ESRF146 BuchananCookMathieu

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING
FOR EXPLORATION DRILLING
By
and
For
Environmental Studies Research Funds

444 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8
Solicitation No. ESRF – 018
3 December 2003
SA735
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING
FOR EXPLORATION DRILLING
by
Robert A. Buchanan1, Joanne A. Cook2 and Anne Mathieu3
1
LGL Ltd., environmental research associates
388 Kenmount Rd., POB 13248, Stn A, St. John’s, NL A1B 4A5
(709) 754-1992; [email protected]
2
CEF Consultants Ltd.
5443 Rainnie Dr., Halifax, NS B3J 1P8
3
Oceans Ltd.
31 Temperance Street
St. John’s, NL A1C 3J3
for
Environmental Studies Research Funds

444 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8
Solicitation No. ESRF – 018
3 December 2003
SA735
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. vii
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Objectives and Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................1
1.2. Boundaries of the Study.......................................................................................................2
1.3. Issue Scoping .......................................................................................................................2
1.4. Development of an EEM Strategy for the East Coast..........................................................5
2.0 Background ......................................................................................................................................6
2.1. Potential Issues and EEM Studies........................................................................................6
2.1.1. Fish and Fisheries ....................................................................................................6
2.1.2. Fisheries Exclusion Zone.........................................................................................7
2.1.3. Drilling Muds in the Benthic Boundary Layer ........................................................7
2.1.4. Benthos ....................................................................................................................7
2.1.5. Cuttings Pile.............................................................................................................7
2.1.6. Deep Sea Corals.......................................................................................................7
2.1.7. Birds.........................................................................................................................8
2.1.8. Scientific Credibility of Potential EEM Programs...................................................8
2.2. Typical Exploratory Drilling................................................................................................8
2.2.1. Drill Rigs..................................................................................................................9
2.2.2. Drill Muds................................................................................................................9
2.2.2.1. Water-Based Muds................................................................................11
2.2.2.2. Synthetic-based Muds ...........................................................................12
2.2.2.3. Mitigation..............................................................................................13
2.2.3. Discharge of Other Fluids and Solids ....................................................................13
2.3. Exploratory Drilling – Cumulative Effects........................................................................14
2.4. Regulatory Regime ............................................................................................................14
2.4.1. International ...........................................................................................................14
2.4.1.1. Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................14
2.4.1.2. Alaska....................................................................................................14
2.4.1.3. Other......................................................................................................15
2.4.2. Canadian ................................................................................................................15
2.5. Review of Effects...............................................................................................................16
2.5.1. Toxicity Potential of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings ................................................16
2.5.2. Biological Effects: Single or Low Number of Wells.............................................17
2.5.3. Perspective on Exploratory Drilling Versus Other Industrial Activities ...............17
2.5.4. Biological Monitoring State of the Art ..................................................................18
2.5.5. General Approach to Biological Effects Monitoring Around Exploratory Wells .20
3.0 Environmental Effects Monitoring Programs for Production........................................................21
3.1. The Scotian Shelf...............................................................................................................21
Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

3 December 2003 Page ii
3.1.1. Sable Offshore Energy Project..............................................................21
3.1.1.1. Sable Offshore Energy Project Environmental Effects Monitoring
Advisory Group (SEEMAG) Results....................................................22
3.1.2. Cohasset Panuke ....................................................................................................30
3.2. Monitoring Programs for Exploratory Wells.....................................................................31
3.2.1. H-08 .......................................................................................................................31
3.3. Grand Banks EEM .............................................................................................................31
3.3.1. Hibernia..................................................................................................................31
3.3.1.1. Study Design .........................................................................................34
3.3.1.2. Hibernia EEM Results ..........................................................................34
3.3.2. Terra Nova .............................................................................................................37
3.3.2.1. Study Design .........................................................................................37
3.3.2.2. Terra Nova Results................................................................................38
3.3.3. White Rose.............................................................................................................39
3.3.3.1. Study Design .........................................................................................39
3.3.3.2. White Rose Results ...............................................................................42
3.3.3.2.1. Sediment Quality .............................................................. 42
3.3.3.2.2. Water Quality.................................................................... 44
3.3.3.2.3. Infaunal Communities....................................................... 44
3.3.3.2.4. Body Burdens.................................................................... 44
3.3.3.2.5. Tainting ............................................................................. 44
3.3.3.2.6. Fish Health ........................................................................ 44
3.3.3.2.7. Important Conclusions ...................................................... 45
4.0 East Coast Issues............................................................................................................................46
4.1. Issue Scoping .....................................................................................................................46
4.1.1. Newfoundland........................................................................................................46
4.1.2. Nova Scotia............................................................................................................47
5.0 Comparisons: Newfoundland and Labrador vs. Nova Scotia........................................................50
5.1. Some Differences in Perceived Issues ...............................................................................50
5.2. Some Similarities in Perceived Issues ...............................................................................51
6.0 Application of Production EEM Experience to Exploratory Drilling EEM ..................................52
7.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................53
7.1. Decision Process ................................................................................................................53
7.2. Scenarios ............................................................................................................................53
7.3. Shallow vs. Deep Wells .....................................................................................................55
7.4. Potential EEM Designs ......................................................................................................55
7.4.1. Scenario 1—No EEM ............................................................................................55
7.4.2. Scenario 2—No Known Sensitive Issues but Few Data........................................56
7.4.2.1. Shallow Water or On-shelf Wells .........................................................56
7.4.2.1.1. Objectives ......................................................................... 56
7.4.2.1.2. Sampling Design............................................................... 56
7.4.2.1.3. Equipment and Methodology............................................ 56
7.4.2.1.4. Costs.................................................................................. 57
7.4.2.2. Deep Water Wells .................................................................................58
7.4.2.2.1. Objectives ......................................................................... 58
7.4.2.2.2. Sampling Design............................................................... 58
7.4.2.2.3. Equipment and Methods ................................................... 59
7.4.2.2.4. Costs.................................................................................. 59

3 December 2003 Page iii
7.4.3. Scenario 3—Sensitive Areas.................................................................60
7.4.3.1. Costs......................................................................................................60
7.4.4. Regional EEM........................................................................................................60
7.5. Potential EEM Support Studies .........................................................................................60
7.5.1. Nova Scotia Studies ...............................................................................................61
7.5.1.1. Rationale ...............................................................................................61
7.5.1.2. Objectives..............................................................................................61
7.5.1.3. Methodology .........................................................................................62
7.5.1.4. Sampling Design ...................................................................................63
7.5.1.5. Numbers of Samples .............................................................................63
7.5.1.6. Data Analyses .......................................................................................63
7.5.2. Newfoundland and Labrador Studies.....................................................................63
7.6. Ongoing ESRF Studies ......................................................................................................64
8.0 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................65
9.0 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................68
Appendix I - Review of Toxicity Effects

Appendix II - Review of Nova Scotia EEM Results
Appendix III - Results of Consultations
Appendix IV - Preliminary Survey Protocols for Bird and Mammal Surveys

3 December 2003 Page iv
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1. Typical Mud Components and Cuttings Discharge Volume for a Grand Banks
Exploration Well.................................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.2. Biological Effects Techniques for Monitoring as Recommended by the Oslo and
Paris Commissions (Stagg 1998). ........................................................................................ 18
Table 3.1. Variables Monitored in Current Grand Banks EEM Programs ........................................... 32
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1. Offshore Wells Drilled in Newfoundland and Labrador Waters. .......................................... 3
Figure 1.2. Offshore Wells Drilled in Nova Scotia Waters...................................................................... 4
Figure 3.1. Hibernia EEM Time Line. ................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.2. Hibernia Sampling Pattern................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.3. Sediment Testing Protocol................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.4. Locations of White Rose Wells and Baseline Sampling Stations........................................ 40
Figure 3.5. White Rose Sampling Pattern. ............................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.6. Barium Levels in Sediment for White Rose Baseline Characterization Program 2000. ..... 43
Figure 7.1. Proposed Decision Tree for Exploratory Drilling EEM. ..................................................... 54

3 December 2003 Page v
Acknowledgements
A number of people contributed to the successful completion of this report. Mr. G. Hurley of EnCana
served as Scientific Authority on the project. Other oil and gas industry personnel who contributed
material included D. Taylor of Husky, C. Ross of ExxonMobil, R. Dunphy of Hibernia, and U. Williams
of Petro-Canada (Terra Nova). Dr. J. Lawson of DFO provided preliminary bird and mammal survey
protocols.
Mr. D. Thomson of LGL and N. Collins of CEF read the report and provided insightful comments. Ms.
V. Moulton and M. Fitzgerald of LGL provided graphics assistance and Ms. R. Martin produced the
report. Dr. R. Green critically reviewed some offshore EEM data for us.
Last but not least is the large number of industry, government, fisheries organizations, environmental
groups, NGO’s and knowledgeable individuals without whose input during consultations, this study
could not have been completed.

3 December 2003 Page vi
Executive Summary
Introduction
This study was conducted for the Environmental Studies Research Funds (ESRF) by a Study Team
composed of LGL Limited, CEF Consultants Ltd., and Oceans Ltd. The primary goal of the study was
to develop a strategy for monitoring environmental effects at a single exploratory offshore well on the
East Coast.
At present, there are no specific environmental effects monitoring (EEM) requirements for drilling
exploratory wells offshore on the East Coast. In the Canadian Arctic, there may be requirements to
conduct marine mammal monitoring depending upon location and season. For the most part,
environmental protection is achieved through the environmental assessment/permitting process and a
series of generic and project-specific mitigations.
The work consisted of consultations with scientists, regulators, and stakeholders, reviews of regulatory
regimes, toxicity results relevant to exploratory activities, and East Coast production EEM programs,
and development of a ‘decision tree’ for determining when to conduct EEM, and at what level of effort,
and some suggested study design considerations.
Issue Scoping
Issue scoping was conducted by reviewing the results of previous East Coast environmental assessments
and any associated comments by reviewers and stakeholders. Subsequently, a series of informal
consultations were held with individuals from Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, the Canada-
Newfoundland and the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore regulatory boards, the fishing industry and
environmental interest groups.
Results of consultations varied from ‘monitor everything’ to highly focused specific detail. There were
a number of differences between the two regions in the perception of issues with the main ones perhaps
being greater interest in benthos (e.g., shellfish and corals) and marine mammals (e.g., ‘The Gully’, a
potential marine protected area) in Nova Scotia versus a greater interest in fish/fisheries and marine
birds in Newfoundland. Nonetheless, there were at least eight general areas of commonality:
1. Level of concern. Most respondents had a much lower level of concern for the single
exploratory well than for a production development.
2. Assurance. While a number of scientists argued for full statistical treatment of all data, there
was a common thread with most people that some level of assurance was required that the
marine environment was not being unduly harmed, with or without full statistical
confirmation.
3. Biological effects. Most felt that the focus should be on biological effects rather than some
trace chemical ‘signals’.

3 December 2003 Page vii
4. Seabirds and marine mammals. Many agreed that birds and mammals deserved attention
and that any existing supply boat or rig observations were viewed positively; however,
concern was addressed about the value of the data in terms of actually monitoring the effects
of exploratory drilling activities.
5. Data availability. Data availability was expressed as a concern with virtually everyone that
we consulted.
6. Site specifics. Local and site-specific issues must be considered in the design of any EEM.
7. Cumulative effects. Many were concerned about potential cumulative effects with other
industrial activities although no one had any particularly valuable insight into how to handle
exploratory wells within this context.
8. Testing EA. A number of respondents suggested that test case (s) be established and
monitored not only to test EA predictions but also to establish scientific rationale for
inclusion or exclusion of specific variables in future EEM programs.
Information Reviews
Regulatory Regimes
Different jurisdictions regulate exploratory drilling differently but few jurisdictions have specific EEM
regulations aimed at the single exploratory well. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, regulators have
relied on some large-scale research programs (i.e., ‘case studies’) and a zoning approach to protect the
environment. In Alaska, permit requirements can be complex and there is often some form of marine
mammal monitoring because of concerns related to endangered bowhead whale during the summer and
ringed seal disturbance in the winter. There are few, if any, EEM requirements for an exploratory well
in offshore West Africa, Brazil, or Indonesia. On the East Coast of Canada, there has been reliance on
the EA and permitting processes and compliance monitoring to the Offshore Waste Treatment
Guidelines to protect the environment during exploratory drilling. However, as of the 30th of October
2003, there is a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) requirement for some form of ‘follow-
up’ to CEAA environmental assessments (including screening level ones), which could include EEM.
Toxicity Effects
Baring accidental events, the primary discharges of potential concern during exploratory drilling are
drilling muds and cuttings which are regulated under the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. On the
East Coast, water-based-mud (WBM) is now the most commonly used drilling fluid; synthetic-based-
mud (SBM) may also be used in certain situations. Modern muds are now essentially non-toxic
although some pathological effects of barite (barium sulfate, a major constituent of drilling mud) have
been reported during laboratory tests with scallops, shrimp, and flounder. The main environmental
effects of the discharge of mud and cutting are probably some very localized smothering an/or alteration
of benthic communities near the well. Cuttings with WBM tend to disperse more widely than those with
SBM which tend to clump near the well.

3 December 2003 Page viii
State of the art methodology for monitoring the potential effects of drilling discharges include benthic
community structure, sediment bioassays, mixed function oxygenase (MFO), and histopathology.
East Coast Production EEM
Large scale EEM programs for offshore production developments on the East Coast are being conducted
for the Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) and Cohasset Panuke off Nova Scotia, and Hibernia,
Terra Nova and White Rose off Newfoundland. Variables measured, numbers of samples, intervals
sampled, and study designs have varied somewhat between the projects. Common variables have
included sediment and water chemistry, toxicity testing, benthic community structure, fish or shellfish
taint, and fish health. The study design is normally some sort of radial design with sampling at
increasing distances from the source, sometimes with provision made for prevailing water currents. In
most cases, effects, if any, have been confined to within a 500 m radius of the rigs. This is consistent
with the most recent reports from the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. The primary lessons for
designing an EEM program for an exploratory well include (1) the ‘signals’ will be relatively weak and
close to the rig, and (2) effects will likely be much less for the single well than for the multi-well
development scenarios. In addition, there may be benefit in analyzing existing production baseline and
EEM data with the sole intent of detection of effects (or lack thereof) from the original exploratory
wells.
Potential Decision Process
A potential ‘decision tree’ has been suggested for different levels of EEM based on three different
scenarios:
(a) Scenario 1—well known area with no sensitive issues. Compliance monitoring but no EEM
would be conducted.
(b) Scenario 2—shallow or deep areas with no known sensitive issues. Opportunistic EEM
surveys of sediments, benthos, seabirds and marine mammals would be ‘piggy-backed’ on
existing logistics.
(c) Scenario 3—sensitive areas. Custom EEM surveys would be required.
Most EEM for an exploratory well can be ‘piggy-backed’ onto existing programs such as well site
surveys in order to minimize costs.
‘Special’ EEM support studies of selected existing data and new data could be collected to further
refine, and potentially maximize data return while lowering costs.

3 December 2003 Page ix
1.0 Introduction
This study was conducted for the Environmental Studies Research Funds (ESRF) by a Study Team
composed of LGL Limited, CEF Consultants Ltd, and Oceans Ltd. The primary goal of the study was to
develop a strategy for monitoring environmental effects at a single exploratory offshore well on the East
Coast.
1.1. Objectives and Purpose of the Study

Exploration drilling occurs after geophysical (seismic) and other types of surveys have determined the
location and extent of a possible hydrocarbon bearing geological formation. Formations identified with
remotely collected data may contain commercially viable hydrocarbon deposits or they may contain
only water or hydrocarbons in quantities that are uneconomic to develop. Exploration drilling is the
only sure way to confirm the presence of viable quantities of hydrocarbons.
In the event that hydrocarbons are found during exploration drilling, testing may be required to further
define a prospect’s potential for development. Once the presence of hydrocarbons is confirmed by
exploratory drilling and associated testing, further appraisal or delineation drilling may be required in
order to establish the extent and commercial viability of a prospect.
A number of hydrocarbon exploration wells have been drilled offshore on the East Coast and several are
planned in the next few years. Before granting approvals to drill, the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board (C-NOPB) or Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NSOPB) (i.e., the
‘Boards’) must evaluate the potential environmental effects of each well. Given that many aspects of
offshore exploration wells are common to all such wells, a generic assessment of the common aspects of
offshore exploration wells was conducted in 1999 for Nova Scotia waters (Thomson et al. 2000). In
Nova Scotia, drilling applications for specific wells incorporate the generic assessment by reference and
address site-specific aspects of the environment, impacts or project activities. In Newfoundland, generic
assessments per se have not been done but exploration EAs (e.g., Husky 2002 and Husky 2003a) have
built on other comprehensive assessments for major production developments such as Hibernia, Terra
Nova and White Rose. In addition, a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of exploration activities
was recently completed for the Orphan Basin off Newfoundland and Labrador (LGL 2003).
Some research scientists, non-government organizations (NGOs), and stakeholders have expressed
concern over the potential impact of exploration drilling. In addition, the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) generally requires some sort of follow up or monitoring to validate impact
predictions, especially when the predictions are tenuous or viewed to be tenuous. Environmental effects
monitoring (EEM) has been carried for large developments such as Hibernia, Terra Nova, Sable Island,
Cohasset-Panuke, and White Rose. Simply, EEM can be defined as a test of impact predictions made in
an EA or EIS. The purpose of this study was to determine if EEM is required, and if so, in what
situations, as well as to provide some guidance in program design.
At present, there are no specific EEM requirements for drilling exploratory wells offshore on the East
Coast. In the Canadian Arctic, there may be requirements to conduct marine mammal monitoring
depending upon location and season. For the most part, environmental protection is achieved through
the environmental assessment/permitting process and a series of generic and project-specific mitigations.

3 December 2003 Page 1
The design of EEM programs for single exploration wells presents a challenge in that a single
exploration well is drilled over a short period of 40 to 100 days. The well may be a ‘dry hole’ and also
may leave little or no ‘footprint.’ In addition, there may be relatively little lead-time for an exploratory
well relative to a production well. In contrast, development wells certainly contain hydrocarbons,
drilling may go on for a few years, and the development may be producing for many years. The EEM
strategies designed for oil field development and operation, or at least parts of them, may not be
applicable to exploration wells, although their results may be relevant in scoping the potential effects of
a single well vs. a multi-well scenario.
1.2. Boundaries of the Study

This study focused on single exploration wells that could be drilled anywhere on the East Coast of
Canada using currently available technology at any depth during any season. It concerns EEM strategies
that could be used to test impact predictions made in EAs for exploration drilling and to address
concerns about exploration drilling.
Wells drilled to date off the East Cost of Canada are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.
1.3. Issue Scoping

There were several possible approaches to this project: (1) workshop, or (2) focused consultations. An
informal consultation approach was chosen for logistical reasons and because it was felt that people
would speak more freely. In addition, there were too many potential issues and concerns, each requiring
technical expertise, associated with exploration drilling to use a one or two workshop approach for this
study. Some of these a priori issues included:
− Effects of the cuttings pile on the benthos,

− Effects of drilling mud in the benthic boundary layer on scallops,
− Comparison of effects of water based, oil based and synthetic based drilling mud,
− Effects of mud and cuttings on deep sea coral,
− Effects of the presence of the platform on birds,
− Effects of the exclusion zone on fisheries,
− Effects of produced water during well testing,
− Effects of underwater noise on marine mammals, and
− Effects of routine discharges.
The above list is not intended to be all-inclusive nor intended to imply that all of these issues are
necessarily scientifically or technically based. This list does, however, reflect the concerns of a number
of stakeholders.

Figure 1.1. Offshore Wells Drilled in Newfoundland and Labrador Waters.

Figure 1.2. Offshore Wells Drilled in Nova Scotia Waters.

1.4. Development of an EEM Strategy for the East Coast
Once it has been determined that EEM is required, the methods used to monitor effects of exploration
drilling on the East Coast should
− Address issues and concerns of stakeholders, regulators, scientists, NGOs, the oil and gas
industry and interested parties,
− Test impact predictions made in EAs for exploration wells,
− Be effective in detecting effects,
− Be scientifically and statistically defensible,
− Be acceptable to the interested parties named above, and
− Be cost-effective.
In addition, EEM studies should determine:
1. whether or not there is an effect, and if not, consider if further studies should be
discontinued. In some cases, in may be desirable to consider monitoring for reassurance
purposes.
2. that if there is an effect, should studies be continued as mitigation measures are developed to
reduce or eliminate the impact.
Some EEM studies may be applicable to all wells and some may be applicable to only certain types of
wells. We used a scenario approach to determine the applicability of methods to specific kinds of wells
and/or all wells. Type of drill rig, water depth, bottom type, currents, kinds of marine life present and
predicted impacts, among other things, were considered in the application of methods to specific wells.

2.0 Background
2.1. Potential Issues and EEM Studies
One of the objectives of the study was to identify issues and potential EEM methods. Experience has
shown that several key issues and concerns that may need to be addressed by EEM are common written
and oral comments during public consultation for exploration wells or large production developments.
Some of these are briefly reviewed below. Note that these are only a few recurrent issues and are not
meant to be a comprehensive list. Additional issue scoping is contained in Section 3.0 based on
informal local discussions with key informants.
2.1.1. Fish and Fisheries
Assessment of any potential impacts on fish and fisheries will continue to be of major importance for
regulators and the oil and fishing industries with additional exploratory drilling off the East Coast.
Although valuable for assessing fish quality and marketability, chemical analyses of tissues are
inadequate as a measure of fish health because
− Many chemicals do not accumulate in body tissues to any degree yet they can be quite
damaging,
− Only a limited number of toxic chemicals in complex mixtures can be measured,
− The toxicity of many chemicals may not be due to the chemicals measured but by
degradation products which are not readily measured, and
− There are few dose-response experimental studies linking body burdens of chemicals to
effects; therefore, even knowledge about levels of chemicals in tissues can rarely be used to
assess actual health effects (see Mathieu 2002, Appendix I).
Given the inadequacies of using chemical analyses as a measure of fish health and given that population
level measures are both very expensive and unreliable for detecting change in the absence of major
population level effects, there is increasing emphasis on use of biochemical and/or histopathological
indicators of chemical stress to obtain an appreciation of the degree and severity of any potential health
effects. These indicators are commonly referred to as bio-indicators or health effect indicators. Use of
such indicators has the potential to identify adverse conditions in advance of responses at the population
level and as such can provide early warning signals of any impending more severe problems.
It is equally important to stress that indicators are also a powerful tool for “disproving” as well as
“proving” the deleterious effects of chemicals. For instance, perceptions or concerns about population
level effects on fish stocks would have little scientific credibility in the absence of individual level
effects.
Given regulatory and socio-economic concerns about potential impacts on fish and fisheries, a key
component of the study was to “assess any potential impacts of exploratory drilling on the health and
productivity of finfish and shellfish and recommend monitoring approaches and techniques if required”.

2.1.2. Fisheries Exclusion Zone
The safety zone around a drill rig and its enforcement by standby vessels is frequently raised as a
concern of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. This issue was investigated during the collection of
stakeholder views to assess the merits of monitoring the situation. It should be noted that the safety
zone for a single exploratory well is much smaller than that for a production development.
2.1.3. Drilling Muds in the Benthic Boundary Layer
Individual fine particles in water based drill muds (WBM) settle slowly. However, fine particles interact
with seawater and organic matter to form flocs (Munchenheim and Milligan 1996). This increases
settling velocity and serves to retain the discharged material near the discharge point and hinders
dispersal (Munchenheim and Milligan 1996). Material that is deposited can be re-suspended and
transported (Neff et al. 1989). The accumulation of this material occurs within the benthic boundary
layer, which is within a few metres of the sea bottom.
Accumulation of suspended drilling wastes in the benthic boundary layer has the potential to affect
sensitive species such as scallops (Cranford and Gordon 1992; Cranford et al. 1999). Effects may
include mortality at very high mud concentrations, negative growth and cessation of gonad growth. The
benthic boundary layer transport model (referred to as the bblt model) has been used to model the fate
of discharged WBM in the benthic boundary layer at exploration drilling sites. Some field testing of this
model under ESRF auspices has been conducted by Hannah et al. (2003).
2.1.4. Benthos
Environmental effects monitoring programs in the offshore have commonly used benthic communities
as indicators of impact, typically through use of community measures such as diversity indices and
species richness, as well as patterns of occurrence and abundance of indicator species (e.g., capitellid
polychaetes) (e.g., Kingston 1992; Olsgard and Gray 1995). Benthic community structure is also a key
component of the Sediment Quality Triad approach to assessing impacts of industrial activities on
aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Chapman et al. 1991; Green and Montagna 1996; Carr et al. 1996a; Borgmann
et al. 2001), currently used in offshore monitoring programs for the Sable Offshore Energy Project, and
Terra Nova on the Grand Banks.
2.1.5. Cuttings Pile
Cuttings and any remaining adherent mud are normally discharged subsurface from the drilling rig. The
heavy particles settle near the discharge site and may form a pile on the bottom. An examination of
three exploration well sites drilled with water-based muds in the Hibernia field revealed only slight
accumulations of drilling materials (NORDCO 1983). However, accumulation depends on depth, water
currents and frequency of storm surges. The concern is with smothering of the local benthos and
potential loss of a small amount of fish habitat.
2.1.6. Deep Sea Corals
Through interviews with fishermen, examination of museum collections, discussion with researchers
and a literature review, Breeze et al. (1997) mapped the distribution of deep sea corals on the Scotian

Shelf and Georges Bank. The corals are distributed in canyons along the edge of the continental shelf
and in the deep channels between fishing banks. These long-lived, slow-growing sessile filter feeders
are extremely sensitive to changes in current, suspended sediment and temperature, and appear to be
good bio-indicators of environmental deterioration. Fishermen have reported changes in coral
abundance in several areas, largely due to the impact of mobile fishing gear. There is a concern that
settled drilling waste could affect these corals.
2.1.7. Birds
There is a concern that night-flying birds, especially petrels, are attracted to lighted rigs. The birds
become disoriented and land on the rig. Procedures have been developed for dealing with these birds
and appear to work well, however, no formal monitoring results are available to date. There is some
concern that birds could be burned in flares or fly into the structure. There is also a concern that birds
could be attracted to the structure and be subject to predation or land on sheens on the water. The ESRF
has issued RFPs aimed at studying these issues.
2.1.8. Scientific Credibility of Potential EEM Programs
EEM programs that are developed must be scientifically credible and acceptable to stakeholders. At the
same time, the parameters to be measured need to be appropriate for measurement at reasonable cost.
Scientific credibility can be assured by using state-of the-art techniques and by involving statisticians to
review final designs. Studies should include appropriate provisions for analyses to determine optimum
sample size and allocation of resources to give the best possible chance of detecting effects and a posteri
power analysis to determine the power of the test to detect change. The study design should include
provisions for modification based on the results of statistical power tests.
Scientific credibility would be of little value if stakeholders were not convinced that the results were
valid. Thus, the programs must address their concerns and produce results that are credible to both
scientists and the concerned public.
2.2. Typical Exploratory Drilling

Exploratory drilling on the East Coast is normally examined under an environmental assessment (EA).
Typical issues addressed include:
− Noise and disturbance associated with support activities and drilling (e.g., supply vessels,
helicopters)
− Effluents and emissions of the drill rig (sanitary, grey water, mud and cuttings, etc.)
− Accidental events
− Well abandonment activities
Drilling and testing the typical exploration well on the shelf may take about 40 days for drilling and an
additional 20 days for testing if hydrocarbons are found.

Normally if there any concerns with the exploratory drilling, they tend to revolve around the disposition
of mud and cuttings on the sea floor, accidental events such as spills or blowouts, and disturbance of
marine birds and mammals, if the area is deemed to be an important area for these species. To date, all
EAs for drilling have predicted that any environmental effects will be not significant with the possible
exception of a major oil blowout (e.g., Petro-Canada 1996; Husky 2000, 2002, 2003a).
Compliance monitoring and EEM (in the case of development and production scenarios) focuses on
effluents and emissions. Monitoring of spills is considered separately from compliance monitoring or
routine EEM.
The following sections provide a brief description of typical exploratory drilling equipment, procedures
and activities. Emphasis is on those aspects relevant to EEM.
2.2.1. Drill Rigs
Worldwide, there is a wide variety of drilling rig types in common use. Typically the offshore drill rig
houses the drilling equipment, working and living quarters and is serviced by helicopters and supply
vessels. To date, the most common drill rig in use on the Grand Banks has been the semi-submersible
(e.g., the Glomar Grand Banks). Semi-submersibles are normally anchored but some can be
dynamically positioned without anchors. Hibernia is the exception as drilling is conducted from the
concrete, gravity base structure (GBS) that also houses the production facilities. In Nova Scotia, ‘jack-
up’, bottom-founded rigs have been typical but as drilling moves into deeper water there is a trend
toward semi-submersibles or drill ships.
There may be some minor differences between and within rig types in terms of capabilities, treatment
facilities, effluent discharge depths, and so forth but, for the most part, each rig is fairly ‘typical’ in
terms of characteristics, volumes and types of discharges. All must conform to the Offshore Waste
Treatment Guidelines (OWTG) (NEB et al. 2002). Rig types do differ in terms of the noise emitted with
dynamically positioned drill ships being the noisiest and the ‘jack-up’ being the quietest.
Drill mud handling is an important duty of the rig (see below). Other equipment and material includes
casings, cement to bond the casings, risers and blowout preventers (BOP).
2.2.2. Drill Muds
Drilling muds are needed to convey the drill cuttings out of the hole and to keep formation fluids from
entering the well. During the drilling of the top hole sections, the riser is not in place and drilling mud
and cuttings (or sediments) from the top part of the hole are discharged from the hole to the seabed.
[Drill muds and cuttings are no longer a potential issue with Hibernia, as that production facility will be
re-injecting their cuttings. This approach is not presently feasible for the single offshore exploratory
wells using existing drilling units on the East Coast.]
All exploratory drilling on the East Coast is conducted using either water-based drilling muds (WBM) or
synthetic-based muds (SBM). It is debatable which type is more or less ‘environmentally friendly.’ For
example, it can be argued that WBM is better because it is mostly water and cannot form a sheen on the
surface whereas SBM may form one under certain conditions. On the other hand, SBM generally stays

closer to the well site and does not disperse as widely as WBM. All drilling fluids should be handled
and treated in accordance with C-NOPB and C-NSOPB policies and the OWTG.
After installation of the initial casing strings, the riser provides a conduit from the seabed to the rig that
takes the drilling mud and cuttings back to the surface mud system. Once on board the rig, the drill
cuttings are removed from the mud in successive separation stages and discharged. Some mud remains
with the discharged cuttings. At several stages during drilling and at the end of the drilling process,
WBM is discharged.
The main component of WBM is either fresh water or seawater. The primary WBM additives include
bentonite (clay) and/or barite. Other chemicals such as potassium chloride, caustic soda, soda ash,
viscosifiers, filtration-control additives and shale inhibitors are added to control mud properties. Low
toxicity chemicals are used for the water-based drilling mud to reduce the effect on the environment.
From the top down, a typical exploratory hole involves a conductor, surface and progressively smaller
casings, perhaps as many as five. Mud and cuttings cannot be returned to the rig until the surface casing
is in place and thus mud and cuttings from the conductor and surface parts of the hole are initially
discharged directly to the seabed. Once the surface casing is complete, the risers are installed, and the
mud and cuttings are returned to the rig through a closed system for recycling and cleaning before
cuttings and any residual mud are discharged. The discharge is treated and exits via shute to just below
the water’s surface subject to Board approval. The mud and cuttings are dispersed in the water column
and settle on the sea floor with the heavier particles near the hole and the fines at increasing distances
from the rig. [One industry respondent interviewed during the course of the present study offered the
following observation. “Muds/cuttings emanating from drill rigs located near Sable Island have been
observed to form into a long, tendril-like plume on the ocean surface extending several kilometres from
the source, presumably in the predominant direction of the surface current.”]
The conductor setting depth is site-specific and subject to Board approval but a typical depth on the
Grand Banks might be about 250-m as measured from the rotary table (i.e., MD). The typical surface
casing setting depths may be on the order of 1,200-m MD. Estimated volumes of water-based mud and
cuttings discharges associated with initial casings for a typical Grand Banks (White Rose area) well are
shown in Table 2.1. It should be noted that the muds/cuttings from the production casing phase are
passed through the solids control system that consists of shale shakers and centrifuges.
Drilling muds and cuttings, and their potential effects were discussed in detail in the White Rose
Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) and Supplement (Husky 2001a). Modeling of the fate of drill mud
and cuttings discharges was conducted for the White Rose EA. The White Rose EA analyzed the effects
of the discharge of drilling wastes from development drilling of 25 wells using SBM at multi-well
drilling sites. As such, the White Rose scenario can be considered a ‘much worse case’ than the
exploratory drilling of one individual well. The White Rose development drilling was deemed to create
no significant effect on fish and fish habitat, the fishery, seabirds, marine mammals, or sea turtles.
Additional relevant documents not available during the White Rose EA include MMS (2000); CAPP
(2001a,b), NEB et al. (2002), the White Rose baseline studies (Husky 2001b, 2003b), and Husky
exploratory drilling EAs (Husky 2002, 2003a) all of which discuss the discharge of mud and cuttings
and associated effects. These recent reports have further confirmed the conclusions of the White Rose
work that routine drilling, particularly small scale drilling, has no significant effect on the marine

environment of the Grand Banks. The salient points are briefly summarized in the two following
sections and the results of baseline and monitoring studies related to offshore drilling programs are
presented in Sections 2.5 and 3.0.
Table 2.1. Typical Mud Components and Cuttings Discharge Volume for a Grand Banks
Exploration Well.
Casing Strings
Unit Conductor Surface Production
Hole Section inch 36 16 12 1/4 Notes:
DF System Gel/SW Gel/SW WBM
1. Three scenarios were taken into
Depth (See Note 4) Meter (brt) 220 1200 3600 account. The 12 ¼" hole section
Volume Usage bbl 897 4199 5246 varies in depth with each
Wash Out % 50% 30% 10% scenario.
Products
Barite MT 58 115 2. 36" and 16" hole sections–Near
Bentonite MT 16 65 seabed discharge.
Calcium Carbonate kg
Caustic kg 116 482 138 3. WBM used for complete well.
Fluid Loss Agent kg 2385
4. All depths are measured below
Inhibitor kg 4769
rotary table (brt). The rotary
Fluid Loss Agent kg 9538
table is 145-m above the
Potassium Chloride kg 100153
seafloor.
Lime kg 116 482
Glycol Inhibitor L 25024
Soda Ash kg 116 482 238
Viscosifier kg 3577
Biocide L 72
Drilled Cuttings kg 192032 429562 521786
Volume of Cuttings m3 74 165 201
Source: Husky (2003a).
2.2.2.1. Water-Based Muds
At present, and for the near future, most exploratory wells at least on the East Coast, will be drilled with
WBM unless unexpected, difficult or highly deviated conditions are encountered and then, with the
approval of the Board, they may use SBM (discussed in a following section). Composition of one
typical WBM formulation for an exploratory program is shown in Table 2.1.
The following points are relevant to the discharge of WBM and cuttings.
• WBM are essentially non-toxic. The main component of WBM is seawater and the primary
additives are bentonite (clay), barite and potassium chloride. Much previous literature (e.g.,
the North Sea) on the effects of mud/cuttings deals with field where oil-based muds (OBM)
were used for a number of years. The OBM literature is not very relevant to WBM or SBM
usage.
• Chemicals such as caustic soda, soda ash, viscosifiers, and shale inhibitors are added to
control mud properties. All constituents are normally screened using the Offshore Chemical
Selection Guidelines (NEB et al. 1999).

• Discharge of WBM and associated cuttings is regulated by the C-NOPB and C-NSOPB.
Spent and excess WBM and cuttings can be discharged without treatment (NEB et al. 2002).
• The discharge of WBM may increase metals in sediments such as barium, arsenic, cadmium,
copper, mercury, lead, and zinc, generally within 250 to 500-m of the drill site but
occasionally farther (usually zinc and sometimes chromium) depending upon mud volumes
and environmental conditions. However, these metals are not in a bioavailable form and few
if any biological effects have been associated with these increases in metals from drill rig
discharges (CAPP 2001b).
• The primary effect of WBM appears to be smothering of benthos in a small area near the
hole. The exact area of effect cannot be predicted because animals’ reactions will range from
simply avoiding the immediate area of deposition to direct mortality of sessile organisms.
Nonetheless, the White Rose EA indicated a worst-case scenario of an area of less than
1-km2 around each well would have a depth sufficient to result in some smothering (Husky
2000, 2001a). The exploratory drilling for one well would be well below the worst-case
scenario used for the White Rose EA. The benthos can be expected to recover in anywhere
from several months to several years (and most likely within one year) after the drilling
ceased, based upon the published literature (reviewed in Husky 2000, 2001a; MMS 2000;
CAPP 2001b). Actual monitoring data from other operators indicate that the actual area of
smothering appears to be much less than predicted (Fechhelm et al. 2001; Marathon, unpubl.
data).
2.2.2.2. Synthetic-based Muds
Synthetic-based muds (SBM) are not used in the typical exploratory program unless difficult or
unexpected hole or reservoir conditions are encountered. Synthetic muds were developed to replace oil-
based muds which were considered toxic to varying degrees and which appeared responsible for the
longevity of cuttings piles. In general, SBM is essentially non-toxic, has the potential to biodegrade
relatively rapidly, and less mud is required than for WBM for the same distance drilled. SBM tend to
‘clump’ cuttings together more than WBM thus SBM cuttings tend to disperse less and fall closer to the
rig.
The following points concerning SBM are relevant to an exploration drilling program EA on the East
Coast.
• In other jurisdictions, biological effects have been attributed to smothering under the patches
of mud/cuttings from physical and/or chemical (i.e., anoxia caused by rapid biodegradation)
conditions (e.g., EPA 2000).
• In Nova Scotia, SBMs have been handled in a number of ways including shipping to shore,
injection, and discharge.
• In the deepwater (500+-m), Gulf of Mexico, organic enrichment with attendant increases in
biota, including fishes and crabs, has been reported after a two year multi-well drilling
program (Fechhelm et al. 2001). No large cuttings piles were observed by ROV during that
study.

• Biological effects are not normally found beyond 250-500-m from the drilling platform
(Husky 2000, 2001a, 2002, 2003a; MMS 2000; CAPP 2001b; C-NOPB 2002). The Husky
EAs (White Rose, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and South Whale Basin) concluded a total area of
impact of less than 1-km2 from multi-well drilling based upon a modeling exercise and
published literature. It can reasonably be expected that a single exploratory well would
affect a much smaller area.
• In the event that SBM must be used, the cuttings are treated prior to discharge. All
discharges are subject to approval by the Boards and discharge of whole SBM is not
permitted.
2.2.2.3. Mitigation
Mitigation measures for the drilling include the selection of non-toxic or low toxicity chemicals and
muds and treating any oil-contaminated cuttings to meet the OWTG. Hibernia now re-injects cuttings as
a mitigation for production (not exploration) drilling. However, the Hibernia situation is atypical for the
East Coast being a very large development that does all its drilling from a centrally located gravity-base
structure.
2.2.3. Discharge of Other Fluids and Solids
Other fluids associated with the drilling include cement slurry and BOP fluid. Mitigations include
careful selection and use of chemicals in order to minimize any potential toxic effects.
Based on experience with previous exploratory wells, approximately 33-t (26.4-m3) of excess cement may
be released to the marine environment per well (Husky 2000), and may smother or displace some benthos
locally. If the cement remains in a pile, it will act as an artificial reef, be colonized by epifaunal animals
and attract fish. The effects (either negative or positive) of the cement on benthos are likely negligible.
Blowout preventer (BOP) fluid is used in the blowout preventer stacks during drilling. The fluids are
normally glycol-water mixes. Periodic testing of the blowout preventer is required by regulation.
Approximately 1-m3 of the fluid is released per test. Periodic releases of this small amount of glycol likely
have a negligible effect on marine biota.
In some cases, small amounts of produced water may be released during testing, if hydrocarbons are
discovered. Sometimes this is released but it may also be burned, or if present only in small quantities,
disposed on shore.
Concerns about birds and mammals are normally related to accidental events (beyond our mandate here)
and/or the perceived importance of a particular area. For example, bird (particularly petrels) attraction to
rigs was an issue during both Terra Nova and White Rose hearings because the areas are known to support
large numbers of petrels, which may be particularly sensitive to this type of disturbance. Similarly, noise of
drilling and support activities may be an issue near known concentrations of whales (e.g., bottlenose whale
population in the Gully, offshore Nova Scotia).

2.3. Exploratory Drilling – Cumulative Effects
On the Grand Banks to date, there have been over 233 exploration, delineation, and production wells
(C-NOPB data) (see Figure 1.1). The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has predicted
that there will be between one and four drill rigs per year operating on the Grand Banks over the next 10
years (CAPP 1999). CAPP’s scenario for a moderate level of activity predicts two rigs drilling exploration,
delineation and production wells on the Grand Banks over the next ten years.
In Nova Scotia waters, over 170 wells have been drilled to date (C-NSOPB data) (see Figure 1.2). It is
likely that there will be at least one or two rigs operating in Nova Scotia waters over the next 10 years.
2.4. Regulatory Regime

Different jurisdictions have different approaches to environmental protection for offshore drilling which
range from no EEM to custom programs. Some of these approaches are briefly described below.
2.4.1. International
2.4.1.1. Gulf of Mexico
There are have been many thousands of exploration, delineation and production wells drilled in the Gulf
of Mexico, mostly in relatively shallow water on the shelf. The present trend is to drill in the deeper
water of the slope and basin of the Gulf.
There have been extensive studies of the biota in the Gulf under many auspices and there have been
numerous research studies conducted for specific developments. While there are some specific EEM
programs such as the Flower Garden Banks that have been monitored every year since the 1980’s and
some deepwater (1,000-m) research studies of two exploration and two production platforms using
sidescan profiling and biological mapping, there are no EEM requirements for single exploratory wells
(G. Boland, MMS, pers. comm.).
Because there is a large body of evidence for the Gulf that effects, even in deepwater, of exploratory
drilling, occur within 1,000-m of the rig, emphasis is on a type of zoning to avoid sensitive areas and
compliance monitoring to EPA effluent guidelines once the project goes ahead. Sensitive areas include
topographic features that may contain coral reefs or other hard substrates that constitute limiting habitat
in the predominately soft-bottomed Gulf. Buffer zone widths ranging from 1,000-m to four miles may
be used as a protective measure. Thus, zoning and mitigation techniques are used for oil and gas
exploratory drilling in the Gulf as opposed to a case-by-case EEM program.
2.4.1.2. Alaska
Regulatory requirements concerning EEM in Alaskan waters can be complex because a number of
regulators (e.g., federal such as National Marine Fisheries Service, US Biological Service or EPA; state
such as Alaska Fish and Game and Division of Oil and Gas; local such as North Slope Boroughs, and
others) may take an interest in a particular project depending upon the location, water depth, time of
year and type of drill rig, and so forth. The primary line of defense is the permitting process and
compliance monitoring; the ultimate goal for effluents is ‘zero discharge’ offshore.

