Decision on Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent ... · EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent iii Section 20(2)(g) – the destruction, damage,

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent i

Decision on Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent Applications

OMV GSB Limited

EEZ200009

DECEMBER 2019


MARINE CONSENT - EEZ200009

Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects)

Act 2012, the applications for marine consent by OMV GSB Ltd to undertake restricted discretionary

activities (listed in Schedule 1) in the Great South Basin for a 10 well Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

programme is GRANTED subject to conditions (set out in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3).

This marine consent expires on 31 December 2030.

Dated: 16 December 2019

David Hill Glenice Paine

DMC Chair DMC Member and Deputy Chair

___________________________

Dayle Hunia

EPA Board Member

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent ii

SCHEDULE 1: AUTHORISED RESTRICTED ACTIVITES

This marine consent authorises the following restricted activities, subject to conditions listed in Schedule 2.

Section 20(2)(a) – the construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a

structure on or under the seabed.

The construction, placement, alteration and removal of temporary structures associated with:

Pre‐drill works (including seabed surveys and site clearance);

Drilling (including drilling, installation of subsea wellhead system, and sidetrack drilling);

Installation of well casing;

Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) works and placement of transponders;

Well abandonment;

Environmental monitoring; and

Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, and cement disposal).

Section 20(2)(d) – the removal of non-living natural material from the seabed or subsoil.

The removal of non-living material from the seabed and subsoil associated with:


Drilling (including drilling and sidetrack drilling);

Formation evaluation (including Wireline Formation Testing (WFT) and Drill Stem Testing (DST));


Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re‐spudding).

Section 20(2)(e) – the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on the seabed or subsoil.

The disturbance of the seabed or subsoil associated with:




Deposition of drill cuttings and attached drilling fluids;

ROV works and placement of transponders;

Formation evaluation (including WFT and DST);

Well abandonment;



Section 20(2)(f) – the deposit of any thing or organism in, on, or under the seabed.

The deposition in, on or under the seabed of:






Well abandonment;



EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent iii

Section 20(2)(g) – the destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is

likely to have an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat.

The destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species associated with:






Well abandonment;


Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, and deposition of cement).

Section 20(4)(a) – the construction, mooring or anchoring long-term, placement, alteration, extension,

removal, or demolition of a structure or part of a structure.

The construction, mooring and anchoring long-term, placement, alteration and removal of structures or part of a structure associated with:



Well abandonment; and

Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, and deposition of cement).

Section 20(4)(b) – the causing of vibrations (other than vibrations caused by the normal operation of a

ship) in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine life.

The causing of vibrations associated with:



Well abandonment – cutting of drill casing;


Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re‐spudding).

Section 20(4)(c) – the causing of an explosion

The causing of an explosion associated with:

Contingent activities (including use of explosives).

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent iv

SCHEDULE 2: OMV GSB LTD - MARINE CONSENT EEZ200009 CONDITIONS

Definitions

Area of Interest (AOI) means the Area of Interest defined in the IA (and Figure 1 to this consent);

an area defined by the co-ordinates:

Corner points NZTM_E NZTM_N

1 1522570 4905470

2 1524230 4774230

3 1448510 4722480

4 1380060 4810840

5 1444940 4811350

6 1468000 4861670

7 1498230 4905110

Consent holder has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

Cuttings means sediments, rock, and other materials removed from a well during

drilling.

Drilling campaign means a series of exploration and appraisal wells drilled by the same

MODU under this consent within PEP50119 as set out in the IA.

EAD means Exploration and Appraisal Drilling.

EMP means Environmental Monitoring Plan.

EEZ Act means Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) Act 2012.

EPA means Environmental Protection Authority.

Existing interest has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

IA means the Impact Assessment document entitled: Marine Consent and

Marine Discharge Consent Application – Great South Basin Exploration

and Appraisal Drilling Programme” (SLR Ref 740.10083.00100‐R01,

Version No. –V1.0 dated August 2019) prepared by SLR Consulting NZ

Limited.

MODU means Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit.

PEP means a Petroleum Exploration Permit granted under the Crown Minerals

Act 1991.

Pre-drill works means the activities of seabed surveys and site clearance described under

section 3.2.2 of the IA.

Protected species means the Cnidaria species listed under Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act

1958.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent v

Regional Model Area means the area of the survey undertaken by NIWA titled RV Tangaroa

voyage TAN1902 (and shown in Figure 1 to this consent) defined by the

co-ordinates:


A 1545410 4851810

B 1545410 4748560

C 1444190 4748560

D 1444190 4851810

Sensitive

environment

means a sensitive environment listed under Schedule 6 of the Exclusive

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects - Permitted

Activities) Regulations 2013.

Suitably qualified and

experienced person

means a person who:

(a) holds a degree qualification in the relevant subject matter, or holds

relevant professional certification from a relevant professional body;

and

(b) has at least eight years relevant experience.

Tāwhaki-1 means the well located at or about NZTM 1496397E 4801084N.

Well means a single well, including any sidetrack from that well, drilled into the

seabed except where that well is required to be re‐spudded, in which case

the initial well and the re‐spudded well are together deemed to be a single

well.

Well location means any location at which exploration and appraisal drilling occurs within

the AOI.

Working day has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

[Administrative]

1. Subject to compliance with these consent conditions, the activities authorised by this consent shall be

undertaken in accordance with the following documents:

a) The document entitled “Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent Application – Great South

Basin Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme” (SLR Ref 740.10083.00100‐R01, Version No.

–V1.0 dated August 2019) prepared by SLR Consulting NZ Limited; and

b) The OMV GSB Limited responses to further information requests by the EPA dated 23 September

2019, 3 October 2019, 11 October 2019, 16 October 2019, including all attachments.

Where there is any actual or apparent conflict between these documents and any of the conditions of

this consent, the conditions shall prevail.

2. All pre- and post-drill monitoring, except the pre-drill monitoring for Tāwhaki-1 (which has already been

completed), shall be undertaken in accordance with the certified Environmental Monitoring Plan

required by Condition 20.

3. This marine consent shall expire on 31 December 2030.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent vi

4. The consent holder shall ensure that a copy of this marine consent, and any variations of it, is available

for inspection by the EPA at the consent holder’s head office in New Zealand, and on any MODU

undertaking activities authorised by this marine consent.

5. The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel, including any contractors, involved in undertaking

any of the activities authorised by this marine consent are fully informed of their obligations and

responsibilities in exercising this marine consent.

6. The Consent holder shall keep a record to show that the personnel, including contractors, referred to in

condition 5, have been informed of their obligations under this marine consent. The Consent holder

shall provide a copy of this record to the EPA upon request.

7. The Consent holder shall, prior to first commencing the activities authorised by this marine consent,

provide to the EPA, in writing, the name and contact details of the person(s) who has responsibility for

compliance management, collating information, and reporting in accordance with the requirements of

this marine consent. In the event that the responsible person changes, the Consent holder shall advise

the EPA, in writing, of the name and contact details of the new person within 20 working days of the

change.

[Effects management conditions]

8. No more than ten (10) wells shall be drilled over the term of this consent and all the wells shall be

located in the AOI and within PEP 50119.

9. No well shall be drilled within three (3) kms of any other well location in the AOI within PEP 50119.

10. No structure, other than structures associated with seabed surveys and environmental monitoring, shall

be placed on any sensitive environment.

[Sensitive environment and protected species survey]

11. The Consent holder shall ensure that:

a) no more than five percent (5%) of each observed or modelled sensitive environment in the

Regional Model Area, as listed in Table 1, receives more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill

cuttings, as calculated by cuttings dispersion modelling, in total from all wells drilled under this

consent;

b) no more than five percent (5%) of each modelled abundance of protected species in the Regional

Model Area, as listed in Table 2, receives more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill cuttings,

as calculated by cuttings dispersion modelling, in total from all wells drilled under this consent; and

c) no part of the seabed within the Regional Model Area with a slope angle in excess of 5° (as shown

in Figure 2 attached to these conditions) receives more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill

cuttings, as calculated by cuttings dispersion modelling.

Advice Note 1:

Conditions 11a) and 11b) seek to achieve protection of 95% of each of the sensitive environments and

protected species in the Regional Model Area from the deposition of drill cuttings which are a thickness

of more than 0.1 mm. Condition 11c) is applicable to those sensitive environments and protected

species that were observed within the Regional Model Area but whose extents are unable to be

modelled and/or whose observed abundances are unable to be accurately determined.

Knowledge of sensitive environments and protected species in the Regional Model Area acquired

through detailed pre-drill monitoring for wells to be drilled subsequent to Tāwhaki-1 can be incorporated

into updates of Table 1 and Table 2 through a change in conditions process.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent vii

12. No well shall be drilled under this consent, other than Tāwhaki-1, unless:

a) cuttings dispersion modelling for the well to be drilled demonstrates that Conditions 11b) and 11c)

are complied with;

b) a survey has been undertaken at that well location in accordance with Condition 13; and

c) a report is provided to the EPA, in accordance with Condition 19, that demonstrates that Condition

11a) and 11b) will be complied with.

13. The survey required under condition 12b) shall be undertaken:

a) along an axis aligned to the major current flow axis and along an axis aligned to minor current flow

axis at the well location;

b) using a Deep Towed Imaging System (Hill, 2009) that is towed, at a minimum, along the full length

of major current flow axis and the full length of minor current flow axis within the area predicted to

receive more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill cuttings as calculated by cuttings

dispersion modelling;

c) as near as practicable at a tow height of between 2-3 m above the seabed and at a tow speed of

less than one (1) knot;

d) using continuous georeferenced high-definition video and high-resolution still images at not less

than 15 second intervals; and

e) by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s).

[Analysis]

14. Upon completing the survey required under Condition 12b), the Consent holder shall, using the video

and still images collected pursuant to Condition 13d), quantify faunal data records of species that are

classified as protected species, or that form sensitive environments as total counts per area.

15. Drilling may occur at a well location where the survey required under Condition 12a) does not identify

any protected species or sensitive environments within the area that will receive more than 0.1 mm of

drill cuttings, as calculated by cuttings dispersion modelling.

16. Where the survey required under Condition 12a) identifies any protected species or sensitive

environments within the area that receives more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill cuttings, as

calculated by cuttings dispersion modelling, the Consent holder shall either:

a) Not drill at that well location; or

b) Determine the cumulative percentage of the modelled abundance of protected species and the

cumulative percentage of the observed or modelled sensitive environments in the Regional Model

Area that have received more than 0.1 mm depositional thickness of drill cuttings, as calculated by

cuttings dispersion modelling, from all wells previously drilled under this consent and the proposed

well.

17. Where the cumulative percentage of any modelled abundance of protected species or the cumulative

percentage of any of the observed or modelled sensitive environments, as determined under Condition

16b), is greater than five percent (5%), as listed in Table 1 and Table 2, no well shall be drilled at that

location.

18. Where the cumulative percentage of the modelled abundance of protected species or the cumulative

percentage of the observed or modelled sensitive environments, as determined under Condition 16b), is

less than or equal to five percent (5%), as listed in Table 1 and Table 2, a well may be drilled at that

location.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent viii

19. The report provided to the EPA as required by Condition 12c) shall, in addition to demonstrating that

Condition 11a) and 11b) will be complied with:

a) include a detailed description of the survey methods used as required by Condition 13;

b) include the cuttings dispersion modelling used to calculate the 0.1 mm deposition area around a

well;

c) include the results of the survey required by Condition 12b);

d) include the records quantified under Condition 14; and

e) be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s).

[EMP]

20. Prior to undertaking any activities authorised by this consent the Consent holder must submit an EMP to

the EPA for certification. The purpose of the EMP is to specify:

a) the frequency and duration of sampling, including prior to, during, and after any well being drilled;

b) the parameters to be monitored;

c) the sampling methodologies to be employed;

d) reporting requirements and reporting frequencies; and

e) the monitoring methodology to be employed that will ensure that any effects of monitoring on

marine mammals, fish, and benthic communities are no more than has been described in the IA.

Advice Note 2:

For the avoidance of doubt, drilling the Tāwhaki-1 well can commence as soon as the EMP has been

submitted to the EPA for certification; however, the post-drill monitoring for that well must be undertaken

in accordance with the certified EMP as required by Condition 26.

21. The EMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) and, except for the

timeframes specified under Conditions 25 and 26, shall be consistent with the report entitled

“Recommendations for an Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol: Drilling- and

production-related discharges” (OTEMP) Cawthron Report No. 2124 dated 14 April 2014 unless

otherwise agreed by the EPA.

22. Before certifying the EMP required by Condition 20, the EPA may:

a) Engage a suitably qualified experienced person(s) to review the EMP, if it does not have the

relevant expertise in-house;

b) At any time request further information from the Consent holder or advice from a suitably qualified

and experienced person(s). If an extension of time for certification of the EMP is required, the EPA

shall provide a revised certification timeframe and process to the Consent holder.

23. Within 20 working days following receipt of an EMP, or receipt of information or advice under Condition

22b), the EPA shall either:

a) certify the EMP; or

b) advise the Consent holder that it has not yet been certified, including the reasons for any extension

of time for certification; or

c) refuse to certify the EMP providing its reasons in writing.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent ix

24. Prior to drilling at each proposed well location, except for Tāwhaki-1, the Consent holder shall provide

the EPA, for its information, a Well Specific Monitoring Programme (WSMP). The WSMP shall detail the

pre- and post-drill monitoring programmes proposed to be undertaken for the well, shall include a copy

of the cuttings dispersion modelling for that well, and shall be in accordance with, and reflect the

requirements of, the EMP certified by the EPA.

25. Prior to drilling at each proposed well location, except for Tāwhaki-1, the Consent holder shall undertake

pre-drill benthic monitoring. The monitoring at each well location shall:

a) be in accordance with the EMP certified by the EPA, and

b) be undertaken within the period 15 months prior to the pre-drill works at that well location.

26. The Consent holder shall undertake post-drill benthic monitoring at each well location. The monitoring at

each well location shall:

a) be in accordance with the EMP certified by the EPA;

b) be undertaken within twelve (12) months of each well being plugged and abandoned;

c) be repeated approximately 12 months and 24 months after the completion of the monitoring

required by Condition 26b); and

d) be undertaken at the same time of year as the pre-drill monitoring at that location. For the purposes

of this condition, the “same time of year” means within six (6) weeks (either before or after) of the

end date of the pre-drill monitoring, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the EPA.

[Volume of cuttings]

27. The total in-situ volume of seabed material removed as a result of drilling any one well authorised by

this marine consent shall not exceed 806 cubic metres, except in the event that the Consent holder

determines that a well is required to be re‐spudded, in which case the total volume removed may be

increased by an additional 758 cubic metres (a cumulative total of 1,564 cubic metres for any one well).

All volumes in this condition shall be calculated during well design.

[Marine mammal and seabird conditions]

28. The Consent holder shall make available to offshore personnel a New Zealand marine mammal and

seabird species identification guide(s) to assist in the accurate identification of species.

29. To minimise potential adverse effects on seabirds, the Consent holder shall ensure that all nocturnal

(night-time) lighting utilised on any MODU or any support vessel associated with activities authorised by

this consent is minimised to the greatest practicable extent while still meeting operational and safety

requirements.

30. The Consent holder shall maintain a log of any seabird collisions with any MODU or any support

vessels associated with activities authorised by this consent within PEP50119, including the following

information where available:

a) date and time of collision;

b) weather conditions;

c) species (where known);

d) condition of the bird (dead, released alive and unharmed or injured); and

e) photographs (where practicable).

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent x

31. Where a live injured seabird is found on any MODU or support vessel associated with activities

authorised by this consent, the Consent holder shall notify the Department of Conservation as soon as

reasonably practicable by the fastest possible means in the circumstances.

32. All employees and contractors of the Consent holder undertaking watch-keeping duties will be informed

of their obligations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and the Marine Mammals Protection

Regulations 1992 or any subsequent regulations.

33. The Consent holder shall maintain a log of all marine mammal sightings from any MODU and support

vessels associated with activities authorised by this Marine Consent within PEP50119, including the

following information where available:

a) the date and location of all marine mammal sightings;

b) the species of marine mammal(s) (where known) and the number of individuals (including the

presence of juveniles) associated with each sighting;

c) the behaviour of marine mammal(s) sighted including their direction of travel;

d) any marine mammal injuries or mortalities observed;

e) the approximate size in metres of each marine mammal;

f) any physical interaction between any marine mammals and any equipment, vessels, or other

inanimate objects (including but not limited to vessel strike or entanglement); and

g) be completed on the Department of Conservation’s marine mammal sighting form.

34. The logs referred to under Conditions 30 and 33 shall be provided to the EPA and/or the Department of

Conservation upon request.

[Existing interest conditions]

35. Each well that is drilled shall be permanently plugged and abandoned as soon as reasonably

practicable after drilling is complete. Any well casing must be cut so that it does not protrude above the

seabed. The Consent holder shall provide confirmation of compliance with this condition to the EPA as

soon as reasonably practicable after the abandonment of each well.

36. All structures associated with the activities authorised by this marine consent that are placed on the

seabed, shall be removed once well abandonment is complete. To confirm that all structures that are

placed on the seabed are removed, a Remote Operated Vehicle survey shall be undertaken at the

conclusion of operations at each well site, and the results included in the Compliance Report required

by Condition 46.

37. The Consent holder shall, at least quarterly, convene a Forum to which a representative from each of

the “Iwi and Papatipu Rūnanga” listed in Section 5.3.1 of the IA shall be invited. These parties are:

a) Ngāi Tahu;

b) Te Rūnanga o Awarua;

c) Te Rūnanga o Otākou;

d) Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki; and

e) Te Rūnanga o Moeraki.

The purpose of the Forum shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, providing the Iwi and Papatipu

Rūnanga with information about the EAD programme including the proposed timing of upcoming

activities and monitoring results.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xi

38. The Consent holder shall confirm each meeting held under Condition 37 in the Compliance Report

required by Condition 46.

[Reporting conditions]

39. The Consent holder shall notify the EPA as soon as practicable and by the fastest possible means in

the circumstances, of the occurrence of an environmental incident.

Advice Note 3:

For the purposes of Condition 39 "environmental incident" means an incident arising out of, or in

connection with, a well which would be declared to be a notifiable incident under regulation 70 of the

Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016 and which the

Consent holder reasonably considers may result in an adverse environmental effect.

40. The Consent holder shall provide to the EPA a detailed written report as described in regulation 71(5) of

the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016 in relation to

any environmental incident notified to the EPA in accordance with Condition 39.

41. For the purposes of enabling the EPA to review this consent under section 76(1)(c) of the EEZ Act, the

Consent holder shall notify the EPA as soon as reasonably practicable upon becoming aware of any

adverse effects on the environment or existing interests that arise that:

a) were not anticipated when this marine consent was granted; or

b) are of a scale or intensity that were not anticipated when this marine consent was granted.

42. For each well the Consent holder shall notify the EPA, in writing, of:

a) the intended date of the commencement of the pre‐drill works, at least 48 hours before that date;

b) the date that any MODU is on site, including latitude and longitude of the location of the MODU,

within five (5) working days after the MODU is on site;

c) the date of the departure of any MODU from its location at the conclusion of each well, within five

(5) working days of that date; and

d) the date that a drilling campaign has ended, following the conclusion of each drilling campaign,

within five (5) working days of that date.

43. While undertaking the drilling activities authorised by this marine consent, the Consent holder shall

maintain a written log for each well, to be kept on the MODU and made available to the EPA on request,

of the following:

a) the name and location of the well drilled;

b) the total volume of cement used in the well drilling (including any cement discharged overboard

from the MODU), estimated by dry weight;

c) the total weight of milling swarf taken onshore for disposal;

d) the total volume of water‐based muds used in the well;

e) the in‐situ volume of drill cuttings removed from the well; and

f) the volume of drill cuttings transported to shore for disposal, in the event that synthetic-based muds

need to be used.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xii

44. Within three (3) months after the plugging and abandoning of a well, the Consent holder shall provide a

report to the EPA that includes:

a) a digital copy of the log required by Condition 43 of this consent;

b) a digital copy of the log required by Condition 30 of this consent; and

c) a digital copy of the log required by Condition 33 of this consent.

45. The Consent holder shall, within nine (9) months after any post-drill monitoring required under Condition

26, provide the results of that monitoring and any previous monitoring at that well site to the EPA.

46. The Consent holder shall prepare and provide to the EPA a Compliance Report for each well. A

Compliance Report shall be provided within nine (9) months of the completion of the post-drill

monitoring requirements under Condition 26 of this consent for each well.

47. Each Compliance Report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s).

48. Each Compliance Report shall include the following:

a) a description, analysis, evaluation and discussion of any environmental monitoring undertaken,

including that undertaken in accordance with Conditions 25 and 26;

b) a copy of the raw results from any environmental monitoring undertaken, including that undertaken

in accordance with Conditions 25 and 26. In addition to including raw monitoring data in the

Compliance Report, the data shall also be provided to the EPA in an electronic format agreed to by

the EPA;

c) an assessment of how each drilling campaign has complied with the conditions of this consent; and

d) the information recorded under Condition 30 and 33 of this consent.

Advice Note 4: Review of conditions

The EPA may serve notice on the Consent holder, in accordance with sections 76 and 77 of the EEZ Act, of

its intention to review the duration or conditions of this marine consent for any of the reasons set out in

section 76(1).

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xiii

Table 1: Sensitive Environment

Sensitive Environment

(measure)

Observed or modelled area in

the Regional Model Area (km2)

Five percent (5%) of observed

or modelled area in the

Regional Model Area (km2)

Xenophyophore beds

(Area: >1 xenophyophore per 1m2,

using scaled-up estimates as per

Beaumont et al., 2019)

961.54 (modelled) 48.08

Stony coral thickets or reefs Habitat limited to hard substrate

with slope >5° (3.8% of Regional

Model Area)

N/A (refer to Condition 11.c)

Bryozoan thickets 0 (observed) N/A

Calcareous tube worm thickets 0 (observed) N/A

Chaetopteridae worm fields 0 (observed) N/A

Sea pen field 0 (observed) N/A

Rhodolith (maerl) beds 0 (observed) N/A

Sponge gardens 0 (observed) N/A

Beds of large bivalve molluscs 0 (observed) N/A

Macro-algal beds 0 (observed) N/A

Brachiopods Habitat limited to hard substrate


Model Area)


Deep sea hydrothermal vents 0 (observed) N/A

Methane or cold seeps 0 (observed) N/A

Table 2: Protected Species

Protected Species Modelled abundance in the

Regional Model Area

(individuals)

Five percent (5%) of modelled

abundance in the Regional

Model Area (individuals)

Scleractinian cup coral 198,033,601 9,901,680

Gorgonacea 663,481,563 33,174,078

Stylasteridae Habitat limited to hard substrate


Model Area)


Advice Note: Knowledge of sensitive environments and protected species in the Regional Model Area

acquired through detailed pre-drill monitoring for wells to be drilled subsequent to Tāwhaki-1 can be

incorporated into updates of Table 1 and Table 2 through a change in conditions.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xiv

Figure 1: AOI (red) and Regional Model Area (yellow)

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xv

Figure 2: Area (shown in white) within the Regional Model Area for which the slope is greater than 5 degrees. This area is calculated to be 3.8% of the full extent of the Regional Model Area.

END OF MARINE CONSENT Document

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xvi

MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT - EEZ200009

Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects)

Act 2012, the applications for marine discharge consent by OMV GSB Ltd to undertake restricted

discretionary activities (listed in Schedule 1) in the Great South Basin for a 10 well Exploration and Appraisal

Drilling programme is GRANTED subject to conditions (set out in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3).

This marine (discharge) consent expires on 31 December 2030.

Dated: 16 December 2019

David Hill Glenice Paine

DMC Chair DMC Member and Deputy Chair

___________________________

Dayle Hunia

EPA Board Member

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xvii

SCHEDULE 1: AUTHORISED RESTRICTED ACTIVITES

This marine discharge consent authorises the following restricted activities, subject to conditions listed in

Schedule 2.

Section 20B(1) – No person may discharge a harmful substance from a structure or from a submarine

pipeline into the sea or into or onto the seabed of the exclusive economic zone.

1) The discharge of harmful substances from a structure (Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit(s)) to the sea, as

part of the Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme in the Great South Basin, in relation to the

exercise of PEP 50119 including:

a. The discharge of Blowout Prevention Fluid;

b. The discharge of drilling fluids;

c. The discharge of excess cement;

d. The discharge of trace hydrocarbons;

e. Discharges from DST; and

f. Other operational discharges.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xviii

SCHEDULE 2: OMV GSB LTD – MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT EEZ200009 CONDITIONS

Definitions

Area of Interest (AOI) means the Area of Interest defined in the IA (and Figure 1 to this consent);

an area defined by the co-ordinates:


1 1522570 4905470

2 1524230 4774230

3 1448510 4722480

4 1380060 4810840

5 1444940 4811350

6 1468000 4861670

7 1498230 4905110

Consent holder has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

Cement batch

discharge

means a volume of cement that is discharged in any single event from the

MODU.

Discharge activities means discharge activities authorised by this marine discharge consent

only.

EAD means Exploration and Appraisal Drilling.

ESRP means Emergency Spill Response Plan.

EEZ Act means Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) Act 2012.

EPA means the Environmental Protection Authority.

Harmful substance has the meaning given in regulation 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and

Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping)

Regulations 2015.

IA means the Impact Assessment document entitled: Marine Consent and

Marine Discharge Consent Application – Great South Basin Exploration

and Appraisal Drilling Programme” (SLR Ref 740.10083.00100‐R01,

Version No. –V1.0 dated August 2019) prepared by SLR Consulting NZ

Limited.

Maximum volume means the maximum volume of a harmful substance to be discharged at

any well location as specified in Table 1 Schedule 2 of this marine

discharge consent.

Maximum mass means the maximum mass of a harmful substance to be discharged at any

well location as specified in Table 1 Schedule 2 of this marine discharge

consent.

MODU means Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit.

PEP means a Petroleum Exploration Permit granted under the Crown Minerals

Act 1991.

Well location means any location at which exploration and appraisal drilling occurs within

the AOI.

Tāwhaki-1 means the well located at or about NZTM 1496397E 4801084N.

Working day has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xix

1. Subject to compliance with these consent conditions, the activities authorised by this marine discharge

consent shall be undertaken in general accordance with the following documents:

a. The document entitled “Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent Application – Great South

Basin Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme” (SLR Ref 740.10083.00100‐R01, Version No.

–V1.0 dated August 2019) prepared by SLR Consulting NZ Limited; and

b. The OMV GSB Limited responses to further information requests by the EPA dated 23 September

2019, 3 October 2019, 11 October 2019, 16 October 2019, including all attachments

Where there is any actual or apparent conflict between these documents and any of the conditions of

this consent, the conditions shall prevail.

2. This marine discharge consent shall expire on 31 December 2030.

3. The consent holder shall ensure that a copy of this marine discharge consent, and any variations of it, is

available for inspection by the EPA at the consent holder’s head office in New Zealand, and on any MODU

undertaking activities authorised by this marine discharge consent.

4. The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel, including any contractors, involved in undertaking any

of the activities authorised by this marine discharge consent are fully informed of their obligations and

responsibilities in exercising this marine discharge consent.

5. The consent holder shall keep a record to show that the personnel, including contractors, referred to in

condition 4 have been informed of their obligations under this marine discharge consent. The consent

holder shall provide a copy of this record to the EPA upon request.

6. The consent holder shall, prior to first commencing the activities authorised by this marine discharge

consent, provide to the EPA, in writing, the name and contact details of the person who has responsibility

for compliance management, collating information, and reporting in accordance with the requirements of

this marine discharge consent. In the event that the responsible person changes, the consent holder shall

advise the EPA, in writing, of the name and contact details of the new person within 20 working days of

the change

7. The consent holder shall, prior to first commencing the activities authorised by this marine discharge

consent in relation to Tāwhaki-1, and at least 10 working days before it intends to commence activities

authorised by this marine discharge consent at each subsequent well location, advise the EPA, in writing,

of the intended date activities will commence.

8. Under this marine discharge consent, the consent holder shall discharge no harmful substances into the

sea or into or onto the seabed of the exclusive economic zone other than those listed in Table 1, Schedule

2 of this consent.

