Hawkins and Seymour Production Increase Environmental ... › downloads › 05 HAWKINS and... ·...

Hawkins and Seymour

Production Increase

Environmental Statement

OPRED Reference: D/4238/2019

1 Consultation Emily

Hamlet August 2019

Craig Bloomer

August 2019 Andy King

August 2019

Issue Rev

Issue or Revision Description Origin By Date Chk’d By Date App'd By Date

Originator Name:

Emily Hamlet Originator Position: Environmental Adviser

Hawkins and Seymour Production Increase Environmental Statement

Page ii

REVISION CHANGE NOTICES

Rev Location of Change Brief Description of Change

DISTRIBUTION

Hardcopy Controlled Distribution

Copy # Position Name Address

1

EMT Environmental Management Team

Environmental Management Team

Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

2nd Floor, Wing C, AB1 Building

Crimon Place Aberdeen AB10 1BJ

2

Virtual Controlled Distribution

Number Position Name (if applicable) E-mail Address

1 EMT Environmental Management Team

[email protected]


Page iii

CONTENTS

REVISION CHANGE NOTICES ...................................................................................................... ii

DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................................. ii

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

Project Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

Project Description ................................................................................................................. 3

Environmental Sensitivities .................................................................................................... 3

Potential Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 4

Management and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 6

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 The Armada Platform ................................................................................................. 7

1.2 The Hawkins and Seymour Fields .............................................................................. 7

1.3 Scope of this Environmental Statement ...................................................................... 9

1.4 Environmental Management System ........................................................................ 11

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12

2.2 Facilities overview .................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Historical Production at Armada ............................................................................... 15

2.4 Production at Armada ............................................................................................... 16

2.5 Production from Hawkins .......................................................................................... 18

2.6 Overview of facilities changes due to increased production ...................................... 25

3.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 27

3.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................... 27

3.2 Legislation and Offshore Conservation Areas ........................................................... 28

3.3 Biological Environment ............................................................................................. 32

3.4 Socioeconomic environment ..................................................................................... 37

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 40

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 40

4.2 Assessment method ................................................................................................. 40

4.3 Environmental Issues Identification .......................................................................... 44

5.0 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS .............................................................................................. 47

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 47

5.2 Relevant Legislation ................................................................................................. 47

5.3 Atmospheric emissions impacts ................................................................................ 47

5.4 Cumulative and transboundary impact...................................................................... 49

5.5 Mitigation measures ................................................................................................. 49


Page iv

6.0 DISCHARGES TO SEA ....................................................................................................... 50

6.1 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................... 50

6.2 Produced Water Discharge ....................................................................................... 50

6.3 Chemical Applications .............................................................................................. 51

7.0 ACCIDENTAL EVENTS ...................................................................................................... 52

7.1 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................... 52

7.2 Hydrocarbon Release ............................................................................................... 52

7.3 Chemical Release .................................................................................................... 56

7.4 Cumulative and transboundary impacts .................................................................... 56

8.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 58

9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX A: RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 62


Page v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 0-A Summary of environmental sensitivities in the vicinity of the Armada platform ................ 3

Table 0-B Summary of Chrysaor management and mitigation measures for the Hawkins and Seymour fields (Armada platform) ........................................................................... 6

Table 1-1 Consent and forecast crude production for the Hawkins field .......................................... 9

Table 1-2 Consent and forecast crude production for the Seymour field ....................................... 10

Table 2-1 UK Armada fields consent figures ................................................................................. 15

Table 2-2 Combustion equipment on the Armada platform ........................................................... 23

Table 2-3 Fuel gas and diesel use for the Armada platform in 2016-2018 ..................................... 24

Table 2-4 Examples of the types of chemicals to be used at the Armada platform ........................ 24

Table 3-1. National Marine Plan policies relevant to Hawkins production increase ....................... 28

Table 3-2 NCMPAs of relevance ................................................................................................... 31

Table 3-3 Annex I habitats and Annex II species occurring in UK offshore waters ........................ 31

Table 3-4 Fish/ shellfish spawning occurring within Block 22/05 and ICES rectangles 44F1 ......... 34

Table 3-5 Probability of fish/ shellfish nursery areas occurring within Block 22/05 and ICES rectangles 44F1 .................................................................................................. 34

Table 3-6 Density of marine mammals in Quadrant 22 and surrounding quadrants ...................... 35

Table 3-7 Seabird sensitivity in block 22/05 and surrounding blocks ............................................. 37

Table 3-8 Data for live weight and value of fish and shellfish from ICES rectangle 44F1 in 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019) .............................................................................. 38

Table 3-9 Relative annual fishing effort in ICES rectangle 44F1 in 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019) ...................................................................................................... 38

Table 3-10. Nearest fixed installations in relation to the Armada platform ..................................... 38

Table 4-1 Likelihood descriptors ................................................................................................... 41

Table 4-2 Consequence and severity descriptors.......................................................................... 42

Table 4-3 Risk Matrix and Risk Categories ................................................................................... 44

Table 4-4 Summary of the sources of potential impacts requiring EIA and their relevant ES sections as defined in the risk assessment .................................................................. 45

Table 4-5 Impacts scoped out of EIA ............................................................................................ 45

Table 5-1 Total diesel use and associated emissions from the Armada platform, 2016-2018 ............................................................................................................................ 48

Table 5-2 Total fuel gas use and associated emissions from the Armada platform, 2016-2018 ............................................................................................................................ 48

Table 5-3 Maximum expected increase in fuel gas emissions at Armada associated with a production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields .............................................. 48

Table 5-4 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: atmospheric emissions .................... 49

Table 6-1 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: produced water discharge ................ 51

Table 6-2 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: chemical use and discharge ............. 51

Table 7-1 Legislation relevant to Accidental Events ...................................................................... 52


Page vi

Table 7-2 Armada modelled hydrocarbon release during drilling scenarios (BEIS Reference 170061) ...................................................................................................... 53

Table 7-3 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: accidental hydrocarbon release ......................................................................................................................... 56

Table 7-4 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: accidental chemical release ............. 56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 0-A Location of the Hawkins and Seymour fields and Armada platform. .............................. 2

Figure 1-1 Location of the Hawkins and Seymour fields, including the Armada platform ................. 8

Figure 2-1 The Armada platform and subsea tiebacks .................................................................. 13

Figure 2-2 Armada platform process schematic ............................................................................ 13

Figure 2-4 Armada UK fields total gas production, 2013 to 2018 ................................................... 17

Figure 2-5 Armada UK fields total produced water, 2013 to 2018 ................................................. 17

Figure 2-6 Total historic and maximum forecasted oil production from the Hawkins field .............. 18

Figure 2-7 Total historic and maximum forecasted oil production from the Seymour field ............. 19

Figure 2-8 Forecast oil production for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018 Armada baseline ................................................................................................. 19

Figure 2-9 Total historic and maximum forecast gas production from the Hawkins field ................ 20

Figure 2-10 Total historic and maximum forecast gas production from the Seymour field ............. 20

Figure 2-11 Forecast gas production for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018 Armada baseline ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 2-12 Total historic and maximum estimated produced water and OiW from the Hawkins field ................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 2-13 Total historic and maximum estimated produced water and OiW from the Seymour field ............................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2-14 Forecast produced water for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018 Armada baseline ........................................................................................... 23

Figure 3-1 Conservation areas in the vicinity of the Armada platform ............................................ 30

Figure 7-1 Probability of surface oiling following a well blowout at the Maria field (proxy for Hawkins and Seymour) ................................................................................................ 55


Page vii

GLOSSARY

BAT Best Available Technique BEP Best Environmental Practice

CATS Central Area Transmission System CNS Central North Sea CRA Chemical Risk Assessment CTL Consent to Locate

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMS Environmental Management System

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide

PPC Pollution and Prevention Control PRA Production Application

MAT Master Application Template MEG Monoethylene Glycol MoD Ministry of Defence MPA Marine Protected Area

NCMPA Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas NMP National Marine Plan

OPEP Oil Pollution Emergency Plan OSRL Oil Spill Response Limited

SAC Special Area of Conservation SAT Subsidiary Application Template SCI Site of Community Importance SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit SOSI Seabirds Oil Sensitivity Index SPA Special Protection Area TEG Tri-ethylene Glycol TPS Tilted Plate Separator

UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf


Page 1

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Project Summary

Chrysaor North Sea Limited (Chrysaor) operates the Hawkins and Seymour fields on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) in the central North Sea (CNS), within Licence Block 22/05 (Figure 0-A). The fields lie 220 km from the United Kingdom coastline and 3.8 km from the United Kingdom/ Norway median line. Both fields are produced through the Armada platform, in Block 22/05. The Armada platform was installed in 1997 and currently processes produced hydrocarbons from seven other reservoirs including Fleming, Drake, Hawkins (the Armada fields), Seymour, Rev, Maria and Gaupe (North and South).


Page 2

Figure 0-A Location of the Hawkins and Seymour fields and Armada platform.

This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA; carried out in accordance with the EIA Regulations and the PPC Regulations) that has been undertaken in support of the application to vary the production consents for Hawkins and Seymour. This EIA has been undertaken by Chrysaor for a production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields as a result of increased production from the new Hawkins and Seymour Horst wells, which are to be drilled at the Armada platform (Hawkins: 22/50b-A13; Seymour: 22/05b-A14). The impacts associated with the drilling activities are outlined in DRA/591 (Hawkins) and DRA/655 (Seymour Horst).


Page 3

Project Description

Hydrocarbons from the Hawkins and Seymour Horst production wells will be produced via the Armada platform. Hydrocarbons will be separated and processed on the Armada platform with gas exported via the Central Area Transmission pipeline system and oil through the Forties pipeline system.

Over the past six years (2013 to 2018), overall oil and gas production (and therefore produced water) has decreased at the Armada platform. The baseline year in which changes to production are to be assessed against is 2018. The production increase at Hawkins and Seymour is expected to lead to an increase in oil, gas and produced water levels above the baseline.

As a result of the increased oil and gas production from Hawkins and Seymour, the following changes are expected at the Armada platform:

• An increase in the volume of produced water discharged to sea;

• Improved energy efficiencies; and,

• An increase in fuel requirements.

Environmental Sensitivities

The key environmental sensitivities around the Armada platform, are summarised in Table 0-A.

Table 0-A Summary of environmental sensitivities in the vicinity of the Armada platform

Key conservation interests

Special Protected Areas (SPAs)/ marine SPAs

Closest is the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA, 220 km to the west of the Hawkins and Seymour fields.

Annex I Habitats Closest is Scanner Pockmark SAC, 58 km to the north west of the Hawkins and Seymour fields field.

Annex II Species Harbour porpoise; Grey seal; Harbour seal

Marine Conservation Areas

Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA, 5km north of the Hawkins and Seymour fields.

East Gannet and Montrose NCMPA, 60 km south-south west of the Armada platform.

Physical environment

Spring tidal current velocities are between 0.25 to 0.51 m/s (UKDMAP, 1998).

Winds are dominated by those from the south south-west and south, and are on average between 6 and 13 m/s. Maximum wind speeds exceed 17.5 m/s between November and March (DTI, 2001).

The mean wave height ranges from 2.26 - 2.50 m with an annual mean significant wave height of 2.33 m (NMPI, 2019).

Benthic environment

Sediment EUNIS habitat type A5.27 Deep circalittoral sand and EUNIS habitat type A5.44 Circalittoral mixed sediment

Benthic fauna

The distribution and composition of benthos is typical of the central North Sea as confirmed during environmental surveys. The overall community is dominated by the seapen Pennatula phosphorea, the urchin Spatangus raschi, an indeterminate starfish (Asteroidea sp.), the anemone Cerianthus lloydii and plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). The octocoral Alcyonium digitatum and anemone (Hormathia digitata) were found to have colonised the hard contacts (particularly relic shells) within the substrate in these areas.

Pelagic environment

Plankton The planktonic community in the vicinity of the Armada platform is typical of this area of the North Sea (Beare et al., 2002). The phytoplankton community is dominated by


Page 4

diatoms (Thalassiosira spp. and Chaetoceros spp.) and dinoflagellates (Ceratium fusus, C. furca and C. lineatum).

Fish spawning Cod, lemon sole, mackerel, Nephrops, Norway pout, sandeels.

Fish nursery Anglerfish, blue whiting, cod, European hake, haddock, herring, ling, mackerel, Nephrops, Norway pout, plaice, sandeel, spotted ray, spurdog and whiting.

Cetaceans recorded within Quadrant 22 (UKDMAP, 1998; Reid et al., 2003)

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

White-beaked dolphin

White-sided dolphin

Harbour porpoise

Common dolphin

Killer whale

Minke whale

Seabird sensitivity to oil pollution (Webb et al., 2016)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Block 22/05 (Armada platform) 4 4 4 ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND ND

Socioeconomic environment within ICES rectangles 44F1 (Armada platform)

Commercial fishing effort Fishing effort in ICES rectangle 44F1 was highest in August (24 days) and November (24 days) (Scottish Government, 2019).

Commercial fishing value Fishing value in ICES rectangle 44F1 was £564,639 (dominated by demersal) (Scottish Government, 2019).

Offshore oil and gas activities

The CNS region is an area of extensive oil development. The closest fixed installations are Andrew 25 km west north west; North Everest 13 km south; Farragon 27 km north west.

Commercial shipping Shipping traffic within the northern and central North Sea averages between one and ten vessels per day. Shipping density is therefore low (DECC, 2016b).

Other considerations

Transboundary issues 3.8 km from the United Kingdom/ Norway median line.

Key

Seabird sensitivity Marine mammal sightings

1 Extremely high VH Very high (>0.49 animals/ km)

2 Very high H High (0.20 – 0.49 animals/ km)

3 High M Moderate (0.10 – 0.19 animals/ km)

4 Medium L Low (0.01-0.09 animals/ km)

5 Low No data

ND No data

x Interpolated data (where “x” is the interpolated number)

Potential Environmental Impacts

The Environmental Impact Assessment has included the characterisation of the project and the identification of sensitive receptors. This enabled an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields. For those impacts considered potentially significant, mitigation and management measures implemented by Chrysaor have been presented.


Page 5

In addition, the potential for cumulative and transboundary impacts have also been considered within this assessment.

The key issues identified for consideration and assessment are atmospheric emissions, discharges to sea and accidental events. These are summarised in the sections below.

Atmospheric emissions

Atmospheric emissions may increase due to the increase in production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields. The source of this increase would relate directly to any increase in the use of fuel gas. Chrysaor expect a maximum 3% increase in fuel gas emissions due to production activity, which would amount to an annual emissions total of 2,752.35 tonnes of CO2 (representing ~0.02% of the total UKCS emissions in 2018).

Any increase in fuel gas use is likely to be offset by a concurrent decrease in diesel use, and impact of the contribution of emissions to the environment is therefore expected to be minor.

Discharges to sea

Increases in produced water and production chemicals are anticipated following a production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields. Chrysaor expect that the maximum produced water (at its peak in 2028 for Hawkins and 2020 for Seymour) will be approximately 0.1% of the Armada 2018 baseline levels. This increase remains within both permitted levels and oil-in-water discharge limits, and thus does not exceed the volumes within the Armada Oil Discharge Permit, OLP/66.

