Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Comprehensive Study Report

Environmental Effects Assessment

The following sections provide a summary description of the existing biophysical environment in the White Rose area, focusing on the specific VECs being considered in this assessment (an extensive overview of the existing physical and biological environments is provided in Part One of the Comprehensive Study (Chapters 2 and 3) and in the Supplemental Report). It also includes a summary of the assessment of the potential effects of each project phase and its associated components/activities, including mitigation measures, residual environmental effects, and proposed follow-up initiatives. A detailed effects assessment is provided in Part One of the Comprehensive Study (Chapters 4 and 5).

4.1 Fish and Fish Habitat

The Grand Banks ecosystem is a complex and dynamic system, driven by numerous physical, chemical, biological and anthropogenic influences.

4.1.1 Existing Conditions

Plankton refers to those organisms that more or less drift with water currents, including micro-organisms, algae, juvenile and adult invertebrates, and many species of fish eggs and larvae. Aggregations of plankton are often exploited by feeding fish, seabirds, baleen whales and other predators. Benthos refers to plants and animals that live in or on the sea bottom. At least 370 species of polychaetes, echinoderms, crustaceans, and molluscs occur on the Grand Banks (Hutcheson et al. 1981). Benthic animals form an important food resource for many species of fish.

A wide variety of fish species occur in the White Rose area. However, these species are not unique, as they also occur in other parts of the Grand Banks and elsewhere. Species that are or have been important commercial species in the project area and adjacent region include: snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandica), northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), Stimpton's surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea), shortfin mako shark (lsurus oxyrinchus), Greenland halibut (Rheinhardtius hippoglossoides), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), various redfish species (Sebastesspp.), capelin (Mallotus villosus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), American lobster (Homerus americanus), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), grenadier (Macrourusspp.) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus).

A number of other species have been identified as potential commercial fish species in the area. They include: Atlantic (or striped) wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), various skate species (Rajaspp.), monkfish (or goosefish) (Lophius americanus), white hake (Urophycis tenuis) and winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus).

Fish are not only an important food source for humans, but are also important ecologically as predators and food for other species. For example, sand lance (Ammodytes spp.) is an ecologically important species found in abundance at the White Rose site.

Further information on fish and fish habitat in the area is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapter 3 and the Supplemental Report).

4.1.2 Effects Assessment

4.1.2.1 Routine Development Operations (Drilling and Construction)

Project-related structures will be protected by a safety zone and a no-fishing zone (Figure 3.1). The no-fishing zone will be approximately 15.4 km² in size, and could constitute a refuge where fish, including commercially important species, would be attracted to the subsea structures and become concentrated, and will allow the recovery of the benthos in the area. This enhancement of local populations may somewhat offset any adverse effect of the no-fishing zone on fishing activity (see Section 5.4).

The drilling rig and supply and standby ships will carry navigation and warning lights, working areas will be illuminated with floodlights, helicopter pads will be lit, and there may be flaring conducted on the drill rigs. Fish may be attracted to illuminated surface waters near vessels (Hurley 1980), although only low numbers and localized areas will be affected, and mortality will not increase to any noticeable degree.

Benthic habitat will be disturbed during construction of the glory holes and trenching of flowlines. However, recolonization occurs rapidly once the disturbance ends. Quantification of altered, disturbed or destroyed habitat is required by DFO as per its Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, as is development of a fish habitat compensation plan. No underwater blasting is anticipated. Underwater construction may temporarily displace fish in the immediate area, but these effects would be negligible.

Drilling muds are needed to convey the drill cuttings out of the hole and to keep formation fluids from entering the well. All development drilling within the White Rose area will be conducted using either water-based muds (WBMs) or synthetic-based muds (SBMs). The proponents plan to drill primarily with WBMs, however, SBMs would be used in difficult or highly deviated situations and may also be needed in the reservoir section to avoid formation damage. The main component of WBM is either freshwater or seawater; the components of WBMs are relatively non-toxic (see GESAMP, 1997). The primary component of SBM is a non-toxic synthetic fluid.

At several stages during drilling and at the end of the drilling process, WBM is discharged over the side. In the case of SBM, all the mud is shipped back to the shorebase for recycling or disposal. Drill cuttings are removed from the muds in successive separation stages and discharged at-sea. Some of the mud remains with the discharged cuttings. The SBM associated with the drill cuttings will be handled and treated in accordance with C-NOPB and the current Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB)

A report entitled " White Rose Oilfield Comparison of Drill Cuttings Disposal Options" (Husky Oil 2001c) has been prepared by Husky Oil to provide details on an analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of cuttings reinjection. The analysis addresses three drill cuttings management options: cuttings reinjection (CRI), onshore disposal and on-site discharges of treated cuttings to the ocean. A detailed technical analysis was undertaken of the options. An economic model was run on all three options to assess the overall cost of each option, and the financial impact to both project value and reduced royalty payments to the Provincial Treasury. A qualitative analysis of environmental effects to the marine and terrestrial environments is also included. A quantitative analysis was undertaken of air emissions for each option based on work by Petro-Canada for Terra Nova. Finally, an integrated risk analysis was done of technical, economic and environmental aspects of cuttings disposal options. The results of this analysis are outlined in detail in the above noted report, and summarized here. The analysis found that CRI is technically feasible, but economically unfeasible. The on-shore disposal option is also technically feasible, but economically unfeasible.

The analysis indicates that the on-site disposal of treated cuttings is both financially and technically feasible. The integrated risk analysis indicates that the technical, potential financial and environmental risks associated with this option are low, while expected financial risk is medium. The technical risks related to onsite disposal of treated cuttings are considered to be minimal as the operation is straightforward and compatible with normal operations. Similarly, there are limited environmental risks associated with this disposal option due to the use of low toxicity synthetic-based drilling fluids and use of best available technology to reduce residual oil content on cuttings.

Based on the detailed analysis undertaken by Husky Oil, and in comparison to the numerous technical issues and economic constraints associated with other disposal options, ocean disposal of cuttings is considered straightforward from an operational point of view and is by far the best option economically for both the proponent and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The integrated risk and decision analysis support these conclusions. Consequently, Husky Oil's recommended method of drill cuttings disposal is on-site treatment and ocean disposal.

The proponents have modelled the potential effect of the discharge to determine the nature and extent of the ZOI, based upon the completion of the maximum number of 25 wells forecast for White Rose (see Part One of the Comprehensive Study, Section 4.3.1.4). The biological ZOI for drill cuttings is predicted to be confined to within approximately 500 m of the drilling area. In the case of SBMs, cuttings will be treated to meet the current Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB). Also, because only a low number of wells will be drilled per year in the development area, the concentrations of hydrocarbons in sediments will remain low and will affect benthos in only a very limited area. In the unlikely event that fish are tainted, they are likely to be those that are attracted to the subsea structures and reside in the no fishing zone. Highly mobile fish are unlikely to remain near cuttings with residual SBM long enough to become tainted.

Other fluids and solids associated with the development phase of the project include: completion, packer and workover fluids, cement slurry, blow-out prevention (BOP) fluid, deck drainage, hydrostatic testing fluids, cooling water, sanitary and domestic waste, garbage and other waste, small spills, ballast water, bilge water, and possibly, a limited amount of untreated produced water. Most fluids and solids will be treated and tested prior to discharge, or will be recovered and recycled or transferred to shore. All fluids and solids will be handled in a manner that minimizes accidental spillage, and measures for responding to spills will be in place (see Part One of the Comprehensive Study, Chapters 6 and 8). Fluids and solids associated with the development phase will have negligible to low effects on fish and fish habitat. Atmospheric emissions of potentially harmful materials during development drilling will be low, and they will be rapidly dispersed in the atmosphere resulting in negligible effects. Flaring will occur only during short-term well testing operations during drilling.

