Request for Review of Proponent Responses to IRs for Central Ridge Exploration Drilling Project

Reference Number
45
Date Submitted
2020-06-24 12:00:00 AM
Text

Hi Leslie,

We’ve reviewed the Proponent’s IR responses for the Central Ridge Exploration Drilling Project and offer the following comments for your review and consideration.

 

2.2 Information Requirement DFO-25

· Oceanographic Conditions: There is some confusion regarding CECOM. Are CECOM data presented in Figures 1 and 2? In paragraph 2, it states, “seasonal mean currents from the WebDrogue CECOM (Canadian East Coast Ocean Model) model (DFO 2015) were used in the models”, but in paragraph 4, it states, “the previous modelling for JDB and EL 1134 employed nearby current measurements; at SPA a combination of measured currents from part of the year and CECOM currents was employed”. Clarification should be provided on the data used in previous modelling.

 

6.1 Information Requirement IR-6

· DFO does not agree with the statement, “residual effects from drilling and production operations in the White Rose production field programs are generally anticipated to be similar in nature and extent (including similar spatial and temporal scales) to predicted Project-related residual environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat, marine and migratory birds, and marine mammals and sea turtles”. Exploratory and production drilling are anticipated to have different residual effects due to the differences in time-scales of activities as well as the nature of activities, e.g. volume of produced water.

· The effectiveness of the White Rose safety zone on reducing cumulative effects is not discussed for each potential source.

· For Marine Fish and Fish Habitat, discussion is limited to drill cuttings. Potential overlap of zone of influence for other sources (e.g. sound) and associated cumulative effects should be discussed. The Proponent indicates “minimal spatial overlap from drill cuttings discharge”. It should be clarified whether cumulative depositional amounts could exceed the 1.5 mm PNET.

· For Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles, discussion is limited to sound, and cumulative effects are not adequately assessed for this source. How does the soundscape from the White Rose field overlap with the Project and what are the anticipated cumulative effects? Potential overlap of zone of influence for other sources (e.g. light) and associated cumulative effects should also be discussed.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

 

Kim

Submitted by
Administrator on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Phase
Screening
Public Notice
Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary of the Project Description
Date modified: