Comprehensive Study Report

Introduction

• 1.1 Regulatory Context
• 1.2 Scope of the Project
• 1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment
• 1.4 Project Purpose and Need
• 1.5 Alternatives to the Project
• 1.6 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project
• 1.7 Effects of the Environment on the Project
• 1.8 Assessment Overview

---

Introduction

This Comprehensive Study Report describes the potential environmental effects (including cumulative effects as contemplated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)) of the White Rose oilfield development, a proposed energy project that will recover oil reserves off Newfoundland's east coast. The White Rose field is located approximately 350 km east of the Island of Newfoundland on the eastern edge of the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, and is approximately 50 km from both the Terra Nova and Hibernia fields (Figure 1.1). The Jeanne d'Arc sedimentary basin is recognized as the principal oil-producing basin off the eastern coast of North America.

Husky Oil Operations Limited (Husky Oil) is one of the leading operators and interest holders in the Canadian east coast offshore oil industry, holding an approximate 32 percent net working interest in the Significant Discovery License areas in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. The current land holdings are a result of substantial investment and an extensive exploration program initiated in 1982, as well as a series of inter-company and land sale acquisitions undertaken over the past 18 years. White Rose is one of five Significant Discovery Areas operated by Husky Oil in the Newfoundland offshore. Husky Oil is a wholly owned subsidiary of Husky Energy Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

The White Rose Significant Discovery Area consists of several oil and gas pools, including the South, West and North Avalon pools. The pools cover approximately 40 km², with an estimated 36 million m³ (230 million barrels) of recoverable oil. Husky Oil, in a co-venture with Petro-Canada, proposes to develop this significant oil discovery in the White Rose Significant Discovery Area. Petro-Canada is the operator of the Terra Nova oilfield and, like Husky Oil, holds substantial interests in the Newfoundland offshore. The average interest of the co-venture parties in the White Rose oilfield development are 72.5 percent and 27.5 percent for Husky Oil and for Petro-Canada, respectively.

1.1 Regulatory Context

Husky Oil and its co-venturer Petro-Canada (the proponents) are seeking the appropriate regulatory approvals for the White Rose oilfield development.

The White Rose project is subject to the CEAA. The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NOPB) must issue a production licence respecting the project, and thereby performs a duty relating to "the administration of federal lands and ...disposes of those lands or any interest in those lands...for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out" within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(c) of CEAA. The C-NOPB is a "Responsible Authority" respecting the project, and therefore requires an environmental assessment to determine if the project will have a significant adverse effect. The principal tool for this assessment under CEAA is the Comprehensive Study.

Figure 1.1: White Rose Location

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has determined that the project will result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and therefore requires an Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. As Section 35(2) authorization requirement is a Law List trigger under CEAA, DFO is also a Responsible Authority with respect to the environmental assessment of the project. Further, as a condition of this authorization, the proponents will be required to develop a fish habitat compensation plan that will be used by DFO in the development of a compensation agreement to compensate for losses of productive fish habitat in accordance with DFO's Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat.

Similarly, Environment Canada has determined that the construction of glory holes during the project and the deposition of spoils upon the surrounding seabed likely will require a Disposal at Sea Permit under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and that Environment Canada is a Responsible Authority. Finally, Industry Canada has determined that the radio equipment on the production installation will require its approval pursuant to Section 5(1)(f) of the Radiocommunications Act, and that it therefore also is a Responsible Authority respecting the proposed project. The project is subject to a "comprehensive study" level of assessment under CEAA since it falls within the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, Part IV, Oil and Gas Projects, Section 11. The C-NOPB is the lead Responsible Authority respecting the assessment, and in that role, is responsible for coordinating the review activities of the other responsible authorities as well as those of other expert government departments and agencies that participate in the review.

The Comprehensive Study for the proposed White Rose oilfield development is comprised of an Introduction/Project Description, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Part One) and a Socio-Economic Impact Statement (SEIS) (Part Two) (Husky Oil 2000a), as well as a Supplemental Report (Husky Oil 2001a).