Disturbance related to underwater noise could be caused by the drilling platforms and by mobile sources such as supply boats and helicopters. Effects of a passing supply vessel will be transitory and no greater than that of a passing fishing boat. As noise does not transmit well from air to water, there will be negligible effects on fish as a result of aircraft overflights. Noises emitted by a drilling rig are much lower in magnitude, but more continuous, than those discussed above. As fish are often attracted to offshore drilling platforms (Stanley and Wilson 1990; Black et al. 1999), it appears they can adapt well to noises associated with offshore oil exploration (Chapman and Hawkins 1969). The potential effects of noise during the project's development phase is also assessed as negligible.

4.1.2.2 Normal Production and Maintenance Operations

The FPSO and supply vessels will be on site over the life of the project, and a drill rig will be present in the vicinity for various periods. During this time, subsea structures will be present on the sea floor. The effects of subsea structures and the safety zone during production will be similar to those discussed above for the development phase, as would the effects of lights and flares. The subsea structures will require periodic inspection, cleaning and maintenance, which will disturb a limited area of the sea bottom and may disturb some resident fish. These effects are, however, predicted to be negligible. Periodic releases of small amounts of non-toxic control fluid during operation of the subsea control valves would also have negligible effects to marine life.

Water will be injected into the reservoir to enhance oil recovery by maintaining reservoir pressure. Extracting this amount of seawater will have a negligible effect, as would any effects on populations of zooplankton and fish larvae as a result of entrainment. Some of the injected water may eventually be released as a component of produced water.

Produced water is water from the producing formation that comes to surface with the oil and gas. Water treatment facilities on the FPSO will treat produced water to reduce its oil content to compliance with the current Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. The FPSO will be capable of treating at least 30 x 10³m³/d of produced water. Once cleaned to specifications, the produced water will be discharged overboard, approximately three to five m below the waterline. The White Rose ZOI model indicates an irregular ZOI ranging from a low of 1.8 km for produced water in winter to an extreme of 3.6 km in the fall, with the axis always trending southeast to southwest (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 4.3.2). The produced water will be warmer and less dense than the receiving water. The ZOI of elevated temperatures will be 50 m or less around the production site. Some zooplankton and fish larvae may experience thermal shock in the immediate vicinity of the outfall, although this effect will be negligible in terms of local populations. Produced water could affect water quality slightly downstream of the release point and affect plankton, although these effects would be of low magnitude. Because it will rise to the surface, produced water will have little potential to interact with the benthos. Any direct effects to fish and fish habitat as a result of produced water will be negligible.

In addition to produced water, other operational discharges include cooling water, deck drainage, sanitary and domestic waste and potential small spills. The FPSO will have segregated ballast tanks to prevent contamination of ballast water with oil. Cooling water may be discharged at temperatures of approximately 30°C above ambient, with potential negligible effects to marine life. Drainage from the decks of drill rigs and the FPSO and wastewater will be treated prior to discharge. Garbage and other waste will be transferred to shore for disposal, and will therefore not interact with the marine biota. Spill prevention has been incorporated into the design and planning of the project, and appropriate spill response capability will be in place (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Chapters 6 and 8).

Flaring will likely occur only during operational upsets on the production facility. The FPSO will use natural gas (associated gas) as its primary fuel source, and equipment will be carefully selected and maintained to minimize the amount of noxious gas in emissions. All additional produced gas will be reinjected into the reservoir. In general, emissions of harmful substances are likely to be low and not detectable outside the immediate vicinity of the FPSO. Overall, the effects of atmospheric emissions on fish and fish habitat from all sources are deemed negligible.

As discussed above, the effects of vessel discharges would be negligible. The effects of helicopters on the marine environment are mainly related to noise. The principal underwater noise sources during production will be similar to those during development, although the FPSO will be an additional source of noise. Overall, the potential effect of this noise during this phase of the project on fish and fish habitat would be negligible, as evidenced by the well-known attraction of fish to offshore production facilities. The transportation of the oil to the nearest shipping lanes is also expected to have a negligible effect on fish and fish habitat.

4.1.2.3 Decommissioning

The White Rose site will be abandoned at the end of the production life and will be restored to minimize residual effects on the environment. During this phase, there will be some disturbance to infaunal communities. Decommissioning will, however, also result in a cessation of any disturbance associated with the project. The most important effect on fish will be the termination of the no-fishery safety zone if, in fact, this constituted a refuge. Assuming a diverse commercial fishery operates in the area, conditions should revert to those before development and overall there will be no adverse effect. If some structures remain projecting above the seabed, there will be a positive, very localized effect on fish populations due to the reef effect, provided these structures are protected from trawlers.

4.1.2.4 Accidental Events

Two types of environmentally-threatening accidents that could occur during the White Rose oilfield development project are oil-well blowouts and "batch" spills. Blowouts are continuous spills lasting hours, days or weeks that could involve the discharge of large volumes of petroleum gas into the atmosphere and large amounts of crude oil into surrounding waters. Blowouts could occur from accidents during development drilling, well-completion activities, workovers, and various production activities. Batch spills are instantaneous or short-duration discharges of oil that could occur from accidents on the FPSO where oil is stored and handled, or accidents associated with the loading of oil onto the shuttle tankers that will move oil from the FPSO. The environmental assessment includes consideration of the likelihood, control and potential environmental effects of such accidental events.

The probabilities of spills of various types and sizes were calculated for White Rose based on world-wide historical statistics. Clearly, the probability of smaller spills, especially those involving fuel or crude transfers, is much higher than for large and very large spills. Small spills less than 50 barrels in size might occur about once every five years, although their average size can be expected to be less than 10 barrels. Spills less than one barrel (159 L) are likely to occur with greater frequency than those in the size range of one to 49 barrels (159 to 7,790 L). These spills are usually fairly inconsequential. Husky Oil will make every effort to ensure that operations are spill-free and as clean as possible and has a zero tolerance policy to all spills. Husky Oil's first response is prevention, but if a small spill occurs, the personnel and equipment will be on site to respond. Additional information relating to spill response is located in Part One of the Comprehensive Study (Chapter 6).

The probability of a major spill is expected to be very low. Large, platform-based spills (greater than 1,000 barrels) have an approximately 0.5 percent chance of occurring over the course of the project (annual probability of 1 in 2,600), while very large platform spills (greater than 10,000 barrels) have a 0.2 percent probability of occurring (annual probability of 1 in 7,100). For the three years of development drilling, the chances of an extremely large (greater than 150,000 barrels) and very large (greater than 10,000 barrels) oil well blowout are about 0.08 (annual probability of 1 in 3,800) and 0.16 percent (annual probability of 1 in 1,900), respectively, while the probabilities of similar blowouts during production activities and workovers are 0.14 (annual probability of 1 in 9,300) and 0.35 percent (annual probability of 1 in 3,700), respectively. The probability of a tanker loading spill over the course of the entire project is historically approximately 30 percent (annual probability of 1 in 43). The size of any such spill would likely be relatively small and restricted to fluids in the offloading system. It is reasonable to expect much lower frequencies for the White Rose project than those presented above, given substantial improvements in technology and/or practice in recent years, and the fact that regulatory requirements relating to oil spill prevention in the Canadian offshore are among the most stringent in the world. Additional details on the historical data used, and the predicted number of blowouts and spills for the project, are provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapter 5).