9. The consent holder shall discharge the harmful substances listed in Table 1, Schedule 2 of this marine

discharge consent at no more than ten (10) well locations and all well locations shall be located within the

AOI within PEP 50119.

10. No well location, at which discharge activities occur, shall be within 3 km of any other well location within

the AOI.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xx

11. The total discharge(s) of any harmful substance listed in Table 1, Schedule 2 of this marine discharge

consent shall not exceed the maximum volume, or maximum mass (as applicable) specified in that Table,

at each well location.

12. The consent holder shall notify the EPA immediately upon becoming aware of any adverse effects on the

environment or existing interests that arise that:

a. were not anticipated when this marine discharge consent was granted; or

b. are of a scale or intensity that were not anticipated when this marine discharge consent was granted.

Advice Note 1:

In the event that such adverse effects occur the EPA may, pursuant to section 76(1)(c) of the EEZ Act,

serve notice on the consent holder of its intention to review the duration or conditions of this marine

discharge consent.

13. While undertaking the activities authorised by this marine discharge consent the consent holder shall

maintain a log for each well, to be kept on the MODU and made available to the EPA on request, of the

following:

a. the name and location of the well drilled;

b. the range of dates over which the well was drilled;

c. the total volume, or mass, as applicable, of harmful substances used in cement for each well;

d. the number of cement batch discharges and the volume of cement discharged during each cement

batch discharge, including the date on which each cement batch discharge occurred;

e. the total volume of water‐based muds used in the well; and

f. the total volume of water‐based muds discharged directly to the sea by way of a batch discharge(s),

including the date(s) of such discharge(s).

14. Within six months after the plugging and abandoning of a well at which discharge activities have occurred,

the consent holder shall provide to the EPA a copy of the information required under condition 13 of this

consent.

15. Subject to compliance with these consent conditions, the activities authorised by this marine discharge

consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the ESRP as required by Regulation 24 of the Exclusive

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects—Discharge and Dumping) Regulations

2015. Where there is any actual or apparent conflict between the ESRP and any of the conditions of this

consent, the conditions shall prevail.

Advice Note 2:

Condition 20 of marine consent EEZ200009 requires the consent holder to prepare and implement an

Environmental Monitoring Programme for this EAD Programme. The results of the monitoring under the

Environmental Monitoring Plan will be able to be used to assess the potential combined physical and

chemical impacts that the drilling activities, including the discharges which are authorised by this marine

discharge consent, may have had on the benthic environment and the rates of recovery.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xxi

Table 1: Harmful substances consented for discharge

Harmful substance HSNO

classification Discharge stream and use

Maximum volume (m3)/ mass (t)

per well location

BARAKLEAN-926 9.1C Drill stem testing – well cleaner 1.6 m3

BIOGUARD PLUS 9.1A MODU cooling system - antifoulant

1.233 m3

CAUSTIC SODA 9.1D Drilling mud additive – pH control 2.4 t

LIME 9.1D Drilling mud additive – pH control 2 t

PERFORMATROL 9.1D Drilling mud additive – shale stabiliser

40 m3

CLAY GRABBER 9.1B Drilling mud additive – shale stabiliser

10 t

EMBR11720A 9.1B Well testing - demulsifier Trace amounts **

ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE 9.1A Blow Out Preventer - hydraulic fluid

2.333 m3

JET-LUBE ALCO EP 73 PLUS 9.1B Riser connector - lubricant Trace amounts***

JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE 9.1A Wellhead connectors - lubricant Trace amounts***

JET-LUBE NCS-30 ECF 9.1C Joints and drill collars - lubricant Trace amounts***

SEAL GUARD ECF 9.1D Tubular threads - lubricant Trace amounts***

RENACLEAN A 9.1D Slops tank filter – water treatment and cleaning

0.067 m3

RENACLEAN B 9.1B Slops tank filter – water treatment and cleaning

0.067 m3

GASSTOP EXP Oil Cement additive – fluid loss additive

1.135 L

SPHERELITE CEMENT ADDITIVE

9.1C Cement additive 50 t

MICRO MATRIX® CEMENT RETARDER

9.1C Cement additive - retarder 75.7 L

HR25-L 9.1D Cement additive - retarder 183 L

SHELL SARALINE 185V Oil Drill stem testing - Cushion Trace amounts**

Trace amounts of hydrocarbons

Oil Drilling fluids – entrained if hydrocarbons are encountered

Trace amounts****

*Maximum volume/ mass refers to the maximum amount of a harmful substance that is authorised to be discharged at each well location.

**Trace amounts in this instance refers to the very small volumes of a substance which may not be combusted during flaring during well

testing, and which will enter the sea of the EEZ as fallout.

***Trace amounts in this instance refers to the very small volumes of this substance which may diffuse into the water column at points

where these substances come into direct contact with the sea of the EEZ.

****Trace amounts in this instance refers to the very small amounts of hydrocarbons that could become entrained in drilling fluids and be

adhered to drill cuttings that are discharged from the MODU.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent xxii

Figure 1: AOI (red)

END OF MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT Document


EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS) ACT 2012

OMV New Zealand Limited: EEZ200009

Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent for restricted section 20 and section 20B activities

Reasons for decision on applications for marine consent and marine discharge consent


Executive Summary

i. Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act), the applications for marine consent and marine discharge consent lodged by

OMV GSB Limited (OMV) to undertake restricted discretionary activities (listed in Schedule 1 of each of

the Consent Documents) is GRANTED subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2 of each of the Consent

Documents).

ii. The reasons for granting the applications are set out in this decision as required by section 69 of the EEZ

Act. In making our decision on these applications, we have acted as an independent decision-maker under

delegated authority from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). We have applied the decision-

making criteria set out in sections 59 and 60 the EEZ Act and we have also applied the information

principles set out in section 61 of the EEZ Act as appropriate taking into account the nature and scale of

the applications and their likely adverse effects.

iii. OMV lodged the applications for marine consent and marine discharge consent on 9 August 2019. The

applications seek authorisation to undertake various restricted activities associated with an Exploration

and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) programme involving the drilling of up to ten exploration and appraisal wells

in the Great South Basin (GSB) using mobile offshore drilling units (MODU).

iv. We find that all the potential effects of the proposed activities on the biological environment, including

cumulative effects, are either temporary or involve small areas (or low proportions) of habitat. We find the

environmental risk associated with the planned activities for which consents are sought is, at worst, low

and the adverse environmental effects will, at worst, be minor with the conditions we have imposed.

v. The existing interests within the area where the activities are proposed to take place are Māori interests,

commercial fisheries (including Māori interests in commercial fishing), recreational fishing, and marine

traffic (shipping).

vi. The primary commercial fishery in the GSB where the drilling is proposed is a mid-water trawl fishery

targeting oreo. We find that there could be spatial displacement effects on commercial fisheries (including

Māori interests in commercial fishing) resulting from the MODU being in place but these effects, including

cumulative effects, will be negligible and temporary in nature.

vii. Māori customary fishing interests are sometimes exercised using commercial fishing vessels. We find that

if this occurs in the vicinity of the proposed well locations, Māori customary fishing interests will be affected

in the same way as commercial fishing interests, that is, the effects will be negligible. However, we consider

that cultural values associated with customary fishing may be affected. Other customary fishing occurs

around the Otago coastline, remote from the Area of Interest (AOI) where the activities are proposed, and

we find there to be no adverse effects on such fishing.

viii. We have taken into account potential effects of low probability but high potential impact, such as an

unplanned oil spill. Based on the information provided by OMV, we accept that the probability of a major

oil spill is rare (i.e. may occur in exceptional circumstances). We are satisfied that the EAD programme

will be undertaken in accordance with industry best practice and that this risk is therefore very low.

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent iii

ix. We are also satisfied that other requirements that OMV must comply with under other legislation and

regulations, in particular the Safety Case that needs to be approved by WorkSafe New Zealand before

drilling commences, will minimise the risk of an oil spill occurring due to loss of well control to as low as

reasonably practicable. Further, we are satisfied that Maritime New Zealand and other agencies have the

plans, structures, processes, access to equipment, and financial resources to respond to an oil spill event

should one occur. Nonetheless, we accept that the overall environmental effects on the biological

environment, existing interests, and cultural values from a significant oil spill event could be extensive.

x. We have taken into account the nature and effect of other marine management regimes (MMRs) pursuant

to section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act while noting that those regimes have different purposes to the EEZ Act

- i.e. do not have safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment as a key focus. They all,

however, impose standards and requirements that are relevant to the environmental matters that we must

consider under section 59 of the EEZ Act. As required, we have taken care not to impose conditions that

might conflict with measures required by other MMRs or the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

xi. After considering all the information provided by OMV and taking into account the matters listed in sections

59 and 61 of the EEZ Act, we find that granting the marine consent and marine discharge consent will

accord with the sustainable management and environmental protection purpose set out in section 10 of

the EEZ Act.

xii. Parliament has, in categorising activities involved in exploration drilling in the exclusive economic zone or

in or on the continental shelf as a non-notified activity under section 29D of the EEZ Act, determined that

such activities generally have a low probability of significant adverse effects on the environment or existing

interests, and are routine or exploratory in nature, or are of brief duration. We have been mindful of this

fact and agree that is the case here.

xiii. We acknowledge that the application will generate adverse effects, but find that they can be appropriately

avoided, remedied, or mitigated through the conditions we have imposed pursuant to section 63 of the

EEZ Act (and the requirements of other MMRs).

xiv. We find the conditions proffered by OMV1 to be generally appropriate. However, following advice on those

conditions from the EPA, commissioned experts and further discussion with OMV, we have amended

some, deleted some where they duplicate other MMR requirements, and added new conditions.

xv. Finally, having considered the requirements of sections 59, 61, and 73 of the EEZ Act, and in light of the

purpose of the EEZ Act, we consider that the marine consent and marine discharge consent should expire

on 30 December 2030, this being the same expiry date as was recently imposed on OMV’s associated

marine discharge consent (EEZ100018) to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances (offshore

processing drainage) into the sea through the deck drains of the MODU(s).

xvi. Overall, it is our finding that granting this marine consent and marine discharge consent meets the purpose

of the EEZ Act as set out in section 10.

1 OMV’s “proffered conditions” are in Appendix I, Volume 3 of the IA.

Table of Contents

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms i

1. The Decision-making Committee 1

2. The Applicant and the Application 1

2.1 The Applicant ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 The Application............................................................................................................................... 1

2.3 Processing Pathway ....................................................................................................................... 4

3. Decision-making Process and Procedural Matters 6

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Commissioned Reports and Advice ............................................................................................... 6

3.3 Requests for Information from OMV .............................................................................................. 7

3.4 Deliberations .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.5 Procedural Matters ......................................................................................................................... 8

4. Duties of the EPA and DMC 13

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Treaty of Waitangi ........................................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Information Principles ................................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Matters to be Taken into Account ................................................................................................ 16

4.5 Adoption and Cross-referencing of Material ................................................................................ 16

5. Activities Subject to EEZ Act Authorisation 17

5.1 Marine Consent ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Marine Discharge Consent ........................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Other Activities Associated with the Application .......................................................................... 19

6. Description of the Activities 20

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 20

6.2 Planned Activities – Marine Consent ........................................................................................... 20

6.3 Planned Activities – Marine Discharge Consent .......................................................................... 26

6.4 Unplanned Events – Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent ....................................... 33

7. Description of the Existing Environment 33

7.1 Existing Physical Environment ..................................................................................................... 33

7.2 Existing Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 35

8. Introduction 39

9. Biological Environment 41

9.1 Effects on the Biological Environment ......................................................................................... 41

9.2 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 62

9.3 Findings on Biological Environment Effects ................................................................................. 63

10. Existing Interests 65

10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 65

10.2 Effects on Existing Interests ......................................................................................................... 67

10.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 76

10.4 Findings on Effects on Existing Interests ..................................................................................... 76

11. Effects on Human Health of Discharges of Harmful Substances 78

11.1 Direct Exposure ............................................................................................................................ 79

11.2 Consumption of contaminated fish ............................................................................................... 79

12. Unplanned Events 80

12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 80

12.2 Environmental Risks .................................................................................................................... 80

12.3 Findings on Unplanned Events .................................................................................................... 83

13. Section 59 Summary and Analysis 86

13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 86

13.2 Section 59(2)(a) – Effects ............................................................................................................ 86

13.3 Section 59(2)(a)(i) – Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 86

13.4 Section 59(2)(b) – Other Activities ............................................................................................... 87

13.5 Section 59(2)(c) and 59(2A)(b) – Human Health ......................................................................... 87

13.6 Section 59(2)(d) – Biodiversity ..................................................................................................... 87

13.7 Section 59(2)(e) – Effects on Rare and Vulnerable Species ....................................................... 88

13.8 Section 59(2)(f) – Economic Benefit ............................................................................................ 88

13.9 Section 59(2)(g) – Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 88

13.10 Section 59(2)(h) – Marine Management Regimes ....................................................................... 89

13.11 Section 59(2)(i) – Best Practice ................................................................................................... 91

13.12 Section 59(2)(j) – Conditions ........................................................................................................ 91

13.13 Section 59(2)(k) – Regulations ..................................................................................................... 92

13.14 Section 59(2)(l) – Other Law ........................................................................................................ 92

13.15 Section 59(2)(m) – Any Other Matters ......................................................................................... 93

13.16 Section 59(3) – Submissions and Evidence ................................................................................ 93

14. Overall Determination and Reasons for Decision 94

15. Conditions 95

15.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 95

15.2 OMV Proffered Conditions and EPA Conditions Report .............................................................. 96

15.3 Commentary and Findings on Conditions .................................................................................... 97

16. Duration 101

Tables and Figures Figure 1: Location of the AOI in the GSB .............................................................................................. 2 Table 1: DMC commissioned reviews and advice sought under section 56 of the EEZ Act ............... 6 Table 2: Further information requested from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act .......................... 7 Table 3: Marine Consent Requirements ............................................................................................. 17 Table 4: Marine Discharge Consent Requirements ........................................................................... 18 Table 5: Risk Rankings used for Environmental Risk Assessment by OMV ..................................... 40 Table 6: Relevant Marine Management Regimes .............................................................................. 89

Appendices Appendix 1. Procedural History ...................................................................................................... 102 Appendix 2. EEZ ACT - Decision-Making Framework .................................................................... 105 Appendix 3. Joint Statement of Experts in the field of Benthic Ecology ......................................... 113


Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AOI Area of Interest

bbl Barrel

BOP Blow Out Preventer

BOMEC Benthic Optimised Marine Environment Classification

CIA Cultural Impact Assessment

CMA Coastal marine area

CMA 1991 Crown Minerals Act 1991

Coffey Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd

CRMS Craft Risk Management Standard

D&D Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and

Regulations Dumping) Regulations 2015

DMC Decision-making Committee

DoC Department of Conservation

DP Dynamic Positioning

DST Drill Stem Testing

EAD Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EEZ Act Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

EMP Environmental Monitoring Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

ERA Environmental risk assessment

ESRP Emergency Spill Response Plan

GSB Great South Basin

HSSE Health, Safety, Security and Environment

IA Impact Assessment

km kilometre

LMRP Low marine riser package

m metre

m2 square metre

m3 cubic metre

mm millimetre

MACAA Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011


MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MMRs Marine Management Regimes

MNZ Maritime New Zealand

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

MOS MetOcean Solutions

MPI Ministry for Primary Industries

NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

NKTT Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao

nm nautical mile

OGS Oil and Gas Solutions

OMV OMV GSB Limited

OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan

OTEMP Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol

PEP Petroleum Exploration Permit

PNEC Predicted No Effects Concentration

Permitted Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects—Permitted Activities) Activity Regulations 2013 Regulations

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

SBM Synthetic based mud

SDS Safety Data Sheet

TSS Total suspended sediment

TVD True Vertical Depth

WBM Water based mud

WCCP Well Control Contingency Plan

WFT Wireline Formation Testing

WorkSafe WorkSafe New Zealand

WSMP Well Specific Monitoring Plan

Chapter 1. Background

EEZ200009 OMV GSB Limited Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent 1

Chapter 1. BACKGROUND

1. The Decision-making Committee

1. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the consent authority for certain activities that are

restricted within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and in or on the continental shelf.

One of the EPA’s functions, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and

Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act), is to decide applications for marine

consent and marine discharge consent.

2. On 13 June 2019, the EPA Board appointed us as a Decision-making Committee (DMC) to exercise

powers and functions under the EEZ Act related to the applications for marine consent and marine

discharge consent lodged by OMV GSB Limited (OMV). The EPA Board also delegated all the

functions and powers of the EPA related to the processing, hearing, and deciding of the application

under the EEZ Act to us. Members of the DMC are David Hill (Chair), Glenice Paine (Deputy Chair),

and Dayle Hunia (EPA Board Member). This is the written record of our decisions pursuant to

section 69 of the EEZ Act.

3. In considering and deciding OMV’s applications, we have applied the statutory framework for

determining applications under the EEZ Act.

2. The Applicant and the Application

2.1 The Applicant

4. As outlined in Section 1 of the Impact Assessment (IA), OMV is wholly owned by the parent

company OMV New Zealand Limited, which has been operating in New Zealand since 1999 when it

gained a 30% ownership of the Maari Field following its acquisition of Cultus Petroleum of Australia.

In 2002, OMV New Zealand Limited became the primary operator of the Maari Field within the

Taranaki Bight, which is New Zealand’s largest oil field, producing crude oil from the Maari,

Mangahewa and Manaia reservoirs, and is actively seeking further consents for operations within the

Taranaki offshore region.

5. The activities identified in the IA form part of OMV’s multi-well Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

(EAD) programme in the Great South Basin (GSB) off the coast of Otago. This programme is

designed to determine the presence of hydrocarbons within a number of identified geological

structures and to investigate the production potential of any resource discovered.

2.2 The Application

6. On 7 July 2007, OMV was granted Petroleum Exploration Permit (PEP) 50119 under the Crown

Minerals Act 1991 (CMA 1991). PEP 50119 is a greenfield permit area that has not yet been fully

explored for oil and gas reserves. OMV has identified some hydrocarbon leads and prospects which

it will target as part of its exploration obligations under PEP 50119.


7. Condition 6a of PEP 50119 requires OMV to drill an exploration well (identified as Tāwhaki‐1) by 10

July 2021 or surrender either no less than 7,349 km2 of the permit area or surrender the entire permit

area. If OMV drills an exploration well by 10 July 2021, it is then required to drill two further

exploration wells: one well by 10 April 2022 and a second by 10 July 2022, or surrender PEP 50119

in its entirety.

8. OMV acknowledges that it requires multiple consents under the EEZ Act before it can carry out

exploration drilling in PEP 50119. In addition to the marine consent and marine discharge consent

sought as part of this application, additional requirements included the publicly notified marine

discharge consent application (EEZ100018) for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful

substances from the deck drains of any Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit(s) (MODU(s)) used for OMV’s

EAD activities in PEP 50119. That application was granted by the EPA in September 2019.

9. OMV’s PEP area and the Area of Interest (AOI) which encapsulates the proposed well locations is

shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Location of the AOI in the GSB



10. On 9 August 2019, OMV lodged the EEZ200009 applications with the EPA. These seek a marine

consent and a marine discharge consent to undertake various activities restricted by the EEZ Act

associated with its proposed EAD programme.

11. The drilling of up to three (3) exploration wells and up to seven (7) appraisal wells within PEP 50119

is proposed to be undertaken by a MODU. As described in Section 3.2.1 of the IA, the COSL

Prospector MODU has been contracted by OMV to drill the Tāwhaki‐1 well, the first well within the

AOI. However, other MODUs may be used during the EAD operations.

12. The COSL Prospector is described as a dynamic positioned MODU. It will hold position by the

MODU’s thrusters using satellite and computer‐controlled positioning, as opposed to being anchored

to the seafloor, thereby avoiding associated direct seabed disturbance.

13. Various activities associated with the drilling activities require marine consent and marine discharge

consent under sections 20(2), 20(4) and 20B(1) of the EEZ Act.

14. The activities for which a marine consent is sought relate to the following planned activities:

a) Pre-installation works (including seabed surveys and site clearance);

b) Drilling (including drilling, installation of subsea wellhead system and sidetrack drilling);

c) Installation of well casing;

d) Deposition of drilling cuttings;

e) Formation evaluation, including Wireline Formation Testing (WFT) and Drill Stem Testing

(DST);

f) Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) works and placement of transponders;

g) Well abandonment;

h) Environmental monitoring; and

i) Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, cement disposal and use of

explosives).

15. The activities for which a marine discharge consent are sought relate to the following planned

activities:

a) The discharge of Blowout Preventer (BOP) fluid;

b) The discharge of drilling fluids;

c) The discharge of excess cement;

d) The discharge of trace hydrocarbons;

e) Discharges from Drill Stem Testing (DST); and

f) Other operational discharges.

16. Further details of the proposed activities are presented in Section 6 of this decision.


17. As previously noted, OMV has already lodged and had granted a related application for a marine

discharge consent for the discharge of harmful substances into the sea from the MODU deck drains.

18. Section 2.4 of the IA identifies that the EAD programme also includes activities that are classified as

permitted under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects —

Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013 (Permitted Activity Regulations) being: checkshot surveys

and vertical seismic profiling.

19. These activities are permitted subject to compliance with a number of conditions and notifications.

We agree that those two activities are provided for under the Permitted Activity Regulations and do

not consider them further in this decision.

20. There are other activities associated with the EAD programme and described in the application that

either do not require a marine consent or a marine discharge consent under the EEZ Act, or need to

comply with various regulations; and we discuss these later in this decision.

2.3 Processing Pathway

21. Section 29D of the EEZ Act provides for regulations to be promulgated that may describe any

discretionary activity as non-notified or provide that an application for a marine consent or a marine

discharge consent for such an activity is not to be publicly notified.

22. The DMC notes that any such regulations may only be promulgated if the Minister is of the opinion

that:

(a) the activity has a low probability of significant adverse effects on the environment or

existing interests; and

(b) the activity is—

(i) routine or exploratory in nature; or

(ii) an activity of brief duration; or

(iii) a dumping activity.

23. In February 2014, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects —

Non-notified Activities) Regulations 2014 came into force and regulations 5 and 6 state:

5 Non-notified activities

Activities described in section 20(2) or (4) of the Act that are involved in exploration drilling

for petroleum in the exclusive economic zone or in or on the continental shelf are

classified as non-notified activities and an application for a marine consent for any of

those activities is not to be publicly notified if the applicant complies with regulation 6.



6 Condition

Regulation 5 applies subject to the condition that—

(a) the geographical area covered by the application for a marine consent is the same or

part of the same geographical area covered by a permit or adjacent permits under the

Crown Minerals Act 1991; or

(b) the activity is authorised by an existing privilege held by the applicant that is preserved

by clause 12 of Schedule 1 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

24. OMV’s proposed activities are located within the geographical area covered by its PEP issued under

the CMA 1991, and therefore comply with regulation 6(a). As such, regulation 5 confirms that those

activities regulated by section 20(2) or (4) of the EEZ Act are classified as non-notified, and an

application for such activities is not to be publicly notified.

25. Despite the fact that the activities are classified as non-notified and the application is not to be

publicly notified, section 45 of the EEZ Act requires the EPA to serve a copy of the non-notified

applications (and the IA) on specified parties. However, there is no provision enabling any of those

parties to lodge a submission regarding the application and there is no process to deal with any

responses from those parties. We are advised that the question as to what consideration is given,

and the weight if any to attach to that, is a matter for the DMC.

26. EPA staff advised us that 1,892 parties were served with a copy of the applications under section 45

of the EEZ Act, via email and letter. The parties were provided with links to the EPA website to

access the application, IA, and supporting documents. The parties served were made up of:

a) 25 Māori organisations or groups (being iwi authorities and applicant groups for customary

marine title or protected customary rights);

b) Otago Regional Council;

c) Seven government ministries, departments, and crown entities (including Maritime New

Zealand (MNZ));

d) 485 parties with Department of Conservation (DoC) Concessions; and

e) 1,311 other persons potentially having existing interests that may be affected by the

application.

27. The EPA received letters from a number of parties who were served a copy of the application. We

discuss those letters in Section 3.5.5 of this decision.


3. Decision-making Process and Procedural Matters

3.1 Introduction

28. The DMC followed a comprehensive and robust decision-making process that involved

commissioning various reports from the EPA, external expert reviewers, and Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga

Taiao (NKTT), being the EPA’s Māori Advisory Committee. In addition, the DMC requested further

information from OMV and invited comment from OMV on other matters (including draft revised

conditions). We are satisfied that we have fulfilled our duty under section 61 of the EEZ Act to ensure

that we had the best available information on which to base our decision without unreasonable cost,

effort, or time.

29. The following sections provide a summary of the reports we commissioned, the requests for further

information issued to OMV, and various procedural matters which arose during the decision-making

process.

30. A detailed procedural timeline for the application is provided in Appendix 1.

3.2 Commissioned Reports and Advice

31. Details of the reports commissioned and advice sought by us under section 56 of the EEZ Act, are

outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: DMC commissioned reviews and advice sought under section 56 of the EEZ Act

Report From Topic Date Report Received

Independent Reviews sought under section 56(1)(a)

Oil and Gas Solutions

(OGS)

Technical review and analysis of operational

activities (authored by Mr Broomhead).

19 September 2019,

further response 4

November 2019

Coffey Services (NZ)

Ltd (Coffey)

Review of Marine Ecology Aspects of OMV Great

South Basin (authored by Mr Steward and Dr Mire).

24 September 2019

Coffey Technical review of drill cuttings dispersion

modelling (authored by Mr Rogers).

24 September 2019,

further response 6

November 2019

Ms Cora Drijver Review of Environmental Impact Assessment of

Marine Discharge

26 September 2019

Comments from Government agencies under section 56(1)(c)

Maritime NZ (MNZ) Description of MNZ’s responsibilities in respect to

the EAD Programme.

14 October 2019

WorkSafe New Zealand

(Worksafe)

Description of WorkSafe’s responsibilities in respect

to the EAD Programme and under the Health and

Safety at Work Act 2015.

7 October 2019

DoC Description of DoC’s responsibilities in respect to

the EAD Programme, details on likelihood of

25 October 2019



occurrence of mammals in the AOI, and

commentary on OMV’s mammal, seabird and

protected species assessments.

Ministry for Primary

Industries (MPI) –

Fisheries New Zealand

Details on commercial fisheries and OMV’s

assessments on these fisheries

16 October 2019

MPI – Biosecurity Description of Biosecurity NZ’s responsibilities in

respect to the EAD Programme, and commentary

on OMV’s biosecurity assessment

21 October 2019

Advice from Māori Advisory Committee under section 55(1)(b)

Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga

Taiao

Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao – EEZ200009 18 November 2019

EPA Reports under section 56(1)(d)

EPA Staff Environmental Risk Assessment for Discharges

(ERA Discharges Report)

October 2019

EPA staff EPA Conditions Report 5 December 2019

Expert Statements

Benthic Ecology

Experts

Joint Statement of Experts in the Field of Benthic

Ecology

30 October 2019

32. We have had regard to the contents and recommendations of all of the reports and correspondence

identified in the table above as part of our decision-making process.

3.3 Requests for Information from OMV

33. We requested further information from OMV, under section 54(1) of the EEZ Act, on three occasions

as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Further information requested from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act

Request Number Date of Request Date Information Received

1 13 September 2019 23 September 2019

2 27 September 2019 3 October 2019

3 3 October 2019 11 October 2019 and 16 October 2019

34. The information requested from OMV covered many different aspects of the application and IA

including:

a) cumulative effects;

b) harmful substances;

c) impacts of noise on cetaceans and marine mammals;

d) habitat suitability mapping by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA);


e) likely hydrocarbons in the subsurface structures to be explored;

f) likelihood of occurrence of spill modelling in risk assessment;

g) timeline from proposed drilling;

h) volume of discharges at previous well sites;

i) cultural assessment and iwi engagement;

j) response to EPA review reports;

k) zone of reasonable mixing;

l) disposal of cuttings onshore;

m) operational risks;

n) drill cuttings dispersion and deposition modelling;

o) total suspended sediment loads and natural variability;

p) sediment deposition thresholds; and

q) additional mitigation measures.

35. We record here that OMV provided all the information that we requested, and that information has

afforded an essential basis upon which we have been able to make a decision on this application.