In addition to the Comprehensive Study environmental assessment process under CEAA, the White Rose oilfield development is subject to review, coordinated by C-NOPB, under the Atlantic Accord Acts. A Development Application (Husky Oil 2001b) consisting of a Canada-Newfoundland Benefits Plan, Development Plan, EIS, SEIS and Preliminary Safety Plan/Concept Safety Assessment was submitted in January 2001, and is currently under review. As part of this process, the C-NOPB has appointed a Commissioner to conduct a review of the Development Application. This review will include: considerations of human safety and environmental protection incorporated into the proposed design and operation of the project; the general approach to the proposed and potential development and exploitation of the petroleum resources within the White Rose Significant Discovery Area; and the resulting benefits that are expected to accrue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to Canada, having particular regard to the requirements for a Canada-Newfoundland benefits plan. A key element of this process will include a thorough public review.

1.2 Scope of the Project

Husky Oil submitted a project description to C-NOPB on March 21, 2000, indicating its intention to initiate the environmental assessment process (Husky Oil 2000b). On July 21, 2000, C-NOPB, DFO, Environment Canada and Industry Canada provided a scoping document to assist in the preparation of the Comprehensive Study Report. The project description is summarized below.

The White Rose oilfield development is anticipated to recover an estimated 36 million m³ (230 million barrels) of recoverable oil from an approximately 40 km² area in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. A ship-shaped floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facility, similar to that selected for Terra Nova, is proposed to be used to develop the oilfield. This ship-shaped facility will be able to store between approximately 111,000 and 135,000 m³ (700,000 and 850,000 barrels) of oil (approximately 8 to 10 days of oil production) and will contain topside processing units, accommodations and a turret to facilitate the positioning and emergency response of the vessel.

There will be three to four drill centres on the seafloor, with production and water and gas injection wells located at each centre. These drill centres will be located in three to four excavated glory holes that lie below the seabed to protect the wells from iceberg scour. The drill centres will be connected to the FPSO facility with flexible flowlines and risers. The FPSO's turret is designed to allow the facility to disconnect from the subsea drill centres and move in the event of an emergency.

Developing the White Rose oilfield will require drilling up to 10 to 14 production wells in the South Avalon reservoir. The production from the combined wells is estimated between 12,000 to 18,000 m³ (75,000 and 110,000 barrels) of oil daily. Up to an additional 8 to 11 water and gas injection wells will be drilled to maintain the reservoir pressure and for purposes of resource conservation. The wells will be drilled in phases over a four to six-year period. Up to four to six production wells, one to three water injection wells and one gas injection well will be required for First Oil production.

Seawater will be treated and then injected into the geological reservoir for pressure maintenance. Produced gas will be preserved through reinjection for conservation purposes and, if necessary, for reservoir pressure maintenance. There is no intention to flare produced gas, except for specific and limited operational, maintenance or safety requirements. The South Avalon pool has an estimated production life of approximately 14 years.

The scope of the project being assessed therefore includes the:

• construction, installation, operation, maintenance, modification, decommissioning and abandonment of a petroleum production facility respecting the White Rose oilfield (as described in the White Rose Oilfield Project Description prepared by Husky Oil and dated March 17, 2000);
• construction, installation, operation, maintenance, modification, decommissioning and abandonment of subsea facilities associated with the White Rose oilfield, including drilling and workover of development wells, subsea flow lines and any related excavation of the seabed and associated spoil deposition; and
• operation of support craft associated with the above facilities, including but not limited to mobile offshore drilling units, platform supply and standby vessels and helicopters, and shuttle tanker activity that is incremental to that already in existence or expected to be in existence.

No new onshore facilities are expected to be required to support the above activities. All onshore construction and fabrication activities are expected to be carried out at existing industrial sites.

The proposed project is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this report.

1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

This Comprehensive Study Report provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development. Environmental effects, as defined in subsection 2(1) of CEAA, are changes that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of such change on human health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, and on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, palaeontological or architectural significance, as well as changes to the project that may be caused by the environment. CEAA does not require assessment of socio-economic effects unless they result from biophysical effects, or unless the Terms of Reference for the project are written to specifically include them if they are not addressed elsewhere. As identified during the White Rose public consultation process (Section 3.1), a number of socio-economic issues not specifically resulting from changes to the environment were raised by stakeholders. These potential socio-economic effects (both positive and adverse) also are discussed for completeness, but will be addressed through the Accord Acts Development Application review process.

The assessment also considers the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project, as well as any cumulative effects that are reasonably likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or are identified to be carried out. Other projects and activities considered in assessing cumulative effects include: the Hibernia project, the Terra Nova project, offshore oil exploration activity, commercial fisheries, marine transportation, and (for marine birds) hunting activities.

Subsection 16(2) (d) of CEAA states that every Comprehensive Study carried out under the Act must consider the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future. As will be demonstrated, the proposed White Rose oilfield development is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects As renewable resources are not likely to be significantly affected by the project, consideration of this factor is not relevant to this assessment.

This Comprehensive Study Report is a general summary of the White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study (Husky Oil 2000a; 2001a). It focuses primarily on the specific requirements of CEAA, and synthesizes and consolidates sections of the Comprehensive Study. The Comprehensive Study itself was prepared in accordance with the detailed requirements of the scoping package discussed above, as indicated in Table 1.1.

Table1.1: Table of Concordance with the Scoping Document for the White Rose Oilfield Environmental Assessment

Factors to be Considered	Section(s) Where Addressed
General
The purpose of the project	Comp. Study, Section 1.3
The need for the project	Comp. Study, Section 1.3
Alternatives to the project	Comp. Study, Section 1.3
Alternative means of carrying out the project which are technically and economically feasible (and the environmental effects of any such alternatives)	Comp. Study, Section 1.4
Environmental assessment methodology	Part One, Section 4.2 Part Two, Section 2.2 Supplemental Report
Identification of testable hypotheses	Part One, Sections 4.3.5, 5.9.3, 7.1, 8.11
The environmental effects of the project (including those due to malfunctions or accidents)	Part One, Chapters 4, 5 Part Two, Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (Integrated throughout Parts One and Two) Supplemental Report
Cumulative environmental effects	Part One, Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.4, 4.4.4, 4.5.4, 4.6, 5.9.2.5 Part Two, Sections 2.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2.2 (Integrated throughout Parts One and Two) Supplemental Report
The significance of the environmental effects of the project (including significant criteria)	Part One, Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.9 Part Two, Sections 2.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3 Supplemental Report
Measures to mitigate any significant adverse effects (including contingency and compensation measures)	Part One, Chapters 4, 5 Supplemental Report
The significance of any adverse environmental effects following mitigation (including the feasibility of additional or augmented mitigative measures)	Part One, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 5.9, Chapter 6 Part Two, Sections 4.4, 5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.4.3, 5.5.3, 5.6.3, 6.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.4.3, 7.3
The capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future	Not relevant as referenced by comment pertaining to Subsection 16(2)(d) on page 5
The need for, and requirements of, any follow-up programs	Part One, Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 5.9.3, 6.10.4, 8.11, 8.12, Chapter 7 Part Two, Sections 4.4, 5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.4.3, 5.5.3, 5.6.3, 6.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.4.3, 7.3.2 Supplemental Report
Comments from the public	Comp. Study, Section 1.5 Part One, Section 4.2.1 Part Two, Section 2.2.1 JWEL (2000)
Address factors included in appropriate sections of the C-NOPB Development Application Guidelines (1988)	Comp. Study, Section 1.5 Part One, Section 4.2.1 Part Two, Section 2.2.1
Address issues and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation	Comp. Study, Section 1.5 Part One, Section 4.2.1 Part Two, Section 2.2.1 JWEL (2000)
Definitions of identified VECs (including components or subsets thereof) and the rationale for their selection	Part One, Section 4.2.2 Part Two, Section 2.2.2 Supplemental Report
The spatial and temporal boundaries of the environmental assessment	Part One, Section 4.2.3 Part Two, Section 2.1 Supplemental Report