The proponents plan to incorporate oil spill prevention into the design and operations of the White Rose project. All offshore systems and structures, procedures and programs will be designed with consideration of preventing the loss of any hydrocarbons. Examples of measures to reduce the likelihood of oil spills include equipment and facility design (e.g., the use of BOPs, double-hulled vessels), routine maintenance and testing for all aspects of the production program, the use of good communications and sound marine practices, regular inspections and audits of the offshore platform, and employee awareness training. The proponents will also undertake all of the necessary planning, training, and exercising to ensure that the appropriate spill response capability is in place for all phases of the project in the unlikely event of such a spill. Oil spill response will be included as part of the contingency planning undertaken for the White Rose project (see Section 4.4.2 of this report). Additional information regarding the proponents' oil spill prevention measures and response capability is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapters 5 and 6).

Although such an event is unlikely, the fate and behaviour of large accidental oil spills that might occur during the White Rose project were also assessed as part of the environmental assessment. This analysis entailed consideration of the properties of the oil (as determined through laboratory analysis), computer/mathematical modelling for six selected large-spill scenarios, and trajectory modelling of these events to assess the chances of spilled oil reaching shore from the White Rose development area (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 5.8).

Certain Grand Banks crude oils, including White Rose oil, do not behave like conventional oils because of their waxy nature. White Rose oil spills would tend to be highly persistent, but will tend to form particles, "wax" balls and mats throughout areas of open water, rather than a continuous slick. The actual behaviour of spilled oil would vary based on the type, size and timing of the spill. Any spilled oil will be moved by currents and wind until it very slowly disperses in the water and diffuses on the surface to low concentrations, or contacts land. Of the 14,600 trajectories modelled using wind and water current information, none predicted that oil spilled at the White Rose site would reach shore. The trajectory data were also used to identify the likelihood of a slick reaching any given area on the Grand Banks (on a monthly basis). Information regarding the predicted spatial and temporal distribution of spilled oil is provided throughout this report in relation to specific VECs (where applicable), and in detail in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Section 5.8). Effects are assessed for each of the selected large-spill scenarios.

In the unlikely event of a major oil spill or blowout, juvenile and adult fish can and probably will avoid any oil by swimming from the blowout/spill region (Irwin 1997). Should an accidental event occur, the effects of oil spills on fish are therefore predicted to be negligible to low because fish will generally avoid any interaction with the spill. Some eggs and larvae could, however, be affected if they come in contact with a high enough concentration of dissolved oil. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of both the Hibernia (Mobil 1985) and Terra Nova (Petro-Canada 1995) environmental assessments, which concluded that neither surface spills nor subsea blowouts posed significant risks to either pelagic or demersal fish stocks.

A more detailed assessment of the potential environmental effects of the project on fish and fish habitat is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapters 4 and 5). The potential implications of any effects to fish and fish habitat for fishing activities is discussed in Section 5.4 of this report. The potential environmental effects of the development, production and decommissioning phases of the project on fish and fish habitat, and in the case of an accidental event, are summarized in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Effects Assessment Summary - Fish and Fish Habitat

Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Magnitude	Geographic Extent	Frequency	Duration	Reversibility	Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context
Development
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	Safe Refuge From Fishing (P)		1	3	6	3	R	1
Artificial Reef Effect	Increased Food and Shelter (P)		1	2	6	3	R	1
Subsea Structures	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Lights and Flares	Attraction (A)		0	1	6	3	R	1
Underwater Construction	Benthic Food Supply (A)	No Blasting	0	1	1	3	R	1
Drilling Mud/Cuttings
Water-Based Mud	Contamination (A); Habitat Alteration	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Synthetic-Based Mud	Contamination (A); Habitat Alteration	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Other Fluids and Solids
Completion, Packer and Workover	Contamination (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Cement	Negligible		0	1	1	3	R	1
BOP Fluid	Contamination (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Hydrostatic Testing Fluid	Contamination (A)		0	1	1	1	R	1
Cooling Water	Growth (P); Shock (A)		0	1	6	3	R	1
Deck Drainage	Contamination (A)	Treatment	1	1	2	3	R	1
Bilge Water	Contamination (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	3	R	1
Sanitary and Domestic Wastes	Nutrients (P); Contamination (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	3	R	1
Garbage	No interaction	NA
Atmospheric Emissions	Water Quality (A)	Equipment Design	0	2	6	3	R	1
Ships and Boats	Disturbance (A)		0	1	4	3	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)		0	1	5	3	R	1
Noise
Drilling Rigs	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	3	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	3	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)		0	1	5	3	R	1
Shore Facilities^a	NA	NA
Production
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	Safe Refuge (P)		1	3	6	5	R	1
Artificial Reef Effect	Food and Shelter (P)		1	2	6	5	R	1
Subsea Structures	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Surface Structures	Shelter (P)		0	1	6	5	R	1
Lights and Flares	Attraction (A)		0	1	6	5	R	1
Underwater Maintenance	Food Supply (A)	Material / Method Selection	0	1	1	5	R	1
Injection Water	Contamination (A)	Safety Plan	0	1	1	5	R	1
Produced Water	Contamination (A)	Treatment	1	2	6	5	R	1
Storage Displacement Water	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Cooling Water	Growth (P); Shock (A)		0	1	6	5	R	1
Deck Drainage	Contamination (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Sanitary and Domestic Waste	Nutrients (P); Contamination (A)	Primary Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Atmospheric Emissions	Water Quality (A)	Equipment Design	0	2	6	5	R	1
Ships and Boats	Disturbance (A)		0	1	4	5	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)		0	1	4	5	R	1
Noise
FPSO	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	5	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	5	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)		0	1	4	5	R	1
Shore Facilities^a	NA	NA

Decommissioning
Offshore Decommissioning	Loss of Refuge and Reef (A);		1	1	6	5	R	2
	Stop Disturbance (P);		1	1	6	5	R	2
	Stop Contamination (P)		1	1	6	5	R	2
Abandonment	No Effect	Removal of subsea material	NA	NA	NA	NA	R	2
Accidental Events
Offshore Oil Spill or Blowout	Effects on Health (A)	Contingency Plan; Training; Preparation; Equipment Inventory; Prevention	0-1	5-6	<1	2	R	1

Key for Table 4.1
Magnitude	0 = Negligible, essentially no effect. 1 = Low 2 = Medium 3 = High
Geographic Extent	1 = < 1 km² 2 = 1-10 km² 3 = 11-100 km² 4 = 101-1000 km² 5 = 1001-10,000 km² 6 = > 10,000 km²
Frequency	1 = < 11 events/year 2 = 11-50 events/year 3 = 51-100 events/year 4 = 101-200 events/year 5 = > 200 events/year 6 = Continuous
Duration	1 = < 1 month 2 = 1-12 months 3 = 13-36 months 4 = 37-72 months 5 = > 72 months
Reversibility (Refers to Population)	R = Reversible I = Irreversible
Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context	1 = Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing adverse effects NA = Not Applicable

^a There will not be any new onshore facilities required. Existing infrastructure will be used.