The Armada platform has an existing chemical permit to cover these activities under the Offshore Chemical Regulations. All chemical use required during production will have been subject to an impact assessment as part of the chemical permit application. Any changes in chemical dosing (including changes to volumes) will therefore require a variation to the current Armada production chemical permit CP/7.

Any discharges to sea are expected to disperse rapidly into the marine environment. Consequently, any discharges to sea from the production increase at Hawkins and Seymour will be negligible.

Accidental events

The increased production at Hawkins and Seymour inherently increases the probability of an accidental hydrocarbon spill. The Hawkins condensate is a Group I, while Seymour oil is a Group II, and consequently can lose up to 40% of volume through evaporation. Given the location in the central North Sea, 3.8 km from the United Kingdom/ Norway median line, should any spill occur it is likely to result in transboundary impacts as it will cross the median line with the prevailing currents. The predominant direction of travel of any spill, to the northeast, is such that there are limited impacts on MPA’s to the south of the Armada platform. The location of fishing grounds in the vicinity of the Hawkins and Seymour fields (and Armada platform) is such that there exists the potential for a significant socioeconomic impact via the temporary loss of fishing access.

Whilst the probability of an event increases due to the proposed production increase, the likelihood of such an event remains low due to the stringent risk management enforced by Chrysaor through the adherence to prevention methods. Mitigation and management measures primarily focus on the prevention and minimisation of the probability of an accidental spill. Secondly these measures aim to reduce the consequences of the event through optimum and efficient containment and release response. Consequently, the significance of such an event remains low.


Page 6

Management and Mitigation Measures

The project will adhere to Chrysaor’s Environmental Management System and will adopt a range of management and mitigation measures that adhere to relevant regulatory and legislative requirements (Table 0-B). These will ensure that all impacts are effectively managed.

Table 0-B Summary of Chrysaor management and mitigation measures for the Hawkins and Seymour

fields (Armada platform)

Mitigation and Management Measures

Atmospheric Emissions

1. Combustion emissions are controlled under the Offshore Combustion Installations (PPC) Regulations and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations.

2. All generators and engines will be maintained and operated to the manufacturers’ standards to ensure maximum efficiency.

3. Fuel consumption will be minimised by operational practices and power management systems for engines, generators and other combustion plant and maintenance systems.

4. Continual monitoring of emissions and communication of alignment against permitted thresholds by Chrysaor’s Environmental Team.

Produced Water

1. Produced water is regulated under The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations.

2. All produced water will be within the permitted limits detailed in the Armada Oil Discharge Permit and reported within EEMS.

Chemical Use and Discharge

1. Chemical use is controlled under the Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002.

2. All chemical use and discharge will be within the permitted limits detailed in the Armada Chemical Permit.

3. Low toxicity/ PLONOR chemicals are to be used, where reasonably possible.

Accidental Hydrocarbon Release

1. Chrysaor have a regulatory approved OPEP in place within which source control and counter pollution response arrangements and resources are detailed.

2. Chrysaor will have mitigation measures in place during the proposed operations to ensure that the risk to any sensitive receptors is ALARP.

3. Chrysaor has an active membership with Oil Spill Response Ltd (OSRL).

4. Chrysaor can call upon specialist contractors such as Wild Well Control (WWC) in the event of a well blowout.

5. Chrysaor is a member of Oil Pollution Operators Liability (OPOL) and adhere to the ‘Liability provision guidelines for offshore petroleum operations 2018’.

6. A Chrysaor Emergency Response Team (ERT) is prepared to authorise and support operations should a relief well(s) be required in the event of a well blowout. Personnel resource will also be supported by 3rd party specialists.

7. Bunkering procedures will only take place during appropriate conditions and all equipment is required to have built-in safety measures.

Accidental Chemical Release

1. Personnel to supervise the offloading and bunkering operations and monitor the hoses throughout bunkering.


3. Adoption of the best practice methods as set out in the Bulk Hose Best Practice Guidelines (NWEA/OGUK/Step Change and MSF guidelines).

4. Visual inspection of hoses before each use. Replacement of all damaged and worn hoses.

5. Bunkering operations will only take place during appropriate conditions and all equipment is required to have built-in safety measures.

Conclusions

Overall, the revised production consents are not expected to result in any significant impacts in terms of new, cumulative or transboundary impacts. All activities will adhere to Chrysaor’s management and mitigation procedures and practises to ensure that any potential impacts are carefully managed and contained.


Page 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Statement (ES) presents the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken by Chrysaor North Sea Limited (Chrysaor) for production increases associated with the Hawkins and Seymour fields through two new wells drilled at the Armada platform (Hawkins: 22/05b-A13; Seymour Horst: 22/05b-A14). The impacts associated with the drilling activities are outlined in DRA/591 (Hawkins) and DRA/655 (Seymour Horst). Both the Hawkins and Seymour Horst wells will be produced through the Armada platform where produced hydrocarbons are processed. The expected hydrocarbons from the Hawkins wells is a light (ITOPF Group I) condensate, while Seymour Horst is ITOPF Group II oil. Furthermore, the Hawkins and Seymour Horst wells are not expected to be high pressure/ high temperature (HPHT).

1.1 The Armada Platform

The Armada installation is located in United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) Block 22/05 of the central North Sea (CNS); 220 km from the nearest UK mainland (St Fergus) and 3.8 km from the UK/ Norway median line in water depths of, approximately, 89 m (Figure 1-1). The Armada platform currently processes hydrocarbons from eight reservoirs: Fleming, Drake, Hawkins (the Armada Fields), Seymour, Maria, Rev and Gaupe (North and South). The fields cover five blocks: 16/29c, 16/29g, 22/04a, 22/05a and 22/05b. Chrysaor is the installation and well operator of the Armada installation and associated subsea fields.

1.2 The Hawkins and Seymour Fields

The Hawkins and Seymour fields are located in UKCS Block 22/05 of the CNS, 220 km north east of the nearest UK mainland (Aberdeenshire), and 3.8 km west of the UK/ Norway median line, in water depths of, approximately, 87 m (Figure 1-1).


Page 8

Figure 1-1 Location of the Hawkins and Seymour fields, including the Armada platform


Page 9

1.3 Scope of this Environmental Statement

Chrysaor anticipate that the future production for the Hawkins and Seymour field will exceed that permitted under the current production consents (Hawkins: Reference PCON/4870/1; Seymour: Reference PCON/4871/0) during the 2-year period for which consent is sought. Using the maximum daily production levels for oil and gas for 2020 to 2021, Chrysaor has calculated the average production figures for this period (Hawkins: Table 1-1; Seymour: Table 1-2). The period of 2020-2021 was selected as Chrysaor understand this is the expected extent of the OGA Production consent being applied. The volumes of gas and oil forecasted to be produced through the Hawkins and Seymour fields are shown against current permitted values (2020 – 2021). However, this Environmental Statement has been prepared to assess the long-term production from both fields (2020 – 2029).

Table 1-1 Consent and forecast crude production for the Hawkins field


Page 10

Table 1-2 Consent and forecast crude production for the Seymour field

In accordance with current regulations, the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (as amended), an EIA and ES is required when the forecasted production exceeds 500 tonnes per day of liquid hydrocarbon (oil or condensate) or 500,000 m3 per day of gas (DECC, 2016a).

This ES details the EIA undertaken in support of the revised production consent applications. Specifically, an evaluation of the potential impacts resulting from both planned and unplanned activities have been considered. These include increased emissions and energy use, discharges to sea and accidental events upon a range of environmental and socioeconomic receptors.


Page 11

1.4 Environmental Management System

Chrysaor has a Health, Safety, Environment, Quality and Asset Integrity system, which identifies, evaluates, manages and controls potential Health, Safety, Environment and Quality (HSEQ), Asset Integrity (AI) and Marine Hazards facing UK Operations. All systems follow a Plan, Do, Check, Act model and meets the requirements of HS(G)65, ISO 9001 and is certified to ISO 14001.

The Environmental Management System (EMS) provides a tool for managing the impacts of Chrysaor’s activities, products and services on the environment. It provides a structured approach for continuous planning, implementing, reviewing and improving on environmental protection measures as well as working towards increasing environmental sustainability.

There are a number of associated benefits with the installation EMS having ISO 14001 accreditation including, but not limited to, promoting continual improvement, maintaining a high internal environmental management standard and aligning to Chrysaor’s values and business principles.

Chrysaor acknowledges that its business activities have an associated environmental impact. Whilst environmental aspects can have a positive or negative impact, the vast majority of Chrysaor’s business activities have a negative environmental impact. As such, these require careful and responsible management to mitigate, where possible, their negative impact.


Page 12

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Introduction

An EIA must provide a clear description of the assessed project. In the case of an increase in production from an oil and gas field, it is important to understand the facilities on the Armada platform through which the hydrocarbons are processed. These processing facilities are described in Section 2.2. Within this context it is important to understand the reason for, and the consequences of, the proposed production increase for Hawkins and Seymour. Any changes that might be required to these facilities as a result of the proposed production increases and any further changes, such as to chemical or flare management, are highlighted in Section 2.3. An overview of these changes is provided in Section 2.6.

2.2 Facilities overview

Hydrocarbons from the Hawkins and Seymour Horst production wells will be produced via the Armada platform for processing. The Armada offshore facility consists of a single platform and two export pipelines (Figure 2-1). The platform comprises of a four-legged steel jacket supporting a single integrated deck which contains the wellhead, process and accommodation facilities. The platform consists of a central well bay flanked by a production area to the north and a utilities area to the south.

Armada was originally developed to exploit three gas and condensate fields; Fleming, Drake and Hawkins. The development has since expanded operations and fluids from the NW Seymour (oil), Maria (oil), Rev (gas) and Gaupe fields (gas) are also processed at the Armada facility. The NW Seymour field was developed in 2004/2005; the Maria field in 2006 (Maria wells side-tracked 2018/2019), the Rev field in 2007 and the Gaupe field in 2011. The Gaupe and Rev fields are located in the Norwegian sector.

Gas and condensate produced at the Armada development are transported 23 km via separate pipelines to the Central Area Transmission System (CATS) Riser Platform located adjacent to the North Everest platform in Block 22/09. Once at the CATS Riser, gas enters CATS for onward transportation to the Teesside Terminal, while oil and condensate enter the Everest Liquid System for onward transportation to the Forties Pipeline System, which leads onshore to Cruden Bay and eventually to Grangemouth.

2.2.1 Separation Process

Process facilities on the Armada platform convert well fluids into export quality gas and condensate streams. A process flow schematic is shown in Figure 2-2. The well stream fluids are treated in a three-stage separation process. Gas from the High Pressure (HP) separator, the test separator and from the Maria, Gaupe and Rev fields is cooled and dried in a TEG Glycol Contactor to meet dew point specification for export quality gas. The gas is then compressed and exported to CATS.

The Armada platform has High Pressure (HP) and Low Pressure (LP) flare systems for emergency/ excess gas flow relief and an atmospheric vent header is also present to permit maintenance operations. Condensate from the HP separator, the test separator, the TEG Contactor and the gas scrubber are routed to the LP separator. Gas removed at this stage is used for fuel. A corrosion inhibitor is injected into the condensate line immediately downstream of the LP separator. A Medium Pressure separator is used solely for processing hydrocarbons produced from the Maria field. Oil and condensate are pumped down an export pipeline via the CATS riser platform to the Forties Pipeline.


Page 13

Figure 2-1 The Armada platform and subsea tiebacks

Figure 2-2 Armada platform process schematic


Page 14

2.2.2 Produced Water Facilities

Produced water is treated by a Tilted Plate Separator (TPS) prior to overboard discharge. There is no facility for produced water or seawater re-injection. The TPS is not designed to handle large quantities of solids or waxy material and does not have any functionality for online cleaning.

In 2012, a CETCO Hi-Flow unit (CETCO unit) was installed downstream of the TPS, which enables additional polishing of produced water before disposal, when required. Overboard discharge is from the outlet of the Armada produced water caisson, via an open-ended pipe at a height of 45 m below LAT (49 m above the seabed).

2.2.3 Drainage System

Drainage from non-hazardous areas and living quarters that do not contain controlled residues (such as oil or diesel) are discharged directly to sea. First line spill prevention is plastic bund units below the lube oil drums. Units containing diesel oil storage are protected from overfilling by automatic high level shut off valves.

The hazardous drainage system can be further separated into an open and closed system. The hazardous open drains system offers a second line of protection in case diesel fuel or lube oil spill onto the deck.

Drainage from non-hazardous areas that may contain oily residues or diesel, together with residues from the hazardous open drains are routed to the open drain’s caisson. A pump is provided in the caisson to recycle skimmed hydrocarbons back into the High-Pressure Flare Drum where they enter the production process.

The open drain caisson is designed to give sufficient separation time for any hydrocarbons to be separated and pumped back to the production facilities. It is standard procedure to pump the top layer (sea level plus 40 cm) of the caisson back to the production facilities at least once a day.

Open drains are not used intentionally to drain any hydrocarbons into. This is well communicated for new arrivals on the platform. The drainage system is standard for a facility of this age and service. As no hydrocarbons should be entering the sea routinely from the drainage systems this is considered BAT/ BEP for this facility as minimal environmental impact will result.

Use of the hazardous drain system is sporadic and there is normally no flow from the system. The drainage system is well maintained with regular cleaning to avoid blockages.

Closed hazardous drains, which are located in hazardous areas, are provided for all hydrocarbon carrying equipment and drainage from drains occurs via a closed maintenance header which routes fluids to the High-Pressure Flare Drum. This system is routed to the Low-Pressure separator with ultimate discharge of water via the Armada produced water stream and any hydrocarbons routed to the export facilities.

2.2.4 Seawater Use

Seawater is extracted, filtered, treated by copper/ aluminium anodes (to prevent biofouling) then pumped through heat exchangers to transfer heat from a closed loop MEG/ water cooling system. The seawater is then discharged with a raised temperature.


Page 15

2.2.5 Heating and Cooling System

The cooling medium system provides all the process cooling requirements, some utility cooling duties and acts as a heats source for a “winterisation” coil in the Glycol storage tank. Seawater is used to remove heat from the cooling medium via seawater/ cooling medium in plate exchangers.

The cooling medium is a 20% MEG/ 80% Demineralised water mixture. This solution is used to depress the cooling medium freezing point to below the minimum ambient. The system is a closed loop circulation system with a constant flowrate.

2.2.6 Glycol System

Gas Hydrate Inhibitor, Triethylene Glycol (TEG), is applied to the gas dehydration system in batches to dehydrate produced gas. During normal operations TEG is subject to losses due to degradation and evaporation and partition into condensate. The gas system is designed to remove TEG from the gas phase before reaching the gas export itself and evaporated TEG should be condensed and scrubbed. TEG is ultimately discharged via partition from condensate into produced water via the Low-Pressure separator where it is then routed for overboard discharge.