The cumulative effects of the project in combination with other projects or activities, including: fishing activities; (for marine birds) hunting activities; marine transportation activities; the Hibernia project; the Terra Nova project; and petroleum exploration activity.	Comp. Study, Section 1.8 Part One, Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.4, 4.4.4, 4.5.4, 4.6, 5.9.2.5 Part Two, Sections 2.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2.2 (Integrated throughout Parts One and Two) Supplemental Report
Significance criteria for evaluating adverse environmental effects	Part One, Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.6 Part Two, Section 2.2 Supplemental Report
Air Quality
Air emissions (including annual estimates)	Part One, Sections 4.3.1.16, 4.3.2.13, 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.6, 8.8.3.1 Supplemental Report
Health and safety implications of air emissions	Part One, Appendix 4.A
"Greenhouse gas" emissions (including annual estimates and means for their reporting and reduction)	Part One, Sections 4.3.1.16, 4.3.2.13, 8.8.3.1, Appendix 8.A
Marine Resources
The seabed area predicted to be affected by dredging, trenching and dredge spoil disposal, drill cuttings and other discharges	Part One, Sections 4.2.1.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 Supplemental Report
Quantification of the spatial area of affected seabed	Part One, Section 4.3.1.3 Supplemental Report
Marine/Migratory Birds
Species distributions (spatial and temporal)	Part One, Sections 3.1.4, 3.9 Supplemental Report
Species habitat, feeding, breeding and migration	Part One, Section 3.9
Particularly sensitive (i.e., threatened / endangered) bird species	Part One, Section 3.9.4.4
Potential attraction of birds	Part One, Section 4.4
Potential for bioaccumulation of heavy metals associated with project discharges by birds	Part One, Section 4.4
Effects of aircraft overflights on bird concentrations and/or colonies	Part One, Sections 4.4.1.7, 4.4.2.8
Effects of oil spills on birds, as well as any sheens that may be associated with regulated discharges	Part One, Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 5.9.2.2 Supplemental Report
Means for assessing and documenting any bird mortalities	Part One, Section 7.1.2
Design and/or operational procedures for mitigating effects to birds	Part One, Section 4.4, Chapters 6, 8
Marine Fish, Shellfish, Reptiles and Marine Mammals and Their Respective Benthic and Water-Column Habitat
Existing conditions in the project area, affected area and region (including species distribution and abundance, life stages)	Part One, Chapters 2, 3 Supplemental Report
Location, type, diversity and extent of marine fish habitat in the project and affected areas (particularly those supporting fishing activity and including any critical habitats)	Part One, Chapters 3, 4 Part Two, Chapter 7 Supplemental Report
Environmental (including cumulative) effects (considering lethal and sublethal effects, species interrelationships, fish health, productivity, and affected habitat)	Part One, Sections 4.3, 4.5, 5.9, 7.2 Supplemental Report
Marine Use
Size and location of exclusion zones	Comp. Study, Section 1.2 Part One, Section 4.3 Part Two, Section 7.2
Project-related traffic (including routings, volumes, schedules, and vessel types)	Comp. Study, Section 1.2.1 Part One, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3
Effects on access to fishing grounds	Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3
Effects on marine traffic/navigation (including research surveys)	Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3 Supplemental Report
Traditional, existing and potential commercial, recreational and Aboriginal/subsistence including foreign fisheries (including underused species, species under moratoria and the traditional and changing nature of the fishery)	Part One, Section 3.8 Part Two, Chapter 7 Supplemental Report
Effects of project operations and accidental events on current and potential fisheries	Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3 Supplemental Report
Effects of real/perceived shellfish taint	Part One, Sections 4.3, 5.9.2 Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3
Cumulative effects to fisheries	Part Two, Section 7.2.2
Discharges and Emissions
Effects of electromagnetic emissions from radio equipment on personnel safety and mitigation/elimination measures	Part One , Section 8.8.3.6
Planned project discharges to the marine environment (including dredge spoil, drilling fluids and cuttings, produced water, bilge water, "grey" and "black" water, cooling water, deck drainage)	Comp. Study, Section 1.2.1 Part One, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Supplemental Report