With the exception of the potential positive effects of the presence of project structures, the residual effects of the various project activities associated with the development and production phases on fish and fish habitat are assessed as adverse, but not significant. The residual effect on fish and fish habitat in the unlikely event of an accidental offshore oil spill or blowout would also be adverse but not significant. The residual environmental effects of project decommissioning are predicted to be positive.

4.1.2.5 Cumulative Effects

The environmental assessment also considers potential cumulative effects resulting from the accumulation of the project's own effects, as well as in combination with other oil development projects (Hibernia, Terra Nova), present and future exploration activities, marine transportation, and fisheries. As outlined above, the proposed project is predicted to have not significant effects on fish and fish habitat. The cumulative effects of the activities within each of the phases of the White Rose project are also expected to be not significant for this VEC, as is the overall effect of the project as a whole.

In general, the various activities associated with all three oil development projects on the Grand Banks (e.g., the discharge of drill cuttings, produced water, noise) and expected exploration activity will have similar effects on the biophysical environment, with differences in magnitude and duration. The effects of each of these developments and activities have, however, been predicted to be not significant. Oil exploration and development activity is not expected to have significant cumulative effects on this VEC, and fish and fish habitat will likely recover within a few years from any disturbance caused by oil development activity on the Grand Banks as it is presently envisaged. The no fishing zones associated with offshore oil developments will positively affect fish, but negatively affect the fishery in that there will be some exclusion areas. In the long term these effects may cancel each other out, or may even have a positive effect.

The commercial fisheries of the Grand Banks are diverse and extensive, and have contributed to effects to fish populations in the area. Assuming that the commercial fishery resource is managed in a sustainable manner by the resource agencies, the cumulative effect of the fishery and offshore development on fish and fish habitat will not be significant.

Oil development projects will all have associated vessel traffic, as will exploration activity on the Grand Banks. Offshore oil activity will add an incremental amount of tanker traffic. Overall, the cumulative vessel activity of Grand Banks oil developers, including White Rose, Hibernia, Terra Nova, and expected exploration activity, will probably comprise less than 25 percent of total international traffic on the Grand Banks and less than three percent when domestic vessels and fishing vessels are considered (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 4.3.4.3). Overall, cumulative vessel activity of Grand Banks oil developers on fish and fish habitat will be negligible and not significant.

4.2 Marine Birds

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

The Grand Banks and the southeastern coast of Newfoundland are very important areas for over 60 species of marine birds (Table 4.2). Of these 60 species, approximately 18 are pelagic (that is, living or feeding on the water), nine of which nest in the area. There are several million of these nesting birds, and there are millions of annual visitors that forage on the Grand Banks. In addition, a wide variety of coastal species, including gulls, terns, cormorants, waterfowl and shorebirds frequent shoreline areas in the area. Marine birds in the area eat a variety of prey, including capelin, copepods, amphipods and short-finned squid; different species forage at different water depths.

Several endangered or threatened bird species also occur in or near the area, including harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus), piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), ivory gulls (Pagophila eburnea), manx shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) and common black-headed gulls (Larus ridibundus).

Further information on marine birds is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapter 3).

4.2.2 Effects Assessment

4.2.2.1 Routine Development Operations (Drilling and Construction)

The presence of ships (including the semi-submersible drill rig) and boats involved in the development phase of the project could potentially disturb marine birds. Birds that are active at night (e.g., storm-petrels) may be attracted to light sources on offshore facilities and/or could possibly be incinerated by gas flaring (Avery et al. 1978; Bourne 1979; Sage 1979). Although there may be some flaring during development, this would be limited to short periods and the heat and noise generated by the flare may deter marine birds from the immediate area. Reasonable efforts will be made to allow seabirds found stranded on boats and other offshore structures to recover, and to release them at night near minimal lighting. The presence of lights on drill rigs and supply boats and any flaring would have low magnitude effects during this phase of the project.

Table 4.2: Marine Birds Recorded in the Study Area

Table 4.2: Marine Birds Recorded in the Study Area

¹ Indicates species that nest along the coast of the study area.
^? Indicates species that may nest along the coast of the study area.
(Source: Mobil 1985)

The discharge of drilling cuttings will have negligible effects on birds. Cuttings fall to the seafloor, and therefore, there is little chance of interaction with birds on the surface. SBMs will be recycled/reused and ultimately disposed of on-shore. The discharge of treated completion, packer and workover fluids would have negligible effects on birds as hydrocarbon levels are reduced to very low levels, acids are neutralized, and limited volumes of these fluids are released. Similarly, BOP fluid will have negligible effects on seabirds because these (glycol-water mixes) will have a low-toxicity. Hydrostatic testing fluid will be immediately diluted upon release, and the effects of cooling water will be negligible because the volume released will be low and any thermal effect will be localized. There will be no interaction between discharged cement piles and marine birds.

Other fluids, such as deck drainage and bilge water, will be treated (or diluted), recycled or discharged below the water surface. Although sanitary and domestic wastes will be treated before discharge, seabirds (most notably gulls) may be attracted to these potential food sources, with a subsequent increase in predation on smaller seabirds that associate with offshore structures. Any such effects would be of low magnitude. Atmospheric emissions could, in theory, affect the health of some marine birds, but this effect is also expected to be negligible because only low volumes of potentially harmful materials will be emitted and they will be rapidly dispersed in the atmosphere to undetectable levels.

Vessel and air traffic near seabird colonies could cause disturbance and affect productivity at these sites. However, any such effects would be negligible to low. Vessels will maintain a distance of 2 km from any seabird colonies. Aircraft will fly at minimum altitudes of 600 m whenever possible, avoid colonies of birds, and will avoid repeated overflights of concentrations of birds and/or important habitats. Seabirds are often attracted to offshore structures and vessels, and are usually not disturbed by industrial noise in the air. Birds spend relatively short amounts of time underwater and are therefore not expected to be affected by underwater noise.

4.2.2.2 Normal Production and Maintenance Operations

Seabirds are known to be attracted to offshore platforms, such as the FPSO that will be used during the operation phase, due to, for example, the increased availability of food due to artificial reef and fishing zone effects, the presence of a roosting area at sea, and the discharge of human wastes. Overall, however, the effects on marine birds caused by the physical presence of vessels and structures during project operations are expected to be of low magnitude. As for the development phase, the presence of project-related lights would also have low magnitude effects. Underwater maintenance activities will not interact with marine birds.

Treated oily water contained in produced water will have negligible effects on birds. The plume will be narrow and snake like, and although birds may come into contact with the surficial sheen, it will be dilute. Other operational discharges such as cooling water, treated deck drainage and bilge water and atmospheric emissions will, as for the development phase, also have negligible effects on birds. As in the development phase, the discharge of sanitary and domestic wastes may attract some birds and lead to increased predation, but again, these effects will be low. The principal sources, and potential effects, of underwater noise during production will be essentially the same as those during project development. The noise produced from the FPSO will have negligible effects on seabirds; some species will be attracted to the light and some will avoid the noise from the structure. Direct effects on other species are unlikely because seabirds are highly mobile and can easily avoid the stationary FPSO.

4.2.2.3 Decommissioning

The White Rose site will be abandoned and restored to near pre-development conditions at the end of its production life to minimize potential residual effects on the environment. Increased vessel activity during periods when facilities are being removed may cause some disturbance to seabirds, but this will occur over short periods of time and have a negligible effect. An overall positive effect on marine birds may be realized due to the cessation of activity in the project area.