There are no ‘hard and fast’ rules for EEM but it is very likely that marine mammals (e.g., whale
migrations and possibly ringed seals in summer, and seals in winter), and noise would have to be
monitored for an offshore exploratory well drilled in Alaskan waters (B. Wilson, LGL, pers. comm.).
However, strictly speaking, it could be argued that this type of monitoring can be considered mitigation
as opposed to EEM because precautionary shutdowns may occur because of the monitoring.
2.4.1.3. Other
Very few, if any, jurisdictions have EEM requirements for exploratory drilling. For example, the
Canadian oil company Nexen operates offshore exploration internationally in West Africa, Brazil (with
Petrobras), Indonesia, Australia, and the Gulf of Mexico. Of these areas, Australia is the only
jurisdiction that has some requirement for EEM depending on location and timing of drilling (W.
Robson, Nexen, pers. comm.). On the other hand, there may be certain circumstances where a company
might voluntarily conduct ‘before’ and ‘after’ surveys in order to address liability issues (W. Robson,
pers. comm.).
2.4.2. Canadian
At the time of writing the first draft of this document there were no specific EEM requirements for
drilling exploratory wells offshore on the East Coast. However, it should be noted that as of 30 October
2003, the revised Canadian Environmental Assessment Act states that some form of ‘follow-up’ is
required for projects that have undergone any CEAA process including screening. It remains to be seen
if this is an actual EEM ‘requirement’ in all cases. In the Canadian Arctic, there may be requirements to
conduct marine mammal monitoring depending upon location and season. For the most part,
environmental protection is achieved through the environmental assessment/permitting process and a
series of generic and project-specific mitigations.
On the East Coast, the C-NOPB and C-NSOPB require that effluents and discharges be monitored (i.e.,
compliance monitoring) according to the OWTG (NEB et al. 2002). Effluents and discharges that fall
under these guidelines include:
1. Air emissions
2. Produced water
3. Drilling muds
4. Drill cuttings
5. Well treatment fluids
6. Storage displacement water
7. Bilge and ballast water
8. Deck drainage
9. Cooling water
10. Produced sand
11. Desalinization brine
12. Fire water
13. Sewage and galley waste

14. Monoethylene glycol
15. Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM)
16. Other wastes (solid waste, residues, etc.)
Of these, in the case of exploratory drilling, items 2 to 4, and 7 and 8 would be routinely monitored.
Other items may be specified on a case-by-case basis.
2.5. Review of Effects

A detailed review of effects reported from various relevant research and EEM studies worldwide is
contained in Mathieu 2002 (Appendix I). A brief summary is provided below.
2.5.1. Toxicity Potential of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
Drilling fluids (muds) and cuttings have potential for both lethal and sublethal effects on marine
organisms (mostly sedentary ones) through introduction of contaminants from chemical additives or
from the downhole geology or by physical smothering, mostly of sedentary benthic organisms. Most
offshore drilling worldwide is now conducted using water-based or synthetic-based muds; these fluids
range from non-toxic to low toxicity compared to previous fluids that utilized diesel oil as the base.
Literature on the topic must be treated with caution because effects from older wells that used oil-based
mud must be separated from the newer ones. It also should be noted that care must be taken in
interpreting benthic data near offshore platforms because the reef effects caused by the presence of the
platform may be equal to, or even greater than, those caused by contaminants (see Montagna et al.
2002).
As discussed previously, it is debatable as to the level of environmental effects of WBM versus SBM.
In a typical offshore situation, WBM tends to disperse more widely whereas SBM tends to clump
together closer to the well site. Both contain ground barite and/or bentonite, dispersants, viscosifiers,
fluid control agents, and corrosion inhibitors. Most additives are practically non-toxic as measured by
96-h acute toxicity testing (e.g., concentrations >10,000-ppm with most ≥100,000-ppm), and most
drilling wastes can be considered only slightly toxic (1,000-10,000-ppm) or practically non-toxic
(>10,000-ppm) (GESAMP 1993). A variety of SBMs have passed the US criteria for toxicity from
suspended particles to mysid shrimp (LC50’s >30,000-mg/L) and an SBM used offshore Newfoundland
(a synthetic isoalkane, IA-35) has been tested and found to have a very low toxicity (see Neff et al.
2000; Payne et al. 2001a,b). Synthetic fluids can be categorized as synthetic alkanes, ethers, esters, or
olefins; the most rapidly degrading ones can create localized anaerobic conditions in the underlying
sediments (EPA 2000). Chemicals used off the East Coast of Canada are screened and selected for
lowest toxicities (see NEB et al. 1999).
Smothering from mud and cuttings discharge from a single exploratory well is likely confined to a very
small area and should not be an issue, although benthic communities may be affected by physical
alteration of the sediments (e.g., Cantelmo et al. 1979). However, concern has been expressed that
barite or bentonite can become suspended in the benthic boundary layer (Muschenheim and Milligan
1996) and may affect scallop growth (Cranford et al. 1999).

Barite (barium sulfate) is an insoluble, relatively low toxicity form of barium which in ionic form is
quite toxic. Pathological effects of barite have been reported for bivalves (Cranford et al. 1999), shrimp
(Conklin et al. 1980), and flounder (J. Payne, DFO, pers. comm.). WBM and SBM are generally of low
toxicity but that there are potential effects from mud and cuttings other than changes to benthic
community structure that should be examined for an EEM program, for example, effects on flatfish as
determined by mixed function oxygenase (MFO) and histopathology.
2.5.2. Biological Effects: Single or Low Number of Wells
Results of an extensive literature review of developments involving one or few exploratory or

production wells are in the tables contained within Appendix II.
The review considered worldwide results from 18 locations using WBM with water depths ranging from
eight to 410-m and 17 locations using SBM (a few with LTMO) with water depths ranging from 30-m to
565-m. In addition, seven locations from the East Coast with depths ranging from 20 to 90-m were
examined; some used WBM, SBM or low toxicity mineral oil (LTMO).
In summary, effects as measured by various biological indices on sediment communities generally

ranged somewhat farther using WBM than SBM but in most cases were within a few to 500-m of the
well or set of wells and most commonly within a 200-m radius.
2.5.3. Perspective on Exploratory Drilling Versus Other Industrial Activities
It is useful to place the risk to the environment and the scale of effects created by exploratory drilling
compared to other industrial activities such as commercial fishing and shipping. To date, exploratory
drilling, in so far as can be determined, has had a relatively mild effect on the marine environment of the
East Coast. Monitoring of large-scale offshore oil developments, involving multiple wells (e.g.,
Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose) has failed to discover any significant impacts on those elements
of the ecosystem that have been measured. It should be noted that care should be taken in extrapolating
effects from other oil fields such as the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea because those areas contain
many thousands of producing oil wells that were drilled over a number of years. Furthermore, while
there has been a gas blowout off Nova Scotia, there have been no oil blowouts off Newfoundland. In
contrast, chronic illegal release of oily water by disreputable ship captains on freighters and tankers
continues to result in the mortality of thousands of seabirds off the south coast of Newfoundland (W.
Turpin, CWS, pers. comm.).
The fishing industry has caused major significant effects off the East Coast (e.g., the failure of the
Atlantic cod fishery, and others). The scale of effects created by routine fishing industry activities is
potentially much greater than those from routine petroleum exploration activities. For example, the
combined biological effects of petroleum activities in the North Sea affected an area of about 106-km2 in
1989 whereas other UK waters such as the Irish Sea (2-3,000-km2 in area) are completely trawled over
2.5 times per year (GESAMP 1993). The effects on benthic habitat of fishing dredges and trawls are
well recognized (Veale et al. 2000; Watling et al. 2001; Wassenburg et al. 2002, and others). The
National Academy of Science (1983) noted in their review of drilling discharges that while a single well
may deposit 442-m3 of cuttings, a single fishing vessel, dredging for surf clams, cuts an average swath
about 1.5-m wide and 46-cm deep, potentially impacting 4,300-m3 of sediment per day.

The attempt of the above comparisons is intended to place a perspective or scale on the drilling issues
under discussion and not disparage the fishing or any other industry.
2.5.4. Biological Monitoring State of the Art
Environmental quality is ultimately biological in nature and over the past number of years there has been
increasing emphasis on the use of biological techniques in monitoring programs in order to supplement
more traditional chemical approaches, which were commonly used alone. There are a number of
reasons for this shift in emphasis towards biological monitoring. For instance, reliance on chemical
analysis alone presupposes that the contaminants of concern are known and dose-response relationships
have been established for effects on various ecosystem components. This is rarely the case for any
chemical or any species. Furthermore, only representative contaminants can be measured, and chemical
analyses cannot consider factors of biological significance such as the combined effects of contaminants,
their degradation products and their interaction with environmental factors. The International
Commission for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) has recommended biological monitoring techniques
for the marine environment under the framework of the Olso and Paris Commissions (Table 2.2). The
list of techniques is not unlike those which are being used already in many “informal” as well as more
formal monitoring and assessment programs (e.g., studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the United States).
Table 2.2. Biological Effects Techniques for Monitoring as Recommended by the Oslo and Paris
Commissions (Stagg 1998).
Type of monitoring Purpose Monitoring methods

General biological • Monitor general quality • Early warning indicators:
effects monitoring status Cytochrome P-450 1A, lysosomal stability, liver
histopathology (e.g., preneoplastic changes), reproduction in
viviparous blenny
• Indicators of long-term change:

External fish diseases, benthos community structure studies,
the occurrence of liver nodules
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
• Identify known or • Bioassays:
suspected areas of impact Sediment, Pore water and water column
• Biomarkers:
Cytochrome P-450 1A (EROD), lysosomal stability, liver
pathology/nodules in caged or sedentary organisms
• Population/community responses:
External fish diseases, reproduction in viviparous blenny,
benthos community structure studies, liver histopathology
Contaminant-specific • Effects of PAHs • PAHs in sediment, PAH metabolites in bile, EROD in liver,
effects monitoring DNA adducts in liver, liver pathology
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
• Effects of Hg, Cd, Pb • Metals in sediment and liver, metallothionein in liver, ALA-
D in blood, antioxidant defenses in liver
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ • TBT in flesh, imposex/intersex in gastropods or shell
• Effects of TBT thickening in Crassostrea

Analysis of benthic community structure or benthic community structure in combination with
sedimentary microtoxicity tests is recognised, including by ICES, as a valuable approach for assessing
impacts on sediment habitat. Analysis of benthic community structure has also been one of the most
widely used techniques for assessing sediment habitat impact around petroleum exploration and
development sites. This is the case for developments in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico and more
recently in Canada and Australia (Mathieu 2002, Appendix I). Studies indicate that any potential for
significant impacts on sediment habitat around single exploratory or development wells through use of
synthetic, or water base muds should generally be confined to within a few to 200-m of rig sites, if at all,
(with impact zones being possibly somewhat shifted away from the immediate area of rig sites in deeper
waters with fast currents). Impacts associated with multiple wells can also fall within the <200-m range.
Also, benthic impacts associated with petroleum development are indicated to be quite small in
comparison with other impacts such as those produced by fishing activities.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on studies of sediment communities around relevant well sites
and the scale of impacts is fairly well known to be quite limited or negligible. However, there is a
general lack of data on effects on fish and shellfish or other component which may be at some risk.
Since population level effects in species such as fish would be both highly expensive to investigate and
difficult to detect in the absence of major impacts, there is increasing emphasis on use of biochemical
and histopathological indicators of chemical stress to obtain an appreciation of the degree and severity
of any potentially impending problems in the marine environment. These indicators are commonly
referred to as early warning or health effect bioindicators. Relevant indicators for monitoring effects in
fish and shellfish such as induction of MFO enzymes and histopathology are noted in the list of
techniques recommended by the Oslo and Paris Commissions (see Mathieu 2002, Appendix I).
Assessment of any potential impacts on fish and fisheries can be of considerable socioeconomic
importance for regulators and the oil and fishing industries alike; bioindicators can provide a powerful
tool for assessing if effects are occurring and if so, whether they might be of regulatory or
socio-economic importance. For instance, perceptions/concerns about population level effects would
have little scientific credibility in the absence of continuing evidence for individual level effects some
distance from rig sites.
Laboratory studies indicate a potential for localised effects on fish and shellfish around petroleum
development sites (e.g., Cranford et al. 2001 and references therein). Studies in the UK sector of the
North Sea have demonstrated induction of MFO enzymes in fish around some platforms (Davies et al.
1984; Stagg et al. 1995). Histopathological lesions have also been found in finfish (Gallaway et al.
1981; Grizzle 1986) and shrimp (Wilson-Ormond et al. 1994) around some production platforms in the
Gulf of Mexico. Recognising that most of the biological monitoring programs carried out to date in
association with oil development have primarily emphasized investigations on impacts on sediment
habitat, and given the potential for effects on fish and other pelagic organisms around rig sites, studies
have recently been carried out under the auspices of ICES around a development site in the North Sea.
These studies have confirmed a potential for effects on fish and shellfish around platforms (ICES
Workshop 2002).
It is noted that the bioindicator studies carried out to date with fish and shellfish have been in association
with production sites and the effects observed may primarily be linked to produced water. However,
chronic effects associated with other potential contaminants including these found in drilling fluids
cannot be discounted. As for impacts on benthic communities, any potential for impacts on fish around

exploratory sites and especially these involving single wells some distance apart would seem to be quite
low. It is of interest in this regard that Terra Nova has carried out fish health studies on a commercially
important flatfish (American plaice) around their site in advance of development (JWE Ltd. 1998). No
differences were noted in the bioindicators studied between their predevelopment site, where a number
of wells have been drilled, and the reference site. Similar observations on bioindicators of fish health
have also been made with respect to the predevelopment site at White Rose where a number of wells
have been drilled (JWE Ltd. 2000). These field results are consistent with observations by Payne et al.
(1995) who found little evidence for health effects in flounder chronically exposed to levels of drilling
fluids (aliphatic hydrocarbon based) similar to those commonly found beyond 200-m or so from rig
sites. The laboratory studies of Cranford et al. (1999) with scallops and Conklin et al. (1980) with
shrimp also indicate that any significant potential for localised effects should be more or less in
association with deposits from multiple, not single wells. However, in the absence of evidence and with
due regard for unknown chronic toxicity potentials, effects on fish, shellfish or other ecosystem
components could be greater than those on sediment communities. It is also recognised that it is often
important to provide assurance that effects are not occurring in some species. This could apply for
instance to commercially important fish, “species at risk” or other high profile species.
2.5.5. General Approach to Biological Effects Monitoring Around Exploratory Wells
Organisms (fish, shellfish, etc.) which might be of importance for assessment would depend on the
exploratory site. Candidate indices for monitoring effects in the marine environment have been
recommended by the Oslo and Paris Commissions (see Mathieu 2002, Appendix I). These include well
known indices such as benthic community structure, sediment bioassays, MFO enzymes, and
histopathology. With respect to determination of health effects in individual organisms, concepts such
as growth and histopathology can be applied to a large variety of animals in addition to fish. However,
the nature of environmental effects monitoring, precludes being too prescriptive since new techniques
are always evolving or novel environmental observations may be made requiring a change in approach.
For instance, specific cytochemical changes in bivalves (peroxisomal proliferation) are evolving as a
novel technique for assessing pathological effects produced by hydrocarbons and other organic
chemicals in bivalves. Similarly, depending on purpose, caged or resident organisms could be studied.
For instance, concerns about potential for effects on general environmental quality could be addressed in
part by caging selected animals near discharge sites. However, such an approach could greatly
exaggerate exposure conditions and produce highly misleading results should the question be related to
whether resident organisms such as commercial fish species are being affected to any degree around rig
sites.

3.0 Environmental Effects Monitoring Programs for Production
The following sections provide more detailed reviews of EEM programs conducted on the East Coast
for offshore oil and gas production developments. The most detail has been provided for the Sable
Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) which can be considered a ‘case study’ (see below).
This project was selected as the primary case study because at the time of this writing more detail was
available for SOEP whereas mostly summary material was available for the other East Coast projects.
In general, study designs and results for all of the projects have been similar, with the exception of a
number of minor differences.
Most EEM data collected off the East Coast to date has been for monitoring large production
developments. As such, the data should be treated with the cautions that there are other potential
environmental stressors at work other than drilling activities. Other stressors could include glory hole
excavation, produced water discharge, and so forth. Nonetheless, offshore drilling for exploration wells
entails essentially the same equipment, muds and cuttings and activities as drilling for delineation,
injection, or production wells. Thus, both baseline and EEM data collected for such projects as Hibernia
or SOEP are definitely relevant to EEM for exploratory drilling.
3.1. The Scotian Shelf

There have been three environmental effects monitoring programs on the Scotian Shelf, two for
production developments and one for an exploratory well. To date, monitoring for each project has
focused on the valued ecosystem components (VECs) identified in the environmental impact statements
(EIS) prepared by the proponents. VEC selection is individualized for each proposed project, but the
broad potential impact categories are quite similar, and these broad categories are used as the basis for
monitoring program design.
Production EEM programs on the Scotian shelf were for the Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) and
Cohasset/Panuke (CoPan). Common monitoring elements included effects on local fishing
communities, effects on bottom communities through sediment transport, and effects to seabird and
marine mammals.
3.1.1. Sable Offshore Energy Project
Sable Offshore Energy Inc. (SOEI), operators of SOEP, divided their effects monitoring programs into
two components, (1) near shore environments and (2) offshore environments. The near shore
component focused on installing the pipeline to shore, so only the offshore components potentially
relevant to drilling activities are considered here.
Offshore monitoring included VECs and associated concerns identified through the EIS, included:
− water and sediment quality;

− suspended particulate matter in the benthic boundary layer;

− benthic habitat and community;
− shellfish body burden and taint;
− marine mammals, and
− seabirds.
The sampling protocol used a gradient approach. A radial grid with eight axes was centred over the
platform and samples were taken along the axes at increasing distances, between 250-m and 20-km from
the platform. Water samples were taken in the direction of the prevailing current and MicrotoxTM testing
was used to determine shellfish taint. The monitoring programs are ongoing throughout the project
lifetime. SOEI has requested the program be modified to meet ongoing logistical and analytical
limitation and to ensure it remains practical.
To date there have been no public releases of procedures or data, an issue of ongoing controversy. It is
known that hydrocarbons were detected in mussel samples taken from the jacket legs, but no tainting
was found. It was also observed that SBM did not disperse as modeling had predicted, but clumped,
moving out only to about 75-m rather than 750 as had been forecast. The resulting "blob" persisted for
some time, but then abruptly disappeared, possibly as the result of a storm.
3.1.1.1. Sable Offshore Energy Project Environmental Effects Monitoring Advisory Group
(SEEMAG) Results
Review of Tier 1 EEM for SOEP
As a condition of the Development Plan approval by C-NSOPB, SOEI was required to develop and
conduct both an offshore and a nearshore EEM program for its offshore natural gas and condensate
project near Sable Island. There were four general objectives:
1. improve environmental understanding of cause-and-effect relationships between Project

activities and the receiving environment, including both habitats and organisms,
2. provide early warning of undesirable change in the environment,
3. test earlier predictions in order to lower uncertainty or risk, and
4. provide feedback to SOEI, the regulatory authorities, stakeholders and the interested public
in order to enhance adaptive management programs and guide environmental protection
decisions.
The EEM programs have been overseen by the Sable Offshore Energy Project Environmental Effects
Monitoring Advisory Group (SEEMAG).
The SEEMAG had five goals:
1. assist in scoping the EEM program,

2. focus the EEM program on significant issues identified through scientific inquiry, public
consultation, or regulatory requirements ,
3. review monitoring studies and comment on their scientific and statistical validity,
4. evaluate program results and recommend improvements to the program and further
mitigation measures as necessary, and
5. comment on linkages between the EEM program and Environmental Compliance

Monitoring, as appropriate, in the interests of effective environmental management
contribute to the understanding of the environmental impacts of the offshore oil and gas
industry.
SEEMAG is an advisory body, with members potentially drawn from government, academic
institutions, the fishing and aquaculture sector, First Nations, environmental or other relevant
organizations.
The Tier 1 offshore EEM program focused on activities at Venture, Thebaud, and North Triumph,
before, during, and after drilling. Specific objectives included:
− incorporate public concerns, regulatory concerns and scientific concerns,

− examine the potential impacts of produced water and the potential for tainting ,
− monitor accumulation and movement of drill wastes around the platforms, in particular
towards the Gully,
− monitor traffic noise and noise-related SOEP effects on marine mammals,
− monitor nesting and young birds of the Roseate Tern population on Sable Island,
− monitoring:
− water quality
− suspended particulate matter (SPM) in the benthic boundary layer (BBL)
− sediment toxicity and chemistry
− shellfish body burden and taint.
Results for these over time are summarized in the tables provided in Appendix II. Effects on benthic
habitat and megafaunal communities, marine mammals, and seabirds were also reviewed. Sets of
questions were defined for several of the key parameters. An overall summary of conclusions for the
Tier 1 EEM program, presented to SEEMAG in April of 2001, is provided below:

Drilling Wastes
• Overall much thinner deposits of drilling wastes than predicted were found at each distance
from the rig. Drill waste flocs were not spread out as much as the model had predicted, and
the drill waste tended to be cohesive and clumped, staying in a narrow pile within 70 to 100-
m of the source.
• No tainting or toxicity was found in the survey array close to the platforms (40-150 m), and
hydrocarbon levels were consistently very low. Hydrocarbons are detectable at 250-m and
500-m in the direction of prevailing currents at Thebaud and North Triumph but at
concentrations approaching background levels.
• Cuttings piles under some rigs lasted longer than predicted; synthetic drilling mud proved
very sticky, giving the mounds a plasticine-like consistency and holding them in place.
• Overall, the EIS model overestimated the impact of drilling waste. The input into the model
should be adjusted to ensure that the information is appropriate.
Benthic Boundary Layer
• Bentonite-sized particles were not detected in suspended particulate matter extracted from
the BBL water samples. The maximum concentration of barium in the suspended particulate
matter was two orders of magnitude lower than levels known to cause sub-lethal effects on
scallops.
Epifauna and Infauna Communities
• No effect was observed on these communities at any of the survey stations within the
Venture, Thebaud or North Triumph fields.
• Video surveys around the platforms show an abundance of juvenile gadoids, mussels and
crabs. Colonization of large epibenthic organisms such as starfish, sea urchins, and sea
anemones was evident along the exposed portions of the main pipeline. Snow crabs were
observed on and along the sides of the gas pipeline and in high densities around the North
Triumph platform. Protective mattresses near Thebaud showed numerous sea cucumbers.
Biogenic Hydrocarbons
• Positive odour and taste results were found to be caused by biogenic hydrocarbons occurring
naturally in phytoplankton.
Marine Mammals
• Marine mammals observed from fixed platforms were within acoustic range of the sound
spectra radiating from the project. Project activities did not seem to affect them.

Seabird Observations
• Flaring has caused no large-scale bird fatalities, and no oiled seabirds on Sable Island
contained hydrocarbons attributable to the Tier 1 project.
Monitoring continued at the Tier 1 sites in 2001, although sampling frequency was reduced for a number
of parameters. Snow crab sampling began. In 2002, EEM continued, but on a more limited basis. The
use of sentinel species was introduced, like snow crab, and, potentially, the Jonah crab found around
Venture and Thebaud.
Sampling Design
The initial sampling design consisted of a radial grid with eight axes, with sampling conducted along
transects at increasing distances from each platform: 250-m to 20-km. Sampling was initially planned to
be carried out quarterly.
Baseline surveys were undertaken in June and July of 1998. Three of the fields were visited: Venture,
South Venture and Thebaud, all part of the first tier of gas field development. At Venture, 37 stations
were established; the design took into consideration the direction of the currents, toward the Gully. At
South Venture there were 35 sites, and at Thebaud 38 stations. There were an additional five Gully sites
on the top of the shelf by feeder canyons, not on the slope.
A fall survey in November/December of 1998 collected drilling period data from these three fields, and
baseline data for North Triumph. A second drilling survey originally scheduled for February/March was
cancelled due to poor weather and the shortage of suitable boats; plans for more winter surveys were
dropped. The second drilling survey was conducted in June 1999. Certain parameters, like BTEX, were
consistently undetectable. It was noted, however, that BTEX is found in produced water and should be a
component of production monitoring.
The main conclusion of the 1998–99 program was that the EIS models considerably overestimated
impacts from the discharge of drilling waste. Based on the results of the 1998 and 1999 surveys, trends
were identified in the behaviour, distribution, and effects of drilling wastes. A number of issues were re-
evaluated as a result: sampling design, water quality, sediment toxicity, and inorganic particle spectral
analysis.
Given the evidence of drill waste attenuation along certain axes, sampling location and frequency
changes were recommended by SOEP consultants for drilling and operational monitoring in 2000:
• Eliminate far-field minor axes (no significant difference was found)

• Add an extra 500-m to minor axis to improve resolution
• Maintain far field 15-km stations at Venture, and 20-km stations at North Triumph and
Thebaud as reference stations
• Eliminate far field stations at 6-km, 7.5-km, and 10-km.
• Maintain 36 to 24 stations at Venture (plus 5 Gully stations)

• Maintain from 39 to 26 stations at Thebaud
• Maintain 38 to 26 stations at North Triumph
• In all three locations, focus sampling within 3-km.
This strategy was said to meet both statistical power analysis requirements, and a recommendation of
randomized sampling within a ring which does not give directionality. In 2001, a radial survey array
was established for Venture, Thebaud, North Triumph and a remote reference site.
Water Quality and BBL
Water quality issues included:
• Does the BBL flocculate occur in pre-drilling conditions?

• Can BBL flocculate be consistently identified and sampled with existing and available
technology?
• What is the spatial and temporal extent of BBL flocculate after drilling operations?
• Has the BBL transport modeling in the EIS accurately predicted the spatial and temporal
extent of BBL flocculate?
A baseline program in summer, 1998 analyzed BBL for metals, hydrocarbons, and BTEX at each of the
sites on each field and the Gully. An important question was whether barium could be used as a tracer
for drilling mud; baseline indications were that barium was randomly scattered around all of the sites.
As well, concerns were raised that barium is heavier than other fractions of suspended material and its
distribution might not reflect that of the drilling waste as a whole.
An important issue throughout was the validation of the bblt model, which predicts drilling waste
concentrations with distance. Sample locations were selected on the basis of model predictions.
The model predicted that:
− Drilling fines would be carried significant distances at a relatively high concentration

(7-mg/L of suspended solids).
− At the Venture and Thebaud fields, for a one-week discharge of SBM, a concentration of
7-mg/L would extend 10-15-km from the discharge.
− Under the conditions of a continuous daily release model scenario, a concentration of
0.1-mg/L of drilling mud fines (measured as barium) would be found 5-15-km from the
discharge.
Water quality sampling was completed in fall of 1998 and summer of 1999 at the surface, mid-water and
near-bottom at 250-m, 500-m, 800-m, 1000-m and 2000-m along the prevailing current direction.
Analyses were undertaken for Total Suspended Solids (TSS); Chlorophyll a, Benzene, Toluene; Ethyl
Benzene, Xylene (BTEX); and C6 - C32.

Measurements from the first survey indicated that TSS values were lower than predicted by an order of
magnitude. No plumes were visible, and fine particulates settled out at Thebaud within 500-m of the
platform. Although not entirely clear, it appeared that the bblt model predictions had assumed a
continuous discharge of drilling wastes. It was assumed that since suspended particulate matter (SPM)
was being measured it must be continuous discharge rather than repeated bulk discharges.
Questions were raised in SEEMAG discussion about the relative merits of continuous water quality
monitoring versus tracking of the plume from bulk discharges of WBM. It was agreed that while the
model had to be tested, it may eventually be determined that the water quality testing is not worth
continuing and that monitoring effort should focus on tracking of the bulk discharge plume. It was also
noted, however, that water quality cannot be ignored because of its potential impact on fish.
SEEMAG recommended in November, 1999, that:
SOEI should revisit the bblt model to:
− ensure it is up to date,
− clarify whether the model parameters assume bulk or continuous discharge conditions,
− ensure it takes into account the use of SMB and WBM rather than OBM,
− includes produced water, and
− see how much it over-predicts the outcome and whether more realistic results can be
obtained.
It was noted that the bblt model had undergone further development since the version used for the
SOEP EIS. Changes affected the biological interpretation and understanding of sediment rates.
At the same meeting, SEEMAG also recommended that SOEI should evaluate linking water column,
BBL and sediment samples in time. SOEI should re-examine the 'snapshot' sampling approach for water
quality and determine whether it is worth continuing in the next round of monitoring. There were
several conclusions: (1) it would be improved by collecting information about concurrent operational
activities, and (2) it only seemed to provide useful information for hydrocarbons in the sediments.
In May of 2000, it was reported that the periodicity shown in the bblt tables was tidally-related, and that
the key determinant in drilling waste distribution was more likely settling velocity than how drilling
waste was released. The model may be overestimating the sedimentation rate; if sediments stay
suspended they would not show up in the BBL. The model was designed to give conservative but
credible values and not to reflect storm driven environments, which affect the results for shallow water.
The monitoring results show that the modeling does not reflect reality, especially in terms of distance
from the rig, and the model should be re-examined for Tier 2 monitoring.
It was recommended in 2000 that water quality sampling be reconsidered. No discharges, even of
WBM, were planned after January 2000. In 2001, the BBL program became annual, rather than
semi-annual, after three years of study had resulted in next to no evidence of drill waste muds.

Sediment Chemistry
A baseline program in summer, 1998 analyzed sediment baseline chemistry for metals, hydrocarbons,
and BTEX at each of the sites on each field and the Gully. Grab samples were used; local sediments
were very compacted, and a heavy sealed sampler was needed. The challenge was to ensure that the
sample did not wash out, losing the flocculant. THC and barium contamination reduced over time at the
250 and 500-m sites, reaching background in 2001 at Venture and North Triumph, although Thebaud
still showed some residual elevated THC and barium.
In 2002, sediment chemistry was limited to TPH and barium. Thebaud showed elevated TPH and
barium at 250-m, reflecting recent drilling activity, and elevated barium was found at 250-m at North
Triumph. Venture samples remained at background levels for both. Overall, much thinner deposits of
drilling wastes than predicted were found at each distance from the rig. Drill waste flocs were not
spread out as much as the model had predicted, and the drill waste tended to be cohesive and clumped,
staying in a narrow pile within 70 to 100-m of the source.
The cuttings piles had different textures, apparently due to the use or non-use of SBM. For example, the
cuttings pile at Thebaud, where SBM was used, had a plasticine texture and appeared almost like an
artificial reef. It persisted into 2001. The Venture cuttings pile was similar, but persisted even longer,
into 2002. It had a decidedly plastic texture, and was covered by protective mattresses. Cuttings of this
type may not have been taken into account during EIS modeling. At North Triumph, on the other hand,
drill cuttings were much more friable, and no persistent pile developed.
Piles were sampled and bacterial analysis carried out in 2001 and 2002. At Venture, the cuttings pile
persisted, with sulphide-reducing bacteria blanketing the sediment close to the jacket. The cause was
unclear. Algal growth was seen on the cuttings, sea cucumbers on the mattresses, and crabs on or by the
pile.
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity samples were taken from grabs and submitted to MicrotoxTM tests. Echinoid
fertilization and amphipod survival studies were also undertaken. Echinoid fertilization was tested using
pore water, exposing sea urchin gametes and checking for the percentage of complete fertilization.
During baseline studies, positive results were found at a number of stations, for unknown reasons.
During drilling, the pronounced toxicity predicted to occur within 150 to 300-m did not generally occur,
although toxicity was found at two Venture 250-m stations during the June 1999 sampling period, with a
fingerprint match of the toxic substance to SBM. However, recurrent problems were found with
echinoid fertilization testing, and it was abandoned in favour of the use of amphipods. Echinoid
fertilization tests showed no correlation with obvious drilling waste effects, and in general the suite of
sediment toxicity tests required review in 2000. Even the amphipods did not provide sufficiently
reliable results on their own, although they were useful as a sentinel species. In 2001, sampling
frequency was reduced to annual from semi-annual. No amphipod mortality was seen at Venture in
2001, though there was some at Thebaud, along the prevailing current direction. In 2002, amphipod
toxicity testing continued, with ammonia and sulphide used to establish cause and effect linkages.
Amphipod mortality was found at 250-m and 500-m at Thebaud; no correlation was found with natural
ammonia.

Body Burdens
There were no scallop beds in the drilling area, so caged mussels were used for monitoring close to the
drilling sites. However, baseline work was carried out on scallops taken from sites north of Venture and
south of Thebaud, and at a reference site on Middle Bank. Scallops were analyzed for taint and HC
body burden, and some for metal content. No taste difference was found between the samples and a
control bought at the Atlantic Superstore. The only odour difference found was between the reference
site and Thebaud, thought to stem from the release of dimethyl sulphide due to excessive phytoplankton
ingestion. Arsenic, mercury, and cadmium were found at significant levels, but no HC.
In August of 1998, shellfish mooring sites were installed in a progression out from the drilling site, e.g.,
at Venture at “ground zero”, 500-m, 1,000-m, 2,000-m, 4,000-m, 10,000-m, and 15,000-m, stopping
when the water depth increased beyond 60-m. Mussels were set out on the moorings. On each one, two
sediment traps were installed to catch any flocculant, and a turbidity meter to tie in storm event and
sediment transport data. However, the mussel moorings proved to be highly susceptible to loss through
vessel interference; for example, only three of eight baseline sets were retrieved in summer of 1998.
This loss of gear proved to be an ongoing problem for tainting evaluations. As well, sand tended to
inundate the bottoms of the cages if the moorings were left in place too long.
Concentrations of HC detected in mussel tissues were not solely attributable to SOEP HC releases. The
highest concentration of aliphatic HC in the base mud oil region was 3.04-mg/L, at 500-m sites.
However, flavour and odour was found to be no different from the control samples or those from other
sites. In general, finding any correlation between body burden and sensory tests proved problematic.
Data seemed to consistently show taste differentiation at 250-m, very little at 500-m, and none at
1000-m, but taste and odour did not seem to relate to body burden.
The review of Tier 1 monitoring at SEEMAG in April 2001, stated that positive odour and taste results
were found to be caused by biogenic hydrocarbons occurring naturally in phytoplankton. However, at
Venture between November 1999 and February 2000, a change of flavour was detected that at the time
had not appeared to be biogenic; SBM and produced water had been discharged at the time. Pre- and
post-spawning mussels taste considerably different, so this may have been a confounding variable.
Snow crab were added to the tainting and body burden studies in 2001 and 2002, reducing the focus on
mussels and scallops. Instead of separate mussel moorings, mussels attached to rig legs were scraped
and analyzed; one mooring was retained at the 1000-m site at Venture.
Hydrocarbons and biogenic hydrocarbons were detected in October 2001 and again in 2002. The
Venture platform mussels had high levels of interfering material, and Thebaud mussels showed lower
level peaks in C12 and C17 ranges of the same material as at Venture. No taint was detected. The leg
muscles of crab sampled in July 2002 showed Nova Plus drill mud profiles. Hepatopancreas showed
traces of Nova Plus as well as unidentified interfering material in the mussels.
Benthic Habitat and Megafaunal Communities
Benthic video and still photography were used to document conditions around the drilling sites. A
periodic survey beneath the Venture rig was undertaken by ROV after significant storms. No evidence
of drilling muds was found at 250-m from the Venture and Thebaud platforms. Sediments were clean
and of consistent grain size at each of 250-m and 500-m axis stations.

At the review of Tier 1 EEM at the SEEMAG meeting in April 2001, it was decided to add snow crab
surveys around the rigs, to determine whether they were aggregating there, and what effects this might
have, particularly on females. Crab traps were also set at North Triumph.
It proved difficult to evaluate possible changes in benthic diversity; it was hard to measure diversity, and
annual sampling did not allow definition of spatial change. North Triumph and Thebaud appeared to
have some variability, and diversity was limited at Venture when assessed in 2001. A survey in 2002
detected no significant effects on the benthos beyond the cutting pile.
Marine Mammals
Some noise measurements were carried out via subsurface hydrophones with 10-day storage capacities.
The hydrophones were put in place in 1998 just before pile driving began. Detectors were saturated at
the nearfield receiver. At two km from the source the peak reading had attenuated to 155 dB, slightly
below the threshold for detectable behavioural response of whales, 160 dB. At the far-field, the level
was 110-140 dB, just above background of 105-110 dB, but below whale behaviour threshold level.
The zone of impact appeared less than two km; noise attenuated faster than the model had predicted.
The model was refined, and additional noise data collected during two jacket installations confirmed the
new accuracy. The area of influence on mammal behaviour did not extend beyond 0.5-km from the
pile-driving site. Measurements at the Gully, 20–30-km, showed that the noise was detectable, but
probably below levels that would affect behaviour.
Observation platforms were set up on the Rowan Gorilla II, MV Magellan Sea, the helicopter, Seipem
7000, and Galaxy II. The best sightings came from the Rowan Gorilla II and Galaxy II. Cetaceans and
pinnipeds were observed close to the platforms. Single and social groups of whales were seen, some
with calves. A pod of minke whales seemed to be using the platform to concentrate prey for hunting.
The platforms did not seem to be detrimental to marine mammals. Daily monitoring and recording of
marine mammal observations continued through 2002.
Sea Birds
Observations were made during drilling in 1998 and 1999 from three platforms, one at Venture (Rowan
Gorilla II), and two at Thebaud (Seipem 7000 and Galaxy II). The data were consistent for the three
locations. Four or five species of gulls represented 90 to 98 percent of the sightings. It was
hypothesized that the lights might have attracted the gulls, but no conclusion was reached as to whether
sightings represented a concentration of birds or not. Some land-based birds were also observed. The
number of species varied from 20 at Seipem 7000 to one at Galaxy II. Daily monitoring and recording
of seabird observations continued through 2002.
3.1.2. Cohasset Panuke
The Cohasset Panuke (CoPan) program was initiated by EnCana, formally PanCanadian, in 1989, and
was completed in December 1999. The EEM program for this project focused on benthic communities,
oiled bird and debris surveys of Sable Island and shellfish tainting. The methodology for the program
included grab samples to examine the benthos, and surveys on Sable Island; however, only the shellfish
tainting methodology has been published. The entire EEM project ran for seven years. The shellfish

tainting study used a gradient approach. Two mussel buoys were deployed at each of 250-m, 500-m,
1000-m, 1500-m and 10-km from the rig. One buoy was placed 10-m above the seafloor and one 10
below the sea surface. Testing for qualitative and quantitative effects was completed at an independent
lab two to four times a year.
Oil-based muds were used during CoPan drilling. Some tainting effects were detected in mussels, but
were limited to within the 500-m safety exclusion zone. A detailed synopsis of CoPan is not provided
here due to its limited relevance to exploratory drilling using WBM or SBM.
3.2. Monitoring Programs for Exploratory Wells

There has only been one exploratory well off Nova Scotia which has had an EEM program in place
(H-08). The monitoring program was similar to those designed for production projects, as it was based
on VECs and the gradient approach.
3.2.1. H-08
The H-08 well was drilled by EnCana between May and June of 2000. The EEM project was designed
to examine chemical, physical and biological features of the seafloor in the areas around the well. The
EEM program was carried out during the time of drilling. No data were gathered prior or subsequent to
the drilling. Based on the gradient approach, four or eight radia 2,000-m in length and centered on the
well were sampled. For comparison, reference stations outside the predicted zone of influence were
established.
The emphasis was on testing for a wide variety of potential contaminants, including metals. Tests
focused on physical chemistry and cutting piles versus biological analysis. Similar to other EEM results
elsewhere, any effects seemed to be limited to within about 500-m of the rig. Fingerprinting of residues
also showed some residual Ba detected from Deep Panuke drilling.
3.3. Grand Banks EEM

To date, EEM on the Grand Banks has only been conducted for production developments. Baseline
studies have typically preceded the actual EEM. A comparison of the various baseline/EEM studies is
contained in Table 3.1. The following sections briefly describe programs for Hibernia, Terra Nova and
White Rose. Hibernia baseline data are relevant but were collected a number of years after the initial
wells were drilled. It also should be noted that Hibernia is now injecting cuttings and produced water so
that there waste streams will be virtually non-existent from now on so that EEM results should be
improving for that project. Terra Nova baseline and EEM data were not available to us at the time of
writing for this project although we were provided a very brief summary through CAPP. White Rose
baseline studies may be the most relevant to the present study because sampling was done after recent
drilling activity. Husky kindly provided all necessary baseline data and associated documents for the
purposes of this study.
3.3.1. Hibernia
A brief history of Hibernia offshore EEM is encapsulated in Figure 3.1. The study design and
preliminary results of baseline studies are briefly outlined below.

Table 3.1. Variables Monitored in Current Grand Banks EEM Programs1
Hibernia Terra Nova White Rose
Variables
Operational Operational Design Phase
Sediments
Physical/Chemical
Metals
Hydrocarbons, incl. PAHs
Ammonia and Sulphides
Grain size
TIC/TOC
Toxicity
MicrotoxTM screening
Amphipods
Juvenile polychates – to be determined
Biota
Benthic Community Diversity –
Fin/Shell fish Body Burden

Metals
Hydrocarbons (incl PAH)
Fin/Shell fish Taint

American Plaice
Scallop – –
Crab – –
Plankton/ Chlorophyll a –
Fish Health
MFO induction
Gill/liver Histology
Blood tests
Seabirds/Marine Mammal Observations2 –
Water Quality
CTD/TDS/TSS –
Hydrocarbons, Total Oil and grease, PAHs,

–
metals
Source: Courtesy of D. Taylor, Husky
1
Note that this listing does not consider potential Spill EEM programs.
2
Not, strictly speaking, EEM.

Figure 3.1. Hibernia EEM Time Line.
Source: Courtesy of R. Dunphy, Hibernia.

3.3.1.1. Study Design
Sediment sampling was conducted along eight radii at geometric progressive distances from the GBS
and at some random locations (Figure 3.2). Sampling was more intensive close to the GBS. A total of
45 locations were chosen within the concentric circles around the GBS with a maximum radius of eight
km. Two ‘control’ stations were established on the north and west radials at 16-km distance for a total
of 47 sediment sampling stations.
Sampling was conducted for the following variables:
− Trace metals (mercury, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, barium)
− Petroleum hydrocarbons
− Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
− Sediment particle size distribution
− Total organic/inorganic carbon
− Sediment toxicity tests (Microtox™, Toxi-Chromotest™, Amphipod Survival, Echinoid
Fertilization (subsequently dropped due to technical difficulties), and Juvenile Polychaete
Growth Test)
Sediment was sampled using box cores. Two or three box cores were conducted per station; each one
was subsampled three times to create 441 samples. The three subsamples from each core were
composited to yield 162 samples for chemical analyses. Material from box core samples was combined
to create 54 samples for sediment bioassays. Strategy for the toxicity testing is shown in Figure 3.3.
The biological survey for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) and Icelandic Scallop
(Chlamys islandica) was conducted within a fishing zone of 500-2,000-m around the GBS and at a
reference site 50-km northwest of the GBS. Fishing was not conducted to the south east of the GBS in
order to accommodate flowlines and the offloading system. [Note: problems with getting enough of
either species; scallops subsequently dropped]. Fish were tested for contaminant body burden and
sensory organoleptic analysis (i.e., taint).
Additional detail on methodology and results of the baseline surveys is contained in HMDC (1995)
(now publicly available after seven years).
3.3.1.2. Hibernia EEM Results
In some respects, the initial baseline monitoring at Hibernia can be considered a type of check on the
effects of exploratory drilling (10-14 years after the drilling) as at least 11 wells were drilled in the area
of the baseline sampling. The results of the Hibernia baseline (HMDC 1995) are outlined below.
There were no detectable differences (including statistical) between the GBS and reference (‘control’)
areas in:
− Both lethal and sublethal toxicity testing

Figure 3.2. Hibernia Sampling Pattern.
Source: HMDC (1995).

Figure 3.3. Sediment Testing Protocol.
Source: HMDC (1995).

− Tainting in fish and scallops
− PAHs or petroleum hydrocarbons (actually undetectable in both GBS and reference areas at
the level of analyses used)
− Contaminant body burdens were generally low for plaice and scallop but insufficient sample
sizes precluded definitive statements on body burdens of contaminants.
‘Sediment chemistry data show generally low concentrations of all potential contaminant metals. Only
two elements, barium and lead, were consistently above analytical detection limits. Slightly anomalous
concentrations of barium, lead and, possibly copper were detected at locations 7-2000, and 7-3000’
(HMDC 1995). These ‘high’ values are likely attributable to past drilling activity; for example, the
baseline sampling overlies an area where 11 wells had been drilled prior to the 1994 baseline sampling
effort. Station 7-3000 is very close to Hibernia Well O-35.
Twenty wells have been drilled from the GBS as of 2000. All upper holes were drilled with water based
drilling mud (WBM) whereas 65% of the lower hole sections have been drilled with synthetic based
mud (SBM). Hibernia (R. Dunphy, pers. comm.) kindly provided the following synopsis for this period.
The EEM program detected elevated barium and hydrocarbons in some sediment samples out as far as
8,000-m from the GBS, but most samples with elevated levels occurred within 500-m of the GBS.
Toxicity tests found no acute effects on amphipods beyond 1,000-m and no sublethal effects (as
measured by MicrotoxTM and/or juvenile polychaete growth assay) beyond 4,000-m. There was no
significant increase in body burdens of contaminants in American plaice and no tainting was detected.
As noted above, Hibernia started 50% cuttings re-injection in 2001 going to 100% in 2003 and thus
concentrations of contaminants and any associated effects are expected to decrease.
3.3.2. Terra Nova
The Terra Nova development has planned a total of 24 wells. The Terra Nova baseline and EEM results
were not available at the time of writing. The EEM study design is briefly outlined below.
The basic design is composed of sampling gradients along three transects passing through the drill
centres and the FPSO. Stations were placed 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, and 8,000-m from the drill
centres in two directions
Variables monitored include:
Commercial species (Icelandic scallop and American plaice)

− Tainting
− Body burden (metals, PAH, petroleum hydrocarbons)
− Health (MFO, liver and gill histopathology, haematology)

Water quality
− Chemical (TSS, metals, PAH, oil and grease)
− Physical (temperature, salinity)
− Phytoplankton (chlorophyll)
Sediment quality
− Chemical and physical characteristics (metals, hydrocarbons, particle size, TIC and TOC)
− Toxicity (sublethal – bacterial luminescence test; lethal – amphipod test)
− Benthic communities (species, enumeration, total biomass) for diversity
Seabirds and marine mammals are also surveyed under a different program (not strictly speaking EEM).
Commercial species are collected within the Terra Nova area and from two reference areas 20-km to the
southeast and southwest. Water quality sampling is conducted at four stations around each drill centre
and the FPSO. Sediment quality is collected from 50 stations along gradients from the FPSO and each
drill centre.
To aid in developing the EEM design, Petro-Canada undertook a Baseline Characterization Program in
the fall of 1997 (Petro-Canada 1998 in Petro-Canada 1999). The results of this program were as
follows.
− Most metals and hydrocarbons were below the limits of quantification (LOQ).
− Sediments were generally non-toxic; some toxicity was observed but this was attributed to
natural anoxic conditions at a few stations.
− Benthic communities were patchy and variable in nature, at least partly attributable to
substrate characteristics.
− The sediment quality triad (SQT) approach was used whereby synoptic data on sediment
characteristics, toxicity, and benthic infauna are analyzed together.
− Water column profiles and water quality variables (few above the LOQ) were similar
between the Terra Nova study area and the ‘controls’.
− Biological attributes were similar between Terra Nova and controls. Most body burdens
were below LOQs and there were no indications of tainting.
− Mixed function oxygenase (MFO) activity was similar between Terra Nova and controls.
Fish gills and livers appeared normal in terms of pathology.
3.3.2.2. Terra Nova Results
Sampling for Terra Nova EEM occurred in 1997 (Baseline) (about nine exploration and delineation
wells drilled prior to sampling), in 2000 (an additional three development (plus several abandoned)
wells drilled prior to sampling), in 2001 (six development wells plus three abandoned drilled prior to
sampling), and in 2002 (two or three development wells drilled prior to sampling).

