances. Overall impact significance of a diesel spill on plankton and fishes is expected to range from negligible to low. Benthic Communities A surface diesel spill would have no impact on benthic communities. Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Marine and Coastal Birds A surface diesel spill of short duration would not be expected to have significant impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, or marine and coastal birds. Factors include the expected low density of marine mammals and sea turtles in the drilling area, the rapid weathering of diesel spilled on the ocean surface, the relatively small area affected, and the short period of spill presence on the sea surface. Overall impact significance of a diesel spill on marine mammals, sea turtles, and marine and coastal birds is expected to range from negligible to low.


8.4.1.4

Socioeconom ic and Cultural Conditions

An offshore diesel spill would not be expected to affect socioeconomic or cultural conditions. Dispersion and natural weathering processes are expected to rapidly remove the hydrocarbons from the water column and dilute the constituents to background levels. 8.4.2

Crude Oil Spill

The environmental effects of a crude oil spill resulting from a blowout could vary substantially depending on the size of the spill, the duration of the release, its chemical characteristics, oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Any large spill would have the potential to affect air quality, water quality, marine biota, sensitive ecosystems and habitats, and socioeconomic and cultural conditions.

8.4.2.1

Air Quality

A crude oil spill would affect air quality in the vicinity of the oil slick by introducing VOCs through evaporation. The emissions would last as long as new spilled oil continued to reach the sea surface, although rapid volatilization of hydrocarbons within the spilled oil would be expected. Evaporation is greatest within the first 24 h. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time. Overall impact significance of a crude oil on air quality is expected to range from negligible to low.

8.4.2.2

W ater Quality

A crude oil spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water and increase hydrocarbon concentrations. Most crude oil components are not soluble in water and have densities less than seawater, resulting in spill material that floats on the sea surface where weathering will take place. Water-soluble fractions of the spilled crude oil will disperse into the water column. Overall impact significance from a crude oil spill on water quality is expected to range from low to medium.

8.4.2.3

M arine Biota

Plankton and Fishes A crude oil spill could affect water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fishes. While adult and juvenile fishes may actively avoid a large oil spill, the planktonic eggs and larvae would be unable to avoid contact. Fish eggs and larvae will die if exposed to certain toxic fractions of spilled oil. Many fishes inhabiting coastal waters have planktonic eggs and larvae. Impacts would be greater if local-scale currents retained planktonic larval assemblages (and the floating oil slick) within the same water mass. However, due to the wide dispersal of early life history stages of fishes in the surface waters of the region, a spill is not expected to have significant impacts at the population level. Overall impact significance from a crude oil spill on plankton and fishes are expected to range from negligible to low. Benthic Communities A subsurface blowout resulting in a crude oil spill could affect benthic communities within a few hundred metres of the drillsite. While some oil could initially adhere to surface sediments surrounding the drillsite, resulting in smothering and/or toxicity to benthic organisms, most of the oil is likely to rise rapidly through the water column. The physical impacts of a subsurface crude oil spill are a consideration as well. The U.S. MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe subsurface crude oil spill could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300-m radius. While coarse sediments (sands) would probably settle at a rapid rate within 400 m from the blowout site, fine sediments (silts and clays) could be resuspended for more than 30 days and dispersed over a much wider area. The affected area would be recolonised by benthic ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 187

organisms over a period of months to years. Overall impact significance from a crude oil spill on benthic communities is expected to be low. Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Marine and Coastal Birds Spilled oil may affect marine mammals through various pathways: direct contact, inhalation of oil or related volatile distillates, ingestion of oil (directly, or indirectly through the consumption of oiled prey species), and impairment of feeding for mysticetes through fouling of baleen (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1990). Marine mammals surfacing within or near an oil spill may inhale petroleum vapours. Ingested oil, particularly the lighter fractions, can be toxic to marine mammals. Ingested oil can remain within the gastrointestinal tract and be absorbed into the bloodstream and thus irritate and/or destroy epithelial cells in the stomach and intestine. Certain constituents of oil, such as aromatic hydrocarbons and PAHs, include some well-known carcinogens. These substances, however, do not show significant biomagnification in food chains and are readily metabolized by many organisms. Spilled oil may also foul the baleen fibres of mysticetes, thereby impairing food gathering efficiency or resulting in the ingestion of oil or oil contaminated prey (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1990). Spilled oil may affect sea turtles through various pathways: direct contact, inhalation of oil or related volatile distillates, ingestion of oil (directly, or indirectly through the consumption of oiled prey species), and ingestion of floating tar (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1990). Several aspects of sea turtle biology and behaviour place them at risk, including lack of avoidance behaviour, indiscriminate feeding in convergence zones, and inhalation of large volumes of air before dives (Milton et al., 2003). Studies have shown that direct contact of oil with sensitive tissues such as eyes and other mucous membranes produce irritation and inflammation. Oil can adhere to sea turtle skin or shells. Sea turtles surfacing within or near an oil spill may inhale petroleum vapours. Ingested oil, particularly the lighter fractions, can be toxic to sea turtles. Hatchling and juvenile sea turtles feed opportunistically at or near the surface in oceanic waters, and are especially sensitive to spilled oil and oil residues such as floating tar (Lutcavage et al., 1997). Tar found in the mouths of sea turtles may have been selectively eaten or ingested accidentally while feeding on organisms or vegetation bound by tar (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1990). Any of the five species of sea turtles present offshore of Suriname could be affected by a crude oil spill. The area affected would be variable, ranging from small to large relative to the available ocean habitat, depending upon the duration of the release, the anticipated weathering characteristics, and spill response capabilities. It is possible that individual sea turtles may come into contact with these sources of spilled oil, and some individuals may not recover from such exposure. Spilled oil may affect birds through various pathways. Direct contact with oil may result in the fouling or matting of feathers with subsequent limitation or loss of flight capability, or insulating or water repellent capabilities; irritation or inflammation of skin or sensitive tissues such as eyes and other mucous membranes; or toxic effects from ingested oil or the inhalation of oil or related volatile distillates. While seabirds could come into contact with a spill in offshore waters, the total area of a slick will be variable, depending upon the duration of the crude oil spill. The risk would be greater if oil moved into intertidal areas where seabirds and shorebirds may be foraging. In a worst case, it is possible that birds along oiled shorelines could be exposed to oil and require cleaning and/or treatment. Overall impact significance from a crude oil spill on marine mammals, sea turtles, and birds is expected to range from negligible to low to medium.


8.4.2.4


The impacts of an oil spill on coastal habitats could vary substantially depending on the size of the spill, the amount of oil reaching the habitat, its chemical characteristics, the oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time of the spill, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. A large crude oil spill could persist long enough to reach the coastline. Open lagoons and estuarine wetlands that are important for birds and mangroves are rated as having very high sensitivity. The high sensitivity designation applies to sandy beaches with sea turtle nesting; rocky flats with abundant crevices; intertidal rocks with algae exposed at low tide; open coastal lagoon/estuaries; and semi-closed lagoons that are important for birds. The remaining coastal areas as well as open coastal waters are more robust against oil spill impacts and are rated as having medium or low sensitivity. Overall impact significance from a crude oil spill on protected natural areas is expected to range from low to high.

8.4.2.5

Socioeconom ic and Cultural Conditions

The following subsections address potential impacts of a large crude oil spill resulting from a blowout. Fishing A large crude oil spill could have impacts on commercial fishing if the spill went uncontrolled for many days or if the spill reached the coastal areas of Suriname or adjacent countries. The area affected probably would be small relative to the total offshore area available for fishing, and the duration presumably would be a few days to a few weeks. Overall impact significance to commercial fishing from a crude oil spill is expected to range from negligible to low. Resource Use A large crude oil spill is unlikely to have any impacts on local resource use. In the event of a large spill requiring a significant response effort, spill response and cleanup operations would be handled by specialised international contractors; therefore, it would be unlikely any local supplies or resources would be required. Overall impact significance to resource use from a crude oil spill is expected to be negligible. Local Labour Usage A large crude oil spill is unlikely to have any impacts on local labour usage. In the event of a large spill requiring a significant response effort, spill response and cleanup operations would be handled by specialised international contractors; therefore, it would be unlikely any local employment would be required. Overall impact significance to local labour usage from a crude oil spill is expected to be negligible. Industry, Shipping, and Maritime Operations A large crude oil spill is unlikely to have significant impacts on industry, shipping, or maritime operations. A Tier 3 response would be necessary for an uncontrolled crude oil spill. Under these circumstances, spill containment, cleanup operations, and other support activity will require the use of additional vessels, aircrafts, and personnel. It is possible that ships would be excluded from the spill response area for a brief time. The spill response team would work with local authorities to minimise any impacts on shipping or other vessel traffic. Overall impact significance to industry, shipping, and maritime operations from a crude oil spill is expected to range from negligible to minor. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 189

8.5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are those resulting from the incremental effects of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes them. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. In addition to this project, other sources of impact that may contribute to cumulative impacts include the drilling of other exploration wells offshore Suriname and other human activities in the offshore region, including fishing and ship traffic. In general, potential impacts from the project are expected to be of short duration and concentrated mostly within a few hundred metres of the wellsite. Some impacts such as the physical disturbance of the seafloor by jack-up rig legs will incrementally add to the impacts of previous drilling offshore Suriname. Due to the localised nature of the impacts, there is little chance of cumulative or synergistic impacts with other drilling activities in the region. Discharges such as treated sanitary and domestic wastes and deck drainage will dilute rapidly in the sea and are expected to be undetectable within a short distance of the discharge point. Zones of impact from other drillsites in the area are not likely to overlap and therefore the potential for cumulative impacts is low. 8.6

TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS

Suriname is bounded to the east by French Guiana (Guyane), to the south by Brazil, and to the west by Guyana; farther to the west lies Venezuela. Block 52, including PSEPBV’s proposed exploratory wellsite, lies approximately 109 km offshore of Suriname, approximately 225 km from territorial waters of French Guiana (to the east) and 270 km from Guyana (to the west). The predominant oceanographic surface currents (i.e., North Brazilian Current, Guiana Current) and near-surface atmospheric winds in this offshore region (including Block 52) flow predominantly to the west and west-northwest. Consequently, Suriname’s neighbours to the west (Guyana and Venezuela) are the countries most likely to be affected by Block 52 activities. Coastal portions of Guyana and Venezuela as well as their offshore territorial waters, are considered potential areas of any identified transboundary impacts. Estimated distances to offshore waters and coastal areas of Guyana and Venezuela, however, suggest that the vast majority of impact agents (impact-producing factors) associated with normal operations will be reduced to near-background levels by the time they are transported into adjacent waters. Based on the impact analysis outlined in Section 8.3, routine project-related impact-producing factors, including combustion emissions, various discharges, noise and visual impacts, and support vessel and helicopter activity, will be localised around the drilling rig and along the vessel or helicopter routes from shore-based facilities at Paramaribo to Block 52. Table 8-10 summarises the routine impact-producing factors, their extent, and their potential for transboundary impacts. In general, impacts from most sources occur within several kilometres of the drilling rig or support vessel or helicopter routes from shore to the Block 52 area, resulting in no potential transboundary impacts. The only exception is floating marine debris which, when accidentally dropped overboard, would be transported by surface currents towards Guyana, Venezuela, and points west of Block 52.


Impacts potentially resulting from accidents or upsets associated with Block 52 exploratory operations were outlined in Section 8.4. Table 8-10 summarises the accident-related impact-producing factors, their extent, and their potential for transboundary impacts. A diesel spill is expected to disperse and weather rapidly, with very low potential to reach the territorial waters of Guyana or Venezuela. Table 8-10.

Summary of impact producing factors identified for PSEPBV’s proposed exploratory drilling programme on Block 52 and the potential for transboundary effects.

Impact-Producing Factor

Description of Impact Extent

Routine Operations Rig Installation and Localised disruption of other sea uses within several Removal kilometres of the drilling rig. Rig Physical Presence Safety zone extends 500 m from drilling rig; noise (including noise and and lights impacts extend several kilometres or lights) more from the drilling rig. Deposition of muds and cuttings will occur within Drilling Discharges hundreds of metres to several kilometres from the discharge. Discharges of sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, miscellaneous discharges, and well Other Discharges testing fallout will remain localised, within 1 km or less of the drilling rig. Floating marine debris accidentally lost overboard from the drilling rig or support vessels may be Solid Wastes carried beyond the project area and transit routes by local currents; sinking marine debris will remain localised relatively close to the drilling rig. Emissions from the drilling rig, support vessels, and helicopters will produce localised increases in air Combustion Emissions pollutants, which will disperse within several kilometres of the source. Support Vessel and Vessel and helicopter traffic follow direct routes from Helicopter Traffic shore base or airport at Paramaribo. Onshore Support Base Support base activity at Paramaribo to be limited to Activity local influences. Accidents or Upsets Contamination of water column with hydrocarbons. Surface Diesel Spill Due to rapid weathering of the base oil, the main impact would be on water quality near the spill site. Contamination of water column with hydrocarbons. Potential death or injury of marine mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, fishes, etc. Crude Oil Spill (Blowout) Coastal resources, including corals and wetlands, could be at risk if a large spill moved into coastal areas.

8.7

Potential for Transboundary Impacts None None

None

None

Moderate

None

None None

Low

High

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with the proposed exploratory drilling operations on Block 52 are summarized in Table 8-11. The table has been organised by project activity, identifying the specific source of an impact and the resource(s) affected. A brief description of each impact is provided along with impact ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 191

likelihood, impact characteristics (direct, short- vs. long-term, reversible), overall impact significance level (e.g., beneficial, negligible, low, medium, high), and available mitigation. Most routine project-related activities are expected to produce negligible or low impacts. A single medium impact (i.e., drilling discharges of cuttings with adhering SBM) and two potentially beneficial impacts (artificial reef effect – attraction of plankton and fishes to the drilling rig; stimulation of economic development – potential increase in local hiring, local services) were noted as well. For accidents or upsets, two accident scenarios were evaluated. A diesel spill is expected to produce negligible to low levels of impact to several resources. A well blowout, accompanied by a release of crude oil, could produce negligible to high impacts on the physical-chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environment, underscoring the importance of adhering to established safety procedures, routine maintenance, and oil spill contingency planning.


Table 8-11.

Impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with proposed exploratory drilling operations in Suriname Block 52. Impact significance definitions are provided in Section 8.1.3.

Project Activity/ Source of Impact

Resources Affected

Description of Impact

Impact Likelihood

Impact Characteristics

Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures (in addition to standard management procedures)

Direct; Short-term; Reversible

Low

Early consultation with relevant authorities. Provide Notice to Mariners.

Routine Operations Rig Installation and Removal Rig tow

Rig placement and removal

Well abandonment

Safety zone

Fishing; Industry, shipping, and maritime operations

Temporary disruption of other sea uses while drilling rig is being towed to the wellsite.

Spud can scars, sediment Sediment quality; redistribution. Turbidity due to Water quality; resuspended sediment. Plankton and fishes; Crushing, burial of benthic Benthic communities organisms.

Likely

Likely

Direct; Short- and long-term; Reversible

Release of excess cement. Direct; Turbidity due to resuspended Sediment quality; Short- and Likely sediment from rig removal. Benthic communities long-term; Burial of benthic organisms by Reversible sediments and cement. Rig Physical Presence (including noise and lights) Fishing; Industry, shipping, and maritime operations

500-m safety zone will exclude fishermen from an area of <10 ha. Also, trawling will be excluded within safety zone, but none is known to occur in the area.

Likely



Low (sediment quality, water quality, benthic Place drilling rig exclusively communities) in soft bottom areas. Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Low

None available.

Low (fishing) Negligible (industry, shipping, and maritime operations)

Early consultation with relevant authorities. Provide Notice to Mariners.

Table 8-11. (Continued). Project Activity/ Source of Impact

Physical presence including lights

Resources Affected


Impact Likelihood

Attraction of fish and plankton (artificial reef effect). Possible Plankton and fishes; enhancement of fishing near Benthic communities; drilling rig (but fishermen Fishing excluded from 500-m radius). Possible organic enrichment of the benthos.

Likely

Marine mammals and Possible avoidance behaviour. sea turtles

Likely

Birds may stop/rest on drilling rig, small chance of a bird striking drilling rig at night. Drilling rig will not be visible Recreation and from shore while on site; aesthetics (onshore, during rig tow, drilling rig and visual) support vessels may be visible. Marine and coastal birds

Occasional

Impact Characteristics Direct (plankton and fishes, and benthic communities); Indirect (fishing); Short-term; Reversible Direct; Short-term Reversible Direct; Short-term; Reversible

Impact Significance


Beneficial

None required; beneficial impact.

Low

None available.

Low

None available.

Low

None available.

Likely


Low

Ramp up of vertical seismic profile equipment. Visual observation and site clearance.

Noise from vertical seismic profiling

Marine mammals and Possible hearing impacts, sea turtles avoidance behaviour.

Likely


Noise from routine operations

Marine mammals and Possible avoidance behaviour. sea turtles

Likely


Low

None available.

Direct; Short- to long-term; Reversible

Low

None available.

Seafloor releases (spud mud, cuttings, cement)

Drilling Discharges Cuttings/cement mound around wellsite (tens of Sediment quality; Likely metres radius). Turbidity near Water quality; Benthic communities seafloor. Burial/smothering of benthic organisms.