4.2.2.4Accidental Events

Accidental events resulting in a substantial release of oil would have serious effects on seabirds. Therefore, it is mandatory to have stringent preventative procedures, practices and technologies in place designed to prevent such occurrences. While the probability of a large spill or blowout is, as discussed previously (Section 4.1.2.4), very low, birds would be at significant risk should one occur. Birds are seriously affected by direct contact with oil, and most birds that come in contact with an oil spill subsequently die (Frink and White 1990; Fry 1990). As significant numbers and concentrations of birds occur on the Grand Banks, any oil spill or blowout could cause at least some and, at worst, extensive bird mortality. There is no clear correlation between the size of an oil spill and numbers of seabirds killed (Burger 1993). The density of birds in a spill area, wind velocity and direction, wave action, and distance to shore may have a greater bearing on mortality than size of the spill (Burger 1993).

As discussed previously, the probability of a large spill is very low and of the numerous spill modelling scenarios created, none predicted oil onshore (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 5.8). Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that crude oil accidentally spilled at the White Rose site will reach any seabird colonies in the study area. Due to the makeup of the White Rose crude and its waxy nature, the crude oil will be persistent, but will tend to take the form particles and "wax" balls and mats throughout areas of open water rather than creating a continuous slick.

Seabirds are known to associate with offshore structures and are at risk of exposure in the unlikely event of an accidental release of oil at the White Rose site. During summer, shearwaters, gulls (including kittiwakes), storm-petrels, and fulmars would be the species most likely exposed to oil near the release point. The oil spill trajectory models predict that oil would likely move east and southeast of the White Rose release point (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 5.8). It is unlikely that oil would move into the central and western portions of the Grand Banks. However, during May and June, there is an increased likelihood (still relatively low) that oil would be found along the southwestern depth contours of the Grand Banks. Oil would probably not extend into the southeast shoal, so the large numbers of greater shearwaters and Wilson's storm-petrels and smaller numbers of sooty shearwaters, that moult and forage there during the summer, would probably not be exposed to oil. During winter, large numbers of alcids, most notably thick-billed murres and dovekies, could die from exposure to oil from a major accidental spill or blowout at the White Rose site. The exact location of their wintering areas is unknown and likely varies from year to year. It is possible that oil could pass through a substantial portion of those wintering areas, having an effect on large numbers of alcids.

Depending on the time of year, the location of seabirds within the area, and the type of oil spill or blowout, the effects of an offshore oil release could range from low to high magnitude, with a geographic extent of up to greater than 10,000 km² for both above-surface and subsea blowouts, and a duration of 1 to 12 months. There could therefore be significant adverse effects on marine birds from any major spill or blowout at the White Rose site, although such an event is unlikely.

A more detailed assessment of the potential environmental effects of the project on this VEC is provided in Part One of the Comprehensive Study (Chapters 4 and 5). The potential effects of the various phases of the project and accidental events on marine birds are summarized in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Effects Assessment Summary- Marine Birds

Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Magnitude	Geographic Extent	Frequency	Duration	Reversibility	Ecological/ Socio-Cultural and Economic Context
Development
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	No Interaction	NA
Subsea Structures	No Interaction	NA
Lights	Attraction (A)	Release Stranded Birds	1	2	6	3	R	1
Flares	Mortality (A)		1	2	1	3	I^a	1
Underwater Construction	No Interaction	NA
Drilling Mud/Cuttings
Water-Based Mud	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Synthetic-Based Mud	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Other Fluids and Solids
Completion, Packer and Workover	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Cement	No Interaction	NA
BOP Fluid	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Hydrostatic Testing Fluid	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	1	3	R	1
Cooling Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	3	R	1
Deck Drainage	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	3	R	1
Bilge Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	3	R	1
Sanitary and Domestic Wastes	Nutrients (P); Increased Predation (A)	Primary Treatment	1	2	6	3	R	1
Garbage	No Interaction	NA
Atmospheric Emissions	Effects on Health (A)	Equipment Design	0	1	6	3	R	1
Ships and Boats^b	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Colonies	0	4	6	3	R	1
Helicopters^b	Disturbance (A);Mortality (A)	Avoid Colonies & Repeated Overflights of Bird Concentrations	1	4	4	3	R	1
Noise
Drilling Rigs	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	3	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Colonies	0	4	6	3	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A); Mortality (A)	Avoid Colonies & Repeated Overflights of Bird Concentrations	1	4	4	3	R	1
Shore Facilities
Production
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	Increased Food (P)		1	3	6	5	R	1
Artificial Reef Effect	Increased Food (P)		1	2	6	5	R	1
Subsea Structures	No Interaction	NA
Surface Structures	Attraction (A); Mortality (A)	Release Stranded Birds	0-1	2	6	5	R	1
Lights	Attraction (A)	Release Stranded Birds	1	2	6	5	R	1
Flares	Mortality (A)		1	2	1	5	I^a	1
Underwater Maintenance	No Interaction	NA
Injection Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Produced Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Storage Displacement Water	No Interaction	NA
Cooling Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Deck Drainage	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	5	R	1
Bilge Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	5	R	1
Sanitary & Domestic Waste	Nutrients (P); Increased Predation (A)	Primary Treatment	1	2	6	5	R	1
Garbage	No Interaction	NA
Atmospheric Emissions	Effects on Health (A)	Equipment Design	0	1	6	5	R	1
Ships and Boats^b	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Colonies	0	4	6	5	R	1
Helicopters^b	Disturbance (A); Mortality (A)	Avoid Colonies & Repeated Overflights of Bird Concentrations	1	4	4	5	R	1
Noise
FPSO	Disturbance (A)		0	2	6	5	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Colonies	0	4	6	5	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A); Mortality (A)	Avoid Colonies & Repeated Overflights of Bird Concentrations	1	4	4	5	R	1
Shore Facilities^c
Decommissioning
Offshore	Stop Disturbance (P); Reduce Mortality and Health Risks (P)		1	1	3	2	R	2
Onshore^c
Accidental Events
Offshore Oil Spill or Blowout	Mortality (A)	Contingency Plan; Training; Preparedness; Prevention; Cleanup Inventory	1-3	5-6	<1	2	I^a	1

Key for Table 4.3
Magnitude	0 = Negligible, essentially no effect 1 = Low 2 = Medium 3 = High
Geographic Extent	1 = < 1 km² 2 = 1-10 km² 3 = 11-100 km² 4 = 101-1000 km² 5 = 1001-10,000 km² 6 = > 10,000 km²
Frequency	1 = < 11 events/year 2 = 11-50 events/year 3 = 51-100 events/year 4 = 101-200 events/year 5 = > 200 events/year 6 = Continuous
Duration	1 = < 1 month 2 = 1-12 months 3 = 13-36 months 4 = 37-72 months 5 = > 72 months
Reversibility	R = Reversible I = Irreversible
Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context	1 = Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing adverse effects NA = Not Applicable

^aEffects on individuals irreversible, but any population effects are likely reversible.
^bEffects of noise considered here.
^cThere will not be any new onshore facilities required. Existing infrastructure will be used.