Results (2000, 2001) are summarized below (per d’Entremont 2003).
− No tainting detected
− No PAHs detected in sediments, scallops or plaice
− Hydrocarbons (fuel range) and barium in sediments slightly higher near drill centres but still
orders of magnitude lower than those required to cause biological effects. No detectable
other physical or chemical effects on sediments.
− Slightly elevated hydrocarbons and barium in scallops near development. No other metals
elevated in scallops or fish.
− No Terra Nova hydrocarbons detected in plaice
− No differences in fish health variables, water column, or phytoplankton biomass between
development site and reference sites
− Benthic community structure appeared similar between baseline and 2000 but slight change
in 2001
− Overall EEM results similar to baseline
3.3.3. White Rose
Husky has not yet conducted an EEM program for White Rose because production has not yet begun
and thus the EEM design has not yet been finalized. Husky conducted a Baseline Characterization
Program in 2000 (Husky 2001b; Husky 2003b) that had many of the components likely to be in the final
design. The White Rose baseline results are highly relevant to the present study because much of the
sampling was conducted amongst recently drilled wells (Figures 3.4 and 3.5).
The White Rose study design included a series of grids centered on the future FPSO location and
proposed glory hole locations. A total of 50 stations were used for sediment sampling (Figure 3.5).
[Note there appear to be discrepancies in the report where the text states 50 or 48 stations, their Figure
2-1 shows 46 stations, sediment toxicity is reported for 48 stations and their Appendix A lists 49.]
Sediment sampling included variables for physical, chemical and biological characteristics. Sampling
was done using a box corer. One sample was analyzed from each station.
American plaice and snow crab were collected by trawl from the White Rose study area and the
northwest reference area (plaice only in 2000) in 2000 and 2002 (Husky 2001b, 2003b). These samples
were used to analyse body burdens, histopathology, MFO, tainting and other biological variables.

Figure 3.4. Locations of White Rose Wells and Baseline Sampling Stations.

Figure 3.5. White Rose Sampling Pattern.
Source: Husky (2001b).

Variables included:
Sediments
Particle size
Chemistry (metals including barium, PAH, TPH, and oil and grease; TIC, TOC, TC)
Toxicity (amphipod survival-lethal, bacterial luminescence-sublethal)
Benthic infauna (determined species present, abundance, total biomass; subsequently analysed
for number of organisms per station, wet weigh of invertebrates per station, number of taxa per
station, species diversity, and community composition)
Water Quality (at 25 of 50 stations)

Temperature
Salinity
Oxygen
pH
TSS
Metals
TPH
Oil and grease
PAH
Chlorophyll
Fish Health (American plaice and snow crab)

Body burden
Tainting (plaice only)
Histopathology and MFO (plaice only)
3.3.3.2. White Rose Results
3.3.3.2.1. Sediment Quality
Sediments were primarily sand with some gravel; silt and clay generally accounted for less than 1% of
the sediment and TOC was low in both the study and reference areas (Husky 2001b). PAHs were not
detected above the LOQ in any sediment sample. The only hydrocarbon above the LOQ (ELQ) was
naphthalene. Metals above the ELQs included aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt (not in
NW reference area), iron, lead, manganese, nickel (not in NW reference area), strontium, thallium,
uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Not surprisingly, concentrations of most metals, including barium, were
higher in the finer sediments with higher organic content. Water depth and distance appeared to be more
important than direction although depths and direction were confounded to some degree, particularly in
an E-W direction. In spatial regressions, only water depth effects were significant for % fines, which
increased with depth. There was high variability with the other physical and chemical characteristics
around the glory hole locations even though depths were similar. TOC was not affected by any of the
spatial variables.
Barium concentrations significantly increased with increasing depth and from south to north, and
decreased with distance from the FPSO location and from west to east. Concentrations are shown in
Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6. Barium Levels in Sediment for White Rose Baseline Characterization Program 2000.
Source: Husky (2001b).

Based on the amphipod toxicity test (acute lethal test) and the MicrotoxTM test (sublethal test), none of
the sediments tested could be considered toxic. Lowest survival rates in the amphipod test tended to
occur around the glory hole locations.
3.3.3.2.2. Water Quality
Water quality results were variable and no noteworthy trends were apparent. There were no differences
between the reference and study areas in structure of the water column.
3.3.3.2.3. Infaunal Communities
Infauna was diverse (63 families) but dominated by polychaetes which accounted for about 80% of the
organisms collected (excluding oligochaetes, nematodes and nemerteans). Communities at the reference
areas were different than those in the study area. In general, there was a high degree of variability
among all benthic infauna variables except standing crop. The effects of distance and direction from the
future FPSO site on benthic infauna variables were stronger, and water depth effects weaker, than for
sediment physical and chemical characteristics (Husky 2001b).
3.3.3.2.4. Body Burdens
Body burden analyses were based upon relatively few composited samples (only 3-5) with varying
numbers of animals per composite. With the exception of manganese, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron,
manganese, mercury, selenium, and zinc were present in all samples of plaice livers. Arsenic mercury
and zinc were found in all plaice fillets, and, metal concentrations, with the exception of mercury, were
generally higher in livers than fillets.
Arsenic, boron, copper, mercury, selenium, strontium, and zinc were found in all snow crab leg samples.
Cadmium and silver were detected in two samples in 2000.
In general, results were similar between the study area and the reference areas although strontium was
very high (relative to other samples) in a snow crab sample from the Northwest Reference Area.
3.3.3.2.5. Tainting
Tainting as tested by taste panelists was not detected in any samples from the study area or the reference
areas.
3.3.3.2.6. Fish Health
In general, the fish health component of the study documented background levels for external lesions,
histopathology, and hepatic MFO. Several fish were noted to have lesions potentially indicative of
contaminant stress (Husky 2001b).

3.3.3.2.7. Important Conclusions
Conclusions included:
− NW reference area sediments were found to be quite different from the study area and were
excluded from much of the analyses. This station should be dropped.
− For the most part natural variability can be accounted for in subsequent samplings.
− Many sediment characteristics varied widely even at the closest (1-km) stations. Particle size
and TOC had least amount of variability.
− Number of stations (46-50) appeared to be adequate.
− Sufficient numbers of organisms and taxa were collected per core to conduct statistical
analyses. Replicate cores are not required for benthic analyses if stations are considered as
replicates. Increases in power decrease rapidly for sample sizes greater than 20, and
particularly after 50.
− Numbers of body burden samples may have been too small; need at least five samples per
area. Fish health work should be conducted on the same specimens, if possible.
− The SQT approach looks good, as there were no ‘false positives.’
− Water quality sampling was of limited utility.

4.0 East Coast Issues
4.1. Issue Scoping
Informal interviews and meetings were held in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia with a variety of
interested parties, including representatives from the regulatory sector, offshore oil and gas industry,
fisheries associations, NGOs, and scientists. Interviews focused on three main issues:
• Is EEM required for drilling a single exploratory well off the East Coast? If so, under what
conditions? If not, under what rationale for exclusion?
• What are the key variables/issues?
• Any study design suggestions?
Detailed results and analysis are presented in Appendix III. The results of the interviews were quite
different for Newfoundland versus Nova Scotia; this section reviews the main themes that arose, and the
commonalities and differences between the regions.
4.1.1. Newfoundland
Discussions in the Newfoundland region focused on 29 issues, some of which overlapped. Issues raised
by participants fell into several general categories:
• Overall monitoring program design issues;
• Site-specificity of monitoring design;
• Logistics and efficiency, and
• Public policy concerns.
Most issues, discussions and suggestions in regard to a study design for exploratory EEM were general,
as opposed to specific scientific recommendations.
There was an overall sense that the present EEM programs were well designed and were providing
useful information on the effects of the producing developments at Hibernia and Terra Nova.
Respondents thought that production EEM program designs were good starting points for exploratory
drilling EEM, if it were to be conducted at all.
There was agreement that local environmental conditions, particularly water depth, currents, and the
presence of corals, must be considered in any offshore EEM program. Any critical habitats should be
identified during the EA process and avoided. If they cannot be avoided, then the EEM program should
be enhanced as appropriate.
Similarly, site-specific drilling scenarios need to be considered in the design. For example, while
different rig types have generally similar discharges their depth of discharge may vary. Also, ‘jack-up’

and semi-submersible rigs emit less noise than drill ships. The type of drill mud (water-based vs.
synthetic) used may affect the distribution of potential contaminants and hence should influence the
sampling design.
Most participants felt that monitoring program design should be flexible to account for unforeseen
events. Flexibility may be a more important issue for exploratory EEM rather than production, because
of the much shorter lead times.
Opportunistic bird and mammal surveys presently being conducted from supply boats at Hibernia and
Terra Nova were viewed favourably, although most agreed that they are not, strictly speaking, EEM but
rather general survey data. It was, however, pointed out that such data are of limited use unless they are
publicly available and analyzed and interpreted into useful reports. Virtually every non-industry person
stated that the EEM data should be available to the academic community, industry researchers, EA
practitioners, and the general public much sooner than the now regulated under the Atlantic Accord five-
year confidentiality period.
The suggestion that cumulative effects be considered under the auspices of exploratory EEM is also one
that warrants discussion; one well may have little or no effect but a large number of them might,
depending upon timing, local conditions, and other factors.
4.1.2. Nova Scotia
Most interviewees agreed that EEM programs should be a routine part of offshore drilling, whether for
exploration or production. However, there were sharp difference among them regarding the reasons for
monitoring, conceptual design, funding, and program implementation and interpretation. These
differences were not merely between sectors, but also between individuals and organizations within the
different sectors.
Most, but not all, agreed that environmental concerns are lower for exploration drilling than for
production platforms. They saw the wells as having little or no effect, especially in the long term and
when located in habitats with few or no sensitive features. Those who held this view agreed that
conceptually, EEM should focus on looking for real consequences. The EEM projects need to be
species and site-specific, ideally monitoring different trophic levels.
However, some interviewees feared that exploration wells could have serious environmental effects,
particularly when considering cumulative impacts. Many of these respondents felt that EEM
requirements should be the same for exploration wells as for development platforms.
Some respondents urged a decision tree approach to designing monitoring programs, keeping options
flexible to reflect local conditions. Several felt strongly that efforts had to be geared toward the scale of
activities, with less detail expected for exploration wells than for development platforms.
The C-NSOPB would like to see a class screening approach to exploration drilling, rather than a
comprehensive study required for every well, and good EEM data are required to satisfy CEAA that this
would be an acceptable approach. As well, a number of government, industry, and academic
respondents thought there was considerable merit in the idea of implementing full EEM programs at
several sites on the Scotian Shelf and Slope that represented common habitat types; other wells in

similar habitats would then rely primarily on the representative site results. However, others from the
same sectors felt strongly that monitoring had to be entirely site-specific, and full programs were needed
for each project.
Most respondents agreed that a major function of EEM was to test predictions made in an EA; many of
these also stressed the need to verify modeling predictions. A few, however, thought it should go
beyond, and comprehensively survey outputs and effects, even if these were permissible under the
OWTG or had not been judged to be of concern in the EA.
There was a basic disagreement between those focused on identifying and monitoring discharges, and
those who were concerned primarily with the biological effects of discharges. Some NGO, fishing, and
scientific respondents wanted everything that a rig discharged monitored for fate and ecological effects;
others thought this unnecessary. Industry, in general, was of the opinion that monitoring had to go
toward verifying EA predictions, and document once and for all the levels and severity of impact of
exploration drilling.
One DFO scientist strongly argued that identifying impacts on organisms, and then figuring out what is
causing the impact, should be the primary focus of EEM. A number of other respondents concurred that
the existing focus for EEM has been, and is, on measuring contaminant levels rather than biological
effects; there is a need to develop effective technologies to assess the latter.
Numerous respondents insisted that any environmental data collected from industry monitoring
programs should be shared and released to the public. Some industry representatives raised concerns
about confidentiality and expense, as well as how to manage data distribution.
The existing offshore EEM programs for oil and gas projects have been designed to examine the VECs
identified during the EA process, while also taking into account those concerns expressed by the
community. Monitoring programs that were most successful, with accepted results, were those that had
baseline data to measure against.
A number of respondents raised concerns about cumulative impacts, and how to identify interactions
between projects. It was stressed that the offshore oil and gas industry should not be taken in isolation,
but cumulative and regional impact analyses needed to include shipping, fishing, and research as well.
Benthic effects were generally seen as most important, although other issues commonly raised were
impacts on marine mammal, bird mortality/attraction, impacts on finfish, and air quality. Most agreed
that concerns about toxicity of drilling wastes were at a lower level now than in the past, although there
remain questions about the effects of synthetic muds.
Most respondents agreed that there were differences between monitoring in deep water versus shallow
water sites. Some potential monitoring elements for deep-water sites include amounts and distribution
of cutting piles, and biological effects from drilling. Instrumentation development is a real issue for
deep-water sites, as are good models for sediment transport. At shallow water sites, wastes accumulate
or reach shorelines more easily, depending on oceanographic conditions.
Sediment sampling and chemical analyses, while expensive, are probably the easiest monitoring
methods to establish changes to the seabed. However, is it the most effective at establishing actual

resulting impacts? It was strongly suggested by several respondents that the use of bivalves in cages on
the seabed, with an appropriate local indicator species, was the preferable way to identify biological
effects. Cages should go down before drilling starts and come up when done; "EEM should be kept that
simple unless effects are seen,” urged one scientist.
Even those who strongly believed impacts on fish should be monitored had difficulty suggesting
concrete methods that would be successful in establishing effects. Some felt that reviewing water
quality around an exploration rig would help identify any impacts on fish. Some suggestions for
monitoring sub-lethal fish impacts were: tissue chemistry studies, histological analysis, the use of tracers
in drilling fluids, assessment of condition before and after, analysis of population age at the site, and
fecundity and age size.
Testing of the assumption that birds and marine mammals are attracted to rigs could use a simple
program taking advantage of the helicopter supply runs, one respondent suggested. Each run could be
varied by direction to the rig; time of day and sea bird/mammal counts could establish if the rigs act as
attractants.
One academic scientist strongly urged carrying out comprehensive ROV surveys and other baseline
work for every well, following protocols of Kostylev et al. (2001).
Respondents concurred that statistical validity is absolutely crucial to EEM. It was suggested that
revisiting sites after a year (and, if effects were detectable, after two) would be useful to accurately
determine if there were long-lasting effects.
An offshore oil and gas industry respondent suggested that fishing activity and catch rates could be
monitored by keeping in touch with area fishermen by radio while drilling proceeded.
One NGO respondent strongly believed that the essence of environmental concerns on the offshore
centered around the license-issuing process, and the quality – or lack thereof – of the Strategic
Environmental Assessments. NGO respondents raised the Gully as a particular concern, suggesting that
permanent monitoring sites should be established in it to pick up sediment transport, if any.

5.0 Comparisons: Newfoundland and Labrador vs. Nova Scotia
It is difficult to directly compare the issues as they are perceived in Nova Scotia versus those in
Newfoundland and Labrador for a number of reasons. The interviews and meetings were intentionally
informal and unstructured, which is good for soliciting input but also means that care must be taken in
weighting one issue over another. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiencies and local knowledge,
different people conducted the interviews in the two provinces.
There are also obvious differences in demographics between the two regions and important differences
in environmental conditions and development scenarios. Nova Scotia to date has developed gas mostly
in shallow water using ‘jack-up’ rigs whereas Newfoundland has developed oil at moderate depths using
the Hibernia GBS, semi-submersible drill rigs, and FPSO’s. However, development scenarios may be
moving into deepwater in both locations. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to reflect somewhat on the
differences and similarities between the two regions.
5.1. Some Differences in Perceived Issues

There were, of course, differences between respondents in their perceptions of the issues and of the best
species to monitor. These differences appeared to be much more pronounced in Nova Scotia than in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Without putting too fine a point on the differences between the different
regions, there appear to be the following differences in regard to exploratory drilling EEM.
− Emphasis on benthos. Both regions agreed that benthic environments are key in monitoring
the effects of offshore oil and gas because of likely contaminant pathways, relative sedentary
nature of benthos, and relative ease of sampling. Fate and extent of cuttings piles, barite
residues, and hydrocarbon levels were mentioned by many. However, there appeared to be
much more emphasis on benthic monitoring for exploration wells in Nova Scotia. This was
evident in concern for effects of barite, the benthic boundary layer, deep sea corals, and so
forth (see below).
− Emphasis on fish. In general, the Newfoundland Region appeared to place more emphasis
on fish and related issues than Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, there is, and has been, more
emphasis on shellfish. There has been considerable study on scallops and monitoring
programs have used scallops extensively; at least one project used caged mussels extensively.
− Degree of monitoring. While there was a wide range of opinions in both areas, there was a
wider range in Nova Scotia and two clearly defined groups: (1) the ‘monitor everything’
group, and (2) the ‘monitor select variables’ one. In Newfoundland, individuals and groups
appeared more focused and no one advocated monitoring everything.
The generally higher interest in benthic issues in Nova Scotia is at least partly attributable to differences
in substrate, water depth, and water current regimes. In addition, the shellfish industry (excluding crab)
is significantly more important off Nova Scotia than off Newfoundland. Demographics and research
interests of individual scientists also undoubtedly played a role.

5.2. Some Similarities in Perceived Issues
Some important common points of view found in both areas are listed below.
− Level of concern with exploration drilling. Although there were some exceptions, most
people had a much lower level of concern for the environmental effects of a single
exploratory well than for a production development.
− Assurance monitoring. While some argued strongly for extensive statistical work, there
still was a common thread that most people wanted some level of reassurance that a specific
site was not being unduly affected. A number of people suggested some camera drops and
some grab samples might be enough to accomplish the goal of providing a suitable level of
comfort.
− Testing EA. A number of participants suggested that one of the key functions of a
monitoring program is to test predictions, and in some cases modeling, that were conducted
during the EA process. A potential corollary of this attitude is the suggestion by some that
one or several wells should be selected as ‘test cases’ and monitored possibly in aid of a
Class or Generic EA approach. This would provide rationale for including or excluding
monitoring variables for future individual wells.
− Biological effects. With some exceptions, most felt that any monitoring programs should
focus on biological effects as opposed to simply ‘shopping’ for increases (however slight) of
potential contaminants.
− Birds and mammals. Many agreed that there were potentially important issues in regard to
marine birds and mammals. However, it was also pointed out by a number of people that
routine surveys conducted from the rig or supply boats do not necessarily constitute any
monitoring of effects per se.
− Site specifics. Local and site specific issues must be considered in the design and conduct of
any EEM. This was a virtually universal comment. There is awareness in both locations of
some potential for different issues in deep versus shallow drilling scenarios. To date,
however, the depth differences have been most apparent off Nova Scotia where most wells
have been drilled in shallow water or increasingly in deepwater.
− Data availability. Almost everyone stated that availability of EEM data is an important
issue. At present, the Atlantic Accord allows a development to hold the EEM data
confidential for five years. In fact, availability of data was an issue with the conduct of this
study.
− Cumulative effects. While many were not particularly concerned with the effects of one
exploratory well, they suggested that a large number of single wells could be an issue,
particularly if they were within a relatively small geographic and/or time frame. On the other
hand, no one had any ready solutions to this problem.

6.0 Application of Production EEM Experience to Exploratory Drilling
EEM
The offshore production EEM experience developed on the East Coast over the last 10 years or so is
applicable to EEM for exploratory drilling as representing a ‘worst case’ scenario. The production EEM
programs were developed for large multi-well, multi-year projects that have more potential to affect the
marine environment than a single exploratory well, which is small scale and often dry. Big
developments such as Hibernia or SOEI entail the drilling of multiple wells, underwater excavation and
infrastructure, loading and unloading of hydrocarbon products over a long period of time, the discharge
of produced water, and so forth. As a result, the discharges, effects, and measureable ‘footprint’ will be
different by orders of magnitude. One scientist likened it to a ‘footprint’ versus a ‘fingerprint.’
Nonetheless, based on the review of information and consultation with numerous interested and
knowledgeable parties, the following conclusions can be drawn.
− Aside from a large oil blowout (a very unlikely event according to previous EAs) and a few
other special cases, any effects from an exploratory situation are of much less concern than a
production scenario.
− In general, the production EEM programs completed to date are viewed as adequate for
confirming EA predictions and in providing a level of assurance that the East Coast marine
ecosystems have not been significantly affected to date. They have also served as testing of
techniques for use in EEM off the East Coast.
− Baseline studies conducted by Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose can provide valuable
insights into the effects of drilling because these studies were done at varying periods of time
after drilling of a number of wells. White Rose data (reviewed herein) may be the most
relevant in this regard because they are the most recent.
− To date, the conclusions that the Study Team has seen drawn from the production EEM
studies, are that there have been no significant effects on the variables that have been
measured. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that a properly run exploration drilling
program will produce effects that will be on the low end of the scale and difficult to measure;
it will certainly not create any significant effects on the marine environment.
− If drilling EEM was required, perhaps because of drilling with a new technology or in a
potentially sensitive area, then one or a combination of the production EEM design(s) would
provide a good starting point.

7.0 Discussion
7.1. Decision Process
A ‘decision tree’ approach to EEM was suggested by several stakeholders in both Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland and Labrador. A potential ‘decision tree’ for exploratory drilling EEM is shown in
Figure 7.1. This approach is a type of hybrid between the zoning approach used in the Gulf of Mexico,
the generic EA advocated by some for Nova Scotia, and the highly targeted approach used in the US and
Canadian Arctic.
7.2. Scenarios
After the drilling application and EA are submitted a decision should be made based on three scenarios
appropriate to the East Coast (at least as far as experience to date dictates):
Scenario 1—Exploratory drilling of a single well in an area where data are sufficient to determine there
are no issues requiring EEM. An example of this could include an exploratory well within (or
immediately adjacent to) an area previously assessed in a detailed manner (e.g., the Terra Nova
Development). Compliance monitoring would be conducted but no specific EEM is required.
Opportunistic bird and mammal surveys (not, strictly speaking EEM) would be at the option of the
Operator.
Scenario 2—There are two alternatives in this scenario:
(a) Shallow water (≤200-m) situation with no known sensitive issues but the area has not undergone an
extensive EA in the recent past. [Note this ‘shallow’ designation would encompass the areas containing
all East Coast production developments done to date.]. ‘Before and after’ surveys would be ‘piggy-
backed’ onto existing geophysical site surveys routinely conducted as part of the site permitting and
clearance process. Video surveys/interpretation, opportunistic grabs with Van Veen or Shipek grabs,
and bird and mammal shipboard surveys can be conducted with little additional cost to the Operator.
This would not only provide EEM data but also assist the Operator in addressing any potential liability
issues. A final report accessible to the public would be prepared.
(b) Deep water (>200-m) situation with no known sensitive issues but the area has not undergone
extensive EA in the recent past. Deep water may require more detailed work-ups than shallow areas if
the level of knowledge is much lower for the deep water areas. ‘Before and after’ surveys would be
‘piggy-backed’ onto existing geophysical site surveys routinely conducted as part of the site clearance
process. Side scan sonar (or equivalent) surveys and interpretation, video surveys/interpretation, grab
sampling with Van Veens or box corers, and bird and mammal shipboard surveys can be conducted with
little additional cost to the Operator. A final report accessible to the public would be prepared.
Scenario 3—Sensitive areas (shallow or deep). Surveys and sampling would be conducted as per
Scenario 2 (above) plus custom-designed surveys or monitoring program. It is anticipated that this
scenario would primarily be associated with marine mammal areas (e.g., The Gully). The custom
monitoring could include additional or more detailed or systematic surveys and such specialty
components as noise measurements. A final report accessible to the public would be prepared.

Figure 7.1. Proposed Decision Tree for Exploratory Drilling EEM.

Note that sampling on-site for Scenario 2 would be ‘opportunistic’ in the sense that logistics would
depend upon operational site survey logistics. Typically (but not always, if there are good 3-D seismic
data available prior to drilling) the well site surveys would consist of sonar, ROV, and grab work prior
to drilling and at least ROV surveys post-drilling.
More detail on approaches for the different scenarios is contained in the following sections.
7.3. Shallow vs. Deep Wells

For the purposes of this report we have arbitrarily defined ‘shallow’ as 200-m or less, which covers the
continental shelf of the East Coast and includes all presently producing wells. Based on the review and
consultations, and well depths to present, we conclude that while environmental conditions and species
composition may differ somewhat, there are no overwhelming differences between shallow and deep as
far as EEM study design for the East Coast is concerned (other than those few exceptions noted here).
Any effects will be similar although perhaps somewhat different in magnitude or distribution. For
example, WBM released at the surface at a deep location may disperse more widely than a shallow
location although currents would play a large role as well in either location. Sound propagation from the
drill rig may also be somewhat different depending upon depth to the bottom, but again other
environmental factors such as temperature and salinity would also be important.
In terms of East Coast issues, the main one strictly related to depth would be the presence or absence of
any special benthic communities such as deep water corals. [This is analogous to the situation in the
Gulf of Mexico where there is concern for special benthic communities such as coral outcrops and
chemosynthetic communities.]
In general, we conclude that location is much more important than water depth in designing EEM
programs. In other words, proximity to special areas such as The Gully or concentrations of deep water
corals is much more important than whether a well is shallow or deep.
7.4. Potential EEM Designs

The recommended study designs to address the three scenarios are provided below. They have
intentionally been left general in order to avoid being too prescriptive and to allow for specific
circumstances.
7.4.1. Scenario 1—No EEM
In this scenario, data are sufficient and thus no EEM data are required. However, compliance
monitoring (ECM) must be conducted according to OWTG. At least a summary of the compliance
monitoring data should be made available to the public after a reasonable period of time for QA/QC.
The cost for EEM under this scenario is nil but there would be some cost involved in summarizing the
ECM data in a suitable format, understandable by a knowledgeable layperson.

7.4.2. Scenario 2—No Known Sensitive Issues but Few Data
7.4.2.1. Shallow Water or On-shelf Wells
This scenario assumes a relatively low level of environmental concern, albeit more than for an area that
has been intensively studied. Studies would be ‘piggy-backed’ onto routine well site surveys and
sampling would be opportunistic. The primary goal will be to provide some level of ‘assurance’ that the
bottom environment has not been unduly impacted by the drilling activity.
7.4.2.1.1. Objectives
Objectives would be to gain as much information as possible before and after drilling on the following
top priority variables
− Sediment grain size (useful for both EA and interpretation of EEM data)
− Redox potential (an indicator of environmental quality)
− Barium (a drilling ‘fingerprint’ metal)
− Benthic macro-fauna (video survey)
Sediment samples could be archived or analyzed for other potential contaminants such as TOC/TIC,
metal and petroleum hydrocarbons at the Operator’s discretion. Infauna could be identified if it was
deemed to be of use.
Bird and mammal surveys from the rig and/or supply boats would be opportunistic and at the Operators’
discretion.
7.4.2.1.2. Sampling Design
It is recommended that sampling be conducted along the axes of dominant bottom currents if they are
known. Because it is highly likely in most cases that there will not be enough bottom current data, it is
suggested that a radial transect approach such as commonly used now is probably the best design.
Numbers of samples can be opportunistic and somewhat at the Operators’ discretion but it is suggested
that on the order of 15 sediment samples be collected.
Video surveys should be collected along the radials and interpreted for substrate and benthic macro-
fauna (and flora if present).
7.4.2.1.3. Equipment and Methodology
Sediment samples would be collected by standard methods using a grab or corer. Van Veen and/or
Shipek grabs are typically used for the routine well site surveys so the use of this equipment would not
incur extra costs.
Video surveys would be conducted by the equipment and technician normally aboard for the well site
surveys and thus would not incur significant extra costs.

Sampling, surveys, data collection, interpretation and reporting should be under the direction of an
experienced marine biologist.
Some preliminary draft survey protocols for bird and mammal surveys are contained in Appendix IV.
The reader is also referred to a previous ESRF report on seabird monitoring (Montevecchi et al. 1999).
Note that LGL Limited is presently completing protocols under the ESRF.
7.4.2.1.4. Costs
There may be large variations in the costs of EEM for Scenario 2 with the largest variable being the
logistic costs. Also, cruise length and marine bird and mammal surveys could be quite variable which
would affect personnel time. As this scenario is considered ‘opportunistic’ certain logistic costs such as
major sampling equipment, ship time, video equipment and technician may not be included. A list of
potential cost items is provided below
Benthos, Sediment Sampling
Field Mobilization, Implementation, Demobilization
Personnel
Grabs
Video
Disbursements
Laboratory Analyses
20 (+/-) samples (particle size, TOC/TIC, metals, redox)
Data Analyses and Report
Personnel
Disbursements
Bird and Mammal Surveys
Personnel (1 observer – 30 (+/-) days)

Disbursements
Personnel
Disbursements
Total costs for this scenario are intermediate between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3.

7.4.2.2. Deep Water Wells
This part of the scenario assumes a potentially higher level of environmental concern than for shallow
water, primarily because of the general lack of knowledge on deep water areas. Studies would be
‘piggy-backed’ onto routine well site surveys but sampling would be less opportunistic and more pre-
planned than for shallow water. The primary goal will be to provide a higher level of assurance (than
shallow water where more general knowledge is available) that the bottom environment has not been
unduly impacted by the drilling activity.
7.4.2.2.1. Objectives
Objectives would be to gain as much information as possible before and after drilling on the following
top priority variables
• Sediment grain size (useful for both EA and interpretation of EEM data)
• Redox potential (an indicator of environmental quality)
• Barium (a drilling ‘fingerprint’ metal)
• TOC/TIC
• Benthic macro-fauna (video survey)
Plus
• Side scan sonar surveys (or equivalent), including interpretation, to gain information on
habitat (bottom topography, substrate, etc.)
• Grab or core samples collected in a more systematic manner
Sediment samples would be archived for possible analyzing for other potential contaminants such as
metal and petroleum hydrocarbons at the Regulator’s discretion. Infauna samples could be identified to
various taxonomic levels if it was deemed to be of use.
Bird and marine mammal surveys would be conducted from the rig and/or the supply boats.
7.4.2.2.2. Sampling Design
It is recommended that sampling be conducted along the axes of dominant bottom currents if they are
known. Because it is highly likely in most cases that there will not be enough bottom current data, it is
recommended that a radial transect approach such as commonly used now be adopted.
A minimum of 30 sediment samples would be collected.
Video surveys should be collected along the radials and interpreted for substrate and benthic macro-
fauna.

7.4.2.2.3. Equipment and Methods
Sediment samples would be collected by standard methods using a grab or corer. Van Veen and/or
Shipek grabs are typically used for the routine well site surveys so the use of this equipment would not
incur extra costs.
Video surveys would be conducted by the equipment and technician normally aboard for the well site
surveys and thus would not incur significant extra costs. The ‘drop camera’ would be a deep sea camera
capable of taking high resolution photos of the sea bottom (e.g., Benthos Deep Sea Camera or
equivalent).
Sampling, surveys, data collection, interpretation and reporting would be under the direction of an
experienced marine biologist.
Some preliminary draft survey protocols for bird and mammal surveys are contained in Appendix IV.
See also Montevecchi et al. (1999). LGL Limited is presently developing protocols for the ESRF.
7.4.2.2.4. Costs
There may be large variations in the costs of EEM for deep water with the largest variable being the
logistic costs. Also, cruise length and marine bird and mammal surveys could be quite variable which
would affect personnel time. Because this is a ‘piggy-back’ survey, logistic costs such as major
sampling equipment, ship time, video equipment and technician may not be included. However,
because of a more systematic sampling approach and the dedicated ‘drop camera’ work, it is likely that
an extra day or two ship time will be required. A list of potential cost items is provided below.
Benthos, Sediment Sampling
Field Mobilization, Implementation, Demobilization
Personnel
Grabs
Video
Drop camera rental
Disbursements
Laboratory Analyses
30 (+/-) samples (particle size, TOC/TIC, metals, redox)
Personnel
Disbursements

Personnel (1 observers – 40 (+/-) days)

Disbursements
Personnel
Disbursements
The costs for deep water work would be approximately twice those of shallow water EEM.
7.4.3. Scenario 3—Sensitive Areas
This scenario involves all of Scenario 2 plus custom-designed surveys (see above for objectives,
designs, equipment, methods, and costing). We cannot ‘pre-judge’ what might be designed for specific
areas of interest but these often involve marine mammal and noise issues. Some suggested methods for
marine mammal and acoustic monitoring are contained in Moulton et al. (2003).
7.4.3.1. Costs
Costs for definitive studies on marine mammal and noise issues are substantial and may be on the order
of $250,000 to $500,000 range or more. Costs for other potential studies on, for example, deep sea
corals could also easily reach those levels.
7.4.4. Regional EEM
It is beyond the scope of a document dealing with single exploratory well scenarios to consider regional
environmental assessment or regional EEM. Nonetheless, as the oil industry expands off the East Coast,
regional issues will likely move to the forefront. As part of regional studies, it has been suggested by
some of the stakeholders that permanent reference stations or transects be established. It may be
advantageous to ‘piggy-back’ these reference stations on existing long term ones such as Station 27 or
the ‘Bonavista Transect’ off Newfoundland or the ‘Halifax Line’ or ‘Gully Station’ off Nova Scotia.
Such stations would serve as useful long term reference or ‘control’ points for any studies examining the
effects of exploratory wells.
7.5. Potential EEM Support Studies

The decision framework and approach to study designs under different situations has been provided in
previous sections. More specific study suggestions are presented in this section. Special studies in
support of EA or EEM to deal with emerging issues may be advisable. It became obvious to us during
the course of this study, that there are still some ‘issues on the table’ that could be addressed by ‘stand-
alone’ studies. For example, what is the actual (not theoretical or modeled) area smothered by the
disposal of drill cuttings and mud on the sea floor, or what do the noise ‘envelopes’ around the different
types of rigs or supply boats look like. Such studies would provide useful support to both EA and EEM,
and help in setting priorities and designing programs. We have termed this an ‘emerging issues
scenario’ because past experience has shown us that as some concerns diminish either through

accumulation of data or by mitigation, other new ones tend to appear. Such special or supporting studies
are not strictly EEM but they may start as EEM studies and then evolve into special studies or they may
be specifically designed to aid EEM.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland suggested studies are presented separately below because the issues and
level of concern as expressed during the consultations were somewhat different.
7.5.1. Nova Scotia Studies
A study or series of studies could be conducted to monitor a suite of benthic variables at a minimum of
four different locations representing four distinct habitats.
7.5.1.1. Rationale
As reviewed and discussed in previous sections (see Sections 2.0 to 4.0), it is clear that even though
there has been considerable monitoring of multi-well situations, the issue of the extent and degree of
benthic habitat alteration or contamination from a single well still appears to be outstanding. On the one
hand it seems reasonable to assume that if large multi-well developments do not produce important or
significant effects then single wells also will not produce them. On the other hand, there have been
suggestions that the magnitude of surface enrichments from drilling discharges among sites within
similar depositional environments (i.e., judged by water depth) was similar regardless of the number of
wells drilled (CSA in Kennicutt et al. 1996a). Large scale reviews of the environmental effects of
offshore oil and gas development have identified the effects of discharges of produced water and
accumulations of drill mud and cuttings as the key research priorities (see Peterson et al. 1996). There
continues to be a relatively high level of concern related to offshore drilling in Nova Scotia waters
compared to Newfoundland waters. One of the primary concerns is with effects on benthos, particularly
shellfish. In addition, there is potential for drilling in a variety of habitats containing a range of
substrates and physical oceanographic regimes. To date, there are four potential exploration drilling
scenarios for Nova Scotia waters: (1) on a bank (i.e., shallow water, generally sandy-bottom
environments), (2) on the slope (≥200m), (3) in a gully (i.e., deep valley within the shelf area), and (4)
deep water off the slope. The two North Triumph wells have been suggested as likely candidate
locations for a shallow water site and it may be useful to re-examine any existing data for this area.
It is suggested that the following EEM support studies be conducted until variables reach background
levels or the issue is settled. The results will be of use to both future impact assessments as well as
monitoring programs.
7.5.1.2. Objectives
The objectives of the Nova Scotia studies would be:
− To test the null hypothesis that environmental effects (as measured by sediment chemistry,
benthic communities, and toxicity) from exploratory drilling do not extend beyond 500-m
from a single exploratory well,
− To further test and validate the bblt model,

− To determine the physical area (s) of effects, and
− To determine the longevity of any effects.
7.5.1.3. Methodology
It is suggested that the Chapman’s sediment quality triad (SQT) approach as advocated by Green and
Montagna (1996) is the most effective methodology. This approach uses data from sediment chemistry,
benthic infauna, and toxicology that have been collected at the same time to assess environmental
quality. Sampling should be conducted with stainless steel box corer or bottom grab. The following
variables are suggested as the top priority ones; others could be added (e.g., shellfish body burdens,
enzyme activity, if appropriate).
Sediment chemistry
− Total PAH
− Total alkanes
− Particle size
− Total inorganic carbon (TIC)
− Total organic carbon (TOC)
− Redox potential
− Metals (particularly Ba*)
*Note that care should be taken with the selection of extraction method because results can differ by
orders of magnitude (Hartley 1996 in Holdway 2002).
Benthic infauna
− Identify at least to major taxa

− Determine abundance and biomass
Toxicology
− MicrotoxTM (bacterial bioluminescence)
Optional Components
− Amphipod survival test (if MicrotoxTM tests positive)

− Body burdens of petroleum hydrocarbons and/or metals in indigenous shellfish
The above variables are commonly collected during East Coast EEM studies (e.g., Husky 2001a,b).

7.5.1.4. Sampling Design
The suggested sampling design is one that uses radial transects with sampling conducted at appropriate
intervals such as 50, 100, 200, 500, 3,000-m (or something similar) as was used during the major Gulf of
Mexico platform study (GOOMEX) (see Carr et al. 1996b; Ellis et al. 1996; Green and Montagna 1996;
Kennicutt et al. 1996a,b; McDonald et al. 1996; Montagna and Harper 1996; Husky 2001a,b, and
others).
The radials should be set along cardinal points unless data are available on prevailing bottom currents
where it would be advisable to orient at least one transect along the axis of the predominant current.
7.5.1.5. Numbers of Samples
The decision on the numbers of samples to be collected is a crucial one because, if too few, then validity
is questionable; if too many, then costs become too high relative to the value of the data. If the intention
is to describe in detail the situation at one individual site, then one would take large numbers of samples
at few sites (see Green and Montagna 1996). However, we believe that our situation calls for
generalizations about drilling in particular areas so that once the study is complete, results can be
applied to future exploration without the need for additional sampling. If this is the case, then it would
be better to take potentially fewer samples at one site but sample more sites, potentially as many as 12
sites per area (Green and Montagna 1996). One of the key findings of Ellis (1996) during the
GOOMEX study was the highly platform-specific nature of environmental variables and associated
macro-epifaunal communities. It is recognized that this may be considered a large number of sites but
the data can be assembled over time; not all 12 sites have to be done immediately. Also, there also may
be economies to be obtained by reducing the numbers of sampling sites along each transect, for
example, by analyzing near field vs. far-field effects (Green and Montagna 1996).
The actual number of samples to be collected will have to be determined after a more detailed
examination of environmental conditions at each site, once the likely sites are known. This
determination should made using statistical techniques such as those outlined in Green (1979, 1984) and
in consultation with the C-NSOPB. In order to gain some appreciation of the order of magnitude--
Husky (2001b) concluded that three replicate samples (subsequently combined into one) collected at
about 50 stations was sufficient for their EEM purposes at White Rose.
7.5.1.6. Data Analyses
A priori power analysis should be used to aid in determining the numbers of samples required (e.g., Zar
1998). Multivariate analysis is the preferred methodology for analyzing SQT data (R. Green, pers.
comm.).
7.5.2. Newfoundland and Labrador Studies
It is suggested that existing data from Terra Nova and White Rose be assembled and re-analyzed for the
purposes of assessing the effects from single exploratory wells. There is now a considerable amount of
data (both baseline and EEM) that can be related to well locations, timing, volumes and types of drilling
mud used, water depths, substrate types, currents, and so forth (e.g., Petro-Canada 1999; Husky 2001b,
2003a,b, and others). Consideration should also be given to re-analyzing the Hibernia EEM data, or at

least the baseline data although the Hibernia situation can now be considered atypical for the East Coast.
In the case of Terra Nova, there may be some confounding of factors if data after production started is
used.
Rationale, objectives, previous methodology, and data analysis procedures are all virtually identical to
the above (Nova Scotia studies above).
7.6. Ongoing ESRF Studies

It should be noted that the ESRF has a number of ongoing studies that should be of direct relevance to
addressing some of the issues discussed in previous sections (see ESRF 2003). For example, the
following studies are ongoing:
• Field Verification of Benthic Boundary Layer Modelling Effects. This DFO study is using
existing SOEI data to test the benthic boundary layer models. [Report has been submitted,
Hannah et al. 2003.]
• Deep Water Benthic Community Study. This study by DFO is using video and photography
techniques to obtain information on deep water corals. The final report was due in April
2004.
• Mesocosm and Laboratory Study of Effects of Drill Cuttings. This study, also by DFO,
concerned biological effects, recovery rates, physical vs. chemical effects, and possible
interactions of several rig sites. Final report was due in March 2003.
• Seabird Attraction to Production Installations: Instrument-Based Approaches. An RFP will

be issued in 2003.

8.0 Conclusions
The primary conclusions of this study were:
2. There are notable differences between the different regions in the East Coast concerning the
need for, and the amount required of, EEM. However, most stakeholders agreed that the
concern was much less for the single exploratory well than for a production development.
− Level of concern with exploration drilling. Although there were some exceptions,
most people had a much lower level of concern for the environmental effects of a
single exploratory well than for a production development.
− Assurance monitoring. While some argued strongly for extensive statistical work,
there still was a common thread that most people wanted some level of reassurance
that a specific site was not being unduly affected. A number of people suggested
some camera drops and some grab samples might be enough to accomplish the goal
of providing a suitable level of comfort.
monitoring program is to test predictions, and in some cases modeling, that were
conducted during the EA process. A potential corollary of this attitude is the
suggestion by some that one or several wells should be selected as ‘test cases’ and
monitored possibly in aid of a Class or Generic EA approach. This would provide
rationale for including or excluding monitoring variables for future individual wells.
− Biological effects. With some exceptions, most felt that any monitoring programs
should focus on biological effects as opposed to simply ‘shopping’ for increases
(however slight) of potential contaminants.
− Birds and mammals. Many agreed that there were potentially important issues in
regard to marine birds and mammals. However, it was also pointed out by a number
of people that routine surveys conducted from the rig or supply boats do not
necessarily constitute any monitoring of effects per se.
− Site specifics. Local and site specific issues must be considered in the design and
conduct of any EEM. This was a virtually universal comment. There is awareness in
both locations of some potential for different issues in deep versus shallow drilling
scenarios. To date, however, the depth differences have been most apparent off Nova
Scotia where most wells have been drilled in shallow water or increasingly in
deepwater.

− Data availability. Almost everyone we talked to stated that availability of EEM data
is an important issue. At present, the Atlantic Accord allows a development to hold
the EEM data confidential for five years. In fact, availability of data was an issue
with the conduct of this study.
− Cumulative effects. While many were not particularly concerned with the effects of
one exploratory well, they suggested that a large number of single wells could be an
issue, particularly if they were within a relatively small geographic and/or time frame.
On the other hand, no one had any solutions to this problem.
3. Existing offshore production EEM programs appear to be working reasonably well and
results are at least partially relevant to the design and conduct of EEM for exploratory wells.
− Aside from a large oil blowout (a very unlikely event according to previous EAs) and
a few other special cases, any effects from an exploratory situation are of much less
concern than a production scenario.
− In general, the production EEM programs completed to date are viewed as adequate
for confirming EA predictions and in providing a level of assurance that the East
Coast marine ecosystems have not been significantly affected to date. They have also
served as testing of techniques for use in EEM off the East Coast.
− Baseline studies conducted by Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose can provide
valuable insights into the effects of drilling because these studies were done at
varying periods of time after drilling of a number of wells. White Rose data
(reviewed herein) may be the most relevant in this regard because they are the most
recent. These data should be re-examined with this different objective of teasing out
effects of exploration, if any.
− To date, the conclusions that the Study Team has seen drawn from the production
EEM studies, are that there have been no significant effects on the variables that have
been measured. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that a properly run exploration
drilling program will produce effects that will be on the low end of the scale and
difficult to measure; it will certainly not create any significant effects on the marine
environment.
− If drilling EEM was required, perhaps because of drilling with a new technology or in
a potentially sensitive area, then one or a combination of the production EEM
design(s) would provide a good starting point.
4. EEM is not warranted for the single exploratory well in all situations; for example, in non-
sensitive areas that are well known. Compliance monitoring would still be conducted and
reported.
5. A potential ‘decision tree’ has been suggested for different levels of EEM based on three
different scenarios:

(a) Scenario 1—well known area with no sensitive issues. Compliance monitoring but
no EEM would be conducted.
(b) Scenario 2—shallow or deep areas with no known sensitive issues. Opportunistic
EEM surveys of sediments, benthos, seabirds and marine mammals would be
‘piggy-backed’ on existing logistics.
(c) Scenario 3—sensitive areas. Custom EEM surveys would be required.
6. Most EEM for an exploratory well can be ‘piggy-backed’ onto existing programs such as
well site surveys in order to minimize costs.
7. ‘Special’ EEM support studies of selected existing data and new data could be collected to
further refine, and potentially reduce EEM in the future.

9.0 Literature Cited
Borgmann, U., W.P. Norwood, T.B. Reynoldson and F. Rosa. 2001. Identifying cause in sediment
assessments: bioavailability and the sediment quality Triad. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 950-
960.
Breeze, H., D.S. Davis, M. Butler and V. Kostylev. 1997. Distribution and status of deep sea corals off
Nova Scotia. Marine Issues Committee Special Publication No. 1, Ecology Action Centre. 58
p.
Cantelmo, F.R., M.E. Tagatz and K.R. Rao. 1979. Effect of barite on meiofauna in a flow-through
experimental system. Mar. Environ. Res., 2: 301-309.
CAPP. 1999. Estimation of direct human resource requirements offshore exploration and production
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia 2000-2010. Report by the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers.
CAPP. 2001a. Safety zones. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 7 p. + App.
CAPP. 2001b. Offshore drilling waste management review. Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers Technical Report 2001-0007. 194 p. + App.
Carr, R.S., D.C. Chapman, C.L. Howard and J.M. Biedenbach. 1996a. Sediment quality triad
assessment survey of the Galveston Bay, Texas system. Ecotoxicology 5, pp. 341-364.
Carr, R.S., D.C. Chapman, B.J. Presley, J.M. Biedenbach, L. Robertson, P. Boothe, R. Kilada, T. Wade,
and P. Montagna. 1996b. Sediment porewater toxicity assessment studies in the vicinity of
offshore oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:
2618-2628.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, H.A. Anderson and E.A. Power. 1991. Evaluation of effects associated
with an oil platform, using the Sediment Quality Triad. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 407-424.
C-NOPB. 2002. Offshore waste treatment guidelines. Prepared by National Energy Board, Canada –
Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada – Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Board. 11 p + App.
Conklin, P.J., D.G. Doughtie and K.R. Rao. 1980. Effects of barite and used drilling muds on
crustaceans, with particular reference to the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. In: Symposium,
Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista,
Florida, January 21-24, 1980. API, Washington, D.C.
Cranford, P.J. and D.C. Gordon Jr. 1992. The influence of dilute clay suspensions on sea scallop
(Placopecten magellicanus) feeding activity and tissue growth. Neth. J. Sea Res. 30:107-120.
Cranford, P.J., D.C. Gordon, K. Lee, S.L. Armsworthy and G.H. Tremblay. 1999. Chronic toxicity and
physical disturbance effects of water- and oil-based drilling fluids and some major constituents
on adult sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). Mar. Environ. Res., 48: 225-256.
Cranford, P.J., K. Lee, J.W. Loder, T.G. Milligan, D.K. Muschenheim and J.F. Payne. 2001. Scientific
considerations and results relevant to the review of the 1996 offshore waste treatment guidelines.
Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2364.

d’Entremont, A. 2003. Environmental effects monitoring results of offshore wells. CAPP Powerpoint
Presentation to RAC Sub-committee.
Davies, J.M., J.M. Addy, R.A. Blackman, J.R. Blanchards, J.E. Ferbrache, D.C. Moore, H.J.
Sommerville, A. Whitehead and T. Wilkinson. 1984. Environmental effects of the use of oil-
based drilling muds in the North Sea. Mar. Poll. Bull., 15: 363-370.
Ellis, M.S., E.A. Wilson-Ormand, and E.N. Powell. 1996. Effects of gas-producing platforms on
continental shelf macroepifauna in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: abundance and size
structure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2589-2605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Environmental assessment of final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids
in the oil and gas extraction point source category. EPA-821-B-00-014, December 2000.
ESRF. 2003. Environmental studies research funds annual report 2002. National Energy Board,
Calgary. 23 p.
Fechhelm, R.G., B.J. Gallaway, G.F. Hubbard, S. MacLean and L.R. Martin. 2001. Opportunistic
sampling at a deep-water synthetic drilling fluid discharge site in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of
Mexico Science. 2: 97-106.
Gallaway, B.J., L.R. Martin, R.L. Howard, G.S. Boland and G.D. Dennis. 1981. Effects on artificial
reef and demersal fish and macrocrustacean communities. In: Environmental Effects of Offshore
Oil Production: the Buccanear Gas and Oilfield Study. Middleditch, BS, 1981.
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Pollution). 1993. Impact of oil and related chemicals and wastes on the marine
environment. Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 50, 180 p.
Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. Wiley, New
York.
Green, R.H. 1984. Statistical and nonstatistical considerations for environmental monitoring studies.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 4: 293-301.
Green, R.H. and P. Montagna. 1996. Implications for monitoring: study designs and interpretation of
results. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci .53: 2629-2636.
Grizzle, J.M. 1986. Lesions in fishes captured near drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar.
Environ. Res., 18: 267-276.
Hannah, C.G., A. Drozdowski, D.K. Muschenheim, J.W. Loder, S. Belford, and M. MacNeil. 2003.
Evaluation of drilling mud dispersion models at SOEI Tier I Sites: Part 1 North Triumph, Fall
1999. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrography and Ocean Sciences 232: 1-51.
HMDC 1995. Hibernia baseline environmental effects monitoring data report October, 1995. Report by
Hibernia Management Development Company, St. John’s, NL. 122 p. + List of Errata +
November 23, 1995 Addenda + App.
Holdway, D.A. 2002. The acute and chronic effects of wastes associated with offshore oil and gas
production on temperate and tropical marine ecological processes. Mar. Poll. Bull. 44: 185-203.
Husky. 2000. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited,
St. John’s, NL.

Husky. 2001a. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study Supplemental Report. Submitted by Husky
Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 265 p. + App.
Husky. 2001b. White Rose baseline characterization data report June 2001. Prepared by Jacques
Whitford Environment Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 109 p. + App.
Husky. 2002. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin Exploration Drilling Program Project Description and
Environmental Assessment. Prepared by LGL Limited, Oceans Limited, Provincial Airlines
Limited, and S.R. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St.
John’s, NL. 179 p.
Husky. 2003a. Husky Lewis Hill Prospect Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment.
Prepared by LGL Limited, Oceans Limited, Provincial Airlines Limited, and S.R. Ross
Environmental Research Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 324 p.
Husky. 2003b. White Rose baseline addendum draft report January 2003. Prepared by Jacques Whitford
Environment Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 14 p. + App.
ICES (International Council of the Exploration of the Sea) Workshop. 2002. Biological Effects in
Pelagic Ecosystems (BECPELAG), Copenhagen.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 1998. Terra Nova baseline characterisation data
report, prepared for Petro-Canada, 1998.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 2000. White Rose baseline characterisation data
report, prepared for Husky, 2000.
Kennicutt II, M.C., P.N. Boothe, T.L. Wade, S.T. Sweet, R. Rezak, F.J. Kelly, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley,
and D.A. Wiesenberg. 1996a. Geochemical patterns in sediments near offshore production
platforms. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2554-2566.
Kennicutt II, M.C., R.H. Green, P. Montagna, and P.F. Roscigno. 1996b. Gulf of Mexico Offshore
Operations Monitoring Experiment (GOOMEX), Phase I: Sublethal responses to contaminant
exposure—introduction and overview. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2540-2553.
Kingston, P.F. 1992. Impact of offshore oil production installations on the benthos of the North Sea.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 49: 45-52.
Kostylev, V., B.J. Todd, G.B.J. Fader, R.C. Courtney, G.D.M. Cameron, and R.A. Pickrill. 2001.
Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology
and seafloor photographs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 219: 121-137.
LGL Ltd. 2003. Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment. Report by LGL Limited, St.
John’s, NL, to Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. 229 p.
Mathieu, A. 2002. Potential impacts of exploratory drilling on the health and productivity of finfish and
shellfish: A review. Report by Oceans Ltd. prepared for LGL Limited. 25 p.
McDonald, S.J., K.L. Willett, J. Thomsen, K.B. Beatty, K. Connor, T.R. Narasimhan, C.M. Erickson,
and S.H. Safe. 1996. Sublethal detoxification responses to contaminant exposure associated with
offshore production platforms. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2606-2617.
MMS. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. U.S. Dept. Interior Minerals
Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS region. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 121 p.

Montagna, P.A. and D.E. Harper, Jr. 1996. Benthic infaunal long-term response to offshore production
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2567-2588.
Montagna, P.A., S.C. Jarvis, and M.C. Kennicutt, II. 2002. Distinguishing between contaminant and
reef effects on meiofauna near offshore hydrocarbon platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 1584-1592.
Montevecchi, W.A., F.K. Wiese, G. Davoren, A.W. Diamond, F. Huettmann, and J. Linke. 1999.
Seabird attraction to offshore platforms and seabird monitoring from offshore support vessels
and other ships: literature review and monitoring designs. Prepared for Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers.
Moulton, V.D., R.A. Davis, J.A. Cook, M. Austin, M.L. Reece, S.A. Martin, A. MacGillivray, D.
Hannay, and M.W. Fitzgerald. 2003. Environmental assessment of Marathon Canada Limited’s
3-D seismic program on the Scotian Slope, 2003. LGL Rep. SA744-1. Rep. by LGL Limited,
St. John’s, Newfoundland, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Marathon
Canada Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia. 173 p. + Appendices.
Muschenheim, D.K. and T.G. Milligan. 1996. Flocculation and accumulation of fine drilling waste
particulates on the Scotian shelf (Canada). Mar. Poll. Bull., 32, 10: 740-745.
National Academy of Science (NAS). 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment. Panel on
Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine Environment,
Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983.
NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 2002. Offshore waste treatment guidelines. National Energy Board,
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Board. 21 p.
NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 1999. Guidelines respecting the selection of chemicals intended to be
used in conjunction with offshore drilling and production activities on frontier lands. Prepared by
National Energy Board, Canada – Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the, Canada –
Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 16 p.
Neff, J.M., M. Bothner, N. Maciolek and J. Grassle. 1989. Impacts of Exploratory drilling for oil and
gas on the benthic environment of Georges Bank. Mar. Environ. Res., 27, 2: 77-114.
Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie and R.C. Ayers. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling
fluids. OCS Study, MMS 200-064, published by U.S. Dept of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, August 2000.
NORDCO. 1983. Study of residual toxicity and debris on Hibernia P-15, B-08 and K-18 wellsites.
Rep. for Department of the Environment, Environmental Protection Service.
Olsgard, F. and J.S. Gray. 1995. A comprehensive analysis of the effects of offshore oil and gas
exploration and production on the benthic communities of the Norwegian continental shelf.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 122: 277-306.
Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, S. Whiteway and K. Lee. 2001a. Definition of sediment toxicity zones around
oil development sites: Dose response relationships for the monitoring surrogates Microtoxr and
amphipods, exposed to Hibernia source cuttings containing a synthetic base oil. Can. Manuscr.
Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., No 2577, vi + 10 p.

Payne, J.F., L Fancey, C. Andrews, J.D. Meade, F.M. Power, K. Lee, G. Veinott and A. Cook. 2001b.
Laboratory exposures of invertebrate and vertebrate species to concentrations of IA-35 (Petro
Canada) drill mud fluid, production water, and Hibernia drill mud cuttings. Can. Manuscr. Rep.
Fish. Aquat. Sci., No 2560, iv + 27 p.
Payne, J.F., L. Fancey, J. Hellou, M.J. King and G.L. Fletcher. 1995. Aliphatic hydrocarbons in
sediments: a chronic toxicity study with winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) exposed to
oil well drill cuttings. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 52: 2724-2735.
Peterson, C.H., M.C. Kennicutt II, R.H. Green, P. Montagna, D.E. Harper Jr., E.N. Powell, and P.F.
Roscigno. 1996. Ecological consequences of environmental perturbations associated with
offshore hydocarbon production: a perspective on long-term exposures in the Gulf of Mexico.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2637-2654.
Petro-Canada 1999. Terra Nova Environmental Monitoring Program.
Stagg, R.M. 1998. The development of an international program for monitoring the biological effects of
contaminants in the OSPAR convention area. Mar. Environ. Res., 46, 1-5: 307-313.
Stagg, R.M., A. McIntosh and P. Mackie. 1995. Elevation of hepatic monooxygenase activity in the
dab (Limanda limanda L.) in relation to environmental contamination with petroleum
hydrocarbons in the northern North Sea. Aquat. Toxicol., 33: 245-264.
Terrens, G.W., D. Gwyther, M.J. Keough and R.D. Tait. 1998. Environmental assessment of synthetic
based drilling mud discharges to Bass Strait, Australia. SPE 46622, 1-14. In: 1998 SPE
International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production ; Caracas, Venezuela, 7-10 June 1998. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Richardson, TX.
Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis, R. Bellore, E. Gonzalez, J. Christian, V. Moulton and R. Harris. 2000.
Environmental assessment of exploration drilling off Nova Scotia. Report by LGL Limited for
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Mobil Oil Canada Properties Ltd., Shell Canada
Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Resources Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources,
PanCanadian Petroleum, Murphy Oil Ltd., and Norsk Hydro. 278 p.
Veale, L.O., A.S. Hill, S.J. Hawkins and A.R. Brand. 2000. Effects of long-term disturbance by
commercial scallop fishing on subtidal epifaunal assemblages and habitats. Mar. Biol., 137:
325-337.
Wassenberg, T.J., G. Dews and S.D. Cook. 2002. The impacts of fish trawls on megabenthos (sponges)
on the Northwest shelf of Australia. Fish. Res., 58: 141-151.
Watling, L., R.H. Findlay, L.M. Mayer and D.F. Schick. 2001. Impact on scallop drag on the sediment
chemistry, microbiota and faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine benthic community.
J. Sea Res., 46: 309-324.
Wilson-Ormond, E.A., M.S. Ellis and E.N. Powel. 1994. The effect of proximity to gas producing
platforms on size, stage of reproductive development and health in shrimp and crabs. National
Shellfisheries Association, Charleston, South Carolina, Abstracts, 1994 Annual Meeting, April
24-28: 306.
Zar, J. H. 1998. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. 663 p. + App.

Personal Communication
Boland, G. U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA

Dunphy, R. Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd., St. John’s, NL
Green, R. Biostatistics Expert Consultant
Payne, J. Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, NL
Robson, W. Nexen Inc., Calgary, AB
Turpin, W. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, St. John’s, NL
Wilson, B. LGL Limited, Anchorage, Alaska

Appendix I
Review of Toxicity Effects

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING ON THE
HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH:
A REVIEW
Prepared for:
LGL Limited
Environmental Research Associates
P.O. Box 13248, Stn. A
388 Kenmount Road,
St. John's, Newfoundland
A1B 4A5
December 2002
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING ON THE
HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY OF FINFISH AND SHELLFISH:
A REVIEW
Prepared for:
LGL Limited
Environmental Research Associates
P.O. Box 13248, Stn. A
388 Kenmount Road,
A1B 4A5
by:
31 Temperance Street
A1C1 3J3
Anne Mathieu, Ph.D

[email protected]
Telephone: 709-753-5788
Facsimile: 709-753-3301
December 2002
Doc.Ref.No.11302
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Overview on the Toxicity Potential of Discharges of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings……...1
2 Overview on Field Surveys for Biological Effects Around Single Wells Or Sites
Involving a Limited Number of Wells……………………………………………………3
3 Benthic Impacts Produced by Petroleum Development Versus Other Impacts…………13
4 Biological Monitoring Programs around Rig Sites in Relation to

Generally Recommended Procedures for the Marine Environment………….…………15
5 General Approach to Biological Effects Monitoring Around Exploratory Wells………18
6 References…………………………………………………………………………...….20
Doc.Ref.No.11302
1
Overview on Laboratory Studies on the Toxicity Potential
of Discharges of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
An overview on the toxicity potential of discharges of drilling fluids and cuttings is provided
in order to assist with projections about the scale of biological impacts around exploratory
wells. Both water-based and oil-based fluids have been extensively used for drilling in the
marine environment. Oil-based fluids which originally contained diesel oil have superior
engineering properties but fell into disfavour through observations of more extensive impacts
on sediment communities around platforms where they were being used (e.g. Daan et al.,
1994; Olsgard and Gray, 1995). However, the newer synthetic-based fluids (SBF) provide
similar engineering properties as the older oil-based fluids, and may pose lesser risk to more
environmental components than water-based fluids. This is due in part to the potential for
greater and more widespread contamination associated with use of water-base drilling fluids.
The major ingredients in most water-based drilling fluids are minerals such as barite and
bentonite, and while hundreds of additives are available for formulating drilling fluids, the
total number of ingredients in most fluids is often a dozen or less. These include ingredients
such as dispersants, viscosifiers, fluid control agents, and corrosion inhibitors. Drilling fluids
and drilling fluid components in general have a very low acute toxicity potential. Leuterman
et al. (1989) reviewed the extensive data base on the acute toxicity of drilling fluid additives
for mysid shrimp which are considered among the most sensitive animals to a wide variety of
contaminants. The majority of additives were indicated to be practically non toxic (at
concentrations > 10,000 ppm with the majority being in the 100,000 ppm range or higher).
Also, according to 96 hours acute toxicity tests recommended by the Joint Group of Experts
on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) (1993), most drilling wastes are
only slightly toxic (1,000-10,000 ppm) or practically non toxic (> 10,000 ppm).
Synthetic base fluids are replacing the diesel based fluids used in earlier days. Such fluids
usually fall into the categories of synthetic alkanes, ethers, esters or olefins. A variety of
SBF’s have been shown to pass the U.S. acceptance criterion for toxicity of suspended
particulates to mysid shrimp (LC50 > 30,000 mg/l) (adapted from Neff et al., 2000).
Synthetic-based fluids have also been shown in sediment bioassays to be considerably less
toxic than oil-based fluids (adapted from Neff et al., 2000). The synthetic isoalkane (IA-35)
used in the Newfoundland offshore has also been reported to have a very low to negligible
toxicity potential as assessed by exposure of various species to both contaminated water and
sediment (Payne et al., 2001a; b). However, since some synthetic base fluids such as esters
may degrade quite rapidly in the environment, they pose greater potential for creating
anaerobic conditions which may have an impact on benthic communities in the near vicinity
of rig sites (EPA, 2000).
Ground barite is a major component of drilling fluids and upon discharge the fine particles
will settle to the ocean bottom at varying distances from platform sites, dependent upon water
depth and current conditions. Studies in Canada have specifically drawn attention to the
potential for relatively high concentrations of barite (or bentonite) to remain suspended in the
water column near the bottom in the so called benthic boundary layer (e.g. Muschenheim and
Doc.Ref.No.11302 1
Milligan, 1996). Use of water-base drilling fluids may generally result in more extensive
contamination of the marine environment with barite (as well as with other ingredients) than
use of synthetic fluids since the latter are discharged in lesser quantities. Use of synthetic
fluids can also result in greater agglomeration of fine particulates reducing their geographical
spread throughout the water column. This may be particularly important for some species.
Although ionic barium is quite toxic, the barium associated with barite is in the form of highly
insoluble barium sulfate, reducing its “chemical” toxicity potential. Other than its deposition
on the ocean bottom and potential for affecting benthic communities through physical
alteration of sediments (e.g. Cantelmo et al., 1979), barite has generally been considered to be
of negligible environmental significance. However, scallops which are an important
commercial species on the East coast have a very low tolerance to suspended barite
particulates (Cranford et al., 1999). Pathological effects have also been produced in other
bivalves exposed to relatively high concentrations of barite for short periods (e.g. Barlow and
Kingston, 2001). Earlier observations on the potential for barite to produce pathological
effects in shrimp (Conklin et al., 1980) exposed to concentrations in the 100-500 ppm range
for 30 days are of some interest given the importance of the shrimp fisheries off the East
coast. Pathological and biochemical effects have also recently been observed in flounder
exposed to relatively high concentrations of barite (J.F. Payne, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, unpublished). It is not presently known whether the effects associated with barite are
wholly physical in nature or whether a chemical toxicity component may also be involved.
Briefly, laboratory derived acute toxicity studies indicate that water-based or synthetic drilling
fluids pose little environmental risk. Any small risk posed by these fluids would be
diminished even further by the relatively small quantities of fluids and cuttings discharged
through drilling of single exploratory wells. Interestingly, although water-based fluids have
generally been promoted as the best environmental option, it is currently realised that this may
not be the case “in theory”, due in part to the relatively higher quantities of contaminants
released through use of water-based fluids. The potential for barite (and bentonite) from
water-based fluids to disperse over wide areas of the water column and potentially impact
biota to a small degree, provides an example in this regard. This type of impact could also be
of greater importance for environmental and fisheries interests than any small impacts on
sediment communities which have been intensively studied by comparison.
Overall, acute toxicity studies indicate that impacts on either sediment communities or on
water column organisms such as fish and shellfish resulting from the drilling of single
exploratory wells should be quite low or negligible. However, any monitoring programs
required to confirm hypotheses about potential biological impacts of exploratory wells should
also place emphasis on aspects other than the slight and relatively well known potential for
impacts on sediment communities. Which organisms (fish, shellfish etc) might be of
importance for assessment would depend on the exploratory site and stakeholder questions.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 2
2
Overview on Field Surveys for Biological Effects Around Single Wells
Or Sites Involving a Limited Number of Wells
Supplementary to the overview on the assessment of toxicity potential of drilling fluids as

derived from laboratory studies, a similar overview is provided on relevant field studies at
sites involving single or a limited number of wells.
Field studies can provide further assistance in estimating the scale of potential biological
impacts around exploratory wells and representative studies from the North Sea, the Gulf of
Mexico, and Australia have been included. Emphasis was placed on collating and reviewing
studies carried out around single wells and sites involving a limited number of exploratory or
development wells but a few production wells are also included. Also included are some
regional studies such as in offshore Newfoundland and Nova Scotia where sites have received
discharges from several wells. It would have been useful to have relevant oceanographic
information such as water depth and current velocity for individual sites as well as
information on discharge volumes, but this was not available in many instances. Field studies
by nature have limitations, but they can offer important insight into the general scale of
potential impacts when taken together.
Most surveys have emphasised studies on sediment communities and impacts in general
appear to be quite localised within a radius of a few to less than 500 or more commonly 200
meters from rig sites (Tables 1-3). Impacts may also be substantially reduced at varying
periods post discharge. However, impacts from water-based fluids may extend greater
distances than impacts from synthetic fluids.
The US EPA has specifically noted the value of selected synthetic fluids for deep water
drilling (EPA, 2000). The EPA also favours the use of synthetic fluids which degrade (at
least in part) more rapidly. However, fluids which degrade more rapidly such as esters may
also have a greater potential for producing anaerobiosis resulting in more deleterious effects
on sediment habitat around rig sites. Interestingly, according to the regulatory regime in
Canada such habitat effects could potentially warrant more attention and determined to be in
contravention of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 3
Table 1: Representative Studies Around Wells Using Water Based Fluids
(primary emphasis has been placed on collating biological impacts)
Location Depth Cuttings/ Variables Impacts

Reference (m) Fluid Studied
Discharged
Gulf of Mexico 33.5 • principally • studied 8.5 months pd*
macro and • fauna comparable at
(Zingula, 1975) megabenthos discharge and reference sites
Gulf of Mexico 36 • principally • animal abundance decreased
E* megabenthos within 100 m radius
(US DOI, 1977) • some effects out to 1000 m
radius
Offshore 63 2,854 bbl* • dispersion of • indication that most cuttings
California E* cuttings fell to the bottom within 50
m radius
(Meek and Ray, • 70 – 80 % of settled solids
1980) redistributed
Alaska 62 • dispersion of • cuttings entrained to a depth
E* cuttings of 12 cm into the sea floor
(Houghton et al., (currents >50 after approx. 3 months
1980) cm/sec) • maximum cuttings found at
100 m (north)
• 1.34 mm cuttings found 400
m north
• no cuttings pile
Alaska 62 • sediment • number of organisms
E* communities decreased at 100 and 200 m
(Lees and compared to controls
Houghton, 1980)
Mid Atlantic 120 • chemical and • increased percentage of clay
Continental E* physical size particles out to 800 m
Shelf alteration in • Ba increased 21-fold at 1.6
the benthic km
(Mariani et al., environment • Pb increased 3.6-fold at 200
1980) m
• Ba in mollusks, brittlestars
and polychaetes collected at
1.6 km increased 4, 18, 20-
fold respectively (not known
if major proportion in gut
contents only)
Mid Atlantic 120 • benthic • study conducted 2 weeks
Continental E* community after drilling
Shelf • sessile mega and
macrobenthos buried within
approx. 75 m radius
Doc.Ref.No.11302 4
Discharged
(Menzie et al., • species diversity within
1980) range for the region
• low values in the immediate
vicinity of the well site (75
m)
Mid Atlantic 120 • sediment • study conducted one year pd
Continental E* chemistry • percent clay levels decreased
Shelf • mega and to pre-drill type levels within
macrobenthos 800m
(EG & G • metals in • patches of clay out to 800 m
Environmental benthos • 3-fold increase in Ba at 400
Consultants, m (direction of predominant
1982) current)
• even distribution of
megabenthos from discharge
point
• dominant macrobenthos,
depressed below pre-drill
densities, but increase from
previous studies conducted 2
weeks pd
• species richness change out
to 1.2 km (but not correlated
with Ba)
• Cr increased in polychaetes
out to 1.2 km (not known if
in gut contents only)
Beaufort Sea 8 • cutting • sampled same plots for
E* deposition differences 4 months pd
(Northern • megabenthos • 5 – 6 cm thick accumulation
Technical at discharge point, 1-2 cm at
Services, 1981) 6m
• number of organisms
reduced in immediate area of
discharge in comparison with
500 m distance
• metals in sediment at
discharge site similar to
variations at control site
Georges Bank E* • sediment • 25 % of barite discharged at
8 wells chemistry block 312 was present in
(Bothner et al., sediments within 6 km of the
1985) rig, 4 weeks pd
• maximum post-drilling
Doc.Ref.No.11302 5
Discharged
concentration of Ba (172
ppm) is similar to that found
naturally in fine sediments
• elevated concentrations of
Ba in fine-grain sediments 65
km west of Block 312
• elevated concentrations of
Ba 35 km east of one drilling
site, against the dominant
current
Georges Bank E* • benthic • studies around 2 platforms
community • changes in benthic
(Neff et al., communities near the
1989) platforms attributed to
natural changes
Florida 21 • sea grass • sea grass impacted within
E* 300 m of discharge
(Continental • surveys one year and two
Shelf Associates years pd indicated sea grass
(CSA), 1988) recovery
• burial related impacts on
bottom community within
immediate area of discharge
(25m)
Gulf of Mexico 79 • metals in • production site involving 25
P* sediment wells
(Boothe and 25 • Zn gradient, elevation 5 – 10
Presley, 1989) wells times control
• elevated Hg in sediment
within 125 m of site
Gulf of Mexico 76 • metals in • elevated Hg in sediments
D* sediment within 125 m
(Boothe and 8 wells • Pb gradient, 3.8-fold higher
Presley, 1989) within 500 m
• Zn gradient, elevation 5 – 10
times control
• elevation of HC (4–5-fold)
within 250m
Gulf of Mexico 40 – 60 7,285 m3 • sediment • concentration of several
drilling fluid; chemistry metals were within or near
(Continental 726 m3 cuttings • macroinfaunal ranges reported in offshore
Shelf Associates assemblages waters in the area
(CSA) and Barry • infaunal assemblages related
A. Vittor and to grain size and not
Doc.Ref.No.11302 6
Discharged
Associates, proximity to the discharge
1989) site
• groupings determined
primarily by season
• individual abundance
correlated with sediment
texture and varied with
season and not related to
distance from the discharge
site
Gulf of Mexico 40–60 7,285 m3 • sediment • significant increases in Ba
drilling fluid; chemistry concentrations were detected
(CSA and Barry 726 m3 cuttings • metals in to 500 m
A. Vittor oysters • no increase in a number of
Associates, metals in oyster tissue
1989) • Arsenic displayed a
temporary increase (may not
be linked to drilling)
Gulf of Mexico 60 • sediment • indication that sediment Ba
1 well chemistry may have increased 4-fold at
(CSA • major visual 2 km, Cr 8 – 10-fold at 500m
Associates, changes in • no “catastrophic” large scale
1989) epibiotic changes in epibiotic
community as community
assessed by
photography
and video
California 90-410 • sediment • significant temporal variation
OCS, 7 wells chemistry of macro and meiofauna,
Platform Hidago • macrofauna with inconsistent within-year
and meiofauna variations
(Steinhauer et • change in soft coral coverage
al., 1990 as cited seemed to be related to
in EPA, 2000) drilling, but not clear-cut
* pd = post discharge; bbl = baril; E = Exploratory well(s); D = Development well(s); P =
Production well(s)
Doc.Ref.No.11302 7
Table 2: Representative Studies Around Wells Using Synthetic Base Fluids (SBF)
(primary emphasis has been placed on collating biological impacts)
Location Depth Amount Variables Impacts

(Reference) (m) Cuttings/ Studied
Fluids
discharged
(Fluid type)
North Sea 67 749 mt • SBF in • 85,300 mg/kg at 50 m SW
containing sediments 46,400 mg/kg at 100 m SW
(Smith and 96.5 mt* • benthic 208 mg/kg at 200 m SW
May, 1991) (ester) community • dropped to less than 2 mg/kg (1
year pd*)
• effects on benthic fauna at 100
m (8 months pd)
• no effects (1 year pd)
Gulf of Mexico 39 441 bbl • SBF in • 134,428 mg/kg at 50 m (9 days
cuttings sediments pd)
(Candler et al., 354 bbl* • benthic • 2,850 mg/kg at 50 m (8 months
1995) fluids community pd)
<45 mt • 3,620 mg/kg at 50 m (2 years
(poly alpha pd)
olefin) • 280 mg/kg at 200 m (2 years
pd)
• effects on benthic fauna at 50 m
(2 years pd)
North Sea 55 mt • SBF in • SBF detected to 2 km from site

(poly alpha sediments • benthic fauna affected at 500 m
(Bakke et al., olefin) • benthic (1 survey pd)
1996) community
North Sea 115 mt • SBF in • low concentration of SBF to 2
(probably sediments km
(Bakke et al., ester) • benthic • benthic fauna normal (1 survey
1996) community pd)
North Sea 46 m3 (ester • SBF in • low concentration of SBF to
base) sediments 500 m
(Bakke et al., • benthic • minor effects on benthic fauna
1996) community to 500 m (1 survey pd)
North Sea 544 mt (ether) • SBF in • low concentration of SBF to 2
sediments km
(Bakke et al., • benthic • effects on benthic community to
1996) community 1 km down current, 250 m in
other directions (1 survey pd)
North Sea 30 361 m3 • SBF in • 393 mg/kg at 75 m (4 months
synthetic sediments pd)
based fluids
Doc.Ref.No.11302 8
Fluids
discharged
(Fluid type)
(Daan et al., 180 mt (ester) • benthic • 706 mg/kg at 75 m (8 months
1996) community pd)
• 54 mg/kg at 200 m (8 months
pd)
m (4 months pd)
m (1 year pd)
Gulf of Mexico 61 1,394 bbl • SBF in • 23,000 mg/kg (2 years pd)
cuttings with sediments • benthic fauna affected at 50 m
(Continental 1,315 bbl • benthic
Shelf adhering community
Associates, fluids
1998) (internal
EPA benthic olefin)
data
Gulf of Mexico 39 448 bbl • SBF in • 6,700 mg/kg at 50 m (11
cuttings with sediments months pd)
(Continental 850 bbl • benthic • 41 mg/kg at 100 m (11 months
Shelf adhering community pd)
Associates, fluids (linear • benthic fauna not impacted
1998) alpha olefin
EPA benthic and internal
data olefin)
Gulf of Mexico 565 6,263 bbl • SBF in • ~ 165,000 mg/kg at 75 m (1997
adhering sediments survey)
(LGL fluids before • benthic ~ 198,000 mg/kg at 75 m (1998
Ecological 1997 survey community survey)
Research 1,486 bbl • density of some fauna greatly
Associates, Inc., additional increased (3 months pd)
1998) before 1998
survey
(90 % linear
alpha olefin;
10 % ester)
Australia 70 2,000 m3 • SBF in • 12,000 mg/kg maximum after
(ester) sediments drilling
(Terrens et al., • benthic • 200 mg/kg (6 months pd)
1998) community • benthic fauna affected within
100 m of platform shortly after
drilling
• recovered in 4 months
Doc.Ref.No.11302 9
Fluids
discharged
(Fluid type)
North Sea • benthic • little or no effect on benthic
5 (synthetic and community community outside a radius of
(Det Norske separate water-based) 250 m
Veritas, 1999) wells
Australia 80 48 mt Studied 3 years • sediment HC concentrations
Wanaea – 6 1 well (low toxicity pd greater than 1mg/kg restricted
oil based mud • hydrocarbons to within 200 m
(Oliver and in lower in sediments • alteration of benthic community
Fisher, 1999) section of • sediment appeared to be limited to 100 m
well) communities
Australia 77 175 mt • hydrocarbons • Sediment HC 2,980 mg/kg at
Lynx – 1a 1 well (low toxicity in sediments 100 m (shortly after pd) to 0.11
oil based mg/kg approximately 1 year
(Oliver and mud) later
Fisher, 1999)
North Sea 150 3,304 mt • SBF in • ~ 8,000 mg/kg at 25 m
cuttings; 304 sediments • ~ 1,260 mg/kg at 50 m
(Neff et al., mt (ester) • benthic • benthic fauna affected within
2000) community 100 m of platform shortly after
drilling
• recovery in 4 months
North Sea 57.5 mt • SBF in • 28,000 mg/kg maximum at 210
(linear sediments m
(UK OOA, as paraffin) • benthic • benthic fauna affected at
cited in Neff et community heavily contaminated sites
al., 2000)
North Sea 150 304 mt • SBF in • 8,400 mg/kg maximum at 25 m
(ester) sediments (after drilling)
(UK OOA, as • benthic • 1,800 mg/kg at 25 m (1 year
cited in Neff et community pd*)
al., 2000) • benthic fauna affected at
stations with high
concentrations of ester
* mt = metric tons or tonne; pd = post-discharge; bbl = baril
Doc.Ref.No.11302 10
Table 3: Representative Studies around Wells off the East Coast of Canada
Location Depth Amount Cuttings/ Variables Impacts

Site (m) Fluids discharged Studied
(Reference) Number (Fluid type)
of wells
Grand Banks ~ 90 ~ 9000 mt* cuttings • sediment • fuel range
Hibernia 18 wells ~ 1350 mt fluid chemistry hydrocarbons
(iso alkane) • sediment (~ C10-C12 range)
(JWE Ltd. bioassays similar to those in base
(Jacques Whitford • fish quality fluid at a maximum
Environmental concentration of ~ 1100
Ltd.), 2001a) mg/kg 50-100 m from
the rig site
• sediment from 250 m
produced a toxic
amphipod response
which may be rig
related
• polychaete growth
responses variable and
not causally linked to
rig
• no apparent tainting or
contamination of plaice
Grand Banks 90 634 mt • sediment • fuel range
Terra Nova 4 wells (iso alkane) quality hydrocarbons
• water quality (~ C10-C12 range)
(JWE Ltd. • fish quality similar to those in base
(Jacques Whitford • fish health fluid generally quite
Environmental low (~ 6 mg/kg or less)
Ltd.), 2001b) around periphery of
exclusion zone
• no apparent effects on
benthic fauna
• water quality
(chemistry, chlorophyll)
similar at development
and reference sites
• fuel range HC
detectable in some
scallops (may be from
particulate in gut)
• trace of HC found in
flounder rig related
• no apparent tainting of
scallop or flounder
Doc.Ref.No.11302 11
Location Depth Amount Cuttings/ Variables Impacts
Site (m) Fluids discharged Studied
(Reference) Number (Fluid type)
of wells
• fish health indicators
(histopathology, MFO
enzymes, haematology)
comparable between rig
and reference sites
Sable Island Bank 40 • hydrocarbons • HC in sediments not
Cohasset in sediments detected beyond 1000
17 wells 2,344 m3 • sediment m
(low toxicity community • no apparent impact on
Panuke mineral oil) • tainting of benthic community
6 wells - caged • tainting of mussels
(MacNeill and (water-based) mussels mostly within 500 m
Full, 2000; also 7 wells 937 m3 and while drilling
personal (low toxicity underway
communication) mineral oil) • HC returned to
background when
discharges stopped
Venture 20 - • hydrocarbons • elevated levels of HC in
- (water base and in sediments sediments, confined to
Thebaud 20 internal olefin) and water 250-500 m
- • sediment • some amphipod toxicity
North Triumph 80 toxicity at 250 m at Thebaud
- • sediment and North Triumph
(Hurley, 2000) communities • no obvious effects on
• mega fauna sediment communities
• shellfish taint outside cuttings piles or
on epifauna
• some evidence of low
level contaminant of
mussels with HC at the
Venture site
• some evidence of low
level contamination of
scallops with HC
(source unknown)
• no evidence of taint in
scallops
* mt = metric tons or tonne
Doc.Ref.No.11302 12
3
Benthic Impacts Produced by Petroleum Development
Versus Other Impacts
In Canada the Fisheries Act can prohibit or seek compensation for an undertaking leading to
the “alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”. Dumping of cuttings can disturb
benthic habitat, much in the same way as storms, dredging, fishing activities (or for instance
natural discharges of large volumes of suspended sediments by rivers) (e.g. National
Academy of Science (NAS), 1983). Thus it is of interest in the context of either
environmental risk or the Fisheries Act to compare the size of zones of impacts stemming
from petroleum activities with other marine activities. It is outside the remit of this exercise
to carry out a risk analysis of different impacts, but the comparative impacts posed by the
fishing industry is briefly discussed. The alteration and disruption of benthic habitat by
fishing trawls and dredges is well recognised (e.g. Veale et al., 2000 and references therein;
Watling et al., 2001; Wassenberg et al., 2002) and it has been reported that while the
combined major biological effects of petroleum development in the UK sector of the North
Sea (in 1989) was 106 km2 (Table 4), the Irish Sea which is 2-3 thousand km2 in area by
comparison is trawled over 2.5 times per year (GESAMP, 1993). Also, it is important to note
that some hundreds of wells contributed to the petroleum related impacts in the North Sea.
Furthermore, toxic diesel based muds which can greatly enhance benthic impacts were
commonly used in drilling during this period. Scallop dredging is known to be especially
disruptive to benthic habitat resulting in changes in abundance of epifauna as well as infaunal
species and depending on geographical region, could conceivably alter or disrupt benthic
habitat over several hundreds to thousands of km2 (e.g. Veale et al., 2000). Also with respect
to clam dredging, the National Academy of Science (1983) noted in their review of drilling
discharges, that while the drilling of a single well may lead to the deposit of 442 m3 of
cuttings altering benthic habitat, dredging for surf clams covers average swathes 1.5 m wide
and 46 cm deep, which might impact 4,300 m3 of sediment per vessel per day. It is not known
how such an extensive impact on benthic habitat would compare with for instance the
hydraulic dredging of clams on the Grand Banks or scallop dragging off the East coast.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 13
Table 4: Area of Seabed Around North Sea Drilling Sites Affected
by Oil-Based Drilling Muds (Davies et al., 1989; adapted from GESAMP, 1993)
Location/impacts Number of wells Average size/shape of zone

United Kingdom
Major biological effects* 380 single 250 m radius
Subtle biological changes 380 single 1,000 x 500 m ellipse
OBM hydrocarbons present 380 single 1,000 x 2,000 m ellipse

Norway
Major biological effects* Single 500 m radius
Minor Single 1,000 radius
Hydrocarbons present single 2,000 x 4,000 to 6,000 m

ellipse
* Toxic diesel based muds were commonly used during this development period exaggerating
impacts on sediment habitat
Doc.Ref.No.11302 14
4
Biological Monitoring Programs around Rig Sites in Relation to Generally
Recommended Procedures for the Marine Environment
Environmental quality is ultimately biological in nature and over the past number of years
there has been increasing emphasis on the use of biological techniques in monitoring
programs in order to supplement more traditional chemical approaches, which were
commonly used alone. There are a number of reasons for this shift in emphasis towards
biological monitoring. For instance, reliance on chemical analysis alone presupposes that the
contaminants of concern are known and dose-response relationships have been established for
effects on various ecosystem components. This is rarely the case for any chemical or any
species. Furthermore only representative contaminants can be measured and chemical
analyses cannot take into consideration factors of biological significance such as the
combined effects of contaminants, their degradation products and their interaction with
environmental factors. The International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
has recommended biological monitoring techniques for the marine environment under the
framework of the Olso and Paris Commissions (Table 5). The list of techniques is not unlike
those which are being used already in many “informal” as well as more formal monitoring
and assessment programs (e.g. studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the United States).
Analysis of benthic community structure or benthic community structure in combination with

sedimentary microtoxicity tests, is recognised, including by ICES, as a valuable approach for
assessing impacts on sediment habitat. Analysis of benthic community structure has also
been one of the most widely used technique for assessing sediment habitat impact around
petroleum exploration and development sites. This is the case for developments in the North
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico (Tables 1-2) and more recently in Canada (Table 3) and Australia
(Table 2). Studies indicate that any potential for significant impacts on sediment habitat
around single exploratory or development wells through use of synthetic, or water base muds
should generally be confined to within a few to 200 m of rig sites, if at all, (with impact zones
being possibly somewhat shifted away from the immediate area of rig sites in deeper waters
with fast currents). Noted in this regard is the observation that impacts associated with multi
wells can also fall within the < 200 m range. Also, benthic impacts associated with petroleum
development are indicated to be quite small in comparison with other impacts such as those
produced by fishing activities (see section Benthic Impacts Produced by Petroleum
Development Versus Other Impacts).
Considerable emphasis has been placed on studies of sediment communities around relevant
well sites and the scale of impacts are fairly well known to be quite limited or negligible.
However, there is a general lack of data on effects on fish and shellfish or other component
which may be at some risk. Since population level effects in species such as fish would be
both highly expensive to investigate and difficult to detect in the absence of major impacts,
there is increasing emphasis on use of biochemical and histopathological indicators of
chemical stress to obtain an appreciation of the degree and severity of any potentially
impending problems in the marine environment. These indicators are commonly referred to
as early warning or health effect bioindicators. Relevant indicators for monitoring effects in
Doc.Ref.No.11302 15
fish and shellfish such as induction of mixed-function oxidase (MFO) enzymes and
histopathology are noted in the list of techniques recommended by the Oslo and Paris
Commissions (Table 5).
Assessment of any potential impacts on fish and fisheries can be of considerable

socioeconomic importance for regulators and the oil and fishery industries and bioindicators
can provide a powerful tool for assessing if effects are occurring and if so, whether they might
be of such a nature as to be of regulatory or socio-economic importance. For instance,
perceptions/concerns about population level effects would have little scientific credibility in
the absence of continuing evidence for individual level effects some distance from rig sites.
Laboratory studies indicate a potential for localised effects on fish and shellfish around
petroleum development sites (e.g. Cranford et al., 2001 and references therein). Studies in the
UK sector of the North Sea have demonstrated induction of MFO enzymes in fish around
some platforms (Davies et al., 1984; Stagg et al., 1995). Histopathological lesions have also
been found in finfish (Gallaway et al., 1981; Grizzle, 1986) and shrimp (Wilson-Ormond et
al., 1994) around some production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Recognising that most of
the biological monitoring programs carried out to date in association with oil development
have primarily emphasised investigations on impacts on sediment habitat, and given the
potential for effects on fish and other pelagic organisms around rig sites, studies have recently
been carried out under the auspices of ICES around a development site in the North Sea.
These studies have confirmed a potential for effects on fish and shellfish around platforms
(ICES Workshop, 2002).
It is noted that the bioindicator studies carried out to date with fish and shellfish have been in
association with development sites and the effects observed may primarily be linked to
production waters. However, chronic effects associated with other potential contaminants
including these found in drilling fluids cannot be discounted. As for impacts on benthic
communities, any potential for impacts on fish around exploratory sites and especially these
involving single wells some distance apart would seem to be quite low. It is of interest in this
regard that Terra Nova has carried out fish health studies on a commercially importance
flatfish (American plaice) around their site in advance of development (JWE Ltd., 1998). No
differences were noted in the bioindicators studied between their predevelopment site, where
a number of wells have been drilled, and the reference site. Similar observations on
bioindicators of fish health have also been made with respect to the predevelopment site at
White Rose where a number of wells have been drilled (JWE Ltd., 2000). These field results
are consistent with observations by Payne et al. (1995) who found little evidence for health
effects in flounder chronically exposed to levels of drilling fluids (aliphatic hydrocarbon
based) similar to those commonly found beyond 200 m or so from rig sites. The laboratory
studies of Cranford et al. (1999) with scallops and Conklin et al. (1980) with shrimp also
indicate that any significant potential for localised effects should be more or less in
association with deposits from multiple, not single wells. However, in the absence of
evidence and with due regard for unknown chronic toxicity potentials, effects on fish,
shellfish or other ecosystem components could be greater than those on sediment
communities. It is also recognised that it is often important to provide assurance that effects
are not occurring in some species. This could apply for instance to commercially important
fish, “species at risk” or other high profile species.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 16
Table 5: Biological Effects Techniques for Monitoring as Recommended
by the Oslo and Paris Commissions (Stagg, 1998)
Type of Purpose Monitoring methods

monitoring
General biological • Monitor general • Early warning indicators:
effects monitoring quality status Cytochrome P-450 1A, lysosomal stability, liver
histopathology (e.g. preneoplastic changes),
reproduction in viviparous blenny
• Indicators of long-term change:

External fish diseases, benthos community
structure studies, the occurrence of liver nodules
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
• Identify known or • Bioassays:
suspected areas of Sediment, Pore water and water column
impact
• Biomarkers:
Cytochrome P-450 1A (EROD), lysosomal
stability, liver pathology/nodules in caged or
sedentary organisms
• Population/community responses:
External fish diseases, reproduction in viviparous
blenny, benthos community structure studies, liver
histopathology
Contaminant- • Effects of PAHs • PAHs in sediment, PAH metabolites in bile,
specific effects EROD in liver, DNA adducts in liver, liver
monitoring pathology
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
• Effects of Hg, Cd, Pb • Metals in sediment and liver, metallothionein in
liver, ALA-D in blood, antioxidant defenses in
liver
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
• Effects of TBT • TBT in flesh, imposex/intersex in gastropods or
shell thickening in Crassostrea
Doc.Ref.No.11302 17
5
General Approach to Biological Effects Monitoring
Around Exploratory Wells
Overall, exploratory drilling of single wells will likely result in minor or negligible impacts on
fish habitat or on the health of fish, shellfish or other ecosystem components. However, any
monitoring programs required to confirm hypotheses about potential biological impacts of
exploratory wells in different types of environment should also place emphasis on studies of
ecosystem components other than (or as well as) impacts on sediment communities which
range from slight to negligible and are relatively well known. Which organisms (fish,
shellfish etc) might be of importance for assessment would depend on the exploratory site.
Candidate indices for monitoring effects in the marine environment have been recommended
by the Oslo and Paris Commissions (Table 5). These include well known indices such as
benthic community structure, sediment bioassays, mixed function oxygenase (MFO)
enzymes, and histopathology. With respect to determination of health effects in individual
organisms, concepts such as growth and histopathology can be applied to a large variety of
animals in addition to fish. However, the nature of environmental effects monitoring,
precludes being too prescriptive since new techniques are always evolving or novel
environmental observations may be made requiring a change in approach. For instance,
specific cytochemical changes in bivalves (peroxisomal proliferation) is evolving as a novel
technique for assessing pathological effects produced by hydrocarbons and other organic
chemicals in bivalves. Similarly, depending on purpose, caged or resident organisms could be
studied. For instance, concerns about potential for effects on general environmental quality
could be addressed in part by caging selected animals near discharge sites. However, such an
approach could greatly exaggerate exposure conditions and produce highly misleading results
should the question be related to whether resident organisms such as commercial fish species
are being affected to any degree around rig sites. Any monitoring for impacts on bottom
habitat or the health of fish or other organisms in association with exploratory drilling (or
similar) should seemingly give priority to monitoring in shallow continental waters having
relatively weak current regimes instead of at deep water sites, where any impacts of drilling
fluids and cutting deposits would be greatly reduced by water depth and currents (e.g. areas
such as the Flemish Pass). Also it is of interest to note that since environmental “fingerprints”
or “zones of influence” are only important in relation to actual biological effects, ICES
Working Groups on Biological Effects commonly recommend that first priority be given to
assessing biological effects when carrying out monitoring programs. Under this approach,
extensive chemical monitoring is only justified when biological effects have been observed.
For instance, would chemical monitoring be justified at deep water sites where traces of
drilling fluids of no biological significance might be deposited in sediments at tens of
kilometers from source (similar to for instance deposition from myriad sources of sewage and
other effluents entering the marine environment).
A general approach to biological effects monitoring is described but it is important to draw

upon various stakeholder groups, regulators and scientific experts for final design and
implementation once the purpose(s) has been clearly defined. It is also important to note that
the emphasis here has been on biological effects, which is often the most difficult to deal with
from a variety of perspectives. It is also understood in this regard that there may be need for a
Doc.Ref.No.11302 18
level of chemical monitoring at representative sites with respect to providing assurance for the
quality of fish and shellfish or for instance assessing the degree of sediment contamination in
the near vicinity of rig sites over time.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 19
6
References
Bakke, T., Gray, J.S., Lichtentaler, R.G. and K.H. Palmork. 1996. Environmental surveys in
the vicinity of petroleum installations on the Norwegian shelf. Report for 1994, Rapport 96 :
15, Statens Forurensningstilsyn (SFT), Oslo, Norway.
Barlow, M.J. and P.F. Kingston. 2001. Observations on the effects of barite on the gill
tissues of the suspension feeder Cerastoderma edule and the deposit feeder Macoma balthica.
Mar. Poll. Bull., 42, 1: 71-76.
Boothe, P.N. and B.J. Presley. 1989. Trends in sediment trace concentrations around six
petroleum drilling platforms in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico ; In: F.R. Englehardt, J.P. Ray
and A.H. Gillan (Eds), Drilling Wastes, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 3-22.
Bothner, M.H., Rendings, R.R., Campbell, E.Y., Doughton, M.W., Parmenter, C.M., O'Dell,
C.H., Dilisio, G.P., Johnson, R.G., Gillison, J.R. and N. Rait. 1985. The Georges Bank
monitoring program 1985: Analysis of trace metals in bottom sediments during the third year
of monitoring. Final report submitted to the US MMS US DOI, USGS, Woods Hole, MA, 99
p.
Candler, J. E., Hoskin, S., Churan, M., Lai, C.W. and M. Freeman. 1995. Seafloor
monitoring for synthetic-based mud discharged in the Western Gulf of Mexico. SPE 29694,
51-69. In: SPE/EPA Exploration & Production Environment Conference, Houston, TX, 27-
29 March 1995. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. Richardson, TX .
Cantelmo, F.R., Tagatz, M.E. and K.R. Rao. 1979. Effect of barite on meiofauna in a flow-
through experimental system. Mar. Environ. Res., 2: 301-309.
Conklin, P.J., Doughtie, D.G. and K.R. Rao. 1980. Effects of barite and used drilling muds
on crustaceans, with particular reference to the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. In:
Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings,
Lake Buena Vista, Florida, January 21-24, 1980. API, Washington, D.C.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1988. Monitoring of drillsite A in the Gainesville area
block 707, prepared for Sohio Petroleum Company, Houston, TX, April 26, 1988, 124 p.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1989. Pre-drilling and post-drilling surveys for Pensacola
Area Block 996. Prepared for Texaco Producing Inc., 38 p. + appendices.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1998. Joint EPA/Industry sceening survey to assess the
deposition of drill cuttings and associated synthetic based mud on the seabed of the Louisiana
Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for API Health 1 Environmental Sciences Dept.,
Washington, DC. Data Report, Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., Jupiter, FL, 58 p plus
appendices.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 20
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1989.
Environmental monitoring to assess the fate of drilling fluids discharged into Alabama State
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, prepared for Offshore Operators Committee, 46 p. plus
appendices.
Cranford, P.J., Gordon, D.C., Lee, K., Armsworthy, S.L. and G.H. Tremblay. 1999. Chronic
toxicity and physical disturbance effects of water- and oil-based drilling fluids and some
major constituents on adult sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). Mar. Environ. Res., 48:
225-256.
Cranford, P.J., Lee, K., Loder, J.W., Milligan, T.G., Muschenheim, D.K. and J.F. Payne.
2001. Scientific considerations and results relevant to the review of the 1996 offshore waste
treatment guidelines. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2364.
Daan, R., Mulder, M. and P. Leeuwen. 1994. Differential sensitivity of macrozoobenthic

species to discharges of oil-contaminated drill cuttings in the North Sea. Netherland J. Sea
Res., 33, 1: 113-127.
Daan, R., Booij, K., Mulder, M. and E.M. van Weerlee. 1996. Environmental effects of a
discharge of drill cuttings contaminated with ester-based drilling muds in the North Sea.
Environ. Toxicol. Chemistry, 15: 1709-1722.
Davies, J.M., Addy, J.M., Blackman, R.A., Blanchards, J.R., Ferbrache, J.E., Moore, D.C.,
Sommerville, H.J., Whitehead, A. and T. Wilkinson. 1984. Environmental effects of the use
of oil-based drilling muds in the North Sea. Mar. Poll. Bull., 15: 363-370.
Davies, J.M., Bedborough, D.R., Blackman, R.A., Addy, J.M., Appelbee, J.F., Grognan,
W.C., Parker, J.G. and A. Whitehead. 1989. The environmental effect of oil-based mud
drilling in the North Sea. In: Drilling Wastes, F.R. Engelhart, J.P. Ray and A.H. Gillam
(eds.). Elsevier Applied Science, New York, pp. 59-89.
Det Norske Veritas. 1999. Dispersion and effects of synthetic drilling fluids on the
environment: Biological survey, long-term effect of oil and produced water, chemicals and oil
spill contingency. Prepared by Jensen, T., Palerud, R., Olsgard, F., Bakke, S.M. for the
Ministry of Oil and Energy, Report no. 99-3507, 49 p.
EG & G Environmental Consultants. 1982. A study of environmental effects of exploratory

drilling on the mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf. Final Report of the block 684 monitoring
program, prepared for Offshore Operators Committee. October 1982.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Environmental assessment of final effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous
drilling fluids in the oil and gas extraction point source category. EPA-821-B-00-014,
December 2000.
Gallaway, B.J., Martin L.R., Howard, R.L., Boland, G.S. and G.D. Dennis. 1981. Effects on
artificial reef and demersal fish and macrocrustacean communities. In: Environmental Effects
of Offshore Oil Production: the Buccanear Gas and Oilfield Study. Middleditch, BS, 1981.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 21
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Pollution). 1993. Impact of oil and related chemicals and wastes on the
marine environment. Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 50, 180 p.
Grizzle, J.M. 1986. Lesions in fishes captured near drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mar. Environ. Res., 18: 267-276.
Houghton, J.P., Britch, R.P., Miller, R.C., Runchal, A.K. and C.P. Falls. 1980. Drilling fluid
dispersion studies at the Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, COST Well. In: Symposium, Research on
Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida,
January 21-24, 1980. API, Washington, D.C.
Hurley, G.V. 2000. Nearshore and offshore environmental effects monitoring at the Sable
offshore energy project. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2311: 39-42.
ICES (International Council of the Exploration of the Sea) Workshop. 2002. Biological
Effects in Pelagic Ecosystems (BECPELAG), Copenhagen.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 1998. Terra Nova baseline
characterisation data report, prepared for Petro-Canada, 1998.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 2000. White Rose baseline
characterisation data report, prepared for Husky, 2000.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 2001a. Hibernia production phase
environmental effects monitoring program, Year 3, prepared for Hibernia Management
Development Corporation, 2001.
JWE Ltd. (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited). 2001b. Terra Nova production phase
environmental effects monitoring program report, Year 2, prepared for Petro-Canada, 2001.
Lees, D.C. and J.P. Houghton. 1980. Effects of drilling fluids on benthic communities at the
Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, COST Well. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and
Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, January 21-24, 1980. API,
Washington, D.C.
LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. 1998. Opportunistic sampling at a synthetic

drilling fluid discharge site on the continental slope of the northern Gulf of Mexico: The
Pompano Development, 10-11 July 1997 and 13-14 March 1998. Report prepared by
Gallaway, B.J., Fechhelm, R.G., Hubbard, G.F. and S.A. MacLean for BP Exploration, Inc.
Leutermann, A.J., Jones, F.V., Bettge, G.W. and C.L. Stark. 1989. New drilling fluid
additive toxicity data developed. Offshore, 49.
MacNeill, M. and S. Full. 2000. Environmental effects monitoring for the Cohasset Project.
Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2311: 36-37.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 22
Mariani, G., Sick, L. and C. Johnson. 1980. An environmental monitoring study to assess the
impact of drilling discharges in the Mid-Atlantic, III, chemical and physical alterations in the
benthic environment. Alaska, COST Well. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate
and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, January 21-24, 1980.
API, Washington, D.C.
Meek, R.P. and J.P. Ray. 1980. Induced sedimentation, accumulation and transport resulting
from exploratory drilling discharges of drilling fluids and cuttings on the Southern California
outer continental shelf. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of
Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, January 21-24, 1980. API,
Washington, D.C.
Menzie, C., Maurer, D. and W. Leathem. 1980. An environmental monitoring study to assess
the impact of drilling discharges in the mid-Atlantic, IV, the effects of drilling discharges on
the benthic community. In: Symposium, Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of
Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, January 21-24, 1980. API,
Washington, D.C.
Muschenheim, D.K. and T.G. Milligan. 1996. Flocculation and accumulation of fine drilling
waste particulates on the Scotian shelf (Canada). Mar. Poll. Bull., 32, 10: 740-745.
National Academy of Science (NAS). 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment.
Panel on Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine
Environment, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983.
Neff, J.M., Bothner, M., Maciolek, N. and J. Grassle. 1989. Impacts of Exploratory drilling
for oil and gas on the benthic environment of Georges Bank. Mar. Environ. Res., 27, 2: 77-
114 .
Neff, J.M., McKelvie, S. and R.C. Ayers. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based
drilling fluids. OCS Study, MMS 200-064, published by U.S. Dept of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, August 2000.
Northern Technical Services. 1981. Beaufort sea drilling effluent disposal study, prepared
for the Reinder Island Stratigraphyc Test Well Participants, under the direction of Sohio
Alaska Petroleum Company, 329 p.
Oliver, G.A. and S.J. Fisher. 1999. The persistence and effects of non-water-based drilling
fluids on Australia’s Northwest shelf: progress findings from three seabed surveys. APPEA J.
1999: 647-662.
Olsgard, F. and J.S. Gray. 1995. A comprehensive analysis of the effects of offshore oil and
gas exploration and production on the benthic communities of the Norwegian continental
shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 122: 277-306.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 23
Payne, J. F., Fancey, L., Hellou, J., King, M.J. and G.L. Fletcher. 1995. Aliphatic
hydrocarbons in sediments: a chronic toxicity study with winter flounder (Pleuronectes
americanus) exposed to oil well drill cuttings. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 52: 2724-2735.
Payne, J. F., Andrews, C, Whiteway, S. and K. Lee. 2001a. Definition of sediment toxicity
zones around oil development sites: Dose response relationships for the monitoring surrogates
Microtoxr and amphipods, exposed to Hibernia source cuttings containing a synthetic base oil.
Can. Manuscr. Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci., No 2577, vi + 10 p.
Payne, J. F., Fancey, L., Andrews, C, Meade, J.D., Power, F.M., Lee K., Veinott, G. and A.
Cook. 2001b. Laboratory exposures of invertebrate and vertebrate species to concentrations
of IA-35 (Petro Canada) drill mud fluid, production water, and Hibernia drill mud cuttings.
Can. Manuscr. Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci., No 2560, iv + 27 p.
Smith, J. and S.J. May. 1991. Ula wellsite 7/12-9 environmental survey 1991. Report
FSC/RC/13/91. Field Studies Council Research Centre, UK.
Stagg, R.M., McIntosh, A. and P. Mackie. 1995. Elevation of hepatic monooxygenase

activity in the dab (Limanda limanda L.) in relation to environmental contamination with
petroleum hydrocarbons in the northern North Sea. Aquat. Toxicol., 33: 245-264.
Stagg, R.M. 1998. The development of an international program for monitoring the
biological effects of contaminants in the OSPAR convention area. Mar. Environ. Res., 46, 1-
5: 307-313.
Steinhauer, M. et al. 1990 (as cited in EPA, 2000). California OCS phase II monitoring
program, Year 3, annual report, chapter 13, Program Synthesis and Recommendations.
Terrens, G.W., Gwyther, D., Keough, M.J. and R.D. Tait. 1998. Environmental assessment
of synthetic based drilling mud discharges to Bass Strait, Australia. SPE 46622, 1-14. In:
1998 SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production ; Caracas, Venezuela, 7-10 June 1998. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Inc. Richardson, TX.
U.S. Department of Interior (US DOI). 1977. Baseline monitoring studies, Mississipi,
Alabama, Florida, Outer Continental Shelf, 1975-1976, volume VI, Rig monitoring,
(assessment of the environmental impact of exploratory oil drilling), prepared by the State
University System of Florida, Institute of Oceanography. Contract 08550-CT5-30, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, D.C.
Veale, L.O., Hill, A.S., Hawkins, S.J. and A.R. Brand. 2000. Effects of long-term
disturbance by commercial scallop fishing on subtidal epifaunal assemblages and habitats.
Mar. Biol., 137: 325-337.
Watling, L., Findlay, R.H., Mayer, L.M. and D.F. Schick. 2001. Impact on scallop drag on
the sediment chemistry, microbiota and faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine
benthic community. J. Sea Res., 46: 309-324.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 24
Wassenberg, T.J., Dews, G. and S.D. Cook. 2002. The impacts of fish trawls on megabenthos
(sponges) on the Northwest shelf of Australia. Fish. Res., 58: 141-151.
Wilson-Osmond, E ;A., Ellis, M.S. and E.N. Powel. 1994. The effect of proximityto gas
producing platforms on size, stage of reproductive development and health in shrimp and
crabs. National Shellfisheries Association, Charleston, South Carolina, Abstracts, 1994
Annual Meeting, April 24-28: 306.
Zingula, R.P. 1975. Effects of drilling operations on the marine environment. In:
Conference Proceedings on Environmental Aspects of Chemical use in Well-Drilling
Operations, Houston, Texas, May 21-23, 1975.
Doc.Ref.No.11302 25
Appendix II
Review of Nova Scotia EEM Results

Table 1. Water Quality: TSS AND TPH, Sediment Chemistry: Barium, Extent of Cuttings Pile and Hydrocarbons (HC) in
Sediments, BBL
EEM Report Date Water Quality: Sediment Extent of Cuttings Pile and
BBL
(SEEMAG minutes) TSS AND TPH Chemistry: Barium Hydrocarbons (HC) in Sediments
Baseline TPH: BDL 250-m – 140-170- HC detected in 250-500-m range. 12 sites established, 250-m to 15-km. 10
(June/July 98) mg/kg; 15-km, 330- sites, barium 0.2-1.5-µg/l, 2 sites 1.5-5.6-µg
VENTURE mg/kg /l
SOUTH VENTURE TPH: BDL 86 – 340-mg/kg, at 12 sites, 250-m to 15-km. .2-.9-µ/l
the 15-km site
THEBAUD TPH: BDL 85–300-mg/kg, peak 13 sites, 250-m – 20-km concentrations
at 9–12-km. from 1.8 to 12-µ/l.
GULLY TPH: BDL 78 – 159-mg/kg None found in any of five sites
Fall 98 (Nov. 99) TSS: Elevated to 13.2-mg/L HC seen in prevailing current direction No significant variation from baseline
VENTURE at 250-m and 500-m measurements for either SPM or barium.
TPH: Did not exceed
75.2-ppm, i.e. not detected at
modeled levels of 1,000-ppm
or 10,000-ppm at 250-m.
Elevated concentrations at 1
250-m site, but at levels
predicted for 600-700-m.
sites.
SOUTH VENTURE
THEBAUD TSS: Fine particulates settle
out within 500-m of
platform. No plume visible
GULLY
April–June 99 TSS: No peak seen No difference Rig survey after storms: max height of No significant variation from baseline
(Nov. 99) TPH: Did not exceed pile approx. 3-m, with side slopes measurements for either SPM or barium.
VENTURE 75.2-ppm, i.e. not detected at declining at 45° down NE and SE
levels of 1,000-ppm or faces. Western boundary to 22-m;
10,000-ppm at 250-m. southern to 25-m; east to 70-m; north
Elevated concentrations at 2 not provided.
250-m sites, but at levels Venture model had predicted max
predicted for 600-700-m height of 3.5-m, with spread out to 1.0-
sites. mm at 400-500-m radius.
Smaller concentrations of HC in
sediments within 250-m
BBL
THEBAUD TSS: No plume visible from Barium increased at Elevated HC concentrations seen in SPM and barium well below levels
discharge point. No change 250-m on Axes 3 and prevailing current direction (east) predicted by bblt model.
up to several km from 7. Not much change
platform in Ca, Pb, Cu, Z
TPH: 1510-ppm and 560-m
found at 2 250-m sites these
levels were predicted for 400
and 600-m; model predicted
10,000-m. Samples in
direction of prevailing
current had odour detectable
in lab; small oil sample
found.
Summary No evidence of drilling muds 250-m Model predicted SPM 7-mg/L at 250–
Venture/Thebaud from platforms at Venture or Thebaud. 1000-m – not found at either Venture or
Sediments clean and grain size Thebaud. Model predicted drilling mud
consistent at 250 and 500-m. sites. fines .1-mg/L; not found – values variable,
Thebaud model had predicted max but lower, did not change significantly with
height of 1-m, with spread to 1-mm at distance from discharge point
500-600-m.
1998-1999 Program TPH: TPH and barium found TPH and barium Drill waste piles considerably smaller
Conclusion (May 00) to be only reliable indicators found to be only than modeled. Appearance and
of drilling wastes. All reliable indicators of disappearance of detectable drill waste
elevated TPH concentrations drilling wastes. All within 250 and 500-m at Venture and
found along prevailing elevated barium Thebaud demonstrates dynamic nature
currents. concentrations found of seabed in shallow water on Sable
along prevailing Island Bank.
currents.
Fall 99 (Oct. 00) Drill cutting pile at end of drilling
Venture extended out to 70-m. Drill wastes
diminishing, projected to be gone in a
year
North Triumph In deeper water than other wells; wider
spread of plume, as predicted. Plume
extends to 3-km.
Thin veneer of cuttings at 250- m.
Thebaud Back to baseline. Drill wastes diminishing, projected to
be gone in a year.
BBL
June 00 (Oct. 00) Correlates well with HC at background though some
Venture HC concentrations. evidence at 250-m to NE.
Thebaud Concentrations up Some remnant drill cuttings persisting
again to 1900-mg/L. in prevailing current direction.
Note: barium can be
problematic to
analyze. Hard to
dissolve, concen-
trations can be
underestimated.
North Triumph Plume reduced but persisting to 250-
500-m. Up to 40-mg/kg HC in grab
from top 5-cm that included fine
sediments. Drill wastes appear much
more stable, projected to take up to 3
years to disperse.
Summary Tier 1 Overall much less drill waste impact Bentonite-sized particles not detected in
Results (Apr. 01) than modeled. Much of drill waste SPM extracted from BBL water samples.
appears cohesive and clumps. Tends to Maximum concentration of barium 2 orders
stay in narrow pile within 70–100-m of of magnitude less than sub-lethal effects on
source. Cutting piles under rigs lasting scallop.
longer than predicted as SBM sticky
and holding cuttings in place.
Hydrocarbon levels consistently very
low; detectable concentrations (close to
background levels) found at 250-m and
500-m in direction of prevailing
currents at Thebaud and North Triumph
Review of 2001 Carried out storm scour surveys and Annual rather than semi-annual program.
(Nov. 01) collected samples of drill cutting piles No evidence of drill waste muds found over
for bacterial analysis. ROV surveys of past three years.
cuttings piles.
Venture Barium at Reduction in total HC (THC)
background/ contamination over time at 250-m and
500-m. Samples now at background.
BBL
Thebaud Barium elevated. Some residual THC contamination.
Cuttings pile has plasticine texture.
Cuttings do not move easily and pile
has distinct edge. Crabs live on it and
are seemingly healthy. This quality of
cutting may not have been modeled –
seems almost like artificial reef.
North Triumph Barium back to THC back to background. Cuttings
background. much more friable than at Thebaud.
July 02 (Nov. 02)
Venture At background. At background. Cuttings pile still very prominent,
although it should have disappeared
quickly. Has a plastic consistency.
Protected by mattresses. Sulphide-
reducing bacteria blanketing sediment
close to the jacket—cause unclear.
Algal growth and crabs on cuttings,
fish nearby.
Thebaud Elevated at 250-m (recent Elevated at 250-m
drilling activity) (recent drilling
activity)
North Triumph Elevated at 250-m
Source: CEF (2003).
Table 2. Sediment Toxicity, Mussel Body Burden and Taint, Other substances/issues.
EEM Report Date

and Locations Sediment Toxicity Mussel Body Burden and Taint Other substances/issues
(SEEMAG minutes)
Baseline Echinoid fertilization – looking for failure
(June/July 98) due to natural processes. Failures at 20-km
VENTURE reference site. No sulphides, ammonia .5-
mg/L.
SOUTH VENTURE Failures at 2 stations, 250-m and 3-km.
MicrotoxTM reduction at 250-m.
THEBAUD Failures at 2 stations, 250-m (ammonia .06-
mg/L) and 20-km (ammonia .11-mg/L).
MicrotoxTM reduction at 250-m.
GULLY Failures at 2 stations northeast of Venture.
Fall 98 (Nov. 99) No MicrotoxTM effects. No amphipod Only 3 of 7 complete sets retrieved from
VENTURE toxicity. Toxic effect on echinoid fertilization 500-m, 4-km, and 30-km. – gear loss due to
at one 500-m site. shipping and seismic.
Taste and smell showed sig. diff. in odour at
4-km, body burden with C23 and on long
hydrocarbons. Different phytoplankton at that
site. Comparison with store-bought showed
no sig. diff. in sensory evaluation. Baseline
bulge at 500-m in OBM region (C17-C20;
mussels healthy and feeding. Hydrocarbon
concentrations in mussel tissues not solely
due to discharges.
SOUTH VENTURE
THEBAUD No MicrotoxTM effects. No amphipod

toxicity. No echinoid fertilization toxicity.
EEM Report Date
(SEEMAG minutes)
GULLY
April - June 99 No MicrotoxTM effects. Seven partial sets retrieved at 500-m, 1-km,
(Nov. 99) No echinoid fertilization toxicity. 2-km, 4-km, 10-km, 13-km, 30-km. Small
VENTURE Amphipod toxicity at 2 250-m sites, also at amounts in source, control and 13 samples.
500, matched to SBM. Highest concentration overall and from OBM
(3.04-mg/L) from top of 500-m site. Samples
from 1 and 2-km (top), 4-km (top and bottom
and 10-km (top) showed moderate amounts
of hydrocarbons, with small base mud oil
envelop 1.98-2.12-mg/L – greater than
tainting levels predicted for scallop (2-mg/L)
and mussels (1-mg/L). No differences in
flavour and odour from control samples, and
concentrations not toxic to animals, which
were feeding and healthy.
THEBAUD No MicrotoxTM effects. No amphipod
toxicity. No echinoid fertilization toxicity.
Summary Model predicted pronounced toxicity within Hydrocarbons predicted to extend 10-15-km.
Venture/Thebaud 150–300-m, but not apparent from 250-m. Found at all sites, including control. Highest
(Nov. 99) Venture or Thebaud data. Need to verify concentrations of base mud oil at 500-m
persistence and cause of toxicity at V500-3. (3.04-mg/L), 4-km (1.98-mg/L), 10-km
(1.34-mg/L). High peaks of pristance
indicated mussels healthy and feeding.
1998-1999 Program All amphipod mortality toxicity effects found Hydrocarbons detected in tissues out to 10- Sound spectra do not appear to influence
Conclusion (May 00) along prevailing currents as established in the km, but appear not to be causing taint. marine mammals’ presence or behaviour.
sampling design. Likely no large scale bird fatalities in vicinity
of platforms. None of oiled seabirds found on
Sable had hydrocarbons traceable to SOEP.
Oct.-Nov. 99 no effects on air quality on
Sable Island during one-month monitoring
period
EIS models considerably overestimated
impacts from drilling waste discharges.
Effects observed validate conclusions that
SOEP unlikely to cause sig. adverse env.
effects. Impacts far less than anticipated.
EEM Report Date
(SEEMAG minutes)
Fall 99 (Oct. 00) No hits with either MicrotoxTM or amphipods. Detected at 500-m. Nov. 99 – Feb. 00.
Venture Change in flavour, apparently not biogenic;
occurred during discharge of SBM and
produced water.
North Triumph Detected at up to 1000-m. Appeared to be
biogenic source as sweet taste.
Thebaud Toxicity at 250 m. Detected at up to 1000-m. Appeared to be
biogenic source as sweet taste.
June 00 (Oct. 00)
Venture
Thebaud
North Triumph
Summary Tier 1 No toxicity found in survey array close to No tainting found in survey array close to No effect on epifauna and infauna
Results (Apr. 01) platforms (40 – 150 m). platforms (40 – 150 m). Positive odour and communities at any survey stations. Lots of
taste results found to have been caused by juvenile groundfish, mussels and crab around
biogenic HC from phytoplankton. platforms. Large epibenthics colonizing
exposed portions of pipeline (anemones,
urchins, etc.) Snow crabs on and along sides
of pipeline and in high densities around North
Triumph. Thebaud protective mattresses had
many sea cucumbers. No effects seen on
marine mammals within acoustic range. No
large-scale bird fatalities from flares, no oiled
seabirds on Sable with HC attributable to Tier
1.
Review of 2001 Moved to annual toxicity analysis. Echinoid Mussel moorings taken out as being run over Crab traps set a North Triumph. Established
(Nov. 01) not successful. Now using amphipods only— by vessels. Only one reinstalled, at 1000-m radial survey array for Venture, Thebaud,
better indicators of solid phase from Venture. North Triumph and a remote reference site.
contamination.
Venture No amphipod mortality observed. Limited benthic diversity.
Thebaud Some amphipod mortality along prevailing Previous odours/tastes in mussels determined Some variability in benthic diversity.
current direction. to be due to phytoplankton. Some HC
detected in flesh but no sensory taint
detected. No HC contamination in crabs, nor
taint. Data consistently show taste
differentiation at 2250-m, but not much at
500-m and none at 1000-m. Taste and odour
do not seem to relate to body burden.
EEM Report Date
(SEEMAG minutes)
North Triumph Some variability in benthic diversity. (Note
on both: difficult to measure benthic
diversity, thus hard to evaluate spatial and
temporal changes. Annual sampling does not
allow definition of spatial change.)
July 02 (Nov. 02) Now limited to amphipod toxicity with Program reduced to scraping mussels off No significant effects on benthos at Venture,
ammonia and sulphide used to establish cause platform legs and sampling at 1000-m mussel Thebaud or North Triumph beyond cuttings
and effect. mooring off Venture. None at Thebaud. piles.
Sentinel species being introduced, e.g., snow
crab; Jonah crab around Venture and
Thebaud also possibility.
Venture April: HC presence in mussels similar to Leg mussels of crab showed Nova Plus Drill
October 01; strong biogenic HC signature. Mud profiles.
July: mussels had high levels of interfering
material. Hepatopancreas showed traces of
Nova Plus Drill Mud.
Aliphatic hydrocarbon detected, but no
tainting.
Thebaud Amphipod mortality found at 250 and 500-m. Mussels showed lower level peaks in C12
and C17 ranges of same material as Venture.
Aliphatic hydrocarbon detected, but no
tainting.
Source: CEF (2003).
Appendix III
Results of Consultations
Appendix III - Results of Consultations
East Coast Issues

Issue Scoping
A series of informal interviews and meetings were held in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia with a variety
of regulators and other interested parties. Formal questionnaires were not used and participants were
advised that their responses would not be directly attributable to them in the final report. The Study
Team decided that this informal approach was the one most likely to gain timely and candid input from
the interviewees.
The meetings and interviews served as a type of issue scoping that provided information on the
following main questions.
• Is EEM required for drilling a single exploratory well off the East Coast? If so, under
what conditions? If not, under what rationale for exclusion?
• What are the key variables/issues?
• Any study design suggestions?
The results of the interviews were quite different for Newfoundland versus Nova Scotia and thus the
results are presented separately below.
Results of Newfoundland Consultations

Meetings or interviews were conducted with representatives of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board, Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (both Science and Management Branches), Environment
Canada (Environmental Protection Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service), the Natural History Society,
Food, Fish and Allied Workers (FFAW), Fishery Products International, Fisheries Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador (FANL), One Oceans, Oil and Gas Industry (Husky, Petro-Canada,
Hibernia).
The discussions can be condensed into about 29 issues, albeit with some degree of overlap. Issues were
provided a numerical ‘score’ (score simply means the number of times they were discussed in the
various conversations and the general importance that respondents appeared to place on them). The list
of issues more or less in order of perceived importance includes the following.
1. Production EEM designs (e.g., SQT, FHI, etc.) considered good

2. Consider local conditions (depth, currents, etc.)
3. Continue opportunistic bird, mammal and turtle surveys from supply boats
4. Maintain a flexible approach
5. Allow public access to EEM data within a reasonable period of time
6. Consider critical habitats
7. Consider drilling scenario (e.g., rig, mud types, etc.)
1
8. ‘Piggyback’ EEM on existing required efforts such as pre- and post-drilling well
site surveys (e.g., geophysical, geochemical, ROV surveys, etc.)
9. Relevance of water quality monitoring
10. Size of cuttings pile/disturbed area
11. Test model predictions of mud/cuttings dispersion
12. Consider degree of risk of effects in EEM design
13. Conduct research studies to address recurring perceptions/issues
14. Practicality/cost considerations (e.g., time constraints, baseline, etc.)
15. Benthic communities
16. Monitor barite signature
17. Monitor redox potential
18. Monitor for ‘comfort’ if nothing else
19. Scale down production EEM for exploratory
20. Baseline data required
21. Liability issues of not monitoring
22. Incorporate any special public concerns
23. Deepwater corals
24. Birds on structures
25. Qualifications of observers/monitors
26. Consider effects of other industrial activities (e.g., fishing, transportation, etc.)
27. Cumulative effects of many exploratory wells
28. Monitor habitat compensation projects as well
29. More policy discussion of exploratory EEM
The above order of issues should not be taken totally at face value because some issues at the bottom of
the list (e.g., Issue 23 corals) may be related to those near the top (e.g., Issue 6 critical habitats).
Nonetheless, it is clear that the following issues were important discussion points at every meeting,
namely:
− For the most part, everyone appeared satisfied that the present EEM programs were
well designed and were providing useful information on the effects of the producing
developments at Hibernia and Terra Nova. Many people felt that if EEM were going
to be conducted for exploratory drilling then the production EEM program designs
were good starting points.
− Local environmental conditions, particularly water depth and currents, must be

considered in any offshore EEM program. Note also that corals may be an issue in
certain deepwater areas but not shallow areas.
− The opportunistic bird and mammal surveys presently being conducted from supply
boats at Hibernia and Terra Nova were viewed favourably by most interviewees
although it was agreed that they are not, strictly speaking, EEM but rather general
survey data. It was, however, pointed out that the data are of limited use unless they
are publicly available and analyzed and interpreted into useful reports. Birds on
structures has been a recurring issue in public meetings in Newfoundland but it
appears that the ESRF and others may be addressing these questions and thus they
have been de-emphasized.
2
− Most people suggested that the design be flexible to account for unforeseen events.
Flexibility may be a very important issue in the case of exploratory programs which
have much less lead-time than production programs.
− Virtually every non-industry person stated that the EEM data should be available to
the academic community, industry researchers, EA practitioners, and the general
public much sooner than the now regulated under the Atlantic Accord five-year
confidentiality period.
− Any critical habitats should be identified during the EA process and avoided. If they
cannot be avoided, then the EEM program should be enhanced as appropriate.
− Various drilling scenarios need to be considered in the design. For example, while
different rig types have generally similar discharges their depth of discharge may
vary. Also, ‘jack-up’ and semi-submersible rigs emit less noise than drill ships. The
type of drill mud (water-based vs. synthetic) used may affect the distribution of
potential contaminants and hence should influence the sampling design.
Several excellent points were made during the meetings such as the suggestion to ‘piggyback’ EEM on
existing well site programs (Issue 8 above which also ties in not only with Issue 14 cost and practicality
but also Issue 4 flexible approach, 10 size of disturbed area, 11 test modeling, and 21 liability). The
suggestion to monitor the effects of habitat compensation programs is also an interesting one, albeit
mostly related to developments where DFO determines a situation of habitat alteration, disruption or
destruction (HADD) and then requires a habitat compensation program, which in itself may create
environmental impacts. To date, DFO has not required compensation for exploratory wells.
The suggestion that cumulative effects be considered under the auspices of exploratory EEM is also one
that warrants discussion as one well may have little or no effect but a large number of them might,
depending upon timing, local conditions, and other factors.
Most issues, discussions and suggestions in regard to a study design for exploratory EEM were general
in nature as opposed to specific scientific recommendations. An exception was one DFO scientist who
suggested that the most useful variables to measure would be barite and perhaps redox potential. Barite
was suggested not because of its potential to cause effects but rather because it provides a specific
signature for drilling activity.
The FFAW (Reg Anstey, pers. comm.) made the point that it is difficult for them to properly provide
input to the scientific design of EEM. Their main areas of concern center around potential
contamination and loss of fishing grounds but the FFAW feels that they cannot be more specific because
they do not have the necessary resources. [Note that this concern was also expressed during the White
Rose Commission Hearings.]
Results of Nova Scotia Consultations

Interviews were conducted with representatives from five sectors concerned with offshore oil and gas
activities: regulatory, science (both university and government), fishing industry, NGOs, and the
3
offshore oil and gas (OOG) industry. The potential list of interviewees was reviewed and approved by
the Scientific Authority for the study; their names are appended. Interviewees were assured of
confidentiality to encourage frank discussion. This report synthesizes their responses.
Should EEM be Part of Exploration Drilling?
Most interviewees agreed that EEM programs should be a routine part of offshore drilling, whether for
exploration or production. However, there were sharp difference among them regarding the reasons for
monitoring, conceptual design, funding, and program implementation and interpretation. These
differences were not merely between sectors, but also between individuals and organizations within the
different sectors. Some interviewees feared that exploration wells could have serious environmental
effects, particularly when considering cumulative impacts. Others thought that the wells had little or no
effect, especially in the long term, especially when located in habitats with few or no sensitive features.
The C-NSOPB would like to see a class screening approach to exploration drilling, rather than a
comprehensive study required for every well, and good EEM data are required to satisfy CEAA that this
would be an acceptable approach.
On the one extreme, some respondents felt that EEM requirements should be the same for exploration
wells as for development platforms. Others urged that EEM for exploration projects should be limited to
satisfying minimum CEAA requirements; some felt representative sites should be used to predict effects,
rather than monitoring programs at each well. Others felt there was no right answer, and that each well
had to be considered on a case-by-case, site-specific basis, using a risk-based approach that took into
account the surrounding environment. Others felt that an individual well likely had no impacts in and of
itself, but that the cumulative effects of development on the Shelf as a whole needed to be established.
One scientist summed up his view as: “You need to do it until you’ve proven that it doesn’t need to be
done." This opinion was somewhat mirrored by the offshore industry representative who said "We need
to do more so that we can document these don't have any effects!" Another noted that if EEM could
establish that exploration wells had few if any effects, that it might be possible to persuade CEAA to
remove exploratory drilling from the comprehensive studies list.
Focus of EEM
Most, but not all, agreed that environmental concerns are lower for exploration drilling than for
production platforms. Those who held this view agreed that conceptually, EEM has to focus on looking
for real consequences. Projects need to be species and site-specific, ideally monitoring a different
trophic levels.
Most respondents agreed that a major function of EEM was to test predictions made in an EA; many of
these also stressed the need to verify modeling predictions. A few, however, thought it should go
beyond, and comprehensively survey outputs and effects, even if these were permissible under the
OWTG or had not been judged to be of concern in the EA.
Some respondents urged a decision tree approach to designing monitoring programs, keeping options
flexible to reflect local conditions. Several felt strongly that efforts had to be geared toward the scale of
activities, with less detail expected for exploration wells than for development platforms.
4
One regulator noted that a key question is "What's acceptable? How do you define acceptable limits?"
He went on to say that DFO and the OOG industry should be cooperating on any offshore research
programs, with industry doing routine work, and DFO responsible for high-tech bioassays.
Currently, there is no formal C-NSOPB requirement for EEM, and no absolute commitment from
industry that it will be carried out.
Reference Sites Versus Every Well
A number of government, industry, and academic respondents thought there was considerable merit in
the idea of implementing full EEM programs at several sites on the Scotian Shelf and Slope that
represented common habitat types; other wells in similar habitats would then rely primarily on the
representative site results. ESRF might be approached to assist with funding for these, to lessen the
burden on the companies that had the more rigourous programs. Clearly, such a study would be entirely
opportunistic, relying on the coincidence of wells being sited in representative habitat areas. Ideally,
wells would be using different drilling fluids.
Related to this was the strong suggestion that at least one well site away from the CoPan and SOE
projects be chosen and thoroughly studied; there are too many confounding variables near the existing
production sites. Those suggesting this approach felt that this could avoid a full representative program
for other sites up on the Shelf, if it could be documented that the well was essentially benign.
However, others from the same sectors felt strongly that monitoring had to be entirely site-specific, and
full programs were needed for each project. Others were willing to consider the concept, possibly with
regard to classes of effects or habitats; e.g., designing varying levels of EEM based on the use of
different drilling fluids or the proximity of sensitive biota.
What are the Primary Environmental Issues? What Should be Monitored?
The OOG industry respondents, and some scientists, generally agreed that any one exploration well was
unlikely to have major effects, and the chance of long-term effects was negligible. Most believed the
transitory nature of exploration activities makes it very difficult to identify pathways and effects. One
noted "Maybe we need a study that clearly demonstrates the difference between the effects of
exploration and production!" Several respondents noted that their primary concern is the chance of a
blow-out, and making sure that adequate response plans and equipment are in place to deal with this
eventuality.
There was also a general sense among industry, and some scientific respondents, that EEM monitoring
for exploratory wells had to focus on documenting the suspected lack of impacts. Most had a standard
list of potential VECs/causes that they felt needed investigation, though details varied, reflecting
professional interests. These are discussed below in more detail.
Benthic effects were generally seen as most important, although other issues commonly raised were
impacts on marine mammal, bird mortality/attraction, impacts on finfish, and air quality. Occasionally
mentioned concerns were methyl mercury accumulation, other metals, and endocrine disruptors
(apparently there have been concerns in the North Sea about phenols in produced water).
5
Most agreed that concerns about toxicity of drilling wastes were at a lower level now than in the past,
although there remain questions about the effects of synthetic muds. There is also still concern about the
bentonite and barite in WBM; toxicity is limited but there are definite growth effects from non-toxic
materials. Another issue is that of the effect of SBM/hydrocarbon residues on cuttings, which is allowed
to reach 6.9%, although SOEI was limited to 1% (and thus shipped most cuttings to shore).
Environmental Components Versus Emissions
Opinions about the monitoring of discharges, especially those permitted under the OWTG, varied
widely. Some NGO, fishing, and scientific respondents wanted everything that a rig discharged
monitored for fate and ecological effects; others thought this unnecessary. Industry, in general, was of
the opinion that monitoring had to go toward verifying EIA predictions, and document once and for all
the levels and severity of impact of exploration drilling.
One DFO scientist strongly argued that identifying impacts on organisms, and then figuring out what is
causing the impact, should be the primary focus of EEM. However, he acknowledged, documenting
cause and effect can be difficult, and sometimes impossible; sometimes all that can be done is to
investigate if there is a correlation between contaminant levels and biological impacts.
Conceptually, he said, you should start by asking (1) is there a biological effect? Is it lethal, sub-lethal,
or a question of tainting? (2), contaminant analysis should follow from this: “If you don’t see an effect
don’t go searching for a cause!”
A number of other respondents concurred that the existing focus for EEM has been, and is, on
measuring contaminant levels rather than biological effects; there is a need to develop effective
technologies to assess the latter.
Others were strongly of the opinion that "end-of-pipe" monitoring of all discharges was crucial.
Benthos and Corals
Almost all respondents identified benthic impacts as an important issue, for three main reasons: muds
and cuttings ultimately reach the benthos, there are physical disturbances from the drilling itself, and
benthic organisms are exposed directly to contaminants, whether by ingestion or surface adherence.
Issues identified were smothering, tainting, and non-lethal effects like slowed growth.
EAs should routinely include the same sort of calculations that were done for SOEP, showing the
percentage of scallop beds that lay in range of effects from the project, suggested one DFO respondent.
This would help determine the need for, and extent of, local monitoring.
Overall, respondents concurred that benthic monitoring around platforms should include, at a minimum:
− fate and extent of cuttings piles;