Characterization, quantification and modelling of expected discharges (including a description of models employed)	Comp. Study, Section 1.2.1 Part One , Sections 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.5 Hodgins and Hodgins (2000) Supplemental Report
Means for the reduction, reuse and recovery of wastes	Comp. Study, Section 1.2.1 Part One, Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 8.8.3
Feasibility of subsurface re-injection of produced water and drill cuttings associated with organic-phase drilling fluids	Part One, Section 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.5 Supplemental Report (Supporting Document)
Accidental Events
Quantification of blowout risk	Part One, Sections 5.2, 5.7
Quantification of risk of oil spills of all volumes	Part One, Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7
Modelled physical fate of oil spills (including models, analyses and data)	Part One, Sections 5.8, 6.10 Supplemental Report
Environmental effects of oil or chemical spills	Part One, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.9 Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3 Supplemental Report
Cumulative effects of "chronic" oil pollution on the Grand Banks	Part One, Sections 4.3.4, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.5.4, 5.9.2
Effectiveness of spill countermeasures	Part One, Section 6.10, Chapter 8
Physical Environment
Meteorological, oceanographic and seabed conditions (including extreme conditions)	Part One, Chapter 2 Supplemental Report
Sea ice and iceberg conditions (including iceberg scour)	Part One, Sections 2.5, 2.6.3 Supplemental Report
Physical environment monitoring, observation and forecasting programs	Part One, Section 2.5.4, Chapter 6
Ice management/mitigation procedures (including criteria for disconnection and an assessment of the efficiency of detection/deflection techniques)	Comp. Study, Section 1.7 Part One, Section 2.5.4, Chapter 6
Environmental Management
Proponent's/Project environmental management system	Part One, Chapter 8
Pollution prevention policies and procedures	Part One, Section 6.10, Chapter 8
Environmental effects monitoring programs	Part One, Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 5.9.3, 6.10.4, 8.11, Chapter 7 Part Two, Section 7.3.2 Supplemental Report
Environmental compliance monitoring	Part One, Section 8.12
Provisions for management system auditing	Part One, Section 8.8 Supplemental Report
Environmental training for employees and contractors	Part One, Section 8.2.5
Chemical selection and management procedures	Part One, Section 4.3.1.4 Supplemental Report
Fisheries liaison/interaction policies and procedures	Part One, Sections 8.8, 8.14 Part Two, Section 7.3
Program(s) for compensation of affected parties for accidental damage	Part One, Sections 4.3.4, 8.14 Part Two, Sections 7.2, 7.3
Fish habitat compensation strategy and options	Part One, Sections 4.3, 7.2 Supplemental Report
Emergency response plans	Part One, Chapter 6
Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM)
Characteristics of EEM programs for routine and accidental events (including their design process)	Part One, Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 5.9.3, 6.10.4, 8.11, Chapter 7 Part Two, Section 7.3.2 Supplemental Report
Parameters to be monitored and the rationale for their choice (including consideration of marine birds, reptiles and mammals, fisheries, fish and shellfish health/productivity and taint, fish habitat, and marine environmental quality)	Part One, Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 5.9.3, 6.10.4, 8.11, Chapter 7 Part Two, Section 7.3.2 Supplemental Report
Linking of monitoring hypotheses to testable hypotheses	Part One, Section 7.1 Supplemental Report
Site-specific baseline information	Comp. Study, Appendix 1.B Part One, Section 7.6 Supplemental Report
Integration into a regional EEM program	Part One, Section 7.3 Supplemental Report
Distinction of "signal" from "noise" in monitoring programs	Part One, Section 4.3.5
Independent/peer review of monitoring results	Part One, Section 7.6 Supplemental Report
Linkage of monitoring results into environmental management system	Part One, Sections 7.1, 8.11
Potential requirements for fish habitat compensation and post-dredging monitoring	Part One, Sections 4.3.1.3, 7.2 Part Two, Section 7.3.2 Supplemental Report
Abandonment/Decommissioning
Plans for abandonment/decommissioning of the project area following termination of production, including any requirements for post-abandonment monitoring	Part One, Sections 4.3.3, 4.4.3, 4.5.3, Chapter 7 Part Two, Chapter 13 Supplemental Report