36. In addition to the formal requests for further information, we offered OMV the opportunity to comment

on the draft revised conditions set out in the EPA Conditions Report and the NKTT Report. Where

relevant, these responses are discussed later in this decision.

3.4 Deliberations

37. In addition to an initial induction meeting, the DMC held 5 meetings to consider the application,

deliberate, and finalise this decision.

38. During those meetings, we applied the decision-making requirements outlined in the EEZ Act. These

are discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of this report.

3.5 Procedural Matters

39. There were several procedural matters which the EPA and DMC dealt with during the processing

and consideration of OMV’s application. These are discussed below.

3.5.1 Completeness of Application and Impact Assessment

40. Section 40 of the EEZ Act requires the EPA to determine whether an application is complete in terms

of section 38 of the EEZ Act. Section 38 of the EEZ Act outlines the minimum requirements that an

application and IA must meet before it is deemed to be complete. The DMC records that the EPA

decided the application as being complete on 6 September 2019.



3.5.2 Joint Hearing of Applications

41. As previously noted, on 14 February 2019, OMV lodged application EEZ100018 for a publicly

notified marine discharge consent to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances (offshore

processing drainage) through the deck drains of any MODU to the sea as part of its EAD

programme.

42. Section 44(1) of the EEZ Act provides the EPA with discretion to decide whether related applications

should be heard at the same time and place, and if decisions on related applications should be made

on the same date. Section 44(2) provides the EPA with the power to extend a time period to ensure

that the related applications are heard at the same time and place or to ensure that decisions on the

related applications are made on the same date.

43. As both applications relate to the OMV’s EAD programme, and the application for marine discharge

consent (EEZ100018) was publicly notified, both sections 44(1)(a) and (b) are satisfied and the

applications were eligible to be decided (and heard) at the same time.

44. The DMC records that the matter relating to the joint processing was decided by the EPA on 30

August 2019.. The EPA determined that OMV’s application for marine discharge consent

(EEZ100018), and its application for marine consent and marine discharge consent (which are in

front of us), would be heard and decided separately.

45. That decision was subject to an application for judicial review lodged by Greenpeace in the High

Court. The High Court dismissed the application on 12 December 2019, finding no error of law in the

EPA’s decision.

3.5.3 Need for a Hearing

46. Section 50 of the EEZ Act provides that the EPA may conduct a hearing (either in public or in

private) for a non-notified consent if it considers it necessary or desirable, even if the applicant has

not requested one.

47. We note that, through correspondence with the EPA, Greenpeace has sought that the DMC hold a

public hearing on the applications, despite not being a party served under section 45 and having no

right to submit on the applications.

48. The DMC resolved at its meeting held on 10 December 2019, that a hearing was not necessary or

desirable in this case as we did not consider it would provide any additional value to our

consideration of this application.

49. In making its decision not to hold a hearing, the DMC recorded in Minute 5 that it was conscious of

both its obligation under section 61 of the EEZ Act to base its decision on the best available

information and the time, cost, and effort considerations involved in holding a hearing.


3.5.4 Extension of Time

50. On 8 November 2019, the DMC resolved that an extension of the statutory time period specified in

section 68(2) of the EEZ Act2, being the time period by which this decision must be issued, was

considered necessary. An extension of the statutory time period may be made under section 159 of

the EEZ Act provided the DMC has taken into account the matters provided for in section 160,

including the interests of any person who, in the EPA’s opinion, may be directly affected by the

extension and the interests of the community in being able to achieve an adequate assessment of

the potential effects of a proposal.

51. The DMC issued Minute 3 on 8 November 2019 which confirmed that an extension of time had been

made, including the reasons for the extension. The Minute identified that the decision would be

released no later than 17 December 2019.

3.5.5 Letters from Third Parties

52. In response to the serving of section 45 parties, the EPA received letters from the following persons:

53. Professor Mary Morgan-Richards3 (a DOC concession holder) – whose letter stated that she led a

team from Massey University studying benthic marine gastropods (e.g. Siphon Whelks Penion

chathamensis,; Antarctoneptunea benthicola; Volute Alcithoe wilsonae), a number of which occur in

the GSB. The letter expressed Prof Morgan-Richards’ concerns about the impacts of the drilling

activities on gastropod species, noting that within the area of sea floor that would be disturbed by the

proposed activities these snails would almost certainly die, but that their geographic distribution is

wide, and other individuals are likely to survive in the short term. The letter identified that the

diversity of invertebrates in most ecosystems have yet to be documented, and that it is the loss of

the unknown that is of more concern.

54. Commercial Fisheries Forum4 - in the form of an email dated 8 November 2019 from Mr Bill

Chisholm, which identified the Forum as a body representing all commercial fishing interests,

including aquaculture and freshwater (predominantly eels and flounder) commercial fisheries, and

includes the Chatham Islands Finfish Association Inc. The response stated that the Forum decided

that, at this stage, no actions on the OMV application were necessary. However, Mr Chisholm noted

that the Chatham Islands Finfish Association Inc wished to register as an affected party to any future

applications of this nature, and that the Forum should also be included as an interested party.

2 Section 68(2) of the EEZ Act states that the EPA must make its decision on an application for a marine consent for a non-

notified activity as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 50 working days after the date on which the EPA is

satisfied that the application is complete. 3 Professor Mary Morgan-Richards, Letter to EPA RE: OMV GSB Ltd non-notified applications for exploration and appraisal

drilling in the Great South Basin under the Exclusive Economic Zone Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012, 7 November 2019. 4 Email from Mr Bill Chisholm on behalf of the Commercial Fisheries Forum, 8 November 2019.



55. Aukaha5 (a Rūnaka-based consultancy) – whose letter identified that it was submitted on behalf of

Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Otākou (Ngā Rūnanga), two of the kaitiaki

Rūnanga of the area within which the activities are proposed to occur, and confirmed that Ngā

Rūnanga have existing interests relevant to the location and nature of the proposed activity. The

letter set out their respective whakapapa and takiwā with the GSB as well as their commercial and

customary fishing interests, and also identified wāhi taonga and taonga species within the GSB.

Finally, the letter requested that, in the event that consent is granted, the EPA should apply a

precautionary approach to the potential for discharges to harm seamounts and sea canyons, taonga

species and commercial fishing interests.

56. The matters raised by Prof Morgan-Richards form part of the consideration of the impacts of the

drilling activities on the biological environment, which is discussed later in this decision.

57. No specific matters were raised by the Commercial Fisheries Forum that need to be further

addressed in this decision.

58. The existing interest matters raised by Aukaha are discussed later in this decision.

59. Further to the above, as noted already, the EPA received three letters (dated 4 September 2019,

10 October 2019 and 11 December 2019) from Greenpeace which outlined issues relating to the

need for a hearing for OMV’s application. The DMC notes that the letters from Greenpeace were

received outside of the statutory process provided for under the non-notification provisions of the

EEZ Act as Greenpeace is not a person entitled to be served with a copy of OMV’s application under

section 45 of the EEZ Act.

60. EPA staff responded separately to Greenpeace by way of three letters dated 12 September 2019,

16 October 2019, and 13 December 2019. The EPA letters acknowledged the concerns expressed in

the letters regarding the application and the need for a hearing. The EPA letters confirmed that there

is no provision under the EEZ Act for submissions on non-notified applications, and that the EPA

Board had delegated its powers and functions under the EEZ Act related to decisions on the

applications to the DMC, and that it is therefore the DMC that would make a determination on the

need for a hearing. The EPA letters advised that the request for a hearing from Greenpeace would

be passed to the DMC for its consideration.

61. We acknowledged (by way of M2 - Minute of the Decision-making Committee – 5 November 2019),

receipt of the first two Greenpeace letters and the issues / concerns that were raised and identified

that we were yet to make a determination on the need for a hearing on OMV’s application.

62. We note that Greenpeace is not a party to this application, nor would it have any right to speak at a

hearing if one was held (unless called by the applicant or the DMC), and that its request for a hearing

and associated information is essentially unsolicited.

5 Kathryn Gale on Behalf of Aukaha, Letter to the EPA RE: OMV GSB Ltd non-notified marine consent and marine discharge

consent applications for exploration and appraisal drilling in offshore Great South Basin, 11 November 2019.


63. As discussed earlier in this decision in Section 3.5.3, on 10 November 2019 we determined that a

hearing was not required for this application, either in public or private, and the EPA sent a copy of

DMC Minute 5 to the applicant and Greenpeace on 13 December 2019 advising it of that decision

and our reasons.

3.5.6 Marine Discharge Consent Decision (EEZ100018)

64. Section 2.4 of the IA confirmed that OMV had already lodged an application for a marine discharge

consent for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drain of a MODU

under regulation 16(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects

– Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015 (D&D Regulations). That application, which was

notified and a hearing held over three (3) days between 30 July and 1 August 2019. The application

was determined by a separate DMC, which made its decision to grant consent on 11 September

2019.

65. Marine discharge consent EEZ100018 forms part of the ‘existing environment’, relates to the same

EAD programme, and the discharges would occur from the MODU(s) which are the subject of this

application. Under section 56 of the EEZ Act, the DMC requested from EPA staff, and was

subsequently provided with, a copy of this marine discharge consent decision and conditions.

66. As is evident later in this decision, we have sought to ensure consistency in approach and wording

with respect to the conditions (where appropriate) that we have imposed, both with respect to

EEZ100018 and also a cognate consent issued for similar OMV EAD activity in the Taranaki region

(EEZ300011).

Chapter 2. EEZ Act and Regulations


Chapter 2. EEZ ACT AND REGULATIONS

4. Duties of the EPA and DMC

4.1 Introduction

67. The statutory framework of the EEZ Act under which this decision has been made can be separated

into the following headings:

a) Subpart 2 - Purpose and principles of the EEZ Act, including international obligations and the

Treaty of Waitangi;

b) Section 20 – Restrictions on activities other than discharges and dumping;

c) Section 20B – Restrictions on discharges of harmful substances from structures and

submarine pipelines;

d) Decision-making criteria; and

e) Information principles.

68. The relevant sections of the EEZ Act that apply to the headings above have been provided in full in

Appendix 2.

69. There are regulations and other laws relevant to our decision-making, and these must be taken into

account under sections 59(2)(k) and (l) of the EEZ Act. Where relevant, these are discussed later in

this decision.

4.2 Treaty of Waitangi

70. Section 12 of the EEZ Act outlines the specific actions that the EPA (and this DMC) must undertake

in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the

Treaty of Waitangi. In this case subsections (a) and (c) are relevant. Subsections (b) and (d) are not

relevant in this case as they relate to the development of proposed regulations and to serving copies

of applications for publicly notified activities respectively. The DMC notes that the EPA served notice

of OMV’s application on 25 Māori organisations or groups (being iwi authorities and or applicant

groups for customary marine title or protected customary rights) under section 45 of the EEZ Act as

discussed in Section 2.3 of this decision.

71. We sought advice from NKTT, which provided a report to us on 18 November 2019 and to which we

have had regard as required by section 59(3)(c) of the EEZ Act. We discuss the advice provided to

us by NKTT later in this decision.

72. In terms of clause (c) of section 12 of the EEZ Act, the DMC has taken into account effects of the

proposed activities on existing interests and we discuss these in Section 10 of this decision.


4.3 Information Principles

4.3.1 Introduction

73. Section 61 of the EEZ Act sets out our information obligations.

4.3.2 Full Use of Powers

74. We are required to make full use of our powers to seek out information, base our decisions on the

best available information and take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the available

information. The concept of best available information is defined to mean the best information that, in

the particular circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time. We discuss the

way in which we have applied this concept in the next section of this decision.

75. In addition to the information lodged with the application, the EPA and DMC both requested further

information from OMV, and we commissioned reports and sought additional information from EPA

and from external independent experts. We identified those requests and commissioned reports in

Section 0 of this decision.

76. We are satisfied that we have made full use of our powers to request and access information,

consistent with the nature and scale of these applications, and that we have met our responsibilities

under section 61(1)(a) of the EEZ Act.

4.3.3 Best Available Information

77. It is important to note that best available information is not necessarily ‘all information’. Rather, under

section 61 of the EEZ Act that is qualified by the underlined phrase “that, in the particular

circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort or time”. We have sought additional

advice and information where we considered this necessary. We have exercised our judgment about

what information is required, having regard to matters of cost, effort and time.

78. We record that includes:

a) The application by OMV and the IA, including the supporting documents;

b) Additional information supplied by OMV in response to further information requests;

c) Additional comments provided by OMV where we invited such comments;

d) The EPA Environmental Risk Assessment for Discharges;

e) The EPA Conditions Report;

f) The EPA’s decision on OMV’s marine discharge consent (EEZ100018);

g) The NKTT Report;

h) Expert advice (independent reviews commissioned under section 56 of the EEZ Act)

provided by OGS and Coffey, including further response to OMV’s responses and to our

questions;



i) Responses to section 56 of the EEZ Act requests from MNZ, MPI, WorkSafe and the DoC;

and

j) The letters from the three persons to whom copies of the application were served under

section 45 of the EEZ Act as discussed in Section 3.5.5 of this decision.

79. Based on the above, we are satisfied that we have made our decision based on the best available

information in accordance with section 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act.

4.3.4 Certainty and Caution

80. Section 61(1)(a) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the

information available. Under section 61(2) if we find that the information available is uncertain or

inadequate, then we are required to favour caution and environmental protection in making our

decision.

81. In deciding to grant consent, we find that the consent conditions reflect an appropriate degree of

caution. In reaching that conclusion we have applied section 61(2) of the EEZ Act by favouring

caution and applying environmental protection to the extent we consider necessary.

82. There is no requirement on the DMC to apply a different precautionary approach. The consent holder

will have to undertake its proposed activities in such a way that it either avoids, remedies, or

mitigates adverse effects. We have imposed conditions which manage the potential for adverse

effects on the natural environment to that end.

83. Section 61(2) of the EEZ Act requires us to favour environmental protection in addition to caution if

the information we receive is uncertain or inadequate. We have done so.

84. We note that section 64(1AA)(b) of the EEZ Act precludes an adaptive management approach for

conditions on marine discharge consents so we have not considered this to be option for these

applications.

85. Our decision acknowledges that adverse effects related to the proposed EAD programme will occur.

We find that those effects will be short-term and will not be permanent - in the sense that, with

respect to the seafloor benthic environments and their subsequent recovery, while recovery is

unlikely to produce an exact replica of the environment that existed before the commencement of the

activities, recolonisation by species common throughout the area will occur.

86. We acknowledge that the information we received is not entirely free of uncertainties. That is the

nature of current science in this environment. It is in that context, for the purpose of environmental

protection, that we have imposed a suite of conditions designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse

effects.

87. Overall, we find that the provisions of section 61(2) of the Act are satisfied in that any residual

uncertainty as to the effects on the environment are addressed by the conditions of this consent –

and that includes the potential for cumulative effects arising from the proximity of adjacent drill sites


and risks to the identified and as-yet-unidentified, sensitive environments (which we discuss later in

this decision).

4.4 Matters to be Taken into Account

88. Section 59 of the EEZ Act sets out matters that we must take into account in making our decision.

Underlying our consideration of those matters, section 61 of the EEZ Act sets out the requirement for

the DMC to base its decisions on the best available information (which we have discussed at Section

4.3.3 of this decision). The matters covered by sections 59 to 61 of the EEZ Act are the basis of our

findings as detailed in Section 13 of this decision.

89. Section 59(2) of the EEZ Act sets out matters we “must take into account”, and section 59(3) of the

EEZ Act sets out matters we “must have regard to” - which includes any advice, reports or

information sought by us, and any advice we received from NKTT and EPA staff.

90. The EEZ Act establishes no hierarchy in the matters that must be taken into account and those that

we must have regard to under section 59 of the EEZ Act. The importance of all of the matters listed

in all of the subsections depends on the specifics of the proposed activities.

91. We also note that section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account “the extent to which

imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the

activity”.

92. In that regard we have carefully considered the conditions proffered by OMV, which have been

reviewed and commented on by Mr Moginie for the EPA.

4.5 Adoption and Cross-referencing of Material

93. The EEZ Act does not specify the contents of a decision on an application for marine consent,

except that section 69 of the EEZ Act states that it must be in writing and contain reasons for the

decision. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary repetition, we do not repeat material that is

contained in the IA or the various reports prepared by EPA staff, its external experts, and NKTT.

Instead, where relevant in this decision, we cross-reference and/or adopt all or parts of the IA and

the other reports provided.

94. That does not mean that we have glossed over or ignored any of those matters. We record here that

we have carefully reviewed and considered all the documentation before us.



5. Activities Subject to EEZ Act Authorisation

5.1 Marine Consent

95. Details of the activities for which OMV is applying for authorisation under section 20 of the EEZ Act

are set out in Table 3.

Table 3: Marine Consent Requirements

Section 20(2) Restricted Activity Applicable Activity

(a) the construction, placement, alteration,

extension, removal, or demolition of a structure on or

under the seabed:

The construction, placement, alteration and removal of temporary

structures associated with:


Drilling (including drilling, installation of subsea wellhead

system, and sidetrack drilling);



Well abandonment;


Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding,

and cement disposal).

(d) the removal of non-living natural material from

the seabed or subsoil

The removal of non-living material from the seabed and subsoil

associated with:


Drilling (including drilling and sidetrack drilling);



Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re‐

spudding).

(e) the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a

manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on the

seabed or subsoil

The disturbance of the seabed or subsoil associated with:








Well abandonment;




(f) the deposit of anything or organism in, on or

under the seabed

The deposition in, on or under the seabed of:







Well abandonment;





(g) the destruction, damage, or disturbance of the

seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have

an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat

The destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil

that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species

associated with:







Well abandonment;



and deposition of cement).

Section 20(4) Restricted Activity Applicable Activity

(a) the construction, mooring or anchoring long-term,

placement, alteration, extension, removal, or

demolition of a structure, part of a structure, or a ship

used in connection with a structure

The construction, mooring and anchoring long-term, placement,

alteration and removal of structures or part of a structure

associated with:



Well abandonment; and


and deposition of cement).

(b) the causing of vibrations (other than vibrations

caused by the propulsion of a ship) in a manner that

is likely to have an adverse effect on marine life

The causing of vibrations associated with:




Well abandonment – cutting of drill casing;


Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re‐

spudding).

(c) the causing of an explosion

The causing of an explosion associated with:

Contingent activities (including use of explosives).

5.2 Marine Discharge Consent

96. Details of the activities for which OMV is applying for authorisation under section 20B of the EEZ Act

are set out in Table 4.

Table 4: Marine Discharge Consent Requirements

Section 20B Restricted Activity Applicable Activity

No person may discharge a harmful substance from

a structure or from a submarine pipeline into the sea

or into or onto the seabed of the exclusive economic

zone

The discharge of harmful substances from a structure (Mobile

Offshore Drilling Unit(s)) to the sea, as part of the Exploration and

Appraisal Drilling Programme in the Great South Basin, in relation

to the exercise of PEP 50119 including:

The discharge of Blowout Preventer Fluid;

The discharge of drilling fluids;

The discharge of excess cement;

The discharge of trace hydrocarbons;

Discharges from DST; and

Other operational discharges.



5.3 Other Activities Associated with the Application

97. There are several “unplanned” activities associated with the EAD programme, described in Section

7.9 of the IA, that do not require marine consent or marine discharge consent under the EEZ Act, but

the effects of which need to be considered as part of the overall assessment under section 59(2) of

the EEZ Act. These activities include:

a) Navigational safety and vessel collision incidents;

b) Fuel spills;

c) Loss of well control;

d) Biosecurity incursions;

e) Dropped objects; and

f) Operational safety.

98. While the above matters are primarily regulated under other marine management regimes (MMRs),

we must take them into account in accordance with section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act. Consideration of

the potential effects of the above matters are provided in Section 12 and we address MMRs in

Section 13.10 of this decision.

99. As noted earlier in this decision, OMV’s application for marine discharge consent for the discharge of

harmful substances contained in drilling fluids and other mining activities by way of the MODU deck

drains has been granted (EEZ100018).


Chapter 3. PROJECT AND CONTEXT

6. Description of the Activities

6.1 Introduction

100. The activities associated with the EAD programme are divided into those which are planned to occur,

which includes a number of contingency activities, and also those activities which are unplanned (but

could occur). For the avoidance of doubt, OMV’s application only covers those planned and

contingency activities which are restricted by section 20 and 20B of the EEZ Act.

101. While OMV has not applied (and is not required to apply) for consent for unplanned events (such as

loss of well control and accidental oil spills), such events and their associated effects have the

potential to arise directly from the restricted activities for which marine consent and marine discharge

consent is sought. Those effects are, therefore, properly considered an adverse effect of low

probability that has a high potential impact (as defined in section 6 of the EEZ Act).

102. These activities are summarised in the following sections.

6.2 Planned Activities – Marine Consent

6.2.1 MODU Description

103. Section 3.2.1 of the IA describes the MODU to be used in the EAD programme.

104. As noted in paragraph 11 above, the COSL Prospector, a dynamic positioning (DP) MODU, will be

used to drill at least the first exploration well of the EAD programme (Tāwhaki‐1). DP MODUs will be

used throughout the EAD programme, their key features are summarised below:

a) Preferred for use in water depth greater than 400m;

b) The DP system can maintain a MODU’s position above a well location within a range of

allowable movements or tolerances within which the lower flex joint of the riser and drill

string can operate;

c) Pre‐defined angles of deflection would trigger drilling to cease and disconnection from the

wellhead;

d) If adverse weather conditions were forecast, drilling operations would cease and a planned

disconnect from the well would occur;

e) If an unplanned disconnect occurred (i.e. drift‐off), the system will trigger an automatic

sequence that first closes the shear rams cutting any drill string which is in the well at this

time;

f) Due to the built-in redundancy of the MODU’s DP systems, there is a very low likelihood that

an unplanned disconnect would eventuate; and

Chapter 3. Project and Context


g) Planned disconnect is not foreseen to be required very often as the MODU selected has

been built and designed for operating in adverse weather conditions and OMV are intending

to drill the GSB EAD programme over the summer months when the weather is most

conducive to settled weather.

105. While in use, the MODU will be in location for between 50 – 90 days, with the duration being dictated

by the success case and well testing.

106. Section 3.2.10 of the IA describes how following the completion of the well abandonment at each

well location the MODU would be removed from the site.

107. The installation (Section 3.2.3 of the IA) and removal (Section 3.2.10 of the IA) of the MODU does

not require marine consent under the EEZ Act as these activities do not disturb the seabed because

the MODU is not anchored to the seabed at any time during the EAD programme.

6.2.2 Pre-Drill Works

108. Section 3.2.2 of the IA describes the works to be undertaken before the installation of a MODU.

These works are necessary to ensure that the seabed is suitable for the installation of the well.

109. Section 7.4.1 of the IA notes that several of the pre-drill activities such as multi-beam sonar, side-

scan surveys, and shallow seismic surveys can be undertaken without the need for consent under

the Permitted Activity Regulations. These activities do not form part of the marine consent

application and we agree that is the case.

110. The pre-installation works that require marine consent include:

a) Physical seabed surveys (Section 3.2.2.1 of the IA) to determine the nature of the sediment

– this work may include coring or cone penetration testing and would be undertaken from a

vessel that does not require anchoring (excluding emergency situations) utilising standard

industry equipment that is lowered to the seabed and powered by the vessel using either

electrical or hydraulic means; and

b) Site clearance (3.2.2.2 of the IA) should there be anything anthropogenic that needs to be

removed – this would be undertaken using a ROV and involves moving the object(s) to

another location on the seabed to a suitable distance where it will not affect the consented

activities.

6.2.3 Drilling, Casing Installation, and Drill Cutting Management

111. Section 3.2.4 of the IA describes how drilling of the wells will occur, Section 3.2.5 describes how well

casing is installed, and Section 3.2.6 describes the deposition and management of the drill cuttings.

We do not repeat that information here; however key features are summarised as follows:

a) Up to three (3) exploration wells and seven (7) appraisal wells are proposed;

b) Drilling depth will vary but may be to a depth of 3,520m true vertical depth (TVD) and the

Tāwhaki‐1 well is expected to be around 3,065m TVD;


c) A large diameter hole (1.07m) is drilled to the desired depth into which a conductor is

installed and a permanent guide base is installed on top of the conductor;

d) A BOP and lower marine riser package (LMRP) are installed on top of the wellhead and a

riser (large diameter vertical pipe) then connects the wellhead to the MODU;

e) Drilling fluid (a.k.a muds) is pumped down the drill pipe into the drill bit and back up the

annulus between the drill pipe and drilling riser. The drilling mud serves a number of

purposes including transporting drill cuttings to the surface;

f) Water based mud (WBM) will be used wherever possible; however, at times, synthetic based

mud (SBM) may need to be used – the IA states that where SBM is used associated cuttings

would be collected and transported to shore for disposal at an approved facility6;

g) WBM is a mixture of water and clay (bentonite) together with small quantities of minerals and

chemicals that optimise drilling performance and safety. Barium (as barite) is the most

abundant metal constituent within water based mud;

h) Drill cuttings are separated from the drilling muds on the MODU, however small amounts of

drilling fluids may adhere to the cuttings which are discharged into the sea. The discharge of

any harmful substances associated with drilling fluids requires marine discharge consent

under the D&D Regulations and is included as part of this application;

i) The volume of drill cuttings produced (ranging from a size of 10 μm to 2 cm, with their texture

ranging from clay to gravel) will vary depending on the length and depth of the well, but the

maximum anticipated volume of cuttings is 806m3 if drilling extends to 3,520m TVD, and an

additional 758m3 if re-spudding is required, equating to a maximum of up to 1,564m3 for

each well location;

j) When drilling commences cuttings are deposited directly on the seabed adjacent to the hole

but once the BOP, LMRP, and riser are installed the cuttings (except those kept for

laboratory testing) are discharged overboard from a pipe located at least 5 m below the

lowest astronomical tide.

k) A casing or liner is installed and cemented into place as each section of the well is

completed to prevent hole collapse. The cement is pumped to the bottom of the casing and

is pushed up the outside of it into any fractures in the surrounding rock;

l) On completion of cementing, small amounts (up to 3.2m3) of cement washwater from the

cement tanks on the MODU may need to be pumped overboard before it hardens. This

process would occur over a 30 minute period until the cement unit is cleaned;

m) Small amounts of cement dust may be discharged from the MODU as a result of handling

dry material but, while minimal, quantities cannot be confirmed given the nature of the

discharge; and

6 The IA notes that there are currently no consented facilities in the South Island for the disposal of SBM drilling fluids.



n) Small amounts of steel and polymer may be removed from the well during drilling with the

majority of this material then separated out during the processing of cuttings and disposed of

onshore. However, residual amounts may be deposited on the seabed along with drilling

cuttings.

112. In addition to vertical drilling, side-track drilling may also occur where a down-hole obstruction is

being by-passed or to investigate and collect information from a different part of the subsurface

target. The sidetrack hole uses the existing surface and seabed equipment and part of the previously

drilled original borehole.

113. Where the EAD programme discovers a significant column or columns of hydrocarbon, a short‐offset

sidetrack hole may be drilled to acquire cores, and the length of the sidetrack borehole is dependent

on multiple factors including thickness of the reservoir, depth of the kick-off point in the original

borehole, and the need to drill deeper than achieved in the downhole bore.

114. Where coring is undertaken, the IA states that it is designed to recover solid sections of the

subsurface rock strata, and the volume of cuttings returned to the surface during the coring process

is substantially reduced compared to conventional drilling. Allowances have been made for the

different type of drilling activities in the Drill Cutting and Dispersion Modelling undertaken to inform

the IA.

115. Overall, the actual drilling process only comprises about 40% of the time that the MODU is on

location.

6.2.4 Remote Operated Vehicle Works and Transponder Placement

116. Section 3.2.7 of the IA describes how ROVs would be used to support the drilling activities and

would result in small areas of seabed being disturbed, including by placement of ROV baskets which

contain tools, clump weights and sandbags. The ROV work baskets typically occupy approximately

5m2 of the seabed and the ROV, if it is to be placed, has a footprint of approximately 6m2.

117. Up to four transponders (approximately 105mm in diameter) may also be placed on the seabed to

mark the top hole location at each well, each transponder being held on the seabed by small clump

weights, with the four clump weights for each location occupying a cumulative area of up to 4m2.

118. The transponders, clump weights, and ROV work baskets will be removed when clearing the site as

part of moving the MODU to a new location.

6.2.5 Formation Evaluation

119. Section 3.2.8 of the IA describes that a range of formation evaluation techniques would be

undertaken on each well to provide geological information to assess the presence of ‘moveable

product’ within the targeted reservoir sections of the wells, the quality of reservoirs encountered, and

petrophysical properties of the drilled section. This evaluation process has the potential to run for

several hours or days depending on the productivity information required. Not all the formation


evaluation activities (i.e. mudlogging and logging while drilling) require marine consent. Those that

do are:

a) WFT which involves collecting samples of formation fluids; and

b) DST which is a procedure for isolating and testing the pressure, permeability, and productive

capacity of a geological formation once the well has been drilled.

6.2.6 Well Abandonment

120. Section 3.2.9 of the IA describes, following the conclusion of the formation evaluation programme,

how each well would be permanently plugged and abandoned in compliance with regulation 61(1)(b)

of the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016, which

involves:

a) Providing notice to appropriate parties of well closure;

b) Pumping heavy mud and cement plugs inside the well to ensure no unplanned escape of oils

or fluids from the well;

c) Once the cement is hardened and tagged, cutting of the surface casing approximately 1.5m

below the seabed using an ROV;

d) After the cutting, the wellhead and components are retrieved to the supporting vessels;

e) A ROV surveying the seabed to assess effectiveness of hazard removal from the well

location; and

f) Finally, a well abandonment report will be provided to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals,

as required under regulation 47 of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Regulations 2007.

6.2.7 Environmental Monitoring

121. Section 3.2.12 of the IA describes the pre-and post-drill benthic monitoring to be undertaken as part

of the EAD programme, the purpose of which is to monitor for effects from the drilling activity on the

benthic marine environment and the subsequent monitoring of recovery. A draft Environmental

Monitoring Plan (EMP) was submitted with the IA which outlines the proposed monitoring approach

to be undertaken prior to and after drilling each well.

122. The EMP design is consistent with the Document entitled “Recommendations for an Offshore

Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol: Drilling and production‐related discharges” (OTEMP)

(Johnston et al., 2014), being a protocol developed through consultation with the oil and gas

industry, MNZ, and the EPA. Under the EMP, OMV will prepare a Well Specific Monitoring

Programme (WSMP), based on the modelled zone of influence of the drill activities and including a

number of monitoring stations at set distances along the major and minor axes of drill cutting

deposition for each well. Each WSMP would be included as an appendix to the EMP.



123. Benthic monitoring would involve the use of deep-towed video systems and also benthic survey

multi-corers and box corers. The benthic survey equipment will result in a small area of disturbance

of the seabed and a small volume of non-living material will be removed from the seabed for

sampling purposes. As the video sled is held approximately 2m above the seabed it poses little

threat to seabed habitats/communities and will not result in any direct disturbance.

124. Each core collects 0.007m3 of sediment, therefore each deployment of the multi‐corer will result in

the removal of a maximum of 0.056m3 of sediment (i.e. all eight cores are utilised). The collection of

triplicate samples during the monitoring programme (based on the 22 sample stations used during

the 2019 Benthic Baseline Survey / Tāwhaki‐1 Pre‐drill Survey) will disturb a maximum of

approximately 4.2m2 of seabed and remove a maximum of approximately 3.7m3 of sediment per well

location. However, a large proportion of the sediment removed by the multi‐corer is not retained (due

to sub‐sampling and sample sieving) and is deposited back over the side of the survey vessel close

to where it was collected.

125. Pre-drill monitoring would be undertaken within 12 months of commencement of drilling operations

and post-drill monitoring would occur for up to three years following well abandonment.

6.2.8 Contingent Activities

126. Section 3.2.13 of the IA notes that it is necessary for OMV to have the ability to adapt to the

conditions present at the well sites at the time of drilling, and a number of ‘contingent’ activities may

also be required to be implemented in exceptional circumstances.

127. Pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, the use of explosives, and cement disposal are not planned as part of

the EAD programme but may need to be used as a last resort response to unavoidable

complications relating to the drilling of any particular well. For the avoidance of doubt, OMV seeks

authorisation to undertake these contingent activities.

128. The IA notes that pilot hole drilling involves drilling a smaller-diameter hole through a zone of

interpreted sub-surface risk (for instance, shallow gas or shallow water flow) – this smaller hole is

easier to control. Once the risk is managed, the pilot hole is opened up to the required hole size

before drilling on.

129. If any of the wells have to be abandoned before they reach their target depth, the well may have to

be re-drilled. This is referred to as a “re-spud”. Re-spudding involves the re-drilling of a well near the

original well location. The re-spud would be approximately the same well design as the initial well but

would take into account all factors that led to the original site being abandoned. Re-spudding

generally occurs within 100m of the initial well location. The detailed pre-installation survey will cover

a sufficiently broad area around a drilling location to allow for potential re-spudding, even though the

likelihood of such re-spudding being required is low.

130. If a re‐spud was to occur during the EAD programme, the volume of drill cuttings would increase

based on the duplication of drilling activities and, in the worst‐case scenario, where a well needs to


be re‐spudded having drilled down to a point just above the primary exploration target depth, the

maximum predicted volume of cuttings would be approximately 1,564m3.

131. OMV confirmed that the MODU may be able to re-spud without repositioning. However, if re-

positioning is required, there would be no additional seabed disturbance due to the types of MODU

to be used.

132. The IA stated that explosives (such as directional charges) may be required for various sub-surface

applications such as:

a) To free the drill string in the event that it gets stuck;

b) To perforate to allow the placement of remedial cement if the cement behind the casing is

lost; or

c) To assist in the removal of the wellhead in the event it cannot be removed as planned.

133. Any use of explosives is a contingency and would be designed by a specialist to ensure an

appropriate solution given the particular circumstance and situation.

134. While it has not occurred on any OMV drilling campaigns in New Zealand previously, on very rare

occasions cement batches may be prepared but are unsuitable for use (e.g. the cement is not

weighted or set correctly) and the full batch of approximately 10m³ of cement must be discarded.

Unused or faulty cement is required to be immediately pumped out of the tanks and discharged

overboard to prevent it from hardening within tanks, pumps and pipelines. The disposal of cement

would result in it being deposited on the seabed.

6.3 Planned Activities – Marine Discharge Consent

6.3.1 Introduction

135. Section 3.3 of the IA describes the discharge activities which form part of the EAD programme and

that require marine discharge consent under section 20B of the EEZ Act. Various harmful

substances that will be discharged through the drilling process are associated with the:

a) Discharge of BOP fluid;

b) Discharge of drilling fluids;

c) Discharge of excess cement;

d) Discharge of trace hydrocarbons;

e) Discharge from DST; and

f) Discharge of other operational discharges.

6.3.2 Discharge of Blowout Preventer (BOP) Fluid

136. Section 3.3.1 of the IA described the discharges associated with BOP fluids.



137. A BOP is a safety device that is used to prevent the uncontrolled flow of liquids and gases during

well drilling operations and that is capable of being remotely controlled. When the driller closes the

BOP, a pressure‐tight seal is formed at the top of the well preventing the fluids from escaping.

138. BOP hydraulic fluid will periodically be discharged as part of the operation and testing of the BOP

and any discharge of BOP fluid will occur from the BOP at the seafloor.

139. BOP fluid proposed for the EAD programme will primarily be water‐based with the addition of other

substances (including dyes); however, the majority of the other substances are not classified as

harmful. The exact makeup of the substances in the BOP fluid will depend on the sea temperature

but may include a harmful substance like Erifon HD 603 HP ND which has a HSNO classification of

9.1C (refer to Table 11 of the IA).

140. A small amount of BOP fluid will be discharged every time a component of the BOP functions, with

function tests (approximately weekly) and BOP tests (at least every 21 days) involving a large

number of components, and therefore a greater volume of fluids discharged. It is estimated that a

total of approximately 2,333 L of harmful substance (Erifon HD 603 HP ND) contained within the

BOP fluid will be discharged per well over the expected maximum 90‐day success case period at

each well location.

141. As the exact volume of discharge that occurs each time the BOP is functioned is unknown, two

discharge scenarios were used for the zone of influence calculations being:

142. A conservative assumption of the combined mass of BOP fluid discharged each day resulting from

the small releases occurring every time a component of the BOP is functioned is approximately 26 L

of the harmful substance (Erifon HD 603 HP ND), a maximum of 4% used over 90 days; and

143. For the BOP tests when the larger discharges occur, up to 1,000 L of BOP fluid could be utilised.

Likewise, the 1,000 L is also considered to be a conservative volume and has been based on

previous drilling programmes in New Zealand waters. This also equates to 4% of the total volume of

the discharge being the hazardous substance.

144. The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for Erifon HD 603 HP ND does not include information on its solubility

in water. However, it is readily degradable, which will assist in the dispersion within the water

column, and its density is similar to water, which will allow the discharge to disperse readily in the

receiving environment.

6.3.3 Discharge of Drilling Fluids

145. Section 3.3.2 of the IA describes the discharge of drilling fluid (a.k.a muds) that may be used during

the EAD programme. Drilling fluids have many purposes including providing a well control barrier,

preserving wellbore stability, minimising formation damage, transporting drill cuttings to the surface,

cooling and lubricating the drilling components, and providing information about what is happening

and being encountered down hole.


146. Drilling fluid used prior to the installation of the drilling riser is typically either sea water with bentonite

sweeps for hole cleaning, or a mixture of water and bentonite. All drilling fluids used for drilling prior

to the installation of the riser will be lost at the seabed, other than some potentially lost downhole to

the formation.

147. Once the riser is installed and a complete circulation system between the drill bit and the MODU is

established, an engineered drilling fluid will be used that is a mixture of water, clay (bentonite) and

barite, together with small quantities of minerals and chemicals to optimise drilling safety and

performance.

148. Drilling fluids are circulated on the MODU and are mixed, stored and treated in tanks until the

desired properties (e.g. density and viscosity) are achieved.

149. Drilling fluids are fed below the drill string, out the drill bit, into the well. The drilling fluid carries the

cuttings from the bottom of the hole up the wellbore to the MODU. The cuttings are then separated

from the drilling fluid through a series of vibrating screens (shale shakers) and are transferred into a

‘cuttings ditch’ where samples are taken for geological inspection and analysis or preserved to meet

regulatory requirements. The remaining cuttings are flushed with sea water into the ocean. The

drilling fluid flows through the vibrating screens and is returned to the tanks where its properties are

measured. If necessary, additional drilling fluid chemicals are added to maintain the desired

properties before it is reused.

150. Primarily WBM will be used; however, at times, SBM may also be required. In the event that SBM is

used, these cuttings would be collected, transported to shore and disposed of at an approved facility.

Barium (as barite) is used as a mud weighting agent and is the most abundant metal constituent

within WBM. The monitoring programme is designed to detect elevated barium in the drill cuttings.

151. The discharges from the drilling fluid system can be separated into three paths:

a) Continuous discharge of the drilling fluid which is attached to the drill cuttings while drilling –

to be discharged directly from the MODU into the ocean;

b) Batch discharge of drilling fluids when required mud properties cannot be maintained e.g.

mud weight, viscosity etc.; and

c) Batch discharge of drilling fluids at the end of a well if the mud properties are unsuitable for

the next well, or if the mud volume would have an adverse effect on vessel stability during a

MODU move.

152. All of the discharges would occur directly from the MODU either above or below the sea surface

depending on the configuration of the MODU.

153. The discharge volumes and frequency depend on multiple factors for each of the discharge activities

and well locations. Due to those uncertainties the IA states that the total volume of drilling fluids to be

discharged as continuous or batch discharges for each well in the EAD programme is 1,040t of

constituent materials equating to approximately 24,539 barrels (bbl) of drilling fluid. This is

considered conservative as it is in OMV’s best commercial interest to capture and re‐use as much of



the drilling fluid as possible for drilling subsequent wells, and the estimated volumes for each

substance have been calculated on an over‐sized well.

154. Only a small portion of the volume of drilling fluids are classified as harmful substances. The

substances within drilling fluids that meet the definition of harmful substances are listed in Table 12

of the IA. The composition of the planned drilling fluid proposed to be used during the EAD

programme is predominantly water (~95%), with the remainder of the constituent substances

composed primarily of barite and bentonite (approximately 54.8%) and salts (Potassium Chloride

and Sodium Chloride – approximately 15%). Additional chemicals, some classified as harmful

substances, are added for various purposes (for instance, to regulate pH).

155. As any discharge will primarily be water, the discharge plume is likely to have a high density

compared to the surrounding seawater, such that the plume of discharged material will likely fall

quickly towards the seabed, pulling lighter materials in the plume downwards as well. Due to the

density of the chemicals in the discharge they are likely to remain within a sinking plume and mix

with surrounding seawater as the larger plume mixes, rather than coalescing to form a separate

plume that behaves independently.

156. Most materials in the plume will fall to the seabed within a short horizontal distance from the

discharge point, with currents pushing them along the predominant current flow. Upon reaching the

seabed the plume would spread out across the seabed, also moving with the predominant current.

6.3.4 Discharge of Excess Cement

157. Section 3.3.4 of the IA describes the discharge of excess cement as a result of the EAD programme.

Cement is used to secure the components of the wellhead in place using a cement stringer (usually

3 ‐ 4‐inch drill pipe) to pump cement at the bottom of the conductor until cement returns are visible at

the seabed (also known as the mudline). This results in a discharge of excess cement to the seabed

of approximately 3m3. This process is then repeated for the surface casing. Cementing is also used

during well abandonment.

158. Although the volume of cement required for each well casing is carefully calculated to minimise the

amount of cement left on the MODU, any excess cement that remains in the cement tank will need to

be pumped overboard immediately before it hardens. Once cementing operations are complete, the

system will be washed, with up to 3m3 of wash‐water per well section. This wash‐water is discharged

overboard through the hull of the MODU.

159. At the completion of the drilling campaign (i.e. once the last well has been abandoned and before the

MODU is handed over), all dry non‐harmful bulk cement material remaining on board may be mixed

to a watery slurry for disposal to sea. However, as the bulk cement contains no harmful substances

its discharge does not require authorisation under s20B of the EEZ Act.

160. Discharges will occur both downhole on to the seabed at the well locations, and overboard from the

MODUs either above or below the sea surface.


161. While a worse-case scenario of 6m3 per well has been used, the mass of harmful substance that

could enter the marine environment from the discharge of excess cement is less than that actually

present in the 6m3 of cement as the cement would solidify quickly, halting the ability for harmful

substances within the cement to disperse/discharge into the water column/sediment.

162. Discharges would typically occur twice per well drill, but where re-spudding was required, an

additional two discharges would occur.

163. On completion of any cementing operation, the system will be washed with up to 3m3 of wash‐water

and discharged overboard. It is estimated that this discharge would be >95% water and the

discharge would occur over approximately 30 minutes until the cement unit and topside pipework is

cleaned sufficiently. This could occur up to five times per well.

164. There may be very rare situations, a contingency activity, where an entire cement batch is required

to be discarded. This would only occur if there is an error in the cement mixing process or if there is

a mechanical failure during the pumping of the cement. If this situation occurs, up to 10m3 of cement

will need to be pumped out of the tanks and discharged overboard to prevent it from hardening within

the tanks, pumps, and pipework.

165. Regarding hazardous substances in the discharges, OMV has selected cement products that are the

least ecotoxic while still being technically capable of performing the required role. These have been

identified in Table 13 of the IA.

166. The composition of cement proposed for use in the EAD programme is primarily a non‐harmful

mixture (approximately 62%, with the majority of it containing ‘Portland Cement’ (a lime/clay mixture)

which is similar to that used for typical residential purposes) with the addition of other chemicals for

various uses (including cement additives, viscosifiers and defoamers).

167. Due to the high concentration of cement and additives such as bentonite in the preparations, the

surface discharged cements are likely to have high densities and the majority of the discharge will

sink quickly towards the seabed.

168. The majority of the harmful substances within the cements (both contingent and planned) are

soluble/dispersible and sink, meaning that they would likely remain mixed with the sinking

discharged cement and fall to the seabed, thereby reducing their time within the water column.

6.3.5 Discharge of Trace Hydrocarbons

169. Section 3.3.4 of the IA describes the discharges of trace hydrocarbons when drilling.

170. Trace discharges have the potential to occur through the hydrocarbon‐bearing rocks when small

quantities of liquid hydrocarbons can enter the drilling fluid system, causing trace amounts of

hydrocarbon seen up at the MODU entrained in circulated drilling fluids or bound with cuttings

171. The discharges would occur where drilling fluids or cuttings containing hydrocarbon bearing rocks

are discharged from the MODU either above or below the sea surface as part of the drill cuttings

processing.



172. The discharge of trace hydrocarbons will, at most, only occur within a small portion of the drilling

activities (i.e. while drilling through the hydrocarbon‐bearing reservoirs – if these are encountered

during the drilling). Hence, this small volume of discharge would only occur for a short period of time

relative to the overall drilling operation, likely near the end of the physical drilling phase.

173. The composition of the drilling cuttings discharges has been discussed in Section 6.3.3 above, but

any trace hydrocarbon discharge would be contained within the drilling fluid, and it would only be a

very small component of the discharge.

6.3.6 Discharge from Drill Stem Testing

174. Section 3.3.5 of the IA describes the discharges from the DST process that occurs if a hydrocarbon

discovery is made in an exploration or appraisal well, in order to gather data to estimate the

productivity of a geological formation. The main purpose of the DST is to verify the flow properties

and flow profiles of hydrocarbons in the reservoir, and a DST would only be conducted in a success‐

case scenario, and even then, only in some wells.

175. Where a well is drilled and a hydrocarbon-bearing zone is encountered, perforating instruments are

lowered into the well to the hydrocarbon‐bearing interval and fired electrically to pierce multiple holes

through the liner into the reservoir. These perforations create pathways by which the reservoir fluids

can flow into the wellbore, simulating a production scenario.

176. Hydrocarbons flow up the wellbore through the test string to a test package on the MODU, where

samples are collected for analysis, and the remainder are diverted to the flare booms where they are

combusted. A DST can run for several hours or days, depending on the productivity information that

is required.

177. The flare boom burner heads are specifically designed to ensure that the hydrocarbons burn in the

most efficient manner to ensure that fall‐out is limited as far as is possible and to provide the greatest

possible degree of complete combustion. In ecologically sensitive areas where it is critical to quantify

produced emissions, an Environmentally Distinctive Burner will be utilised.

178. There are two possible discharge streams that may contain harmful substances as part of DST

operations:

a) During flaring activities in which small amounts of harmful substances may fall out from the

combustion process and settle on the surrounding ocean; and

b) Through the well clean‐up process where harmful substances may be included within a brine

solution.


179. Five harmful substances (including the reservoir hydrocarbon itself) have been identified (Refer to

Table 14 of the IA) for discharge across these two discharge streams, with four substances, in trace

amounts to the surrounding ocean, as fallout from the combustion, and one from the well clean‐up

which involves displacing the wellbore fluid. A small percentage of this solution may be a harmful

substance which cannot be separated and recovered and will be discharged overboard to the

surrounding marine environment

180. For flaring, the volume of hydrocarbons discharged as part of the DST is directly related to the

volume produced in each well. The IA estimates, based on a maximum oil production of 16,500 stock

barrels per well, that a total of 0.0126m3 (0.0792 bbl) of oil, over the flowing period of approximately

117 hours (4.9 days) total, allowing for up to three hydrocarbon‐bearing zones to be tested. The

burner used as part of the flaring operation will have a 99.99952% flare efficiency, which may result

in trace amounts (i.e. 0.00048%) of fallout of harmful substance (including any hydrocarbons flowed

from the formation) settling on the ocean surface.

181. For well clean-up, the worst‐case scenario would be 1,600 L of harmful substance (Baraklean‐926),

which equates to approximately 12.6% of the discharge being harmful, within an 80 bbl clean‐up pill

comprising of seawater. At the end of the clean‐up process the well will be displaced with brine. The

80 bbl clean up pill that will then be discharged will be comprised of 10 bbl Baraklean and 70 bbl of

seawater. The properties of Baraklean on its SDS state that it is dispersible and emulsifies (Appendix

D). With these characteristics the 80 bbl discharge plume is expected to disperse and mix rapidly

within the upper layers of the water column.

6.3.7 Other Operational Discharges

182. Section 3.3.6 of the IA describes the other operational discharges that may occur as part of normal

planned operations, including:

a) Lubricant for tool joints, drill collars, wellhead and riser connectors – up to 10% may be

located outside of the drill string and exposed to the ocean. Discharges will occur at varying

depths within the water column down to and at the seabed;

b) Anti‐foulant for cooling systems - Due to the potential risk of biofouling, an antifoulant

chemical is added to the seawater cooling system to prevent marine growth within the piping

system. Under normal operations, the anti‐foulant chemical mix would flow through the

cooling system and be discharged overboard. Discharges will occur at various locations

either above or below the sea surface depending on the configuration of the specific MODU;

and

c) Cleaning the slop handling unit on the MODU - programmed washing cycles to clean the

membranes and internal components using washing water and some substances that could

be classified as harmful. Discharges will occur at various locations either above or below the

sea surface depending on the configuration of the specific MODU.



183. The likely harmful substances to be contained within these three discharges are identified in Table

15 of the IA.

184. Regarding discharge volumes for lubricants, the discharge of harmful substances will be small,

ranging from 3 kg to 10 kg per well for each of the lubricants used.

185. Regarding discharge volumes for anti-foulant water, approximately 13.7 L of anti‐foulant would be

discharged daily while the MODU is in operation, or 1,233 L in total per well. Based on information

provided by COSL (for the COSL Prospector) the maximum volume of cooling seawater containing

the anti‐foulant that would be circulated per day is ~32,400 m3.

186. Regarding discharge volumes for the slop handling unit, it is estimated that there will be 134 L of

cleaning fluid, excluding seawater, discharged per well, with the frequency of the discharge taking

place when required.

187. Apart from the anti‐foulant substance (Bioguard Plus) the harmful substances discharged as part of

these other operational activities will sink upon entering the ocean, based on the information

provided within the SDS. As the discharges are of small volumes over the course of the drilling

operations, the respective zones of influence are small.

6.4 Unplanned Events – Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent

188. Unplanned activities are those that are non-routine (not expected to occur) and do not constitute

activities for which OMV is seeking marine consent. These are activities that are not covered under

section 20 of the EEZ Act. The IA identified unplanned activities as including:

a) Oil spill from loss of well control (discussed in Section 7.9.1 of the IA);

b) Fuel spill from refuelling operations (discussed in Section 7.9.2 of the IA);

c) Vessel collision (discussed in Section 7.9.3 of the IA);

d) Biosecurity incursions (discussed in Section 7.9.4 of the IA); and

e) Dropped objects (discussed in Section 7.9.5 of the IA).

7. Description of the Existing Environment

7.1 Existing Physical Environment

189. Section 4.1 of the IA summarised the physical environment of the AOI in the GSB in terms of its

meteorology, air quality, currents/waves, sea temperatures, water quality, bathymetry / geology,

noise, and seafloor sediment characteristics. We have reviewed that information, accept it as a

reasonable description, and adopt it for the purposes of our decision, and do not repeat that material

accordingly. However, key summary points from Section 4.1 of the IA are:


a) The AOI is located off the coast of the ‘Southern New Zealand’ climate zone which includes

Dunedin and Invercargill. Most of the climate within this zone is characterised by cool coastal

breezes with an absence of shelter from unsettled weather moving over the sea from the

south and southwest.

b) Hindcast modelling identified the annual mean wind speed as 8.52 m/s, with the windiest

month being June (mean wind speed of 9.16 m/s) and the least amount of wind in December

(mean wind speed of 7.84 m/s). February and March were found to have the highest

occurrence of strong wind events, where the maximum wind speeds at the modelled location

in the AOI may exceed 22 m/s.

c) While there is no specific rainfall data for the AOI, the Stewart Island rainfall data was

considered to be most similar to that likely to occur within the AOI. Over the data range

collected for rainfall, the mean daily rainfall is 4.6mm with 68.5% of days where rainfall

occurs and a maximum daily rainfall of 96mm (although that is likely to be influenced by

topography).

d) Due to the significant distance offshore and it not being immediately down‐wind (i.e. from the

predominant south‐west wind) of any large cities or industrial facilities, air quality at the AOI

is expected to be high.

e) Coastal currents are dominated by wind-driven flows, low-frequency flows, and tidal flows.

Inshore of the AOI the Southland Current flows north‐eastwards along the Otago coast at

speeds of up to 25 cm/s and is observed up to 130 km from shore. This pronounced north-

easterly flow is the dominant current within the AOI.

f) Hydrodynamic conditions, derived from hindcast modelling, at the site of the proposed

Tāwhaki‐1 well within the AOI indicate typical monthly maximum current speeds in the range

of 0.50 – 1 m/s, with an annual mean non‐tidal surface current speed of 0.18 m/s.

g) Currents predominantly move to the north – north-north-east sectors within the whole water

column and have a mean speed of 0.18 m/s at 10m below the sea surface, 0.07 m/s at 500m

below the sea surface, and 0.05 m/s at 1,000m below the sea surface.

h) The GSB is a high energy wave environment with wave heights peaking in late summer /

winter and being lowest in spring and early summer. Annual average wave heights across

the AOI range between 2.69m and 3.53m, with maximum wave heights ranging between

8.92m and 11.7m.

i) Sea surface temperatures in New Zealand waters show a north to south gradient with

warmer waters found in the north, cooling towards the south. Water temperatures at 10m

below the sea surface show the greatest variation in temperatures, ranging between means

of 13.73°C in February and 8.28 °C in August. Mean water temperatures at 500m below sea

surface showed little annual variation in mean temperature (6.33 °C – 6.62 °C), as did water

temperatures at 1,000m below the sea surface (4.32 °C ‐ 4.73 °C).



j) The water quality within the AOI is expected to be high, without any anthropogenic impacts

or influence from riverine inputs due to the distance offshore.

k) Much of the seabed within the AOI is relatively flat, with a shallow gradient sloping towards

the east or south‐east. Bathymetric contours within the AOI show water depths varying

between 750m and 1,700m, with water depths within the AOI predominantly around 1,200m

– 1,300m.

l) Submarine canyons along the Otago Fan Complex feed into a series of tributaries that form

the western edge of the Bounty Trough. The AOI is located over three of these tributaries –

the Molyneux Channel, the South Channel, and the Centre Channel. These tributaries are

entrenched at around 250m relative to the surrounding seafloor.

m) Seabed sediments within the surveyed areas of the AOI were dominated by fine sediments,

with pockets of coarse sediments or rock. The most common sediment types over the area

surveyed were classified as muddy‐sands and sandy‐muds (25%‐64.4% sand and 35.6%‐

75% silt and clay). The sand and muds are likely to become increasingly composed of

calcareous ooze towards the deepest, flattest parts of the AOI further offshore.

n) There have been no measurements of ambient noise in the AOI or wider GSB; however, due

to the substantial water depths present at each well location and the distance offshore,

ambient noise sources will likely be limited to natural sources, with infrequent additions from

passing fishing vessels.

7.2 Existing Biological Environment

190. Sections 4.2 of the IA summarises the existing biological environment of the AOI in the GSB,

including information on benthic invertebrates, cetaceans, pinnipeds, seabirds, marine reptiles, fish,

cephalopods, plankton and primary producers. Section 4.3 and 4.4 of the IA outlined the coastal

environment, marine protected areas, marine environmental classification, and sensitive

environments present. We adopt the descriptions presented in Sections 4.2 – 4.4 of the IA for the

purposes of our decision and do not repeat that material accordingly. However, key summary points

of these sections of the IA are:

a) According to the New Zealand Marine Environment Classification7, the AOI lies primarily

within Class 47, with small portions within Class 63 and Class 178.

b) According to the Benthic Optimised Marine Environment Classification (BOMEC) the AOI

lies primarily within ‘Class N’ waters, which are defined as the second deepest waters in the

BOMEC (averaging 1,400m), occurring over a wide latitudinal range, with low sea surface

temperature gradients and tidal currents, and fine sediments. A small portion of the AOI also

lies within ‘Class M’ waters, which occupy lower slope depths off the South Island’s east

7 The reader is referred to Section 4.2.1 of the IA for explanations on these classes.


coast. Water temperature, salinity and productivity are generally lower in this class when

compared to classes in similar water depths across more northern locations.

c) The AOI is located off the edge of the continental shelf with a range of sediment types that

present a range of different habitats for infaunal and epifaunal communities. Hence, benthic

invertebrates existing in the AOI will cover a complex and varied range, but the dominance of

soft‐sediment habitats means communities associated with such habitats will numerically

dominate the AOI. However, smaller areas of less mobile, and harder sediment types (i.e.

rock, cobble etc.) can be hotspots for deep‐water organisms such as cold‐water corals and

sponges.

d) Monitoring completed as part of the 2019 Benthic Baseline / Tāwhaki‐1 Pre‐drill Survey

found evidence of a wide range of benthic epifauna across three board habitat structures.

Key benthic features included the presence of corals in many forms including gorgonians

and Stylasteridae (hydrocorals), occurring at the seamount sites. Scleractinia (in the form of

branching stony corals and cup corals) were also observed.

e) As the continental shelf near the AOI is located 30 km offshore and is shoreward of the AOI

and the pre-dominant south-west winds, major upwelling events within the AOI are not

expected, nor are the events that might occur considered to be of any significance.

f) The fish populations within the AOI are represented by various demersal and pelagic

species, most of which are widely distributed throughout New Zealand’s deep offshore

waters. Of the protected species, great white sharks and basking sharks have the greatest

potential to occur in the AOI - however, the likely occurrence of these within the AOI is low

given the water depth.

g) Black oreo are the only species identified as potentially spawning within the AOI. Spawning

black oreo have been recorded off the southeast coast of the South Island, with fish in

spawning condition observed between September and February. Other species have the

potential to spawn in the wider vicinity of the AOI.

h) Due to their known presence in lower South Island freshwater systems, and the lack of

reliable information on marine distribution, the presence of long‐finned and short‐finned eels

within the AOI cannot be ruled out. However, given the southern and offshore location of the

AOI and the lack of any major river systems to the south of the AOI, this is considered

unlikely.

i) A total of 48 species of cetaceans (toothed and baleen whales) have been recorded in New

Zealand waters, of which 31 species have been determined to have either ‘likely’, ‘possible’

or ‘occasional visitors’ presence with the AOI. Some of these are classified as ‘threatened’

species.

j) Of relevance to the AOI is the East Coast South Island Hector’s dolphin population, which

extends from Farewell Spit to Nugget Point and is estimated to consist of around 9,000



individuals. it is possible that Hector’s dolphins could be encountered during the EAD

Programme, but the offshore nature of the AOI serves to reduce the likelihood of

encountering this threatened species near the drilling site.

k) Nine species of pinniped are known in New Zealand waters. Based on the abundance of

sightings in and around the AOI, New Zealand fur seals will be present, both foraging and

resting between foraging bouts. While sighting data is limited, it is possible that leopard

seals, elephant seals and sealions are present within the AOI.

l) New Zealand’s marine waters support the most diverse seabird collection worldwide. There

are over 86 different species utilising New Zealand’s marine environment, 32 of which are

potentially present within the AOI, some of which have a ‘threatened’ classification. Foraging

seabirds can often use MODU(s) as perching opportunities.

m) Regarding culturally important species of seabirds, the AOI represents foraging habitat for tītī

(Muttonbird) - although their known habitat is Rakiura (Stewart Island) and its surrounding

islands, which lie well to the southwest of the AOI.

n) There are six rivers, estuaries, coastal lagoons and harbours that are considered to be

Important Bird Areas8 in the coastal vicinity of the AOI, and 15 Important Bird Areas on land

that are coastal sites or islands and are of relevance to the AOI.

o) Given the cooler water temperatures in the AOI and the geographical distance from where

marine reptiles are most commonly seen in New Zealand (i.e. along the northern and north-

eastern coastline), it would be unlikely that any marine reptile species will be present within

the AOI.

p) While present within the AOI, this is not considered to be an important habitat for octopus.

Squid are found across the continental shelf in water depths up to 500m but the waters

directly within the AOI are not important areas for the New Zealand squid fishery.

q) Based on the results of the 2019 Benthic Baseline / Tāwhaki‐1 Pre‐drill Survey, three

sensitive environments (as described in Schedule 6 of the Permitted Activity Regulations),

were identified as being present within the AOI being:

a. Stony Coral Thickets or Reefs;

b. Xenophyophores; and

c. Brachiopods.

r) Several deep‐water taxa possibly occurring in the AOI are protected under Schedule 7A of

the Wildlife Act (1953) (Wildlife Act) including;

8 Forest and Bird, Birdlife International and Birds New Zealand have identified a number of areas within New Zealand as

‘Important Bird Areas’. These areas have been identified as internationally important for bird conservation and are known to

support key species and other biodiversity. Important Bird Areas are not areas that have been officially protected under

legislation; their function is to help focus and facilitate conservation action for a network of sites that are significant for the

long‐term viability of naturally occurring bird populations.


a. Gorgonian corals (all species within the order Gorgonacea); however, gorgonian

octocorals are now classed in the order Alcyonacea, which also includes soft corals that

are not covered by the Wildlife Act;

b. Hydrocorals (all species within the family Stylasteridae); and

c. Stony corals (all species within the order Scleractinia).

s) Overall, for sensitive environments, while the 2019 Benthic Baseline / Tāwhaki‐1 pre‐drill

Survey monitoring confirmed that sensitive environments do occur within PEP 50119, their

distribution is patchy; however, certain species nominated as reflecting sensitive

environments within Schedule 6 of the Permitted Activities Regulations, such as

xenophyophores, were found to be abundant and widespread across the surveyed area.

191. The EPA’s external experts on the biological environment stated9 that:

In general, the descriptions of marine environmental features present in and relevant to the AOI are

of a level of detail commensurate to that of ‘best available information’, as defined in section 61 of

the EEZ Act. The descriptions correspond to ‘best industry practice’, including that outlined in the

Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry (MfE, 2006), and the

Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol (OTEMP)....

192. DoC confirmed in its response to our request under section 56 that: “The list of marine mammal

species and likelihood of presence in the AOI are accurate and comprehensive”. However, DoC

identified that there may be information available on the presence and likelihood of seabirds within

the AOI that has not been considered.

193. Regarding the presence of rare ecosystems, as stated in the Joint Statement of Experts in the Field

of Benthic Ecology10 (JSE Ecology (and provided as Appendix 3 to this Decision)), the experts

agreed that there were no rare ecosystems observed within the regional survey area. With respect to

new and/or undescribed species observed during the survey, the discovery of undescribed species is

not uncommon in deep-sea studies and would not in itself directly indicate the presence of a rare

ecosystem.

9 Coffey report entitled ‘Review of Marine Ecology Aspects of OMV Great South Basin Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

Programme Consent Application (Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent)’ 24 September 2019. 10 Joint Statement of Experts in the Field of Benthic Ecology, 30 October 2019, paragraph 18.

Chapter 4. Environmental Impacts


Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

8. Introduction

194. This section outlines the actual and potential effects of the activities for which marine consent and

marine discharge consent is sought. The effects associated with unplanned events, for which no

consents are sought, are dealt with separately in Section 12 of this decision.

195. Section 7.1 of the IA sets out OMV’s approach to assessing effects and states:

This Consent Application is for activities restricted by section 20 and 20B of the EEZ Act. Some of

the activities which require consent have discrete effects, whereas others have combined potential

effects which cannot be (and should not be) separated. For example, the deposition of drill cuttings

on the seabed can have physical/smothering effects; however, the drill cuttings can also have

harmful substances from drilling fluids adhered to them and therefore there are also chemical

effects that need to be considered when assessing the effects. For the purposes of this

assessment a ‘combined’ effects approach has been taken for the following activities:

Drill cuttings and drilling fluids;

Cementing operations; and

Formation evaluation.

196. We accept that this approach is a pragmatic way to deal with the effects of the planned activities and

note that no adverse comment was received from any of the technical reviewers on this approach.

197. Section 7.2 of the IA presented an environmental risk assessment which assessed the likelihood of

any particular effect occurring (ranked/scored from ‘remote’ (1) through to ‘certain’ (6)) and also the

consequence should such an effect occur (ranked/scored from ‘negligible’ (0) through to

‘catastrophic’ (5)). A single resultant risk ranking (over the AOI) is calculated by multiplying the

likelihood and consequence scores. The risk rankings that were used by OMV are set out in Table 5.


Table 5: Risk Rankings used for Environmental Risk Assessment by OMV

198. We accept that this approach is appropriate for identification and consideration of the environmental

risks from the activities associated with the EAD programme and this approach is consistent with that

used by OMV under previous EEZ Act applications.



9. Biological Environment

9.1 Effects on the Biological Environment

9.1.1 Introduction

199. The effects of the proposed activities on the biological environment are discussed in the following

sections. The biological environment includes fish species, some of which are caught by persons

with existing interests. Effects on commercial fisheries are considered separately in Section 10.2.1 of

this decision.

200. Section 7.3 of the IA identified some uncertainties associated with some activities under the EAD

Programme and how these have been addressed in the application. These relate to the:

a) Presence of sensitive environments in the yet to be defined well sites;

b) Exact volumes of material disturbed, removed and redeposited during the drilling activities;

c) Determination of the likely impacts using model outputs; and

d) Exact harmful substances and the amounts and volumes to be used and discharged.

201. OMV concluded that the above uncertainties do not affect the assessment of effects for the

application as a conservative approach was taken in considering potential effects. The assessments

have been based on worst‐case scenarios and actual effects are anticipated to be less than those

predicted and assessed in the IA. For example, as stated in the JSE Ecology11, the sediment

modelling has incorporated the volumes of drill cuttings from drilling two wells (main well and re-

spudding) at a single site and incorporates a larger diameter drill hole. These allowances provided

an agreed level of conservatism for the modelling and therefore result in consideration of a broader

area than where any likely ecological effect will occur.

202. We agree with OMV that those matters do not prevent an appropriate assessment of the potential for

effects on the environment or on existing interests. Where relevant, we discuss these matters further

in our findings on the biological environment.

9.1.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

203. Section 7.4 of the IA assesses the risks of the various planned activities on the various biological

environments that may be affected. We adopt that assessment for the purposes of our decision. Key

summary points from that section of the IA are:

a) All activities (including the pre-drill survey and drilling activities) which result in physical

disturbance of the seabed or removal of seabed material have the potential to disturb, or

result in mortality of, organisms living in or on the seabed, with such effects more likely for

sessile species as mobile organisms can move away. In addition, such activities are likely to

11 Joint Statement of Experts in the Field of Benthic Ecology, 30 October 2019, paragraph 10 and 11.


result in some resuspension of sediment which can increase the turbidity and suspended

sediment concentration in the water column.

b) When the MODU enters New Zealand waters it will arrive clean of any biofouling organisms

and will be inspected by MPI prior to entering New Zealand – as such no invasive species

will be present.

c) The use of the DP MODU means that the area of seabed disturbance and large pre-drill

survey areas are reduced as there is no anchoring to the seabed.

d) The physical presence of the MODU will mean that marine mammals could be displaced

from the relatively small area of water column that the MODU occupies. In addition, such

structures have the potential to result in ‘ship strike’ where marine mammals collide with the

MODU.

e) Seabirds are attracted to offshore structures, including MODU, due to structural stimuli,

increased concentration of food, lights, and flares. Effects can be either positive or adverse –

positive effects include concentration of prey and provision of roosting refuge at sea.

Adverse effects include disorientation and collision, particularly at night.

f) The presence of the MODU can cause fish aggregation.

g) Noise and vibration from the MODU (both in transit and over a well site) and the drilling

activities can affect marine species (including mammals and fish) which use echolocation to

communicate and detect prey.

h) The MODU will occupy a very small area of potential habitat and its presence is temporary

(approximately 90 days at each well site).

i) The nature of the BOP fluids to be used mean that receptors of the BOP discharges will be

within the pelagic environs, noting that the BOP discharge within the water column would be

confined to a small area around the BOP and be well within the 200m zone of reasonable

mixing proposed even under the conservative scenario discharge events (i.e.1000 litres

discharged).

j) Noise and vibration from the drilling activity will be nearly continuous at predominantly low to

mid‐frequencies. Low frequency noise has long‐range propagation through minimal

attenuation, while medium frequencies have a limited propagation due to greater attenuation.

k) The noise and vibrations associated with drilling are primarily experienced on the seafloor

due to the duration and intensity of the activity, and its location in close proximity to the

seabed.

l) Discharges of excess cement from well activities have the potential to affect the physical

environment (i.e. water quality and plankton) and the biological environment (i.e. benthic

invertebrates). However, the zone of influence is small, up to 15.2m2 for a single discharge

of excess cement.



m) Drill cuttings are discharged both at the seabed when installing the riser and at the sea

surface when discharged from the MODU, thus there are two zones of influence for

discharges.

n) The discharge of drill cuttings will result in increased turbidity and suspended sediment

concentrations in the water column as the sediment falls to the seabed. The cuttings will also

contain elements of harmful substances from the drilling fluids and, potentially, trace

hydrocarbons.

o) OMV predicts an increase in total suspended sediment (TSS) concentrations in the water

column from the discharges from the MODU between 100‐250 m from the MODU of 0.824

mg/L but that the actual TSS at the edge of the 200m zone of reasonable mixing will be less

than the 0.824 mg/L TSS value used. Compared with ambient levels, modelling shows that

TSS, which can be used as a proxy or surrogate for turbidity, will increase by less than 1

mg/L beyond the 200 m zone of reasonable mixing.

p) OMV has used a conservative value of 90% of the drilling fluids to be recovered from drill

cuttings before they are discharged for their assessment, meaning that 10% of the cuttings’

mass would involve drilling fluids that have adhered to the cuttings. As such, the zone of

influence associated with the harmful substances adhered to the cuttings falls within (i.e. less

than) the 200m zone of reasonable mixing.

q) Batch discharges of drilling fluids may occur from the MODU. These comprise a mix of drill

fluids and seawater (the primary component) and will be rapidly diluted when discharged so

that the zone of influence of the discharge, as a batch discharge, is contained within the

200m zone of reasonable mixing.

r) As the cuttings deposit on the seabed they can smother organisms that live in or on the

seabed. OMV applied a worst-case modelling scenario and an effects assessment based on

the assumption that no adverse benthic effects will occur where the predicted depositional

thickness is 0.1 mm or less. This is a conservative threshold, but one considered sufficient to

ensure all environments, including sensitive environments, are not adversely affected. The

0.1 mm depositional footprint is predicted to occupy an area of approximately 3 km2 around

the well.

s) The environmental effects from the trace hydrocarbon discharges in drill cuttings will not

result in detectable impacts, at a population level, to any of the marine species that have

been identified to be present within the AOI, with the ecosystem remaining intact.

t) Recovery timescales for benthic communities that may be smothered can vary widely

depending on numerous factors but these generally return to baseline conditions within one

year after cessation of drilling. However, recolonisation may be (and typically is) by a

different community assemblage.


u) In terms of sensitive environments, (defined under Schedule 6 of the Permitted Activity

Regulations), OMV acknowledges that the deposition of drill cuttings during the drilling

programme has the highest potential for an adverse effect on these communities, and the

conservative deposition thickness of 0.1mm has been chosen to reflect this. This threshold

has been used to consider ecological effects throughout the ERA for sensitive environments,

as well as to provide protection for sensitive environments, with a degree of conservatism,

such that no adverse effects should occur beyond this deposition threshold.

v) While sensitive environments were located during the 2019 Benthic Baseline / Tāwhaki‐1

Pre‐drill Survey, OMV proposes to undertake pre-installation surveys to confirm, or

otherwise, the presence of such environments in and around each of the well site. In the

event that a sensitive environment is found, OMV proposes to follow the decision-making

process and implement a defined set of actions - which includes pre-installation ROV

surveys, deposition modelling and a process for an alternative site selection.

w) As part of the formulation evaluation process, DST may result in discharges from flaring

activities, well clean-up, and the atmospheric storage tank. However, OMV concludes that

any resulting environmental effects from the discharge of harmful substances associated

with the DST will not result in detectable impacts on any of the marine species that have

been identified to be present within the AOI, or at a population level, with the ecosystem

remaining intact.

x) There is a low level of risk present for impacts on seabirds associated with the DST flaring

operations.

y) The process of abandoning the well includes disturbance of the seabed to remove the well

head, and deposition of cement, with limited effects beyond the immediate vicinity of the well

location. As no structure will be visible or remain above the surface of the seabed, there will

be no further effects on the biological environment, and benthic recovery will commence

immediately with sediment infilling and re-colonisation by opportunistic benthic macrofauna.

z) Other operational discharges will result in very small quantities of harmful substances being

discharged during the EAD programme. These substances are required for a variety of

activities including lubrication (i.e. drilling tools, wellhead and riser connectors), application of

anti‐foulant for cooling systems, and cleaning the slop‐handling unit. However, due to the

localised effect of the discharges and the high level of dilution experienced, the overall

impact of these discharges has been identified as negligible.

aa) OMV will undertake pre- and post-drilling monitoring following a standard offshore sampling

procedure (OTEMP) at the same sampling stations each year. This methodology will result in

minor seabed disturbance and removal of non-living material and, therefore, have the

potential to impact the ecological environments. Due to the scale and temporary nature of

these activities the risk and magnitude of effects will be negligible.



bb) The effects associated with contingent activities are consistent with those of the standard

drilling operations expect for those associated with the use of explosives. There are

additional noise and disturbance effects associated with this activity. However, explosives

will only be used as a last resort.

204. As described through Section 7.4 of the IA, OMV has proposed a suite of mitigation measures to

address the actual and potential effects of its activities, and these include:

a) Compliance with Good Oil Field Practice guidelines;

b) The short-term and temporary nature of the drilling activity and discharges at an individual

site;

c) Undertaking pre- and post-drilling surveys and monitoring (including ROV surveys) of the

well sites to determine the presence of sensitive benthic environments;

d) The defined process for dealing with interactions with sensitive environments including

ensuring that no more than 0.1mm of deposition will occur over any of these environments

and, where this cannot be avoided, a process is defined for ensuring that any effects will not

be significant at a population level;

e) Using, to the greatest extent practicable, the least ecotoxic substances during the drilling

operations;

f) Using WBM where possible for drilling activities and recycling and reusing as much drilling

fluid as possible to minimise discharges to the ocean. Where SBM is to be used, it will be

collected and disposed of to land;

g) Ensuring all equipment used for the EAD Programme will be inspected, tested and

maintained as per the MODU planned maintenance system requirements and in accordance

with applicable industry standards to ensure its integrity;

h) Following a defined well abandonment process to ensure the well is appropriately sealed

and structures are removed from the seabed;

i) Provision for a range of operational controls for the MODU, and supporting vessels; and

j) Mitigation measures employed on the MODU to minimise the risk of impacts on seabirds.

205. For the majority of the effects, Section 7.4 of the IA assessed the environmental risks associated

with planned activities on the various receptors in the biological environment as generally being

‘negligible’, ‘low’ and / or ‘less than minor’.

206. The one exception concerned the effects of the drill cuttings and drilling discharges on the benthic

environment, including the sensitive environments, where the risks were assessed as ‘moderate’ and

of ‘minor’ magnitude.


9.1.3 Discussion

Sediment Modelling

207. One of the primary drivers of effects of the EAD programme is the deposition that will occur as a

result of the discharge of drill cuttings. Due to the nature of activities, location of the AOI offshore and

the depth of the water, the deposition and dispersal of drill cuttings must be modelled to understand

the volume and the extent of the deposition. The outcomes of the modelling are fundamental to the

overall conclusions on effects of the activities on the different receptors, particularly the benthic

environments

208. The IA, including Appendix B, provides extensive detail on how OMV has used modelling to

determine the extent of effects of the drilling activities, how the modelling has been undertaken and

reports on the results of the modelling.

209. The EPA engaged an external expert (Mr Justin Rogers of Coffey) to review OMV’s drill cutting

modelling. The review12 drew some conclusions and identified a number of matters to be responded

to by OMV including:

a) While the discussion in the IA on the summary of the modelling is appropriate based on

OMV’s findings, there are technical deficiencies in the TSS and deposition modelling which

mean that the model outcomes regarding impacts on sensitive environments cannot be

relied upon;

b) The 200m zone of mixing proposed by OMV is conventional and is a generally appropriate

distance at which the contaminants of concern are expected to drop below the Predicted No

Effects Concentration (PNEC);

c) The following matters need to be revisited in the modelling to enable confidence in the

outputs:

i. Choice of the horizontal mixing coefficient;

ii. Time averaging of TSS results;

iii. Particle count and masses;

iv. Representative settling velocities of particles; and

v. Bulking factor

210. The matters identified by the EPA expert were communicated to OMV via a further information

request from the EPA13. OMV responded by way of a letter14 which was supported by a response

12 Coffey – Technical Review of Drill Cuttings Dispersion Modelling, OMV New Zealand Ltd. Application EEZ200009,

September 2019 – Sections 4 and 5. 13 EPA – Request #3 for further information from OMV GSB Ltd dated 2 October 2019 – Request 5. 14 OMV – Further Information Request #3 – EEZ200009: Response 2 dated 16 October 2019 – Request 5 and Appendix 1.



from MetOcean Solutions (MOS) who undertook the original modelling. OMV’s response, including

the MOS response, were further reviewed by Mr Rogers, who concluded15:

a) Regarding the modelled TSS reliability, there are still some concerns relating to the

horizontal mixing coefficients, the stochastic approach, and TSS time averaging used and,

as a result, reliability concerns related to the TSS modelling;

b) Regarding the settlement velocities and building factor used in the deposition modelling, the

concerns had been addressed; and

c) Overall, the remaining concerns with TSS model results are focused on the near-field,

approximately tens to hundreds of metres from the discharge point, and the MOS method

cannot resolve TSS concentrations shortcomings at the short scale.

211. We asked Coffey to clarify what this meant in the context of effects from the deposition of the drill

cuttings based on the TSS, and received a response16 from Mr Rogers and Mr Ivan Stewart of Coffey

which is summarised as follows:

The concerns with the MOS modelling do not prevent a reliable assessment of TSS

effects as it is recognised that the area of notably elevated TSS remains restricted

(though is somewhat larger than the proposed zone of reasonable mixing) to the near-

field zone, and the wider deposition results are not likely to be affected. The reviewers

suggest that the likely generation of a plume where TSS concentrations are different to

those predicted be acknowledged, but it did not affect the overall findings on effects on

the benthic environments.

212. The impact of the modelling outcomes on the scale of effects has been discussed further below.

Benthic Environments

213. The EPA’s external experts on the biological environment (Mr Stewart and Dr Mire) generally

concurred17 with the majority of OMV’s assessments and the level of environmental risk applied, but

they also identified a number of information deficiencies pertaining to the assessment of effects.

These related to a risk ranking on:

a) Benthic environments and sensitive habitats;

b) Effects on mammals and seabirds from the presence of the MODU;

c) Lack of seismic assessment;

d) Lack of detail regarding cumulative impacts; and

15 Coffey – EEZ200009 – Coffey response to MetOcean Solutions “Response to review comments”, 5 November 2019 –

Section 7. 16 Email - EEZ200009 Clarification from Coffey Services Ltd on Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from Ivan Stewart dated 23

November 2019. 17 Coffey - Review of Marine Ecology Aspects of OMV Great South Basin Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme

Consent Application (Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent), Section 6.


e) Subjectivity regarding the magnitude of effects.

214. Regarding the 200m zone of mixing at each well site, Mr Stewart and Dr Mire commented18 that

while this approach is appropriate and seems to be well justified there were some queries that

needed to be further responded to in order to confirm the appropriateness of the 200m.

215. Regarding mitigation measures, Mr Stewart and Dr Mire identified19 that mitigation, management and

monitoring measures presented in the IA are generally appropriate for application to the proposed

activities.

216. For benthic habitats, they identified that mitigation proposed specifies that surveys for habitats and

communities that may be defined as sensitive environments (as per MacDiarmid et al. 2013) will be

undertaken and include robust investigations of the seabed around each proposed well. It is

specified that, at each well location, monitoring surveys will need to be undertaken within a

sufficiently short time period prior to and following completion of, the drilling activities. The monitoring

data should be comparable with the set of baseline indicators established for the Tāwhaki‐1 well.

217. A few information deficits and technical deficiencies were also identified by the external experts

regarding the primary effects on the marine environmental that needed to be addressed, including:

a) The veracity of sediment dispersion / deposition thresholds;

b) Potential ambiguity of wording in the proffered condition 27; and

c) Recommendation for the inclusion of additional measures in the mitigation framework,

including ramping start up process for drilling activities, identification of spawning seasons

for cup corals, and biosecurity measures.

218. OMV responded, by way of various further information response letters, to the matters raised in the

Coffey review, and these responses are summarised in the following paragraphs.

219. Regarding sediment dispersion, OMV explained20 that while a similar approach has been used in the

GSB as that used in the Taranaki Basin, the significantly more conservative sediment deposition

threshold of 0.1mm (as opposed to the 6.5mm in the Taranaki Basin) has been used with the GSB.

This threshold has been determined following a detail literature review by OMV’s ecologist (NIWA)

which found that a 1mm depositional thickness was sufficient to ensure that activities which resulted

in the deposition of sediment on benthic environments at depths found in the GSB would be unlikely

to cause significant effects. Given the likely presence of sensitive environments, OMV has taken a

conservative approach and selected the 0.1mm threshold. In order to determine that threshold of

sediment deposition of the drill cuttings for each well site, a ROMS NZ model, which has been

specifically validated for the GSB, will be used.

18 Coffey - Review of Marine Ecology Aspects of OMV Great South Basin Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme

Consent Application (Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent), Section 6.2. 19 Ibid, Section 6.2. 20 OMV GSB Ltd – Further Information Request #3 – EEZ200009, 11 October 2019 – Response 9.



220. Regarding proffered condition 27, OMV responded21 that, as detailed in the EMP, a pre-drill survey

will be undertaken for each well site which will look at the seabed and benthic environments around

the sites. Where a sensitive environment is encountered, its location in proximity to the well site will

be modelled using the deposition model to see if it is within the 0.1mm threshold zone.

221. Where a sensitive environment is encountered within the modelled 0.1mm deposition for that well, it

will be considered to be “in proximity to the location”. This will then trigger additional analysis to be

undertaken, as well as informing the planning stages and final position of the well location. This

process is summarised as, where sensitive environments are known/found to be present within the

area where 0.1 mm deposition has been modelled to occur, and moving the location of the well

results in operational constraints on the EAD Programme, then a sensitivity analysis will be

undertaken to ascertain if 5% or more of the sensitive environment is found within the regional

survey area and modelled 0.1 mm deposition area. If that is the case then an alternate well location

will need to be proposed. The 5% is the cumulative effect of the thresholds for all wells drilled as time

goes on, not just for a single well.

222. Overall, based on the process identified in proffered condition 27, OMV concluded that no sensitive

environments will be impacted by sedimentation levels greater than 0.1mm and there will not be any

cumulative effects arising from the deposition activities.

223. Regarding the additional mitigation measures, OMV responded22 as follows:

a) Ramping start up – OMV considered this was unnecessary due to the water depth at the well

sites, species composition present in the AOI, the unlikely presence of marine mammals in

the vicinity of the MODU, the fact that no other consents granted for EAD programmes have

had a requirement of this nature, and that the noise and vibration from the MODU is very

localised and temporary in nature.

b) Identification of cup coral spawning season – OMV identified that, while the reproductive

mode of cup corals in the AOI is unknown, a literature review indicated that spawning may

occur in late April or May. However, the data were drawn from only a single event in another

environment so could not be confirmed as being applicable for the AOI.

c) Biosecurity mitigation – OMV consider that the biosecurity matters are already provided for

under other MMRs and have already identified that the COSL Prospector MODU and any

other MODU to be used will comply with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993

including the Craft Risk Management Standards (CRMS) and the ballast water controls.

21 Ibid – Response 10. 22 OMV GSB Ltd – Further Information Request #3 – EEZ200009, 11 October 2019 and 16 October 2019 – Response 11


Expert Conferencing

224. Following the receipt of the further responses from OMV, expert conferencing between OMV and the

EPA’s external experts on matters related to benthic ecology was directed (M1 – Minute of the

Decision-making Committee – 18 October 2019) on the following:

a) Rare and vulnerable benthic ecosystems (including sensitive environments) that may be

present and impacted by the EAD Programme, including the likelihood and consequence of

impacts and the appropriateness of OMV’s mitigation measures;

b) Habitats for threatened benthic species present in the AOI that may be impacted by the EAD

Programme, including the likelihood and consequence of impacts and the appropriateness of

OMV’s mitigation measures; and

c) The integrity of the marine benthic species, ecosystems and processes occurring that may

be impacted by the EAD Programme, including the likelihood and consequence of impacts

and the appropriateness of OMV’s mitigation measures.

225. The expert conferencing occurred over two days (22 and 23 October 2019) and resulted in the

production of the Joint Statement of Experts in the Field of Benthic Ecology (JSE), provided in

Appendix 3. The key elements of the JSE Ecology were:

a) Defining the area of impact:

i. Experts agreed that the use of the 0.1 mm deposition contour was appropriate for

OMV’s activities within the GSB and that the 0.1 mm deposition contour used to

define the area of impact is an annual aggregate; i.e. the maximum extent of all the

monthly deposition model outputs combined; and

ii. It was accepted that conservatism is built into the sediment deposition modelling

(primarily due to the volume of material used being equivalent to two wells) and this

has resulted in a consideration of a broader area of effects.

b) Rare and vulnerable benthic ecosystems (including sensitive environments):

i. There was agreement that there are no rare ecosystems in the survey area and

regarding vulnerable ecosystems, where it is appropriate to defer to Schedule 6 for

criteria of taxa such as sponges and scleractinian stony corals, no vulnerable

ecosystem taxa were observed in the pre-drill survey in the predicted area of impact;

ii. There was agreement that the benthic environments and communities observed in

the regional survey were similar to those that would be present elsewhere in New

Zealand’s EEZ at this depth;

iii. Three sensitive environments (as described in Schedule 6 of the Permitted Activities

Regulations), were observed in the survey being: stony coral thickets, brachiopod

beds, and xenophyophore beds;



iv. Of the sensitive environments observed within the survey, only xenophyophore beds

were present in the vicinity of the proposed well site, with the closest xenophyophore

bed located 2 km (site O17) from the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill location;

v. No rare or vulnerable marine ecosystems or sensitive environments were observed

or are expected to be found within the predicted area of impact, so no discussion of

the response to sedimentation or expected recovery times were provided in the JSE

Ecology;

vi. Regarding habitat suitability modelling, of the three sensitive environments identified

within the survey, only xenophyophores could be modelled effectively and, based on

the modelling undertaken, the experts agreed that it was possible to estimate that

approximately 0.006 % of xenophyophores predicted to occur within the survey area

would be located within the area of impact based on the 0.1 mm deposition contour

(as in the IA). This extent of disturbance to xenophyophores is not considered a

threat to the regional population of xenophyophores or to the value of the biogenic

habitat they create; and

vii. Regarding mitigation measures, the experts agreed that:

Pre and post-drilling monitoring with the survey design based on the

deposition modelling set out in the EMP is appropriate; and

The proffered condition 27, which identifies the 0.1mm deposition threshold

and the process for selecting alternative well sites where this threshold is

breached, is accepted by the experts.

c) Habitats of threatened species, the Ecology experts agreed that:

i. Habitats of threatened benthic species as those habitats supporting any species listed

within the report on the Conservation status of New Zealand marine invertebrates;

ii. There are no predicted impacted habitats of threatened benthic taxa observed in the

regional survey area; therefore, it was considered unnecessary to describe their

expected recovery timeframes or response to sedimentation;

iii. Habitat suitability models predicted no clearly suitable habitat for the taxa associated

with seamounts and channel sites in locations within the 100 x 100 km extent of the

model, with the exception of those features included in the regional survey; and

iv. There were no specific requirements for mitigation measures for effects on habitats of

threatened species.


d) Integrity of marine benthic species, ecosystems and processes (including protected species)

– the Ecology experts agreed that:

i. There will be no unacceptable impact on broader ecosystem functioning as a whole

and therefore focused on ecological processes and marine benthic species

(including protected species) at the scale of the predicted area of impact;

ii. The dominant taxa observed within the area of impact (0.1mm deposition contour)

were cup corals (Scleractinia), sea urchins (Echinoids), sea anemones (Actiniaria),

sponges (Porifera: Hexactinellidae), gastropods, sea squirts (tunicates), worms and

sea cucumbers (holothurians) with 47%, 14%, 10%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3% and 2% of

total observed abundances respectively. The dominant functional groups observed

within the area of impact were sessile suspension feeders (47%), mobile deposit

feeders (14%), sessile filter feeders (11%), and sessile predators (10%);

iii. The cup corals present within the area of impact are in the order Scleractinia and

therefore are protected by the Wildlife Act. The experts agreed that any discussions

around the relevance, intent or enactment of the Wildlife Act regarding the

application were outside their area of expertise;

iv. The discharge of drill cuttings and drilling fluids associated with an exploration

drilling programme has the potential for adverse impacts on benthic organisms due

to the deposition of cuttings on the seabed and transport of suspended particulates

from the cuttings. These impacts may include growth inhibition, smothering or burial,

reduced feeding efficiency, mortality, displacement of fauna and altered biological

communities;

v. The impact of sedimentation at the Tāwhaki-1 drill location is expected to be very

localised within the footprint of deposition (i.e., 0.1 mm deposition thickness) rather

than at a wider ecosystem scale;

vi. Cup corals (sessile suspension feeders) were numerically the dominant taxa within

the impacted area (46% of all observations). No data are available on life histories,

reproductive strategies, or growth rates of cup corals and little is known about the

response of Scleractinian cup corals to sedimentation. However, cup corals are

sessile and have a relatively low profile, suggesting they may be vulnerable to

smothering and burial;

vii. Xenophyophores accounted for 0.5% of all observations within the impacted area.

There is no known information on xenophyophore response to sedimentation.

However, they are considered vulnerable to smothering and burial;

viii. There are two main pathways for re-colonisation of disturbed sediments by benthic

invertebrates: lateral migration of mobile adults/juveniles from nearby undisturbed



sediments; and the dispersal of planktonic larvae from source populations of

reproductive adults;

ix. Changes in sediment properties of the disturbed sediments compared to pre-

disturbance sediments can result in an altered infaunal and epifaunal community;

x. The area of impact has a relatively small footprint and so, should sediment

properties allow, re-colonisation by lateral migration of some mobile taxa could be

expected to be relatively rapid;

xi. Small soft-bottom infauna are expected to begin recovery almost immediately

following the cessation of drilling/deposition activities, with considerable signs of

recovery potentially evident within three years at depths between 800m and 2000m.

However, recovery regimes are taxa-dependent and larger fauna are expected to

take longer than this;

xii. Habitat suitability modelling was carried out on the key taxonomic groups observed

within the regional survey area and the model output showed most taxonomic

groups observed within the predicted area of impact were relatively widespread

throughout the broad slope basin habitat of the regional survey area. The exception

to this were the cup corals. There was no dispute of the modelling output by the

experts;

xiii. Regarding mitigation measures, the experts agreed that those identified in response

to Issue 1 were applicable to these aspects also. Those measures being the pre-

and post-drilling surveys and the process identified in proffered condition 27; and

e) Conclusions:

i. There is no evidence for the existence of xenophyophore beds (as defined by EEZ

Act for a sensitive environment) within the defined area of impact for the Tāwhaki-1

drilling location.

ii. Recovery of the low density xenophyophore populations within the defined area of

impact may take years rather than decades.

iii. The susceptibility of cup corals to sedimentation cannot be characterised because

too little is known about their life histories and response to, and recovery from,

sedimentation. The highest abundances of cup corals are within the vicinity of the

proposed drill site, but habitat suitability modelling estimated that only 0.2% of total

predicted abundance is within the predicted area of impact.

iv. The effects of an exploration drilling programme at the Tāwhaki-1 drilling location will

be long-term but reversible, given the assumed trajectory of recovery and the limited

area of impact.


v. Uncertainty exists around the response of xenophyophores to sedimentation.

However, recovery potential of xenophyophores is considered likely to be on a scale

of years (rather than decades). The highest abundances of xenophyophores were

observed outside of the predicted area of impact.

vi. Recovery timeframe of the benthic communities within the impacted area is largely

unknown, but likely on a scale of years to decades for most taxa, assuming sediment

properties are favourable.

vii. There will be impacts to the benthos within a localised footprint in proximity to the

proposed Tāwhaki-1 drilling location.

viii. The proposed exploration drilling programme at Tāwhaki-1 will have no

unacceptable adverse impacts to ecosystem functions or processes or to habitats of

threatened taxa.

ix. It was agreed that any post-drilling monitoring should be undertaken at the same

time of year as the pre-drill monitoring to avoid seasonality components.

f) Uncertainties:

i. The experts agreed that there were a number of uncertainties and these are largely

due to incomplete baseline knowledge, and other constraints associated with the

deep-sea environment. These generally apply to:

ii. Cup coral identification and sediment tolerance of corals;

iii. The scale of the potential impact is uncertain as there are no data on the

threshold/tipping points for deep sea fauna. The area of impact has been defined as

the 0.1 mm sediment deposition contour and this can be considered a conservative

threshold for the effects of sediment deposition and suspended sediments; and

iv. The life history of xenophyophores and their sensitivity and response to

sedimentation.

g) Conditions:

i. In addition to the comments above on proffered Condition 27, the Ecology experts

agreed that the following proffered conditions, within their area of expertise, would

likely be appropriate to deal with adverse effects of the proposed activities:

ii. Proffered conditions 22 and 23 – provision of a WSMP for each new well and that no

drilling activities shall occur until the WSMP has been approved;

iii. Proffered condition 26 – requiring a no more than 15 month period between any pre-

drill monitoring and any pre-drill works; and

iv. Proffered condition 28 – requirement for a compliance report for each drilling

campaign.



226. Following the completion of the expert conferencing and the release of the JSE Ecology, OMV

provided a copy of the NIWA Report Regional benthic characterisation of the Canterbury Great

South Basin (NIWA Benthic Report) which provided further detail on the benthic surveys and the

habitat modelling undertaken to inform the application.

227. The NIWA Benthic Report was reviewed by Mr Stewart who confirmed23 that the content of the report

is consistent with what the Ecology experts discussed in conferencing and the report does not

change the opinions / conclusions from the JSE Ecology. The key conclusion, which remains

relevant, is that the habitat modelling cannot reliably predict the distribution of most benthic species,

which is why the Ecology experts recommended that conditions be based on observed distributions

of sensitive environments or protected species, not modelled distributions.

228. Regarding the differing position between the experts on the TSS modelling outputs and the impact

on the scale and intensity of TSS effects on the receiving environment, Mr Stewart provided a

response24 which is summarised below:

229. It is important to acknowledge that the Coffey position on the TSS concentrations results in a higher

concentration and therefore, the extent of effects is wider than those provided in the MOS findings;

230. However, assuming a homogenous distribution of taxa, effects would likely be most pronounced in

the immediate vicinity of the drilling location and be driven by the prevailing current/possibly

influenced by any local eddies etc, if occurring. This would taper off in accordance with

dispersion/dilution; and

231. Overall, the deposition effects remain fairly localised, essentially within the zone of reasonable

mixing or just beyond, and the differing position on TSS does not result in a great deal of changes in

terms of Coffey’s assessment.

232. Regarding the need for additional mitigation to address the TSS matter, Mr Stewart confirmed25 that

provided the volumes, composition and duration of discharges are as stated, and the expected

area/concentrations of elevated TSS do not coincide with more than 5% of a sensitive environment

or otherwise protected taxa (considering cumulative effects), the impacts of TSS can be expected to

remain fairly low overall and should not require any specific additional management.

233. The EPA Conditions Report provided commentary of the matters discussed by the Ecology experts,

which are summarised below:

a) The draft conditions relating to sensitive environments and potential impacts have been

developed on the recommended approach by the Ecology experts that the observed benthic

habitat distribution should be used for the trigger level as opposed to that modelled – i.e.

prior to drilling any new well, the Consent Holder will need to prove (through drill cutting

dispersion modelling) that a deposition thickness greater than 0.1mm will cover no more than

23 Email – Ivan Stewart - FW: NIWA habitat suitability modelling dated 14 November 2019. 24 Email – Ivan Stewart - EEZ200009 Clarification from Coffey Services Ltd on Total Suspended Solids (TSS) dated 23

November 2019. 25 Ibid


5% of the regional population of a sensitive environment distribution observed in the pre-drill

survey (for the proposed well) and any distribution observed in surveying for previous wells

covered by the consent.

b) The 0.1mm and 5% of regional population triggers should also be applied to protected

benthic species identified in Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act (i.e. Cnidaria).

c) The EPA Conditions Report considered it more appropriate that requirements for pre-drill

surveys and mitigation measures are encoded in conditions, and that an EMP is required to

set out how pre-and post-drill monitoring will be undertaken to monitor effects of the drilling

activity on the environment (which better enables the EPA to exercise its power to review

duration and conditions of the consent under section 76 if required).

d) The EMP should be certified by the EPA prior to undertaking any activities except for drilling

at Tāwhaki-1. This approach would allow the EPA or OMV to update the EMP should a new

approach, new technology or methodologies be deemed necessary for monitoring at a

specific location.

e) The conditions recommended by the EPA include requirements for pre-drill surveys,

notifications and reporting at each well location and the EPA does not consider it is

necessary to require a WSMP to be certified in addition to the EMP unless OMV intends to

undertake different activities at each well.

Marine mammals and seabirds

234. Regarding impacts on marine mammals, DoC’s response to our request under section 5626 identified

a number of issues with the OMV’s assessment and these related to:

a) Under-estimation of the MODU noise generation; and

b) Inappropriate biological sound thresholds used.

235. The main concern, as we understand it from DoC, is that OMV has used the sounds thresholds in

the Code of Conduct for Seismic Survey and these are not reflective of the noise generated from the

MODU as that is a constant sound rather than an impulsive sound like in seismic surveying. DoC

identified that there has also been further research and work undertaken into the impacts of marine

noise on marine mammals and suggested that further analysis should be undertaken by OMV on

noise impacts on marine mammals.

236. Regarding mitigation measure for noise effects on marine mammals, DoC stated27 that mitigation

measures could be applied to the activities but given the issues identified with the noise assessment,

it could not confirm that the mitigation proposed was appropriate. Despite that, however, we note that

DoC did propose a suite of conditions to address effects on marine mammals - including undertaking

26 Department of Conservation - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 regarding the OMV GSB Limited Application – EEZ200009, paragraphs 14 and 15 – 17. 27 Department of Conservation - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 regarding the OMV GSB Limited Application – EEZ200009, paragraph 18.



measures to minimise potential collisions with marine mammals, appointing marine mammal

observers to undertake watch duties, recording of marine mammal sightings, and reporting of any

incidents with marine mammals - and identified that they were in discussion with OMV about the

need for such mitigation.

237. Further to OMV’s comments on the proposed ramping start up procedure referred to in paragraph a))

above, OMV responded28 to DoC’s comments on marine mammals and the need for operational

noise conditions for the MODU within the GSB noting that:

… the MODU will be travelling to the GSB drill site under its own steam (using the

thrusters) and once there will continue to use its engines to maintain position (like a

boat). This essentially means that a ‘bow-wave’ of sound will proceed ahead of the

MODU on its way down to the GSB and any marine mammals will have an opportunity

to move away from the noise, including when at the drill site. As such, there is no need

for any 30 minute period of marine mammal observation ‘before commencing the use

of dynamic positioning system’ as there will be no point when this system will

‘commence’ and any marine mammals will already have moved away from the MODU

as it enters the GSB and drill site area.

As we discussed, OMV’s intent with the GSB application (similarly with the Taranaki

EPA applications) was for any capable MODU to be able to drill within these operational

conditions. We certainly understand DoC’s concern if the MODU was being towed to

the site and then starting its thrusters, but that is not the case here.

238. Regarding seabirds, DoC’s response to our request under section 5629 identified that further data has

been collected on seabirds and additional research undertaken that has not been considered as part

of the IA and noted that the AOI was in close proximity of substantial seabird breeding sites. DoC

stated that “Given that there is limited quantitative data on species occurring in the AOI on a daily,

weekly, monthly, seasonal or annual basis, the IA is not a solid baseline to inform decisions around

the impact of the proposed activities on these species”.

239. Overall, DoC considered that the list of seabirds likely to be present in the AOI “is not considered

accurate or comprehensive” and recommended that OMV undertake a further review of recent

information to better inform the potential for seabird occurrence in the AOI.

240. In terms of the effects of the activities associated with the EAD programme on seabirds, and despite

the commentary on the sufficiency of seabird identification, DoC30 agreed that mitigation measures

could be imposed to address potential impacts on seabirds, and provided a set of draft conditions -

which included measures to minimise the potential for lighting effects, recording any seabird strikes,

28 Email from Matiu Park Re: EEZ200009 – s56 response from DoC, dated 31 October 2019. 29 Department of Conservation - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 regarding the OMV GSB Limited Application – EEZ200009, paragraphs 10 – 12 and 20 –

22. 30 Department of Conservation - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 regarding the OMV GSB Limited Application – EEZ200009. paragraph 23 and Attachment

1.


and providing for a process for handling seabirds that may be encountered on the MODU. As with

DoC’s proposed conditions for mammals, the seabird conditions were under discussion with OMV.

241. DoC subsequently confirmed via email that there had not been any further dialogue with OMV in

response to its comments on seabirds or regarding the proposed conditions.

242. With respect to marine mammals and seabirds and taking into account the EPA’s ability to impose

and enforce conditions, the EPA Conditions Report incorporates (as appropriate under the EEZ Act)

some of the draft conditions recommended by DoC to mitigate direct or indirect effects of the

activities subject to OMV’s application. These include:

243. A requirement to make available to offshore personnel a New Zealand marine mammal and seabird

species identification guide to assist in the accurate identification of species;

a) Minimising the use of nocturnal lighting to the greatest extent possible;

b) Recording and reporting any seabird collisions with vessels associated with the EAD

Programme;

c) Notification to DoC of any injured seabirds found on vessels;

d) A requirement for watch-keeping duties for marine mammals; and

e) Recording and reporting of marine mammal sightings.

244. Regarding impacts on protected species under the Wildlife Act, DoC’s response to our request under

section 5631 confirmed with respect to the protected coral species identified in the IA “that the risk the

drilling poses to these species, specifically with regards to sediment deposition, has been assessed

appropriately”.

245. Where an activity is found likely to result in the death of a protected species, DoC identified32 that a

party is required to gain an authorisation for such under the Wildlife Act. While a retrospective

authorisation cannot be issued for an activity that accidentally kills a protected species, one can (and

should) apply for an authorisation to accidentally kill a protected species where that is foreseeable.

We note that this is a requirement of and for a separate MMR and have no need, therefore, to

discuss this matter further in this decision.

Discharges from the EAD Programme

246. Regarding discharges of harmful substances, OMV identified 19 substances that are likely to be

used in the EAD programme and that are considered harmful substances with the potential to impact

the receiving environment. Section 7.4 of the IA concludes that the effects of the discharges on most

of the environmental receptors are negligible or less than minor except for effects on the benthic

environment (including sensitive environments) identified as a moderate risk and of at least minor

magnitude.

31 Ibid, paragraph 24 and 25. 32 Ibid, paragraph 8 and 26.



247. To understand the effects of the discharges from the EAD programme, the EPA undertook an

environmental risk assessment33 for the 19 substances using the CHARM and NON-CHARM

Assessment34 models as appropriate, which both compare the Predicted Environmental

Concentrations of a product to the PNEC, to estimate a Risk Quotient value. The assessment

process used a ‘worst-case’ scenario and a conservative ‘realistic’ scenario for each of the

substances. This provides an overall conservative conclusion on the impact of the discharges. The

volume of discharges for each substance was taken from the information provided as part of the IA.

248. The assessment process and findings are summarised in the following excerpt from the Executive

Summary of the ERA Discharges Report:

The harmful substances proposed to be discharged are expected to have environmental

effects that are equivalent to less than minor or negligible (based on the risk assessment

methodology in OMV’s applications). The ecotoxic risk of each substance was first assessed

using the EPA risk assessment system developed for assessing effects of discharges. This

system determines whether a substance poses a negligible, very low, low, medium, high, or

very high ecotoxic risk to the environment. This was then applied to the risk assessment

methodology in OMV’s application, taking into account the duration, scale, and intensity of

effects in the wider context of the application. The expected environment effects are then

described in terms of negligible, less than minor, minor, significant, or very significant. The

risks and environmental effects are summarised in Table 1.

The discharge of harmful substances that are expected to have the greatest environmental

impact is the discharge of Water-Based Muds (WBM), also termed ‘drilling fluids’. WBMs

may include CAUSTIC SODA, LIME, PERFORMATROL and CLAY GRABBER. This

discharge will occur though three pathways; WBM discharged directly onto the seafloor

during the first two sections of the well, WBM adhered to drill cuttings discharged from the

MODU and, batch discharges of WBM. In a worst-case scenario this discharge may cause

ecotoxic effects in the benthic environment up to 1,784 m from the point of discharge. These

effects are not expected to be persistent or bioaccumulative in nature, but may degrade

relatively slowly in sediments, particularly near the well site. These effects posed a medium

ecotoxic risk to the environment are considered to equate to effects that are less than minor.

The discharges of all other substances are likely to result in negligible environmental effects.

Should the Decision-making Committee be minded to grant consent, potential adverse

effects of these substances could be mitigated by restricting the discharged substances,

their volumes, and the frequency of discharge.

33 Environmental Risk Assessment for Discharges, OMV GSB Limited, October 2019. 34 The CHARM Model used is CHARM v1.4 dated 2005; there is a more recent version, v1.5. However, v1.5 refers to the

newest versions of updates to the user manual, not to a new model. The updates do not affect any of the assumptions made

in the CHARM model used by the EPA in any of its assessments. The updates to the user manual largely deal with

clarifications and typographical errors.


249. The following table, referenced as Table 1 in the ERA Discharges Report, identifies the 19

substances and the assessed environmental risk:

Discharge stream

Harmful substance

Use Assessment Pathway

Risk Quotient (RQ)

Environmental effect35

WBM Additive

CAUSTIC SODA pH control

Non-CHARM Medium (137.9)

Less than minor

LIME pH control

Non-CHARM Medium (164.4)

PERFORMATROL Shale stabilizer

CHARM Very Low (19.3)

CLAY GRABBER Viscosifier

CHARM Medium (179.6)

BOP Fluid ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE

Blowout preventer fluid Non-CHARM

Medium (134.6)

Negligible

MODU Cooling System

BIOGUARD PLUS Antifoulant (biocide)

Non-CHARM Negligible (0.04)

Negligible

MODU Slops Tank

RENACLEAN A

Cleaning agent - Water treatment chemical used in the RenaPure Unit to clean the membranes

Non-CHARM Very Low (1.6)

Negligible

RENACLEAN B

Cleaning agent - Water treatment chemical used in the RenaPure Unit to clean the membranes

CHARM Medium (117.6)

Drill Stem Testing

BARAKLEAN-926 Well cleaning product

Non-CHARM Negligible (<0.001)

Negligible EMBR11720A Demulsifier Qualitative Negligible

SHELL GTL SARALINE 185V

Synthetic drilling base fluid Qualitative Negligible

MODU System Lubricants

JET-LUBE ALCO EP 73 PLUS

Lubricant applied on riser connector

Qualitative Negligible

Negligible

JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE

Anti-seize lubricant applied on wellhead connectors


JET-LUBE NCS-30

Applied on tool joints and drill collars


SEAL GUARD ECF

Applied on tubular threads on drill floor


Cement additive

GASSTOP EXP Fluid loss additive Qualitative Negligible

Negligible

HR-25L Cement retarder

CHARM Negligible (0.00326)

MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER

Cement retarder CHARM

Negligible (0.00215)

SPHERELITE CEMENT ADDITIVE

Cement additive Non-CHARM

Very Low (17.12)

Drilling fluids Trace amounts of hydrocarbons

Qualitative Negligible Negligible

35 Based on the risk assessment method specified in the IA.



250. The conclusions of the ERA Discharges Report36 are summarised as:

a) Overall, the assessments indicate that the effects of discharges on the receiving

environment are negligible or less than minor;

b) The discharge effects and associated environmental risk will be short-term and temporary in

nature and generally contained within a 10km2 radius from the discharge point;

c) The effects of the discharge will decrease as the distance from the discharge point

increases;

d) While there are unknowns regarding the recovery of benthic environments from discharges,

similar drilling activities in other soft sediment environments have experienced recovery after

3 years;

e) Conditions should be used to manage the effects of the discharge activities including limiting

the volume and concentrations of the discharges to those which were identified by OMV and

used in the ERA Discharges assessments; and

f) Conditions should also include the requirement for an EMP which sets monitoring standards

and requirements.

251. The EPA Conditions Report includes the recommendation that OMV should be required to submit an

EMP for certification to the EPA for each well location as part of the marine consent conditions. It

also restricts OMV to only discharge those harmful substances identified in the table above and at

the no greater than the maximum volumes or mass reference in the ERA Discharges Report as part

of the marine discharge conditions.

252. Regarding conditions, where necessary, we have provided additional commentary on the specific

discharge conditions in Section 15 of this report.

Mitigation measures

253. Overall, when considering the actual and potential effects of the EAD programme, Section 7.10 of

the IA sets out the proposed mitigation measure to be implemented by OMV.

254. The primary mechanism for managing and mitigating effects on the biological environment is the pre-

and post-drilling environmental monitoring proposed for each well site and which is intended to

monitor the effects from the drilling activity on the benthic marine environment and its subsequent

recovery and confirm whether any sensitive environments are present.

255. OMV has developed an EMP to monitor any potential effects from the EAD programme and, through

their proffered conditions, OMV will provide a WSMP for each of the proposed wells that is drilled in

the EAD programme that will identify any sensitive environments, any measures to manage effects,

and report on observations and measurements of any effects. The WSMP are to be submitted to the

EPA for certification prior to any drilling activities commencing at the corresponding well site.

36 Environmental Risk Assessment for Discharges, OMV GSB Limited, October 2019, Section 5.


256. OMV propose a range of additional mitigation measures that will also help avoid, remedy or mitigate

the effects on the biological environment, and these include:

a) The short-term duration of the drilling works at each well site;

b) Minimise the spatial extent of disturbance to the greatest extent practicable;

c) The wells will be plugged and items on the seabed removed following completion of the

exploration activity;

d) Using the least ecotoxic chemicals possible for the drilling activities and primarily WBM

drilling fluids with the majority being recycled;

e) A strict process for cement works at each well site; and

f) Drilling to occur in the summer months where possible when weather conditions are

favourable and outside of known whale migration periods.

9.2 Cumulative Effects

257. Section 7.8 of the IA identifies that cumulative effects could arise through two routes, being:

a) Other activities associated with the EAD programme, including harmful substances

discharges, drill cutting deposition, and overlapping of areas of impact; and

b) Other activities occurring within and outside the AOI, including fishing and maritime effects,

and the effects of land based and coastal discharges and marine based activities.

258. OMV assessed the overall cumulative effects risk on biological receptors associated with both of the

above as ‘negligible’. This is primarily due to the likelihood that no more than one well would be

drilled at any one time, the proposed separation distance (3 km as a minimum) between well sites

(including both exploration and appraisal wells), the temporary nature of the activities, and in turn the

effects, the dilution within the water column and the high energy environment of the GSB, and also

the distance offshore of the AOI.

259. The DMC requested further information37 from OMV on potential cumulative effects from all activities

related to drilling a single well and the significance of those effects, and also from all proposed

activities in the EAD programme in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable

future activities, and the significance of any such effects.

260. OMV provided further information38 on cumulative effects and concluded that the majority of the

effects of the EAD programme were assessed as being negligible with some as less than minor or

minor, acknowledging that there will be an overall cumulative effect of the individual activities as a

result of the operations. However, OMV noted that the additive effect of several activities with

negligible effects on a receptor will not increase the likelihood or consequence level of the ‘worst-

37 EPA – Request #1 for Further Information from OMV GSB Limited, 13 September 2019. Item 1. 38 OMV GSB Ltd – Further Information Request #1 – EEZ200009, 23 September 2019. Item 1.



case’ activities (those greater than negligible) to any significant extent as those activities with the

greatest effect drive the overall level of cumulative effect.

261. In their response, OMV provided an updated table assessing the cumulative effects on four

environmental receptors, being benthic communities, marine mammals, seabirds and pelagic

environs. OMV’s overall cumulative effects classification for and on these receptors were less than

minor for all receptors except for the benthic communities, which rated as minor.

262. The matter of cumulative effects was also discussed in the JSE Ecology, which found that although

the anticipated impacts of the single well considered during this conferencing (i.e. Tāwhaki-1) are

considered acceptable, this conclusion cannot be extrapolated to additional wells drilled in the wider

AOI. Each subsequent pre-drill monitoring programme should assess the potential for cumulative

effects in the context of existing effects from Tāwhaki-1 and other existing drill sites, for which

approval will be required.

263. The Ecology experts noted that the cumulative effects of up to 10 wells in this AOI area may need to

be managed through the consent conditions and EMP and the subsequent pre-drill monitoring

programme and review by the EPA. The Ecology experts recommended the following addition to the

proffered Condition 27 in order to provide for a consideration of potential cumulative sedimentation

effects. Condition 27 sets out the process that OMV must follow when sensitive environments are

identified in proximity to a proposed well site:

Condition 27

…

D) An assessment of percentage of the applicable sensitive environment(s) within

the regional survey area that will receive more than 0.1 mm of sediment

deposition by the proposed drilling as predicted by the deposition modelling,

including the cumulative area of all wells drilled to date;

9.3 Findings on Biological Environment Effects

264. As our understanding of the actual and potential effects of the drill cuttings deposition on the benthic

environment, including on sensitive environments, derives primarily from OMV’s modelling, the

validity and reliability of the model and its outcomes is a critical consideration.

265. We acknowledge that there has been extensive discussion between OMV and the EPA external

expert (Mr Rogers) on the reliability of the TSS modelling and the deposition modelling and its results

and that some points of disagreement between the experts remain. For example, the EPA reviewer

concludes that drilling activities will likely result in the generation of a plume with TSS concentrations

different to those predicted by MOS. However, despite such differences the Ecology experts’

conclusions on the effects of the EAD programme on the benthic environments are not

fundamentally altered, nor did they recommend any additional mitigation or management of those

effects.


266. Similarly, with regard to effects on the benthic environments including sensitive environments, while

initially there were areas of disagreement between the Ecology experts, these were resolved through

expert conferencing. Therefore, we accept the findings on the effects on the benthic environments as

detailed in the JSE Ecology, subject to the mitigation discussed below.

267. It was common ground that the highest potential risk in respect of significant adverse effects on the

biological environment would occur if the activities adversely affect any sensitive environments.

While the baseline monitoring indicates that no sensitive environments are likely to be present or to

be affected at the Tāwhaki 1 well site, their occurrence / presence in and around the remaining future

well sites, which specific locations are yet to be determined, cannot be completely dismissed. OMV

proposes to undertake pre-installation surveys to determine whether, and if so their extent, any such

environments exist and, if they are present, OMV will implement measures to ensure that any

significant effects (effectively defined as no more than a 5% loss of the regional population

cumulatively) on them are avoided or mitigated. We are satisfied that the proposed pre-installation

survey work, and proposed actions should sensitive environments be found, are appropriate to avoid

significant adverse effects on any sensitive environments that may be present and that this process

should be clearly set out within the EMP to be submitted to the EPA as required by the conditions.

We have imposed conditions to address this issue.

268. As noted above, DoC raised concerns with respect to the potential effects on marine mammals and

seabirds and proposed additional mitigation measures for inclusion in any consent.

269. OMV’s response to those concerns was that given the unlikelihood of the presence of marine

mammals in the vicinity of the MODU, and the temporary nature of the noise and vibration from the

drilling activities, the effects will be less than minor, and that there are controls in place under other

MMRs that address a number of the matters which DoC requested be provided for in the conditions.

We agree that is the case and do not consider that any of the additional mitigation measures need to

be specifically provided for in these consents.

270. Regarding impacts on seabirds, as with marine mammals, we find that given the short-term nature of

the activities and the proposed mitigation measures, any effects will be less than minor. However,

and for the sake of caution, we have included a number of mitigation measures in the conditions,

where they do not duplicate controls in place under other MMRs, that address some of the concerns

raised by DoC.

271. Regarding the potential impacts of discharges, we accept the conclusions and risk assessment of

the environmental effects as being less than minor or negligible. However, we note that these

conclusions were reached on the basis of the 19 substances identified in the ERA Discharges Report

and at the volumes and concentrations identified in that report. Therefore, in order for us to be

confident that the actual effects will be consistent with those assessed, we have restricted OMV to

those particular substances identified in the IA (and subsequently the ERA Discharges Report) at the

maximum volume / concentrations and mass as identified in the ERA Discharges Report. We have

imposed conditions accordingly to provide for this. We acknowledge that OMV wished to have a

degree of flexibility with respect to this matter, by having the ability to substitute like substances.



However, in the circumstance we do not consider that appropriate for the above reason and we are

not persuaded that the process for varying a condition of consent for a non-notified activity poses

any material impediment to OMV and will allow for a proper evaluation of alternative substances.

272. Regarding cumulative effects on the benthic environments, we find that sufficient mitigation

measures can be imposed to ensure that any such material effects are avoided. These include:

a) The provision of a minimum 3km separation distance between adjacent well sites; and

b) The cumulative ‘no greater than 5% of any observed sensitive environment’ trigger level for

deposition effects.

273. These have been formalised through the marine consent conditions.

274. Overall, we find that the risks on the biological environment associated with activities for which

marine consent is sought, including cumulative effects, are, at worst, ‘low’. The scale of adverse

effects on various elements of the biological environment are, at worst ‘minor’ and for many of the

elements the rating is ‘negligible’. Adverse effects are generally localised, will occur for a relatively

short duration, and recovery of benthic environments directly and indirectly affected will begin once

the drilling activities and the associated deposition cease at each well site.

275. Where necessary, we have provided further discussion on the marine consent and marine discharge

consent conditions as they relate to the biological environment in Section 15 below.

10. Existing Interests

10.1 Introduction

276. Section 4 of the EEZ Act defines ‘existing interest’ as being the interest a person has in:

(a) any lawfully established existing activity, whether or not authorised by or under any Act or

regulations, including rights of access, navigation, and fishing:

(b) any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing marine consent granted

under section 62:

(c) any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing resource consent granted

under the Resource Management Act 1991:

(d) the settlement of a historical claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975:

(e) the settlement of a contemporary claim under the Treaty of Waitangi as provided for in an Act,

including the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992:

(f) a protected customary right or customary marine title recognised under the Marine and Coastal

Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.


277. Section 5.1 of the IA outlined those persons and organisations considered to have existing interests

in relation to the planned activities for which marine consent and marine discharge consent is

sought.

278. In terms of clause (a) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest, the IA identified the following

existing interests:

a) Commercial fishers who hold quota and use the area as part of their fishing activity; and

b) Maritime traffic (shipping).

279. Regarding maritime traffic (which includes commercial shipping), there are no dedicated shipping

channels into or out of ports in New Zealand. As a result, vessels travelling in the waters around New

Zealand (including the AOI) generally take the most direct or shortest route possible, provided it is

safe to do so. Given the transient and temporary nature of maritime traffic, and a ship’s ability to

move to avoid conflicting activities, maritime traffic and commercial shipping is not considered to

have an existing interest affected by the activities associated with the EAD programme.

280. There are no current marine consent (including marine discharge consent) applications within or in

proximity to the AOI. As such, there are no marine consent holders who are considered to have

existing interests affected by this application in respect of clause (b) of the EEZ Act definition of

existing interest.

281. As the AOI is approximately 24 km offshore from the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) boundary at its

closest point, there are no existing resource consent holders who are considered to have existing

interests affected by the application in respect of clause (c) of the EEZ Act definition of existing

interest.

282. There are a number of statutory acknowledgement areas that have been established through the

settlement of historical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The IA states that there are

two coastal marine area Statutory Acknowledgements of potential relevance to the application.

These areas are identified within the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (NTCSA) as Te Tai o

Arai Te Uru (Otago CMA) and Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa (Rakiura/Foveaux Strait CMA).

283. In terms of clause (e) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest, the IA recognised that iwi hold

customary fishing rights under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 which

stem from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act 1992 and the Ngāi Tahu Claims

Settlement Act 1998.

284. The IA states that there are a number of mātaitai reserves and one taiāpure along the coastline

inshore of the AOI. The nearest of these areas is over 46 km from the inshore boundary of the AOI.

285. The AOI is located within Ngai Tahu Rohe Moana. The IA states that OMV has been engaging with

the Papatipu Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu and will continue to do so throughout the EAD Programme.



286. Further, under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 recognised iwi were allocated fishery assets such as

fishing quota and shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Limited which is managed and overseen by Te Ohu

Kaimoana (the Māori Fisheries Commission). Because Te Ohu Kaimoana oversees quota holders

within the AOI, OMV has treated them as a potentially affected existing interest.

287. Ngāi Tahu Seafood manages its own fisheries assets as well as the fisheries settlement assets

owned by Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Settlement Limited. Ngāi Tahu Seafood is also considered a

potentially affected existing interest.

288. The IA stated that, under part (f) of the definition of existing interest, any protected customary right or

customary marine title recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

(MACAA) is an existing interest. Table 46 of the IA identifies the range of applications under the

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 that are located within the broad vicinity of the

AOI but are yet to be determined. The one exception is the Customary Marine Title granted in 2016

to Rakiura Māori and relates to the remote islands of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka that are sited

216 km from the AOI at its closest point.

289. In summary, the IA states that based on the definition of existing interests in section 4 of the EEZ

Act, those parties that have existing interests that could potentially be affected by this application are

the Deepwater Group, Te Ohu Kaimoana, Ngāi Tahu Seafoods and the associated quota holders.

290. Sections 5.2 (Existing Interests) and 5.3 (Papatipu Rūnanga and Stakeholder Groups) of the IA

provide a summary of the engagement undertaken by OMV prior to lodgement of the applications,

and records OMV’s commitment to undertake effective engagement as part of its operational and

exploration activities. OMV provided further details of the engagement with stakeholders, including

those parties with existing interests, as part of its further information response #239.

291. OMV has assessed the effects on the identified existing interests and cultural values using the same

ERA approach that it used for the biological environment (i.e. based on consequence and likelihood

of an effect occurring). These assessments were presented in Section 7.5 of the IA.

292. The following sections present the effects on persons with existing interests. Because Māori have

existing interests across a number of the categories, we have included a separate section on ‘Māori

Existing Interests’, and which includes effects on cultural values.

10.2 Effects on Existing Interests

10.2.1 Introduction

293. Section 7.5 of the IA states that, regarding planned events, during the period for which the MODU is

in New Zealand waters, a 500m Non‐Interference Zone will be in place which will restrict the

passage of unauthorised vessels within 500m of the MODU. This will be provided for through the

Maritime Transport Act 1994.

39 OMV GSB Ltd – Further Information Request #2 – EEZ200009, dated 3 October 2019


294. Considering the distance offshore of the AOI and the temporary nature of the drilling activity at each

well site, the existing interests that are most likely to be affected by the implementation of the 500m

Non‐Interference Zone around the MODU are commercial fishing activities, as they are the main

users of the offshore environment within the AOI.

295. While the IA does not formally recognise iwi as having existing interests affected by the proposal, the

IA provides consideration of potential impacts of planned activities on cultural values.

296. We also note that Section 7.5.3 of the IA provides a list of measures set out to “avoid, remedy, or

mitigate adverse effects associated on existing interests and other interests, including cultural

interests …”. Where relevant, we have discussed these measures below.

10.2.2 Commercial fishers

297. The IA states that commercial fishers who hold quota and use the area as part of their fishing activity

have an existing interest in the application, and although a variety of species were targeted during

this assessment period, the primary commercial fishery in the vicinity of the AOI are various species

of oreo, which include black oreo, spiky oreo, warty oreo and smooth oreo, largely due to the water

depths in the AOI.

298. Fisheries New Zealand confirmed40 that it was comfortable with OMV’s assertion that the primary

commercial fishery in the vicinity of the AOI is the oreo trawl fishery, and also confirmed that the

water depth at the first proposed drill site is beyond the depths at which the oreo fishery takes place.

299. The MODU (including any additional MODU used) would have a 500m Non-interference Zone in

place once operating in New Zealand waters, which would restrict the passage of vessels within a

500m radius of the MODU. This would have the biggest impact on commercial fishing operations.

However, this exclusion zone will be temporary in nature while the MODU is stationary within the

AOI, with an expected timeframe of approximately 90 days for the first exploration well (Tāwhaki‐1)

in a successful case. This small area of exclusion (< 1 km2) is considered to be negligible in

comparison to the wider GSB area in which commercial fishers can operate. Therefore, the presence

of the MODU is unlikely to impact commercial fishers’ ability to catch their quota.

300. Regarding the discharge activities, any potential effects will be highly localised as the zone of

influence from these discharges on pelagic species (such as the target species of commercial

fishers) is within the 200m mixing zone of the discharge point. An exception to this is the zone of

influence on benthic communities from the release of drill cuttings and the associated discharge of

drilling fluids; however, this will not affect commercial fishing interests as the discharge of harmful

substances will not directly affect the relevant deepwater fishery.

40 Email - MPI Fisheries - Request for advice under section 56 of the EEZ Act for the OMV GSB Limited marine consent and

marine discharge consent applications - dated 16 October 2019.



301. The IA also identified other measures to minimise any adverse effects on commercial fishing

including:

a) That the New Zealand Nautical Almanac recommends that vessels keep at least 5 nautical

miles away from any MODU to assist in safe passage and avoid any potential collision;

b) Operational procedures will be implemented to ensure the commercial fishing industry is

kept well informed in advance of any activities taking place, and they will also be notified

when activities are complete;

c) The fortnightly distribution of the Notice to Mariners will also provide another means of

communication as to the location of the MODU and the exclusion zones in place; and

d) Once testing is completed, wells will be sealed and structures removed from the seabed

removing any risks to the equipment of bottom-trawlers.

302. Where appropriate these have been included in the consent conditions.

303. Overall, OMV assessed the risks to, and effects on, commercial fishing as ‘negligible’.

10.2.3 Māori Existing Interests

304. Under sections 59(2)(a) and (b) of the EEZ Act the DMC must take into account any effects on the

environment or existing interests of allowing the activity. The IA identified the Deepwater Group, Te

Ohu Kaimoana, Ngai Tahu Seafoods (and associated quota holders) as the parties who hold existing

interests in accordance with section 4 of the EEZ Act. This does not appear to take into account the

section 4(d) EEZ Act’s more general recognition of historical claims. For completeness we record

that Ngai Tahu (and associated Papatipu Rūnanga) hold existing interests due, amongst other

things, to the provisions of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, associated Statutory

Acknowledgements and the location of the AOI within its Rohe Moana as outlined in the IA.

305. The traditional coastal takiwā (territory) of Ngāi Tahu is from the boundary of Pari‐nui‐o‐Whiti (White

Cliffs) south of Blenheim on the east coast, and northernmost boundary at Kahurangi on the west

coast. Ngāi Tahu’s takiwā covers the entire Te Waipounamu (the South Island) coast south of these

eastern and western boundaries. The GSB is known to Māori as Te Moana Tapokopoko a Tāwhaki;

the wild and turbulent seas of Tāwhaki.

306. The coastline inshore of the AOI is of relevance to Ngāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu Whānau. Ngāi Tahu is

comprised of 18 regional Papatipu Rūnanga within Te Waipounamu that uphold mana of their people

over the land, the sea and the natural resources. These 18 Papatipu Rūnanga are represented by Te

Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.


307. Section 4.5 of the IA identifies the iwi and hapū interests and describes their rohe (area of interest)

and marine attributes of particular cultural interest including:

a) Ngāi Tahu ki Murihiku Natural Resource and Environmental Iwi Management Plan;

b) Kāi Tahu Ki Otago Natural Resource Management Plan 2005;

c) Kā Rūnaka Expectations for Oil and Gas Companies in East Otago;

d) Statutory acknowledgement areas;

e) Taonga Species;

f) Customary fishing and Iwi fisheries interests, including Ngāi Tahu Seafood;

g) Rohe moana (traditional food gathering areas);

h) Mātaitai Reserves (non-commercial fishing areas managed by tangata whenua);

i) Taiāpure (involvement of iwi in the management of commercial and non-commercial fishing

in their area); and

j) Applications that have been made under the MACAA for customary marine title and

protected customary rights.

308. We adopt the contents of Section 4.5 of the IA for the purposes of our decision and do not repeat

that material accordingly.

309. We accept that the majority of the Māori interests outlined in the IA fall into one or more of the

definitions of ‘existing interest’ under the EEZ Act. However, there are cultural, spiritual, and

metaphysical values that underpin many of these interests, including cultural values and associations

of those iwi, which do not necessarily fall directly within the statutory definition of existing interests

under the EEZ Act. These matters are addressed later in this decision report.

310. The following sections discuss the effects of the planned activities on the various interests that Māori

have in and around the AOI.

Commercial Fishing

311. Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, recognised iwi were allocated fisheries assets such as fishing

quota.

312. Ngāi Tahu Seafood is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation, the commercial

arm of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (the governing body overseeing the activities of Ngāi Tahu).

313. Ngāi Tahu Seafood manages its own fisheries assets as well as the fisheries settlement assets

owned by Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Settlement Limited. Key species managed under Ngāi Tahu Seafood

are kōura (rock lobster/crayfish), paua, rāwaru (blue cod), tio (Bluff oysters), and kūtai (greenshell

mussels) – most of which are inshore, coastal species. Fishing quota for other species is also held

by Ngāi Tahu Seafood, with the majority of seafood offered by Ngāi Tahu Seafood caught against

Ngāi Tahu quota by Ngāi Tahu fishers



314. The effects on these interests have been considered under the commercial fishers section above

and, as outlined in Section 7.5.1 of the IA, OMV has assessed the risks to, and effects on,

commercial fishing as ‘negligible’.

Customary Fishing

315. Section 4.5.6 of the IA records that kaimoana:

a) provides sustenance for tangata whenua;

b) is an important food source for whānau (family); and

c) is vital for provision of hospitality to manuhiri (guests).

316. The IA notes that traditional management of the marine environment entails a whole body of

knowledge about the sea’s natural resources, their seasonality, and the manner in which they can be

harvested.

317. The IA notes that, separate from and in addition to commercial fisheries assets provided under the

Māori Fisheries Act 2004, iwi within the South Island hold customary fishing rights under the

Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999. Under these regulations, tangata

whenua may issue permits to harvest kaimoana in a way that exceeds levels permitted in standard

practice in order to provide for hui (a gathering or meeting), tangi (funeral) or as koha (a gift,

donation or contribution). There were three types of recognised customary fishing rights: rohe

moana, mātaitai, and taiāpure.

318. Rohe moana may be established under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations

1998 as recognised traditional food gathering areas for which kaitiaki (customary managers) can be

appointed to manage kaimoana collection in accordance with traditional Māori principles. These

regulations stem from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and allow for

the establishment of management controls, the issuing of permits for customary take, the

enforcement of penalties for management breaches, and for restrictions to be established over

fisheries areas in order to prevent stock depletion or over-exploitation. Ngāi Tahu and Murihiku

Rūnanga have rohe moana which extend around the southern part of the South Island and includes

the AOI.

319. Mātaitai reserves, which can be declared under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing)

Regulations 1998, are areas where tangata whenua manage all non-commercial fishing through the

establishment of bylaws. Such areas recognise traditional fishing grounds and are established in

order to provide for customary practices and food gathering. There are 13 gazetted mātaitai reserves

of relevance to the AOI.

320. The Taiāpure mechanism was created under the Māori Fisheries Act 1989. A Taiāpure can be

established in an area that has customarily been of significance to an iwi or hapū as either a food

source or for cultural or spiritual reasons. A Taiāpure allows Tangata Whenua to be involved in the

management of both commercial and non‐commercial fishing in their area but does not stop all

fishing. The East Otago Taiāpure is the only Taiāpure of relevance to the AOI.


321. The IA notes that customary fishing rights are in addition to recreational fishing rights and do not

remove the right of Māori to catch their recreational limits under the Fisheries Amateur Fishing

Regulations 2013.

Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

322. Iwi, hapū, or whānau groups may be granted recognition of two types of customary interest under the

MACAA:

a) Customary marine title; and

b) Protected customary rights.

323. The IA states that customary marine title recognises the relationship of an iwi, hapū, or whānau with

a part of the common marine and coastal area, and that protected customary rights may be granted

to allow for customary activities such as the collection of hāngi stones or launching of waka.

324. Table 46 of the IA lists the applications that have been lodged under the MACAA in the vicinity of the

AOI. Of those listed in Table 46, only the Rakiura Māori application for customary interests in the

islands of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka is recognised as this application for Customary Marine Title

was granted on 22nd December 2016. We note that this area is approximately 216 kms south-west

from the AOI and beyond the extent of the physical effects of the activities associated with the EAD

programme.

Cultural Values

325. There are cultural, spiritual, and metaphysical values that underpin many of the Māori interests

discussed in the previous sections. Further, other iwi and hapū who do not fit into the definition of

‘existing interest’ under the EEZ Act may hold such values within the broader coastal environment.

326. Section 5.3 of the IA details the consultation which has occurred with iwi, being Papatipu Rūnanga,

prior to the application being lodged. This consultation had highlighted that the marine and coastal

environment is highly valued by all Māori communities and has an important role in historic and

present-day culture. Additionally, some groups wanted to be more informed about the activities

within the PEP area and the application. OMV noted that it had facilitated this through additional

meetings and the provision of draft copies of the application prior to lodgement.

327. OMV also noted its commitment to continue consultation with iwi who are considered to be adversely

affected by the EAD programme.

328. The DMC requested further information (Further Information Request #2, dated 27 September 2019)

from OMV, including copies of the cultural assessments and other culturally specific assessment

documents referred to in the IA, and additional detail on the consultation process following

lodgement, including any comments received on the proposal and the draft conditions.

329. OMV’s response41 stated that given the confidential manner in which the cultural impact

assessments and other cultural assessments were provided to OMV, along with the records of any

41 OMV’s Further Information Request #2 – EEZ200009, dated 3 October 2019



meetings with iwi groups, it was unable to provide these documents to the DMC. Instead OMV

proposed that the EPA request copies directly from iwi if necessary. The DMC acknowledged the

position of OMV and referred the matter to NKTT for comment.

330. Given the regulatory framework, and the commitment to continue on-going and meaningful

consultation through the EAD programme, OMV considered that conditions in addition to those

proffered requiring on-going consultation were neither necessary nor appropriate. We note that this

approach is consistent with that authorised under OMV’s Taranaki EAD programme Marine Consent

(EEZ200010). However, that consent did include a specific Kaitiaki Forum condition, which

formalised the on-going cultural engagement process.

331. Section 7.5.2 of the IA states that it is through OMV’s commitment to on-going consultation that iwi

and Papatipu Rūnanga will remain informed with regards to the EAD programme and have the

opportunity to influence operations.

332. As part of its further information response42, OMV further detailed the consultation undertaken to

date, which included numerous meetings and workshops (targeted at the collective stakeholder

group and also individuals and other groups), the provision of opportunities for feedback on the

proposed activities, its proffered conditions, and also its commitment to on-going engagement with

Ngāi Tahu entities.

333. The NKTT Report does not provide any commentary on the adequacy of consultation with Māori / iwi

but does acknowledge the approach of OMV in developing relationships with Maori / iwi through

engagement and information sharing as a means to address cultural values. However, the report

states43 that although there was a register of consultation with iwi representatives and Te Ohu

Kaimoana, as well as fisheries representatives, as presented in the further information response

dated 3 October 2019, there was no evidence (by letter or updated cultural impact assessment

report prepared by iwi and/or Papatipu Rūnanga) in the IA, or further information response package,

outlining support or acknowledgement that consultation/engagement between parties was

progressing to address effects and impacts on Māori/iwi values, interests and rights.

334. Further, following a review of the IA and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submissions on OMV’s PEP

licenses, the author of the NKTT Report considered44 that OMV had not appropriately framed or

outlined the Māori/iwi worldview in its application, therefore the IA does not contextualise the cultural

environment in the AOI and marine/moana sufficiently. This, the report concludes, results in an

inadequate consideration of cultural values and interest and the effects of the EAD programme

thereon.

335. The NKTT Report states that although the IA acknowledges customary non-commercial fisheries, it

compartmentalises the Māori worldview and its authority/existing interests into defined areas

42 OMV GSB Ltd, Response to Further Information Request #2 – EEZ200009, dated 3 October 2019. 43 Nga Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Report – EEZ200009, paragraph 3.12. 44 Ibid, paragraph 3.7.


(Taiāpure, Mātaitai, etc.), when in fact the cultural context extends wider into the marine

environment.

336. The NKTT Report further contends that the exercise of kaitiakitanga is a (culturally) lawfully

established existing activities, whether or not authorised by or under any Act or regulations. The

report also references recent case law under the RMA, which the author considered relevant to the

OMV application as that decision accepted kaitiakitanga as being an existing interest.

337. The NKTT Report concludes that, in recognising kaitiakitanga as an existing interest, the effects on

this existing interest can be appropriately managed, but identified that currently the measures to

avoid, remedy or mitigate do not consider or provide for the wider, holistic, and integrated

environmental and cultural perspective of Māori/iwi, and the matters described in iwi management

plans, iwi documents and in Treaty settlement legislation and documents. Despite that, the report

proposed amendments to conditions for inclusion as follows:

a) OMV’s Proffered Condition 13 – that the condition be expanded to include existing interests

of kaitiakitanga (as a lawfully established activity, whether or not authorised by or under any

Act or regulations) and non-commercial Māori fisheries interests; or

b) OMV’s Proffered Condition 14 – that if the DMC does not agree with the NKTT Report

regarding kaitiakitanga and non-commercial Māori fisheries interests, the following parties

are recommended to be specified in Condition 14, to be invited to participate in the Forum:

i. Ngāi Tahu;

ii. Te Rūnanga o Awarua;

iii. Te Rūnanga o Otākou;

iv. Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki; and

v. Te Rūnanga o Moeraki.

338. The NKTT Report recommended45 that any consent for the EAD programme should include a

condition requiring OMV to commission the preparation of a Cultural Values / Impact Assessment

Report in order to clearly understand the cultural environment and the role and responsibilities of iwi

and Papatipu Rūnanga as kaitiaki.

339. In response46 to the NKTT Report, OMV placed on record its disappointment with the content and

recommendations as it considered the report was based on an incomplete understanding of OMV’s

processes and engagement with tangata whenua and related entities on these applications, and in

many places was at odds with what actually occurred.

45 Nga Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Report – EEZ200009, paragraph 3.33. 46 OMV GSB Ltd - Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent Application for GSB EAD Programme (EEZ200009):

Review of Draft Conditions dated 27 November 2019.



340. Regarding cultural matters and the engagement process, OMV reiterated that:

a) It engaged widely and extensively with Ngāi Tahu and other iwi interests (including Ngāi

Tahu fisheries and Te Ohu Kaimoana) and included many face-to-face meetings with Ngāi

Tahu senior leadership representatives, Aukaha, Te Ao Marama, Otakou oil and gas

committee members as well as numerous separate meetings with iwi and rūnaka

representatives on the Papatipu Rūnanga marae throughout Otago and Southland;

b) Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) were commissioned at two key stages of GSB

exploration, the first during planning for 3D seismic surveying, and the second during the

early stages of drilling planning which resulted in the production of four CIAs which have

been the foundation for OMV’s relationship with iwi and will guide future engagement;

c) The CIAs and cultural reports prepared by Ngāi Tahu (which were provided to OMV on a

confidential basis) were utilised and directed the matters of cultural and environmental

significance to Ngāi Tahu in the marine consent (and discharge) application;

d) OMV considered Ngāi Tahu to have significant and established existing interests, and

therefore the intent as part of the engagement process was to ensure Ngāi Tahu could

maintain its traditional rights of kaitiakitanga as part of OMV’s application. This included

engagement in many forms and also provision for review and comment on the draft

application; and

e) Regular meetings and communications had occurred, and OMV places great value on the

open lines of communication that have been established with Aukaha and Te Ao Marama as

the conduit to Papatipu Rūnanga.