− the detection of barite residues and other sediment chemistry, and
− hydrocarbon levels.
6
There is currently no information on coral sensitivities, and this is a data gap that needs to be filled as
soon as possible. In situ coral samples could be taken before and after drilling; element composition in
coral skeletons can be analysed to see if they have picked up trace metals.
Birds
A few respondents expressed concern about oil emissions and flares, which could affect birds, and
strongly urged monitoring of both. Several OOG industry representative felt that the issue of whether
birds and marine mammals are actually attracted to rigs should be investigated. Continuing and
expanding the Oil and Gas Observer Program (OGOP) might be a mechanism to achieve this, one
suggested.
Fish
Fish may formerly have shown effects from toxic chemicals that were once used in drilling muds. Most
respondents concurred that impacts on fish were no longer a concern given the current use of low
toxicity muds. However, some DFO scientists still flagged this as an issue. Flounders have shown some
histopathological impacts with regard to gill damage; it is possible that this is a physical, as opposed to a
toxic, effect. American plaice showed impacts around the Hibernia wells, and DFO Newfoundland is
trawl sampling to better define the area and time; there may also have been flounder effects documented
at Terra Nova.
Several respondents from all sectors brought up the issue of supposed methyl mercury contamination
and bioaccumulation in fish around rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, and wanted this element monitored1.
Some noted that animals will be attracted to the rig while it is in place — the attraction of fish to
offshore structures is well-known — but it was felt that the short time frame negates any long term
effects.
Eggs and larvae are unlikely to be affected; some minimal impacts have been shown with haddock, but
at levels that are not a concern.
Marine Mammals and Noise
Noise was identified as a major issue by one scientist, primarily in relation to marine mammal issues.
He strongly urged monitoring of noise levels from both the rig and supply vessels, using hydrophones
dispersed around the rig at intervals until the sound diffuse to 100 dB. He noted that in deep water,
hydrophones could be spread over a variety of depths, and at least on either side of the thermocline.
Recording times could be matched to levels of activity on the rig. Others noted the need to establish both
sound levels and frequencies at different distances from the rig.
An OOG industry respondent felt that acoustic background levels should be measured if near sensitive
habitats, and then regular measurements taken during drilling. Others felt that rig-based visual
observations were adequate.
1
It should be noted that this issue was publicized by an investigative journalist for the Mobile (Alabama) Register in January,
2002. The US Minerals Management Service has stated that no evidence exists of general elevated mercury levels around
Gulf of Mexico rigs. Follow-up research is being carried out to better document this.
7
Air Emissions
One regulator identified this as a particularly important issue, noting that an air quality station will
shortly be in place at Sable Island, allowing for localized testing of air quality. Other stations could be
set up on the satellite platforms around Sable, or on buoys. It was also suggested that detailed modeling
studies could also be done to evaluate potential emissions, and that the Offshore Boards should require
that companies use the latest available technology to achieve efficient burns.
Several industry representatives also brought up air quality and flaring efficiency, suggesting that air
quality could be modelled based on knowledge of what was going into the flares. They concurred that
when the new air quality station was set up it would be much easier to track air quality, and correlate
spikes in emissions at platforms and rigs with observed differences. Some suggested that air evaluation
could be tied into other ESRF studies, particularly with regard to cumulative effects.
Sharing the Results of EEM Programs
Numerous respondents insisted that any environmental data collected from industry monitoring
programs should be shared and released to the public. Many were distressed at what one characterized as
“the Sable mess”. It was generally felt that results had to be public in order for a program to have
legitimacy, credibility, and be scientifically useful.
Some industry representatives raised concerns about confidentiality and expense, as well as how to
manage data distribution. The question was raised about non-contributing operators piggybacking on
studies funded by other companies. Most OOG respondents, however, felt that at least some level of
detail had to be made public to ensure credibility and improve overall knowledge.
Cumulative Impacts
A number of respondents raised concerns about cumulative impacts, and how to identify interactions
between projects. It was stressed that the OOG industry should not be taken in isolation, but cumulative
and regional impact analyses needed to include shipping, fishing, and research as well. It was pointed
out that shipping, in particular, was responsible for much oil contamination at sea, from discharge of
oily wastes and bilge waters.
One OOG representative strongly urged that the only area on the Shelf where cumulative impacts could
be identified is the Sable sub-basin, arguing that activity on other blocks was too sparse to derive any
meaningful results. He felt that the map of granted lease blocks was misleading in terms of the actual
likely level of effort, pointing out that some lease blocks are currently held by speculators and are
unlikely to be drilled before the leases run out, and others have been eliminated by disappointing seismic
results. He projected a maximum of five or six wells a year outside the Sable sub-basin area, spaced far
apart along the Shelf Edge and Slope.
Research Issues and Study Design
There was a basic disagreement between those focused on identifying and monitoring discharges, and
those who were concerned primarily with the biological effects of discharges. Said one scientist, “No
8
one has proven that end-of-pipe “measure everything” methods work – or are even needed. You need to
start by identifying the most sensitive part of the ecosystem – the benthos – and then measure the most
sensitive indicator species – around here, the scallop.” Another noted, "Sediment chemistry doesn’t
mean much unless you have biological effects.” The essential principle for designing any program must
be K.I.S.S., said one scientist, and several others echoed this view. However, other government and
academic scientists, as well as some fishing representatives, felt strongly that all substances or physical
effects produced by a rig should be measured and documented.
There are two basic questions, one scientist urged: (1) is there any effect?, and if the answer is yes: (2)
what does this mean in real life? Population level? Ecosystem level?
Shallow versus Deep Water Sites
Most respondents agreed that there were differences between monitoring in deep water versus shallow
water sites. Distinguishing elements in deeper water include:
− The greater dilution rate in deep water; much less material arrives on the bottom near
the well after the first few weeks;
− Organisms are much different, and overall biomass and diversity appear much lower
at deep water sites;
− There are more unknowns in deep water; e.g., there is little firm knowledge of the
effects of drill wastes on many of the organisms, like corals, and
− Because of the lower biodiversity, one can avoid having to monitor certain elements,
which would be of routine concern in shallower water.
− Some potential monitoring elements for deep-water sites include amounts and
distribution of cutting piles, and biological effects from drilling. Techniques could
include:
− Drop cameras: stills and video, to record pre-drilling benthos and changes over
time. Photo interpretation can show obvious biology activity;
− Grab samples for barium analysis will tell something about where the discharged
material is going.
Instrumentation development is a real issue for deep-water sites, as are good models for sediment
transport. Essentially, persistence and fate are unknown in the deep-water areas, as is the fate of gas
escaping at that temperature and pressure.
At shallow water sites, wastes accumulate or reach shorelines more easily, depending on oceanographic
conditions. Bottom smothering can be a more critical issue (as long as there's something on the bottom
to smother, noted several respondents, pointing out how relatively barren many of the mud-bottom
habitats on the Shelf are). As well, there are more people involved, more human interests, more
competition for marine resources.
9
EEM can shift into “comfort monitoring,” carried out to ensure that those with an interest in the other
area resources are assured that no impacts are happening.
Equipment and Methods
Soil sampling and chemical analysis, while not cheap, are probably the easiest monitoring methods to
establish changes to the seabed. However, is it the most effective at establishing actual resulting
impacts? It was strongly suggested by several respondents that the use of bivalves in cages on the
seabed, with an appropriate local indicator species, was the preferable way to identify biological effects.
No other approach has been shown to be both effective and sensitive. Cages should go down before
drilling starts and come up when done; "EEM should be kept that simple unless effects are seen,” urged
one scientist.
A good, cost-effective method to test BBLT has not yet been developed; physical sampling has to be
frequent enough to be meaningful. One respondent argued strongly that identification and assessment of
biological effects was critical instead—is there a biological effect to confirm the model predictions?
This was the basis of the Hibernia scallop project— to assess BBLT, based on saying “Here’s the effect
… and here’s how much contamination had to be there to produce it.”
Some industry representatives liked using mussels as indicator species, but other scientists disagreed.
One noted that "Mussels are too robust; they will absorb and survive anything!". He argued that since
scallops will show effects at very low levels, and are resident species almost everywhere (sea, Icelandic,
bay, etc.), that scallop is a more appropriate species to choose. Another urged "Only use mussels if
there's nothing else there!" One government scientist suggested that before, during and after benthic
grab samples to identify community effects were preferable to the use of caged bivalves not resident in
the area.
Possibly because of their feeding mechanisms, scallops are extremely sensitive to ingestion of drilling
muds; filtering slows down or stops at about 0.1 mg/L, whereas other organisms must get over 50 mg/L
before showing effects. DFO found initial problems in using scallop, as they tended to try to move in
bags and would injure themselves and each other; however, packaging them in individual mesh bags
solved this issue. Bedford Institute developed a remote release mechanism for the bottom-moored; they
now float up to the surface where they can be collected. At Hibernia, the EEM program has managed
100% cage recovery and low mortality. However, other scientists at DFO disagreed with the emphasis
on a single species.
Some fishing industry representatives urged that crabs be included in sampling as well. Other
respondents strongly urged the use of ROV and drop camera photography to evaluate before and after
benthic conditions. Several suggested going back a year later to see if a cuttings pile had persisted.
Another government scientist's primary concern was with degradation and natural recovery rates at the
lower trophic levels; he stressed that microbial activity was a key issues. He felt that chemical kinetics
was important to understand, and that studying bacteria and other micro-organisms would yield useful
information on fate and persistence of contaminants, urging analysis of rates of metabolic processes.
Much of the physical and chemical analyses could be based on laboratory work, he noted, and
10
technologies existed to monitor chemical levels, e.g., semi-permeable membranes capable of
accumulating organics.
Again, the split between the "track everything" and the "look for actual effects" opinions was evident.
Some felt that toxicity testing – e.g., the TRIAD approach – would not yield useful information about
exploratory wells. Others were adamant that it was necessary to know what contaminants were entering
the eco-system of the area, even if there were no obvious, immediate impacts.
Most agree that, at least to some degree, monitoring design has to depend on site-specific conditions and
the EIA findings. “If you’re near a coral reef, you’re going to have one set of issues. But if you’re on a
mud bottom with nothing there, and an impact zone of maybe 200 m—you’re going to have to show
there’s a real concern before you demand that large amounts of money and time go into EEM!”
Several respondents pointed out that synthetic-based muds (SBM) have different properties from water-
based muds (WBM), which may affect EEM methods. Grain size analysis is sometimes the only way to
detect WBM residues, depending on underlying sediment chemistry; barium tracers could be useful.
WBMs disperse quickly, but cuttings with SBMs on them tend to clump, flocculating into an almost
plasticine-like substance. Even those who strongly believed impacts on fish should be monitored had
difficulty suggesting concrete methods that would be successful in establishing effects. One respondent
suggested using sand lance; another, mummichog, and several pointed to the use of flounder and plaice
at Terra Nova and Hibernia. These may be useful for benthic dwellers, but do not really address impacts
on those living higher in the water column. Some felt that reviewing water quality around an exploration
rig would help identify any impacts on fish. Some suggestions for monitoring sub-lethal fish impacts
were: tissue chemistry studies, histological analysis, the use of tracers in drilling fluids, assessment of
condition before and after, analysis of population age at the site, fecundity and age size. It was noted
that no adequate baseline on metal contamination in Scotian Shelf sediments exists, and there are neither
good signatures nor ratios.
Several participants, both scientific and regulatory, raised concerns about the validity and reliability of
OGOP data. Another noted that OGOP did not provide very useful marine mammal data beyond
distribution information, as the presence or absence of marine mammals does not necessarily correlate
with impacts from rig activities.
An OOG representative felt that not enough information was being used from the spill patrol overflights
flown by Transport Canada. Currently, these only look for oil spills; why not use them to take
photographs of the mud plume extending from the rig? This could help in documenting WBM
dispersion. Or, supply helicopter flights could be diverted slightly to take similar pictures.
Testing of the assumption that birds and marine mammals are attracted to rigs could use a simple
program taking advantage of the helicopter supply runs, one respondent suggested. Each run could be
varied by direction to the rig; time of day and sea bird/ mammal counts could establish if the rigs act as
attractants.
One academic scientist strongly urged carrying out comprehensive ROV surveys and other baseline
work for every well, following protocols published by BIO's Kostylev in the Prog. Mar. Eco. Series,
before any exploratory drilling could take place. Such a study would look at which species were present,
11
the relative abundances, age distribution, sex ratio, sex phase, size and where possible health conditions.
The video surveys would highlight abundance, distribution and community associations.
Statistical Design, Sampling Patterns and the Gradient Approach
Respondents concurred that statistical validity is absolutely crucial to EEM: said one OOG industry
representative "I hate work that not's valid! Coming up with ex post facto hypotheses – ugh!".
Statistical design has to be one of the most important elements of an EEM program.
Several stressed the need for a good baseline, and a before/during/after sampling methodology. It was
suggested that revisiting sites after a year (and, if effects were detectable, after two) would be useful to
accurately determine if there were long-lasting effects.
Some scientists criticized the bulls-eye/gradient approach as too restrictive, and one noted that the Terra
Nova project has moved away from it. Another felt that bulls-eye methods were comfort monitoring, not
hard science.
One stressed replicability, saying "Do three or four or five different analyses and then decide there's no
effect, not just one stats test." For example, multi-variate analysis can show completely different results
from regression analysis. The use of ANOVA and graphical presentations of structures along the
gradient was suggested, as were ABC curves to measure common changes.
Trends in Environmental Effect Monitoring Projects

Environmental effects monitoring for oil and gas projects have been designed to examine the VECs
identified during the EIS process, while also taking into account those concerns expressed by the
community. Monitoring programs that were most successful, with accepted results, were those that had
baseline data to measure against.
Pitfalls in Designing an EEM Project

In his keynote address at the BIO workshop “Understanding the Environmental Effects of Offshore
Hydrocarbon Development”, Dr J.P. Ray raised a series of points to consider when developing an EEM
program:
• Designing the monitoring program is often the critical step in the process. The design
must be very clear about what is being tested and must be able to deliver appropriate
statistics to answer the questions.
• Modeling and lab work can be considered in a monitoring program but these should
be field verified in the end. It is often best to test the local species in situ, as they are
adapted to that specific environment. When using imported species, it is often hard to
distinguish between an affect due to industrial development and one due to change in
environmental location.
12
• For an EEM program to be successful, it should be endorsed by a number of
stakeholders. The data must also be publicized in a timely manner, preferable in peer-
reviewed journals.
Dr. Ray summed up his comment by saying
“You can conduct the best monitoring programs, but unless they are conducted in an
open manner, and bought into by all interested parties, the results will not be accepted
and used.”
Regulatory Issues: C-NSOPB and DFO

Regulators concurred that they needed scientifically defendable, statistically valid results. There may
eventually be a role for EEM with regard to stop orders or modifications of activities (e.g., zero
discharge of oiled cuttings) in specific situations. One regulator strongly suggested reviewing discharge
limitations in other jurisdictions and for other sectors, e.g., pulp and paper and mining, to see what is
permissible for comparable quantities and elements in industrial discharges into oceans. An industry
representative suggested that a regional EEM mechanism was needed, calling it a "SEEMAG for the
whole industry, with everyone contributing.” Environment Canada noted that its regulatory "hands were
tied,” and it was restricted to a review and advisory role.
The Oceans Act and DFO’s Mandate
The Oceans Act assigns DFO the lead role in the integrated planning and management of all ocean
activities. To carry out this responsibility with regard to oil and gas development on the Scotian Shelf,
staff from Oceans and Environment Branch, Science Branch, Habitat Management Division, and
Invertebrate Fisheries Division work as a team to review assessments and liaise with other agencies.
The team emphasized that EEM has to meet DFO regulatory needs, both in substantive conclusions that
allow validation of EA predictions and models, and in data supply/information exchange. The Oceans
Act looks to a multi-stakeholder, shared resource model; following this, the OOG industry must be
prepared to share environmental data. EEM programs must be collaborative, not secretive.
DFO is looking forward to the EEM workshop in May, with the hopes that new, useful material will be
developed from it.
Requiring an Ecosystem Approach
Conceptual trends in the identification of environmental effects are moving toward analysis of
biodiversity and an ecosystem approach. Baseline data collection and monitoring programs should not
only be directed to commercially-fished species, but look at the broader eco-system as well. Several
DFO scientists felt that we need to know more about the cumulative effects on the Shelf. What are the
interactions between production platforms and exploration wells? What is the overall stress on the Shelf
ecosystems? There is concern within DFO about the Sable Island gyre, and whether organisms are
getting repeatedly exposed to the outputs of all the different activities.
13
Fishing Industry Issues
Those fishing industry representatives who agreed to an interview concurred that important concerns
included:
− discharges from the rigs, both accidental and those allowed under the Waste
Treatment Guidelines;
− physical impact of the rigs on the benthos, and
− interference with fishing activities.
Industry representatives suggested continuing and expanding OGOP, placing an observer on each rig.
The suggestion was made that observers could be trained to carry out more detailed studies, e.g.,
whether a rig attracts birds at night.
What are the Socio-economic Effects? How Can Impacts of the Safety Zones on the Industry be
Identified?
One respondent discussed the difficulty of identifying which boats took catch from what areas, and how
to define an economic loss. If a fishing boat can simply move to a different area and take the same catch,
is this an impact? An OOG industry respondent suggested that fishing activity and catch rates could be
monitored by keeping in touch with area fishermen by radio while drilling proceeded.
An OOG industry representative noted that safety zones act as de facto much larger exclusion zones for
longliners, given their length of gear, its tendency to drift and shift position with the tides, and the
potential for snagging and entanglement. Longliners have to stay much further away than 500 m.
Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Issues
Technical and Financial Feasibility
OOG industry representatives were cautious about commenting on the feasibility of a detailed EEM
program for exploratory drilling. One said bluntly, however "If we're required to do it under the
regulations, we'll do it .. but anything we do adds to the costs of the well, and could put the work at risk
.. especially if measures aren't required in other areas". It was noted that the marginal cost of monitoring
while the rig was in place and operating was relatively low, but before and after studies added
considerably more cost to the program.
Experiences During Exploration Drilling
Industry representatives had found no particular environmental problems during exploration drilling.
Oiled birds have occasionally washed up on Sable Island, with residues traceable to CoPan (especially
after the Uniacke blowout) and SOEI. Industry representatives who were familiar with offshore work
noted that occasionally birds do land on the rigs, or are seen following supply vessels: "Maybe they
think they're fishing boats, and are expecting a meal." Industry representatives with offshore experience
14
have seen whales very close to operating rigs, but acknowledged that one would not observe those who
were avoiding them.
NGO Issues
Focus on Broader Concerns
One NGO respondent strongly believed that the essence of environmental concerns on the offshore
centered around the license-issuing process, and the quality – or lack thereof – of the Strategic
Environmental Assessments. He suggested that if there are concerns at areas potential well sites, that
these should be identified early on, whether based on ecological or public policy issues — he pointed to
the issuance of licenses close to the shores of Cape Breton as an example. Leases should not be let in
sensitive areas. He stressed that public concern, however, should not determine whether EEM was
required at a drill site. Rather, effective EEM should merely be an accepted part of a good management
process.
NGO respondents raised the Gully as a particular concern, suggesting that permanent monitoring sites
should be established in it to pick up sediment transport, if any. Sound monitors should also be installed
and checked on a regular basis, to establish what, if any, OOG-generated sound was reaching the prime
whale habitat areas.
One stressed: "We need a whole planning process for the oceans, and not just a process where industry
meets standards based upon their footprint. The process has to start with a plan of where it is appropriate
to have oil and gas industrial activity."
Comparisons: Newfoundland and Labrador vs. Nova Scotia

It is difficult to directly compare the issues as they are perceived in Nova Scotia versus those in
Newfoundland and Labrador for a number of reasons. The interviews and meetings were intentionally
informal and unstructured, which is good for soliciting input but also means that care must be taken in
weighting one issue over another. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiencies and local knowledge,
different people conducted the interviews in the two provinces. There are also obvious differences in
demographics between the two regions and important differences in environmental conditions and
development scenarios. [Nova Scotia to date has developed gas mostly in shallow water using ‘jack-up’
rigs whereas Newfoundland has developed oil at moderate depths using the Hibernia GBS, semi-
submersible drill rigs, and FPSO’s. However, development scenarios may be moving into deepwater in
both locations.] Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to reflect somewhat on the differences and similarities
between the two regions.
Some Differences in Perceived Issues

There were, of course, differences between respondents in their perceptions of the issues and of the best
species to monitor. These differences appeared to be much more pronounced in Nova Scotia than in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Without putting too fine a point on the differences between the different
regions, there appear to be the following differences in regard to exploratory drilling EEM.
15
− Emphasis on benthos. Both regions agreed that benthic environments are key in
monitoring the effects of offshore oil and gas because of likely contaminant
pathways, relative sedentary nature of benthos, and relative ease of sampling. Fate
and extent of cuttings piles, barite residues, and hydrocarbon levels were mentioned
by many. However, there appeared to be much more emphasis on benthic monitoring
for exploration wells in Nova Scotia. This was evident in concern for effects of barite,
the benthic boundary layer, deep sea corals, and so forth (see below).
− Emphasis on fish. In general, the Newfoundland Region appeared to place more

emphasis on fish and related issues than Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, there is, and
has been, more emphasis on shellfish. There has been considerable study on scallops
and monitoring programs have used scallops extensively; at least one project used
caged mussels extensively.
− Degree of monitoring. While there was a wide range of opinions in both areas, there
was a wider range in Nova Scotia and two clearly defined groups: (1) the ‘monitor
everything’ group, and (2) the ‘monitor select variables’ one. In Newfoundland,
individuals and groups appeared more focused and no one advocated monitoring
everything.
The generally higher interest in benthic issues in Nova Scotia is at least partly attributable to differences
in substrate, water depth, and water current regimes. In addition, the shellfish industry (excluding crab)
is significantly more important off Nova Scotia than off Newfoundland. Demographics and research
interests of individual scientists also undoubtedly played a role.
Some Similarities in Perceived Issues

− Level of concern with exploration drilling. Although there were some exceptions,
most people had a much lower level of concern for the environmental effects of a
single exploratory well than for a production development.
− Comfort monitoring. While some argued strongly for extensive statistical work,
there still was a common thread that most people wanted some level of reassurance
that a specific site was not being unduly affected. A number of people suggested
some camera drops and some grab samples might be enough to accomplish the goal
of providing a suitable level of comfort.
monitoring program is to test predictions, and in some cases modeling, that were
conducted during the EA process. A potential corollary of this attitude is the
suggestion by some that one or several wells should be selected as ‘test cases’ and
monitored possibly in aid of a Class or Generic EA approach. This would provide
rationale for including or excluding monitoring variables for future individual wells.
16
− Biological effects. With some exceptions, most felt that any monitoring programs
should focus on biological effects as opposed to simply ‘shopping’ for increases
(however slight) of potential contaminants.
− Birds and mammals. Many agreed that there were potentially important issues in
regard to marine birds and mammals. However, it was also pointed out by a number
of people that routine surveys conducted from the rig or supply boats do not
necessarily constitute any monitoring of effects per se.
− Site specifics. Local and site specific issues must be considered in the design and
conduct of any EEM. This was a virtually universal comment. There is awareness in
both locations of some potential for different issues in deep versus shallow drilling
scenarios. To date, however, the depth differences have been most apparent off Nova
Scotia where most wells have been drilled in shallow water or increasingly in
deepwater.
− Data availability. Almost everyone we talked to stated that availability of EEM data
is an important issue. At present, the Atlantic Accord allows a development to hold
the EEM data confidential for seven (?) years. In fact, availability of data became an
issue with the conduct of this study.
− Cumulative effects. While many were not particularly concerned with the effects of
one exploratory well, they suggested that a large number of single wells could be an
issue, particularly if they were within a relatively small geographic and/or time frame.
On the other hand, no one had any ready solutions to this problem.
Application of Production EEM Experience to Exploratory Drilling EEM

The offshore production EEM experience developed on the East Coast over the last 10 years or so is not
directly applicable to EEM for exploratory drilling. The production EEM programs were developed for
large multi-year projects that have more potential to affect the marine environment than a single
exploratory well, which is small scale and often dry. Big developments such as Hibernia or SOEI entail
the drilling of multiple wells, underwater excavation and infrastructure, loading and unloading of
hydrocarbon products over a long period of time, the discharge of produced water, and so forth. As a
result, the discharges, effects, and measureable ‘footprint’ will be different by orders of magnitude. One
scientist likened it to a ‘footprint’ versus a ‘fingerprint.’ Nonetheless, based on the review of
information and consultation with numerous interested and knowledgeable parties, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
− Aside from a large oil blowout (a very unlikely event according to previous EAs) and
a few other special cases, any effects from an exploratory situation are of much less
concern than a production scenario.
− In general, the production EEM programs completed to date are viewed as adequate
for confirming EA predictions and in providing a level of comfort that the East Coast
marine ecosystems have not been significantly affected to date.
17
− Baseline studies conducted by Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose can provide
valuable insights into the effects of drilling because these studies were done at
varying periods of time after drilling of a number of wells. White Rose data
(reviewed herein) may be the most relevant in this regard because they are the most
recent. Unfortunately, the baseline studies appear to have been designed without
recognition of the potential value of these data. [As a result, it may still be necessary
to conduct additional studies on new wells to adequately address some of the issues
still associated with exploratory drilling.]
− To date, the conclusions that the Study Team has seen drawn from the production
EEM studies, are that there have been no significant effects on the variables that have
been measured. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that a properly run exploration
drilling program will produce effects that will be on the low end of the scale and
difficult to measure; it will certainly not create any significant effects on the marine
environment.
− If drilling EEM was required, perhaps because of drilling with a new technology or in
a potentially sensitive area, then one or a combination of the production EEM design
(s) would provide a good starting point.
18
Appendix IV
Preliminary Survey Protocols

for
Line Object
Articles d'exécution
Line Obj Description - E Description - F Std Obj Obj.Grp Econ.Obj. (TB)
Art. exéc. Art Cour Gr.art. Obj. Écon. (CT)
0101 Regular Pay - CFT Rémunération de base - EPTP 01 01 0101
0102 Emergency Salary Advance Avance de salaire urgente 01 01 0101
0103 Ships Officers and Crew - Regular Pay Officiers et équipage de navires - Rémunération de base 01 01 0101
0104 Regular Pay - Other Traitement de base - Autres 01 01 0102
Term Ships Officers and Crew - Regular Pay Temporaire - Officiers et équipage de marine - Rémunération
0105 01 01 0102
de base
0106 Students Étudiants 01 01 0102
Students/term Employed IRB Program Étudiants/temporaires employés en vertu du programme
0107 01 01 0102
ESC
0108 Bilingual Bonus Prime au bilinguisme 01 01 0106
0109 Severance Pay Indemnité de départ 01 01 0107
0110 Training & Education Allowance (EDI) Allocation de formation et d'étude (PDA) 01 01 0107
0112 Lump Sum Payment - Salaries Paiements fortaitaires - Salaires 01 01 0101
0113 Retiring Allowance Allocation de retraite 01 01 0107
0121 Retroactive pay - Previous years Salaire rétroactif - Années antérieures 01 01 0110
0122 Retroactive Pay CFT - Current Year Salaire rétroactif EPTP - Année courante 01 01 0111
0123 Retroactive Pay Other - Current Year Salaire rétroactif Autres - Année courante 01 01 0111
0126 Performance Pay Prime de rendement/performance 01 01 0101
0127 Miscellaneous Pay Salaires divers 01 01 0101
0128 Arrears Pay Arrérages de salaire 01 01 0101
All premiums - Evg, night, wkds, holidays,shift change, Toutes primes-soir,fin de semaine,jour férié, changement
0130 01 01 0103
etc. d'horaire, etc.
0131 Holiday & Vacation Pay - Non Recovery Congés annuels et fériés - non recouv. 01 01 0104
Leave Pay - Active Employees (Ent. Code 033 only) Congés annuels et fériés, employés actifs (code paie 033)
0132 01 01 0104
LIMIT-Exec.Interchange Prog & other exchange LIMITE-Echange personnel direction & autres prog.
0133 01 01 0181
prog.($paid/rec'd) d'échange ($payé/reçu)
Leave Pay-SOS (Ent. Code 029 only) Congés annuels et fériés, employés inactif (code paie 029)
0134 01 01 0104
0140 Pay for Lay Day Indemnité de jour de relâche 01 02 0105
0141 Overtime Temps supplémentaire 01 02 0105
0146 Allowances (stand-by, call back, security duty) Indemnités (disponibilité, rappel au travail, sécurité) 01 02 0105
Commanding Officers and Chief Engineers-Extra Duty Commandant et ingénieurs chef-Indemnité pour travail hors
0147 01 02 0105
Allowance fonction
0155 Retroactive Overtime - Previous Year Temps supplémentaire rétroactif - Année antérieure 01 02 0110
0156 Retroactive Overtime - Current Year Temps supplémentaire rétroactif - Année courante 01 02 0111
0159 Civilian Pay Equity Civils, équité salariale 01 01 0112
0160 Civilian Pay Equity Allowances Civils, indemnités pour équité salariale 01 03 0122
Meteorological Allowance, Sea Duty, Diving & Dirty Work Prime pour observations météo, services en mer, plongée, et
0172 01 03 0121
Allowance etc… travail malpropre etc…
Page 1 1/7/2004
Line Object
Allowance for certain types of expenses that are incurred Allocation pour certaines dépenses qui sont entraînées par
as part of regular employment (room&board, transfer, un emploi régulier (allocations de pension, transfert,
0174 01 03 0120
parking for disabled, commuting assistance, telephone stationnement pour les handicapés, transport quotidien,
allowance, etc.) téléphone, etc.)
0176 Isolated Posts Allowance Indemnité de postes isolés 01 03 0125
0177 Maternity Allowance Indemnité de maternité 01 03 0126
0178 Education leave allowance Indemnité de congé d'étude 01 03 0126
0179 Armed boarding allowance Indemnité: abordage armé 01 03 0126
0180 Equalization Adjustment Allowance Rajustements de péréquation 01 03 0126
0181 Other Allowances and Benefits Autres Indemnités et avantages 01 03 0126
Cont. To Emp.Benef.Plan (CEBP)-Superannuation Cont.au plan prest,de l'employé (CPPE)-Fonds de pension
0187 01 04 0160
Cont. To Emp.Benef.Plan (CEBP)-PS Death Benefit Cont.au plan prest,de l'employé (CPPE)-Prestations de
0188 01 04 0162
décès
Cont. To Emp.Benef.Plan (CEBP)-Employment Insurance Cont.au plan prest,de l'employé(CPPE)-Assurance emploi
0189 01 04 0169
Cont. to Employee Benef. Plan (CEBP)-Canada & Contr. au plan prest. de l'employé (CPPE)-Pension Canada
0190 Quebec Pension & Québec 01 04 0172
0191 Awards Primes 01 01 0186