Residual environmental effects on marine birds as a result of the activities associated with project development and production will be adverse but not significant, while the effects of project decommissioning will be positive. Although unlikely, the residual effect of a major offshore oil spill or blowout on this VEC would be adverse and significant. Preventive measures and contingency planning identified by the proponents will further reduce the likelihood and minimize the effects of any oil spill.

4.2.2.5 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the various activities within each of the development, production and decommissioning phases of the White Rose project are expected to be not significant for marine birds, as is the overall effect of the project as a whole. Each of the three oil development projects (Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose) will have similar effects on marine birds, and some types of disturbance, such as the presence of lights and noise, will also occur as a result of exploration activity, marine transportation and fishing vessels on the Grand Banks. The cumulative effects of these projects on this VEC are, however, predicted to be not significant as well. One of the pressures on populations of marine birds in the area is legal and illegal hunting activity. Most of the Newfoundland saltwater hunt is directed towards thick-billed murres (also known as turres locally). However, only a portion of the population that is offshore, and will interact with ongoing projects and exploratory activity, will be subject to inshore hunting pressures. The cumulative effects of the White Rose development in combination with hunting activity and other development activity on the Grand Banks are expected to be not significant.

4.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

4.3.1 Existing Conditions

Eighteen species of marine mammals are known to occur in the area, including 14 species of whales and dolphins (cetaceans) and four species of seals (phocids). A few additional species may also visit, but these are not considered important components of the ecosystem because of their infrequent presence. Although most species are seasonal inhabitants, the waters of the Grand Banks and surrounding areas are important feeding grounds for some.

Six species of baleen whales (mysticetes) occur in the area: humpback (Magaptera novaeangliae), blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), sei (Balaenoptera borealis), minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and, possibly, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis) whales. Although nearly all of these species experienced a decline in numbers due to whaling, it is likely that some are recovering. However, the humpback, blue and fin whales are still listed as vulnerable, and the North Atlantic right whale is listed as endangered. In addition, eight species of toothed whales (odontocetes) are found in the region: sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus), killer whales (Orcinus orca) and long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas); common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus), white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), and the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Most of these marine mammals occur seasonally in the study area and little is known regarding their distribution and population size in these waters. Of the toothed whales found in the study area, the harbour porpoise is listed as threatened and a population of the northern bottlenose whale is considered vulnerable. In addition, a number of seal species (phocids) occur in the area at various times of the year: grey (Halichoerus grypus), harp (Phoca groenlandica), hooded (Cystophora cristata) and harbour (Phoca vitulina) seals. The main diet of seals consists of fish, and invertebrates such as squid and shrimp.

Sea turtles are rare on the Grand Banks, particularly in the cold water of the White Rose area. Three species of sea turtle (leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii)) are known to occur in the area. The leatherback turtle is listed as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The United States National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service list both the leatherback turtle and the Kemp's ridley turtle as endangered, and the loggerhead turtle as threatened.

Further information on marine mammals and sea turtles in the area is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapter 3).

4.3.2 Effects Assessment

4.3.2.1 Routine Development Operations (Drilling and Construction)

Potential effects on marine mammals are mainly related to the noise produced by offshore structures and activities. Marine mammals depend on the underwater acoustic environment. They are typically more tolerant of fixed location noise sources, such as a semi-submersible drill rig and FPSO facility, than moving sources. Effects of drilling operations on whales and seals may be negligible to low, and will continue throughout the drilling phase of the project. Because drilling activities will continue for several years, habituation may occur. The reactions of marine mammals to marine vessels and aircraft varies between species, and according to the type, level and distribution of activity. Some species of marine mammals will avoid boats and supply vessels, whereas others, such as dolphins and seals, are quite tolerant and may even approach passing vessels (Shane et al. 1986; Richardson et al. 1995; Moulton and Lawson 2000). Overall, the effect of boats and aircraft on marine mammals is predicted to be low. Effects will be reduced if boats maintain a steady course and speed whenever possible, and areas with large numbers of individuals are avoided. Helicopters will also fly at a minimum altitude of 600 m whenever possible.

Drilling activities are unlikely to produce concentrations of heavy metals in muds and cuttings that are harmful to marine mammals (Neff et al., 1980 in Hinwood et al. 1994), and any effects would be negligible. As discussed for birds, the discharge of treated completion, packer and workover fluids would also have negligible effects on marine mammals, as would BOP fluid, hydrostatic testing fluid, and cooling water, as well as cement. Treated oily-water discharge from other drilling fluids, deck drainage and bilge water could potentially affect marine mammals. However, the marine mammals of Newfoundland rely on blubber rather than fur for insulation, and are therefore less likely to be affected by exposure to oily water. Releases of treated oily water will have negligible effects on marine mammals. Organic matter from sanitary and domestic waste will be quickly dispersed and degraded by bacteria, and the effects on marine mammals swimming in the receiving waters will therefore also be negligible.

4.3.2.2 Normal Production and Maintenance Operations

The potential effects of structures (stationary platforms) on marine mammals are primarily related to the effects of noise. Potential effects due to the physical presence of the structures, the increased availability of food due to artificial reef effects, bottom disturbance and noise due to the periodic maintenance of subsea structures, and injection and produced water are predicted to be negligible. As discussed above, releases of treated oily-water discharge (e.g., deck drainage and bilge water) and organic matter from sanitary and domestic waste will have negligible effects on marine mammals during the production phase. All discharges from vessels will be treated as described above, and will therefore have a negligible overall effect on marine mammals. Lights and flares will not interact with marine mammals.

The principal underwater noise sources during production will be similar to those during project development, particularly for ships (supply vessels, tankers, and other marine traffic) and aircraft. Noise levels for the FPSO are similar to a semi-submersible drill rig. At White Rose, the FPSO will be in the same area throughout the production phase. The effects on marine mammals will be minimized because it is a stationary source and because habitation is likely. Overall, the effects of noise will be of low magnitude, and will last for the entire duration of the operations phase.

4.3.2.3 Decommissioning

The White Rose site will be abandoned and restored at the end of production to minimize permanent effects on the environment. Although decommissioning activities may create some short term disturbance and negligible effects within relatively short time periods, overall a positive effect on marine mammals will probably occur as a result of stopping project activity.

4.3.2.4 Sea Turtles

The major threats to sea turtle survival include disturbance and destruction of sensitive reproductive habitat on subtropical and tropical sandy beaches, ingestion of floating plastic debris, and commercial fisheries. On the Grand Banks, sea turtles are caught incidental to the pelagic longline fishery directed at tunas, swordfish and sharks (NOAA 2000). In most situations, the effects of the development, production and decommissioning phases of the project on sea turtles are assumed to be the same as those predicted for marine mammals. The project will have a not significant adverse effect on sea turtles during development, operations and decommissioning.

4.3.2.5 Accidental Events

Whales are not considered at high risk to the effects of oil exposure. However, whales present in the area could suffer sublethal effects through oiling of mucous membranes or the eyes if they swim through a slick (Geraci 1990). These effects are reversible and would not cause permanent damage to the animals. There is a possibility that the baleen of whales could be contaminated with oil, thereby reducing filtration efficiency (Geraci 1990). However, effects would also be minimal and reversible. Also, there is little chance that oil will reach the southeast shoal of the Grand Banks, where baleen whales like humpbacks are known to concentrate to feed on capelin (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 5.8). Whales are present on the offshore portions of the Grand Banks in low numbers at certain times of the year. Therefore, only small proportions of populations are at risk at any time.

Likewise, seals are not considered to be at high risk to the effects of oil exposure, but some evidence implicates oil spills with seal, particularly young seal, mortality (St. Aubin 1990). The majority of seals present in the area are associated with the edge of the pack ice. In average years, the ice edge extends no closer than several hundred kilometres north of the White Rose area and then only for several months of the year. The oil spill trajectory models indicate that after the oil moves away from a release point, it will likely be found east and southeast of White Rose (Comprehensive Study (Part One) Section 5.8). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that oil accidentally released at the White Rose site will reach the ice edge during years with average ice conditions. Few seals are therefore expected to be exposed to oil from an accidental release at the White Rose site and most seals do not exhibit large behavioural or physiological reactions to limited surface oiling, incidental exposure to contaminated food or ingestion of oil (St. Aubin 1990; Williams et al. 1994).

Because sea turtles breathe at the surface and are visual predators that feed near the surface, they may be vulnerable to a surface oil slick. In general, there is a very low likelihood that sea turtles will be exposed to oil from an accidental release at White Rose, however, because they are rarely present.

Depending on the time of year, the location of marine mammals and turtles within the study area, and type of oil spill or blowout, the effects of an offshore oil release could range from negligible to low magnitude.

A more detailed assessment of the potential environmental effects of the project on this VEC is provided in the Comprehensive Study (Part One, Chapters 4 and 5). The potential effects of the various project phases and activities/components on marine mammals are summarized in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Effects Assessment Summary - Marine Mammals

Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Project Activity	Potential Positive (P) or Adverse (A) Environmental Effect	Mitigation	Magnitude	Geographic Extent	Frequency	Duration	Reversibility	Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Economic Context
Development
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	No Interaction	NA	0	1	6	3	R	1
Subsea Structures	Disturbance (A)
Lights	No Interaction	NA
Flares	No Interaction	NA
Underwater Construction	Disturbance (A)		0-1	1-2	2	2	R	1
Drilling Mud/Cuttings
Water-Based Mud	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Synthetic-Based Mud	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle Muds; Treat and Discharge Cuttings	0	1	2	3	R	1
Other Fluids and Solids
Completion, Packer and Workover	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Cement	Increased Food (P)		0
BOP Fluid	Effects on Health (A)	Recycle	0	1	2	3	R	1
Hydrostatic Testing Fluid	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	1	3	R	1
Cooling Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	3	R	1
Deck Drainage	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	3	R	1
Bilge Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	2	3	R	1
Sanitary and Domestic Wastes	Effects on Health (A)	Primary Treatment	0	1-2	6	3	R	1
Garbage	No Interaction	Transport to Shore
Atmospheric Emissions	No Interaction	NA
Ships and Boats^a	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Concentrations of Marine Mammals; Maintain Steady Course & Speed when Possible	1	3-4	6	3	R	1
Helicopters^a	Disturbance (A)	Fly at Minimum Altitude of 600 m whenever Possible	1	1-3	4	3	R	1
Noise
Drilling Rigs	Disturbance (A)		0-1	1-2	6	3	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Concentrations of Marine Mammals; Maintain Steady Course & Speed when Possible	1	3-4	6	3	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)	Fly at Minimum Altitude of 600 m whenever Possible	1	1-2	6	3	R	1
Shore Facilities^b
Production
Presence of Structures
No Fishing Zone	No Interaction	NA
Artificial Reef Effect	Increased Food (P)		1	1	6	5	R	1
Subsea Structures	Disturbance (A)		0	1	6	5	R	1
Surface Structures	Disturbance (A)		0	1	6	5	R	1
Lights	No Interaction	NA
Flares	No Interaction	NA
Underwater Maintenance	Disturbance (A)		0	1	1	1	R	1
Injection Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Produced Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Storage Displacement Water	No Interaction	NA
Cooling Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Deck Drainage	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Bilge Water	Effects on Health (A)	Treatment	0	1	6	5	R	1
Sanitary and Domestic Wastewater	Effects on Health (A)	Primary Treatment	0	1-2	6	5	R	1
Garbage	No Interaction	NA
Atmospheric Emissions	No Interaction	NA
Ships and Boats^a	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Concentrations of Marine Mammals; Maintain Steady Course & Speed when Possible	1	3-4	6	5	R	1
Helicopters^a	Disturbance (A)	Fly at Minimum Altitude of 600 m whenever Possible	1	1-3	4	5	R	1
Noise
FPSO	Disturbance (A)	NA	1	1-2	6	5	R	1
Support Vessels	Disturbance (A)	Avoid Concentrations of Marine Mammals; Maintain Steady Course & Speed when Possible	1	3-4	6	5	R	1
Helicopters	Disturbance (A)	Fly at Minimum Altitude of 600 m whenever Possible	1	1-3	4	5	R	1
Shore Facilities^b
Decommissioning
Offshore	Stop Disturbance (P);Reduce Mortality and Health Risks (P)		1	1	3	3	R	2
Onshore^b
Accidental Events
Offshore Oil Spill or Blowout	Effects on Health (A)	Contingency Plan; Training; Preparedness; Prevention; Cleanup Inventory	0-1	5-6	<1	2	R	1

Key for Table 4.4
Magnitude	0 = Negligible,essentially no effect 1 = Low 2 = Medium 3 = High
Geographic Extent	1 = < 1 km² 2 = 1-10 km² 3 = 11-100 km² 4 = 101-1000 km² 5 = 1001-10,000 km² 6 = > 10,000 km²
Frequency	1 = < 11 events/year 2 = 11-50 events/year 3 = 51-100 events/year 4 = 101-200 events/year 5 = > 200 events/year 6 = Continuous
Duration	1 = < 1 month 2 = 1-12 months 3 = 13-36 months 4 = 37-72 months 5 = > 72 months
Reversibility	R = Reversible I = Irreversible
Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context	1 = Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 = Evidence of existing adverse effects NA = Not Applicable

^aEffects of noise considered here.
^bThere will not be any new onshore facilities required. Existing infrastructure will be used..

The residual environmental effects of project activities on this VEC during the development and operations phases, and in the unlikely event an offshore oil spill or blowout, will be adverse, but not significant, while the decommissioning phase will have a positive residual effect.

4.3.2.6 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the various activities within each of the development, production and decommissioning phases of White Rose, and in relation to the project as a whole, on marine mammals and sea turtles are predicted to be not significant. The cumulative effects of the project in combination with other oil development and exploration activity on the Grand Banks are also expected to be not significant.

As discussed previously, potential effects on marine mammals are mainly related to the effects of noise produced by offshore structures and activities. Given the amount of marine transportation and fishing activity that presently occurs on the Grand Banks, it is safe to conclude that the underwater environment is already noisy. The noise made by the oil and gas industry (FPSOs, supply boats, drilling rigs, and seismic exploration) will add to the underwater ambient noise levels on the Grand Banks. However, the incremental noise created as a result of the White Rose project will have little effect on overall noise levels. The cumulative increased levels of low frequency ambient noise associated with oil and gas exploration and development on the Grand Banks will not be appreciable, and in many cases will be masked by natural events. In the absence of masking, it is possible that animals will be disturbed by the anthropogenic noise sources from industry. However, there is no evidence of disturbance effects from distant ambient noise (Richardson et al. 1995). Based on studies in other areas, marine mammals would have to be close (within a few kilometres) to the actual sources of noise from oil and gas activities to be affected by them. Thus, the disturbance effects on marine mammals would be additive from a few isolated sources of noise, and will be not significant on a project basis or cumulatively.