2.2.7 Flow Assurance

The Armada platform operates as a process hub for a number of fields and different fluid types are processed on the platform. The fluids produced from the Armada platform and the tie-backs do not have any particularly troublesome or intractable characteristics, the Maria fluids do however have a relatively high wax content which has caused issues with waxing process equipment and pipelines. The main issues associated with the production of these fluids are hydrate formation, wax deposition and flow from depleted reservoirs.

There are also routine chemicals within a number of the systems on the Armada platform, including the oil and gas process systems, and various utility systems. To ensure flow assurance is maintained, methanol is injected at the wellheads during well start-ups for hydrate suppression.

2.3 Historical Production at Armada

This section provides detail pertaining to Armada’s historical production.

2.3.1 Overview

To provide some context for the Hawkins and Seymour field production increases, this section summarises the historical and current consent and the historical production figures for Hawkins, Seymour and the other UK fields (Drake, Fleming, and Maria), which are produced at the Armada platform. As the Norwegian fields (Gaupe and Rev) are subject to a separate consenting system they are not presented here. The production consents for the UK Armada fields are detailed in Table 2-1 and are presented to reflect maximum production per day.

Table 2-1 UK Armada fields consent figures

Field 2019

Maximum Oil Consent m3/day) Maximum Gas Consent (m3/day)

Drake 0.013 153,000

Fleming 0.074 883,100

Seymour 0.35 150,000

Maria 1.381 1,067,100

Hawkins 0.044 161,600


Page 16

2.4 Production at Armada

This section provides some context for recent (2013 to 2018) production of oil (Section 2.4.1), gas (Section 2.4.2) and produced water (Section 2.4.3) at Armada, from the UK fields that are tied-back to the platform. This information will be used as a baseline (where applicable) to estimate the impact of the production increase at Hawkins and Seymour on various activities at the Armada platform. Information here represents annual (i.e. total) production.

2.4.1 Oil Production

Between 2013 and 2018, the majority of oil production at the Armada platform originated from the Seymour, Fleming and Maria fields (Figure 2-3). Total oil production declined from 184,000 tonnes in 2013 to 67,700 tonnes in 2018. The Hawkins field ceased to produce in 2015.

Figure 2-3 Armada UK fields total oil production, 2013 to 2018

2.4.2 Gas Production

Between 2013 and 2018, the majority of gas production at the Armada platform originated from the Fleming field (Figure 2-4). Total gas production declined from 773,300,000 m3 in 2013 to 247,300,000 m3 in 2018. The Hawkins field ceased to produce in 2015.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Oil

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

nes

)

Drake Fleming Hawkins Seymour Maria


Page 17

Figure 2-4 Armada UK fields total gas production, 2013 to 2018

2.4.3 Produced water

The Drake field contributed the most to the total produced water at the Armada platform between 2013 and 2018 (Figure 2-5). Total produced water declined from 184,800 m3 in 2013 to 77,500 m3 in 2018. In line with current legislation and the Armada Oil Pollution Prevention and Control (OPPC) permit, produced water was treated prior to discharge to sea, so that the Oil in Water (OiW) component of the produced water did not exceed the monthly 30 mg/l limit at any point. Total oil discharged declined in line with produced water volume over this period.

Figure 2-5 Armada UK fields total produced water, 2013 to 2018

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

900,000,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Gas

Pro

du

ctio

n (

m3 )


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Pro

du

ced

Wat

er (

m3 )



Page 18

2.5 Production from Hawkins

A production increase is expected from the Hawkins and Seymour fields following the 2019/2020 drilling campaign, to drill two new production wells (Hawkins: 22/05b-A13; Seymour Horst: 22/05b-A14) from the Armada platform (Table 1-1). This section outlines the historical decrease in production and the expected increase in oil (Section 2.5.1), gas (Section 2.5.2) and produced water (Section 2.5.3). These sections also place the Hawkins and Seymour forecasts into context with the existing (2018) production figures at Armada (Section 2.4).

2.5.1 Oil Production

Figure 2-6 shows historical production, current consent and forecast production of oil at Hawkins. The forecast figures are the values for which the new production consent is submitted and represent a high case (P10) scenario. Within the boundaries of this data, oil production was highest in 2013 (504 tonnes) and declined until the field ceased to produce in 2015. As a result of the drilling of the new development well at Hawkins, it is anticipated that oil production at Hawkins will increase in 2020 (estimated 58,229 tonnes) and then declining slowly until 2029 (estimated 7,813 tonnes).

Figure 2-6 Total historic and maximum forecasted oil production from the Hawkins field

Figure 2-7 shows the historical production, current consent and forecast production of oil at Seymour. The forecast figures are the values for which the new production consent is submitted and represent a high case (P10) scenario. Within the boundaries of this data, oil production was highest in 2013 (94,000 tonnes) and declined until 2018 (38,000 tonnes). As a result of the drilling of the new development well at Seymour, it is anticipated that oil production at Seymour will increase in 2020 (estimated 238,500 tonnes), and then declining slowly until 2029 (estimated 24,819 tonnes).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Historical Forecast

Oil

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

nes

)


Page 19

Figure 2-7 Total historic and maximum forecasted oil production from the Seymour field

Figure 2-8 places the forecast data in context with the 2018 Armada oil production. The Armada baseline (2018) data comprises oil production from the tie-back fields (Figure 2-3) and represents a total of 67,700 tonnes of oil. Based on the Hawkins and Seymour fields forecasts, it is estimated that maximum oil production (when at its peak in 2020) will be approximately 0.9 and 3.5 times the Armada 2018 baseline, respectively.

Figure 2-8 Forecast oil production for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018

Armada baseline

2.5.2 Gas Production

Figure 2-9 shows historical production and maximum predicted forecast for gas production at Hawkins. The forecast figures are the values for which the new production consent is submitted and represent a high case (P10) scenario. Within the boundaries of this data, gas production was highest in 2014 (5,466,700m3) and declined until the field ceased to produce in 2015. As a result of the drilling of the new development well at Hawkins, it is anticipated that gas production at Hawkins will

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Historical Forecast

Oil

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

nes

)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Oil

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

nes

)

Armada 2018 Baseline Hawkins Seymour


Page 20

increase in 2020 (estimated 310,916,000 m3), and then decline slowly until 2029 (estimated 52,271,000 m3).

Figure 2-9 Total historic and maximum forecast gas production from the Hawkins field

Figure 2-10 shows historical production and maximum predicted forecast for gas and production at Seymour. The forecast figures are the values for which the new production consent it submitted and represents a high case (P10) scenario. Within the boundaries of this data, gas production was highest in 2013 (99,146,600 m3) and gradually declined until 2018 (37,666,600 m3). As a result of the drilling of the new development well at Seymour, it is anticipated that gas production through Seymour will increase in 2020 (estimated 206,574,000 m3), reaching a peak in 2021 (estimated 256,765,000 m3) and then decline slowly until 2029 (estimated 53,099,500 m3).

Figure 2-10 Total historic and maximum forecast gas production from the Seymour field

Figure 2-11 places the forecast data in context with the 2018 Armada gas production. The Armada baseline (2018) data comprises gas production from the tie-back fields (Figure 2-4) and represents a total of 247,292,800 m3 of gas. Based on the Hawkins and Seymour field forecast, it is estimated that maximum gas production (when at its peak in 2020 for Hawkins and 2021 for Seymour) will be approximately 1.3 and 1 times the Armada 2018 baseline, respectively.

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Historical Forecast

Gas

Pro

du

ctio

n (

m3 )

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Historical Forecast

Gas

Pro

du

ctio

n (

m3)


Page 21

Figure 2-11 Forecast gas production for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018

Armada baseline

2.5.3 Produced water

The process undertaken to treat produced water at the Armada platform (Section 2.2.2) results in a produced water stream that has a sufficiently low oil-in-water content to be discharged overboard from the platform through the drainage system and via the overboard discharge caisson. Produced water discharge is consented under the Armada Oil Discharge Permit, which states that the maximum oil-in-water content permissible in a single sample is 100 mg/l, with a monthly flow-weighted average not to exceed 30 mg/l.

As shown in Figure 2-12, produced water discharge volumes are set to increase in 2020, in line with increased production from the Hawkins well. Figure 2-13 shows the increase associated with the increased production from the Seymour well. Figure 2-14 places the forecast data in context with the 2018 Armada baseline. The Armada baseline (2018) data comprises production from the tie-back fields (Figure 2-4) and represents a total of 77,535 m3 of produced water. Based on the Hawkins and Seymour field forecasts, it is estimated that the maximum produced water (when at its peak in 2022) represents just an approximately 0.2% increase beyond the Armada 2018 baseline. Despite the overall increase, produced water discharges will remain within permitted levels and oil-in-water permit limits, and it is not expected that this will lead to the exceedance of the overall volumes stated in the Armada Oil Discharge Permit.

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

900,000,000

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Gas

Pro

du

ctio

n (

m3

)



Page 22

Figure 2-12 Total historic and maximum estimated produced water and OiW from the Hawkins field

Figure 2-13 Total historic and maximum estimated produced water and OiW from the Seymour field

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029

Historical Forecast

Oil

in W

ater

(to

nn

es)

Pro

du

ced

Wat

er (

m3)

OiW (tonnes/yr)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029

Historical ForecastO

il in

Wat

er (

ton

nes

)

Pro

du

ced

Wat

er (

m3 )

OiW (tonnes/yr)


Page 23

Figure 2-14 Forecast produced water for the Hawkins and Seymour fields in context with the 2018

Armada baseline

2.5.4 Power generation and combustion

The main items of combustion equipment using fuel on the Armada platform are the turbines and engines detailed in Table 2-2. The Armada platform’s turbines and engines are powered by a mixture of fuel gas and diesel. All of the combustion equipment listed in Table 2-2 is authorised for use under an offshore combustion installation permit (PPC/62).

Table 2-2 Combustion equipment on the Armada platform

Equipment name and model Fuel Type Primary purpose Maximum rated

output (MW)

Maximum thermal input

(MW(th))

Solar Taurus 60 Gas Turbine (T7000)

Gas/ Diesel Mains power generation

4.7 13.8

Solar Taurus 60 Gas Turbine (T7000)

Gas/ Diesel Mains power generation

4.7 13.8

Rolls Royce Avon 1535-200G Gas Turbine

Fuel gas Export gas

compression 16.6 54.3

Rolls Royce Avon 1535-200G Gas Turbine

Fuel gas Export gas

compression 16.6 54.3

MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH 8V396TB34 Diesel Engine

Diesel Emergency power

generation 0.8 2.2

Caterpillar 3516 TA Diesel Engine

Diesel Firewater pump 1.4 3.8

Caterpillar 3516 TA Diesel Engine

Diesel Firewater pump 1.4 3.8

Caterpillar 3412 DITA Diesel Engine

Diesel Crane lift 0.5 1.6

Caterpillar 3412 DITA Diesel Engine

Diesel Crane lift 0.5 1.6

Fuel gas and diesel use data is provided for the Armada platform for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 (Table 2-3). The Armada platform is run on fuel gas preferentially, but when fuel gas is unavailable (i.e. during a shutdown), diesel is used in its place. As such it is normal for increased fuel gas use to correspond to a decrease in diesel use, as shown in Table 2-3. The increased production associated

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Pro

du

ced

Wat

er (

m3 )



Page 24

with the drilling campaign will result in a worst-case nominal 3% increase in reliance on fuel gas and a corresponding decrease in reliance on diesel use.

Table 2-3 Fuel gas and diesel use for the Armada platform in 2016-2018

Year Total fuel gas use

(tonnes) Total diesel use

(tonnes)

2016 39,735 1,664

2017 41,727 1,120

2018 32,079 1,568

2.5.5 Chemical use

As with most oil and gas operations offshore, chemicals are utilised at the Armada platform in the production and operations process for both inhibition and treatment purposes and the Armada platform has an existing chemical permit to cover these activities under the Offshore Chemical Regulations. Applications of these chemicals include treating and stabilising produced fluids when they first arrive at the platform. Regular chemical application is required to ensure utilities continue to function and for scheduled maintenance operations. Periodic applications are required during equipment and general platform cleaning. In line with Chrysaor’s commitment to reduce potential environmental impact from its offshore operations, the volume of chemicals used and discharged is continuously monitored and optimised where possible. As such, and as part of the chemical permitting process, Chrysaor has made a commitment to reduce the number of chemicals applied which have been allocated with either a substitution warning or with product warnings (i.e. those with a greater potential for environmental impact). Where possible, chemicals are selected from an industry list which highlights which chemicals pose little or no risk to the environment (‘PLONOR’ chemicals). Typical chemical applications required at Armada are shown in Table 2-4.

The categories of chemicals used at the Armada platform are not anticipated to change as a result of the production increase; i.e. no new chemical applications will be required. Any chemicals planned to be used during production will have been subject to a performance evaluation and an impact assessment as part of the chemical permit application. Any changes in chemical dosing (including changes to volumes) will therefore require a variation to the current Armada production chemical permit.

Table 2-4 Examples of the types of chemicals to be used at the Armada platform

Chemical Category

Reason for Use

Asphaltene Inhibitor

Application of an asphaltene inhibitor into the Gaupe flowline is required in order to reduce the potential for asphaltene deposition when incompatible hydrocarbons mix in the separator further downstream.

Biocide Application of biocide is required to combat against bacterial growth in the seawater cooling system.

Corrosion Inhibitor

Corrosion inhibition is required to protect against corrosion in the export pipeline. There is no direct corrosion monitoring available in the export pipeline. The corrosion inhibitor efficiency was confirmed in lab selection tests and the injection efficiency is closely monitored to ensure deployment.

Demulsifier Demulsifier application is required in order to separate oil from water in topsides vessels and help to meet the required specifications for oil-in-water.

Deoiler Application of a deoiler is currently required at the Armada installation to aid oil in water separation and therefore to reduce the environmental impact of high concentrations from oil in produced water discharged overboard at the Armada platform.

Desiccant

A recirculated and regenerated batch of triethylene glycol (TEG) is used to dehydrate produced gas in order to meet the aqueous dew point specifications for export gas and to achieve the dry conditions required for corrosion prevention in the carbon steel gas export pipeline.


Page 25

Chemical Category

Reason for Use

Hydrate Inhibitor

Gas hydrates can form during low temperature and high-pressure conditions when water molecules cluster around hydrocarbon molecules and freeze. This can cause blockages in the producing infrastructure. Monoethylene glycol and methanol are most commonly used to mitigate against gas hydrate formation. Application of a hydrate inhibitor into the production system at Armada and during well start-ups is required due to gas expansion cooling effects.

Foamer and De-foamer

Wells can be affected by liquid loading; this occurs when liquids, entrained in produced gas, accumulate in the wellbore to the extent that production can be severely affected due to backpressure and reduced gas permeability in the surrounding formation. Gas can no longer transport liquid upwards through well tubing. Application of a foamer chemical is required that creates foam in the gas well. Gas is less dense than liquid and therefore is easier to lift. Wells are then opened ‘fast and sharp’, starting a bubbling action of the foam, which is lifted more easily than water. Subsequently, the presence of foam must be reduced once it reaches the topsides separators; this is achieved through the addition of a de-foamer which prevents carry-over of foam into the gas and liquid export systems.

pH Neutraliser Application of a pH neutraliser is required at Armada when triethylene glycol, used for gas dehydration, becomes too acidic arising from slow oxidation at elevated temperature over time.