Drilling discharges – Water-based drilling fluids and cuttings

Drilling discharges – cuttings with adhering syntheticbased mud drilling fluids

Sanitary and domestic waste (black/grey water and food waste)

Deck drainage (including treated drainage from machinery areas)

Resources Affected


Turbidity in water column. Sediment deposition, altered Sediment quality; grain size, and sediment Water quality; chemistry mostly within few Plankton and fishes; hundred metres of drilling rig. Benthic communities Burial/smothering of benthic organisms.

Impact Likelihood

Likely

Minor turbidity in water column. Sediment deposition, altered grain size, and sediment chemistry mostly Sediment quality; within a few hundred metres Water quality; Likely Plankton and fishes; of the drilling rig. Possible Benthic communities sediment anoxia due to residual SBM on cuttings. Burial/smothering and anoxia effects on benthic organisms. Other Discharges Altered water quality including Water quality; biochemical oxygen demand, Plankton and fishes suspended solids, and nutrients.

Water quality; No sheen or detectable water Plankton and fishes quality impact expected.

Likely

Likely


Direct; Relatively short-term; Reversible

Direct; Long-term; Reversible




Impact Significance Low (sediment quality, water quality, benthic communities) Negligible (plankton and fishes) Medium (sediment quality and benthic communities) Low (water quality) Negligible (plankton and fishes)


Cuttings dispersion modelling.

Cuttings dispersion modelling. Use cuttings dryer to minimise residual fluid on cuttings.

Low (water quality) Negligible (plankton and fishes)

All discharges must comply with MARPOL requirements. No additional mitigation.

Negligible

Decks drain to an oil and water separator before water portion is discharged. All discharges must comply with MARPOL requirements. No additional mitigation.


Miscellaneous discharges (cooling water, blowout preventer hydraulic fluid, etc.)

Resources Affected


Altered water quality within Water quality; few metres to tens of metres Plankton and fishes of discharge.

Impact Likelihood

Likely



Impact Significance

Low

Mitigation Measures (in addition to standard management procedures) All discharges will comply with MARPOL (vessel discharges), U.S. EnvironmentPA (rig discharges), and international oil and gas best management practices. No additional mitigation.

Solid Wastes Sediment quality; Water quality; Marine debris Benthic communities; (non-hazardous Marine mammals and waste accidentally sea turtles; lost overboard) Marine and coastal birds Onshore land use Hazardous and (onshore non-hazardous waste socioeconomic for onshore disposal conditions)

Drilling rig engines and support vessel

Air quality

Support vessel emissions

Air quality

Potential entanglement and ingestion of debris. Debris falling to the seafloor.

Incremental contribution of waste requiring landfill usage.

MARPOL prohibits jettison of waste to sea. Solid waste management plan minimises potential for accidental loss overboard.

Occasional

Direct; Short- to long-term; Reversible

Low

Likely


Low

None available.


Low

Use low sulphur diesel if available.


Low

Use low sulphur diesel if available.

Combustion Emissions Minor impacts on air pollutant concentrations near drilling rig. No coastal/onshore Likely impacts due to quantities emitted, short-term nature of drilling, distance from shore, and prevailing wind direction. Minor impacts on air pollutant concentrations along travel Likely routes between drilling rig and support base.



Resources Affected

Helicopter emissions

Air quality

Marine mammals and sea turtles; Marine and coastal Support vessel traffic birds; and noise Protected Natural Areas; Recreation and aesthetics Marine mammals and sea turtles; Marine and coastal birds (nesting, Helicopter traffic and coastal); noise Protected Natural Areas; Recreation and aesthetics Onshore Supply of goods and socioeconomic services conditions Support vessel movements in the harbour Vessel pilot and dockage fees

Industry, shipping, and maritime operations Onshore socioeconomic conditions


Impact Likelihood


Negligible impacts on air Direct; pollutant concentrations along Likely Short-term; travel routes. Reversible Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Potential for disturbing marine mammals, sea turtles, coastal birds, and a small chance of a vessel striking a marine mammal or sea turtle. Support vessels will be visible from shore during transit.

Potential for disturbing marine mammals, sea turtles, coastal nesting birds, or affecting recreation and aesthetics.

Occasional

Occasional



Onshore Support Base Activity Stimulation of economic Direct; development – increase in use Likely Short-term; of local services and potential Reversible increase in local hiring Direct; Increase in harbour vessel Short-term; Likely activity Reversible Direct; Additional income for Harbour Short-term; Likely Administration Reversible


Impact Significance


Low

None required.

Low

Plan travel routes to avoid wildlife areas and bird colonies.

Low

Plan flight paths to avoid populated areas, wildlife areas, and bird colonies. Set minimum cruise altitudes. Routine flights during daylight hours only.

Beneficial

None required.

Low

None required.

Beneficial

None required.


Resources Affected


Impact Likelihood


Impact Significance


Negligible to Low

Diesel fuel transfer procedures to be audited in detail by PSEPBV. Watch to be kept. Tier 1 and 2 equipment and resources will be deployed commensurate with identified offshore and coastline risks.

Accidents or Upsets

Diesel fuel spill (surface)

Crude oil spill (blowout)

Localized increases in VOCs; Air quality; Water contamination of water column quality; Plankton and with hydrocarbons. Due to fishes; Marine low toxicity and rapid dispersal mammals; Sea of the base oil, detectable turtles; Marine and impacts on marine biota are coastal birds; unlikely. Air quality; Water quality; Plankton and fishes; Marine mammals and sea turtles; Marine and coastal birds; Protected Natural Areas; Fishing; Industry, shipping, and maritime operations

Localized increases in VOCs; contamination of water column with hydrocarbons. Potential death/injury of marine mammals, turtles, birds, fishes, etc. Coastal resources, including corals and wetlands, could be at risk if a large spill moved into coastal areas.

Rare

Remote to Rare


Direct; Short- to Negligible to long-term; Predominantly High Depending on Resource reversible, depending upon Affected amd environment or Circumstances resource affected


Tier 1, 2, and 3 equipment and resources will be deployed commensurate with identified offshore and coastline risks. Oil spill dispersion modelling.

9.0 Mitigation Measures The policy of PETRONAS and its subsidiaries is “to conduct business in a manner that respects the environment as well as the health and safety of its employees, its customers, its contractors and the communities where it operates.” The foundation for PETRONAS’ success is achieving outstanding HSE performance concurrently with operational excellence and positive financial results. PSEPBV will do the following to adhere to this HSE policy: •

Demonstrate visible and active leadership in all of its business activities by providing resources necessary to manage and communicate HSE commitment, expectations, and accountability in the same manner as any other critical business function. Appropriate systems and procedures will be enforced to ensure compliance with this policy and these principles.

•

Make it clear to all employees and contractors that working safely is a condition of employment, and expect every employee and contractor to take personal responsibility to understand and implement the principles of this HSE policy.

•

Comply with all applicable HSE laws, legislation, international agreements, and regulations in the countries or communities where PSEPBV operates and implement responsible controls where such laws, legislation, and regulations do not exist.

•

Provide training and training criteria to employees and contractors to perform their job safely and effectively, utilising their knowledge and skills to maintain a safe and healthy work environment.

•

Identify and assess potential hazards and threats to people, the environment, and assets. Implement reasonable and practicable actions to eliminate, mitigate, or manage these risks.

•

Continue to minimise the impact of its operations, products, and services on the environment by implementing economically feasible projects that promote energy efficiency and use natural resources effectively.

•

Strive to achieve its goal of eliminating environmental and safety incidents. In the event an incident occurs, appropriate response, corrective action, and reporting will be performed in a timely manner.

•

Work proactively with stakeholders to develop and advance effective approaches to human HSE protection.

•

Achieve continuous HSE improvement and compliance by setting targets, auditing assets and business practices, reviewing results, and reporting on performance.

•

Implement HSE management systems to achieve the objectives outlined in this policy.

By adopting this HSE Policy and set of principles, PSEPBV demonstrates its commitment to conduct business in a manner that protects human health and the environment. PSEPBV intends to make consistent measurable progress in implementing these principles and apply them to all aspects of its operations.


9.1

CONTINGENCY, EMERGENCY, AND SAFETY PLANS

Several environmental protection measures are included in the proposed project, as summarised below: •

PSEPBV will maintain an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) that outlines separate components covering routine operations and upset conditions, including well control, fire and explosion, escape of gases containing H 2 S, collision, and others (Appendix H).

•

A separate OSCP provides an action plan for operations offshore Suriname, outlining communication and spill response hierarchies and response capabilities (Appendix L). The rig contractor and each vessel also will have a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. The OSCP outlines spill surveillance methods and on-site oil spill response capabilities (e.g., boom, sorbents, oil recovery capability, and dispersants) and provides information and protocols relating to Oil Spill Response Limited, of which PSEPBV is a sustaining member.

•

All sanitary and domestic wastes will be processed through an on-site waste treatment plant before being discharged overboard and will meet MARPOL discharge standards.

•

All deck drainage will be passed through a gravity oil/water separator, and water will be discharged to the ocean with an oil content not to exceed 15 ppm (MARPOL requirement). Separated oil will be held for onshore disposal or recycling.

•

All trash, except for food wastes, will be collected, segregated, and shipped to shore for processing and disposal. No trash or equipment will be deliberately dumped overboard (Appendix I).

9.2

RIG INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Installation and removal of the jack-up drilling rig will comply with the requirements and specifications of the HSE management plan implemented by the rig owner. The rig operator will have adopted an integrated approach to its management of HSE designed to protect the safety, health, and welfare of personnel and others who may be affected by company operations as well as being protective of the environment. The framework of the PSEPBV HSE follows “Plan – Do – Check – Act,” providing a method for a continual improvement cycle. The management system involves a risk-based approach that enables the PSEPBV to meet current industry safety and operational standards. Bridging documents will be put in place to ensure all PSEPBV subcontractors meet PSEPBV safety and performance standards. 9.3

DRILLING OPERATIONS

PSEPBV will either implement its own HSE standards to address drilling operations or approve those of the PSEPBV designated drilling contractor via bridging documents. It is expected that, regardless of whose corporate HSE guidelines for drilling operations are utilised, they will comply in principle with existing international drilling standards (e.g., International Association of Drilling Contractors, 2009). Further, drilling guidelines and standards are expected to include the following elements: • • • •

HSE Management (e.g., drilling contractor’s management system); MODU/Rig Description and Supporting Information; Risk Management; Emergency Response; and ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 200

•

Performance Monitoring.

As standard oilfield practice, BOP equipment will be used during drilling operations. The site-specific well drilling plan will include detailed drilling, casing, and cementing programmes. These documents also summarise onboard safety equipment, safe drilling procedures, and potential drilling hazards. After the well has been drilled, it will be evaluated for the presence of hydrocarbons using electronic logging, including vertical seismic profiling, which uses an airgun as the sound source. Irrespective of whether or not a commercially viable reservoir is found at the well, it will be permanently plugged and abandoned. Plugging, by means of cement and/or mechanical plugs, will be carried out to prevent flow of any hydrocarbons to the surface. In addition, zones in the wellbore known to contain moveable hydrocarbons will also be plugged and isolated. The surface casing and the conductor will be cut below the mud line, leaving behind a clear seafloor as required by Suriname regulations or as otherwise approved by Suriname authorities. The permanent abandonment procedures for the well will be designed specifically for the well after drilling and evaluation. Abandonment procedures will be consistent with industry-wide practices and procedures and ensure environmental protection as well as safety (e.g., compliance with existing U.S. BOEM or international standards). 9.4

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Waste Management Plan (Appendix I) designates the principal contractor responsible for the ultimate disposal of all waste produce during this project. It also details the waste streams including hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and waste segregation requirements. The final “Points of Disposal” and “end contractors” for each waste stream (hazardous and nonhazardous) are identified. 9.4.1

Waste Classification and Waste Management

PSEPBV and its Waste Management contractor will ensure the segregation and classification of all wastes generated during the project. As part of its Waste Management Plan, PSEPBV will strive to manage its wastes in a safe and responsible manner as per the PERTONAS HSE MCF (Appendix M). Tools (e.g., Waste Management Matrix; Weekly Discharge Logs and Waste Tracking Notes) will be used to simplify and monitor waste management procedures. These tools are outlined in greater detail in the Waste Management Plan (Appendix I) 9.4.2

Waste Oil

Excess waste oil that cannot be recycled or incinerated will be treated as Hazardous Waste (Section 9.4.4). 9.4.3

Solid Waste

All solid waste except food waste that may be discharged in accordance with MARPOL requirements, must be collected in segregated bins, stored, transferred, and disposed of in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Solid (non-hazardous) wastes will be sorted into the following combustible and non-combustible wastes: •

Combustible solid wastes may be burned once delivered to the onshore waste management facilities. Ash residue will then be encapsulated for burial.


•

Non-combustible wastes (e.g., plastics, metals, glass) will be segregated and stored in appropriate containers at the rig site, shore base, or other location. A record of waste volume and type will be kept by an Offshore Installation Manager, Drilling Representative, or PSEPBV Manager designee. The waste will be manifested and transferred from the drilling rig to a support vessel for transport to the shore base at Paramaribo. The designated Waste Management contractor will manage the chain of custody of all waste and its final processing at the appropriate recycling or disposal facilities.

9.4.4

Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste may be toxic, flammable, or otherwise hazardous to personnel or the environment and includes excess waste oil, oily rags, medical waste, batteries, paint, solvents, etc. If in doubt, the U.S. domestic definition of hazardous waste will serve as a guide to types of waste included in this definition. These wastes will be segregated from other garbage and stored separately in a manner appropriate to the type of waste. Transfer from the facility for disposal will be at an appropriately equipped port reception facility or through the appropriate transporter or disposal contractor. Quantities and types of hazardous wastes transferred for disposal will be logged by an Offshore Installation Manager or appropriate PSEPBV Manager designee. The Waste Management contractor will hold hazardous waste at their facility pending processing and disposal at an appropriate facility. Under no circumstances will hazardous wastes be sent ashore or moved from a PSEPBV location without prior approval from the Offshore Installation Manager or appropriate designee. If the proper means of disposal for any waste is uncertain, the PSEPBV HSE Manager shall be contacted. 9.4.5

Shorebase Disposal of Waste

Solid non-combustible wastes will be shipped to appropriate waste disposal facilities for proper disposal. Waste oil may also be shipped onshore for appropriate disposal. Additional waste management options are detailed in the EMP (e.g., Waste Management Worksheet) and will be updated prior to the start of exploratory drilling operations. 9.4.6

Waste Volumes

Waste volumes from the Block 52 exploratory drilling programme will vary depending on the type of activities underway. Tools (e.g., Waste Management Matrix; Weekly Discharge Logs and Waste Tracking Notes) will be used as part of PSEPBV’s waste management procedures, which will take into account anticipated volumes in planning for the handling and disposal of all wastes. 9.5

PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION

As part of the impact assessment process outlined in Chapter 8.0, environmental hazards and risks were identified that could arise from routine, project-related activities and non-routine activities associated with exploratory drilling and support operations. The process involved reviewing events that are expected to occur during the exploratory drilling programme (i.e., routine, project-related events) and events that are not expected to occur during the exploratory drilling programme (i.e., accidents or upsets) but have the potential to cause a recognised hazard. Table 8-10, organised by project activity, identifies the specific source of an impact and the resource(s) potentially affected by that impact. The table also briefly described each impact and its likelihood, characteristics (e.g., direct, short- vs. long-term, reversible), overall impact significance level designation (e.g., negligible, low, medium, high), and available mitigation. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 202

Table 9-1 summarises the mitigation measures identified by activity. The table includes standard management procedures used for mitigation, including routine maintenance, testing, and monitoring requirements.


Table 9-1.

Project-specific mitigation measures, by activity.

Project Activity

Rig Installation and Removal

Rig Physical Presence (including noise and lights)

Drilling Discharges

Mitigation Measures Routine Operations • Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners. • Place drilling rig exclusively in soft bottom areas. • Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners. • During vertical seismic profiling, ramp up air gun array and conduct visual observations and site clearance to verify that the project area is clear of marine mammals and sea turtles. • Cuttings dispersion modelling has been conducted. • Use cuttings dryer to minimise residual fluid (SBM) on cuttings.

Standard Management Procedures • Compliance with drilling subcontract’s HSE guidelines and requirements for positioning, relocation, and demobilisation of the MODU. • Compliance with and maintenance of proper navigation safety lighting in accordance with international standards (e.g., IACS, IMO, and SOLAS). • Routine inspection and maintenance of drilling muds and cuttings processing equipment (cuttings dryer, mud circulation system, mud pit). • Routine monitoring of residual oil (SBM) on cuttings. • Monitoring and maintenance of drilling fluid properties. • Properly train crew in monitoring and well control procedures. • Maintenance of a properly functioning surface control system.

• All discharges must comply with international guidelines • Routine inspection and maintenance of waste processing (MARPOL). Other Discharges equipment (e.g., marine sanitation devices, oil-water separators, • Waste Management Supervisor to make an extended oil monitors). visit to the rig at project start. • MARPOL prohibits jettison of waste to sea. Solid waste management plan minimises potential for accidental • Routine inspection and maintenance of food waste processing Solid Wastes loss overboard. equipment (i.e., food macerators). • Waste Management Supervisor to make an extended visit to the rig at project start. • Routine inspection and maintenance of engines and generators. Combustion Emissions • Use low sulphur diesel if available. • Monitoring of fuel utilization. • Plan support vessel travel routes to avoid wildlife areas and bird colonies. • Routine inspection and maintenance of support vessels and Support Vessel and Helicopter • Plan helicopter flight paths to avoid populated areas, helicopters, per manufacturer’s guidelines. Traffic wildlife areas, and bird colonies. Set minimum cruise • Routine inspection and testing of emergency equipment. altitudes. • Conduct routine flights during daylight hours only. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 204

Project Activity Onshore Support Base Activity

Mitigation Measures • None required.