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

Both Husky Oil and its co-venturer Petro-Canada believe that the White Rose oilfield development can meet favourable international market demands for oil and generate economic benefits for the local and provincial economies of Newfoundland and Labrador, and of Canada. The development will increase employment and training opportunities for people of the province and contribute to the growth in petroleum industry infrastructure and business opportunities through the increased demand for necessary goods and services. This will ultimately attract new investment to the province, contributing to the sustained growth of the provincial and Canadian economies.

1.5 Alternatives to the Project

Several alternatives for servicing the market demand for energy include development of other energy projects, such as hydroelectric, nuclear power and co-generation. An additional alternative would be for consumers to reduce their requirement for energy. Given the present circumstances in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the existence of already developed infrastructure to support offshore oil and gas development, and the present state of knowledge with respect to the recoverable resources, the proposed White Rose oilfield development is an appropriate vehicle through which to help meet overall, market demands for energy.

An alternative to the White Rose project would be to proceed with alternative projects in another area. However, the proponents have determined that market conditions, and the development of infrastructure to support the Newfoundland offshore industry, currently favour investment in the White Rose oilfield development. Engineering and economic analyses of the White Rose oilfield development have been undertaken to determine that it is technically, economically and environmentally feasible.

1.6 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project

Eight options were initially assessed to identify the potential alternative means of developing the White Rose oilfield:

• steel FPSO facility;
• concrete FPSO facility;
• steel floating, production, drilling, storage, offloading (FPDSO) facility;
• concrete gravity-base structure (GBS);
• steel semi-submersible facility with and without integral storage;
• concrete semi-submersible facility;
• disconnectable concrete tension leg platform (TLP); and
• concrete barrier wall with floating production unit (FPU).

The evaluation criteria included:

• technical requirements;
• capital costs;
• construction time;
• concept maturity;
• concept deliverability; and
• risk considerations.

A two-stage process was used to evaluate the options. The first stage involved qualitative screening, whereby options that were either insufficiently developed or clearly failed to satisfy primary technical criteria were identified. As a result of this first stage, the disconnectable concrete TLP, concrete barrier wall with FPU, and steel FPDSO facility were not carried forward, as they either did not meet technical requirements or were prototype development concepts with no operating history in harsh-environment offshore locations.

These remaining five options (steel FPSO facility, concrete FPSO facility, steel semi-submersible facility with and without integral storage, concrete semi-submersible facility and concrete GBS) were further analyzed with respect to construction time, capital costs, concept maturity, concept deliverability, and risk considerations. The only two development concepts that were shown to be technically and economically feasible were the steel semi-submersible with or without integral storage and steel FPSO options. The steel FPSO option was found to be the most cost-effective option and to have the least technical risk. The development, operations, decommissioning and accidental events for both an FPSO and a semi-submersible are not markedly different with respect to their interaction with the environment. For example, construction activities and disturbance, operational discharges, structural presence, and support activities are very similar for both options. Therefore, effects predictions for both alternatives would be the same.

The evaluation of the options concluded that the preferred option for developing the White Rose oilfield was a steel FPSO facility using subsea wells located in glory holes, similar to that selected for the Terra Nova Development. This system was evaluated as top preference on project cost and time to First Oil.

As the steel FPSO was determined through rigorous evaluation to be the preferred option, and since the potential interactions with the environment are not markedly different than those of the semi-submersible option, the potential environmental effects of the FPSO have been assessed and are described in this Comprehensive Study Report.

1.7 Effects of the Environment on the Project

The White Rose oilfield project is to be specifically designed to withstand the harsh sea and weather environment of the North Atlantic. The physical environment of the White Rose site, including the sea state, ocean currents, ice, winds, waves, and weather variables, are described in detail in Part One of the Comprehensive Study (Chapter 2). The appropriate data were used in developing the Basis for Design. For example, physical considerations, such as ice accretion, are to be built into any loadings calculated for above-surface structures. Ice is a serious consideration, and because of the presence and likelihood of icebergs, well manifolds will be protected in glory holes, flowlines may be trenched and will be able to be flushed, and the turret will be designed to enable disconnection of the FPSO to allow it to move off location. Ice management will also be part of the contingency planning undertaken for the project, including ice monitoring, as well as countermeasures such as ice deflection or disconnection and movement (additional details are provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One)). A joint industry ice management plan will also be in place to facilitate ice monitoring and management and provide guidance for decisions relating to vessel disconnection. Biofouling, or the colonization of structures by epibenthic communities, is also considered in engineering design. Procedures will be developed to remove the biofouling in order to protect the asset from deterioration.

1.8 Assessment Overview

The following sections outline the scope of the project, the assessment of its potential environmental and socio-economic effects, as well as mitigation and follow-up measures proposed by the proponents. This is followed by an overall conclusion that the proposed White Rose oilfield development is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.