Scale Inhibitor

Application of a scale inhibitor into the topsides process stream is required to prevent deposition of barium sulphate and calcium carbonate scale within the Armada topsides process system. Application into wells may also be required when production performance depletes as a result of suspected scale deposits.

Wax Inhibitor Application of wax inhibitor at the Maria subsea wellheads and into the NW Seymour flowline is required in order to reduce wax deposition, and also for Maria to reduce the yield stress viscosity of cold pipeline liquid.

2.5.6 Hawkins and Seymour specific substitution chemicals

There is one chemical used on the Armada platform, associated with Hawkins and Seymour production operations which carry a substitution warning. This is: FOAM17007A. Chrysaor has submitted a Substitution Justification Report for the continued use of the above chemical, detailing the justification for the continued use of each chemicals and the replacement schedule.

FOAM17007A

FOAM17007A is used to create foam in wells downhole or in flowlines in order to remove liquid loading and thereby improve operating performance. Most of the Armada platform and subsea wells now have declining production rates and as a result, experience restricted production due to liquid loading or liquid hold-up in sub-sea flowlines. FOAM17007A foamer has proven highly effective in removing this liquid-loading or liquid hold-up. Laboratory work at Nalco Champion in 2016 showed that FOAM17007A foamer was significantly superior in performance for Armada hydrocarbons to several alternative substitution-free foamers. Chrysaor will continue to monitor the market in 2019 and carry out further onshore bottle tests to seek options for more environmentally friendly products.

2.6 Overview of facilities changes due to increased production

As a result of the increased oil production from Hawkins and Seymour, the following changes are expected at the Armada platform:

• An approximately 0.2% increase in the volume of produced water discharged to sea; and,

• A maximum 3% increase in fuel requirements

For clarity, the proposed production increase will not result in changes to the majority of the Armada platform operations. In particular:

• There is no requirement for any new infrastructure or facilities;


Page 26

• There will be no change to baseline flaring rates and therefore flaring consent;

• There is no requirement for the use of any new chemicals;

• No change in the oil-in-water concentration of produced water is anticipated;

• There is no planned disturbance to the seabed; and,

• Vessel presence for routine production operations will not increase.


Page 27

3.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

This section outlines the environmental and socioeconomic receptors that have the potential to be impacted by the increased production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields at the Armada platform (UKCS Block 22/05; Figure 1-1). Chrysaor have no intention to place further infrastructure on the seabed and as such there are unlikely to be seabed and benthic impacts. Consequently, information regarding these receptors is presented at a high-level only.

3.1 Physical Environment

3.1.1 Bathymetry and seabed characteristics

Water depths throughout the CNS are variable with a general increase in depth from the west to the Norwegian Channel in the east. At the Armada platform location where the Hawkins and Seymour wells is being drilled, the water depth is approximately 89 m below LAT.

The habitat assessment undertaken for the Armada platform area identified areas of deep circalittoral sand (EUNIS classification A5.27 and JNCC classification of SS.SSa.Osa) and circalittoral mixed (slightly gravelly) sand (EUNIS classification A5.44 and JNCC habitat code SS.SMx.CMx) within Block 22/05 (JNCC, 2015). Anchor scars were observed in several locations adjacent to the Armada platform and are likely remnant of recent and historical operations (BOL, 2016a).

3.1.2 Currents, Wind and Waves

The anti-clockwise movement of water through the North Sea and around the CNS region is driven largely through the influx of water from the Atlantic, entering the northern North Sea, north of Shetland and via the Fair Isle Channel, and the main outflow northwards along the Norwegian coast. This inflow from the Atlantic flows south along the Scottish and English coasts, with offshoot currents heading off east across the North Sea. Against this background of tidal flow, the direction of residual water movement in the CNS is generally to the south-east (DTI, 2001). Offshore tidal current velocities in the region are relatively consistent between 0.5 knots and 1.0 knots (0.25 to 0.51 m/s) during mean spring tides (UKDMAP, 1998).

Historical Meteorological Office wind data for the CNS region (1854 - 1994) show that winds are dominated by those from the south south-west and south, although they can occur from all directions. Speeds throughout the year equate to moderate to strong breezes (6 - 13 m/s) on average, with speeds frequently reaching in excess of 17.5m/s between November and March (DTI, 2001).

The average wave height in the CNS region follows a gradient decreasing from the northern area of the Fladen/ Witch Ground to the southern area of the Dogger Bank. In the north, the mean wave height ranges from 2.26 - 2.50 m whilst in the south it ranges from 1.51 - 1.71 m (NMPI, 2019). Wave heights remain low (0.91 – 1.50 m) along the CNS coastline (NMPI, 2019). The Armada platform is located in the northern part of the CNS and the annual mean significant wave height is 2.33 m (NMPI, 2019). McBreen et al., (2011) shows wave energy at the seabed to range between ‘low’ (less than 0.21 N/m2) and ‘high’ (more than 12 N/m2) in the CNS region, increasing to ‘high’ (more than 12 N/m2) close to shore.

3.1.3 Sea temperature and salinity

Within Block 22/05, seawater temperatures vary throughout the year. The average sea temperatures during the summer range from 12.7°C at the sea surface, to 6.6°C at the seabed (NMPI, 2019). During the winter months, seawater temperatures remain consistent, approximately 7.4°C, throughout the water column (NMPI, 2019).


Page 28

Salinity in Block 22/05 during the summer months is approximately 34.8 ppt at the surface, and 35.1 ppt at the seabed. During the winter months salinity remains constant at 35.1 ppt throughout the water column (NMPI, 2019).

3.2 Legislation and Offshore Conservation Areas

3.2.1 National Marine Plan

The National Marine Plan (NMP; developed by the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments) concerns the development and use of the marine environment. The NMP covers the management of both Scottish inshore waters (out to 12 nautical miles (nm)) and offshore waters (12 to 200 nm). The NMP has been prepared in accordance with EU Directive 2014/89/EU. The NMP states that development and use of the marine environment must not result in significant impact on the national status of Priority Marine Features (PMF). Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Marine Scotland have developed a priority list of marine habitats and species in Scotland’s seas known as PMFs. The list contains 81 habitats and species considered to be of conservation importance in Scotland’s seas (SNH, 2014). Habitats and species on the PMF list in the vicinity of the Block 22/05 are summarised throughout this report.

The NMP was also introduced to help ensure the sustainable development of the marine area through informing and guiding regulation, management, use and protection of the Marine Plan areas. The proposed operations as described in this ES, have been assessed against the Marine Plan objectives and policies (Table 3-1). Chrysaor will ensure they comply with all the new policies that have been introduced; with particular attention to the policies relevant to the production operations. For all relevant policies and objectives, Chrysaor will ensure that any potential impacts associated with operations, as detailed in this ES, are kept to a minimum as detailed in Section 4.

Table 3-1. National Marine Plan policies relevant to Hawkins production increase

Policy Title Details

GEN-1 General planning and principle

Use of the marine area should be consistent with the Marine Plan, ensuring activities are undertaken in a sustainable manner that protects and enhances Scotland’s natural and historic marine environment.

GEN-4 Co-existence Where conflict over space or resource exists or arises, marine planning should encourage initiatives between sectors to resolve conflict and take account of agreements where this is applicable.

GEN-5 Climate change Marine planners and decision makers should seek to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy. They should consider ways to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gasses.

GEN-9 Natural heritage

Development and use of the marine environment must:

• Comply with legal requirements for protected areas and protected species.

• Not result in significant impact on the national status of Priority Marine Features.

• Protect and, where appropriate, enhance the health of the marine area.

GEN-12 Water quality and resource

Developments and activities should not result in a deterioration of the quality of waters to which the Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive or other related Directives apply.

GEN-13 Noise Development and use in the marine environment should avoid significant adverse effects of man-made noise and vibration, especially on species sensitive to such effects.

GEN-14 Air quality

Development and use of the marine environment should not result in the deterioration of air quality and should not breach any statutory air quality limits. Some development and use may result in increased emissions to air, including particulate matter and gasses. Impacts on relevant statutory air quality limits must be taken into account and mitigation measures adopted, if necessary, to allow an activity to proceed within these limits.

GEN-21 Cumulative impacts

Cumulative impacts affecting the ecosystem of the marine plan area should be addressed in decision making and plan implementation.


Page 29

3.2.2 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas

In Scotland, Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs) are a national designation under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 for inshore waters and the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) for offshore waters, where Scottish Ministers have executive devolution of authority for the designation of NCMPAs for the conservation of important marine biodiversity and geodiversity out to 200 nm (JNCC, 2018a).

To date 30 NCMPAs have been formally designated in Scottish waters (JNCC, 2018a). The NCMPAs closest to the Armada platform are shown in Figure 3-1 and listed in Table 3-2. The Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA, which overlaps with the Maria pipeline and subsea wellhead locations (Figure 3-1) is a sandy plain in relatively shallow waters and includes records of ocean quahog (Arctica islandica), the OSPAR (2008) threatened and/ or declining species. This thick-shelled clam can live for more than 400 years, making it one of the longest-living creatures on Earth (Table 3-2; JNCC, 2018b). The ocean quahog is also a low or limited mobility species on the PMF list, indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).


Page 30

Figure 3-1 Conservation areas in the vicinity of the Armada platform

The East Gannet and Montrose NCMPA is located approximately 60 km to the south-south west of the Armada platform location. This site is designated for the presence of ocean quahog aggregations and offshore deep-sea muds (Table 3-2; JNCC 2018a).


Page 31

Table 3-2 NCMPAs of relevance

NCMPA Name Qualifying Features Approximate distance and direction from the Armada platform

Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain • Ocean quahog aggregations 5 km NW

East of Gannet and Montrose Fields • Offshore deep-sea muds

• Ocean quahog aggregations 60 km SSW

Source: JNCC (2018a and b)

3.2.3 Special Areas of Conservation

The UK government, with guidance from the JNCC and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has statutory jurisdiction under the EC Habitats Directive to propose offshore areas or species (based on the habitat types and species identified in Annexes I and II) to be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Within UK offshore waters there are currently 18 designated SACs, one candidate SACs (cSACs) and six cSAC/ Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). cSACs are sites that have been submitted to the EC, but not yet formally adopted and SCIs are sites that have been adopted by the EC but not yet formally designated by the government of each country (JNCC, 2018a). In relation to UK offshore waters, three habitats from Annex I and four species from Annex II of the Habitats Directive are currently under consideration for the identification of SACs in UK offshore waters (JNCC, 2018c; Table 3-3).

Table 3-3 Annex I habitats and Annex II species occurring in UK offshore waters

Annex I habitats considered for SAC selection in UK offshore waters

Species listed in Annex II known to occur in UK offshore waters

• Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the

time.

• Reefs (bedrock, biogenic and stony).

o Bedrock reefs – made from continuous

outcroppings of bedrock which may be of various

topographical shapes.

o Stony reefs – these consist of aggregations of

boulders and cobbles which may have some finer

sediment in interstitial spaces.

o Biogenic reefs – formed by cold water corals (e.g.

Lophelia pertusa) and Sabellaria spinulosa.

• Submarine structures made by leaking gases.

• Grey seal.

• Harbour seal.

• Bottlenose dolphin.

• Harbour porpoise.

Source: JNCC (2018c).

None of the Annex I habitats listed in Table 3-3 occur at the Armada location. The closest offshore SAC to the Armada is the Scanner Pockmark SAC (Figure 3-1; 58 km NW), followed by the Braemar Pockmarks SAC (Figure 3-1; 115 km N). Both of these SACs are designated for submarine structures made by leaking gases (Table 3-3) and are also PMFs indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).

Three Annex II protected species listed in Table 3-3 have been recorded in the area of the Armada platform; harbour porpoise and grey and harbour seals. The abundance of these species is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.4. The closest Annex II designated SAC (designated for harbour porpoise) is located 280 km south-south west of the Armada platform.


Page 32

3.2.4 The Birds Directive

EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds, which came into force in 1979, led to the creation of numerous Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the UK in the mid-1980s. SPAs are strictly protected sites for rare and vulnerable birds listed on Annex I of the Directive and have been selected by the JNCC (JNCC, 2018d).

The closest SPA is the Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA on the Aberdeenshire coastline, 220 km to the west of the Armada platform (Figure 3-1).

3.3 Biological Environment

3.3.1 Plankton

The planktonic community in the vicinity of the Armada platform is typical of this area of the North Sea (Beare et al., 2002). The phytoplankton community is dominated by diatoms (Thalassiosira spp. and Chaetoceros spp.) and dinoflagellates (Ceratium fusus, C. furca and C. lineatum). In the northeast Atlantic between November and May diatoms dominate the phytoplankton community (OESEA3, 2016).

The zooplankton communities are dominated by copepods, particularly Calanus finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus, in terms of productivity and biomass (OESEA3, 2016). Other important species include Acartia spp., Temora longicornis and Oithona spp. The larger zooplankton includes krill (euphausiacea), salps and doliolids (thaliacea) and jellyfish (siphonophorea and medusea), which are more abundant in late summer and autumn (OESEA3, 2016).

Plankton communities are less vulnerable to one-off pollution incidents than the benthic community owing to their continual movement and the omnipresent exchange of individuals between areas. Any impacts from offshore oil and gas operations are likely to be limited in comparison with natural variations.

3.3.2 Benthic Fauna

The distribution and composition of benthos in the vicinity of the Armada platform is likely to be typical of the central North Sea and influenced by the EUNIS habitat type A5.27 Deep circalittoral sand and A5.44 Circalittoral mixed sediment. This has been confirmed during recent environmental baseline surveys of the area surrounding the Armada platform (BOL, 2016a and 2016b).

During the habitat assessment, conspicuous biology was widespread throughout the sand-dominated stations, bioturbation was evident throughout in the form of burrows and animal tracks. Some polychaete casts and burrows were observed as were the tracks of echinoderms and crustaceans. Stations with a higher proportion of gravels also exhibited evidence of bioturbation, but to a lesser degree than in areas of offshore circalittoral sand due to the increased coarse sediment fractions. Prevalent conspicuous fauna was similar in both habitats, and included the seapen (Pennatula phosphorea), the urchin (Spatangus raschi), an indeterminate starfish (Asteroidea sp.), the anemone (Cerianthus lloydii) and plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). The octocoral (Alcyonium digitatum) and anemone (Hormathia digitata) were found to have colonised the hard contacts (particularly relic shells) within the substrate in these areas.

Anthropogenic structures (including pipelines, wellheads and nets) were heavily encrusted with the octocoral A. digitatum and a number of anemones, including the plumose anemone Metridium senile, which is often associated with offshore structures throughout the North Sea. Glacial dropstones were colonised by the hydroid Nemertesia ramosa, anemones (including Metridium senile), A. digitatum and occasional encrusting sponges. Large dense patches of gravels and cobbles were found


Page 33

amongst the larger clasts. These appeared to be colonised by encrusting organisms and were slightly covered with a fine veneer of sediment. Urchins (likely S. raschi), seapens (P. phosphorea), octocorals (A. digitatum) and potentially encrusting sponges (Porifera sp.) were observed sporadically within these patches, and starfish (Asteroidea sp.) and hermit crabs (Paguridae sp.) were noted around the peripheries (BOL, 2016a).

Conspicuous biology was limited within the observed cuttings pile. Occasional starfish (Asterias rubens), whelks (Baccinum undatum) and hydroids were recorded, and the water column contained high densities of zooplankton. Seabed imagery indicated the possible presence of the filamentous bacteria Beggiatoa sp. visible as a white mat on the seabed surface of the cuttings pile. This bacteria is generally only found in areas that interface aerobic and anaerobic conditions and is often found in areas of organic or sulphide enrichment, in this instance resulting from the historical discharge of cuttings drilled with synthetic oil-based muds (LR Senergy, 2015).

A total of 162 infaunal species and 23 epifaunal species were identified during the seabed sampling campaign. The results were analysed using multivariate techniques which showed the community generally separating out based upon sediment type. The polychaete Paramphinome jeffreysii was the most abundant species and was ranked number one both numerically and overall. Epifaunal species were limited within the samples, however constituted an important part of the community. These conspicuous groups were mainly represented by Coelenterata and Bryozoa, with infrequent occurrences of Foraminifera, Porifera and Tunicata (BOL, 2016a).

The macrofauna community in the Armada platform cuttings pile was dominated by Polychaeta, with the predominance of the opportunistic Capitella capitata reinforcing the disturbed nature of the substrate. A total of 20 infaunal species and five epifaunal species were identified within the cuttings pile samples. Epifaunal species were limited within the samples and the conspicuous groups were represented by Coelenterata and Bryozoa (BOL, 2016a).

3.3.3 Fish and Shellfish

There are a number of commercially important fish species, which can be found in the vicinity of the Armada field. Fish and shellfish populations may be vulnerable to impacts from offshore installations such as hydrocarbon pollution and exposure to aqueous effluents, especially during the egg and juvenile stages of their lifecycles (Mix, 1988; Barron et al., 2004). Fish that lay their eggs on the sediment (e.g. herring and sandeels) or that live in intimate contact with sediments (e.g. sandeels and most shellfish) are susceptible to smothering by discharged solids. Although there are potential effects on fish spawning areas from offshore oil and gas activities, there is no direct evidence to suggest any significant disturbance to nursery areas. In general, areas used for spawning are regarded as more sensitive than nursery areas.

During certain times of the year, large areas of the North Sea are important spawning areas for a variety of fish species of commercial or conservational importance. Coull et al., (1998) acknowledged that “spawning distributions are under continual revision” and should not be viewed as fixed in space or time, evidence from survey information or as a result of wider ecosystem factors could influence the prevalence of species within an area. This assessment provides summary spawning and nursery information drawn from Ellis et al., (2010) which builds upon the Coull et al., (1998) survey report and tries to identify spawning and nursery grounds that are of greater importance.

The Armada locations coincide with the spawning grounds for cod (Gadus morhua), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Nephrops (N. norvegicus), Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) and sandeels (Ammodytidae spp.) (Table 3-4). Cod, Norway pout and sandeels are also mobile species on the PMF list, indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).


Page 34

The area surrounding the Armada platform also coincides with juvenile and nursery grounds, where juvenile fish may congregate with older individuals (Table 3-5). These include nursery areas for anglerfish, blue whiting, cod, European hake, haddock, herring, ling, mackerel, Nephrops, Norway pout, plaice, sandeel, spotted ray, spurdog and whiting (Table 3-5).

Data used for Aires et al., (2014) report have been obtained from various available sources including the National and International Bottom Trawl Surveys, Beam Trawl Surveys and International Herring Larval Surveys. In addition to these, commercial fishing observer trips and stand-alone surveys to investigate particular issues were used to provide further data on the distribution of Age 0 group fish of relevant species (Aires et al., 2014). Data outputs from Aires et al., (2014) provide a guide to the most likely locations for aggregations of fish during their first year. Age 0 group fish are defined as fish in the first year of their lives and can also be classified as juvenile. Table 3-5 presents the probability of nursery area (and therefore juvenile species) occurring within the area of the Armada platform (Aires et al., 2014). It also provides an indication of the presence of nursery areas as presented by Ellis et al., (2010) and Coull et al., (1998).

Table 3-4 Fish/ shellfish spawning occurring within Block 22/05 and ICES rectangles 44F1

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Spawning

Regime

cod * * Pelagic

lemon sole Pelagic

mackerel * * * Pelagic

Nephrops * * * Demersal

Norway pout * * Pelagic

sandeel Demersal

Key

Spawning month

* Peak spawning periods

Source: Coull et al., (1998); Ellis et al., (2010)

Anglerfish, blue whiting, cod, ling, Norway pout, sandeels, spurdog and whiting are all mobile species on the PMF list, indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).

The spawning and nursery phases for most fish species are dynamic features of their life history, which shift and change in accordance with prevailing temperatures and prey availability. Consequently, spawning and nursery grounds are rarely fixed in the same location from one year to the next (CEFAS, 2001). Although there are potential effects on fish spawning areas from offshore oil and gas activities, there is no direct evidence to suggest any significant disturbance to nursery areas.

Table 3-5 Probability of fish/ shellfish nursery areas occurring within Block 22/05 and ICES

rectangles 44F1

Species Armada platform

Block 22/05 ICES Rectangle 44F1

anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) 1, 3 1, 3

blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) 1, 2 1, 2

cod 1, 3 1, 3

European hake (Merluccinus merluccinus) 1, 3 1,3

haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) 2, 3 2, 3

herring (Clupea harengus) 1 1

ling (Molva molva) 1 1

mackerel 1, 3 1, 3

Nephrops 2


Page 35

Norway pout 2 2, 3

Plaice 1 1

Sandeel 1, 2 1, 2

spotted ray (Raja montagui) 1 1

spurdog (Squalus acanthias) 1 1

whiting (Merlangius merlangus) 1 1, 3

Key

Nursery presence Age 0 Group Fish

Ellis et al (2010) 1 Very High Probability

Coull et al (1998) 2 High Probability

Aires et al (2014) 3 Moderate probability

Low probability

Source: Coull et al., (1998); Ellis et al., (2010); Aries et al., (2014)

3.3.4 Marine Mammals

Marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds) are widely distributed in UK waters and have been recorded throughout the year (Reid et al., 2003, UKDMAP, 1998). Marine mammal distribution is influenced by a variety of natural factors such as water masses, fronts, eddies, upwellings, currents, water temperature, salinity and length of day. A major factor likely to influence cetacean distribution is the availability of prey, mainly fish, plankton and cephalopods (Stone, 1997). They may also be vulnerable to the effects of oil and gas activities and can be impacted by noise, contaminants, oil spills and any effects on prey availability (SMRU, 2001).

Cetaceans

Cetaceans regularly recorded in the North Sea include harbour porpoises, white-beaked dolphins, minke whales, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, bottlenose dolphins (primarily in inshore waters), and killer whales (Reid et al., 2003). Risso’s dolphins and large baleen whales are also occasionally sighted. Spatially and temporally, harbour porpoise, white-beaked dolphins and minke whales are the most regularly sighted cetacean species in the North Sea (Reid et al., 2003; SMRU, 2001).

Table 3-6 presents the highest number of sightings for the cetacean species that have been recorded within Quadrants 22 or one of the surrounding quadrants (UKDMAP, 1998). Within this area, sightings have been made of white-beaked dolphins, white-sided dolphins, harbour porpoise, common dolphins, killer whales and minke whales. Sightings for these species within Quadrants 22 and surrounding quadrants range from low to very high. Harbour porpoise, killer whale, minke whale and white-beaked dolphin are all mobile species on the PMF list, indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).

Table 3-6 Density of marine mammals in Quadrant 22 and surrounding quadrants

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

White-beaked dolphin White-sided dolphin Harbour porpoise Common dolphin Killer whale Minke whale

Key

Low (0.01-0.09 animals/ km)

Medium (0.10 – 0.19 animals/ km)

High (0.20 – 0.49 animals/ km)

Very high (>0.49 animals/ km)

Source: UKDMAP (1998)


Page 36

The following species have been sighted within Quadrant 22, (UKDMAP, 1998):

• White-beaked dolphin (February, May to November);

• White-sided dolphin (May, July and September);

• Common dolphin (July);

• Harbour porpoise (January, February and May to October);

• Killer whale (November); and,

• Minke whale (May to August);

Sightings for these species within Quadrant 22 range from low to very high.

Pinnipeds (Seals)

Both grey and harbour seals have breeding colonies in the Shetland and Orkney Islands to the northwest of the Armada area. Both species can travel considerable distances (up to 60 km, but this is relatively rare) from their haul-out sites on feeding trips (Harwood and Wilson, 2001; Hammond et al., 2004). Studies of grey and harbour seal densities in the central North Sea (NMPI, 2018) indicate that the densities of grey and harbour seal species in the vicinity of the Hawkins and Seymour fields and Armada platform are very low (0 to 1 seals/ 5 km2).

Harbour porpoise and grey seals are also mobile species on the PMF list, indicated to receive appropriate protection and conservation measures (SNH, 2014).

3.3.5 Seabirds

Planned offshore oil and gas operations do not normally affect seabirds (DTI, 2001), however, they are vulnerable to oiling from surface oil pollution. This occurs either by direct toxicity through ingestion or hypothermia as a result of the birds’ inability to waterproof their feathers. Certain species become flightless during the moulting season, (particularly auk species such as guillemot (Uria aalgae), razorbill (Alca torda) and puffin (Fratercula arctica)) consequently spending a large amount of time on the water surface. This will make them particularly vulnerable to surface oil pollution (DTI, 2001).

The most abundant seabird species found in the wider area are northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and common guillemot which are likely to be present for most the year. Northern gannets (Sula bassana) and Atlantic puffins are present in the summer months, whilst herring gulls (Larus argentatus), glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus) and great black-backed gulls (Larus marinus) are known to use the area in winter (DECC, 2009). Manx shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) and European storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) may also be present between September and November. Great skuas (Stercorarius skua), lesser black backed gulls (Larus fuscus) and little auks (Alle alle) may be generally present in the region in low densities for the majority of the year. The arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), common gull (Larus canus), Iceland gull (Larus glaucoides), arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) and razorbill (Alca torda) are also known to use the central North Sea most of the year (DECC, 2009). During the breeding season, the foraging ranges of adult seabirds are restricted by their need to return to their breeding sites to protect nests and eggs or feed their young. During this period the majority of breeding birds occur within 50 to 100 km of the coast and are therefore not likely to occur in the vicinity of the Armada platform.


Page 37

The Seabird Oil Sensitivity Index (SOSI) is a tool which aids planning and emergency decision making with regards to oil pollution (Webb et al., 2016). It identifies areas at sea where seabirds are likely to be most sensitive to oil pollution. It is based on seabird survey data collected from 1995 to 2015, from a wide survey area extending beyond the UK Continental Shelf using boat-based, visual aerial, and digital video aerial survey techniques. The index is independent of where oil pollution is most likely to occur; rather, it indicates where the highest seabird sensitivities might lie if there were to be a pollution incident. Table 3-7 presents the SOSI for block 22/05 and surrounding blocks. Text in red indicates where, in light of coverage gaps in this area, an indirect assessment of SOSI has been made. Throughout the year, seabird sensitivity to oil pollution ranges from “low” to “high” (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7 Seabird sensitivity in block 22/05 and surrounding blocks

Block Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

16/29 ND 4 ND ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND ND

22/05 4 4 4 ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND ND

22/04 5 5 5 ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND ND

22/09 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND 4

22/10 5 5 5 ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND 5

23/06 5 5 5 ND 5 5 5 5 5 5 ND 5

Key:

1 Extremely high seabird sensitivity

2 Very High seabird sensitivity

3 High seabird sensitivity

4 Medium seabird sensitivity

5 Low seabird sensitivity

ND No data available

1 Interpolated data

Source: Webb et al., (2016)

3.4 Socioeconomic environment

The North Sea has important fishing grounds and is fished throughout by both UK and international fishing fleets, targeting both demersal, pelagic and shellfish fish stocks. The Armada platform is located in ICES rectangle 44F1; these rectangles are the geographical basis on which many fisheries statistics are reported. Based on statistical data from 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019), landings by vessels into Scotland for ICES rectangle 44F1, demersal fish accounted for 80% of the value and 90% of landed weight. Shellfish species accounted for 19% of the landed value and 9% of landed weight. Pelagic species accounted for 0.15% of the landed value and 0.3% of landed weight. Haddock was the most important species landed in rectangle 44F1 in 2018, accounting for 51% of the landed value for that year.

Fishing effort is a measure of the fishing activity of vessels including the time spent travelling to fishing grounds as well as the time spent fishing (Scottish Government, 2019). In 2018, fishing effort in ICES rectangle 44F1 it was highest in August and November (Table 3-9).


Page 38

Table 3-8 Data for live weight and value of fish and shellfish from ICES rectangle 44F1 in 2018 (Scottish

Government, 2019)

ICES Rectangle 44F1

Species group Value (£) Live weight (tonnes)

Demersal 456,130 327

Pelagic 834 1

Shellfish 107,675 33

Total 564,639 361

Table 3-9 Relative annual fishing effort in ICES rectangle 44F1 in 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019)

ICES Rectangle

Days of Fishing Effort (month)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

44F1 20 ND D D D D D 24 20 17 24 D 122

Note: ND = No Data; D = Disclosive data (Note that the total shown is different from the sum of monthly data as it includes disclosive data)

The Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) requires the careful management of offshore protected areas (11 SACs and 13 MPAs) to ensure that the relevant conservation objectives are achieved and not hindered. Where fisheries management measures are required to protect offshore protected sites, all EC member states are required to submit a proposal for sustainable management. The sustainable management of these protected areas has been discussed with stakeholders through a series of JNCC and Marine Scotland-led workshops (Scottish Government, 2018). As a result, recommendations and requirements for the content of such proposals have been made for these protected areas, including the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA. Current recommendations for the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA include a restriction on the use of mobile demersal gears across the entire site, with a derogation for demersal seine nets in the south of the site. A decision on the outcome of these recommendations is due imminently and may affect the future fishing effort and landings for demersal fisheries in this area (Scottish Government, 2017).

3.4.1 Oil and Gas industry

The North Sea is of considerable importance to oil and gas industry. There is a long history of oil and gas activity, with oil being discovered in the early 1960s and the first well coming online in the early 1970s. Gas activities are most common in the southern North Sea, whilst both oil and gas are found in the northern areas. The CNS region is an area of extensive oil development, the nearest fixed installations to the Armada platform are provided in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10. Nearest fixed installations in relation to the Armada platform

Nearest Fixed Installations

Asset Distance and direction

Andrew 25 km WNW

North Everest 13 km S

Farragon 27 km NW

3.4.2 Shipping Activities

The North Sea contains some of the busiest shipping routes in the world. However, shipping traffic within the northern and central North Sea averages between one and ten vessels per day, shipping density in the area is low in comparison to other North Sea areas (DECC, 2016b).


Page 39

3.4.3 Military Activities

The Armada installation (22/05) does not comprise part of a Military of Defence (MoD) training range (DECC, 2016b).

3.4.4 Submarine Cables

There are no cables in the immediate vicinity of the proposed operations at Armada installation (KIS-ORCA, 2017).


Page 40

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The EIA Regulations require that an assessment should consider the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. The decision process related to defining whether or not a project is likely to significantly impact on the environment is the core principal of the EIA process. The EIA Regulations themselves do not provide a specific definition of significance. However, the methods used for identifying and assessing effects should be transparent and verifiable. Despite the determination of impact significance being a subjective process, a defined methodology is used herein to ensure the assessment is as objective and auditable as possible.

4.1 Introduction

This section describes the approach to the assessment of potential environmental impacts from the proposed increase in production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields. The approach described meets the requirements of the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (and amendment) Regulations 1999.

The EIA process requires an understanding of the proposed project and the environment upon which there may be an impact. Fundamental to the process is the systematic identification of issues that could impact the environment, including other users of the environment. Once identified these issues must be assessed to define the level of potential impact they present to the environment, so that necessary measures can be taken to remove or reduce such effects through mitigation.

4.2 Assessment method

Environmental and Social Risk Assessments were undertaken using the following method:

1. Activities which will take place due to the Hawkins and Seymour production increase have been identified using the project description;

2. Receptors at risk (elements of society or the environment) were identified from the potential operational impacts and end-point impacts;

3. The significance of the potential environmental impacts and risks were assessed according to pre-defined criteria. This has been undertaken by multiplying the ‘likelihood’ of exposure to the environment and society by the ‘consequence’ of the impact on the environment and society. The ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ tables are presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, respectively;

4. The overall risk for a particular activity was determined using the risk matrix and risk categories in Table 4-3 using the ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ scoring.

Ultimately, this provides an indication of whether an impact should be scoped in or out of future assessment (Section 4.3).


Page 41

Table 4-1 Likelihood descriptors

Category One Word Descriptor

Description Quantitative Range per Year

5 Frequent • Likely to occur several times a year

• Very high likelihood >10-1

4 Probable • Expected to occur at least once in 10 years

• High likelihood 10-3 to 10-1

3 Rare • Occurrence considered rare

• Moderate likelihood 10-4 to 10-3

2 Remote • Not expected nor anticipated to occur

• Low likelihood 10-6 to 10-4

1 Improbable • Virtually improbable and unrealistic

• Very low likelihood <10-6


Page 42

Table 4-2 Consequence and severity descriptors

Category Socio-Cultural Economic Impact Biodiversity Impact

Environmental Impact (Remediation Costs)

5

• Permanent loss of access or use of area with permanent reduction in associated community;

• Major economic impact to surrounding community;

• Irrevocable loss of culture resources;

• Scale typically widespread (national or greater level).

Very High:

• Catastrophic loss of natural resources or biodiversity typically over a widespread area, with permanent or long-term consequences;

and/ or

• Irrevocable loss of regionally unique habitat, legally designated conservation site or intact ecosystems.

• No mitigation possible.

> $10,000,000

4

• Permanent partial restriction on access or use, or use, or total restriction >10 years in duration;

• Temporary reduction in quality of life > 10 years duration;

• Harm to cultural resources requiring major mitigation;

• Scale typically regional to national level.

High:

• Persistent environmental degradation within and beyond the project area, typically with prospects of short-to medium term recovery if the cause of the impact is removed or by natural abatement processes;

and/ or

• Serious loss of unique habitat or legally designated conservation site or intact ecosystems within area of study.

• Mitigation only possible through prolonged and resource intensive effort (>50 years).

$1,000,000 to $10,000,000

3

• Temporary restriction <10 years in duration with a moderate reduction in usage levels or quality of life;

• Harm to cultural resources recoverable through moderate mitigation efforts;

• Scale typically local to regional level.

Medium:

• Persistent environmental degradation within and close to the project area, localised within defined areas, typically with prospects of rapid recovery if cause of the impact is removed or by natural abatement processes;

and/ or

• Temporary, but reversible loss of unique habitat or legally designated conservation site or intact ecosystems within area of study.

• Moderate mitigation efforts required (>1 to 50 years).

$100,000 to $1,000,000

2

• Brief restriction <5 years in duration with a minor reduction in usage levels or quality of life;

• Minor harm to cultural resources that is recoverable through minor mitigation efforts;

• Scale typically localised.

Low:

• Temporary environmental degradation, typically within and close to project area, with good prospects of short-term recovery;

and/ or

• Brief, but reversible loss of unique habitat or legally designated conservation site or intact ecosystems within area of study.

• Minor mitigation efforts required (<1 year).

$10,000 to $ 100,000

1 • Restrictions on access without loss of

resources; Negligible: $0 to $10,000


Page 43

Category Socio-Cultural Economic Impact Biodiversity Impact

Environmental Impact (Remediation

Costs)

• Temporary but fully reversible impacts on quality of life;

• Minor impact on cultural resources;

• Typically transient and highly localised.

• Highly transitory or highly localised environmental degradation typically contained within the project area and noticeable/ measurable against background only within or in very close proximity to the project area;

and/ or

• Some minor loss of unique habitat or legally designated conservation site or intact ecosystems within area of study.

• Naturally and completely reversible.


Page 44

Table 4-3 Risk Matrix and Risk Categories

Risk Matrix

Lik

elih

oo

d 5 5 10 15 20 25

4 4 8 12 16 20

3 3 6 9 12 15

2 2 4 6 8 10

1 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Consequence Category

Score

(Likelihood x Consequence)

Risk Categories

17-25 High High Risk. Manage risk utilising prevention and/ or mitigation with highest priority. Promote issue to appropriate management level with commensurate risk assessment detail.

12-16 Significant Significant Risk. Manage risk utilising prevention and/ or mitigation with priority. Promote issue to appropriate management level with commensurate risk assessment detail.

5-10 Medium Medium Risk with Controls Verified. No mitigation required where controls can be verified as functional.

1-4 Low Low Risk. No mitigation required.

4.3 Environmental Issues Identification

Potential impacts identified during the risk assessment process (Appendix A) are summarised in Table 4-4. This table includes any impacts and receptors scoring ‘Medium’ (as defined in Table 4-3). The Hawkins and Seymour Production Consent activities were all scored in the risk categories of Medium or Low. Those impacts and receptors with no score or with a ‘Low’ scoring (Table 4-3) have been scoped out of this EIA. These, along with a rationale for scoping out, are provided in Table 4-5. The subsequent sections of this ES have been used to justify (where required) and assess the significance of any potential impacts. Where appropriate, they highlight the management and mitigation measures that Chrysaor will ensure are in place during operations.


Page 45

Table 4-4 Summary of the sources of potential impacts requiring EIA and their relevant ES sections as

defined in the risk assessment

Operation Impact source Potential impact(s) requiring EIA Relevant ES

section Risk

rating

Power generation

Increase in power requirements

No additional power generation equipment will need to be installed to deal with the increase in production, however, there will be an approximate 3% increase in power generation requirements (and therefore fuel gas reliance) on the Armada platform.

Section 5: Energy and Emissions

Medium

Chemical application

Increased use and discharge of chemicals

There is not expected to be any requirement for the use of new chemicals associated with the production increase. Any increased chemical use and discharge will continue to be managed in accordance with the current chemical permit.

Section 6: Discharges to Sea

Medium

Produced water discharge

Increased produced water discharge

There will be no increase in the oil-in-water (OiW) concentration, however, there will be a minor (approximately 0.2%) increase in the produced water volume discharged from the Armada platform.

Section 6: Discharges to Sea

Medium

Oil and chemical accidental discharge

Increased risk of accidental discharge

No overall increase in the risk of an accidental oil or chemical release is expected as a result of the proposed increase in production from the Armada platform. No additional infrastructure or operating practices are being introduced and there will be no additional oil or chemical inventories on the facilities. Existing hydrocarbon inventories and worst-case oil spill modelling as detailed and assessed within the approved OPEP remain current, and the proposed increase in well production remains within identified worst case open flow rates. The potential for any significant impacts is therefore limited, but in recognition of the consequence of such a release, this potential impact is considered.

Section 7: Accidental Events

Medium

Table 4-5 Impacts scoped out of EIA

Potential Impact Receptor(s) Reason for scoping out of EIA

Seabed impact Benthos Benthic spawning fish species

There will be no new seabed infrastructure associated with the production increase, no increase in drill cuttings and therefore no associated increased impact on benthic communities.

Increased use of the sea (societal impact)

Fisheries Other users of the sea

There will be no increased vessel movement and therefore no associated increased impact on fisheries or other users of the sea.

Underwater noise Marine mammals Fisheries

There will be no increase in underwater noise and therefore no associated increased impact on marine mammals in the vicinity of the Armada platform.

Based on the risk assessment, the issues requiring assessment as part of the EIA have been identified and are assessed fully in the following sections:


Page 46

• Section 5: Atmospheric emissions. There is the potential for an increase in fuel use, which would result in an increase in the level of emissions from combustion released to the atmosphere.

• Section 6: Discharges to sea. Increased production from the reservoirs will result in increased water production, and greater volumes of water being treated and discharged to sea, which could lead to changes in water quality and impact upon the species that make use of the water column.

• Section 7: Accidental events. Potential increased risk of a hydrocarbon or chemical spills associated with the increased levels of production.


Page 47

5.0 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

5.1 Introduction

Atmospheric emissions can result in the following impacts (Oil & Gas UK, 2009):

• Anthropogenic global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) most notably

CO2 and CH4;

• Ground level ozone formation caused by reactions between VOCs and NOx; and

• Acidification caused by emission of acid gases such as NOx and SOx.

There will be no requirement for any additional power generation equipment in relation to the production increase on the Armada platform as there is already sufficient existing generation capacity to provide the power to process the increased production levels. Flaring levels are not expected to rise above the current levels and will be managed within existing consent levels. However, it is anticipated that there will be an approximate 3% increase in power generation requirements due to increased processing of fluids associated with the increased production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields. The potential significance of any impacts associated with this increase is assessed below.

5.2 Relevant Legislation

A permit is required under the provisions of the Offshore Combustion Installations (PPC) Regulations for any combustion installation (e.g. gas turbines, diesel engines) located on an offshore installation, where an item of combustion plant on its own, or together with any other combustion plant installed on a platform has a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MWth. In addition, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations apply to all installations with combustion facilities with a combined thermal input exceeding 20 MWth. These regulations implement the requirements of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) Directive, the aim of which is to achieve reductions in greenhouse emissions as outlined by the Kyoto Protocol, enabling greenhouse gas emission allowance trading between companies. This scheme currently only covers CO2 emissions.

The increase in production from Hawkins and Seymour wells will not require any change to the current combustion consent rates for the Armada platform so no changes are required to the PPC permit. The relative increase in emissions due to this increase is presented in Section 5.3.

5.3 Atmospheric emissions impacts

The principal routine operational emissions will originate from combustion products which include CO2, CO, NOX, SO2, CH4 and VOCs from combustion operations and the routine flaring of excess gas on the Armada platform.

Historic combustion emissions for the Armada platform (2016-2018) are provided in Table 5-1 (diesel) and Table 5-2 (fuel gas) and reflect the use of the combustion equipment presented in Table 2-2. It should be noted that the emissions values are not a record of actual historical emissions (as recorded in the EEMS database). Calculations have been made using standard EEMS emission factors following EEMS Guidance (BEIS, 2017).


Page 48

Table 5-1 Total diesel use and associated emissions from the Armada platform, 2016-2018

Year Total diesel use

(tonnes)

Estimated gaseous emissions (tonnes)

CO2 CO NOx N2O SO2 CH4 VOC

Diesel engine emissions factor*:

3.2

0.0157 0.0594

0.00022 0.004

0.00018 0.002

Diesel turbine emissions factor*:

0.00092 0.0135 0.000033 0.000295

2016 1,663.64 5,323.66 3.99 30.10 0.37 6.65 0.08 0.77

2017 1,119.61 3,582.76 2.68 20.25 0.25 4.48 0.05 0.52

2018 1,558.05 4,985.76 3.74 28.19 0.34 6.23 0.07 0.73

*Emission factors derived from EEMS (2008). Diesel consumption has been split, 10% to engines usage vs 90% to turbine usage in line with historic PPC allocations.

Table 5-2 Total fuel gas use and associated emissions from the Armada platform, 2016-2018

Year Total fuel gas use

(tonnes)

Estimated gaseous emissions (tonnes)


Gas turbine emissions factor*: 2.86 0.003 0.0061 0.00022 0.000013 0.00092 0.000036

2016 39,735.05 113,642.24 119.21 242.38 8.74 0.52 36.56 1.43

2017 41,727.23 119,339.88 125.18 254.54 9.18 0.54 38.39 1.50

2018 32,078.72 91,745.14 96.24 195.68 7.06 0.42 29.51 1.15

*Emission factors derived from EEMS (2008)

As a worst-case scenario, it is anticipated that a 3% increase in fuel gas use, from the 2018 baseline at Armada platform (962 tonnes), may result from the production increase at Hawkins and Seymour. As a consequence of this, it is expected that atmospheric emissions associated with fuel gas use will increase proportionally. Table 5-3 presents the anticipated increase in emissions associated with this. Over the course of a year, approximately 2,752.35 tonnes of CO2 per annum would be produced.

In reality, any increase in fuel gas and therefore emissions, will be offset by a reduction in diesel use and overall emissions may not rise above the baseline (2018) Armada gas emissions shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-3 Maximum expected increase in fuel gas emissions at Armada associated with a production

increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields

Estimated annual gaseous emissions (tonnes)


Gas turbine emissions factor*: 2.86 0.003 0.0061 0.00022 0.000013 0.00092 0.000036

Estimated 3% emissions increase in fuel use from the 2018 baseline (Table 5-2).

2,752.35 2.89 5.87 0.21 0.01 0.89 0.03


Page 49

5.4 Cumulative and transboundary impact

The total atmospheric emissions associated with increased fuel gas can be put into context by comparing with overall emissions from UK installations as reported to Oil and Gas UK (OGUK) in 2018 (OGUK, 2019). The maximum estimated 2,752.35 tonnes of CO2 produced from fuel gas combustion over one year equates to ~0.02% of the total CO2 emissions produced from UK installations in 2018 (14,630,000 tonnes) and therefore represents a very small contribution to total UK emissions. Furthermore, due to the remote geographic location and winds within the offshore environment, emissions are expected to rapidly disperse and are unlikely to be detectable within a short distance from the platform. As such, atmospheric emissions from combustion are not considered to present a significant environmental impact.

5.5 Mitigation measures

The mitigation and management measures which Chrysaor have in place for atmospheric emissions are detailed in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: atmospheric emissions

Mitigation and Management Measures

1. Combustion emissions are controlled under the Offshore Combustion Installations (PPC) Regulations and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations.