Standard Management Procedures • Compliance with PSEPBV HSEMS requirements.

Accidents or Upsets Diesel Fuel Spill

• Drilling rig hose management/transfer procedures to be audited in detail by PSEPBV. Watch to be kept.

• Routine inspection and maintenance of fuel transfer hoses, storage vessels, and emergency oil spill equipment/stores. • In the event of a spill, implement OSCP.

• Tier 1 and 2 equipment/resources will be deployed • Compliance with industry procedures and accepted domestic or commensurate with identified offshore and coastline international protocols – BOP, risers, drilling mud systems, risks. testing procedures. Crude Oil Spill from a Blowout • Oil spill dispersion modelling. • Routine inspection and testing of BOP prior to installation; • Sustaining membership of Oil Spill Response Limited, a regular testing of BOP while in place. global response company providing access to Tier 3 • In the event of a spill, implement OSCP. response equipment. BOP = blowout preventer; HSE = Health, Safety and Environment; HSEMS = Health, Safety and Environment Management System; IACS = International Association of Classification Societies; IMO = International Maritime Organization; MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978; MODU = mobile offshore drilling unit; OSCP = Oil Spill Contingency Plan; SOLAS = Safety of Life at Sea; VSP = vertical seismic profile.



10.0 Determination of Significance 10.1

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SOURCES

PSEPBV’s proposed exploratory drilling programme includes the drilling of one well estimated to begin in April of 2016. Sources of potential impact from routine exploratory drilling operations, as detailed in Chapter 8.0, include the following: • • • • • • • •

Rig installation and removal; Rig physical presence (including noise and lights); Drilling discharges; Other discharges; Solid wastes; Combustion emissions; Support vessel and helicopter traffic; and Onshore support base activity.

For analysis of accidents or upsets, two scenarios were also considered: • •

A surface diesel spill; and A major crude oil spill resulting from a subsurface blowout.

As part of the impact assessment process outlined in Chapter 8.0, environmental impacts and risks were identified that could arise from routine project-related activities and non-routine activities (i.e., accidents or upsets) associated with exploratory drilling and support operations. As a screening mechanism and to focus the impact assessment, a matrix was developed that identified specific sources of impact from the exploratory drilling project and the resource(s) potentially affected by each impact (Table 8-1). 10.2

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CLASSIFICATIONS

Impact analysis considered impact consequence and likelihood to determine overall impact significance. Impact consequence and impact likelihood are two factors used to determine the overall significance of an impact, which provides the foundation for an environmental risk assessment. Impact consequence reflects an assessment and determination of an impact’s characteristic on a specific resource. Impact categories range from 1 through 4 (negligible, low, medium, and high, respectively). Impact significance is resource-specific, with classifications ranging from beneficial to high (Table 10-1). Impact likelihood (i.e., probability of occurrence) was determined for each impact and defined as follows: • • • •

Likely (>50% to 100%); Occasional (>10% to 50%); Rare (1% to 10%); or Remote (<1%).

The matrix integrating impact consequence with impact likelihood (Table 10-2) provided the basis for determining overall impact significance.


Table 10-1.

Definitions of impact significance.

Consequence Beneficial Negligible Minor

Physical/Chemical Environment

Biological Environment

Socioeconomic and Cultural Environment

Likely to cause some enhancement to the environment or the social/economic system Changes unlikely to be noticed or measurable against background activities Changes that can be monitored and/or noticed but are within the scope of existing variability and do not meet any of the High or Medium definitions (above) One or more of the following impacts:

•

One or more of the following impacts:

• Moderate

•

Occasional and/or localised violation of air or water quality standards or guidelines Persistent sediment toxicity or anoxia in a small area

Localised, reversible damage to sensitive habitats such as sensitive deepwater communities, hard/live bottom communities, seagrass beds, marshes, and/or coral reefs, and other sites identified as MPAs, marine protected habitats, or areas of special concern

•

Extensive damage to non-sensitive habitats to the degree that ecosystem function and ecological relationships could be altered

•

Death, injury, disruption of critical activities (e.g., breeding, nesting, nursing), or damage to critical habitat of individuals of a species listed by the IUCN as Endangered, Critically Endangered, or Vulnerable


• One or more of the following impacts:

•

Widespread, persistent contamination of air, water, or sediment

•

Frequent, severe violations of air or water quality standards or guidelines

Severe

•

Extensive, irreversible damage to sensitive habitats such as sensitive deepwater communities, hard/live bottom communities, seagrass beds, marshes, and/or coral reefs, and other sites identified as MPAs, marine protected habitats, or areas of special concern Death or injury of large numbers of a species listed by the IUCN as Endangered, Critically Endangered, Or Vulnerable, or irreversible damage to their critical habitat

IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature.


One or more of the following impacts: • Disruption of fishing activities at any location for more than 30 days or exclusion from more than 10% of the fishable area at a given time • Impacts leading to greater than a 10% change in fishery harvest Localised, reversible impacts on recreational resources such as beaches, boating areas, and/or tourist area


•

Extensive, irreversible damage to recreational resources such as beaches, boating areas, and/or tourism

•

Impacts posing a significant threat to public health or public safety

•

Impacts of a magnitude sufficient to alter the nation’s social, economic, or cultural characteristics, or result in social unrest

Table 10-2.

Matrix combining impact consequence and likelihood to determine overall impact significance.

Decreasing Impact Likelihood

Likelihood vs. Consequence

10.3

Beneficial

Likely Occasional Rare Remote

Beneficial (no numeric rating applied)

Decreasing Impact Consequence Negligible Minor Moderate 1 2 3 (Negligible) (Low) (Medium) 1 2 3 (Negligible) (Low) (Medium) 1 1 2 (Negligible) (Negligible) (Low) 1 1 2 (Negligible) (Negligible) (Low)

Severe 4 (High) 4 (High) 4 (High) 3 (Medium)

IMPACT DETERMINATIONS

Table 10-3 identifies the impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with proposed exploratory drilling operations. The table briefly describes each impact, its likelihood, its characteristics (direct, short- vs. long-term, reversible), and impact classification (negligible, low, medium, high). Most routine project-related activities associated with exploratory activities proposed for Block 52 are expected to produce negligible or low impacts. Exceptions include 1) medium impact to sediments and benthic communities associated with drilling discharges of cuttings with adhering SBM fluids; 2) beneficial impacts to plankton, fishes, and fishing from rig presence (artificial reef effect and attraction); and 3) beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources from project activities onshore (stimulation of economic development – an increase in the use of local services and potential increase in local hiring). For accidents or upsets, a surface diesel spill is expected to produce negligible levels of impact to most resources, while a crude oil spill from a blowout may be expected to produce negligible to high impacts on the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic/cultural environments in offshore and nearshore waters of Suriname and coastal resources of Suriname and its neighbours to the west. 10.4

MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The identification and application of mitigation measures is intended to reduce the severity or magnitude of identified impacts, reduce their longevity, or reduce their probability of occurrence. Mitigation measures were identified for the vast majority of project-related impacts and for all of the impacts identified in association with accidents or upsets (Table 9-1). Mitigation measures were cited alongside standard management procedures (e.g., training, routine inspection and maintenance, adherence to existing international regulations or industry best practice), providing a more comprehensive overview of available mechanisms to reduce impact likelihood. Mitigation effectiveness represents the next step in the impact assessment process by characterising the remaining or residual impact after application of mitigation. Residual impact determinations use the same impact classifications and definitions applied to the initial impact assessment. Table 10-3 summarises proposed mitigation measures for project-related and accident-based impacts and identifies the respective residual impact.


In many cases, impact levels have not changed as a result of mitigation, although the likelihood or overall magnitude of an impact has been reduced. In some instances, low level impacts have been reduced to negligible (e.g., rig tow impacts to fishing and shipping; VSP noise impacts to marine mammals). In other cases, such as with support vessel and helicopter traffic and noise, the low level impacts have been reduced to a hybrid level (i.e., negligible to low). Among the accidents considered in this analysis, the residual impacts resulting from the unlikely blowout scenario were not reduced; however, sensitive resources are afforded a greater degree of protection through required mitigation measures. 10.5

POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY

More than 20 impact-producing factors associated with routine project-related activities were identified in this impact analysis, along with two accident and upset scenarios. Twenty plus environmental resource categories covering the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environment of Suriname were characterised and evaluated. Table 10-4 summarises the overall impact significance for all project-related and accident-based impacts identified for PSEPBV’s proposed exploratory programme in Block 52. The table has been organised to present both the source of impact (i.e., impact-producing factors, along the vertical axis) and the environmental resources potentially affected (i.e., resources potentially at risk, along the horizontal axis). No individual high impact levels were identified. The highest levels of impact noted (i.e., medium to high) were found in association with the crude oil blowout accident scenario, a scenario whose likelihood is considered remote to rare. For the other accident scenario (a small diesel spill), a negligible impact determination was predicted. For routine, project-related activities, the majority of overall impact significance determinations were negligible to low or low. Medium impact levels were very limited, only found in association with the discharge of drill cuttings with adhering SBM. There also were several beneficial impacts identified in association with the proposed exploratory drilling programme.


Table 10-3. Project Activity/ Source of Impact

Impact determinations for routine project-related activities and accidents associated with proposed exploratory drilling operations, PSEPBV Suriname Block 52. Impact significance before and after mitigation (i.e., residual impact) noted. Resources Affected


Impact Likelihood

Impact Characteristics and Consequence

Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

• Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners.

Negligible

Routine Operations Rig Installation and Removal Fishing; Temporary disruption of other Industry, shipping, sea uses while drilling rig is Rig tow and maritime being towed to the wellsite. operations


Sediment quality; Water quality; Plankton and fishes; Benthic communities

Spud can scars, sediment redistribution. Turbidity due to resuspended sediment. Crushing, burial of benthic organisms.

Release of excess cement. Turbidity due to resuspended Well sediment from rig removal. abandonment Burial of benthic organisms by sediments and cement. Rig Physical Presence (including noise and lights) Sediment quality; Benthic communities

Safety zone

500-m safety zone will exclude Fishing; fishermen from an area of Industry, shipping, <10 ha. and maritime Also, trawling will be excluded operations within the safety zone, but none is known to occur in the area.

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Likely

Direct; Short- and long-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor (sediments, water quality, and benthic communities); Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Likely

Direct; Short- and long-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor (fishing), Negligible (industry, shipping, and maritime operations)

Low Low (sediment quality, water quality, and benthic communities)

• Place drilling rig exclusively in soft bottom areas.

Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Low

Low (fishing) Negligible (Industry, shipping, and maritime operations)


Low

Negligible

• None available.

• Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners.

Low

Low

Negligible



Resources Affected Plankton and fishes; Benthic communities; Fishing

Attraction of fishes and plankton (artificial-reef effect). Possible enhancement of fishing near drilling rig (but fishermen excluded from 500-m radius). Possible organic enrichment of the benthos.

Marine mammals and sea turtles

Possible avoidance behaviour.

Marine and Coastal Birds

Birds may stop/rest on drilling rig, small chance of a bird striking drilling rig at night.

Recreation and aesthetics (onshore, visual)

Drilling rig will not be visible from shore while under tow or on site. Support vessels will be visible during port visits.

Noise from Marine mammals vertical seismic and sea turtles profiling Noise from routine operations


Marine mammals and sea turtles

Possible hearing impacts, avoidance behaviour.

Possible avoidance behaviour.

Impact Likelihood


Direct (plankton and fishes, and benthic communities); Likely Indirect (fishing); Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Beneficial Direct; Short-term; Likely Reversible; Consequence: Minor Direct; Short-term; Occasional Reversible; Consequence: Minor Direct; Short-term; Likely Reversible; Consequence: Negligible

Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Beneficial

• None required; beneficial impact.

Beneficial

Low

• None available.

Low

Low

• None available.

Low

Low

• None available.

Low

Likely


Low

• Ramp up of vertical seismic profile equipment. • Visual observation and site clearance.

Likely


Low

• None available.

Low

Likely

Direct; Short- to long-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Low

• None available.

Low

Negligible

Drilling Discharges Seafloor releases (spud mud, cuttings, cement)

Sediment quality; Water quality; Benthic communities

Cuttings/cement mound around wellsite (tens of metres radius). Turbidity near seafloor. Burial/smothering of benthic organisms.



Drilling discharges – Water-based drilling fluids and cuttings

Drilling discharges – cuttings with adhering SBM drilling fluids

Resources Affected



Turbidity in water column. Sediment deposition, altered grain size, and sediment chemistry mostly within a few hundred metres of the drilling rig. Burial/smothering of benthic organisms.


Minor turbidity in water column. Sediment deposition, altered grain size, and sediment chemistry mostly within a few hundred metres of the drilling rig. Possible sediment anoxia due to residual SBF on cuttings. Burial/smothering and anoxia effects on benthic organisms.

Impact Likelihood


Likely

Direct; Relatively short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor (sediments, water quality, benthic communities), Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Likely

Direct; Long-term; Reversible; Consequence: Moderate (sediments, benthic communities), Minor (water quality); Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Impact Significance Low (sediment quality, water quality, and benthic communities) Negligible (plankton and fishes) Medium (sediment quality and benthic communities)

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Low • Cuttings dispersion modelling. Negligible

• Cuttings dispersion modelling. • Use cuttings dryer to Low minimise residual fluid on (water quality) cuttings. Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Medium

Low Negligible

Other Discharges Sanitary and domestic waste Water quality; (black/grey Plankton and water and food fishes waste)

Altered water quality including biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and nutrients.

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor (water quality), Negligible (plankton and fishes)

Low (water quality) • All discharges must comply with MARPOL guidelines. Negligible (plankton and • No additional mitigation. fishes)

Low

Negligible

• Decks drain to an oil and

Deck drainage (including treated drainage from machinery areas)

Water quality; Plankton and fishes

No sheen or detectable water quality impact expected.

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Negligible


Negligible

water separator before water portion is discharged. • All discharges must comply with MARPOL guidelines. • No additional mitigation.

Negligible

Table 10-3. (Continued). Project Activity/ Resources Source of Affected Impact Miscellaneous discharges Water quality; (cooling water, Plankton and BOP hydraulic fishes fluid, etc.) Solid Wastes Marine mammals and sea turtles; Marine debris Marine and (non-hazardous Coastal Birds; waste Sediment quality; accidentally lost Water quality; overboard) Benthic communities Hazardous and Onshore land use non-hazardous (onshore waste for socioeconomic onshore conditions) disposal Combustion Emissions

Drilling rig emissions

Air quality

Support vessel Air quality emissions


Air quality


Altered water quality within few metres to tens of metres of discharge.

Impact Likelihood

Likely

Impact Characteristics and Consequence Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Negligible

Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Low

• All discharges must comply with international guidelines (MARPOL). • No additional mitigation.

Low

• MARPOL prohibits

Potential entanglement and ingestion of debris. Debris falling to the seafloor.

Incremental contribution of waste requiring landfill usage.

Minor impacts on air pollutant concentrations near the drilling rig. No coastal/onshore impacts due to quantities emitted, short-term nature of the drilling, distance from shore, and prevailing wind direction. Minor impacts on air pollutant concentrations along travel routes between drilling rig and support base. Negligible impacts on air pollutant concentrations along travel routes.

jettison of waste to sea. Solid waste management plan minimises potential for accidental loss overboard.

Direct; Short- to long-term; Occasional Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Low

Likely


Low

• None available.

Low

Likely


Low

• Use low sulphur diesel if available.

Low

Low

• Use low sulphur diesel if available. • Charter fuel-efficient vessels.

Low

Low

• None required

Low

Likely

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Minor Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Negligible


Low

Table 10-3. (Continued). Project Activity/ Resources Source of Description of Impact Affected Impact Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Marine mammals Potential for disturbing marine and sea turtles; mammals, sea turtles, coastal Marine and birds, and a small chance of a Support vessel Coastal Birds; vessel striking a marine traffic and noise Protected Natural mammal or turtle. Support Areas; vessels will be visible from Recreation and shore during transit. aesthetics Marine mammals and sea turtles; Marine and Potential for disturbing marine Coastal Birds mammals, sea turtles, coastal Helicopter (nesting; coastal); nesting birds, or affecting traffic and noise Protected Natural recreation and aesthetics. Areas; Recreation and aesthetics Onshore Support Base Activity Stimulation of economic Supply of Onshore development through increased goods and socioeconomic use of local services and services conditions potential increase in local hiring.

Impact Likelihood


Direct; Short-term; Occasional Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Direct; Short-term; Occasional Reversible; Consequence: Minor

Likely

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Beneficial

Support vessel Industry, Shipping, Increase in harbour vessel movements in and Maritime activity. the harbour Operations

Likely


Onshore Vessel pilot and socioeconomic dockage fees conditions

Likely


Additional income for Harbour Administration.


Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Low

• Plan travel routes to avoid wildlife areas, bird colonies

Negligible to Low

Low

• Plan flight paths to avoid populated areas, wildlife areas, bird colonies. Set minimum cruise altitudes. • Routine flights during daylight hours only.

Negligible to Low

Beneficial

• None required

Beneficial

Low

• None required

Low

Beneficial

• None required

Beneficial


Resources Affected


Impact Likelihood


Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact

Negligible to Low

• Diesel fuel transfer procedures to be audited in detail by PSEPBV. Watch to be kept. • Tier 1 and 2 equipment and resources will be deployed commensurate with identified offshore and coastline risks.

Negligible to Low

Accidents or Upsets Air quality; Water quality; Plankton Diesel fuel spill and fishes; Marine (surface) mammals; Sea turtles; Marine and coastal birds;

Localized increases in VOCs; contamination of water column with hydrocarbons; possible localised impacts on plankton and fishes. Due to low toxicity, not likely to affect marine mammals, turtles, or birds.

Water quality; Plankton and fishes; Marine mammals and turtles; Marine and Coastal Birds; Protected Natural Areas; Fishing; Industry, shipping, and maritime operations

Localized increases in VOCs; contamination of water column with hydrocarbons. Potential death/injury of marine mammals, turtles, birds, fishes, etc. Coastal resources, including corals and wetlands, could be at risk if a large spill moved into coastal areas.

Crude oil spill (blowout)

Rare

Remote to Rare

Direct; Short-term; Reversible; Consequence: Negligible to Minor

Direct; Short- to long-term; Predominantly reversible, depending upon environment or resource affected; Consequence: Severe

• Tier 1, 2, and 3 equipment and resources Medium to High will be deployed epending on commensurate with Resource Medium to High identified offshore and Affected amd coastline risks. Circumstances • Oil spill dispersion modelling.

BOP = blowout preventer; MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; SBM = synthetic-based mud.


Table 10-4.

Summary of overall impact significance for project-related activities and accidents associated with the PSEPBV Suriname Block 52 exploratory drilling programme, based on residual impact determinations (i.e., after mitigation). Environmental Resource

Fishing

Industry, Shipping, and Maritime Operations

Recreation and Aesthetics

-

-

-

-

-

Negligible

Negligible

-

-


-

Low

Low

Negligible

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

Well abandonment

-

Low

-

-

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-



-

Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Marine and Coastal Birds

-

Benthic Communities

Rig tow

Project Activity and Source of Impact

Plankton and Fishes

Water Quality


Sediment Quality

Biological

Air Quality

Physical/Chemical


Rig Physical Presence (including lights and noise) Safety zone

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Low

Negligible

-

-


-

-

-

Beneficial

Beneficial

Low

-

Beneficial

-

Negligible

-

Noise from vertical seismic profiling

-

-

-

-

-

Negligible

-

-

-

-

-

Noise from routine operations

-

-

-

-

-

Low

-

-

-

-

-

Low

Low

Drilling Discharges Seafloor releases

-

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

Drilling discharges (WBM, cuttings) Drilling discharges (cuttings, adhering SBM)

-

Low

Low

Negligible

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Medium

Low

Negligible

Medium

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sanitary and domestic wastes

-

-

Low

Negligible

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Deck drainage

-

-

Negligible

Negligible

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Miscellaneous discharges

-

-

Negligible

Negligible

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other Discharges


Table 10-4. (Continued). Environmental Resource

Plankton and Fishes

Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Marine and Coastal Birds


Fishing

Industry, Shipping, and Maritime Operations

Recreation and Aesthetics


-

Low

Low

-

Low

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Low

-

Benthic Communities

Water Quality


Sediment Quality

Project Activity and Source of Impact

Biological

Air Quality

Physical/Chemical

Solid Wastes Marine debris Hazardous and nonhazardous waste (onshore disposal)

Combustion Emissions Drilling rig emissions

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Support vessel emissions

Low

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Negligible

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic NegligibleLow NegligibleLow Onshore Support Base Activity

NegligibleLow NegligibleLow

NegligibleLow NegligibleLow

Support vessel traffic and noise

-

-

-

-

Helicopter traffic and noise

-

-

-

Supply of goods and services

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Support vessel movements in harbour

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Low

-

-

Vessel pilot and dockage fees

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Beneficial

Negligible MediumHigh

-




MediumHigh

MediumHigh

MediumHigh

MediumHigh

MediumHigh

-

Beneficial

Accidents or Upsets Diesel fuel spill (surface) Crude oil spill (blowout)

-

-

SBM = synthetic-based mud; WBM = water-based mud.


11.0 Environmental Management Plan 11.1

OVERVIEW

Environmental management of PSEPBV activities in Suriname is implemented through a hierarchy of policies, plans, and procedures that cascade from the PSEPBV Corporate to all its individual subcontractors and operations. These policies and procedures are framed and implemented within the PSEPBV Corporation Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) Management System, which is brought forward in this Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. The drilling programme will be implemented through the use of equipment and personnel provided by third-party subcontractors and other specialists. The PSEPBV EMP will be implemented through the drilling subcontractor’s corporate HSE and safety systems for activities on board the MODU and through corporate EMPs of the operating companies of the helicopters, supply vessels, and the shore-based mud plant. These systems include elements such as the environment and general shipboard management as well as procedures for the bridge, engine room, deck, cargo, and use of drilling equipment. The EMPs for the other principal subcontractors will contain specialist provisions for their operations. PSEPBV will ensure that the MODU’s EMP plans and other direct contractors’ plans are aligned with PSEPBV's EMP by use of Bridging Documents. Bridging documents will identify and address any differences in procedures between PSEPBV and their subcontractors as well as address any site-specific hazards of the drilling programme. PSEPBV will conduct an extensive comparison and review of subcontractor’s plans, processes, and procedures to the PSEPBV EMP to ensure their plans are acceptable for use as the primary system to be adhered to during the drilling campaign. Similar comparisons will be made for the other direct subcontractors working on the project. The EMP Bridging Document will identify common processes and approaches to address any differences in procedures between PSEPBV and subcontractors as well as address any site-specific hazards of the drilling programme. 11.2

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND OPERATIONS

PSEPBV proposes the initiation of a one-well exploratory drilling programme in Block 52, offshore Suriname. The proposed exploratory wellsite, designated Roselle-1, is located along the continental shelf break, approximately 140 km (75 nmi) north of Paramaribo in a water depth of 88 m. Surface location coordinates and general characteristics for the well are provided in Table 11-1. Drilling operations are expected to start in April of 2016 and continue for 90 days. All exploratory drilling will be conducted from a jack-up MODU. Both WBMs and SBMs will be used during drilling and discharged on site after appropriate processing. WBMs will be used in the upper sections of the borehole, while SBMs will be used in the bottom section of the well. No whole SBMs will be discharged. Used WBM and associated cuttings and SBM-drilled cuttings with a maximum of 6.9% residual SBM on cuttings will be discharged into the ocean. The initial two sections (36" and 26" diameter) of the hole will have no surface returns; spud WBM and cuttings from this section will exit the borehole at the seafloor. Cuttings volumes for each section of the well are detailed in Table 11-2.


Table 11-1.

Well location, water depth, and general well characteristics for the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme.

Characteristic Operator Location X (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Y (WGS-84, UTM 21N) Latitude Longitude Well class Water depth Proposed spud date Total drilling time Total depth

Table 11-2.

Roselle-1 Wellsite PETRONAS Suriname Exploration & Production B.V. Block 52 700225.0 m 799843.8 m 07°13'56.796" (N) 55°11'11.719" (W) Vertical exploration well 87 m (285.4 ft) 1 April 2016 90 days (not including additional operations) 5,030 m TVDDF (±100 m)

Types and volumes of mud products to be used and volumes discharged.

Drilling Diameter Start Date Section duration (in.) (season) (days) 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 26 17½ 12¼ × 14¾ 10⅝ × 12¼ 8½

Cuttings Discharge Rate (m3 d-1) 44.5 76.8 33.2

Drilling Fluid (Mud) Discharge Vol. Rate (m3) (m3 d-1) 191 62.0 401 135.9 n/a n/a

Mud Type

Release Depth

Seawater WBM SBM

Seabed Sea surface Sea surface

2nd quarter 2nd quarter 2nd quarter

3.08 2.95 5.48

Vol. (m3) 137 192 182

2nd quarter

3.63

144

39.7

n/a

n/a

SBM

Sea surface

2nd quarter

17.45

105

6.0

n/a

n/a

SBM

Sea surface

2nd quarter

7.23

21

2.9

205

28.4

SBM/WBM Sea surface

1 Toxicity test data (LC 50 96-h) along with the Material Safety Data Sheet for VASSA, the SBM proposed for this exploratory well are provided in Appendix K. WBM = water-based drilling mud; SBM = synthetic-based drilling mud.

WBM will be dumped as each well section is completed. SBM will be reused for each section and sent back to the mud supply company after drilling is completed. The type MODU proposed for this project has living accommodations for a proposed crew of 80 personnel. PSEPBV expects the crew compliment to total approximately 80 regular personnel. Volumes of treated sanitary and domestic wastes expected to be discharged from the drilling rig are outlined in Table 11-3.


Table 11-3.

Total estimated amounts of sanitary and domestic waste generated from the drilling rig during drilling of the proposed well in Block 52, based on an 80-person crew and a 90-day drilling duration.




Other miscellaneous discharges include deck drainage and minor discharges, the latter of which includes point-source discharges such as BOP fluid, desalinisation unit discharge, fire control system test water, non-contact cooling water, ballast and storage displacement water, bilge water, boiler blowdown, test fluids, diatomaceous earth filter media, bulk transfer operations, painting operations, uncontaminated fresh water, water flooding discharges, and laboratory wastes. All such waste water and other fluids will be captured. They will be treated and discharged to sea if they meet the required environmental standards. If the resultant fluids do not meet the required standards, they will be stored for disposal on shore. The drilling rig, support vessels, and helicopter utilise internal combustion engines. Combustion emissions from these sources are summarised in Table 11-4. Table 11-4.

Estimated air pollutant emissions from drilling rig, supply vessels, and helicopter engines*.

Source Drill platform power generator** (six engines) Support vessels (three engines) Helicopter (one engine) Total

Horsepower 2,150 hp per engine 14,400 hp per vessel 3,550 hp --


Fuel Use (gal h-1)

PM

519

4.30

19.84

148.83

4.45

32.45

695

7.72

35.48

265.98

9.96

58.02

171 1,385

0.48 12.50

2.11 57.43

16.36 431.17

0.49 14.90

35.70 126.17

CO

CO = carbon monoxide; NO x = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; SO x = sulphur oxides; t = metric tonnes; VOC = volatile organic compound. * Assumed project duration of 90 days, with a drilling rig operating 24 h d-1, one support boat operating 16 h d-1, and one helicopter 4 h d-1. Emission factors for diesel fuel from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management air quality spreadsheet (U.S. Minerals Management Service, 2007a), based on AP-42 and other industry sources. ** Assumes that each engine will operate 50% of the time over the course of the project.

11.3 11.3.1

ESIA ISSUES, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ESIA Approach

The ESIA addressed all aspects of exploratory drilling operations. As part of the impact assessment process, environmental hazards and risks were identified that could arise from routine project-related activities and non-routine activities (i.e., accidents and upsets) associated with exploratory drilling and support operations. Sources of potential impact from routine operations include the following: • • • • • • •

Drilling rig arrival, positioning, and departure; Rig physical presence (including noise and lights); Drilling discharges; Other discharges; Solid wastes; Combustion emissions; Support vessel and helicopter traffic; and ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 221

•

Onshore support base activity.

For each impact source, discrete activities were identified. For example, drilling rig arrival, positioning, and departure was further subdivided into rig tow, rig placement and removal, and well abandonment. A total of 23 impact-producing factors associated with routine project-related activities were identified in this impact analysis. The ESIA also addressed impacts associated with potential accidents or upsets. Two accident or upset scenarios were considered: 1. An accidental diesel spill at the wellsite; and 2. A major oil spill from a blowout. Fifteen environmental resource categories covering the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environment of Suriname were characterised and evaluated. 11.3.2

Impact Determinations

Impact analysis considered impact consequence and impact likelihood to determine overall impact significance. Impact consequence is resource-specific, with classifications ranging from beneficial through severe. Impact likelihood (i.e., probability of occurrence) was determined for each activity-based impact as well. Probabilities were characterised as likely, occasional, rare, or remote. A matrix integrating impact consequence with impact probability provided the basis for determining overall impact significance. The impact classifications employed in the environmental impact analysis were broadly divided into negative and beneficial impacts, with negative impacts further subdivided based on severity of the impact, spatial and temporal aspects of the impact, and the sensitivity of various resources to the impact. Impact categories included beneficial, negligible, low, medium, and high. Most routine project-related activities associated with exploratory activities proposed for Block 52 were expected to produce negligible or low impacts. The following were exceptions: 1. An impact rated at the medium significance level to sediments and benthic communities associated with drilling discharges of cuttings with SBM adhering to them; 2. Beneficial impacts to plankton, fishes, and fishing from rig presence (i.e., artificial reef effect and attraction); and 3. Beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources from project activities onshore (i.e., stimulation of economic development from use of local services and potential increase in local hiring). For accidents and upsets, a small SBM spill was expected to produce negligible to low levels of impact to several resources, while a catastrophic blowout accompanied by a release of crude oil was expected to produce medium to high impacts on the physical/chemical and biological resources of offshore of Suriname. There would be no impacts to the coastal resources of Suriname, but the nearshore and coastal resources of its neighbours to the west would be significantly impacted. 11.3.3

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures were identified to reduce the probability of an impacts occurrence and reduce the effect of impacts that might occur. Table 11-5 provides a summary of the viable mitigation measures identified, by activity. The table also includes standard management procedures as mitigation, including routine maintenance, testing, and monitoring requirements. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 222

Table 11-5.

Project-specific mitigation measures, by activity.

Project Activity


Rig Physical Presence (including noise and lights)

Drilling Discharges

Other Discharges

Solid Wastes

Combustion Emissions

Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Onshore Support Base Activity

Mitigation Measures Routine Operations • Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners. • Place drilling rig exclusively in soft bottom areas. • Early consultation with relevant authorities. • Provide Notice to Mariners. • During vertical seismic profiling, ramp up air gun array and conduct visual observations and site clearance to verify that the project area is clear of marine mammals. • Cuttings dispersion modelling has been conducted. • Use cuttings dryer to minimise residual fluid (SBM) on cuttings.

Standard Management Procedures • Compliance with subcontractors HSE guidelines and requirements for positioning, relocation, and demobilisation of the MODU. • Compliance with and maintenance of proper navigation safety lighting in accordance with international standards (IACS, IMO, and SOLAS). • Routine inspection and maintenance of drilling muds and cuttings processing equipment (cuttings dryer, mud circulation system, mud pit). • Routine monitoring of residual oil (SBM) on cuttings. • Monitoring and maintenance of drilling fluid properties. • Properly train crew in monitoring and well control procedures. • Maintenance of a properly functioning surface control system.

• All discharges must comply with international guidelines • Routine inspection and maintenance of waste processing (MARPOL). equipment (e.g., marine sanitation devices, oil-water • Waste Management Supervisor to make an extended separators, oil monitors). visit to the rig at project start. • MARPOL prohibits jettison of waste to sea. Solid waste management plan minimises potential for accidental • Routine inspection and maintenance of food waste processing loss overboard. equipment (i.e., food macerators). • Waste Management Supervisor to make an extended visit to the rig at project start. • Routine inspection and maintenance of engines and generators. • Use low-sulphur diesel if available. • Monitoring of emissions. • Plan travel routes to avoid wildlife areas and bird colonies. • Routine inspection and maintenance of support vessels and helicopters, per manufacturers’ guidelines. • Plan flight paths to avoid populated areas, wildlife areas, and bird colonies. Set minimum cruise altitudes. • Routine inspection and testing of emergency equipment. • Routine flights during daylight hours only. • None required.

• Compliance with PSEPBV HSE requirements. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 223

Table 11-5. (Continued). Project Activity

Mitigation Measures Accidents or Upsets

Diesel Fuel Spill

• Drilling rig hose management/transfer procedures to be audited in detail by PSEPBV. Watch to be kept.

SBM Drilling Fluid Spill

• Drilling fluid transfer procedures to be audited in detail by PSEPBV. Watch to be kept.

Standard Management Procedures • Routine inspection and maintenance of fuel transfer hoses, storage vessels, and emergency oil spill equipment/stores. • In the event of a spill, implement Oil Spill Contingency Plan. • Routine inspection and maintenance of drilling fluid transfer equipment and emergency oil spill equipment/stores. • In the event of a spill, implement Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

• Tier 1 and 2 equipment/resources will be deployed • Compliance with industry procedures and accepted domestic or commensurate with identified offshore and coastline international protocols – BOP, risers, drilling mud systems, risks. testing procedures. Crude Oil Spill from a Blowout • Oil spill dispersion modelling. • Routine inspection and testing of BOP prior to installation; • Sustaining membership of Oil Spill Response Limited, a regular testing of BOP while in place. global response company providing access to Tier 3 • In the event of a spill, implement Oil Spill Contingency Plan. response equipment. BOP = blowout preventer; IACS = International Association of Classification Societies; HSE = Health, Safety, and Environment; IMO = International Maritime Organization; MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978; MODU = mobile offshore drilling unit; SBM = synthetic-based mud; SOLAS = Safety of Life at Sea.


11.4

GENERAL PREVENTATIVE AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES

This section of the EMP outlines the general preventative and protective measures in place, or to be enacted, to manage the potential impacts on the environment from the exploratory drilling programme activities and to ensure compliance with all relevant Suriname legislation. Environmental management strategies have been formulated to address the identified potential environmental hazards of the programme, including the following: • • • • •

Combustion emissions; Spills; Waste; Physical presence; and Socioeconomic impacts.

The environmental objectives defined in the environmental management strategies are based on the identified environmental hazardous events, associated environmental effects and the assessed risks, corporate policies and performance commitments, and applicable legal requirements. For the purposes of developing the environmental management strategies, the environmental objectives, targets, and the method to measure performance against the referenced target are defined as follows: • • •

Objective: Specific performance objective tailored to the operational context, which is intended to meet the legal requirements, corporate performance commitments, and standards of operation; Target: Target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual performance can be compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate; and Measure of performance against a specific target.

The northern coastal plain of Suriname and nearshore waters comprise a mixture of diverse habitats, including coral reefs, seagrass beds, mudflats, clay banks, sandy beaches, mangroves, lagoons, and swamps. As noted in Chapter 7.0, the following habitats are found along the Suriname coast or in nearshore waters: •

• • • •

Seagrass beds – Seagrass species present in Suriname include turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). These species occur either in mixed or in monospecific beds in areas of clear water; Suriname seagrass beds are found in the clear, blue waters of the outer zone of Suriname’s coastal zone. Soft mudflats – Mudflats are found along the entire coastline of Suriname. Firm clay banks – The unstable shoreline of Suriname results from a cyclical succession of accretion and deposition, under the influence of the Guiana Current and the Northeast Trade Winds. Sandy beaches – A few high sandy beaches exist in Suriname, including Babunsanti, Eilanti, and the beaches between Matapica and the mouth of the Suriname River. These beaches are important nesting areas for several species of sea turtles. Mangroves, lagoons, and swamps – Mangroves develop on the higher parts of the mudflats and are composed primarily of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Lagoons are areas of restricted saltwater flow (saltwater pans). Suriname’s lagoons are bordered by a broad belt of herbaceous swamps, with decreasing salinity as the distance from the ocean increases. These habitats may consist of pure stands of club rush (Eleocharis mutate), which are found just behind the lagoon zone, or cattail (Typha angustifolia) and sedge (Cyperus articulatus), which are more inland.


There are eight protected natural areas found along the Suriname coast. These include the following four Multiple-Use Management Areas (MUMAs) and four nature reserves, presented in order from western to eastern Suriname: •

Multiple-Use Management Areas: 1. Bigi Pan MUMA – located along the coast in western Suriname; 2. Noord Coronie MUMA – located approximately 125 km west of Paramaribo; the Noord Coronie wetlands have been designated as a Ramsar site. Other land uses for Noord Coronie include fishing (mudflats) and hunting (swamps). The Noord Coronie wetland provides fish nursery habitat, migratory bird habitat, and water filtering and protects inland areas from rising sea levels. It is also home to three range-restricted bird species (Guyanian Piculet, Picumnus minufissimus; Bloodcolored Woodpecker, Veniliornis sanquineus; and Rufous Crabhawk, Buteogallus aequinoctialis). This site is considered to be vulnerable; 3. Noord Saramacca MUMA – located along the central Suriname coast, approximately 50 km west of Paramaribo; and 4. Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA – located along the eastern coast of Suriname, approximately 65 km east of Paramaribo.

•

Nature Reserves (coastal): 1. Hertenrits Nature Reserve – located in western coastal Suriname, this nature reserve was established in 1986. Occupying 310 km², the reserve accommodates a great number of Mauritia palms (Mauritia flexuosa), Possentri forests (Hura crepitans), and Blue and Yellow Macaos (Ara ararauna). 2. Coppename-monding Nature Reserve – designated as a Ramsar site, this nature reserve forms part of the estuarine zone of Suriname. The area has a high biological productivity, supporting large numbers of bird species, especially waterfowl, and serves as an important nursery ground for shrimp and fish species. The reserve is an important roosting and feeding area for scarlet ibises, egrets, and herons. It is also a wintering station for thousands of migratory birds, especially waders. 3. Wia-Wia Nature Reserve – established in 1966, it occupies 360 km². This nature reserve is located west of Galibi, and was once important nesting grounds for sea turtles, but the beach no longer supports nesting. It does remain an important habitat for birds, especially water birds. 4. Galibi Nature Reserve – established in 1969, Galibi is situated on the northeast coast and is estimated to occupy 40 km². Galibi was established to conserve sea turtles, providing sandy beaches for nesting.

None of the protected natural areas lie within or adjacent to support vessel routes or helicopter flight routes out of Paramaribo. The closest protected natural area to Paramaribo is Noord Commewijne-Marowijne MUMA. 11.5

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING

In order to meet the objectives of the PSEPBV HSE Policy, the drilling subcontractor will properly manage the generation, storage, and disposal of all waste generated by the rig and comply with the waste management regulations of Suriname. In the absence of applicable waste management regulations, the minimum expectations established by PSEPBV and drilling subcontractors waste management programme will meet the standards set forth in the PETRONAS HSE MCF (Appendix M). PSEPBV will adopted a preferred waste management hierarchy of “reduce, reuse, recycle, recover” prior to designating waste for disposal. This is accomplished by reducing the amount ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 226

of waste generated through process efficiencies, reusing waste materials in their original form, recycling by converting waste back into a usable material, and recovering by extracting material or energy from the waste for other uses. Any waste remaining from these efforts will be managed through proper disposal. Waste streams generated by rig operations and processes will be identified and classified. A Waste Specification Sheet will be completed for each identified waste stream and included in the rig’s waste log. Each identified waste stream is to be classified and handled as Scheduled Waste or Non-Scheduled Waste, in accordance with the rig’s Health, Safety, and Environment Management System (HSE MS). The waste classification process includes the following: • •

Determine if waste stream is a Scheduled Waste (hazardous or toxic) or has characteristics that pose threats to human health or the environment; and If waste stream is Non-Scheduled Waste, determine proper classification or other type of waste stream classification (e.g., industrial waste, domestic waste, etc.) according to any local waste management regulations.

General refuse and other non-industrial waste streams are typically classified as Domestic Waste and typically managed in a similar manner to municipal waste onshore. These wastes usually are not regulated to the same extent as industrial wastes. Waste classification is conducted by using one or more of the following methods: • •

Process knowledge – Applying knowledge of the hazardous characteristic(s) of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used. Regulatory listing review – Determining if the waste is listed by waste management regulations or authorities as being considered a hazardous, scheduled, or other type of waste.

The method used to classify each waste stream will be documented on its Waste Specification Sheet. Different waste streams shall be segregated according to type and not be mixed together or managed in the same container. Under no circumstances will non-hazardous wastes be allowed to be mixed in the same container with hazardous or scheduled wastes. If this occurs, the entire mixture is to be considered hazardous or scheduled waste. Waste storage areas will be designated on the rig in areas isolated from other rig operations. Waste containers will be stored in these areas prior to processing or shipment to the contract Waste Management vendor. This role will be filled by the ASCO subsidiary, Enviroco, who has broad experience in oil industry wastes and will manage all waste streams in partnership with selected Surinamese and regional companies to meet industry best practice. All waste materials shall be properly stored in Det Norske Veritas-certified containers that are non-leaking and compatible with the waste being stored. All containers shall have their lids, rings, covers, bungs, and other means of closure properly installed at all times except when adding or removing waste. 11.6

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANS

Emergency preparedness and oil spill response will be addressed by reference to and reliance upon activities described in the PSEPBV Emergency Response Plan. In addition to this plan, PSEPBV has developed a separate OSCP for use in the event loss of oil containment occurs.


The emergency response objectives are to • • • • • •

ensure the safety of all personnel; protect the environment through effective emergency management; minimise the impact of damage to equipment and assets; provide managerial and technical support in the event of an emergency; liaise effectively with external agencies and authorities; and minimise disruption to workplace activities.

PSEPBV has a strategic approach to incidents, providing a tiered structure of response. This tiered structure allows the incident commander to assess a situation and mobilise the appropriate level of response. Ongoing appraisal of the situation by the offshore and onshore emergency response team leaders allows the level of response to be upgraded or reduced in a controlled and effective manner. In Tier 2 or 3 situations, PSEPBV can call on the global response company Oil Spill Response Limited for support and assistance. The PSEPBV Emergency Response Plan (Appendix H) and OSCP (Appendix L) describe arrangements and reporting relationships for command, control, and communications along with interfaces to emergency services specialist response groups, statutory authorities, and other external bodies. The plans will be integrated with the MODU’s Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plans. Emergency response roles and responsibilities between PSEPBV and will be detailed further in the HSE Bridging Documents with the drilling subcontractor. 11.7

LIST OF MITIGATION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELEVANT TO OPERATIONS

A list of mitigation actions and recommendations relevant to drilling operations is presented in Tables 11-6 through 11-10, including strategies to minimise emissions, manage potential spills and discharges, manage seafloor impacts, minimise interactions with wildlife, and manage social and economic impacts on marine users. 11.8

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AUDITS OR REVIEWS PLANNED

PSEPBV has planned several reviews of the various EMP components. Among these are: • • •

Bridging Document Development; Tabletop Exercise for Emergency Preparedness and Oil Spill Contingency Plan; and Monitoring of compliance with Waste Management Plan.

Development of the Bridging Document involves a direct comparison of HSE plans between PSEPBV and their drilling subcontractor to identify common procedures and processes and to agree on an approach to address any differences between the two plans. The goal will be to determine whether the HSE system can be utilised as the primary HSE system during the drilling campaign. The drilling contractors system will be analysed to determine if its processes and procedures are consistent with PSEPBV’s HSE requirements and comply with its management system. Any exception to these requirements will be noted as drilling subcontractor-specific responsibilities or requirements. The Bridging Document will follow the tenets of the PSEPBV HSE management. Prior to the commencement of drilling operations, PSEPBV will conduct a tabletop exercise to test the Emergency Preparedness Plan and OSCP. The exercise will be conducted in such a ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 228

way that all three tiers of the incident response plan are tested. The scenario will be prepared with input from all parties involved with the drilling operations so that a realistic outcome is produced, leading to lessons learned that can be shared and incorporated into the plans prior to commencement of drilling operations. PSEPBV will employ an HSE Engineer to be stationed on the rig throughout the drilling operations. Among other duties, this person will be tasked with ensuring that the MODU complies with all of the requirements of the Waste Management Plan and will work in conjunction with rig personnel to manage the environmental aspects of the operations in conformity with the commitments made by PSEPBV. The HSE Engineer will assist in monitoring compliance with HSE requirements at shore-based operations at Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo and will liaise with PSEPBV management and contractors to ensure compliance with the EMP. 11.9

POST-DRILL COMPLIANCE

At the end of the drilling programme, PSEPBV will compile a summary report for submission to NIMOS that will report actual environmental management performance with reference to the Environmental Management Strategy objectives and targets. In addition, all contractors will be informed of PSEPBV’s expectation to track measures of performance against specific targets, including fuel use, NO x emissions, greenhouse gases, VOCs, waste, work hours, first aid, recordable medical treatment, lost time, spills (including any sheen on water), spill volume (bbl), and all discharge volumes of all wastes overboard. All products brought on board will be properly labeled with material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for the rig and a copy will be provided for PSEPBV.


Table 11-6.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Exhaust and Ozone-Depleting Emissions.

Management of Exhaust and Ozone-Depleting Emissions Applicable Exploratory Drilling Programme Activities Exhaust gas emissions from: • Use of rig main and emergency power generation equipment, diesel engine driven cranes and cementing unit pumps • Support vessels power generation equipment • Fugitive emissions from rig and support vessels • Testing of rig and support vessels fire pumps and lifeboats • Use of heli-fuel for transport of personnel via helicopters Ozone-depleting gas emissions: • Fire-fighting, refrigeration, and air-conditioning systems through fugitive emissions or release during maintenance Potential Environmental Effects • Emission of GHGs • Emission of ecotoxic gases • Emission of ozone-depleting gas PSEPBV Commitments • Minimise the environmental impact of drilling and support operations • Constantly improve the energy and material efficiency of drilling and support operations Regulatory Reference • IMO MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution by Ships Performance Objectives Targets • Optimise use of fuel to • All combustion equipment to • increase efficiency and be maintained in accordance minimise GHG emissions with maintenance procedures • Minimise ecotoxic gas • Wherever practicable, use • emissions only low-sulphur diesel • No deliberate release of • All refrigeration equipment to • ozone-depleting gases be maintained in accordance with maintenance procedures •

Key Performance Indicators Volume of fuel consumed (calculated from rig and support vessels daily progress reports) Sulphur content (% by mass) of diesel used for operations Volume of diesel fuel consumed (calculated from rig and support vessels daily progress reports) Number of non-conformance incidents

Engineering (As-Built) Controls • Use of low-sulphur diesel fuel • • • • • • •

Procedural Controls Support vessel specific maintenance policies and procedures and power management plan Fuel oil sampling to be undertaken in accordance with MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI Regular equipment inspection and maintenance schedules to maximise fuel efficiency Regular equipment inspection and maintenance schedules to maximise burning efficiency Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Rig and support vessels to submit daily fuel consumption reports to PSEPBV via Daily Progress Reports PSEPBV HSE department to report fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions in post-drilling environmental performance report Routine maintenance checks. Records shall be made of all maintenance checks and a copy shall be sent to the Rig Manager with notations of any problems revealed by the check

GHG = greenhouse gas; HSE = Health, Safety and Environment; IMO = International Maritime Organization; MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.


Table 11-7.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Marine Spills and Discharges. Management of Marine Spills and Discharges Applicable Exploratory Drilling Programme Activities

Sources of planned marine discharges: • • • • • •

Drill cuttings with adhered WBMs discharged at either at sea surface or at the seafloor Drill cuttings with <6.9% adhered SBMs discharged at the sea surface Cement discharged at the seafloor (during spudding operations; no surface returns) Cooling water Drainage water Treated sanitary and domestic wastes

Potential sources of unplanned marine releases (spills): • • • • • • • • •

WBM spill during transfer from support vessel to rig Uncontained on-board hydrocarbon/chemical spillage into sea Contamination of streams through equipment failure (e.g., hydrocarbons in cooling water discharges) Loss of hydraulic fluid Chemical spills during transfer between support vessels and rig Fuel spills during bunkering and generator refuelling operations Well blowout Rupture of, or leakage from, vessel fuel tanks Leakage of engine oil Potential Environmental Effects

• • • •

Elevated water column temperature close to cooling water discharge point Elevated water column turbidity and reduction in photosynthetic capability of marine biota Smothering of benthic communities by drilling fluids, cuttings, and cement Leaching of trace metals and other ecotoxic chemicals from WBM, SBM, and cuttings leading to ecotoxic effects on marine biota and potential for bioaccumulation in the ecosystem • Increased marine environmental loading with hydrocarbons, chemicals, and heavy metals from spills PSEPBV Commitments • Minimise the environmental impact of drilling and support operations • Demonstrate visible and active leadership that engages employees and service providers and manage HSE performance as a line responsibility with clear authorities and accountabilities (HSE Policy) Regulatory Reference • Rig and support vessels to comply with maritime requirements for waste and pollution control as defined in the MARPOL 73/78 conventions Performance Objectives

Targets

Key Performance Indicators

• Minimise volumes of drilling waste discharged to the sea • Avoid overboard spillages of chemical products from rig or support vessels • Avoid overboard spillages of hydrocarbon products from rig or support vessels • Comprehensive and functional oil spill response plan in place

• Use low environmental risk chemicals, where practical • Separate WBM from cuttings and reuse where practical • Separate SBM from cuttings and reuse where practical • Zero incidents of chemicals spilled to the marine environment • Zero incidents of oil spillage to marine environment

• WBM approved for use by NIMOS • SBM approved for use by NIMOS • Documented procedures for separating WBM and SBM from drill cuttings • Volume of WBM and cuttings, and cuttings with adhering SBM (planned and unplanned) • Number of spills • Number of non-conformance incidents relative to legislative regulations • NIMOS approved programme specific OSCP, and MODU spill/emergency response plans • NIMOS approved Waste Oil Management Plan (WOMP) • Number of spills • Volume of spills


Table 11-7. (Continued). Management of Marine Spills and Discharges Engineering (As-Built) Controls • Solids control equipment ensures separation of fluid from cuttings where practical for reuse and minimises loss of fluid during drilling • Utilisation of mud vacuums (where possible) • Double-valve isolation on overboard mud discharges • Audible alarm or other monitoring means to indicate when shale shakers are not functioning during filling of the trip tank • Positively locking dump valves (including trip tanks, mud pits, and cement units) that remain locked regardless of substance in tank and that are unlocked only with a permit-to-work • Bunkering hoses to have dry break couplings, weak link break-away connections, vacuum breakers and floats • All vessels equipped with oil spill response kits to contain and clean up small spillages of oil and chemicals on board • Coaming/bunding around appropriate deck areas • All drains are painted in a colour that allows rapid identification and highlights their location and discharge points • All drains empty into an oil and water separator tank before the water component is discharged. Any machinery space bilge water to be discharged also is routed through this MARPOL-approved oil-water separator before disposal • Waste oil is drained by gravity into waste oil tanks and then pumped into drums for trans-shipment to shore for disposal • Spider beams used to support BOPs • Rig is designed to withstand severe damage and resulting high angles of heel and trim • Separate system for de-ballasting, independent of the primary ballasting system Procedural Controls • NIMOS-approved project-specific OSCP • MODU Drilling HSE Policies and Procedures Manual • Blowout Prevention in place and operational Monitoring and Reporting Requirements • Discharges of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and cement to be recorded and reported to PSEPBV Drilling Department via the MODU Daily Drilling Progress Reports • A summary of the records shall be submitted at appropriate intervals to NIMOS • All hydrocarbon and chemical spills from primary containment, regardless of volume, to be reported to PSEPBV • PSEPBV to report all petroleum spills directly to the Maritime Authority Suriname, and inform NIMOS as well • Any uncontrollable escape or ignition of petroleum or any other flammable or combustible material causing a potentially hazardous situation will be reported to NIMOS by PSEPBV • MARPOL 73/78 oil pollution incidents will be reported to NIMOS by PSEPBV • PSEPBV HSE to report all discharge details to NIMOS in post-drilling environmental performance report BOP = blowout preventer; HSE = Health, Safety and Environment; MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; MODU = mobile offshore drilling unit; NIMOS = National Institute for Environment and Development; OSCP = Oil Spill Contingency Plan; SBM = synthetic-based mud; WBM = water-based mud.


Table 11-8.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Seafloor Impacts. Management of Seafloor Impacts

Applicable Exploratory Drilling Programme Activities Impact on the seafloor and seafloor structures from: • Jack-up legs (spud cans) emplacement and removal, and possibly vessel anchor deployment and retrieval • Dropped objects (accidental) • Drill cuttings discharge at seafloor • Cement discharge when securing conductor Potential Environmental Effects • • • •

Physical damage to benthic communities Seafloor scarring caused by spud cans (and possibly anchors and chains) Anoxic conditions caused by natural degradation of the cuttings pile Ecotoxic effects of WBM and SBM on marine biota and potential for bioaccumulation in the ecosystem PSEPBV Commitments

• Minimise the environmental impact of drilling and support operations Regulatory Reference • Not applicable Performance Objectives • Minimise impact to sensitive benthic communities during leg emplacement and removal, and during anchor deployment and retrieval if anchors are used • Minimise incidences of dropped objects • Avoid discharging drill cuttings and cement on environmentally sensitive communities

Targets

• No irreversible adverse impact on sensitive benthic communities • No substantive items lost overboard and not recovered

Key Performance Indicators

• NIMOS approval of method and equipment to stabilise the MODU • Number of incident reports relating to dropped objects • NIMOS approval of method and equipment to treat drill cuttings

Engineering (As-Built) Controls • Use of NIMOS-approved low environmental risk WBM, SBM, and cement (low toxicity) • Solids control equipment ensures separation of fluid from cuttings where practical for reuse and minimises loss of fluid during drilling • Certified lifting/winching equipment Procedural Controls • MODU Drilling Subcontractor HSE Policies and Procedures Manual • Use of NIMOS-approved low toxicity WBM and SBM, containing low environmental risk chemicals • Small area of impact. Small volumes of drill cuttings • Cuttings are relatively inert • Dispersion of cuttings will be relatively rapid in open ocean conditions • Expected relatively rapid recovery of benthos • Drill cuttings will be re-colonised in relatively short time periods (within a year or two, depending on local marine environment conditions) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements • Dropped object incidents to be reported to PSEPBV via MODU drilling reporting procedures • PSEPBV to create a report for submission to NIMOS for all reportable incidents HSE = Health, Safety and Environment; MODU = mobile offshore drilling unit; NIMOS = National Institute for Environment and Development; SBM = synthetic-based mud; WBM = water-based mud. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 233

Table 11-9.

Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Interactions with Wildlife. Management of Interactions with Wildlife

Applicable Exploratory Drilling Programme Activities Activities that may result in interaction with wildlife: • • • • •

Rig towing to location – Physical presence and engine noise Support vessel movements – Physical presence and engine noise Helicopter movements – Physical presence and engine noise Noise from drilling equipment, onboard machinery, helicopter, and VSP Nighttime lighting on rig and support vessels Potential Environmental Effects

• • • •

Disturbance to the migration, feeding, and breeding of wildlife Injury or mortality of wildlife due to physical impact Fauna behavioural changes, including approaching, avoidance, and startle responses Physiological effects on marine fauna (e.g., cetaceans and sea turtles) due to sound sources PSEPBV Commitments

• Minimise the environmental impact of drilling and support operations Regulatory Reference • Industry best practice Performance Objectives • Disturbance to wildlife to be minimised

Targets • Zero incidents of physical harm to protected wildlife

Key Performance Indicators • Number of wildlife incident harm reports • Number of wildlife interaction forms submitted

Engineering (As-Built) Controls • Support vessel steering system allows collision-avoiding action to be undertaken Procedural Controls • Cetaceans observed in the area will be reported and their behaviour will be monitored and recorded • Watch maintained at all times when any vessel is under way • Corridors not believed to traverse significant feeding, breeding, or resting areas for protected marine species (cetaceans, turtles, etc.) • Protected species are able to move away from slow moving rig and support vessels • Steady trackline course taken by support vessels and rig-tow enables larger fauna (e.g., whales) to undertake logical, voluntary manoeuvres to avoid interaction • Ramp-up for VSP procedures • Watch maintained at all times that VSP is underway • Cetaceans in the area will be observed and their behaviour will be monitored and recorded • VSP considered a best practice technique and is widely used by industry Monitoring and Reporting Requirements • Report wildlife interactions to PSEPBV using the JNCC-format Cetacean Monitoring documents • PSEPBV to report incidents of harm (takes) to the appropriate authorities as soon as practical • PSEPBV to report on conduct of programme and any whale interactions within two months of the well completion JNCC = Joint Nature Conservation Committee; VSP = vertical seismic profiling.


Table 11-10. Environmental Management Strategy – Management of Social and Economic Impacts on Marine Users. Management of Social and Economic Impacts on Marine Users Applicable Exploratory Drilling Programme Activities • Rig towing to location • Physical presence of rig • Support vessel movements Potential Environmental Effects • Temporary navigation hazard and 500-m exclusion zone around the rig • Interference with commercial and recreational fishing vessels, commercial shipping, Navy and Customs vessels, and other marine users • Business interruption (abnormal) due to damage to other commercial vessels PSEPBV Commitments • Minimise the environmental impact of drilling and support operations • Positively impact communities wherever PSEPBV operates Regulatory Reference • Maritieme Autoriteit Suriname, Notices to Mariners Performance Objectives

• Conduct all marine operations in a safe manner • Minimise interference with licenced commercial fishing operations

Targets • No incidents of ship collisions or near miss incidents • Inform relevant stakeholders of rig movements and drilling locations • No incidents of damage to commercial fishing equipment Engineering (As-Built) Controls

Key Performance Indicators • Number of incident reports regarding vessel collisions or near misses • Number of incident reports relating to commercial fishing operations

• Navigation aids (lights, flags, radar, etc.) on rig and support vessels • Marine radio channels and other communication systems Procedural Controls • 500-m exclusion zone around rig required for safety reasons • Watch (visual, radio, and radar) maintained at all times. Navigation aids (lights, flags, radar, etc.) on vessels • Presence of rig support vessels with guard functions • Notification of rig location as a temporary fixed structure to appropriate Suriname authorities and issue notice to mariners at least 14 days prior to arrival at location and at the time of demobilisation • Notifications to relevant commercial and recreational fishermen and any other relevant stakeholders identified through the stakeholder consultation process and notice to mariners Monitoring and Reporting Requirements • Near misses and incidents reported to PSEPBV via MODU drilling incident reporting procedure • Reportable incidents submitted in a report to NIMOS • Recordable incidents submitted in a report to NIMOS NIMOS = National Institute for Environment and Development.



12.0 Monitoring Programme 12.1

OPERATIONAL MONITORING

PSEPBV will comply with the discharge limitations and monitoring requirements for select parameters specified in the USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for the Gulf of Mexico. Table 12-1 summarises the effluent limitations, prohibitions, and monitoring requirements for the Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit. The following monitoring and testing will take place while drilling with WBMs: 1. A 96-h LC 50 Suspended Particulate Phase Aquatic Toxicity Test will be required monthly and at the end of well drilling. A local species, Metamysidopsis insularis, will be used for LC 50 96-h toxicity tests and the analyses will be run in Trinidad. 2. Static Sheen Test will be run daily on water-based fluids. 3. Static Sheen Test will be run daily on cuttings. The following testing will take place while drilling with SBMs: 1. Retention of oil on cuttings will be run daily. The cuttings dryer will be used to reduce the oil on cuttings to levels below the required weekly average ROC of 6.9%. The expected average is 4% to 6%. 2. Static Sheen Test will be run daily on cuttings. 3. The Reverse Phase Extraction Test for detection of crude oil contamination in non-aqueous-based drilling fluids will be run daily to ensure that any crude oil contamination from possible oil-bearing formations remains less than 1%. Samples will be collected for analysis and measurements, and observations will be made and recorded in discharge data sheets as well as included in drilling reports as applicable. Examples of discharge data sheets are provided in Figures 12-1 and 12-2. Operational compliance monitoring reports detailing all discharges will be furnished to NIMOS on a weekly basis. 12.2

POST-DRILL MONITORING

Post-drill monitoring programmes generally are not required for an exploratory well unless the operator has failed to meet the requirements of their EMP (i.e., if the operator is in noncompliance). At the end of the drilling programme, PSEPBV will compile a summary report of all operational monitoring for submission to NIMOS, which will report actual environmental management performance with reference to the Environmental Management Strategy objectives and targets. Specifics of a follow-up monitoring programme should be necessary only if drilling operations do not comply with the EMP. All monitoring results will be reported to NIMOS.


Table 12-1.

Gulf of Mexico National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit requirements applicable for monitoring discharges in Block 52 offshore Suriname. Discharge

Discharge Limitation/Prohibition

Measurement Frequency

Free oil

No free oil

Once per week1

Discharge rate

1,000 bbl h-1 No discharge of drilling fluids to which barite has been added, if such barite contains mercury concentrations >1.0 mg kg-1 or cadmium >3.0 mg kg-1 (dry weight)

Once per hour1

Once prior to drilling well2

Absorption spectrophotometry

No discharge

---

---

---

No discharge

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Once per week1

Static sheen

Number of days sheen observed

Mercury and cadmium

Drilling Fluid

Monitoring Requirement Sample Type/Method Recorded Value(s) Number of days Static sheen sheen observed Estimate Maximum hourly rate

Regulated and Monitored Parameter

Oil-based or inverse emulsion drilling fluids Oil-contaminated drilling fluids

Non-aqueous-based drilling fluids

No discharge of drilling fluids to which diesel oil has been added Mineral oil may be used only as a carrier fluid, lubricity additive, or pill No discharge except that which adheres to drill cuttings

Free oil

No free oil

Diesel oil

Mineral oil


Mercury: mg kg-1 Cadmium: mg kg-1

Table 12-1. (Continued). Discharge


Mercury and cadmium

All Drill Cuttings

Discharge Limits for Cuttings Generated Using Non-Aqueous-Based Drilling Fluids Deck Drainage

Oil and grease

Free oil


No discharge. If generated using drilling fluid to which barite is added that contains mercury in concentrations >1.0 mg kg-1 or cadmium >3.0 mg kg-1

Cuttings generated using oil-contaminated drilling No discharge fluids Cuttings generated using drilling fluids to which No discharge diesel oil has been added Cuttings generated using Mineral oil may be used only as drilling fluids to which a carrier fluid, lubricity additive, mineral oil has been added or pill Base fluids retained on 6.9% cuttings Free oil

Miscellaneous Discharges: desalinisation unit discharge; blowout preventer fluid; uncontaminated ballast water; uncontaminated bilge water; uncontaminated freshwater; muds, cuttings and cement at seafloor; uncontaminated seawater; boiler blowdown; source water and sand; diatomaceous earth filter media; excess cement slurry; subsea wellhead preservation fluids; subsea production control fluid umbilical steel tube storage; fluid; leak tracer fluid; riser tensioner fluids

Discharge Limitation/Prohibition

No free oil 42 mg L-1 daily maximum 29 mg L-1 monthly average

No free oil

Monitoring Requirement Sample Type/Method Recorded Value(s)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Once per day

Retort test method

Percent retained

Once per day

Visual sheen

Once per month

Grab3

Once per week4

Visual sheen


Number of days sheen observed Daily maximum, monthly average


Table 12-1. (Continued). Discharge Miscellaneous Discharges of Seawater and Freshwater to Which Treatment Chemicals Have Been Added: excess seawater that permits the continuous operation of fire control and utility lift pumps, excess seawater from pressure maintenance and secondary recovery projects, water released during training of personnel in fire protection, seawater used to pressure test new and existing piping and pipelines, ballast water, once-through, non-contact cooling water


Treatment chemicals

Discharge rate

Free oil

Discharge Limitation/Prohibition Most stringent of: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency label registration, maximum dose, or 500 mg L-1 manufacturer’s recommended Monitor

No free oil


Monitoring Requirement Sample Type/Method Recorded Value(s)

---

---

---

Once per month

Estimate

Monthly average

Once per week

Visual sheen5


1

When discharging. Analyses shall be conducted on each new stock of barite used. May be based on either a grab sample or a composite that consists of the arithmetic average of the results of grab samples collected at even intervals during a period of 24 h or less. 4 When discharging for muds, cuttings, and cement at the seafloor, blowout preventer fluid, subsea wellhead preservation fluids, subsea production control fluid, umbilical steel tube storage fluid, leak tracer fluid, and riser tensioner fluids. All other miscellaneous discharges: when discharging, discharge is authorised only during times when visual sheen observation is possible, unless the static sheen method is used. 5 Monitoring for free oil on discharges from existing piping and existing pipelines shall be performed at least three times per discharge as follows: 1) within 30 minutes after commencement of discharge; 2) at the estimated middle of the discharge; and 3) within 15 minutes before or after the discharge has ceased. 2 3


Figure 12-1.

Example data sheet for recording discharge measurements and observations.


Figure 12-2.

Example data sheet for recording static sheen.


13.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 13.1 13.1.1

CONCLUSIONS Exploratory Drilling Programme Scope

PSEPBV proposes initiation of an exploratory drilling programme in Block 52, offshore Suriname, with drilling expected to commence in early April of 2016. Drilling at the Roselle-1 wellsite will be conducted with a jack-up drilling rig similar to the Le Tourneau Class 240C. Water depth at the wellsite is 87 m (285.4 ft). The drilling rig will be on site for approximately 90 days, depending on the results of the exploratory well. Both WBMs and SBMs will be used during drilling. WBMs will be discharged into the ocean after appropriate treatment and processing. SBMs will be returned to shore for recycling or disposal at an approved facility. Routine rig and support operations will produce combustions emissions. The discharge of sanitary, domestic, and industrial wastes will be treated or monitored on the drilling rig. Industry best practise will be employed to ensure that no free oil or hazardous chemicals are released or discharged into the marine environment. Solid wastes will be handled according to industry best practise and in conformance with a project-specific Waste Management Plan. Support vessel and helicopter operations, originating out of Paramaribo, will routinely service the drilling rig. PSEPBV estimates a rig crew complement of approximately 80 personnel. 13.1.2

Scope of Impact Analysis

Fifteen environmental resource categories, covering the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environment of Suriname, were characterised and evaluated. A total of 23 routine, project-related activities (in eight different categories) were evaluated for their potential to affect the physical/chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environments at the wellsite, along the transit corridors to shore, or onshore. Exploratory drilling activities considered in this impact analysis included the following: •

Drilling rig positioning and departure o rig tow o rig placement and removal o well abandonment

•

Rig physical presence (including noise and lights) o safety zone o physical presence (including lights) o VSP noise o routine operational noise

•

Drilling discharges o seafloor releases o WBM and cuttings discharges (at the seafloor or the sea surface) o cuttings discharges with adhering SBM (at sea surface)

•

Other discharges o sanitary and domestic wastes o deck drainage o miscellaneous discharges


•

Solid wastes o marine debris o hazardous and nonhazardous wastes

•

Combustion emissions o drilling rig engines o well testing emissions o support vessel emissions o helicopter emissions

•

Support vessel and helicopter traffic o support vessel traffic and noise o helicopter traffic and noise

•

Onshore support base activity o supply of goods and services o supply vessel movements at Nieuwe Haven in Paramaribo

The following two incident scenarios were evaluated: 1. An accidental spill of diesel fuel at the wellsite; and 2. A blowout of crude oil at the wellsite. The impact classifications employed in the ESIA were broadly divided into negative and beneficial impacts, with negative impacts further subdivided based on severity of impact, spatial and temporal aspects of the impacts, and the sensitivity of various resources to the impact. Impact categories included beneficial, negligible, low, medium, and high. Several tools were employed to assist in impact determination, including muds and cuttings discharge modelling to estimate the deposition patterns on the benthic environment and trajectory and weathering models to identify short- and long-term fate of spilled SBM and crude oil. Most routine, project-related activities associated with the Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme are expected to produce negligible or low impacts. Exceptions include the following: • • •

A medium impact to sediments and benthic communities associated with drilling discharges of cuttings with adhering SBMs; Beneficial impacts to plankton, fishes, and fishing from rig presence (i.e., artificial reef effect and attraction); and Beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources from project activities onshore (i.e., stimulation of economic development and use of local services and a potential increase in local hiring).