LIMIT-Taxable Benefits & Other payments (eg. LIMITE-Avantages imposables & autres versements (ex.
0192 01 04 0186
housing, parking, etc.) logement, stationnement, etc.)
Reimbursement of claims to Provincial Workers' Remboursement d'indemnités aux Commissions provinciales
0195 01 04 0184
Compensation Boards des accidents du travail
G103 Payment-OGD Employee Secondment & Transfers to Remboursement Détach.& Transferts AMG au MPO 01 01 0192
G106 Other Payments to OGD for Personnel Services Autres paiements à AMG pour les services personnels 01 04 0199
Recovery from OGDs - DFO Employee Secondment & Recouv. De AMG - Detach. et transferts Employés du MPO
G123 01 01 0193
Transfers
Page 2 1/7/2004
Line Object
0201 Travel - Local Headquarters Area including taxis Voyage - Région locale du bureau 02 05 0201
0202 Travel in Canada Voyage au Canada 02 05 0201
0204 Travel - Training Voyage - Formation 02 05 0201
0205 USA Travel Voyage aux États-Unis 02 05 0201
0208 Foreign Travel (Other than USA) Voyage à l'étranger (sauf Etats-Unis) 02 05 0201
0211 Travel: Vacation (Isolated Post) Voyage: Vacances (postes isolés) 02 05 0201
0212 Aircraft Charters - Duty Travel Only Vol nolisé: Voyages-serv. commandés seulement 02 05 0201
0214 Travel - Non-Public Servants Voyage - Autres que des fonctionnaires 02 05 0202
0215 Travel Advances - Cheque issue (Receiver general) Avances de voyage - chèques émis (Receveur général) 50 05 0201
0216 Travellers Cheques Suspense Chèques de voyage compte d'attente 50 05 7099
0217 Travel Advances - Travellers Cheques Avances de voyage - chèques de voyage 50 05 0201
0218 Travel Training paid to CCG College Voyages des employées - Formation Collège GCC 12 05 3425
0219 Travel: Medical (Isolated Post) Voyage: Maladies (postes isolés) 02 05 0201
Weekend Travel Pilot: Employee/Spouse/Dependent- Projet pilote, voyage fin de semaine-
0220 02 05 0201
CAN&US employé/conjoint/personne à charge-CAN&E.U.
Employee Relocation (Including Central Removal Réinstallation des employés (Incluant Serv.Central dém.-
0230 02 06 0207
Services-CRS) SCD)
0232 Employee Taxable Benefits-Relocation Avantages imposables employé(s)-Réinstallation 02 06 0207
0235 Relocation Advances Avances de réinstallation 50 06 5030
0245 Postage and Parcel Post Affranchissement et colis postal 02 07 0212
0246 Courier Services Agences de messageries 02 07 0213
0247 Surface - Freight and Cargo Services Surface - Fret & Cargo 02 07 0210
0249 Air - Freight & Cargo Services Air - Fret & Cargo 02 07 0210
0250 Arctic Resupply - Freight, Express and Cartage Ravitaillement de l'Arctique - Fret, messagerie et 02 07 0210
0260 Telephone Services except Long Distance Services téléphoniques (sauf interurbains) 02 08 0220
Teleconferences - Common Carriers(including GTIS & Conférences téléphoniques - Télécommunications publiques
0261 02 08 0220
OGD) (Incluant SGTI & AMG)
0262 Long Distance Services Services interurbains 02 08 0220
0267 Local & Intercity Voice Circuit - Common Carriers Circuits vocaux/locaux & interurbains - Télécom, Publiques 02 08 0220
Communication Services - Pager, Bellboy Pagette, Services de communications - Récepteur de poche Bellboy
0269 02 08 0220
Cellular Telephone, etc. Pagette, téléphone cellulaire, etc.
Other Voice Communication Services - Common Carriers -Autres services de communication vocale -
0270 02 08 0220
Including GTIS & OGD Télécommunications publiques - Incluant SGTI & AMG
0273 Data Communication Services (incl. Non-Voice) Serv. transmission de données (incl. non vocal) 02 08 0226
Data Circuits and Data Interchange - Common Carriers Circuits de données et échange des données -
0275 (incl. Local) Télécommunications publiques (incl. Locale) 02 08 0221
Telegraph Cable and Radio Messages (Telex Pulse Toll Câbles télégraphiques et dépêches radio (frais d'impulsions
0279 02 08 0221
Charges) télex ou droits)
Other Communication Circuits & Services - Common Autres circuits et services de communication -
0281 Carriers - Including GTIS (incl. Enhanced Télécommunications publiques-Incluant SGTI (incl.Services 02 08 0222
Telecommunication Services) améliorés)
0283 Digital Channel Communications Services Services communications voie numérique 02 08 0223
0284 Data Communication Service (Non Voice) Serv. transmission de données (non-vocal.) 02 08 0226
0286 Other Telecommunications Services Autres services de télécommunications 02 08 0227
G201 Travel Expenses - OGD Frais de voyage - AMG
Cancelled
/Annulé
G210 Relocation CRS (PWGSC) Réinstallation - SCD (TPSGC)
Cancelled/
Annulé
G211 Reloc. in Can.-Exp. Paid to OGD (excl. PWGSC) Frais de réinstall.au Can. payés-AMG (sauf TPSGC)
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 3 1/7/2004
Line Object
G213 CFS(PWGSC)-Overseas Traffic, and Fleet Mgmnt SCD(TPSGC)-transp. outre-mer et parc de véhicules
Cancelled/
Annulé
G220 Freight, Express, and Cartage Services - Non-Overseas Transport de Marchandises, messagerie et camionnage -
Cancelled/ non-Outre-Mer
Annulé
G230 GTIS-Reg. Service(L30,L31,L32,L33,L34,L35,P85) SGTI-Services régul.(L30,L31,L32,L33,L34,L35,P85)
Cancelled/
Annulé
G231 GTIS-Long Distance (S01,S02,S10,C01,C21) SGTI-Services interurbains(S01,S02,S10,C01,C21)
Cancelled/
Annulé
G233 Teleconferences - GTIS Conférences téléphoniques - SGTI
Cancelled/
Annulé
G234 Shared and Customized Message/Text and Data Services Services de transmission de données, de messages et de
Cancelled/ - GTIS textes partagés et personnalisés - SGTI
Annulé
G235 Other OGD Communication Services (excl. GTIS) Autres serv. communic. - AMG (sauf SGTI)
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 4 1/7/2004
Line Object
0301 Communication Research Services Services de recherche en communication 03 09 0341
0302 Public Relations Services Services de relations publiques 03 09 0352
Communications Services (speech,media,tech.writing Serv.Communications (discours, média, rédaction tech,
0303 03 09 0351
etc..) revision texte etc..)
0331 Advertising Services Services de réclame 03 10 0301
0332 Exposition Services Services d'exposition 03 10 0331
0361 Printing Services Frais de services pour la reproduction et l'impression 03 11 0321
0362 Audio Visual Services Services audio-visuel 03 11 0332
Publishing Services (Departmental reports, publications Services de publications (Rapports, publications et manuels
0363 03 11 0311
and manuals) ministériels)
G301 Communication Research Services - OGD Services de recherche en communication - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G302 Communications professional Services - OGD excl. Services prof. communications - AMG
Cancelled/ PWGSC
Annulé
G311 Advertising Services - OGD Services de réclame - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G313 Publishing (excl printing) - OGD Édition (sauf imprimerie) - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G321 Printing Services - OGD Frais de service d'administration pour la reproduction et
Cancelled/ l'impression - AMG
Annulé
Page 5 1/7/2004
Line Object
4001 Accounting and Audit Services Services de comptabilité et de vérification 04 12 0401
4002 Legal Services Services juridiques 04 12 0410
4003 Collection Agency Fees and Charges Frais de service d'agence de recouvrement 04 12 0815
Inspection Analyses Fees related to Equipment, Vessels Frais d'inspection/analyses reliés à l'équipement, aux navires
4004 04 12 0420
and Machinery et à la machinerie
Architectural Services - Vessels & Buildings (Design, Services d'architecture - Navires et bâtiments (Designs,
4005 04 12 0421
plans, construction supervision) plans, et supervision construction)
4006 MARINE-Engineering Consultants MARINE-Conseillers techniques 04 12 0423
CONSTRUCTION-Engineering Consultants (civil, CONSTRUCTION-Conseillers techniques (génie civil,
4008 04 12 0422
mechanical, electrical, structural, design, drafting) mécanique, structure, électrique, dessins)
4009 INFRASTRUCTURE-Engineering Consultants INFRASTRUCTURES-Conseillers techniques 04 12 0423
4010 MARINE-Engineering Services excluding Consultants MARINE-Services techniques excluant les experts-conseils 04 12 0420
4011 Medical Expenses - Physicians and Surgeons Frais médicaux - Médecins et chirurgiens 04 12 0453
4012 Medical Expenses - Para-medical Personnel (Nurses, Frais médicaux - Personnel para-médical (infirmiéres,etc.) 04 12 0454
etc )
Medical Expenses - Other (X-Rays, Optical, Counselling , Frais médicaux - Autres (rayons-X, matériel optique,
4013 04 12 0451
etc) counselling, etc)
4015 Environmental Consultants Service de consultants en environnement 04 12 0499
INFRASTRUCTURE-Engineering Services excluding INFRASTRUCTURES-Services techniques excluant les
4016 04 12 0420
Consultants experts-conseils
Science,Habitat,Environmental-Engineering Science,Habitat,Environnement-Services techniques
4017 04 12 0420
Serv.(excl.Consultants) (excl.experts-conseils)
Science,Habitat,Environmental-Engineering Consultants Science,Habitat,Environnement-Conseillers techniques
4018 04 12 0423
4101 Laboratory and Sampling Services Services laboratoire & analyses des échantillons 04 13 0430
Oceanography, Aquaculture and Fisheries Research- Océanographie, aquaculture et recherches sur les pêches-
4103 Scientific Services (excl.consultants) Services scientifiques (excl. experts-conseils) 04 13 0430
Environmental Science, Ocean Programs and Habitat Science de l'environnement, programmes des océans et
4104 Mgmt-Scientific Services (excl. consultants) gestion de l'habitat-Services scientifiques (excl. experts- 04 13 0430
conseils)
Scientific Consultants-Environmental Science, Ocean Experts-conseils scientifiques-Sciences de l'environnement,
4105 Programs and Habitat Mgmt programmes des Océans et gestion de l'habitat 04 13 0431
4106 Trade Marks, Patents & Copyright Marques déposées, brevets et droit d'auteur 04 13 0499
Scientific Consultants-Oceanography, Aquaculture and Experts-conseils scientifiques-Océanographie, aquaculture
4107 04 13 0431
Fisheries Research et recherches sur la pêche
4111 Hydrography -Scientific Services (excl.consultants) Hydrographie-Services scientifiques (excl. experts-conseils) 04 13 0430
4112 Scientific Consultants-Hydrography Experts-conseils scientifiques-Hydrographie 04 13 0431
Reimbursement of Tuition Fees to Employees on their Remboursement des frais scolaires aux fonctionnaires dans
4201 own time - Personal Development, i.e. CMA, CGA, CA leur temps libre - Croissance personnel, c.-à-d. CMA, CGA, 04 14 0445
etc. C.A. etc.
4202 Advances for Tuition Fees and Books Avances pour frais scolaires et livres 04 14 0445
Post-Secondary Tuition Fees and Books (working hours) Frais de scolarité et livres, études post-sceondaire (heures
4203 04 14 0447
de travail)
4204 Language Training Formation linguistique 04 14 0447
4205 Training Courses - Seminars and Conferences Cours de formation - Séminaires et conférences 04 14 0447
4206 Purchase of Training Packages and Courses Achats de programme de formation et de cours 04 14 0448
4207 Teachers and Instructors on Contract Professeurs et instructeurs à contrat 04 14 0444
4208 Training - Non Public Servants Enseignement - non fonctionnaires 04 14 0440
Work performed by Carpenter and/or Mechanic Service Travail accompli par atelier menuiserie et/ou mécanique
4302 04 15 0859
Shops (CCG) (CCG)
Protection Services (Guardians, Corps of Services de sécurité (gardiens, Corps des
4402 04 16 0460
Commissionaires,security guards etc…) Commissionnaires, gardes de sécurité, etc.)
4403 Management Consulting Services Services de conseillers en gestion 04 16 0491
LIMIT-Research Contracts excluding scientific and LIMITE-Contrats de recherche excluant scientifique et
4404 04 16 0492
engineering génie
Page 6 1/7/2004
Line Object
4405 Honorariums: Advisory Boards & Commissions Honoraires: Offices & commissions consultatifs 04 16 0499
4406 Economic Consultant or Advisory Services Services de consultation en économie 04 16 0499
4407 Design and Drafting Services Services de design et de dessin technique 04 16 0499
4408 Brokerage Fees Frais de courtage 04 16 0499
4409 Translation Traduction 04 16 0494
4410 Interpretation Services Services d'interprétation 04 16 0493
Writing Services & Library Services Services de Rédaction & services reliés aux bibliothéques
4411 04 16 0859
4412 Custom Import Duties Droits de douane à l'importation 12 16 3441
4418 Motor Vehicle Registration and Inspection Enregistrement pour véhicule à moteur et inspection 04 16 0854
4419 Banking Services Services bancaires 04 16 0851
4420 Building Cleaning Services Service d'entretien des immeubles 04 16 0811
4421 Temporary Help Services Services temporaires 04 16 0813
4422 Non-professional personal service contracts Contrats de services personnels non professionnels 04 16 0819
4423 Hospitality Frais de réception 04 16 0822
4424 Conference Fees Cotisations de conférences 04 16 0823
4425 Membership Fees Cotisations d'adhésion 04 16 0821
Building/Land Services (Electrical, Plumbing, Services aux édifices/terrains (incl. Électricité, plombereie,
4446 04 16 0859
Landscaping, Fit-up etc.) aménagement paysager, améliorations etc.)
4447 Contracted Bldg. for Hatchery Oper. (Labour) Entretien édifice - act. piscicoles(main-d'oeuvre) 04 16 0859
4449 Environmental - Toxic Cleaning-up Nettoyage toxique, environnemental 04 16 0859
4450 Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Related Services Blanchissage, nettoyage à sec et services connexes 04 16 0859
Snow Removal, Light Servicing & Sanitation Services Enlévement de la neige, entretien des feux et services
4451 04 16 0859
sanitaires
4461 Dockage, Towage, Wharfage and Moving Fees Frais de bassin, remorquage, quayage des navires 04 16 0859
4463 Diving Services Services de plongée sous-marine 04 16 0859
4464 Buoy Servicing by Private-Sector Contract (CCG) Entretien des bouées, contrat par le secteur privé 04 16 0859
4471 Harbour Authorities Management Services Gestion des Hâvres de pêche par les autorités 04 16 0859
4472 Harbour Manager's Commissions Commissions des responsables de ports 04 16 0859
4473 Observers of Canadian and Foreign Fishers Surveillants des pêcheurs canadiens et étrangers 04 16 0859
4474 Community Dev.: Public Participation Programs Dévelop. communautaire: prog. particip. du public 04 16 0859
4476 Photography Service Services de photographie 04 16 0859
4477 Assessors and Appraisers Services - Private Sector Services d'expertises et estimations - Secteur privé 04 16 0859
4478 Rewards-Fish Tag & Bounties-Harbour Seals Récompenses étiqu.poisson et primes phoque commun 04 16 0859
Storage & Warehousing (excl. Space Rental Contracts) Frais d'entreposage (sauf locat. d'espace-contrat)
4479 04 16 0859
Marine-Related Services not elsewhere specified (CCG) Services relatifs à la marine - non précisés ailleurs
4480 04 16 0859
4483 Ice Reconnaissance - Environment Canada Reconnaissance des glaces - Environnement Canada 04 15 0859
Helicopter Operation and Maintenance provided by Services de F et E- Hélicoptère fournis par Transports
4484 04 15 0859
Transport Canada Canada
4485 Real Estate and Legal Fees - PWGSC Revolving Fund Frais de courtage immobilier et juridique - TPSGC 04 16 0852
4486 Management Fees - PWGSC Frais de gestion - TPSGC 04 16 0852
4487 Acquisition Fee - PWGSC Frais d'acquisition - TPSGC 04 16 0855
4801 Informatics Services - Telecommun. Consultants Serv d'informatique Exp.conseils-télécommunication 04 17 0471
Consultant Services - Computer Management, Conseillers techniques - Gestion systéms informatiques,
4802 04 17 0472
Development and Programming développement et programmation
4806 Electronic/Automated Office Systems Consultants Conseillers en bureautique 04 17 0472
4807 EDP and Computer Services Accés à la banque d'information d'ordinateur 04 17 0812
G401 Accounting & Audit Services - OGD Serv. comptabilité & vérification - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G402 Legal Services - Department of Justice Services juridiques du Ministère de la Justice
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 7 1/7/2004
Line Object
G403 Architectural and Engineering Services - PWGSC Services architecturaux et d'ingénierie - Fonds renouvelables
Cancelled/ Revolving Fund de TPSGC
Annulé
G405 Engineering Consultants - OGD Ingénieurs Conseils - Paiements - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G406 Medical and Employee Assistance - Health Canada Frais médicaux et aides aux employés - Santé Canada
Cancelled/
Annulé
G407 Other Professional Services Not Elsewhere Specified - Autres Services professionnels non précises ailleurs -
Cancelled/ OGD AMG
Annulé
G411 Post-Doctorate Fellowships - OGD Bourses post-doctorales - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G412 Scientific Services and Research - OGD Services scientifiques et de recherche - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G422 Training Packages & courses - PSC Progr. de formation & cours-CFP non linguistique
Cancelled/
Annulé
G423 Training (excl. PSC ) & Conference Registration Fees - Formation (excl. CFP) et frais de conférence AMG
Cancelled/ OGD
Annulé
G434 Ice Reconnaissance - Environment Canada Reconnaissance des glaces - Environnement Canada
Cancelled/
Annulé
G435 Helicopter Operation and Maintenance provided by Services de F et E- Hélicoptère fournis par Transports
Cancelled/ Transport Canada Canada
Annulé
G441 Real Estate and Legal Fees - PWGSC Revolving Fund Frais de courtage immobilier et juridique - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G442 Protection Services - OGD Services de sécurité - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G443 Management Consulting Services provided by Other Service de consultation pour les gestionnaires provenant
Cancelled/ Goverment Departments d'autres ministères
Annulé
G444 Management Fees - PWGSC Frais de gestion - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G447 PWGSC - Architectural & Engineering Services TPSGC - Services d'architecture et de genié
Cancelled/
Annulé
G449 Translation and Interpretation Services OGD Traduction et interprétation - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G451 Building Service - PWGSC Service de bâtiment - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G452 Acquisition Fee - PWGSC Frais d'acquisition - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 8 1/7/2004
Line Object
G454 Marine-Related Services - OGD Services relatifs à la marine - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G455 Ship Inspection - OGD Inspection des navires - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G461 Other Services OGD Autres services - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G462 Professional and Technical Services - PWGSC Revolving Services professionnels et techniques - TPSGC
Cancelled/ Fund
Annulé
G481 Computer Consultants - OGD Experts-conseils en traitement des données-AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G482 Computer Services - OGD Services d'informatiques - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 9 1/7/2004
Line Object
0501 Rental of Vacant, Unimproved Land Location de terrains vacants 05 18 0501
0502 Rental of Residential Buildings - Including PWGSC Location de maisons - Incluant TPSGC 05 18 0510
0503 Rental of Office Buildings Location de bâtiments à bureaux 05 18 0511
0504 Rental of Industrial and Commercial Buildings Location des bâtiments industriels et commerciaux 05 18 0512
0505 Rentals of Other Buildings Location de bâtiments - autres 05 18 0514
0520 Ship Charters Nolisement de navires 05 19 0566
0525 Automobile Rental Location de véhicules automobiles 05 19 0540
Aircraft Rental (including charter for Aerial Ice Surveys but Affrètement d'aéronefs (y compris l'affrètement pour des
0526 not charter for supply) relevés aériens des glaces mais non l'affrètement pour le 05 19 0561
ravitaillement)
0550 Rental of Telephone Equipment & Systems Location de matériel & systèmes téléphoniques 05 20 0520
Rental of Data Communications Equipment and Digital Location matériel transmisson de données et de
0551 05 20 0521
Communication Equipment) communications numériques
Rental of Image/Video Communication Equipment Location de matériel de transmission d'images et de
0552 05 20 0522
communications vidéo
0554 Rental of Computer Software Location de logiciels 05 20 0524
0555 Rental of Computer Equipment Location de matériel informatique 05 20 0525
0556 Rental of Photocopiers Location des photocopieuses 05 20 0533
0557 Rental of Other Office Equipment Location d'autre matériel-bureau 05 20 0533
Rental of Office Furn./Fixtures, Audio-Visual, Video, Loc.machinerie, mobilier, installations de bureau, équip.
0558 05 20 0533
Photographic Equip., etc audio-visuel, photographique, etc
0559 Machinery and Heavy Equipment Rental Location de machines et d'équipements lourds 05 20 0533
0566 Rental of Engineering Works Including Wharfage Loc. installat. ingénierie incluant loc. de quai 05 20 0570
LIMIT-Rental - Not Elsewhere Specified (excluding LIMITE-Autres locations non spécifiés ailleurs (excl.
0568 05 20 0570
Buildings) bâtiment)
Rental of Space other than Buildings (Parking Space, Location d'espace autre que des édifices (espaces de
0569 Ship Storage, Docks, Rooms for Meetings, etc.) stationnement, entreposage pour navire, quai, salle de 05 20 0570
conférences, etc.)
0570 Lease with Option to Purchase-Other(not Bldgs) Locat. avec option d'achat-autres(sauf immeubles) 05 20 0570
G501 Land Rentals - OGD Location des terrains - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G502 Rental of Buildings from PWGSC Location d'édifices de TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G524 Other Rentals Not Elsewhere Specified - OGD Autres locations non spécifiés ailleurs - OGD
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 10 1/7/2004
Line Object
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft Drydocking: Réparations et améliorations aux navires et petits bateaux
0601 06 21 0675
Hull & Structure en cale sèche: Coques et structures
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Propulsion Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0602 06 21 0675
Systems & Equipment Sys.et équipement de propulsion
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Electrical Réparations et améliorations aux Navires & petits bateaux :
0603 06 21 0675
Generation & Distribution Distribution et production électriques
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Auxiliary Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0604 06 21 0675
Systems Systèmes auxiliaires
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Domestic Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0605 06 21 0675
Systems Systèmes domestiques
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Ventilation, Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0606 06 21 0675
Heating & Refrigeration Ventilation, chauffage et réfrigération
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Deck Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0607 06 21 0675
Machinery Machinerie au pont
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Alarm & Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0608 06 21 0675
Controls Alarme et contrôle
Repair and betterment of Ships & Small Craft: Safety Réparations et améliorations aux navires & petits bateaux :
0609 06 21 0675
Equipment Équipements de sécurité
Ships & Small Craft Repairs and betterment- self Ent.& Rép.et améliorations aux navires et petits bateaux
0610 06 21 0675
maintenance
0611 Repair and betterment of ACV Réparations et améliorations des VCA 06 21 0675
Repair , maintenance and betterment of Marine Réparation, entretien et améliorations des installations
0630 Installations, e.g. Docks, Piers and Breakwaters and other maritimes (Bassins, quais, jetées, brise-lames et autres 06 21 0601
marine structures structures marines)
Repair and betterment of Roads, Highways & Streets Réparations et améliorations des chemins, routes et rues
0631 06 22 0607
Repair and betterment of Water Mains, Hydrants, Réparations et améliorations des canalisations, aqueducs,
0632 06 22 0611
Services and sewage systems bouches d'incendie et systèmes d'épuration
Repair and betterment of Power Transmission & Réparations et améliorations des lignes de transport &
0633 06 22 0619
Distribution Lines d'énergie
0634 Repairand betterment of Installations Réparations et améliorations des installations 06 22 0628
LIMIT-Repair and betterment of other Engineering LIMITE- Réparations et améliorations aux autres travaux
0641 06 22 0628
Works de génie
0642 Repair and betterment of Office Buildings Réparations et améliorations aux édifices à bureaux 06 22 0630
Repair and betterment of Radio Stations/Towers and Réparations et améliorations aux postes ou tours de radio et
Repair of Buildings or installations for aux bâtiments ou installations abritant matériel de
0645 06 22 0640
Telecommunications Computers/or Electronic/Automated télécommunications de TED ou bureautique
Office Systems
Repair and betterment of Maintenance and Service Réparations et améliorations aux bâtiments d'entretien et
0647 06 22 0645
Buildings (incl. Elevators and escalators) service (incl. Ascenseurs et monte-charge)
LIMIT-Other Repairs and betterment to Buildings, LIMITE-Autres réparations et améliorations aux édifices,
0649 06 22 0645
Structures and Facilities structures et installations
0650 Repair and betterment of Residential Buildings Réparations et améliorations de bâtiments résidentiels 06 22 0646
Repair and betterment of Processing Machinery (Boilers, Réparations et améliorations de machinerie de traitement
0665 06 23 0655
Engines, etc.) (chaudières, moteurs,etc)
Repair and betterment of Heating, Air Conditioning & Réparations et améliorations d'appareils de
0666 06 23 0656
Refrigerat. Equip. chauffage,climatisation & réfrigérat.
Repair and betterment of Electric Lighting, Distrib. & Réparations et améliorations aux éclairages électr., distribut.
0667 06 23 0658
Control Equip. & contrôles d'électricité
Repair and betterment of Measuring, Controlling Réparationset améliorations de matériel de météorologie, de
0668 Laboratory, Medical and Optical Instruments, génie, de science et de médecine 06 23 0660
Apparatus,and accessories
Repair and betterment of Furniture, Fixtures, Safety & Réparations et améliorations aux mobiliers et installations
0669 Sanitation Equipment, Alarm & Signal Systems and all fixes, matériel de sécurité et d'hygiène, systèmes d'alarme et 06 23 0665
Other Small Equipments autres petits équipments
0674 Repair and betterment of Engines Réparations et améliorations aux machines 06 23 0665
Page 11 1/7/2004
Line Object
Repair and betterment of Photographic Equipment, Entretien et/ou réparations et améliorations d'équipments
0675 Electric Equipment & Appliances formation pour la marine, équipements audio-visuel, vidéo et 06 23 0665
photographique, et appareils électriques
Repair and betterment of Telecommunications Equipment Réparations et améliorations d'équipements de
0679 06 23 0669
télécommunications
Repair and betterment of Computer Equipment Réparations et améliorations d'équipements d'informatique -
0680 06 23 0670
Hardware and Software appareils et logiciels
0681 Repair and betterment of Other Office Equipment Réparations et améliorations autre matériel de bureau 06 23 0671
Repair, maintenance and betterment of Road Motor Entretien, réparations et améliorations de véhicules à moteur
0682 06 23 0682
Vehicles
Repair and betterment of Miscellaneous Vehicles & Réparations et améliorations de véhicules divers et matériel
0683 06 23 0683
Mobile Heavy Duty Equipment roulant lourd
G610 Repair of Buildings, Structures and Works - PWGSC Réparations aux édifices, structures et installations - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G612 Dredging - PWGSC Dragage - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G620 Mainten. & Repair Services - OGD Services entretien & rép.-AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 12 1/7/2004
Line Object
7001 Electricity Électricité 07 25 0701
7002 Natural Gas (utility) Gaz naturel (utilité) 07 25 0702
7003 Water and Sewage Égouts et aqueduc 07 25 0703
7006 LIMIT-Other Public Utility Services LIMITE-Autres services d'utilité publique 07 25 0709
7008 Dangerous Waste Disposal Elimination de matières dangereuses 7 25 0705
7101 Fuel for Aircraft/Hovercraft Carburant pour aéronef/aéroglisseur 07 26 1123
7121 Diesel Fuel Carburant diésel 07 26 1124
7140 Light Fuel Oil (incl. Furnace or Heating Oil) Mazout léger (incl. Combustible de chauffage) 07 26 1125
LIMIT-Other Mineral Fuels, Oils & Products LIMITE-Autres combustibles minéraux, huiles minérales
7160 07 26 1128
et produits minéraux
Liquified Petroleum Gas (excl. for Road Motor Vehicles), Gaz pétrole liquéfié (excl. véhicles routiers), propane, gaz
7162 Propane, Natural Gas, Refined & Manufactured Gas naturel, gaz de raffinerie ou fabriqué 07 26 1128
7182 Gasoline for Boats and Small Craft Essence pour petits bateaux et autres embarcations 07 26 1122
7184 Gasoline (excl. Boats and Small Craft) Essence (excl. pour petits bateaux et autres embarcations) 07 26 1122
7204 Cable Wires Câbles 07 27 1139
7205 Cutlery Coutellerie 07 27 1163
7310 Lubricating Oil and Grease Huile de graissage et graisses 07 28 1127
7313 Wood Fabricated Materials Matériaux fabriqués de bois 07 28 1141
Inorganic & Organic Chemicals, incl. Plastics, Rubber & Produits chimiques inorganiiques et organiques, incl.
7314 Products (excl. Tires and Tubes) Matières plastiques, caoutchouc et leurs produits, sauf les 07 28 1130
pneus et chambres à air
Ferrous Metals, Hardware Items, etc./Metal Basic Métaux ferreux (Articles de quicaillerie, etc.)
7317 07 28 1160
Products (Nuts, bolts)
7318 Non-ferrous Metals Métaux non-ferreux 07 28 1161
7333 Fabricated Materials - Glass Matériaux fabriqués de vitre 07 28 1139
LIMIT-Miscellaneous Chemical Products Not LIMITE-Autres produits chimiques non spécifiés ailleurs
7334 07 28 1139
Elsewhere Specified
7335 Uniforms Uniformes 07 28 1151
7336 Protective & Other Clothing Vêtements protecteurs et autres 07 28 1152
7337 Footwear Chaussures 07 28 1153
House Furnishings - Floor Covering, Curtains, Towels, Accessoires de maison excl. mobilier (couvre-plancher,
7338 07 28 1173
etc. (excl. Furniture) rideuax serviettes, etc.)
Hunting, Fishing, Recreational and Sporting Equipment Accessoires et matériel de chasse, pêche, de loisir et de
7339 07 28 1159
and Supplies sport
7340 Textile Fabricated Material - Fishing Nets & Gear, etc. Produits textiles - Filets et engins de pêches, etc. 07 28 1159
LIMIT-Miscellaneous Textiles - Headgear, Umbrellas LIMITE-Matiéres textiles diverses, coiffures, parapluie,
7341 07 28 1159
etc. etc.
7342 Printed Matter (including subscriptions) Produits imprimés (incluant abonnements) 07 28 1143
7343 Containers and Closures Récipients et couvercles 07 28 1179
7344 Office & Stationary Supplies Papeterie et fournitures de bureau 07 28 1172
7345 Photographic Goods (eg. film) Fournitures de photographie (ex. film) 07 28 1134
7347 Medical and Hospital Supplies Matériel médical et hospitalier 07 28 1171
7348 Library Acquisitions Achats pour la bibliothèque 07 28 1143
7350 Fish Tags Étiquettes pour poisson 07 28 1179
7352 Awards - Gifts (excl. Money) Primes - Cadeaux (excl. primes en argent) 07 28 1179
7353 Corporate Services Only (payment credit cards) Serv.ministériels seulement (paiement cartes crédit)
Cancelled/ 07 28 1179
Annulé
7354 Scientific Supplies Miscellaneous Matériel scientifique divers 07 28 1179
7357 Hydrographic and/or Cartographic Supplies Matériel divers cartographie et hydrographie 07 28 1179
LIMIT-Other Miscellaneous Products and Goods LIMITE-Autres Prduits et biens divers
7360 07 28 1179
7361 Cleaning Supplies for vessels and laboratories Produits de nettoyage pour navires et laboratoires 07 28 1130
Provisions - Groceries - Other Food not specified Provisions - Autres aliments non précisés
7505 07 30 1115
Page 13 1/7/2004
Line Object
Fish Food and Feed, Fish Bait, Fish Fry, Fish Eggs Nourriture de poisson et autres pour animaux, fretin, oeufs
7507 07 30 1115
de poisson et appâts
G712 Fuel, Gas - OGD Gaz, Mazout - AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
G734 Materials, Supplies & Public Utilities - OGD Fournitures, approvisionnements et utilités publiques -
Cancelled/ OGD
Annulé
G736 Stocked Items - PWGSC Articles stockés - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 14 1/7/2004
Line Object
0801 Acquisition of Land Acquisition de terrains 08 31 1301
0810 Marine Installation: Docks, Wharves... Génie maritime: Docks, quais... 08 32 1310
0811 Roads, Highways, Parking Lots, Sidewalks, Paths Chemins, routes, stationnement, trottoirs et sentiers 08 32 1316
0812 Bridges,Trestles,Culverts,Overpasses,Viaducts Ponts, chevalets, ponceaux, voies sup., viaducs 08 32 1335
Fences, Snowsheds, Signs, Guardrails, Gates, Towers & Clôtures, pare avalanches, écriteaux, garde fous, barrières,
0818 Masts, Waterworks, Sewage Systems, Landscaping & tours et mâts, canalisation, systèms d'égouts, paysagement 08 32 1339
Related Works
0819 New Hatcheries Nouvelles piscicultures 08 32 1339
0824 Other Construction or Acquisition of Works Autres constructions ou acquisitions de travaux 08 32 1339
0850 Acquisition of Office Buildings Acquisition d'édifices à bureaux 08 33 1340
Acquisition of buildings or installations for Acquisition de bâtiments ou installations devant abriter du
0852 telecommunications, EDP and/or electronic/automated matériel de télécommunications, traitement des données ou 08 33 1360
office systems de bureautique ou des deux
Acquisition of Residential Buildings/Fishery Acquisition d'immeubles résidentiels & cabines-agents des
0854 08 33 1370
Officers'Cabins pêches
G810 Capital Projects - PWGSC Projets d'immobilisation - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G830 Other Land, Building & Works (OGD) excluding Autres terrains, bâtiments & ouvrages (AMG) sauf
Cancelled/ PWGSC, Revolving Fund TPSGC, fonds renouvelable
Annulé
Page 15 1/7/2004
Line Object
Special Shop & Industrial Equipment (Manufacturing Equipement d'atelier et industriel spécial (Equipement
0901 09 35 1211
Equipment etc.) d'usine etc.)
General Purpose Industrial and conveying, elevating & Equipement général, industriel, d'élévation, de manutention
0902 09 35 1219
material handling equipment
Measuring, Controlling, Laboratory, Medical and Optional Instruments, appareils et accessoires de mesure de contrôle,
0904 09 35 1243
Instruments, Apparatus and Accessories de laboratoire, de médecine et d'optique
Radar Equipment (incl. Electronic Navigation Equipment Equipment de radar (incl. Équipement d'aides électroniques
0906 09 35 1244
and Lightstations, etc. pour la navigation) et phares
0909 Safety & Sanitation Equipment Equipement de sécurité et d'hygiène 09 35 1245
0910 Office Furniture & Furnishings Mobilier et ameublement de bureau 09 35 1231
Heating/AirConditioning/Refrigeration/Lighting/Cooling Chauffage, climatisation, réfrigération, éclairage électrique,
0911 09 35 1249
System Parts systèm de refroidissement
0913 Hydraulic Equipment Matériel hydraulique 09 35 1249
0917 Mobile Equipment - Parts Matériel roulant-pièces 09 35 1249
0919 Electric Lighting, Distribution and Control Equipment Matériel d'éclairage, de contrôle et de distribution électrique 09 35 1242
LIMIT-Other Equipment & Parts Not Elsewhere LIMITE-Autres équipements et pièces non spécifiés
Specified (x-ray, recreational, food cooking, non- ailleurs (radiographique, récréatif, appareils à cuisson,
0920 09 35 1249
electric cleaning equipment, etc.) appareilsde nettoyage non électriques, etc.)
0921 Other Electrical Equipment and Appliances Autre équipement et accessoires électriques 09 35 1249
0922 Other Furniture & Fixtures (incl. Parts) Autres mobilier et installations fixes incl. Pièces 09 35 1246
0923 Voice Communications Equipment Matériel de communications vocales 09 35 1221
0924 Telecommunications Systems Equipment Equipement de systèmes de télécommunication 09 35 1225
Data/Message/Text and Computer/Communications Matériel de transmission de données (messages-textes,
0925 09 35 1222
Equipment données informatisées)
Image/Video, Audio Visual & Photographic Equipment Matériel transmission d'images & communications vidéo,
0927 09 35 1223
audiovisuel et photographique
Computer Equipment - Large/Medium - Mainframe - Mini Matériel d'ordinateur - Gros/médium, ordinateur principal et
0929 09 35 1226
mini
Computer Equipment - Small - Desktop/Personal/Portable Matériel d'ordinateur petit, dessus de bureau,
0930 09 35 1227
personnel/portatif
0931 Computer Software Ensembles de logiciels 09 35 1228
0932 Computer Equipment - Parts Equipement d'ordinateurs et pièces 09 35 1229
0934 Digital Communications Equipment Matériel de communications numériques 09 35 1224
0935 Other Office Equipment & Parts Autre matériel de bureau et pièces 09 35 1239
0936 Other Equipment - for use on land Autre équipement - usage sur terre 09 35 1249
0937 Tools and Implements Outils et outillages 09 35 1212
0938 Plumbing Equipment and fittings incl. Parts Matériel et accessoires de plomberie, y compris les pièces 09 35 1241
0950 Ships and Boats Navires et embarcations 09 36 1256
0956 Ships and Small Craft - Capital Improvements to Ships Navires et petits bateaux - Amélior. importantes aux navires 09 36 1256
0957 Ships and Boats Equipment-Parts (incl. ACV) Equipement et pièces de navires et bateaux (incl.VCA) 09 36 1257
0958 Buoy Equipment Equipement bouées 09 35 1249
0980 Road Motor Vehicles (cars, trucks, tractor trailers) Véhicules à moteurs routiers (autos, camions, tracteurs) 09 37 1261
0981 Other Vehicles Autres véhicules 09 37 1264
0982 Road Motor Vehicles Parts Pièces de véhicules automobiles de route 09 37 1263
Miscellaneous vehicles parts (excl.road veh) incl.rubber Pièces de véhicules diverses (excl.véh.routiers) incl. Pneus
0983 09 37 1267
tires and tubes et chambres à air
0984 Weapons incl. Parts Armes incl. Pièces 09 35 1271
0985 Munitions and ammunition Munitions 09 35 1273
G901 Office Furniture & Fixtures - PWGSC Mobilier de bureau et installations fixes - TPSGC
Cancelled/
Annulé
G902 Machinery and Equipment Acquired from OGD Machinerie et équipement achetés des AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 16 1/7/2004
Line Object
Payments to First Nations and Inuit people Paiements de transfers aux Premières Nations et aux Inuit
1001 10 38 2032
1002 Payments to univ. prof.& students - research Paiem. aux prof. & étud. d'univ. - recherche 10 38 2041
Income Support Payments to due to the collapse of the Paiements de soutien du revenu dus à la disparition des
1004 10 38 2042
Atlantic Fishery pèches de l'Atlantique
1005 Aboriginal Transfer Program Programme de transfert aux autochtones 10 38 2049
1006 Payments to Fishers or fishing vessel owners Paiements aux pêcheurs ou prop.bateaux pêche 10 38 2049
LIMIT-Other Transfer Payments to Individuals LIMITE-Autres paiements de transfert aux particuliers
1009 10 38 2049
1011 Non profit-National Organizations Non lucratif-Organisations nationales 10 38 2431
1013 Non profit-Grants or Contrib.-Research & Dev. Non lucratif-Subv.ou contrib.-recherche & dévelop. 10 38 2436
1014 Non profit-Improving the Environment Non lucratif-Amélioration de l'environnement 10 38 2437
1015 Non profit-Fishery related Organizations Non lucratif-Organisations reliées aux pêches 10 38 2449
Reimbursement of Canadian Marine Rescue Auxiliary Remboursement des coûts des auxiliaires de sauvetage de
1016 10 38 2449
Costs for Operations la marine canadienne pour opérations, recherche et
1017 10 38 2449
Costs for Administration and Organization la marine canadienne pour administration et organisation
1018 10 38 2449
Costs for Training and Exercises la marine canadienne pour la formation et les manoeuvres
1019 Costs for Prevention la marine canadienne pour les activités de prévention, 10 38 2449
recherche et sauvetage
1020 First Nations and Inuit Associations Associations des premières nations et des inuits 10 38 2423
1031 Payments for Research and Development-Industry Paiements pour recherche et dévelop.-Industrie 10 39 2126
Payments under loan guarantees (used with allot 430 Paiements en vertu de garanties d'emprunt (utilisé avec
1032 10 39 2127
only) affectation 430 seulement)
1034 LIMIT-Industry-Miscellaneous Subsidies LIMITE-Industrie-Aide diverse à l'industrie 10 39 2139
1036 Marine Operations for Emergency Dredging Opérations maritimes pour dragage d'urgence 10 39 2139
LIMIT-Transfer Payments to Provinces/Territories LIMITE-Paiements de transfert aux provinces/territoires
1040 10 40 2259
LIMIT-Grants or Contributions outside Canada LIMITE-Contributions ou subventions hors du Canada
1051 10 41 2329
G001 Payments of Grants & Contributions to OGD Paiements de subventions & contributions aux AMG
Cancelled/
Annulé
Page 17 1/7/2004
Line Object
1201 Loss of Money < $500 Radiation des pertes de 500 $ et moins 12 43 3211
1202 Losses of Money > $500 Pertes d'argent > à 500 $ 12 43 3212
1203 Write Offs of Loans, Investments, Advances Radiations de prêts,dotations en capital, avances 12 43 3215
1204 Loss on Foreign Currency Transactions Pertes relatives aux devises étrangéres 12 43 3216
LIMIT-Forgiveness of Loans, Investments and LIMITE-Renonciation de prêts, dotations-capital &
1205 12 43 3217
Advances avances
Write-off of Accounts Receivables (to be used with Radiation des comptes débiteurs (utilisé avec affectation
1206 12 43 3212
allotment code 1BA) 1BA seulement)
1207 Corporate Services Only (payment credit cards) Serv.intégrés seulement (paiement cartes crédit) 70 28 7099
Allowance for doubtfull Accounts in Abacus (to be used Allocation pour créances douteuses dans Abacus (utilisé
1208 70 56 7021
with allotment code 1BB) avec affectation 1BB seulement)
Reject IS Expenditures (used only by Corporate and with RI-Dépenses rejetées (utilisé seulement par Serv.Intégrés et
1209 12 47 3259
allot. 120) avec affectation 120)
1210 Discounts Earned-Early Payments to Suppliers Escomptes gagnés-paiements prématurés-fournisseurs 12 44 3241
1221 Court awards to industry Décisions de la Cour en faveur de l'industrie 12 45 3249
1222 Court awards to persons Décisions de la Cour en faveur des particuliers 12 45 3250
1225 Claims against the Crown Réclamations contre la couronne 12 45 3251
1226 Ex Gratia Payments Versements à titre gracieux 12 45 3257
1227 Interest & charges on Overdue Accounts Intérêt & frais - comptes en souffrance 12 45 3252
1229 International Commission Agreements Accords de commissions internationales 12 45 3259
1230 Third Party Liability Insurance Premiums Primes d'assurance - responsabilité des tiers 12 45 3259
1231 Administration Fees (ex: credit cards) Frais d'administration (par ex. cartes de crédit) 12 45 3259
1232 Repayment of Prior Years' Revenue Remboursement de revenu de l'année précédente 12 45 3259
1280 Amortization Expense (Fixed Assets) Dépense d'amortissement 12 46 3451
1281 Gain/Loss on Assets Disposal Gain/perte sur disposition d'actifs 70 46 7099
1282 Proceeds from Sales Produit des ventes
Cancelled/ 12
Annulé
1283 Cost of Removal Coût d'aliénation 70 46 7099
Proceeds of Assets Sales clearing account (to be used Profit sur la vente d'actifs-Compte provisoire (utilisé avec
1286 70 46 7099
with allotment code 6CC) affectation 6CC seulement)
1299 Previous Years-Coding Change WIP Années ant.-Changement codage TEC 70 46 7099
G021 Repayment of Prior Years Revenue - OGD Remboursement de revenu de l'année précédente - AMG 12 47 3429
G022 Payments under Shared Costs Projects-OGD (debit) Paiements - projets à coûts partagés-AMG (débit) 12 47 3427
G023 Recoveries under Shared Costs Projects-OGD (credit) Recouvrements - projets à coûts partagés-AMG (crédit) 12 47 3715
Suspense Account (debit) - Advance to OGD for Projects Compte d'attente (débit) - Avance à AMG pour projets qu'ils
G024 12 47 3422
to be performed by them on our behalf ont fait pour nous
G025 Suspense Account (credit) - OGD Compte d'attente (crédit) - AMG 12 47 3718
G026 Miscellaneous Expenditures-OGD (excl.prof.serv.) Dépenses divers-AMG (excl.serv.prof.)
Cancelled/
Annulé
G028 Customs Import Duties Droits de douane à l'importation
Cancelled/ 12
Annulé
G029 Payments in lieu of Taxes paid to PWGSC Paiements tenant lieu d'impôts payées à TPSGC 12 47 3428
Recovery helicopter expenditures from OGD (used with Recouvrement dépenses hélicoptères AMG (avec affect. 126
G030 12 47 3472
allot.126 only) seulement)
Suspense Account (credit) G&C-OGD Compte d'attente (crédit) - Subvention et Contribution - AMG
G031 12 47 3718
G032 Incremental cost recoveries from OGD's (credit) Recouvrement des coûts d'accroissement AMG (crédit) 12 47 3472
Page 18 1/7/2004
Line Object
Cost Recovery from Employees for Rent (Housing - DFO) Recouvrement des coûts provenant des employés pour frais
1301 by Payroll Deduction (to be used with allotment code 601) de location (Logement-MPO) provenant des déductions sur 13 48 4530
la paye (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery for Work Performed by Prescott Shops (to Recouvrements des coûts des travaux achevés par les
1302 be used with allotment code 601) ateliers de Prescott (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 48 4545
601)
LIMIT-Other Recoveries (to be used with allotment LIMITE-Autres recouvrements (à être utilisé avec le code
1303 13 48 4569
code 601) d'affectation 601)
Recovery from Non Coast Guard Sectors for Recouvrement pour services de télécommunications
1306 Telecommunication Services (to be used with allotment maritimes des secteurs autres que la GCC (à être utilisé 13 48 4899
code 601) avec le code d'affectation 601)
Recoveries by Canadian Coast Guard College for Food, Recouvrement par le Collège de la GCC pour l'hébergement
1307 Accommodation (to be used with allotment code 601) et les repas (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601) 13 48 4899
Cost Recovery - Helicopter Services - Private Sector (to Recouvrement de coûts - Services hélicoptères - Secteur
1309 13 48 4569
be used with allotment code 601) privé (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
1311 Tuition recovered by CCG Coll.from Private Sect Recouv.frais scolarité par Coll.GCC, secteur privé 13 53 4569
Small Vessel Regulations - Boat Capacity Plates (to be Règlements sur les petits bateaux - Plaques de capacité
1320 used with allotment code 601) pour les bateaux (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 50 4559
Icebreaking Serv.Fee-Foreign Flag Ships (used with Droit serv.déglaçage-Navires pav.étranger (utilisé avec
1325 13 51 4564
allot.601 only) affectation 601 seulement)
Icebreaking Serv.Fee-Canadian Flag Ships (used with Droit serv.déglaçage-Navires pav.canadien (utilisé avec
1326 13 51 4564
allot 601 only) affectation 601 seulement)
Icebreaking Serv.Fee-Ice Class Discount, Canada Type D Droit serv.déglaçage-Escompte cote glace Canada type D(
1327 13 51 4564
(used with allot 601 only) aff. 601 seulement)
Icebreaking Serv.Fee-Ice Class Discount,Canada Type C Droit serv.déglaçage-Esc.cote glace,Canada type C (utilisé
1328 13 51 4564
(used with allot 601 only) avec aff. 601 seul)
Icebreaking Serv.Fee-Ice Class Discount, Arctic Droit serv.déglaçage-Esc.cote glace, classe arctique,
1329 13 51 4564
Class,Canada Type Aor B (used with allot 601) Canada type A ou B (utilisé avec aff.601 seul.)
Marine Services Fee - Foreign Flag Cargo Loaded (to be Services de navigation maritime - Marchandises chargées-
1330 used with allotment code 601) pavillon étranger (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 51 4564
601)
Marine Services Fees - Foreign Flag Cargo Unloaded (to Services de navigation maritime - Marchandises déchargées
1331 be used with allotment code 601) pavillon étranger (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 51 4564
601)
Marine Services Fees - Foreign Flag Cruise Ships (to be Services de navigation maritime - Navires de croisière à
1332 used with allotment code 601) pavillon étranger (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 51 4564
601)
Marine Services Fees - Domestic Flag Eastern Canada(to Services de navigation maritime - Pavillon domestique Est
1333 be used with allotment code 601) du Canada (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601) 13 51 4564
Marine Services Fees - Other Foreign Flag (to be used Services de navigation maritime - Autre pavillon étranger (à
1334 13 51 4564
with allotment code 601) être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Marine Services Fees - Foreign Flag Operating in Services de navigation maritime - Pavillon étranger -
1335 Coasting Trade (to be used with allotment code 601) opérations de cabotage (à être utilisé avec le code 13 51 4564
d'affectation 601)
Marine Services Fees - Pacific Region - Foreign Flag (to Services de navigation maritime - Région du pacifique -
1336 be used with allotment code 601) Pavillon étranger (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 13 51 4564
601)
Marine Services Fees - Precision Navigation Systems Fee Services de navigation maritime - Réduction de droit relatif
1337 Reduction (to be used with allotment code 601) au systèmes de navigation de précision (à être utilisé avec le 13 51 4564
code d'affectation 601)
Marine Services Fees - Domestic Flag Pacific Region (use Services navigation maritime-Pavillon domestique Région du
1338 13 51 4564
with allot 601) Pacifique (use with allot 601)
Maintenance Dredging Services Fee - Foreign Flag Ships Droit de services de dragage d'entretien - Navires pavillon
1340 13 51 4564
étranger
Page 19 1/7/2004
Line Object
Maintenance Dredging Services Fee - Canadian Flag Droit de services de dragage d'entretien - Navires pavillon
1341 13 51 4564
Ships canadien
Maintenance Dredging Services Fee - Foreign Flag Ships Droit de services de dragage d'entretien - Navires pavillon
1342 13 51 4564
(Coasting Trade) étranger (Cabotage)
Maintenance Dredging Serv.Tonnage Fees-Corporations Droits pour services de dragage d'entretien basé sur la jauge-
1343 13 51 4564
Sociétés
Cost Recovery Arctic Resupply Private Sector (to be used Frais de ravitaillement de L'Arctique - Secteur Privé (à être
1345 13 52 4569
with allotment code 601) utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery - Arctic Resupply Administrative Cost - Recouvrement de coûts - Ravitaillement de l'Arctique -Les
1346 Private Sector (to be used with allotment code 601) frais administratifs - Secteur privé (à être utilisé avec le code 13 52 4569
d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery Radio Tolls (to be used with allotment Recouvrement de coûts-Frais de messages radio (à être
1356 13 53 4564
code 601) utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Marine Services - Other (to be used with allotment code Autres services maritimes (à être utilisé avec le code
1357 13 53 4564
601) d'affectation 601)
LIMIT-Revenue from Other Optional Services (use with LIMITE-Revenus d'autres services facultatifs (utiliser
1359 13 53 4569
allotment code 601) affectation 601)
1360 Recovery of Pollution Incident Costs Recouvrement de coûts reliés aux incidents de pollution 13 53 4569
Recovery of NSF Administrative Charges (to be used with Recouvrement de coûts- frais administratifs pour chèques
1362 allotment code 601) sans fonds (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601) 13 53 4586
Premium, Discount and Exchange (to be used with Prime, escompte et échange (à être utilisé avec le code
1363 13 53 4899
allotment code 601) d'affectation 601)
1364 Interest on overdue A/R (to be used with allotment code Intérêts sur comptes dt en souffrance (à être utilisé avec le
Cancelled/ 601) code d'affectation 601) 13 4832
Annulé
1370 Rental Land - Industrial, Recreational Location terrains - industriel, récréatif 13 54 4525
Rental Land - Agricultural (to be used with allotment code Location - Terrains - Agriculture (à être utilisé avec le code
1372 13 54 4525
Rental - Space, Control Lines and Power (to be used with Location - Locaux, lignes de contrôle et énergie (à être utilisé
1385 13 55 4527
allotment code 601) avec le code d'affectation 601)
Rental of Office, Adminstrative and Other Buildings (to be Location - Bâtiments administratifset autres (utiliser
1386 13 55 4531
used with allotment code 601) affectation 601)
LIMIT-Rental - Miscellaneous (to be used with LIMITE-Location - Divers (à être utilisé avec le code
1388 13 55 4539
allotment code 601) d'affectation 601)
LIMIT-Recoverable Administrative Services - OGD (to LIMITE-Services administratifs recouvrables - AMG (à
G051 13 49 4612
be used with allotment code 601) être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Sundry Service and Service Fees - OGD (to be used with Services divers et droits de service - AMG (à être utilisé avec
G053 13 49 4619
allotment code 601) le code d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery - Helicopter Services - OGD (to be used Recouvrement de coûts - Services hélicoptères - AMG(à être
G055 13 49 4619
LIMIT-Other Recoveries - OGD (use with allotment LIMITE-Autres recouvrements - AMG (utilisé affectation
G056 13 49 4619
code 601) 601)
Food & Acco.recovered by CCG Coll.from OGD Recouvre.par GCC-Coll.pr hébergement & repas , de AMG
G057 13 49 4619
G058 Tuition recovered by CCG Coll. from OGD Recouvre.par GCC-Coll.pour frais scolarités, de AMG 13 49 4619
Cost Recovery Artic Resupply - Administration Services Recouvrement de coûts - Ravitaillement de l'Arctique - Les
G060 for OGD and Agencies (to be used with allotment code frais administratifs pour AMG et agences (à être utilisé avec 13 52 4612
601) le code d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery Arctic Resupply OGD and Agencies (to be Recouvrement de Ravitaillement de L'Arctique - AMG et
G061 13 52 4619
used with allotment code 601) agences (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Cost Recovery-Radio Tolls - OGD (to be used with Recouvrement -Frais des messages radio - AMG (à être
G065 13 52 4619
allotment code 601) utilisé avec le code d'affectation 601)
Page 20 1/7/2004
Line Object
Capelin - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Capelan - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2002 14 70 4510
Clams - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Clams - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2003 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
2004 Clams - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Clams - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Crab - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Crabe - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2005 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
2006 Crab - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Crabe -QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Geoduck/Horse Clam - Competitive (to be used with Panope & Fausse-Mactre - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé
2007 14 70 4510
Groundfish - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Poissons de fond - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le
2008 14 70 4510
611) code d'affectation 611)
Groundfish - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Poissons de fond - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation
2009 14 71 4510
611)
2010 Halibut - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Flétan - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Herring - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Hareng - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2011 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
2012 Herring - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Hareng - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Lobster - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Homard - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2013 14 70 4510
2014 Lobster - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Homard - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Mackerel - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Mackerel - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2015 14 70 4510
Marine Plants - Competitive (to be used with allotment Plantes marines - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le
2016 14 70 4510
code 611) code d'affectation 611)
Rockfish - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Sébaste - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2017 14 70 4510
Sablefish - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Morue charbonnière - QI (à être utilisé avec le code
2018 14 71 4510
d'affectation 611)
Salmon - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Saumon - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2019 14 70 4510
Scallops - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Pétoncles - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2020 14 70 4510
Scallops - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Pétoncles - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611)
2021 14 71 4510
Sea Urchins, Cucumber - Competitive (to be used with Oursins, holothurie - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le
2022 14 70 4510
allotment code 611) code d'affectation 611)
Seals - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Phoques - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2023 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
Shark - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Requin - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2024 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
Shrimp/Prawn - Competitive (to be used with allotment Crevettes - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2025 14 70 4510
Shrimp/Prawn - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Crevettes - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611)
2026 14 71 4510
Squid - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Calmar - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2027 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
Swordfish - Competitive (to be used with allotment code Espadon - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2028 14 70 4510
Swordfish - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Espadon - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611)
2029 14 71 4510
Tuna - Competitive (to be used with allotment code 611) Thon - Concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2030 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
2031 Tuna - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Thon - QI (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611) 14 71 4510
Other Licenses - Competitive (to be used with allotment Autres licenses - concurrentielles (à être utilisé avec le code
2032 14 70 4510
Page 21 1/7/2004
Line Object
Other Licenses - IQ (to be used with allotment code 611) Autres licenses permis - QI (à être utilisé avec le code
2033 14 71 4510
d'affectation 611)
Oyster Leases (to be used with allotment code 611) Baux huîtriers (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 611)
2034 14 70 4510
Bait Fish Licences (to be used with allotment code 611) Permis de poissons pour appât (à être utilisé avec le code
2035 14 70 4510
d'affectation 611)
Vessel Registration (to be used with allotment code 611) Immatriculation des bateaux (à être utilisé avec le code
2045 14 70 4519
d'affectation 611)
Fisher Registration (to be used with allotment code 611) Immatriculation des pêcheurs (à être utilisé avec le code
2046 14 70 4519
d'affectation 611)
Other Privileges and Permits (to be used with allotment Autres privilèges et permis (à être utilisé avec le code
2065 14 70 4510
Recreational Fishing License Pilot (to be used with Permis "pilote" pêche récréative (à être utilisé avec affect.
2066 14 73 4510
allot.611 only) 611 seulement)
Tidal Water Sports Fishing Licence (to be used with Permis de pêche sportive en haute mer (à être utilisé avec le
2070 14 73 4510
Conservation Stamps (to be used with allotment code Timbres de conservation (à être utilisé avec le code
2071 14 73 4510
License Amendment Fees T.M.Z.P. (to be used with Droits de modification de permis P.Z.D.M. (à être utilisé
2101 14 72 4510
Fishing Fees (T.M.Z.P.) (to be used with allotment code Droits de pêche (P.Z.D.M.) (à être utilisé avec le code
2102 14 72 4510
Access Fees (T.M.Z.P.) (to be used with allotment code Droits d'accès (P.Z.D.M.) (à être utilisé avec le code
2104 14 72 4510
Sales of Fish/Fish Products & Baits (to be used with Ventes de poisson, produits à base de poissons et appâts
2301 14 76 4549
allotment code 645) (utiliser affectation 645)
2410 SCH Berthage Commercial PPB Amarrage-commercial 14 78 4569
2411 SCH Berthage Fishing PPB Amarrage-pêcheur 14 78 4569
2412 SCH Berthage Recreational PPB Amarrage-plaisancier 14 78 4569
2413 SCH Licence Commercial PPB Permis commercial 14 78 4569
2414 SCH Licence Fishing PPB Permis aux pêcheurs 14 78 4569
2415 SCH Licence Recreational PPB Permis plaisancier 14 78 4569
2416 SCH Lease Commercial PPB Baux-commercial 14 78 4569
2417 SCH Lease Fishing PPB Baux-pêcheur 14 78 4569
2418 SCH Lease Recreational PPB Baux-plaisancier 14 78 4569
2419 SCH Lease (Harbour Authority) PPB Baux- Autorité Hâvre 14 78 4569
2420 SCH Wharfage Commercial PPB Frais débzrquement commercial 14 78 4569
2421 SCH Wharfage Fishing PPB Frais débarquement pêcheur 14 78 4569
2422 SCH Wharfage Recreational PPB Frais débarquement plaisancier 14 78 4569
2423 SCH Other Commercial PPB Autre-Commercial 14 78 4569
2424 SCH Other Fishing PPB Autre-pêcheur 14 78 4569
2425 SCH Other Recreational PPB Autre-plaisancier 14 78 4569
Sale-Navigation Charts/Tables/Sailing Direct. (to be used Ventes de cartes/tables/instructions de navigation (à être
2450 14 79 4544
Licence Income - Technology (to be used with allotment Revenus de licences - Technologie (à être utilisé avec le
2530 14 81 4519
code 651) code d'affectation 651)
Rental of Vacant Land (to be used with allotment code Location de terrains vacants (à être utilisé avec le code
2560 14 82 4525
Rental-Machinery/Equipment(other than vehicles) (to be Location machinerie/matériel (autres que véhicule) (à être
2561 14 82 4527
used with allotment code 651) utilisé avec le code d'affectation 651)
Rental of Residential Buildings (to be used with allotment Location d'immeubles résidentiels (à être utilisé avec le code
2562 14 82 4530
2563 Rental of Non Residential Buildings Location de bâtiments non résidentiels 14 82 4531
REVENU-Parking Fees (to be used with allotment code REVENU-Frais de stationnement (à être utilisé avec le code
2602 14 83 4529
Page 22 1/7/2004
Line Object
Services/Fees under Access to Information Act (to be Services selon la Loi sur l'accès à l'information (à être utilisé
2603 14 83 4581
used with allotment code 651) avec le code d'affectation 651)
Interest on Overdue Acc. Receivable (to be used with Intérêts sur comptes dt en souffrance (à être utilisé avec le
2605 14 84 4832
NSF Administrative Charges (to be used with allotment Frais administratifs pour chèques sans fonds (à être utilisé
2606 14 84 4586
code 602) avec le code d'affectation 602)
FILA Loan Guarantee (to be used with allotment code Prime sur un prêt garanti par la LPAOP (à être utilisé avec le
2607 14 84 4598
602) code d'affectation 602)
LIMIT-Other Miscellaneous Revenue (to be used with LIMITE-Autres recettes diverses (à être utilisé avec le
2608 14 84 4593
Sales of Publications and Manuals (excl 2450) (to be used Ventes de publications et manuels (sauf 2450) (à être utilisé
2630 14 84 4544
with allotment code 645) avec le code d'affectation 645)
LIMIT-Sales Miscellaneous (excluding Prescott Shops LIMITE-Ventes diverses (excluant les ateliers de Prescott
2632 L.O. 1302) (to be used with both allotment codes 602 A.E.1302) (à être utilisé avec les codes d'affectation 602 14 84 4549
and 645) et 645)
Cost Recovery from SLSA re: Coast Guard Aids Recouvrement de coûts de VMSL: entretien des aides à la
2633 14 84 4569
Maintenance (to be used with allotment code 645) navigation (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 645)
Sale of Crown Assets (to be used with allotment code Vente des biens de la couronne (utilisé avec affectation 647
2634 14 84 4843
647) seulement)
Gain on re-valuation or foreign currency assets and Bénéfices de la réévaluation des opérations de change pour
2635 liabilities (allot.602) actifs et passifs (aff.602) 14 84 4892
Sales of residential real property (to be used with Vente de biens immobiliers résidentiels (utilisé avec
2636 allotment code 647) affectation 647 seulement) 14 84 4844
Sales of non-residential real property (to be used with Vente de biens immobiliers non-résidentiels (utilisé avec
2639 allotment code 647) affectation 647 seulement) 14 84 4845
Refunds Prev Yr Exp-Purchase of Oper Goods/Serv (to Remb. An. Antér.-dépenses-achats biens/services (à être
2701 12 85 4711
be used with allotment code 631) utilisé avec le code d'affectation 631)
Refunds Prev Yr Capital Purchases (to be used with Remb. An. Antér.-dépenses d'achats immobilisat. (à être
2702 12 85 4712
Refunds Prev Yr- Tsf Pmt Individuals (to be used with
Remb. An. Antér.-paiem.transf.- particuliers (à être utilisé
2703 10 85 4713
Refunds Prev Yr- Tsf Pmt Subsid & Cap. Assist (to beRemb. An. Antér.-paiem.transf.-subv & aide-invest. (à être
2704 10 85 4714
Refunds of payments - Can Saltfish Corporation (to be
Remb. de paiements - Office can. du poisson salé (à être
2706 12 85 4719
Refunds of Previous Year's Expenditures for Recoveries
Remboursement de dépenses de l'année précédente
against Losses of Money from Prior Years (to be usedimputées au recouvrement contre pertes d'argent des
2707 12 85 4719
with allotment code 631) années antérieures (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation
631)
2708 Refunds Prev Yr SCH Loan Repayment Principal (to be PPB remb. An. Antér.-de prêt principal (à être utilisé avec
Cancelled/ used with allotment code 631) le code d'affectation 631) 14 4732
Annulé
Refunds of Previous Years' Expenditures - Salary Remb. An. Antér.-Dépense de salaire (à être utilisé avec le
2709 14 85 4719
Expenditures (to be used with allotment code 631) code d'affectation 631)
Refunds of program expenses-current year Remboursement dépenses des programmes-année courante
2710 12 85 3259
2750 Fines (to be used with allotment code 602) Amendes (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 602) 14 86 4851
Revenue from Forfeited Fish and Other Things (to be Recettes de poissons et autres confiscations (à être utilisé
2752 14 86 4858
used with allotment code 602) avec le code d'affectation 602)
2753 Penalties (to be used with allotment code 602) Pénalités (à être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 602) 14 86 4857
2754 Proceeds from Court Awards (S/B used with allot.602) Produits de "décisions de la cour"(utiliser avec aff.602) 14 84 4858
Interest on Loans - Enterprises & Individuals (to be used Intérêts sur prêts - Entrepr. privées et individus (à être utilisé
2790 14 87 4804
with allotment code 684) avec le code d'affectation 684)
Page 23 1/7/2004
Line Object
Demutualization-Life Insurance (use with allot. 684 only) Décentralisation-Assurance Vie (utiliser avec affectation 684
2791 14 87 4819
seulement)
Adj. of Prior Years' P.A.Y.E. , not OGD -(incl. O&M, Rajust. Années antérieures CAFÉ sauf AMG (incl. F & E,
2801 Capital and Other (to be used with allotment code 632) capital et autres. Utiliser affectation 632) 14 88 4594
Adj. of Prior Years' P.A.Y.E. excl OGD- Capital (to be Rajust années antér C.A.F.E. sauf AMG Capital (à être
2802 14 88 4594
Adj. of Prior Years' P.A.Y.E. excl OGD - Other (to be used Rajust années antér C.A.F.E. sauf AMG Autres (à être
2803 14 88 4594
Repayable Contribution Agreements (to be used with Remboursements-ententes de contribution recouv. (à être
2850 10 89 2151
GST Collected on Sales (to be used with allotment code TPS perçue sur les ventes (à être utilisé avec le code
2999 42 95 4200
LIMIT-Revenue from Departments or Agencies for LIMITE-Revenus de ministères ou agences gouv. pour
G076 14 91 4593
Various Goods and Services (allot 651) biens ou services variés (aff.651)
Proceeds from Sales of residential Real Property-sales Produits des ventes de biens immobiliers résidentiels à
G078 14 91 4844
through PWGSC (allot. 647) travers TPSGC (aff.647)
Proceeds from sales of non-residential Real Property- Produits des ventes de biens immobiliers non-résidentiels à
G079 14 91 4845
sales through PWGSC (allot. 647) travers TPSGC (aff.647)
Surplus Assets - Sales through PWGSC (to be used with Biens excédentaires vendus par TPSGC (à être utilisé avec
G080 14 91 4843
allotment code 647) le code d'affectation 647)
G090 Refunds of Previous Years' Expenditures - OGD (to be Recouvrement des dépenses des années antér. - AMG (à
Cancelled/ used with allotment code 631) être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 631)
Annulé
Interdepartmental Receipts-IS Cross Years Accounts Reçus interministériels-Compte de R.I. D'exercices
G098 14 91 4659
(allot.633) réciproques de transition à la SIF (affect.633)
Adjustments of Prior Years' P.A.Y.E. - OGD (to be used Rajustements des années antérieures C.A.F.E. - AMG (à
G099 14 91 4594
with allotment code 632) être utilisé avec le code d'affectation 632)
Page 24 1/7/2004
Line Object
3103 Standing Travel Advances (Open Balance) Avances de voyage permanentes (Solde d'ouverture) 50 56 5032
3104 Petty Cash Advances (Open Balance) Avances de petite caisse (Solde d'ouverture) 50 56 5030
3105 Temporary Travel Advance at Year End Avance de voyage temporaire en fin d'année 50 56 5032
Advance for establishing a change fund (Open Balance) Avance pour constituer un fonds d'appoint (Solde
3106 50 56 5030
d'ouverture)
3110 Accounts Receivable - Default Account Comptes à recevoir - Compte par défaut 50 56 5399
Advances to producers of frozen groundfish (Open Avances consentis product. poissons fond congelés (Solde
3127 50 56 5010
Balance) d'ouverture)
Working Capital Loans-ice affected fish plants (Open Prêts fonds roulement-usines poisson (glace) (Solde
3128 50 56 5010
Loans to Haddock Fishers (Open Balance) Prêts consentis aux pêcheurs d'aiglefin (Solde d'ouverture)
3129 50 56 5010
SPA-Contractors' Security Deposits (cashed) (Open CFD-Cautionnements des entrepreneurs (encaissés) (Solde
3131 60 57 6081
3139 SPA-Miscellaneous Accounts (Open Balance) CFD-Comptes divers (Solde d'ouverture) 60 57 6099
3142 Contractors' Holdbacks (Open Balance) Retenues de garantie des entrepreneurs (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Open Balance) Commission des pêcheries des Grands Lacs (Solde
3143 62 58 6299
d'ouverture)
3144 Monies received on behalf of OGD (Open Balance) Sommes reçues au nom des AMG (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
Provincial Sales Tax Collected on Sales (Open Balance) Taxes de vente provinciales perçues sur ventes (Solde
3145 62 58 6299
d'ouverture)
3152 Paylist/Other Deductions (Open Balance) Retenues de paie/autres(Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
Paylist deductions - Garnishments- employees (Open Retenues de paie - Saisie arrêt - employés (Solde
3153 62 58 6299
Employee's Source Deductions - Income Tax, CPP, EI Retenues à la source - Impôt sur le rev., RPC, AE (Solde
3154 62 58 6299
(Open Balance) d'ouverture)
3155 Accrued Salaries and Wages Rémunérations dûes 62 58 6299
3159 General Suspense Accounts (Open Balance) Comptes d'attente général (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
3170 PODD (Open Balance) PADE (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
3171 PAYE - non OGD (Open Balance) CAFE - non AMG (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
Interdepartmental accounts Receivable-year end (Open Débiteurs interministériels fin d'exercice (Solde d'ouverture)
3172 62 58 6299
Balance)
3173 PAYE - OGD (Open Balance) CAFE - AMG (Solde d'ouverture) 62 58 6299
3175 Open Deposit Control Account Ouverture compte contrôle dépôts 52 61 5299
3176 Open Account CHCT Ouverture compte ECPT 52 61 5299
3177 Open Account MRMAOFY Ouverture compte MRAMIEP 52 61 5299
Proceeds - forfeited assets & fines (Open Balance) Produits des actifs confisqués et des amendes (Solde
3191 81 59 8290
d'ouverture)
3192 Payment to outside parties - seized assets (Open Paiements à des tiers - actifs saisis (Solde d'ouverture) 81 59 8290
Seized assets - transf proceeds to non-tax revenue (Open Actifs saisis-transf produits aux recet. non fisc. (Solde
3193 81 59 8290
Earmarked Fees and Levies (Open Balance) Frais & perceptions pour affectation spéciale (Solde
3198 82 60 8220
d'ouverture)
3203 Standing Travel Advances (cr) Avances de voyage permanentes (ct) 50 56 5032
3204 Petty Cash Advances (cr) Avances de petite caisse (ct) 50 56 5035
3206 Advance for establishing a change fund (cr) Avance pour constituer un fonds d'appoint (ct) 50 56 5035
3227 Advances to producers of frozen groundfish (cr) Avances consentis product. poissons fond congelés (ct) 50 56 5015
3228 Working Capital Loans-ice affected fish plants (cr) Prêts fonds roulement-usines poisson (glace) (ct) 50 56 5015
3229 Loans to Haddock Fishers (cr) Prêts consentis aux pêcheurs d'aiglefin (ct) 50 56 5015
3231 SPA-Contractors' Security Deposits (cashed) (cr) CFD-Cautionnements des entrepreneurs (encaissés) (ct) 60 57 6081
3239 SPA-Miscellaneous Accounts (cr) CFD-Comptes divers (ct) 60 57 6099
3242 Contractors' Holdbacks (cr) Retenues de garantie des entrepreneurs (ct) 62 58 6299
3243 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (cr) Commission des pêcheries des Grands Lacs (ct) 62 58 6299
3244 Monies received on behalf of OGD (cr) Sommes reçues au nom des AMG (ct) 62 58 6299
3245 Provincial Sales Tax Collected on Sales (cr) Taxes de vente provinciales perçues sur ventes (ct) 62 58 6299
Page 25 1/7/2004
Line Object
3252 Paylist/Other Deductions - CR Retenues de paie/autres - Crédit 62 58 6299
3253 Paylist deductions - Garnishments- employees (cr) Retenues de paie - Saisie arrêt - employés (ct) 62 58 6299
3254 Employee's source Deductions - Income Tax, CPP, EI Retenues à la source- Impôt sur le rev., RPC, AE (ct) 62 58 6299
3259 General Suspense Accounts (cr) Comptes d'attente général (ct) 62 58 6299
3265 Interdepartmental Settlements (cr) Règlements Interministériels (ct)
Cancelled/
Annulé
3270 PODD (cr) PADE (ct) 62 58 6299
3271 PAYE - non OGD (cr) CAFE - non AMG (ct) 62 58 6299
3272 Interdepartmental accounts Receivable-year end (cr) Débiteurs interministériels fin d'exercice (ct) 62 58 6299
3273 PAYE - OGD (cr) CAFE - AMG (ct) 62 58 6299
3275 Deposit Control Account-CR Compte contrôle dépôts-CT
Cancelled/ 52 5241
Annulé
3276 CHCT - CR ECPT - CT 52 61 5299
3277 MRMAOFY - CR Compte de MRAMIEP - CT 52 61 5299
GST Refundable Advance Account (including Harmonized Compte d'avances remboursables de TPS (Incluant la taxe
3290 50 56 5030
Sale Taxes) (cr) de vente harmonisée) (ct)
3291 Proceeds - forfeited assets & fines (cr) Produits des actifs confisqués et des amendes (ct) 81 59 8290
3292 Payment to outside parties - seized assets (cr) Paiements à des tiers - actifs saisis (ct) 81 59 8290
Seized assets - transf proceeds to non-tax revenue (cr) Actifs saisis-transf produits aux recet. non fisc. (ct)
3293 81 59 8290
3298 Earmarked Fees and Levies (cr) Frais & perceptions pour affectation spéciale (ct) 82 60 8220
3303 Standing Travel Advances (dr) Avances de voyage permanentes (dt) 50 56 5032
3304 Petty Cash Advances (dr) Avances de petite caisse (dt) 50 56 5030
3306 Advance for establishing a change fund (dr) Avance pour constituer un fonds d'appoint (dt) 50 56 5030
3327 Advances to producers of frozen groundfish (dr) Avances consentis product. poissons fond congelés (dt) 50 56 5010
3328 Working Capital Loans-ice affected fish plants (dr) Prêts fonds roulement-usines poisson (glace) (dt) 50 56 5010
3329 Loans to Haddock Fishers (dr) Prêts consentis aux pêcheurs d'aiglefin (dt) 50 56 5010
3331 SPA-Contractors' Security Deposits (cashed) (dr) CFD-Cautionnements des entrepreneurs (encaissés) (dt) 60 57 6085
3339 SPA-Miscellaneous Accounts (dr) CFD-Comptes divers (dt) 60 57 6099
3342 Contractors' Holdbacks (dr) Retenues de garantie des entrepreneurs (dt) 62 58 6299
3343 Great Lakes Fishery Commission (dr) Commission des pêcheries des Grands Lacs (dt) 62 58 6299
3344 Monies received on behalf of OGD (dr) Sommes reçues au nom des AMG (dt) 62 58 6299
3345 Provincial Sales Tax Collected on Sales (dr) Taxes de vente provinciales perçues sur ventes (dt) 62 58 6299
3352 Paylist/Other Deductions - DR Retenues de paie/autres - Débit 62 58 6299
3353 Paylist deductions - Garnishments- employees (dr) Retenues de paie - Saisie arrêt - employés (dt) 62 58 6299
3354 Employee's source Deductions - Income Tax, CPP, EI (dr) Retenues à la source- Impôt sur le rev., RPC, AE (dt) 62 58 6299
3355 Provincial Sales Tax-AACR Taxes de vente provinciales_RACA 58 6299
3359 General Suspense Accounts (dr) Comptes d'attente général (dt) 62 58 6299
3365 Interdepartmental Settlements (dr) Règlements Interministériels (dt)
Cancelled/
Annulé
3370 PODD (dr) PADE (dt) 62 58 6299
3371 PAYE - non OGD (dr) CAFE - non AMG (dt) 62 58 6299
3372 Interdepartmental accounts Receivable-year end (dr) Débiteurs interministériels fin d'exercice (dt) 62 58 6299
3373 PAYE - OGD (dr) CAFE - AMG (dt) 62 58 6299
3375 Deposit Control Account - DR Compte contrôle dépôts - DT
Cancelled/ 52 61 5242
Annulé
3376 CHCT - DR ECPT - DT 52 61 5299
3377 MRMAOFY - DR MRAMIEP - DT 52 61 5299
GST Refundable Advance Account (including Harmonized Compte d'avances remboursables de TPS (Incluant la taxe
3390 50 56 5030
Sale Taxes) (dr) de vente harmonisée) (dt)
3391 Proceeds - forfeited assets & fines (dr) Produits des actifs confisqués et des amendes (dt) 81 59 8295
3392 Payment to outside parties - seized assets (dr) Paiements à des tiers - actifs saisis (dt) 81 59 8295
Page 26 1/7/2004
Line Object
Seized assets - transf proceeds to non-tax revenue (dr) Actifs saisis-transf produits aux recet. non fisc. (dt)
3393 81 59 8295
3398 Earmarked Fees and Levies (dr) Frais & perceptions pour affectation spéciale (dt) 82 60 8225
Page 27 1/7/2004
Line Object
U001 Land (Not use on expenditures) Terrains 70 62 7099