2. All generators and engines will be maintained and operated to the manufacturers’ standards to ensure maximum efficiency.

3. Fuel consumption will be minimised by operational practices and power management systems for engines, generators and other combustion plant and maintenance systems.

4. Continual monitoring of emissions and communication of alignment against permitted thresholds by Chrysaor’s Environmental Team.


Page 50

6.0 DISCHARGES TO SEA

This section discusses the potential planned discharges to sea resulting from the proposed production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields. Unplanned discharges occurring during accidental events are discussed in Section 7. Planned discharges, as identified during the EIA Risk Assessment (Section 4; Table 4-4) include the following:

• Produced water discharge - increased produced water discharge; and,

• Chemical applications - increased use and discharge of chemicals.

6.1 Regulatory Context

The consequences of planned chemical releases and produced water discharges from the activities associated with the proposed production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields will be managed in accordance with current legislation and standards, namely The Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002 (as amended in 2011).

6.2 Produced Water Discharge

There will be no increase in the OiW concentration currently permitted at the Armada platform (maximum content 100 mg/l; monthly average 30 mg/l). As a result of the increased production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields, there will be an incremental increase in the produced water volume discharged from the Armada platform. This increase, at the peak of production, is approximately 0.2% of the Armada platform 2018 baseline. The existing produced water system will be used to ensure that the OiW content remains below the legislative limit prior to discharge to sea. The increase in produced water is therefore not expected exceed the overall volumes stated in the Armada Oil Discharge Permit.

The produced water and associated oil content are shown in Section 2.5.3; Figure 2-10.

The increase from the historical oil discharge in 2018 to the levels forecasted in 2019 onwards is presented in Section 2. Of note is that the discharge is anticipated to increase to a maximum in 2022, after which it is forecast to reduce. Oil discharges are assessed as part of the Oil Discharge regulatory submission and approval process during which no significant impact on the environment has been identified.

6.2.1 Cumulative and transboundary impact: produced water

During 2018, a total of 139 million m3 of produced water was produced on the UKCS (Oil & Gas UK, 2019). An increase of 2,326 m3 as a consequence of the proposed production increase at Armada represents 0.002% of the UKCS total in 2018. Of the UKCS produced water volume, approximately 2,182 tonnes of the total mass, was dispersed oil (Oil & Gas UK, 2019). The average concentration of OiW over the UKCS was reported at 16.1 mg/l during 2018; at such minimal concentrations the oil will rapidly disperse and biodegrade (Oil & Gas UK, 2019). Whilst the CNS is a region of intensive Oil and Gas development, it is considered unlikely that the additional discharge resulting from the increased production at the Hawkins and Seymour fields will cause a significant environmental impact.

6.2.2 Mitigation measures: Produced water

The mitigation and management measures which Chrysaor have in place for the discharge of produced water are detailed in Table 6-1.


Page 51

Table 6-1 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: produced water discharge

No. Mitigation and Management Measures

1. Produced water is regulated under The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations.

2. All produced water discharged, and associated oil content, will be monitored within the parameters specified within the Armada Oil Discharge Permit and reported within EEMS.

6.3 Chemical Applications

There is not expected to be any requirement for the use of new chemicals associated with the production increase. The increased production will most likely lead to an increase in chemical use and discharge to the currently consented volumes. Any increase in chemical use and discharge will continue to be managed in accordance with the current chemical permit (CP/7). In accordance with regulatory requirements, Chrysaor will submit a variation request to allow the use of the additional volumes. This will inherently include a detailed impact assessment on the specific chemical use and subsequent discharge.

6.3.1 Cumulative and transboundary impacts: Chemical applications

Considering the type and volume of the chemicals which will be released due to the increased production at the Hawkins and Seymour fields, in addition to the rapid dispersal of these within the marine environment, it is likely that cumulative impacts will be negligible.

Whilst there is a small likelihood, depending on the ambient hydrodynamic and meteorological conditions at the time of release, there is an associated limited consequence of any such release. Therefore, negligible transboundary impacts are anticipated.

6.3.2 Mitigation measures: Chemical applications

The mitigation and management measures which Chrysaor have in place for the use of chemicals during production are detailed in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: chemical use and discharge


1. Chemical use is controlled under the Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002.

2. All chemical use will be monitored by both offshore personnel and onshore production chemists and environmental team, so that all chemicals used / discharged will be within the permitted limits detailed in the Armada chemical permit.

3. Low toxicity/ PLONOR chemicals are to be used, where reasonably possible.


Page 52

7.0 ACCIDENTAL EVENTS

This section evaluates the potential impacts of accidental events and the proposed mitigation measures which Chrysaor will implement to reduce an event’s probability of occurrence and ensure that any environmental impact, should it arise, be reduced as far as reasonably practicable.

There are two types of accidental events which present the most likely worst-case environmental impacts:

• Hydrocarbon release/ spill; and,

• Chemical spill.

The potential risk from each of these events is examined in the following sections. Only those items scoped in during the Risk Assessment (Section 4; Table 4-4) are considered.

7.1 Regulatory Context

The consequences of potential accidental oil or chemical releases from the activities associated with the proposed production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields will be managed in accordance with current legislation and standards. Relevant legislation is presented in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 Legislation relevant to Accidental Events

Relevance Overview

Pollution Legislation

Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (as amended)

The Offshore Installation (Emergency Pollution and Control) Regulations 2002

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention) Regulations 1998 (as amended)

The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 (as amended)

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Regulations 2000

7.2 Hydrocarbon Release

The environmental and socioeconomic impacts of an accidental event have been assessed using the modelled hydrocarbon spill scenarios presented within the Armada Offshore Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP; BEIS Reference 170061). This document was produced in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response & Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998 and the Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002. In particular, the scenarios presented within Table 7-2 were assessed within the OPEP and considered within this EIA. It should be noted that the values provided in Table 7-2 represent a worst-case scenario during drilling activities in the Maria field, representing worst-case for the Armada area. Both the Seymour Horst and Hawkins wells will have lower flowrates with less persistent hydrocarbons. The anticipated worst-case flow rate for Hawkins and Seymour Horst are considerably lower at 1,201.098 m3 per day and 3,068.7 m3 per day, respectively. In addition, the production flow rates will be significantly lower. The impacts of both drilling and production scenarios have been considered as part of the risk assessment (Appendix A), the impact associated with a hydrocarbon release during production activities is not expected to be significant.


Page 53

Table 7-2 Armada modelled hydrocarbon release during drilling scenarios (BEIS Reference 170061)

No. Description Release Rate Duration Oil Type

1. Well blowout 6,505 m3 per day 110-day release Maria crude

2. Pipeline release 1,199 m3

(instantaneous) 1 hour Maria crude

Both the well blowout and the pipeline release results in hydrocarbons (Maria crude) dispersing in a northeasterly direction. This is in accordance with the predominant hydrodynamic and meterological conditions. For a well blowout and in the absence of any mitigation measures, the highest probability of beaching was at Western Norway (90 to 100%) within 10 days (for an event occurring between June and August). For a similar timed event, the probability was 50 to 60% along Western Denmark, 40 to 50% along Western Sweden and 1 to 5% along Western Germany. The highest probability of beaching from an instantaneous loss from a pipeline release was 5 to 10% along Western Norway between December and February only. Along all other member states coastlines, the probability is predicted to be less than 5%.

Consequently, in the absence of any mitigation measures, there is a probability of 90 to 100% of a release from a well blowout reaching Norwegian Waters and Danish Waters. For both, this probability occurs throughout the year with the exception being between June and August for Danish Waters only. The probability of reaching Member State waters from a pipeline release is a maximum of 80 to 90% for Norwegian Waters only (June to August). Throughout the year, the probability of reaching Danish Waters is less than 10%.

When oil is released to the marine environment, it is subjected to a number of processes including: spreading, evaporation, dissolution, emulsification, natural dispersion, photo-oxidation, sedimentation and biodegradation. The processes of spreading, evaporation, dispersion, emulsification and dissolution are most important early on in a spill whilst oxidation, sedimentation and biodegradation become more important in later stages. The behaviour of hydrocarbons released at depth will depend on the immediate physical characteristics of the release, subsequent plume dispersion processes and metocean conditions (DTI, 2001; ITOPF, 2012).

The Maria crude is a Group II oil (Hawkins is a Group I; Seymour Horst is a Group II), and consequently can lose up to 40% of volume through evaporation. However, due to the tendency to form viscous emulsions this may be preceded by an initial volume increase and curtailment of natural dispersion (ITOPF, 2012). Following a surface release from a well blowout therefore, the characteristics of the Maria crude are such it will remain on the surface, ultimately undergoing dispersion and emulsifying (CEFAS, 2001). Consequently, it is unlikely that any spilled hydrocarbon will be mixed lower in the water column. Therefore, benthic communities, plankton and fish species within the water column and on the seabed are not expected to be impacted. The Maria crude modelled is considered to be more persistent than the hydrocarbons to be produced from the Hawkins and Seymour fields, as such the modelling of Maria crude and assessment of associated impacts is considered to be a worst-case assessment.

A consideration of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts that may arise from an accidental hydrocarbon release due to an increase in production at the Hawkins and Seymour fields are presented in the following sections. These are considered in the absence of any mitigation measures (Section 7.2.3). Further, consideration should be afforded to the probability of such events occurring. The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) published probability tables for well blowouts. The average well blowout and release frequencies for a producing well are documented to be 0.0000097 and 0.000011, respectively (IOGP, 2010).

Cetacean species known to occur within area surrounding the Greater Armada area include white-beaked dolphins, white-sided dolphins, harbour porpoise, killer whales and minke whales. Sightings


Page 54

for these species range from low to very high between March and August (UKDMAP, 1998). Grey and harbour seal densities in this area of the central North Sea are very low (Jones et al., 2015). Cetaceans and seals are generally accepted to be able to avoid hydrocarbon spills. However, should contact occur, effects include irritation and respiratory problems. Hypothermia effects are generally avoided due to the thick layer of blubber that both cetaceans and pinnipeds possess.

The physical fouling of feathers and toxic effects of ingesting hydrocarbons can result in seabird fatalities. Any effects experienced will depend on the species present, abundance and the time of year during which the spill occurs. Seabird sensitivity to oil pollution in Block 16/29 ranges from low to high (Webb et al., 2016). Seabirds found within this area of the central North Sea, including the well location, are most likely migrating on-route to wintering or breeding grounds (season dependant). Consequently, any effects resulting from an accidental hydrocarbon release offshore is likely to be limited in temporal duration, magnitude and spatial extent. There is a low (ranging from 0 to 30%) chance that a spill will impact the SPAs on the UK mainland and Orkney Isles, however, the chance of a spill reaching SPAs around the Shetland Isles increases to 40 to 50% between September and November (OPEP; BEIS Reference 170061).

The oil spill modelling scenarios for a well blowout at the well location have predicted the hydrocarbons would reach shorelines both on the UK mainland and North Sea member states (Figure 7-1). The greatest volume of oil accumulated along the shorelines is predicted to occur between December and February and for a volume of 5,520 m3 (OPEP; BEIS Reference 170061). Thus, designated sites and species along these coastlines have the potential to be impacted by a well blowout. The shortest arrival times are circa 7 days for Western Norway, whilst the majority of those shorelines that will be potentially impacted are so after 20 days following the release. The predominant transport direction of the spill is towards the northeast, such that the greatest probabilities for beaching are along the Norwegian coasts. Consequently, there are limited impacts on MPA’s to the south of the release site.


Page 55

Figure 7-1 Probability of surface oiling following a well blowout at the Maria field (proxy for Hawkins

and Seymour)

Should an oil spill occur, commercial fishing may be suspended. In 2018, fishing effort within ICES rectangle 44F1 (Armada platform) was highest in August and November (Scottish Government, 2019; Table 3-9). The most important species landed in both was Haddock, accounting for 51% of the landed value in 44F1 (Scottish Government, 2019). Therefore, there exists the potential for a significant socioeconomic impact via the temporary loss of fishing access. Chrysaor consider that the risk is effectively managed due to the prevention methods in place and the low likelihood of a spill occurring.

Mitigation and management measures primarily focus on the prevention and minimisation of the probability of an accidental spill. Secondly these measures aim to reduce the consequences of the event through optimum and efficient containment and release response. The measures which Chrysaor have in place are detailed in Table 7-3.


Page 56

Table 7-3 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: accidental hydrocarbon release


1. Chrysaor have a regulatory approved OPEP in place within which source control and counter pollution response arrangements and resources are detailed.


3. Chrysaor has an active membership with Oil Spill Response Ltd (OSRL).

4. Chrysaor can call upon specialist contractors such as Wild Well Control (WWC) in the event of a well blowout.

5. Chrysaor is a member of Oil Pollution Operators Liability (OPOL) and adhere to the ‘Liability provision guidelines for offshore petroleum operations 2018’.

6. A Chrysaor Emergency Response Team (ERT) is prepared to authorise and support operations should a relief well(s) be required in the event of a well blowout. Personnel resource will also be supported by 3 rd party specialists.


7.3 Chemical Release

The chemicals identified for use at the Hawkins and Seymour fields for the purposes of a production increase do not vary from those already consented for use and discharge as detailed in the Chemical Permit Application (CP/7). There is no requirement for any new chemicals to be used. These chemicals have, where possible, been selected for their environmental profile, including low bioaccumulation potential, low toxicity and readily biodegradable properties. The previous chemical risk assessment indicates that the proposed chemical use is not expected to pose a significant risk to the receiving marine environment.

Chrysaor do anticipate that there will be an increase in the volumes of chemicals to be dosed into the production stream (Section 2). There will only be a limited volume increase (Section 2) above the existing quantities and there is no change in the operational chemical release risk as a result of the increased production. Consequently, it is considered that there is no overall increase in the chemical risk release associated with the production increase.

Table 7-4 details the mitigation and management measures that Chrysaor has in place to prevent and minimise the probability of an accidental chemical release. Further, these also intend to reduce the consequences of an event through an optimum and efficient containment and release response.

Table 7-4 Chrysaor mitigation and management measures: accidental chemical release


1. Personnel to supervise the offloading and bunkering operations and monitor the hoses throughout bunkering.


3. Adoption of the best practice methods as set out in the Bulk Hose Best Practice Guidelines (NWEA/OGUK/Step change and MSF guidelines).

4. Visual inspection of hoses and offloading before each use. Replacement of all damaged and worn hoses.


7.4 Cumulative and transboundary impacts

There exists the potential for cumulative and transboundary impacts should an accidental hydrocarbon release occur due to a production increase at the Hawkins and Seymour fields. Whilst there is an increase in the volume of hydrocarbons that could potentially be released, due to the mitigation and management measures that are in place, the probability remains similar. In addition,


Page 57

the production increase is unlikely to impact other oil and gas operations, given the localised nature of the works at the Armada platform. As also indicated by historical data, the likelihood is remote or extremely remote, thus limiting the cumulative impact from existing installations.