For accidents or upsets, a small diesel fuel spill is expected to produce negligible to low levels of impact to several resources, while a catastrophic blowout accompanied by a release of crude oil has the potential to produce medium to high impacts on the physical/chemical and biological resources in the offshore waters of Suriname and coastal resources of its neighbours to the west. Modelling results were utilised to identify likely transport and trajectory scenarios for crude oil and to assess the degree of weathering that could occur.


13.1.3

Mitigation Measures

The identification and application of mitigation measures is intended to reduce the likelihood of an impact occurring and the severity or magnitude of identified impacts if they are unavoidable. Mitigation measures were identified for the vast majority of project-related impacts and for all of the impacts identified in association with accidents or upsets. Mitigation measures were cited alongside standard management procedures (e.g., training, routine inspection and maintenance, adherence to existing international regulations or industry best practise), providing a more comprehensive overview of available mechanisms to reduce impact likelihood. For routine project-related activities, the majority of impact determinations were less than significant, encompassing negligible, negligible to low, and low impact levels. Medium impact levels were very limited and found only in association with the discharge of drill cuttings with adhering SBMs. There were several beneficial impacts identified in association with the Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme. 13.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

Impacts from project-related activities and accidents have been described, and viable mitigation measures have been developed to reduce the likelihood of an impact occurring, the severity or magnitude of an impact if it should occur, and the longevity of the effects of an unavoidable impact. In addition, an EMP has been developed that outlines general preventative and protective measures and environmental management strategies to manage combustion emissions, spills, waste, and the physical presence of the rig and to minimise potential impacts to the seafloor and wildlife. Recommendations regarding the proposed Block 52 Exploratory Drilling Programme include the following: • • • • •

• •

Implementation and adherence to PSEPBV’s HSE management system, which is the governing HSE system for all the drilling programme activities; Adherence to PSEPBV’s OSCP, including designated pre-deployment of necessary spill response equipment and supplies and coordination with Tier 2 and Tier 3 responders; Adherence to all of PSEPBV’s remaining contingency, emergency, and safety plans; Implementation and adherence to the drilling subcontractor’s HSE policies for vessel and drilling operations on the MODU; Implementation and adherence to project-specific plans (e.g., solid and hazardous waste management) and the general preventative and protective measures in place, or to be enacted, to manage the potential impacts on the environment from exploratory drilling programme activities and to ensure compliance with all relevant Suriname legislation, as outlined in the EMP; Implementation and adherence to project-specific mitigation measures; and Implementation and adherence to standard management procedures.

PSEPBV has a corporate commitment to conduct business in a manner that respects the environment as well as the health and safety of its employees, customers, contractors, and communities where it operates. PSEPBV intends to conduct an efficient and environmentally sound exploratory drilling programme in Block 52, offshore Suriname, by following the recommendations listed previously. To this end, PSEPBV will utilise industry best practise, including state-of-the-art drilling and drilling fluid processing, treatment, monitoring, and disposal techniques. In its drilling programme and drilling support operations, PSEPBV will adhere to existing corporate, drilling rig, and project-specific emergency, contingency, and safety plans. PSEPBV will adhere to identified project-specific mitigation measures and conduct its operations according to standard management procedures. Through its adherence to these recommendations, PSEPBV expects to conduct its exploratory operations with minimal impact to the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic and cultural environments of Suriname. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 245


14.0 References Cited Aguilar, A. 2002. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), pp. 435-438. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2010. ABS Statistical Yearbook 2010. Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2012. Voorlopige resultaten uit de 8ste Volks- en Woningtelling in Suriname. Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Spill Sci. Techn. Bull. 6(5/6):303-321. Arnault S., B. Bourles, Y. Gouriou, and R. Chuchla. 1999. Intercomparison of upper layer circulation of the Western Equatorial Atlantic Ocean: In situ and satellite data. J. Geophys. Res. 104(C9):171-21,194. Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1985. Union Oil Project/Exxon Project Shamrock and Central Santa Maria Basin Area Study EIR/EIS. Final EIR/EIS and Technical Appendices. Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara, Minerals Management Service, California State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, and California Office of Offshore Development. 3 vols. Augustinus, P.G. 1978. The changing shoreline of Surinam (South America). Publ. Found. Sci. Res. Surinam Neth. Ant. 95:1-232, Plates 1-17. Ayers, R.C., Jr., T.C. Sauer, Jr., D.O. Stuebner, and R.P. Meek. 1980a. An environmental study to assess the effect of drilling fluids on water quality parameters during high rate, high volume discharges to the ocean, pp. 351-381. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings. 21-24 January 1980, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Ayers, R.C., Jr., T.C. Sauer, Jr., R.P. Meek, and G. Bowers. 1980b. An environmental study to assess the impact of drilling discharges in the mid-Atlantic. I. Quantity and fate of discharges, pp. 382-418. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings. 21-24 January 1980, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Baird, R.W. 2002. False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pp. 411-412. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Balcom, Brian J., Bruce D. Graham and Alan D. Hart. 2012. Benthic impacts resulting from the discharge of drill cutting and adhering synthetic based drilling fluid in deepwater. SPE/APPEA International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Perth, Australia, 11-13 September 2012. SPE 157325. 9 pp. Barlow, M.J. and P.F. Kingston. 2001. Observations on the effects of barite on the gill tissues of the suspension feeder Cerastoderma edule (Linne) and the deposit feeder Macoma balthica (Linné). Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 :71–76. Bartol, S.M., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia 1999:836-840. Békésy, G.V. 1948. Vibration of the head in a sound field and role in bone conduction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 20:749-760.


Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of Mexico Deepwater oil and gas operations; Volume I: Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-011. 326 pp. Boothe, P.N. and B.J. Presley. 1989. Trends in sediment trace element concentrations around six petroleum drilling platforms in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 3-21. In: Engelhardt, F.R., J.P. Ray, and A.H. Gillam (eds.), Drilling Wastes. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY. 867 pp. Bruckner, A., P. deAngelis, and T. Montgomery. 2008. Case study for black coral from Hawaii. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings, Cancun, Mexico. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/LinksDocumentos/WG-CS/WG9-AquaticInvertebrates/WG9-CS1%20BlackCoral/WG9CS1.pdf. Buchman, M.F. 2008. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables. NOAA OR&R Report 08-1, Seattle, WA, Office of Response and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 34 pp. Bulgakov, N.P., S.N. Bulgakov, and V.N. Eremeev. 1998. Guiana current over north Brazil shelf and continental slope. Phys. Oceanogr. 9(1):55-70. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030. Byles, R.A. 1989. Satellite telemetry of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempi, in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (comps.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, 7-11 February 1989, Jekyll Island, GA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. Miami, FL. 306 pp. Caribbean Development Institute. 2012. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for Murphy Oil Suriname Co. Ltd. Petroleum Exploration, Block 37 Offshore Suriname. Central Intelligence Agency. 2014. The World Factbook – Suriname. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/ns.html. Cervigón, F., R. Cipriani, W. Fischer, L. Garibaldi, M. Hendricks, A.J. Lemus, R. Márquez, J.M. Poutiers, G. Robaina, and B. Rodríguez. 1993. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Field guide to the commercial marine and brackishwater resources of the northern coast of South America. Rome FAO. 513 pp. Clapham, P.J. 2002. Humpack whale (Megaptera novaeangilae), pp. 589-592. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Condie, S.A. 1991. Separation and recirculation of the North Brazil Current. J. Mar. Res. 48:701-728. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Report: Subsea Well Abandonment and Flowline Abandonment/Removal Program. Prepared for the California State Lands Commission, Sacramento and Long Beach, CA. SLC EIR No. 663. State Clearinghouse No. 94121042. 2 vols. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 248

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf: Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. June 2004. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-054. Prepared for the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 516 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-045. 636 pp. CSA International, Inc. 2010. Environmental Baseline Survey Report for Exploratory Well Block 31, Offshore Suriname. Final report prepared for Teikoku Oil (Suriname) Co., Ltd. CSA International, Inc. 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Exploratory Drilling Program Block 31, Offshore Suriname. Vol. 1. CSA International, Inc. 2012. Post-Drilling Compliance Report for Exploratory Drilling Program in Block 31, Offshore Suriname: Aitkanti-1. Final report prepared for Teikoku Oil (Suriname) Co., Ltd. 17 pp. + apps. CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Teikoku Oil (Suriname) Co., Ltd. Seismic Survey Program in Block 31, Offshore Suriname. CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. 2015. Figure 7-7: Sediment sampling quadrants and stations sampled during the Block 31 Environmental Baseline Survey. IN: Environmental and social impact assessment for the exploratory drilling program, Block 31, offshore Suriname. Prepared for Teikoku Oil Co, Ltd. Volume 1, page 7-8. Danek, L.J. and G.S. Lewbel (eds.). 1986. Southwest Florida Shelf Benthic Communities Study, Year 5 Annual Report. Report by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. and LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30211. 3 vols. De Boer, M.N. 2013. Cetaceans observed in Suriname and adjacent waters, pp. 178-200. In: Elusive Marine Mammals Explored – Charting under-recorded areas to study the abundance and distribution of cetaceans using multi-method approaches and platforms of opportunity. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands. De Jong, B.H.J. and A.L. Spaans in cooperation with M.M. Held. 1984. Waterfowl and wetlands in Suriname. Contribution to the IWRB/ICBP Neotropical Wetlands Project. Suriname Forest Service Report. 277 pp. Derlagen, C., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and O. Shik. 2013. Agricultural Sector Support in Suriname. IDB/FAO, Rome, Italy. Détante, B., P. Garen, and P. Lemercier. 1987. Marine Shrimp Culture in Suriname: A Report prepared for the Project for the Development of Marine Shrimp Culture in Tidal Ponds, Chapter 2. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AB858E/AB858E02.htm. Didden, N. and F. Schott. 1993. Eddies in the North Brazil Current retroflection region Observed by Geosat Altimetry. J. Geophys. Res. 98(C11):20,121-20,131. Dolar, M.L.L. 2002. Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), pp. 485-488. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp.


Donahue, M.A. and W.L. Perryman. 2002. Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), pp. 1,009-1,010. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Dudley, W.C. 2003. Geomorphology of Coral Reefs. Kalakaua Marine Education Center, University of Hawaii, Hilo. Duinker, P.N. and G.E. Beanlands. 1986. The significance of environmental impacts: An exploration of the concept. Environ. Manage. 10(1):1-10. Dustan, P., B.H. Lidz, and E.A. Shinn. 1991. Impact of exploratory wells, offshore Florida: A biological assessment. Bull. Mar. Sci. 48:94-124. EG&G Environmental Consultants. 1982. A study of environmental effects of exploratory drilling on the mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf: Final report of the Block 684 monitoring program. Report to the Offshore Operators Committee, New Orleans, LA. Environmental Services and Support. 2009. The Third National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. A report prepared for the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment, Suriname. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.gov.sr/media/231987/suriname_3rd_nat_rep_to_cbd_sept2009.pdf. Febres-Ortega, G. and L.E. Herrera. 1976. Caribbean Sea Circulation and water mass transports near the Lesser Antilles. Boletin del Instituto Oceanografico 15:83-96. Ferraroli, S., J.-Y. Georges, P. Gaspar, and Y. Le Majo. 2004. Where leatherback turtles meet fisheries. Nature 429:521-522. Ffield, A. 2005. North Brazil current rings viewed by TRMM Microwave Imager SST and the influence of the Amazon Plume. Deep-Sea Research I 52:137-160. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1988. Final Report – Surveys of the Fish Resources in the Shelf Areas between Suriname and Colombia 1988. 28 October 2015 at: http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/fns/x6078e/x6078e00.htm#contents. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2000. Natural Resources and Environment: Land and Water Division. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.fao.org/nr/aboutnr/nrl/en/. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. Project Global – Global Bycatch Assessment of Long-Lived Species. Country Profile Suriname. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Fishery Country Profile, The Republic of Suriname. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_SR.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 – Country Report: Suriname. FRA2010/199. Rome 2010. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al634E/al634e.pdf. Ford, J.K.B. 2002. Killer whale (Orcinus orca), pp. 669-676. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Fortuin P. 2000. RADChiS – Background. Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.knmi.nl/~verver/fortuin/radchis.html. Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname. 2015. Nature Conservation Legislation and Protected Areas. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://www.stinasu.sr/en/protected-areas. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 250

Fratantoni, D.M., W.E. Johns, and T.L. Townsend. 1995. Rings of the North Brazil Current: Their structure and behavior inferred from observations and a numerical simulation. J. Geophys. Res. 100(C6):10,633-10,654. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2012. FishBase Version (12/2012). Accessed 28 October 2015 at: www.fishbase.org. Fuglister, F.C. 1951. Annual variations in current speed in the Gulf Stream System. J. Mar. Res. 10:119-127. Gales, R.S. 1982. Effects of noise of offshore oil and gas operations on marine mammals. An introductory assessment. NOSC Technical Report 844 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 333 pp. Gallaway, B.J. and G.S. Lewbel. 1982. The ecology of petroleum platforms in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/27. 92 pp. Gardline Marine Services Inc. 2014. Marine Geohazard Investigation Survey for Offshore Suriname Block 52 Roselle-1. Preliminary Survey Report submitted to Petronas Suriname E&P B.V. Project No. 10313. General Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Relevant internet articles/reports, reports from international organizations), Existing consultancy reports, ABS’s Basic Indicator reports for 2012 provided the most recent statistics. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 282 pp. Getliff, J., A. Roach, J. Toyo, and J. Carpenter. 1997. An overview of the environmental benefits of LAO fluids for offshore drilling. Presented at the 5th International IBC Conference on Minimising the Environmental Effects of Drilling Operations, Aberdeen. June 1997. Girondot, M., M.H. Godfrey, L. Ponge, and P. Rivalan. 2007. Modeling approaches to quantify leatherback nesting trends in French Guiana and Suriname. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1):37-46. Gitschlag, G., B. Herczeg, and T. Barcack. 1997. Observations of sea turtles and other marine life at the explosive removal of offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Research Reports 9 (4):247-262. Glickson, D.A. and D.M. Fratantoni. 2001. North Brazil Current Rings Experiment: Mooring S1 Data Report, November 1998-June 2000. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report, WHOI-2001-06. 53 pp. Goverse E. and M.L. Hilterman. 2005. Status of leatherback nesting population in Suriname with notes on leatherback nesting in Guyana and French Guiana. Atlantic Leatherback Strategy Retreat at St. Catherine’s Island. Hanni, G., J. Hartley, R. Munro, and A. Skullerd. 1998. Evolutionary environmental management of drilling discharges: Results without cost penalty. SPE 46617. SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, 7-10 June 1998, Caracas, Venezuela. Heyning, J.E. 2002. Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), pp. 305-308. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Higashi, G.R. 1994. Ten years of fish aggregating device (FAD) design and development in Hawaii. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2-3):651-666.


Hill, J. and E. Wilson. 2000. Virgularia mirabilis. Slender sea pen. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=4579. Hilterman, M.L. and E. Goverse. 2007. Nesting and nest success of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Suriname, 1999-2005. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1):87-100. Hinwood, J.B., A.E. Potts, L.R. Denis, J.M. Carey, H. Houridis, R.J. Bell, J.R. Thomson, P. Boudreau, and A.M. Ayling. 1994. Drilling activities, pp. 126-206. In: J.M. Swan, J.M. Neff, and P.C. Young (eds.), Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia. The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and Energy Research and Development Corporation. Christopher Beck Books, Queensland, Australia. Holand, P. 1997. Offshore Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX. Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493-507. Horizon Marine, Inc. 2010. Eddy Watch Trinidad/North Brazil Current update: 30 July 2010. Horwood, J. 2002. Sei whale, pp. 1,069-1,071. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, London. Impact Weather. 2009. Climatology offshore Suriname. Prepared for Murphy Exploration and Production. Inter-American Development Bank. 2005. Country Environmental Assessment: Suriname. Final Report, August 2005. SU-P1011. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35011484. Inter-American Development Bank. 2014. Suriname’s Energy Market. Accessed 2 28 October 2015 at: http://blogs.iadb.org/caribbean-devtrends/2013/11/20/surinames-energy-market/. International Association of Drilling Contractors. 2009. Health, Safety and Environment Case Guidelines for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. Issue 3.2.1, May 2009. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2003. Environmental aspects of the use and disposal of non-aqueous drilling fluids associated with offshore oil & gas operations. Report No. 342. May 2003. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. 2010. Blowout Frequencies, Report No. 434-2, March 2010. 13 pp. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-02.pdf. International Energy Consultants Organization. 2013. Marine Mammal and Turtle Observation’s Report on behalf of Teikoku Oil (Suriname) Co., Ltd./INPEX for a 3D Seismic Survey, Block 31 Offshore Suriname. International Monetary Fund. 2013. Suriname 2013 Article IV Consultation - IMF Country Report No. 13/340. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2013/cr13340.pdf. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2014. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.