4.4 Mitigation Measures and Contingency Planning

4.4.1 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures planned for the development, operation and decommissioning phases of the White Rose development to minimize the environmental effects of the project are summarized below:

use of WBMs where practical;
recycling SBMs and other drilling-related fluids/solids;
treating cuttings;
treating drilling-related fluids, deck drainage, bilge water, sanitary and domestic wastes, cooling water and produced water;
transporting solid waste to shore;
developing a waste management plan to provide guidance for addressing all offshore wastes;
designing equipment to reduce atmospheric emissions; and
preparing a contingency plan to mitigate and remediate effects of offshore oil spills.

VEC-specific mitigative measures are summarized in the following sections.

4.4.1.1 Fish and Fish Habitat

Additional mitigation measures for fish and fish habitat include:

no blasting activity during underwater construction activities;
selecting materials/methods to reduce effects during underwater maintenance; and
removing subsea equipment at abandonment to minimize residual effects.

4.4.1.2 Marine Birds

Additional mitigation measures for marine birds include:

releasing stranded birds that are attracted to surface structures and lights;
establishing a 2 km avoidance zone around bird colonies for ships and boats; and
requiring helicopters to avoid colonies and repeated overflights of bird concentrations and/or important bird habitat.

4.4.1.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Additional mitigation measures for marine mammals and sea turtles include:

requiring ships and boats to avoid concentrations of marine mammals;
requiring ships and boats to maintain a steady course and speed, when possible; and
requiring helicopters to fly at a minimum altitude of 600 m whenever possible.

4.4.2 Contingency Planning

Prior to commencement of production, the proponents will develop contingency plans that will serve as guides for responding to any emergency encountered during the White Rose production. The plans will outline the necessary personnel, equipment and logistics support along with procedures to implement initial actions to respond to an emergency incident in a safe, prompt and coordinated manner.

The preventive and contingency plans which will be developed are:

Health, Safety and Environment Loss Control Management System;
Offshore Emergency Response Procedures;
Alert and Emergency Response Plan;
Collision Avoidance Plan;
Ice Management Plan;
Oil Spill Response Plan;
Ship's Oil Pollution Emergency Plans;
Family Support Plan;
Emergency Communications Plan;
Action Plans and Standard Operating Procedures; and
Corporate Emergency Notification Procedures.

The emergency response management structure will be based on the organization of action-oriented teams structured for rapid and efficient response to emergencies (see Part One of the Comprehensive Study, Chapter 6). Plans will be dynamic documents and will be updated as needed to reflect changes in project operations. All regular East Coast production personnel, including contractors, will receive directed emergency training and a regular program of exercises will be instituted to ensure the readiness of all personnel.

4.5 Residual Environmental Effects Summary

The predicted residual environmental effects of project development, production and possible accidental events on fish and fish habitat are assessed as adverse, but not significant. The residual environmental effects of project decommissioning on fish and fish habitat are predicted to be positive. The overall residual effect of the project on fish and fish habitat is assessed as not significant (Table 4.5).

The residual environmental effects of project development and production on marine birds are assessed to be adverse, but not significant, while effects during decommissioning will be positive. The environmental effect of an accidental event such as a significant oil spill on marine birds, although unlikely, is assessed to be adverse and significant. The overall residual effect of the project on marine birds is assessed as not significant (Table 4.5).

The residual effects of project development and production and in the case of an accidental event on marine mammals and sea turtles are assessed to be adverse, but not significant. Predicted effects to this VEC as a result of project decommissioning are predicted to be positive. The overall residual effect of the project on marine mammals and sea turtles is assessed to be not significant (Table 4.5).

In summary, after mitigation measures have been implemented, the overall predicted environmental effects of the project on each of these VECs are assessed as not significant. The only exceptions are the potential effects of a major offshore oil spill on marine birds. However, the probability of such an event is, as discussed previously, very low. Preventive measures and contingency actions outlined by the proponents will further reduce the likelihood of, and minimize the effects of, any oil spill.

Table 4.5: Residual Effects Summary - Biophysical

Phase	Residual Environmental Effects Rating, including Cumulative Effects	Level of Confidence	Likelihood
Phase		Level of Confidence	Probability of Occurrence	Scientific Certainty
Fish and Fish Habitat
Development	NS	3	3	3
Production	NS	3	3	3
Decommissioning	P	3	3	3
Accidental Events	NS	3	1	3
Project Overall	NS	3	3	3
Marine Birds
Development	NS	3	3	3
Production	NS	3	3	3
Decommissioning	P	3	3	3
Accidental Events	S	3	1	3
Project Overall	NS	3	3	3
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
Development	NS	3	3	3
Production	NS	3	3	3
Decommissioning	P	3	3	3
Accidental Events	NS	2	1	2
Project Overall	NS	3	3	3

Key for Table 4.5
Residual Environmental Effects Rating	S = Significant Adverse Environmental Effect NS = Not-significant Adverse Environmental Effect P = Positive Environmental Effect
Level of Confidence	1 = Low Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence
Probability of Occurrence	1 = Low Probability of Occurrence 2 = Medium Probability of Occurrence 3 = High Probability of Occurrence
Scientific Certainty (based on scientific information, statistical analysis or professional judgement)	1 = Low Level of Confidence 2 = Medium Level of Confidence 3 = High Level of Confidence

4.6 Follow-up

EEM programs are designed to verify effects predictions made during the environmental assessment, assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures, provide an early warning of changes in the environment, facilitate project planning and continuous improvement, and, ultimately, to improve the understanding of environmental cause and effect relationships. An EEM program is an integral part of the follow-up program required by CEAA.

The proponents plan to undertake a comprehensive EEM program for the White Rose oilfield development (see Part One of the Comprehensive Study, Chapter 7). The development of an appropriate EEM program will include review by relevant government departments through the C-NOPB's approval process. Husky Oil is supportive of, and will cooperate in, any appropriate regional monitoring initiatives.

Proposed components of the EEM program include:

sediment quality (toxicity, chemistry and benthic community analysis);
water quality and primary productivity;
fish body burden (American plaice and snow crab);
fish taint (American plaice and snow crab); and
fish health histopathology and multi-function oxidase (MFO) (American plaice).

A supply vessel based seabird monitoring program was conducted in conjunction with the drilling platform in 1999, and is continuing in 2000. This program will continue to be reviewed throughout the development phase of the project. In addition, any incidental bird mortalities associated with the project will be recorded.

A dedicated EEM will also be implemented to determine the effects of any major spills, focusing primarily on marine birds, but also including fish and marine mammals. The structure of the monitoring program will follow the structure of the EEM program established for routine production activities at White Rose. The decision to implement such a program will be made after consultation between the proponents and the C-NOPB, and will be based on the circumstances of the spill. In addition, as per DFO's Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, any habitat compensation measures will be monitored and addressed.

Compliance monitoring will be conducted to verify adherence with applicable legislation and conditions of regulatory approvals. Compliance monitoring will primarily involve monitoring for conformance with the discharge limits identified in the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. Monitoring programs will be developed to measure and report on waste discharges that are treated according to the guidelines.

Additional information on proposed monitoring initiatives is included in the Comprehensive Study.

Page 4

Table of Contents

Print Friendly Layout

Report a problem on this page