The Armada platform field is located 3.8 km from the UK/ Norway median line and oil spill release modelling has indicated the high probability for hydrocarbons released from a well blowout to reach both the Norwegian and Danish coastline. However, this project will have stringent measures and strategies, as per the proposed well, in order to avoid and respond to such an occurrence. In the unlikely event that a pollution event affects both Norway and the UK, it is expected that the NORBRIT agreement would be activated following submission of a spill notification (PON1).

The low risk (likelihood and impact) associated with an accidental chemical release results in a small potential to cause cumulative and transboundary impacts. Should a release occur, it will be temporary, of a limited temporal duration and be of a small release volume which will be rapidly dispersed in the receiving environment. Chrysaor therefore consider that the potential for cumulative or transboundary effects from a chemical release is not changed as a result of increased production.


Page 58

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

Production from the Hawkins and Seymour fields is proposed through the drilling of two new productions wells at the Armada platform.

This ES has identified and assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the production increase in accordance with the EIA regulations. Specifically, it is the production increase proposed for the Hawkins and Seymour fields for the period 2020 to 2029 that has been quantified and assessed (Production Consent figures for 2020 and 2021 used to assess the requirement for an ES). Based on the revised project description to accommodate this increase, and based entirely on the Hawkins and Seymour production figures, the following changes are expected at the Armada platform:

• approximate 0.2% increase in the volume of produced water discharged to sea;

• maximum 3% increase in fuel gas requirements; and,

• increase in the volume of Hawkins and Seymour specific production chemicals dosed into

the production stream.

Following a project specific risk assessment, the following environmental aspects were considered in further detail:

• Atmospheric emissions – the limited increase in total atmospheric emissions from

combustion, in combination with the anticipated rapid dispersion in the offshore

environment, is not considered to result in a significant environmental impact; and,

• Discharges to sea – produced water and permitted chemical discharge. There is only an

approximate, 0.2% increase in produced water levels beyond that currently consented and

a similarly low volume of permitted chemicals to be dosed in the production stream. Given

these volumes and the anticipated rapid dispersion in the marine environment, it is

considered that any effects will be negligible.

Accidental events - there is an increased hydrocarbon volume which may be spilt during an

accidental event. However, the likelihood of such an event remains low given Chrysaor’s mitigation

and management techniques. These include, but are not limited to, the field OPEP which will be

implemented in order to respond to any spill. Consequently, it is considered that any impacts will be

of low significance.

Overall, the revised production consent is not expected to result in any significant impacts in terms of new, cumulative or transboundary impacts. All activities will adhere to Chrysaor’s management and mitigation procedures and practises will ensure that any potential impacts are carefully managed and contained.


Page 59

9.0 REFERENCES

Aires, C., Gonzalez-lrusta, J. M. and Watret, R. (2014) Updating Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Report, 5:10, 88pp.

Barron, M. G., Carls, M. G., Heintz, R., & Rice, S. D. (2004) Evaluation of fish early life-stage toxicity models of chronic embryonic exposures to complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Toxicological Sciences, 68(1), 60-66

Beare, D. J., Batten, S., Edwards, M. and Reid, D. G. (2002) Prevalence of boreal Atlantic, temperate Atlantic and neritic zooplankton in the North Sea between 1958 and 1998 in relation to temperature, salinity, stratification intensity and Atlantic inflow. Journal of Sea Research. 48:1, 29-49.

BEIS (2017) Oil and gas: EEMS database. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-eems-database

BOL (Bibby Offshore Limited). (2016a) 1605 Volume 4: Environmental Baseline Survey Report and Cuttings Pile Assessment, Rev. 03.

BOL. (2016b) 1605 Volume 3: Habitat Assessment Report. Rev. 04

CEFAS (2001) North Sea Fish and Fisheries. Technical report TR_003 produced for Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA 2

Chrysaor Ltd. (2017) Armada offshore Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. BEIS Ref: 170061.

Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R., and Rogers, S. I. (1998) Fisheries sensitivity maps in British Waters. (Vol. 1): UKOOA Ltd. Available online: https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/52612/sensi_maps.pdf [Last Accessed July 2019]

DECC (2009) UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment. Future Leasing for Offshore Windfarms and Licensing for Offshore Oil and Gas and Gas Storage. Environmental Report

DECC (2016a) Guidance on implications of the public participation directive (ppd) for the revision and renewal of production consents. Version 2, February 2016

DECC (2016b) Appendix 1H: Other Users. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/uk-offshore-energy-strategic-environmental-assessment-3-oesea3 [Last accessed July 2019]

DTI (2001) Report to the Department of Trade and Industry. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the mature areas of the offshore North Sea SEA 2. Consultation document, September 2001

EEMS (2008). Atmospheric Emissions Calculations. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136461/atmos-calcs.pdf [Last Accessed July 2019]

Ellis, J.R., Milligan, S.P., Readdy, L., Taylor, N., and Brown, M.J. (2010) Spawning and nursery grounds of selected fish species in UK waters. Report to the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs from CEFAS. Science Series Technical Report no. 147. Available online: https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/TechRep147.pdf [Last Accessed July 2019]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-eems-database

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-eems-database

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136461/atmos-calcs.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136461/atmos-calcs.pdf

https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/TechRep147.pdf


Page 60

Hammond, P.S., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D., Gordon, J.C.D, Hall, A.J., Sharples, R.J., Grellier, K. and Matthiopoulos, J. (2004) Background Information on Marine Mammals Relevant to Strategic Environmental Assessment 5. April 2005.

Harwood, J. and Wilson, B. (2001) The Implications of Developments on the Atlantic Frontier for Marine Mammals. Continental Shelf Research, 21, 1073-1093.

IOGP (2010) Blowout frequencies. Risk assessment data directory. Report No.434-02.

ITOPF (2012) Response to marine oil spills. 2nd Edition, 176pp

JNCC (2015). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03 (Online). 20/07/2016. Available online: https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/ [Last Accessed July 2019]

JNCC (2018a) Offshore Marine Protected Areas. Available online: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/offshoreMPAs [Last Accessed July 2019]

JNCC (2018b) Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA. Available online: http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/Norwegian_Boundary_Sediment_Plain_Site_Summary_Document_July14.pdf [Last Accessed July 2019]

JNCC (2018c) Annex I habitats and Annex II species occurring in the UK. Available online: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1523 [Last Accessed July 2019]

JNCC (2018d) Special Protection Areas. Available online: http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2598 [Last Accessed July 2019]

Jones, E.L., McConnell, B.J., Smout, S., Hammond, P.S., Duck, C.D., Morris, C.D., Thompson, D., Russel, D.J.F., Vincent, C., Cronin, M., Sharples, R.J. and Matthiopoulos, J. (2015) Patterns of space use in sympatric marine colonial predators reveal scales of spatial partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 534: 235-249. DOI: 10.3354/meps11370.

KIS-ORCA (2017) Offshore Renewables and Cable Awareness.

LR Senergy, (2015) Review of Seabed and Survey data for Armada Field and Gap Analysis for Armada field and Gap Analysis for Decommissioning Planning. Report to BG International (CNS) Ltd. 2442-BG-01-02. 90pp

McBreen, F., Askew, N., Cameron, A., Connor, D., Ellwood, H. and Carter, A. (2011) UK SeaMap 2010. Predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC Report No. 446.

Mix (1988) Shellfish diseases in relation to toxic chemicals. Aquatic Toxicology, 11:1-2, 29-42

NMPI (2019) National Marine Plan Interactive, Scottish Government. Available online: https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/ [Last Accessed July 2019]

OESEA3 (2016) UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment. OESEA3 Environmental Report. March 2016.

Oil & Gas UK (2009) Atmospheric Emissions, Available online: https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/atmospheric-emissions/ [Last Accessed July 2019]

Oil & Gas UK (2019) Environment Report 2018. Available online: https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Environment-Report-2019-AUG20.pdf [Last Accessed July 2019]

https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/offshoreMPAs

http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/Norwegian_Boundary_Sediment_Plain_Site_Summary_Document_July14.pdf

http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/Norwegian_Boundary_Sediment_Plain_Site_Summary_Document_July14.pdf

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1523

http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2598

https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/

https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/atmospheric-emissions/

https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Environment-Report-2019-AUG20.pdf

https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Environment-Report-2019-AUG20.pdf


Page 61

OSPAR (2008) List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. Available online: https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats [Last Accessed July 2019]

Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H. and Northridge, S.P. (2003) Atlas of cetacean distribution in north-west European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Scottish Government (2017) Offshore Proposals April 2017; Northern North Sea Proposal. Available Online http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement/Offshore2017 [Last Accessed July 2019]

Scottish Government (2018) Developing Fisheries Management Proposals for Offshore Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Available Online: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement [Last Accessed July 2019]

Scottish Government (2019) Fishing Effort and Quantity and Value of Landings by ICES Rectangle. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Agriculture-Fisheries/RectangleData [Last accessed July 2019]

SMRU (2001) Background Information on Marine Mammals Relevant to SEA2. Technical Report produced for Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA2. Technical Report TR_006.

SNH (2014) Priority Marine Features. https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/safeguarding-protected-areas-and-species/priority-marine-features-scotlands-seas [Last accessed July 2019]

Stone, C.J. (1997) Cetacean Observations during Seismic Surveys in 1996. JNCC Report No. 228.

UKDMAP (1998) United Kingdom Digital Marine Atlas (UKDMAP) from BODC Software. Third edition. British Oceanographic Data Centre, Birkenhead.

Webb, A., Elgie, M., Irwin, C., Pollock, C. and Barton, C. (2016) Sensitivity of offshore seabird concentrations to oil pollution around the United Kingdom: Report to Oil & Gas UK. Document No HP00061601.SI:2009/0023.

https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats

https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement/Offshore2017

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement/Offshore2017

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Agriculture-Fisheries/RectangleData

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/safeguarding-protected-areas-and-species/priority-marine-features-scotlands-seas

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/safeguarding-protected-areas-and-species/priority-marine-features-scotlands-seas


Page 62

APPENDIX A: RISK ASSESSMENT

Operation or Endpoint

Potential Impact Mitigation

Sc

ori

ng

Cri

teri

a

Physical and Chemical Biological Societal

Justification for Risk Ratings Assigned

Se

dim

en

t str

uctu

re

Se

ab

ed I

nte

gri

ty/

Physic

al ch

an

ge

Wa

ter

qu

alit

y

Air

qu

alit

y

La

nd

Fre

sh

-wate

r

Se

dim

en

t b

iolo

gy (

ben

thos)

Wa

ter

co

lum

n (

pla

nkto

n)

Fin

fish

an

d s

hellf

ish

Se

a m

am

ma

ls

Se

ab

irds

Eco

syste

m In

teg

rity

Co

nse

rva

tio

n s

ites

Te

rre

str

ial flo

ra &

fau

na

Co

mm

erc

ial fishin

g

Sh

ipp

ing

Go

ve

rnm

en

t, institu

tion

use

rs

Oth

er

co

mm

erc

ial u

se

rs

Re

cre

atio

n a

nd

am

en

ity u

se

rs

On

sh

ore

Co

mm

unitie

s (

Reso

urc

es)

Increased power generation

• Increased

energy and

emissions

impacting local

air quality and

potentially

contributing to

cumulative

climate

change

• Machinery and equipment will

be in good working order and

well-maintained.

• Combustion equipment on

Armada (which has a thermal

capacity rating in excess of

50MW) has been subject to a

Best Available Techniques

(BAT) assessment under the

Pollution Prevention and

Control (PPC) permit

L 5

There will be no modification to the Armada power generation equipment. Therefore, while there will likely be an approximate 3% increase in power generation on the Armada platform as a result of increased throughput, any increase is not considered to have a significant impact on air quality.

C 1

R 5

Increased use and discharge of chemicals

• Increased

discharges to

sea impacting

localised water

quality

• Low toxicity/ PLONOR

chemicals will be used where

possible

• All chemical use will be within

permitted limits as detailed in

the Armada Chemical Permit

L 5 5 4 4 There is not expected to be any requirement for the use of new chemicals associated with the production increase. Any incremental increase in chemical use will continue to be managed in accordance with the current chemical permit. All chemical discharges entrained within the produced water are expected to result in an RQ less than 1. Therefore, there is expected to be a negligible impact on the receiving environment.

C 1 1 1 1

R 5 5 4 4

Increased produced water discharge

• Increased

discharges to

sea

• Hydrocarbon discharge will

be within permitted limits as

detailed within the Armada

Oil Discharge Permit

L 5 5 4 4 There will be no increase in the oil-in-water (OiW) concentration, however, there will be an approximate 0.2% increase in the volume of produced water discharged from the Armada platform. This will be within permitted limits and is not expected to have an additional effect on water quality.

C 1 1 1 1

R 5 5 4 4

Increased risk of accidental discharge during production phase

• Increased

potential for a

surface spill of

chemicals or

reservoir

hydrocarbons

• Strategies for relied well

drilling and well capping.

• OPEP in place (BEIS Ref

170061)

• OSRL membership

• Access to WWC specialist

contractors

• Member of OPOL and adhere

to Liability provisions

guidelines for offshore

petroleum operations 2018

• Bunkering procedures will

only take place during

appropriate conditions and all

equipment is required to have

built-in safety measures.

L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No overall increase in the risk of an accidental oil or chemical release is expected as a result of the proposed increase in production from the Armada platform. No additional infrastructure or operating practices are being introduced and there will be no additional oil or chemical inventories on the facilities. Existing hydrocarbon inventories and worst-case oil spill modelling as detailed and assessed within the approved OPEP remain current, and the proposed increase in well production remains within identified worst case open flow rates. However, modelling in the OPEP is based on an open flow release of 6,505m3 while the worst-case flow rates are 1,201m3, as defined within the approved CIP. The likelihood for any significant impacts is therefore not anticipated, but in recognition of the consequence of such a release, this potential impact is considered below.

C 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4

R 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4


Page 63

Increased risk of accidental discharge during drilling phase

• Increased

potential for a

surface spill of

chemicals or

reservoir

hydrocarbons

• Strategies for relief well

drilling and well capping.

• OPEP in place (BEIS Ref

170061) and Hawkins and

Seymour Wells

Communication and Interface

Plan (BEIS Ref:

170061/2/CIPa/0)

• OSRL membership

• Access to WWC specialist

contractors

• Member of OPOL and adhere

to Liability provisions

guidelines for offshore

petroleum operations 2018

• Bunkering procedures will

only take place during

appropriate conditions and all

equipment is required to have

built-in safety measures.

L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No overall increase in the risk of an accidental oil or chemical release is expected as a result of the proposed increase in production from the Armada platform. No additional infrastructure or operating practices are being introduced and there will be no additional oil or chemical inventories on the facilities. The worst-case oil spill modelling as detailed and assessed within the approved OPEP was updated in February 2018 to reflect increased flow-rates during the Maria drilling phase (field worst-case), the associated impact of which is assessed here for context.

As any release will only impact the sea surface and potentially North Sea shorelines, the seabed sediments and benthos are not considered here.

C 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

R 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Date post:	05-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Hawkins and Seymour Production Increase Environmental ... › downloads › 05 HAWKINS and... ·...

Documents