Jefferson, T.A. 2002. Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), pp. 234-236. In:. Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2008. Marine Mammals of the World. Academic Press, Oxford, UK. 573 pp. Jochum, M. and P. Malanotte-Rizzoli. 2003. On the generation of North Brazil Current rings. J. Mar. Res. 61:147-173. Johns, W.E., T.N. Lee, F.A. Schott, R.J. Zantopp, and R.H. Evans. 1990. The North Brazil Current retroflection: Seasonal structure and eddy variability. J. Geophys. Res. 104:25,805-25,820. Johns, W.E., T.N. Lee, R.C. Beardsley, J. Candela, R. Limeburner, and B. Castro. 1998. Annual cycle and variability of the North Brazil Current. Amer. Met. Soc. 103-128. Kato, H. 2002. Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei), pp. 171-177. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Keinath, J.A. and J.A. Musick. 1993. Movements and diving behavior of a leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Copeia 1993(4):1,010-1,017. Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and D.E. Barnard. 1996. Abundance and distribution of sea turtles off North Carolina. OCS Study MMS 95-0024. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 156 pp. Kelle, L., N. Gratiot, and B. De Thoisy. 2009. Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea in French Guiana: Back from the brink of regional extirpation? Fauna & Flora International 43(2):243-246. Komex Environment and Water Limited. 2005. Repsol YPF Environmental Impact Statement 3D Seismic Survey in Suriname Deep Waters (Block 30) Final Report. Komex 50889-4. Kruskal, W. and W.A. Wallace. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of American Statistical Association 47(260):583-621. Kruskal, W. and W.A. Wallace. 1995. Nonparametric methods in lieu of single-classification ANOVA, pp. 423-425. In: R.R. Sokal and F.J. Rohlf (eds.), Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 887 pp. Laist, D.W. 1996. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestions records, pp. 99-139. In: J.M. Coe and D.R. Rogers (eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17:35-75. Lefebvre, J.P., F. Dolique, and N. Gratiot. 2004. Geomorphic evolution of a coastal mudflat under oceanic influences: an example from the dynamic shoreline of French Guiana. Mar. Geol. 208:191-205. Lenhardt, M.L. 1982. Bone conduction hearing in turtles. J. Aud. Res. 22:153-160. Lenhardt, M.L. and S.W. Harkins. 1983. Turtle shells as an auditory receptor. J. Aud. Res. 23(4):251-60.


Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers. 1990. Association of sea turtles with petroleum platforms in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study MMS 90-0025. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 90 pp. Lumpkin, R. and S. Garzoli. 2005. Near-surface circulation in the Tropical Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res. 52:495-518. Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival, pp. 387-410. In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 432 pp. Madarie, H.M. 2006. Turtle by-catch by the coastal fishing fleet of Suriname. WWF Suriname. Paramaribo, Suriname. Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1984. South Atlantic OCS Area Living Marine Resources Study, Phase III. Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29185. 3 vols. Márquez, R. 1990. Sea Turtles of the World. FAO Species Catalog, Vol. 11. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 81 pp. Marshall, A., M.B. Bennett, G. Kodja, S. Hinojosa-Alvarez, F. Galvan-Magana, M. Harding, G. Stevens, and T. Kashiwagi. 2011. Manta birostris. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. McAlpine, D.F. 2002. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia breviceps and K. sima), pp. 1,007-1,009. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys – A study of environmental implications. APPEA J. 2000:692-708. Mead, J.G. 2002. Beaked whales, Overview, pp. 81-84. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Metcalf, W. 1968. Shallow currents along the northeastern coast of South America. J. Mar. Res. 26:232-243. Millennium Development Goals. 2014. Progress Report 2014. Accessed 29 October 2015 at: http://undpsuriname.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=276:govern ment-of-the-republic-of-suriname-mdg-progress-report2014&catid=3:publications&Itemid=70. Milton, S., P. Lutz, and G. Shigenaka. 2003. Chapter 4: Oil toxicity and impacts on sea turtles, pp. 35-48. In: G Shigenaka (ed.), Oil and Sea Turtles: Biology, Planning, and Response. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. 120 pp. Mohadin, K. 2000. Sea turtle research and conservation in Suriname: history, constraints and achievements, pp. 5-9. In: Kelle, L., S. Lochon, J. Therese, and X. Desbois (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting on the Sea Turtles of the Guianas. Programme de conservation des tortues marines de Guyane, Cayenne, French Guiana.


Mohadin, K. and H.A. Reichart. 1984. National Report to the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium for Suriname, pp. 386-397. In: Bacon,P., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and M. Weber (eds.), Proc. Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium (Vol. 3, Appendix 7), 17-22 July 1983, San José, Costa Rica. University of Miami Press, Miami, FL. Mol Jan, H., D. Resida, J.S. Ramlal, and C.R. Becker. 2000. Effects of El Niño-related drought on freshwater and brackish-water fishes in Suriname, South America. Environ. Biol. Fish. 59(4):429-440. Morrison, R.I.G. and R.K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America. Two vols. Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 325 pp. Mosher, D., J. Erbacher, M.H. Zühlsdorff, H. Meyer, and Shipboard Science Party. 2005. Stratigraphy of the Demerara Rise, Suriname, South America: A Rifted Margin, Shallow Stratigraphic Source Rock Analogue. AAPG Datapaes Search and Discovery Article #90039. Calgary, Alberta. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2005/annual/abstracts/mosher02. htm?q=%2Btext%3Ademerara+text%3Arise. Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd. 2010. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Exploratory Drilling Program, Block 37, Offshore Suriname. Prepared for Murphy Suriname Oil Company, Ltd. by CSA International, Inc. 2 vols. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2012. International Space Station Imagery, Isla Blanquilla, Venezuela. Accessed 25 September 2014 at: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-15/html/iss015e07771.html. National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname. 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volumes I-V. Prepared for Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname. 2006. National Biodiversity Strategy. Prepared for the Suriname Minitstry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment. Agreement No. 07-2005 between the United Nations Development Programme/Suriname and the World Wildlife Fund. 41 pp. National Institute for Environment and Development in Suriname. 2009. Environmental Assessment Guidelines, Volume I: Generic. 2nd ed. August 2009. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.staatsolie.com/pio/images/stories/PDF/environmental_assessment_guidel ines_vol1_generic_aug2009.pdf. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Final recovery plan for the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 105 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Recovery plan for the northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD and the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Second revision, 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft recovery plan for the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.


National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) – 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. August 2007. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Species, Silver Spring, MD. 79 pp. National Research Council. 1983. Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.. 180 pp. National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 259 pp. National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 126 pp. Nedwell J.R., K. Needham, J. Gordon, C. Rogers, and T. Gordon. 2001. The effects of underwater blast on marine mammals during wellhead severance in the North Sea. Subacoustech Ltd. Report No. 469R0202. Netherlands Engineering Consultants. 1968. Suriname Transportation Study. Report of the hydraulic investigation. NEDECO, Den Haag. 293 pp. Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill cuttings and produced waters, pp. 469-538. In: Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long-Term Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. Neff, J.M., R.E. Hillman, and J.J. Waugh. 1989a. Bioaccumulation of trace metals from drilling mud barite by benthic marine animals, pp. 461-479. In: F.R. Engelhardt, J.P. Ray, and A.H. Gillam (eds.), Drilling Wastes. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY. 867 pp. Neff, J.M., R.J. Breteler, and R.S. Carr. 1989b. Bioaccumulation, food chain transfer, and biological effects of barium and chromium from drilling muds by flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and lobster (Homarus americanus), pp. 439-459. In: Engelhardt, F.R., J.P. Ray, and A.H. Gillam (eds.), Drilling Wastes. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY. 867 pp. Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. Report prepared by Robert Ayers & Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 118 pp. Nota, D.J.G. 1958. Sediments of the western Guiana shelf. Mededelingen Van De Landbouwhogeschool Te Wageningen. Nederland 58(2):1-98. Nota, D.J.G. 1967. Geomorphology and Sediments of the Western Surinam Shelf: A Preliminary Note. Geologie en Mijnbouw 48:185-188. Nota, D.J.G. 1971. Morphology and sediments off the Marowijne River, Eastern Surinam Shelf. Scientific investigations on the shelf of Suriname, H.m. M.S.Luymes, 1969. Hydrographic Newsletter, Special Publication 6:31-35. Nurmohamed, R., S. Naipal, and C. Becker. 2007. Short communication: Rainfall variability in Suriname and its relationship with the tropical Pacific ENSO SST anomalies and the Atlantic SST anomalies. Int. J. Climatol. 27:249-256. Ocean Numerics Limited. 2005. Monitoring of Ring Tracks with Earth Observation Data Offshore Suriname, Vol. 1 Final. Ocean Studies Board. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 260 pp. Oceanic Society. 2007. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: www.oceanic-society.org. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 256

Olson, P.A. and S.B. Reilly. 2002. Pilot whales, pp. 898-903. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Opresko, D.M. 1974. A study of the classification of the Antipatharia (Colenterata: Anthozoa) with redescriptions of eleven species. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 199 pp Payne, J.R., G.D. McNabb, Jr., L.E. Hachmeister, B.E. Kirstein, J.R. Clayton, Jr., C.R. Phillips, R.T. Redding, C.L. Clary, G.S. Smith, and G.H. Farmer. 1987. Development of a Predictive Model for Weathering of Oil in the Presence of Sea Ice. In: Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program Final Reports of Principal Investigators. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, and U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 147-465 Perrin, W.F. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2002. Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata and B. bonaerensis), pp. 750-754. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.). 2002. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Perryman, W.L. 2002. Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), pp. 733-735. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Ray, J.P. and R.P. Meek. 1980. Water column characterization of drilling fluids dispersion from an offshore exploratory well on Tanner Bank, pp. 223-252. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings. 21-24 January 1980, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, P.J. Clapham, and J.A. Powell. 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Knopf, New York, NY. 527 pp. Reichart, H.A. and J. Fretey. 1993. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for Suriname. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica. CEP Technical Report No. 24. 65 pp. Repsol YPF. 2008. Suriname Block 30 Exploration Programme: Final EIA. Report No. R3018. Reyes, J., N. Santodomingo, A. Gracia, G. Borrero-Perez, G. Navas, L.M. Mejia-Ladino, A. Bermudez, and M. Benavides. 2005. Southern Caribbean azooxanthellate coral communities off Colombia, pp. 309-330. Cold Water Corals and Ecosystems, Erlangen Earth Conference Series Reynolds, J.E. and J.A. Powell. 2002. Manatees (Trichechus manatus, T. senegalensis, and T. inunguis), pp. 709-721. In: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Richardson, P.L., G.E. Hufford, R. Limeburner, and W.S. Brown. 1994. North Brazil Current retroflection eddies. J. Geophys. Res. 99(C3):5,081-5,093. Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 pp. Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. Hearing in the giant sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 64:884-890.


Rosman, I., G.S. Boland, L.R. Martin, and C.R. Chandler. 1987. Underwater sightings of sea turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS Study 87-0107. 37 pp. RPS GeoCet. 2009. Final protected species monitoring report. Suriname Block 31 3D Surface Seismic Survey. Teikoku Oil (Suriname) Co., Ltd. and Fugro Geoteam/Geo Celtic. Project No. 61385. 9 April to 5 June 2009. Ruppert, E.E. and R.D. Barnes. 1994. Invertebrate Zoology. 6th ed. Harcourt Brace and Company, Orlando, FL. 1,100 pp. Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 348 pp. Salomons, W. and U. Förstner. 1984. Metals in the Hydrocycle. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. 349 pp. Sánchez, J.A. 1999. Black coral-octocoral distribution patterns on Imelda Bank, a deep-water reef, Colombia, Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of Marine Science 65:215225Schenk, C.J., M.E. Brownfield, R.R. Charpentier, T.A. Cook, T.R. Klett, M.A. Kirschbaum, J.K. Pitman, R.R. Pollastro, and M.E. Tennyson. 2012. Assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources of South American and the Caribbean. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2012-3046, 4 pp. Sánchez, J.A., S. Zea, and J.M. Diaz. 1998. Patterns of octocoral and black coral distrivutions in the oceanic barrier reef complex of Providencia Island, southwestern Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of Science 34:250-264. Schulz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologiche Verhand. 143. Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden/Verhandeling 3 Stiching Natuurbehoud Suriname, Paramaribo. Shepard, F.P. 1954. Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 24:151-158. Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and P.A. Dustan. 1990. Impact assessment of exploration wells offshore south Florida. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0022. 95 pp. Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and C.D. Reich. 1993. Habitat impacts of offshore drilling: eastern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0021. 73 pp. Smit, M.G.D., K.I.E. Holthaus, H.C. Trannum, J.M. Neff, G. Kjeilen-Eilertsen, R.G. Jak, I. Singsaas, M.A.J. Huijbregts, and A.J. Hendriks. 2008. Species sensitivity distributions for suspended clays, sediment burial, and grain size change in the marine environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27: 1006–1012. Spaans, A.L. 1990. Drie voor watervogels door Suriname ingebracht in het Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Het Vogeljaar 38(2):66-72. Spaans A.L. 2003. Coastal birds of Suriname. STINASU, Paramaribo, Suriname. Spaans, A.L. and F.L.J. Baal. 1990. The estuarine zone of Suriname: towards a symbiosis between conservation and development of a coastal wetland area. In: J.L. Fiselier (ed), Living off the tides. Strategies for the integration of conservation and sustainable resource utilization along mangrove coasts. Environmental Database on Wetlands Interventions. Leiden, the Netherlands. ESIA for the Exploratory Drilling Program – Block 52 PSEPBV 258

Staatsolie. 2012. Overview Suriname Guyana Basin. Accessed 28 October 2015; updated 15 July 2015 at: http://www.staatsolie.com/pio/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Ite mid=28. Staatsolie. 2014a. Offshore Acreage. Accessed 28 October 2015; updated 15 July 2015 at: http://www.staatsolie.com/pio/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&It emid=46. Staatsolie. 2014b. Company Profile. Accessed 28 October 2015 at http://www.staatsolie.com/pdf/staatsolie-profile2014.pdf. Tambiah, C.R. 1994. Saving sea turtles or killing them: The case of U.S. regulated TEDs in Guyana and Suriname, pp. 149-151. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351. Teenstra-Mabé, M.D. 1835. De landbouw in de kolonie Suriname: voorafgegaan door eene geschied- en natuurkundige beschouwing dier kolonie. Teunissen, P. 2002. Discussion paper for the development of a frameworks policy and strategic plan for the sustainable management of the non-urban environmental sub-sector in Suriname. Marine and Coastal Zone Management, WWF Guianas. United Nations. 2002. Sustainable Development Country Profile: Suriname. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg from August 26 to September 4, 2002. 2002 Country Profile Series, Prepared for the Commission on Sustainable Development, CP2002-Suriname. 59 pp. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 2011. Introduction to Tropical Meteorology. 2nd ed. Chapter 5.3.5 Seasonal Precipitation. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.goesr.gov/users/comet/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_6_page_3.5.0.ht m. University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Consortium for Advanced Research on Transport of Hydrocarbon in the Environment (CARTHE), and Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. 2013. Surface Currents in the Atlantic Ocean – The North Brazil Current. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/north-brazil_3.html. University of South Carolina. 2012. WWW Tide and Current Predictor – Paramaribo, Suriname. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://tbone.biol.sc.edu/tide/tideshow.cgi?site=Paramaribo%2C+Suriname. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2001. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181, Eastern Planning Area. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001-051. June 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2002. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007. Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201. Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-052. 2 vols.


U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Air quality emissions reporting spreadsheet for EPs and DOCDs. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/Gulf-ofMexico-Region/Air-Quality/Air-Quality-Reporting.aspx. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012. Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. April 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. EPA 821-R-93-003. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. The NPDES General Permit for New and Existing Sources and New Dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). Victor, B.C. 1991. Settlement strategies and biogeography of reef fishes, pp. 231-260. In: P.F. Sale (ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY. 754 pp. Warner, G.F. 1981. Species descriptions and ecological observations of black corals (Antipatharia) from Trinidad. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:147-163 Weatherbase. 2013. Suriname – Weather Averages. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/city.php3?c=SR. Wedepohl, K.H. 1995. The composition of the continental crust. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59(7):1,217-1,232. Wells, R.S. and M.D. Scott. 2002. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus and T. aduncus), pp. 122-128. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1,414 pp. Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42(12):1,285-1,290. Wolfson, A., G. Van Blaricom, N. Davis, and G.S. Lewbel. 1979. The marine life of an offshore oil platform. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1:81-89. World Bank. 2014. Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO) estimate. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS/countries/SR?display=graph. World Trade Organization. 2013. Trade Policy Review Suriname. Report by Secretariat. Report No. WT/TPR/S/282/Rev.1. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: www.wto.org. World Travel & Tourism Council. 2014. Travel & Tourism. Economic Impact 2014. Suriname. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: www.wttc.org. World Wildlife Fund. 2014. Sea Turtles. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sea-turtle. World Wildlife Fund Guianas. 2012a. Aitkanti, the leatherback turtle. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.wwfguianas.org/our_work/marine_turtles/aitkanti.cfm.


World Wildlife Fund Guianas. 2012b. Results of satellite tracking of marine turtles. Accessed 28 October 2015 at: http://www.wwfguianas.org/our_work/marine_turtles/satellite_tracking_of_marine_turt les_in_suriname/. WorleyParsons. 2011. Tullow Suriname B.V. Block 47 Suriname Offshore 3D Seismic Survey. Preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.



ESIA for Exploratory Drilling in Block 52-Petronas 15 2664 ESIA Final Vol 1

Recommend Documents