Buildings & Support Facilities (Not use on expenditures) Bâtiments et installations de soutien
U002 70 63 7099
U003 Works and Infrastruture (Not use on expenditures) Travaux et infrastructures 70 64 7099
U004 Weapons (Not use on expenditures) Armes 70 68 7099
U005 Vessels (Not use on expenditures) Navires 70 69 7099
U006 Vehicles (Not use on expenditures) Véhicules 70 90 7099
Communications Equipments (Not use on expenditures) Matériel de communications
U007 70 65 7099
Navigational Aids & Approach Equipment (Not use on Aides à la navigation et équipement d'approche
U008 70 65 7099
expenditures)
U009 Surveillance Equipment (Not use on expenditures) Equipement de surveillance 70 65 7099
U010 Trades Support Equipment (Not use on expenditures) Équipement de soutien de métiers 70 65 7099
U011 Aircraft (Not use on expenditures) Aéronefs 70 74 7099
U013 Vehicle Operating Areas Zones d'exploitation de véhicules
Cancelled/ 70 7099
Annulé
U014 Informatics Hardware (Not use on expenditures) Matériel informatique 70 66 7099
U015 Custodial Assets (<10K) (Not use on expenditures) Biens en réserve (<10K) 70 93 7099
U016 Other Support Equipment (Not use on expenditures) Autres équipements de soutien 70 65 7099
Scientific & Laboratory Equipment (Not use on Équipements scientifiques et de laboratoire
U017 70 65 7099
expenditures)
U018 Informatics Software (Not use on expenditures) Logiciels informatiques 70 67 7099
U019 Trailers (Not use on expenditures) Remorques 70 92 7099
U020 Furniture & Fixtures (Not use on expenditures) Meubles & installations 70 68 7099
Leasehold improvement buildings (Not use on Amélioration locative bâtiments
U053 70 94 7099
expenditures)
Leasehold improvement works & infrastructures (Not use Amélioration locative travaux et infrastructures
U059 70 94 7099
on expenditures)
U090 Depreciation Reserve Amortissement cumulé
Cancelled/ 70 7099
Annulé
U099 Non-Specified Equipments (Not use on expenditures) Équipements non-spécifiés ailleurs 70 65 7099
Page 28 1/7/2004
Line Object
W001 Inventory Control Account Compte de contrôle de stocks
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W002 Purchase Price Variance Écart dans les prix d'achat
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W003 Invoice Price Variance Écart dasn les prix sur les factures
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W004 Cost of Sales Coût des marchandises vendues
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W005 Inter-Organization Purchase Price Variance Achat interorganisations - Écart dans les prix
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W006 Inter-Organization Transfer Credit Transfert de crédit interorganisations
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W007 Inter-Organization Materiel-in-Transit Matériel interorganisations en transit
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W008 Inventory AP Accrual Produits à recevoir (stocks)
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W009 Inter-Organization Payable Compte créditeur interorganisations
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W010 Inter-Organization Receivable Compte débiteur interorganisations
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W011 Inventory Adjustments Ajustement de stocks
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W012 Average Cost Variance Ajustement (coût moyen) de stocks
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W013 Expense - Inventory Dépenses - Stocks
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
W014 Receiving Account (Inventory) Compte de réception (Inventaire)
Cancelled/ 99
Annulé
Page 29 1/7/2004
Line Object
0000 BCMS Control Account Compte de contrôle SGBT 99 0000

9997 RPS Pay Control Account Compte de contrôle paie SRP 99 0000
9998 IS Control Account Compte de contrôle RI 99 0000
1BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-NFLD Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-NFLD 52 99 5299
2BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-Maritimes Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-MAR. 52 99 5299
3BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-Laurentian Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-LAUR. 52 99 5299
4BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-C & A Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-C & A 52 99 5299
5BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-Pacific Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-PAC 52 99 5299
6BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-NCR Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-RCN 52 99 5299
7BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-Gulf Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-GOLFE 52 99 5299
9BCM BCMS Cash Clearing Account-CCG College Compte provisoire SGBT Trésorerie-Collège GCC 52 99 5299
BCM1 BCMS Undistributed Chargebacks Account Compte débit compensatoire SGBT non-appliqué 52 99 5299
BCM3 BCMS RGGL Clearing Account Compte provisoire SGBT GL-RG 52 99 5299
CE99 SPS Control Account Compte de contrôle SNP 99 0000
ISU1 IS Suspense Account Compte d'attente RI 52 99 5399

ISU2 IS Suspense Clearing Account Compte d'attente provisoire RI 52 99 5399
52 99 5299
PAY3 Payroll Accruals Offset Compensation des salaires courus 52 99 5299
PAY4 RPS PS-GL Clearing Account Compte provisoire SP SP-GL 52 99 5299
PAY5 RPS Correcting Account Compte corrections SRP 52 99 5299
RGL1 SPS RGGL Clearing Account (CAD) Compte provisoire SNP/GL-RG (CAN) 52 99 5299
RGL2 SPS RGGL Clearing Account (USD) Compte provisoire SNP/GL-RG (US) 52 99 5299
RGL3 SPS RGGL Clearing Account (Other Foreign Currencies) Compte provisoire SNP/GL-RG (autres devises étrangères) 52 99 5299
RGL5 IS RGGL Credit Cash Clearing Account Trésorerie-Crédit, compte provisoire RI GL-RG 52 99 6299
RGL6 IS RGGL Debit Cash Clearing Account Trésorerie-Débit, compte provisoire RI GL-RG 52 99 5399
SPS0 SPS Cash Clearing Account Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP 52 99 5299
SPS1 SPS Cash Clearing Account (CAD) Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP (CAN) 52 99 5299
SPS2 SPS Cash Clearing Account (USD) Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP (US) 52 99 5299
Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP (autres devises
SPS3 52 99 5299
SPS Cash Clearing Account (Other Foreign Currencies étrangères)
SPS4 52 99 6299
SPS/IS Cash Clearing Account (Accounts Payable) Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP/RI (comptes payables)
SPS5 SPS/IS Credit Cash Clearing Account Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP/RI Crédit 52 99 6299
SPS6 SPS/IS Debit Cash Clearing Account Trésorerie, compte provisoire SNP/RI Débit 52 99 5399
SPS7 IS Receipt Clearing Accounts (Accounts Receivable) Compte provisoire recettes RI (comptes recevables) 52 99 5399
ZZZZ Default Coding - Net Equity Codage par défaut - Capitaux propres 99 0000
Page 30 1/7/2004
Beaufort Wind Scale
In 1806, Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort devised a scale that coastal observers used to report the state of the sea to the Admiralty. It was adopted officially in 1838.
Beaufort Sea Wave

Number Wind Speed Wind Force Sea Surface State Height (m) Code
Knots MPH KPH
0 <1 <1 <1 Calm Calm 0 0 Calm
1 1-3 1-3 1-5 Light air Ripples with the appearance of scales; no foam crests. 0 0 Calm
2 4-6 4-7 6-11 Light Small wavelets; crests of glassy appearance, not breaking. 1 0 - 0.1 Calm, rippled
Breeze
3 7-10 8-12 12-19 Gentle Large wavelets; crests begin to break; scattered whitecaps. 2 0.1 - 0.5 Smooth
Breeze
4 11-16 13-18 20-28 Moderate Small waves, becoming longer; numerous whitecaps. 3 0.5 - 1.25 Slight
Breeze
5 17-21 19-24 29-38 Fresh Moderate waves, taking longer form; many whitecaps; 4 1.25 - 2.5 Moderate
Breeze some spray.
6 22-27 25-31 39-49 Strong Larger waves forming; whitecaps everywhere; more spray. 5 2.5 - 4 Rough
Breeze
7 28-33 32-38 50-61 Near Gale Sea heaps up; white foam from breaking waves begins to 6 4-6 Very Rough
blow in streaks.
8 34-40 39-46 62-74 Gale Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests 6 4-6 Very Rough
begin to break into spindrift; foam is blown into well-marked
streaks.
9 41-47 47-54 75-88 Strong Gale High waves; seas begins to roll; dense streaks of foam; 6 4-6 Very Rough
spray may reduce visibility.
10 48-55 55-63 89-102 Storm Very high waves with overhanging crests; sea takes white 7 6-9 High
appearance as foam is blown in very dense streaks; rolling
is heavy and visibility is reduced.
11 56-63 64-72 103-117 Violent Exceptionally high waves; sea covered with white foam 8 9 - 14 Very High
Storm patches; visibility still more reduced.
12 >64 >73 >118 Hurricane Air filled with foam; sea completely white with driving spray; 9 14 Phenomenal
visibility still more reduced.
Seabird & Marine Mammal Monitoring Protocol
—Seahorse 2002 Glory Hole Construction
Purpose Storm Petrel Protection Measures

This protocol documents the approach to observing A walk-about for Storm Petrels is conducted each night,
and documenting seabird and marine mammal around midnight and early in the morning (as soon after dawn
occurrences in the vicinity of the dredge vessel as possible), or as appropriate to ongoing operations. The walk-
Seahorse during the conduct of the 2002 glory hole about consists of a thorough flashlight search of the deck,
construction program on behalf of Husky Energy. paying particular attention to areas under deck lights, windows
and deck structures. What to do if any Storm Petrels are found
Responsibilities is explained in the protocol entitled “Helping Leach’s Storm
Petrel”.
Aboard the “Seahorse” the vessel’s dynamic
positioning operators have the responsibility for Reporting
conducting seabird and marine mammal observations
in accordance with this protocol as part of their normal Copies of Seabird/Marine Mammal Observation and Storm
duties. These operators are also responsible for Petrel Capture and Release Data Sheets are to be faxed or e-
conducting nightly deck searches for Leach’s Storm mailed to Husky’s Environmental Coordinator as follows:
Petrels that may become stranded onboard the vessel. Email: [email protected]
Any Storm Petrels found will be treated in accordance Fax: 724-3915
with the protocol entitled “Helping Leach’s Storm
Petrel”.
Training
The observers are provided with a minimum of one-
half day’s training in observation techniques and
seabird/marine mammal identification by qualified
individuals. Refresher and/or additional training will be
provided as necessary.
Equipment
Observers are supplied with binoculars and a
spotting scope and seabird and marine mammal
identification guides.
Monitoring Methods
Observations for seabirds/marine mammals will be
conducted three times per day. Preferred times are as
follows:
n early morning (in full light),
n noon, and;
n late afternoon/early evening (in full light).
Surveys are conducted, in accordance with the
above-noted training and will take place from the
vessel’s wing bridges and all observations of seabirds/
marine mammals within a 180-degree field of view are
recorded for a total of 20 minutes during the three
periods noted above. All data is recorded on the
Seabird/Marine Mammal Observation Data Sheets (a
copy of the data sheet is provided on the reverse. An
electronic (Microsoft Excel) version of this datasheet is
available from Husky’s Environmental Coordinator.
Seabird/Marine Mammal Observation Record Sheet for SEAHORSE
Sea
Date Time Number Wind
Observer Species Visibility State Percipitation Comments
d/m/y 00:00 hr of Birds scale
(m)
Comment Codes for seabird observations: Instructions:

Skimming water — 1 Circling Rig —4 This form was designed to be photocopied as needed. When completed fax or
Sitting on water — 2 On deck —5 send it to Husky’s Environmental Coordinator — Fax: 724-3915 / Address: Suite
Swop and dive — 3 Feeding —6 801, Scotia Centre, St. John’s.
Any dead birds should be double-bagged in plastic bags and frozen. Call/fax
Flying By — 7 (incl. direction i.e., NW, SW, NE etc.)
Husky’s Environmental Coordinator at 724-3967 / fax: 724-3915 for pick up at
dockside or shore base.
CETACEAN OFFSHORE OBSERVER: DATA ENTRY INSTRUCTIONS
Type of Data Heading Data Format

Date Date dd/mm/yy
Time Time 0000
Location of observation (place names -if given) Location Name in lower case
Reliability of location Est1 00
Latitude of location Lat 0000
Longitude of location Long 0000
Vessel name Vessel Name in lower case
Country Name Country Name in lower case
Species observed Spp 000
Reliability of identification Est2 00
Number of animals Number 000
Heading of whales Heading 000
Wind speed/Direction Wind 00 NN
Visibility Visibility 0
Beaufort sea state Seastate 00
Ice Ice Y/N
Time of watch start Start 0000
Time of watch end Stop 0000
Duration of watch WatchDur 000
Remarks Remarks text
Date: dd/mm/yy (if day or month data are missing for an event, replace by "xx").
Time: Leave blank if absent.
Location: Name of location if specify, not Lat./Long. information (leave blank if absent).
Vessel: Enter vessel name, if present
Country: Enter country name, if present
Est1: Reliability of location

CODE RELIABILITY OF LOCATION
01 High level of confidence
02 Little or no confidence in identification
"Little confidence", is used in cases where the observer is not certain of their location.
Lat: Latitude of location (first two digits are the degree values, the last two are the minute values;
e.g. 60o 56' = "6056").
Long: Longitude of location (first two digits are the degree values, the last two are the minute
values; e.g. 60o 47' = "6047").
Spp: Species observed (type in text name of animal)

Code Species Name
00 UNIDENTIFIED WHALE SPECIES
01 LARGE WHALE ( >30 FEET, > 9 METERS)
02 MEDIUM SIZED WHALE (18-30 FEET, 5-9 METERS)
03 SMALL WHALE (<18 FEET, <5 METERS)
04 HUMPBACK (Megaptera novaeangliae)
05 POTHEAD, pilot whale, blackfish (Globicephala melaena)
06 MINKE (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
07 BLUE WHALE (Balaenoptera musculus)
08 FIN WHALE, rorqual commun, (Balaenoptera physalus)
09 PORPOISE spp (Unidentified Species)
10 DOLPHIN spp , Jumper, squidhound (Unidentified Species)
11 KILLER WHALE, epaulard (Orcinus Orca)
12 HARBOUR PORPOISE, puffin pig (phocoena phocoena)
13 SPERM WHALE, cachalot (Physeter catadon)
14 WHITE SIDED DOLPHIN, dophin a flanc blanc (Lagenorhynchus acutus)
15 WHITE BEAKED DOLPHIN (Lagenorhynchus albirostris)
16 COMMON DOLPHIN, saddleback (Delphinus delphis)
17 BELUGA, white whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
18 RIGHT WHALE(Eubalaena glacialis)
19 SEI WHALE (Balaenoptera borealis)
20 SEA TURTLE spp (Unidentified Species)
21 BASKING SHARK (Cetorhinus maximus)
22 HARBOUR SEAL (Phoca vitulina)
23 WALRUS (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus)
24 SEAL spp (Unidentified Species)
25 POLAR BEAR (Ursus maratimus)
26 GRAY SEAL (Halichoerus gryptus)
27 SHARK (Unidentified Species)
28 LEATHERBACK TURTLE
29 HARP SEAL, whitecoat, bedlamer, ragged jacket (Phoca groelandica)
30 HOODED SEAL, blueback, hopper (Cystophora cristata)
31 BLUE SHARK
32 BOTTLENOSED WHALE (Hyperoodon ampullatus)
33 NARWHAL, narval (Monodon monoceros)
34 BOWHEAD WHALE (Balaena mysticetus)
35 BOTTLENOSED DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus)
Est2: Reliability of Identification
CODE RELIABILITY OF IDENTIFICATION

01 High level of confidence
02 Little or no confidence in identification
"Little confidence", is used in cases where the observer is not certain of their identification. The
designation of "High level of Confidence" is used in instances where there is no apparent difficulty
identifying the animal.
Certain species codes are automatically given a designation of "little confidence", and should
always be designated as such: 00, 01, 02, 03, 09, 10, 20, 24, and 27. These are to be labeled code
02 ("Little or no confidence in identification") in the “reliability of identification” column.
#: Number of animals (use a conservative number; e.g., if 20-30 animals sighted, record as 20).
Heading: Heading of whales (compass bearing), leave blank if absent.
Wind: Wind speed/direction. Enter wind speed in the first two digits, with the general direction if
specified following a space; e.g. a 15 knot north west wind "15 NW". If part of the information is
missing (speed or direction, replace by "xx"). Leave blank if absent.
Visibility: Distance (nautical miles) or description (e.g. good, poor, cloudy,…) of visibility; leave
blank if absent.
Seastate: Beaufort sea state (or wave height in meters if sea state not defined, include unit of wave
height in entry, e.g., "4m"); leave blank if absent.
Ice: Presence or absence of ice. "Y" for present, "N" for absence; leave blank if absent.
Start: Time of watch start, leave blank if absent.
Stop: Time of watch end, leave blank if absent.
WatchDur: Duration of watch in hours if included; leave blank if not specified; if range of hours
given, type lowest value.
Remarks: Any remarks included by observer.

HELPING LEACH’S STORM PETREL
Helping Leach’s Storm-Petrels
Photo: J.A. Spendelow

Safely & Effectively
Should storm-petrels crash on board your vessel or platform
the following steps should be taken to ensure that they are
About Leach’s Storm-Petrels safely returned to their ocean habitat.
The Species Collection, Recovery and Holding

The Grand Banks is home to large numbers of many Collect the birds by hand and place them gently in
seabird species. These birds use the area year round, cardboard boxes (approximately 50 x 25 cm). Do not
migrating here from the Arctic, south Atlantic and overcrowd the birds. No more than 6 birds should be put
Antarctic Oceans and from local breeding colonies on in a box of the size noted above.
the Newfoundland coast. Eastern Canada’s most Once the birds are in the box the cover should be
abundant breeding species, Leach’s Storm-Petrel, is replaced and they should be left to recover in a quiet,
found in our area of operations often feeding on the sheltered, warm, dark area for 15 minutes or until they are
continental shelf edge. Most of Atlantic Canada’s dry (“recovery period”). Sometimes common sense will
10 million breeding storm-petrels are found around indicate that they may have to be kept for a longer
Newfoundland. In fact, the world’s largest breeding “holding period” to ensure full recovery, if weather
colony is on Baccalieu Island in the mouth of Trinity conditions are too extreme for release, or to await
and Conception Bays. A major migration occurs in nightfall (see below).
September, when young
Birds captured near dawn that have not fully recovered
birds and the adults leave
by daylight, or found during the day where they have
the breeding colonies to
hidden the night before, must be kept until nightfall for
winter on the Atlantic
release. Release of birds in daylight will only result in the
Ocean.
bird being killed by seagulls. Keep the birds in a
cardboard box in a shaded, sheltered, quiet area with
The Bird
Photo: J.A. Spendelow
minimal disturbance and under no circumstances

Leach’s Storm-Petrel is attempt to feed or water them.
the smallest breeding
seabird (50 grams) in Releasing the Birds
Eastern Canada. The bird has dark grey/
brown to black body plumage, a white rump, and a Following the “recovery” or “holding” period, take the box
forked tail. Its dark, hooked bill has tubular nostril on containing the birds to an area that has minimal (if any) lighting.
top that are typical of this kind of open ocean seabird. Open the box carefully so not to startle the bird(s) and take each
They feed by skimming the sea surface, seizing their bird out individually by hand. At the edge of the vessel or
prey in flight, which consists of small fish and platform hold the bird in both hands, facing into the wind if
crustaceans. possible. If they do not fly off in a few minutes then gently toss
the bird up and away into the air. In most cases the bird will
The Issue drop vertically for a short distance and then take flight out and
downward to the ocean surface.
Flying at night as a defense against predators these Remember releases should only be done at night.
birds are often attracted to the light from offshore
platforms and vessels. Experience shows that they can General Handling Instructions:
be attracted to or confused by lights and flares from
ships and platforms and “crash” into lighted areas such Leach’s Storm-Petrels are small and delicate birds and must
as windows, portholes and deck lighting. Fog, which be handled with care at all times. They do have a strong, musky
diffuses the light, may enhance this problem. When the odour that will stay on the handler’s hands but handling Leach’s
bird “crashes” it usually falls or flutters to the deck Storm-Petrels does not pose a health hazard. If you chose to
stunned or disoriented but not hurt or killed. They will wear gloves (thin cotton or surgical gloves are recommended)
then seek a dark area or get underneath something to to handle the birds then ensure they are free of any oil or grease.
avoid the light. Given their reluctance to fly in daylight If you do not use gloves then it is recommended that you
they may have difficulty becoming airborne again ensure there is no oil or grease on your hands before handling
without help. The instructions on this page will allow the birds and wash your hands after.
you to assist the birds that do “crash” on your vessel or
platform and do not take flight on their own.
Seabird Recovery and Release Record Sheet Vessel/Rig name:__________________________
Number Number
Number Number Number
D ate Time O bserver Species Found Held for Comments
Released Oiled Dead
on Deck Recovery
Instructions:
This form was designed to be photocopied as needed. When completed fax or send it to Husky’s Environmental Coordinator at 724-3915 or Suite 801, Scotia Centre, St. John’s.
Any dead birds should be double-bagged with plastic bags and frozen for shipment to shorebase to the attention of Husky’s Environmental Coordinator — phone 724-3967.
Date: _________________________ Vessel: _______________________________________ Coded?
Month Day Year
Vessel Position Environmental Conditions Marine Mammals
Observer(s) Latitude Longitude Time Glare Sightability Initial Distance
Pod Sighting Swim Location Relative

#1 #2 Deg Min Deg Min Hour Min Sec Ship Activity Sea State Amount From To Species Size Cue Reaction Diving? Direction to Ship # Reticles # Meters Ph

ESRF146 BuchananCookMathieu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESRF146 BuchananCookMathieu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESRF146 BuchananCookMathieu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING

FOR EXPLORATION DRILLING

Environmental Studies Research Funds

Solicitation No. ESRF – 018

Robert A. Buchanan1, Joanne A. Cook2 and Anne Mathieu3

Environmental Studies Research Funds

Solicitation No. ESRF – 018

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Appendix I - Review of Toxicity Effects

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

East Coast Production EEM

Potential Decision Process

(c) Scenario 3—sensitive areas. Custom EEM surveys would be required.

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

1.1. Objectives and Purpose of the Study

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

1.2. Boundaries of the Study

1.3. Issue Scoping

− Effects of the cuttings pile on the benthos,

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

In addition, EEM studies should determine:

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.1.1. Fish and Fisheries

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.1.3. Drilling Muds in the Benthic Boundary Layer

2.1.5. Cuttings Pile

2.1.6. Deep Sea Corals

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.1.8. Scientific Credibility of Potential EEM Programs

2.2. Typical Exploratory Drilling

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.2.1. Drill Rigs

2.2.2. Drill Muds

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.2.2.1. Water-Based Muds

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.2.2.2. Synthetic-based Muds

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.2.3. Discharge of Other Fluids and Solids

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.4. Regulatory Regime

2.4.1.1. Gulf of Mexico

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.5. Review of Effects

2.5.1. Toxicity Potential of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings

Environmental Effects Monitoring for Exploration Drilling LGL Limited

2.5.2. Biological Effects: Single or Low Number of Wells

Results of an extensive literature review of developments involving one or few exploratory or

In summary, effects as measured by various biological indices on sediment communities generally

2.5.3. Perspective on Exploratory Drilling Versus Other Industrial Activities