341. Regarding the specific comments in the NKTT Report, OMV provided a number of responses to key

criticisms in the report as follows:

a) OMV disputed the validity of the conclusion that the OMV application did not appropriately

frame or outline the Māori/iwi worldview, or contextualise the cultural environment in the area

of interest and marine/moana very well;

b) OMV noted that it did not appear that the NKTT representatives or the report’s author

actually met with or discussed OMV’s engagement process with Ngāi Tahu, as the NKTT

statements seemed at odds with the engagement that occurred and the specific CIAs which

were expressly relied upon by OMV in its applications and impacts assessments;

c) OMV consider that it had engaged comprehensively, in good faith, and over and above the

EEZ legislative requirement for engagement with existing interests;

d) Regarding the lack of support for the application, OMV noted that it specifically does not

request or ask for stakeholder support or acknowledgement that consultation/engagement

between parties is progressing, and no adverse inference should be drawn from the absence

of such information;


e) OMV acknowledges the concepts of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga and these accordingly

formed an important part of the Ngāi Tahu CIAs and OMV applications; and

f) Overall, the general and abstract statements and critiques in the NKTT Report are neither

relevant to OMV’s application nor representative of the views of the people that OMV

engaged with. OMV considered such to express views about what Ngāi Tahu should have

said, rather than what they actually said, and should therefore be disregarded by the DMC.

342. Regarding the NKTT comments on conditions, OMV stated it disagreed with the recommended

additions to proffered Condition 13 of the marine consent conditions but accepted the

recommendations to specify parties to be invited to the Forum. OMV also noted that the proffered

consent conditions in OMV’s application were sent to Ngāi Tahu for comment prior to the final

application being lodged.

343. We discuss our findings and these matters below and provide additional comments on the suggested

conditions in Section 15 of this decision.

10.3 Cumulative Effects

344. With respect to cumulative effects on existing interests, the commentary in the previous sections on

the effects of the EAD Programme apply here and the conclusions on the level of effects apply

similarly.

345. Regarding the cumulative effects of the activities occurring in the AOI and the wider area of existing

interests, Section 7.8.2 of the IA provides an assessment of these effects, which are limited to effects

from other maritime traffic (including their discharges, noise and vibration, and vessel movement),

and the fishing activities and the effects on human health. The overall findings of the IA on

cumulative effects for these matters is that they are negligible.

346. Neither OMV nor the NKTT Report identified any potential for cumulative effects on cultural values.

10.4 Findings on Effects on Existing Interests

347. Under section 59(2) of the EEZ Act we must take into account any effects on existing interests of

allowing the activity. Our findings on such follow.

10.4.1 Commercial Fishing

348. With regard to the effects on commercial fishing interests, we note that Fisheries New Zealand47

agreed with OMV’s assessment that the effects on commercial fishing interests will be negligible and

no measures beyond those already required (e.g. the temporary non-interference zone) are

necessary.

47 Email - MPI Fisheries - Request for advice under section 56 of the EEZ Act for the OMV GSB Limited marine consent and

marine discharge consent applications - dated 16 October 2019.



349. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the IA and in Section 10.2.1 of this decision, we find that the

risks of the planned activities on commercial fishing, including any cumulative effects, to be

‘negligible’.

10.4.2 Māori Existing Interests

350. With respect to effects on Māori existing interests we note that, where relevant, that can include

cultural, spiritual, and metaphysical values in such interests and information about the values that

Māori hold in the natural environment, such as values in taonga species or in the mauri of land,

water, or other elements of environment.

351. Furthermore, while consultation by an applicant is not ‘required’ under the EEZ Act – that is,

consultation is not mandatory - in order to identify persons with existing interests and to identify how

the proposed activities will affect those interests will require, in most cases, consultation to occur.

352. We note that the NKTT Report was critical of OMV’s consultation and engagement process and the

process used to outline the Māori world view, and also identified shortcomings in the process used

by OMV to identify and understand the cultural environment and the values and interests of Māori.

353. In the IA and subsequent information responses, OMV outlined the consultation it has undertaken

with various parties, many of which are existing interests. We note that OMV has stated that it has

also consulted with Ngāi Tahu and its iwi / hapu entities in respect to effects on cultural values, and

this consultation has been with wider iwi who may not strictly have existing interests as defined in

section 4 in the EEZ Act.

354. We further note that OMV confirmed that the four CIAs and all of the cultural reports prepared by

Ngāi Tahu relating to environmental and cultural matters (under a confidentiality agreement) were

primary tools used for informing the IA and the proffered conditions.

355. We find that the engagement process undertaken by OMV was sufficiently extensive and inclusive of

those parties with a recognised existing interest as defined under the EEZ Act (and further afield).

We also note that OMV has confirmed its commitment to undertake ongoing consultation with Ngāi

Tahu and other parties and has proffered an engagement condition to formalise this process. The

condition (proffered condition 14) specifically relates to iwi and requires OMV to set up a Forum, and

OMV has advised that it accepts the recommendation from the NKTT Report to specify the parties to

be invited to participate.

356. We note that the NKTT Report provided commentary on the need to recognise kaitiakitanga as an

existing interest and provided a reference to a recent RMA case. While OMV challenged the legal

relevance of that case, we note that OMV has acknowledged the concepts of rangatiratanga and

kaitiakitanga and advised that these have formed an important part of the Ngāi Tahu CIAs and, in

turn, informed the application. We accept that kaitiakitanga has been incorporated into the cultural

values and interests considerations. Furthermore, we agree with OMV that not seeking explicit

concurrence from consulted parties is not to be read as evidence of non-support – and there is no

statutory requirement to provide the same.


357. Taking into account the comments in the NKTT Report and OMV’s position as outlined in the IA and

subsequent information responses, we are satisfied that we have the best available information in

respect of cultural effects - mindful of the non-notified activity status for activities for which marine

consent and marine discharge consent is being sought. We also note that our duty to obtain the best

available information is not an open-ended requirement, rather we need to be mindful of issues of

time, cost, and effort in obtaining information – the “best available” is not the same as all possible

information.

358. Having considered all the relevant matters related to existing interests and the impact of the

associated activities of the EAD programme on these, we find that we are able make our decision

based on the best available information on cultural effects and the impacts of the EAD programme

on these, having taken into account:

a) the nature of the activity before the DMC in terms of its extent, location and duration;

b) the low sensitivity of the receiving environment as confirmed by expert advice, including in

terms of existing interests; and

c) the risk of significant adverse effects occurring from those planned events that require

consent and are part of the application.

359. We find it appropriate that OMV continues to engage with those iwi having existing interests, and

note that OMV’s proffered conditions (now Condition 37 of the marine consent) includes a

commitment to at least quarterly meetings with representative from each of the “Iwi and Papatipu

Rūnanga” listed in Section 5.3.1 of the IA.

360. Overall, we find that any effects on Māori existing interests have been appropriately taken into

account and, where relevant, we provide further discussion on the marine consent and marine

discharge consent conditions as they relate to existing interests in Section 15 below, including our

reasons for not accepting two conditions proposed by NKTT.

11. Effects on Human Health of Discharges of Harmful Substances

361. Section 59(2A)(b) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the effects on human health of the

discharge of harmful substances. The key potential effects on human health related to the

application are:

a) Direct exposure to the discharge; and

b) Consumption of fish that have been exposed and contaminated by the discharge.



11.1 Direct Exposure

362. The potential for direct exposure of the discharge to humans is remote given the distance of the

operations offshore, with the closest practicable well site (as we understand) some 46 km from

shore. Additionally, when considering the low concentrations of any harmful substance discharged

and the rapid dissipation and dilution of any such discharge, the potential for any discharged harmful

substance to reach the shoreline at a concentration that could impact human health is extremely

remote.

363. In terms of direct exposure within the AOI, a 500m Non-Interference Zone will be imposed by way of

a Notice to Mariners, which requires other users to remain outside of this area – and is well beyond

the 200m mixing zone for any discharge. The IA and OMV’s evidence confirm that this zone will be

applied to any MODU(s) used for the EAD programme. Therefore, this will prevent any human

contact within 500m of any discharge.

364. The health of workers on-board is subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act

2015, which is administered by WorkSafe. Therefore, we have not considered related matters

further.

11.2 Consumption of contaminated fish

365. The main commercial fish species in the AOI is oreo, which is mobile and migratory. If any fish

enters the 200m mixing zone during a discharge from the MODU, it would only experience brief and

low-level exposure, because of the low concentrations of any discharge entering the marine

environment and the rapid dissipation and dilution that will occur.

366. Furthermore, no commercial fishing can take place near the MODU(s) within the 500m Non-

Interference Zone. Additionally, commercial fishers will also be expected to observe the 5 nautical

mile ‘best practice’ avoidance zone for offshore installations identified under the New Zealand

Nautical Almanac.

367. Overall, we find that the potential adverse effects on human health arising from the discharge of

harmful substances from the EAD programme to be negligible.


12. Unplanned Events

12.1 Introduction

368. The IA identifies a number of unplanned events that could potentially occur, namely:

a) Oil spill from loss of well control;

b) Fuel spill from refuelling operations

c) Vessel collision;

d) Biosecurity incursions; and

e) Dropped objects.

369. While these are not activities OMV seeks consent for, an assessment of the potential impacts of

unplanned activities is included out of the abundance of caution because, while they have a very low

probability of occurring, some of them would have high potential impacts if they eventuate.

12.2 Environmental Risks

370. Section 7.9 of the IA presents an assessment of the environmental risks of unplanned events using a

different ERA than was used for planned events (i.e. the approach used for unplanned activities is for

the likelihood of the activity occurring, rather than the likelihood of an effect occurring).

371. OMV concludes that the use of a zone of influence and a zone of reasonable mixing in the ERA

process for planned activities is not appropriate for the assessment of unplanned activities. OMV

therefore proposes to implement a number of control measures and operational procedures to

reduce the potential for any such unplanned activities to occur to As Low As Reasonably Practicable

(ALARP).

372. We accept that is standard industry best practice and adopt that approach and the above

assessment for the purposes of this decision.

373. Of all the unplanned events, an uncontrolled oil spill from a well blowout or loss of well control poses

the greatest risk. In the event of a significant hydrocarbon spill, coastal ecosystems, marine

mammals and seabirds are most at risk; however, benthic ecosystems and cultural and socio‐

economic values are also vulnerable.

374. OMV has assessed the environmental risk and magnitude of environmental impacts based on the

likelihood of such an event happening as being either ‘rare’ or ‘remote, but with the consequence as

being either ‘low’, ‘minor’, ‘moderate’, ‘severe’ or ‘catastrophic’ – depending on its scale of affect (i.e.

geographical area and receptors affected.) The overall environmental risk of adverse effects

occurring and the significance of that effect (e.g. species level) has been assessed as follows:

a) Marine mammals - moderate, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact being

minor.



b) Seabirds - moderate, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact being minor.

c) Fish - low, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact being less than minor.

d) Plankton and Primary Producers - low, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact

being less than minor.

e) Benthic Environs - low, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact being less

than minor.

f) Existing Fisheries Interests - low, with the predicted magnitude of environmental impact

being less than minor.

375. The IA notes that spills from exploration and appraisal activities are rare in New Zealand’s petroleum

exploration history and that, to its knowledge, there have been no loss of well control events resulting

in significant volumes of oil being spilled to the sea in the history of oil and gas exploration in New

Zealand. Records show that over 200 wells have been drilled offshore in New Zealand, with no loss

of well control incidents resulting in the release of oil to the sea from any of these wells.

376. OMV modelled an oil spill trajectory for the Tāwhaki‐1 site, the outputs and findings of which are

summarised in Sections 7.9.1.1.1 of the IA and not repeated here. We acknowledge that the effects

of such an event would be significant however, we accept that the likelihood of occurrence and the

controls in place are appropriate to address this matter.

377. Section 7.9.1.3 of the IA presents information on the measures OMV proposes to implement and

comply with in order to reduce the likelihood of a well blow-out or loss of well control. The key

mitigation measures include:

a) All operations will be undertaken in accordance with Good Oilfield Practice;

b) Most drilling operations are expected to occur during summer months, when metocean

conditions are at their most favourable, resulting in the MODU being on location for the

shortest practical time;

c) A vessel-specific Safety Case will be prepared by the MODU operator and submitted to

WorkSafe for approval prior to the commencement of operations of the MODU;

d) Prior to the drilling of each well associated with the EAD Programme, OMV will commission

hydrocarbon spill modelling at any well which has not already been modelled, in order to

predict potential dispersal and beaching associated with an accidental oil spill;

e) An approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) and a Well Control Contingency Plan

(WCCP) will be in place before the commencement of drilling operations as required by the

Maritime Protection Rules Part 131;

f) An Emergency Spill Response Plan (ESRP) will be in place before the commencement of

drilling operations as required by regulation 24 of the D&D Regulations;


g) OMV New Zealand Limited owns and operates spill recovery equipment and associated

trained offshore support vessels with storage facilities for oil recovery in the Taranaki

offshore area that can be mobilised to the GSB and deployed in the event of a spill;

h) Well barrier schematics defining primary and secondary barriers and their verifications will

be established for each section of the drilling operation;

i) The drilling fluid, casing and cement forms an integral part of the barrier system;

j) A pressure-tested BOP attached to the subsea wellhead system will be used to shut in the

well in case of any loss of well control situation;

k) OMV has a global contract with Oil Spill Response Limited to assist in the response to a

large spill. In addition, OMV also has a global contract with Wild Well Control Incorporated

for the provision of specialist well control and source control personnel and equipment. In the

unlikely event of a large spill or loss of well control event, both companies are on standby for

mobilisation to New Zealand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year;

l) A relief well location will be surveyed as part of the site survey, and a shallow hazard drilling

analysis will also be completed for each relief well location; and

m) All vessels (including the MODU) involved in the EAD Programme will have an approved and

certified Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan and an International Oil Pollution

Prevention Certificate (as per the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

from Ships (MARPOL) requirements and Marine Protection Rules Part 130A and 123A).

378. The DMC requested (on the recommendation of OGS48) further information from OMV on a number

of related matters including:

a) Whether any MODU repairs or modifications are subject to a Management of Change (MoC)

review;

b) Whether the COSL Prospector has been subject to any ballast control issues;

c) Whether a Cement Bond Log will be provided for cement work;

d) Whether proposed transfer of SBM protocols are the same as those for fuel; and

e) The response timeframes for oil spill equipment from Taranaki and whether the spill

modelling considered the response time.

379. In its response OMV advised49 that:

a) All modifications, other than a like-for-like change, will be subject to MoC and approval by

the relevant Classification Society as required;

48 Request #3 for further information from OMV GSB Limited (OMV) - 2 October 2019FIR point #4 – Clarification of operational

risks. 49 Further Information Request #3 – EEZ200009, 11 October 2019 – Response to Point 4.



b) COSL Prospector MODU is currently progressing a modification to the Ballast Water

Treatment System to comply with the D2 standard of the IMO Ballast Water Management

Convention. This will be subject to MoC and approval;

c) A cement verification log would be carried out if heavy losses are experienced or any other

operational issues occur;

d) Weather practices for fuel transfer from a support vessel to the MODU will apply to the

transfer of mud. In the unlikely event that OMV needs to use SBM, commencement of

transfer would be during daylight hours only. However, commencement of transfer during

daylight hours only is not planned for WBM. In the event that bad weather and losses

occurred concurrently, OMV would need to be able to transfer mud at the first available

opportunity, even if this is in the hours of darkness; and

e) OMV has committed to having on-water response capability at the well site in the GSB in the

OSCP. The 21-day timeframe for the spill as modelled is based on the Ranold probabilistic

analysis which utilises expected timing of local and global resources to respond to a spill.

380. The EPA’s external expert on oil and gas operational activities (Mr Broomhead from OGS) noted that

OMV was committed to following industry best practice by adopting the ‘Environmental Best Practice

Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry’ produced jointly by the Ministry for the Environment

and MNZ.

381. WorkSafe confirmed in its response to our request under section 5650 that OMV is required to submit

to WorkSafe a written safety case for the MODU that addresses the requirements of Schedule 5 of

the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016. The MODU

can only operate with an accepted and approved safety case. WorkSafe advise that the COSL

Prospector already has an approved safety case.

382. Following OMV’s responses to the further information requests, Mr Broomhead confirmed51 that the

responses provided by OMV were acceptable and no further action was required. We therefore

accept that there are no residual risks that cannot be mitigated through the measures proposed by

OMV to manage the activities and associated hazards of the EAD Programme.

383. OMV assessed the environmental risk of the other unplanned events as being negligible or low, with

the predicted magnitude of environmental impact being negligible or less than minor.

12.3 Findings on Unplanned Events

384. The potential effects of an oil spill from loss of well control has the greatest potential to cause

adverse effects on the environment and existing interests.

50 Worksafe New Zealand - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 regarding the OMV GSB Limited Application – EEZ200009, 7 October 2019. 51 Oil and Gas Services Ltd, Review of Evidence Statements against Questions Raised in Assessment Report. Application Ref

No.: EEZ200009. Technical Review and Analysis of OMV Operational Activities associated with Consent Application – Great

South Basin Exploration & Appraisal Drilling. 4 November 2019.


385. We accept that the likelihood of an oil spill is rare or remote given the proposed mitigation measures,

the operational standards and procedures that will be in place, and the track record provided to us by

OMV.

386. With respect to controls under other MMRs for oil spills, MNZ confirmed in its response52 to our

section 56 of the EEZ Act request, that OMV has already provided an OSCP for the COSL

Prospector that includes a WCCP. MNZ further advised that any additional vessels involved in the

EAD programme will be subject to the MNZ’s MMRs for domestic and international vessels.

387. We also agree that while approval of the OSCP by MNZ is part of a different regulatory framework,

confirmation of acceptance should be provided to the EPA. We note that this has been formalised by

OMV as proffered Condition 10 of the marine consent conditions.

388. We are also satisfied that other requirements that OMV must comply with under other MMRs

(including the WorkSafe Safety Case, the operational procedures in place with respect to operational

weather limits and fuel transfers, and that OMV will have on-water response capability (including spill

equipment) at each well site) will minimise the risks of (and enable response to) an oil spill occurring

due to loss of well control to ALARP.

389. The information provided in the application, OMV’s further responses to additional questions, and the

proposed mitigation measures gives us confidence that the proposed activities can and will be

undertaken in accordance with industry best practice and good oilfield practices, including

compliance with industry standards.

390. Further, we are satisfied that MNZ and other agencies have the necessary plans, structures,

processes, access to equipment, and financial resources to respond to an oil spill event should one

occur.

391. Regarding biosecurity matters, as outlined in the Biosecurity New Zealand response to our request

under section 5653, the requirement for OMV to adhere to either the CRMS or the Craft Risk

Management Plan provide an effective mitigation measure against potential biosecurity incursion

risks to the ecological environment and existing interests.

392. The response also informed us that the COSL Prospector MODU has already applied for its approval

of the Craft Risk Management Plan ahead of its arrival in Taranaki (where it is currently located) and

MPI was satisfied that all the above and below water biosecurity risks were managed by this plan.

393. We are also satisfied that any international vessels or alternative MODUs used in the EAD

programme will need to comply with the CRMS or an MPI approved Craft Risk Management Plan, as

well as the international requirements on ballast water management, therefore, any potential

biosecurity risk will be reduced to ALARP level.

52 Maritime New Zealand - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) 2012 Act regarding to OMV GSB Limited Application EEZ200009,14 October 2019. 53 Biosecurity NZ - Request for advice under section 56 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) 2012 Act regarding to OMV GSB Limited Application EEZ200009, 21 October 2019.



Overall, we find that the probability of occurrence and adverse effects of unplanned events will range

from negligible to minor and that OMV will have appropriate mitigation measures in place to ensure

that the risk of and any potential impacts are ALARP.


Chapter 5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

13. Section 59 Summary and Analysis

13.1 Introduction

394. We must take into account the decision-making criteria and information principles set out in the EEZ

Act. Specifically, this requires us to apply section 59 – which sets out a decision-making framework;

section 60 – which lists matters to be considered in determining the extent of effects on existing

interests; and section 61 – which establish certain information principles. These matters are set out

in Section 4.3 of this decision.

395. We record here that, pursuant to section 59(5) of the EEZ Act, we have not had regard to:

a) trade competition or the effects of trade competition;

b) the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air; and

c) any effects on a person’s existing interest if the person has given written approval to the

proposed activity.

13.2 Section 59(2)(a) – Effects

396. Section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the adverse effects of allowing the

activity on the environment and/or existing interests. This includes cumulative effects and any effects

that may extend beyond the boundaries of the EEZ.

397. In considering “effects” we have applied the definition in section 6 of the EEZ Act and considered

potential effects of low probability but high potential impact – these include the effects of unplanned

events for which consent is neither required nor sought.

398. Chapter 4 of this decision sets out our understanding of the key potential effects of allowing the

activity on the environment and existing interests. Our principal findings on these matters are set out

in that chapter.

13.3 Section 59(2)(a)(i) – Cumulative Effects

399. Cumulative effects may arise as a result of the effects of past, current, or future intended activities

undertaken in an area. Where the effects of past activities are on-going, these will be relevant to our

assessment of cumulative effects. As such, if past activities in the application area (undertaken by

OMV or by others) have given rise to on-going effects that contribute to cumulative effects, then we

must take these into account. Where past effects are no longer experienced, they are not relevant to

the assessment.

Chapter 5. Overall Assessment


400. We find that the cumulative effects have been adequately assessed by OMV, and as further

discussed in the JSE Ecology, to the extent that we are able to consider such effects.

401. We provided our findings on cumulative effects as they relate to the biological environment, existing

interests, and human health in other sections of this decision and we do not repeat those findings

here.

13.4 Section 59(2)(b) – Other Activities

402. Section 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the effects on the environment or

existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity.

403. The other activities that occur in and around the AOI include the support activities undertaken by

OMV associated with the EAD programme, commercial shipping, and commercial and customary

fishing.

404. We have considered the effects of these activities in our deliberations on this application.

13.5 Section 59(2)(c) and 59(2A)(b) – Human Health

405. Under section 59(2)(c) we must take into account the effects on human health that may arise from

effects on the environment in relation to the application for marine consent. Under section 59(2A)(b)

we must take into account the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances if the

marine discharge consent is granted.

406. Section 7.6 of the IA assessed effects on human health and we adopt that assessment for the

purposes of our decision. That assessment concluded that the environmental risk and associated

effects on human health as a result of the EAD programme would be negligible. We agree.

407. We accept that OMV has considered risks associated with oil spills, and that procedures approved

under other regulatory regimes will adequately manage or respond to that risk.

13.6 Section 59(2)(d) – Biodiversity

408. Section 59(2)(d) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the importance of protecting the

biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes. We have considered

the potential for effects on the biological environment and we cover those matters in Section 9.1 of

this decision.

409. The evidence in front of us has not identified any effect of activities that are likely to compromise the

biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes. With respect to

sensitive environments, we have imposed conditions that will ensure no material loss (defined as 5%

cumulatively) will occur as a result of the activities associated with the EAD programme.


13.7 Section 59(2)(e) – Effects on Rare and Vulnerable Species

410. Section 59(2)(e) builds on the matters under 59(2)(d) by requiring us to specifically consider the

importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems, and the habitats of threatened species.

These two sections are therefore relevant to our consideration of potential effects on those marine

mammals and seabirds that have a threatened classification (that is they may be rare or vulnerable

species) and may be present in the AOI.

411. While some rare or vulnerable species may be present within the AOI, provided there is compliance

with the marine consent and marine discharge consent conditions, we find that the effects of

proposed activities will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

13.8 Section 59(2)(f) – Economic Benefit

412. Economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application is the focus of section 59(2)(f) of the

EEZ Act.

413. Section 6 of the IA presented an assessment of the economic benefits associated with the EAD

Programme. We adopt that assessment for the purposes of our decision.

414. For the entire EAD programme, OMV estimates that the total economic benefits to the Otago –

Southland regions could equate to an increased GDP of $185 million, employment for 2,700 FTE-

years54, and household incomes of more than $143 million. We did not consider it necessary to

subject that assessment to specific expert review. We accept the general conclusion that there will

be an economic benefit from the activity – the quantum of that benefit only becomes an issue relative

to any disbenefit that might arise from the activity. In this instance we have found that the

environmental “disbenefit” is relatively minor with the conditions and measures imposed.

415. In addition to the economic benefits of the EAD programme, there are potential future economic

benefits should the EAD programme be successful and develop over time into production activities.

13.9 Section 59(2)(g) – Natural Resources

416. Section 59(2)(g) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the efficient use and development of

natural resources. Natural resources is defined in section 4 of the EEZ Act to include, in relation to

the EEZ, the seabed, subsoil, water, air, minerals and energy, and all forms of organisms.

417. OMV advised that each of its PEP has conditions that include a number of obligations to drill at least

one well by a certain date or surrender the permit. The EAD programme would ensure that these

commitments to the New Zealand Government are met, which OMV stated is key to the continued

efficient use and development of natural resources within these permit areas. We accept OMV’s

statements on these matters.

54 An FTE-year is the number of people employed full-time multiplied by the duration of that employment. For example, 10

FTE-years could mean two people employed full-time for five years, or 20 people employed full-time for half a year.



418. We have considered the effects of the proposed activities on commercial, recreational and

customary fishing resources. We find that the effects on the efficient use and development of these

natural resources by the proposed activities for which consent is sought is negligible.

13.10 Section 59(2)(h) – Marine Management Regimes

419. Section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the nature and effect of other MMRs.

The MMRs of most relevance to our assessment are set out in Table 6.

Table 6: Relevant Marine Management Regimes

Agency Legislation Agency Responsibilities

Department of

Conservation

Conservation Act 1987

Wildlife Act 1953

Marine Mammals Protection

Act 1978

Marine Reserves Act 1971

Responsible for protected species and marine

mammals.

Responsibility for non-mammal species,

including seabirds.

Maritime New Zealand Maritime Transport Act 1994

International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea

1972

Health and Safety at Work

Act 2015

Holds a designation under the Health and Safety

at Work Act 2015 for regulating health and

safety on New Zealand flagged ships or any

ships used as workplaces. This would apply to

the MODU while it is not anchored or attached to

the seabed and also to support vessels.

Responsible for ensuring operators have

approved plans in place to manage wastes from

their activities, as well as Emergency Response

Plans if that work causes a leak or spill into the

sea.

Assists the Minister of Transport in setting

marine protection rules for managing discharges

and oil spills and maritime rules preventing the

collision of vessels at sea.

Requires operators to have an international oil

pollution prevention certificate and a shipboard

oil pollution emergency plan, as well has holding

certificates of insurance. Also requires offshore

installations to have an OSCP

The Maritime Transport Act gives effect to New

Zealand’s international obligations, including

MARPOL55 and OPRC56.

55 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/78. 56 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1990.


Agency Legislation Agency Responsibilities

Ministry for Primary

Industries

Biosecurity Act 1993

Fisheries Act 1996

Māori Fisheries Act 2004

Responsible for managing New Zealand’s

fisheries within the EEZ and its territorial waters,

which includes commercial, recreational and

Māori customary fisheries.

Responsible for biosecurity at New Zealand’s

boundaries and within the EEZ. It administers

biofouling and ballast water guidelines for

vessels entering New Zealand waters.

Ministry of Justice (Office

of Treaty Settlements)

Marine and Coastal Area

(Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Responsible for guaranteeing public access over

the marine area to the outer limits of the

territorial sea and providing for the recognition of

customary rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

WorkSafe New Zealand Health and Safety at Work

Act 2015

Responsible for performing functions relating to

health and safety in the workplace. This function

applies to offshore installations which would

include the MODU while it is fixed to the seabed.

Ministry of Business,

Innovation and

Employment

Crown Minerals Act 1991

Continental Shelf Act 1964

Responsible for issuing of minerals programmes

for the allocation of rights to prospect, explore or

mine Crown-owned mineral resources.

Makes provision as to the exploration and

exploitation of the continental shelf of New

Zealand and for matters connected with that

purpose. Permits are granted under the

CMA1991

Ministry for the

Environment, Regional

Councils, DoC

Resource Management Act

1991

The Ministry for the Environment: overview of

documents prepared under the Act, including

most National Policy Statements.

The Minister of Conservation: responsible for

developing the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement.

Regional Councils: develop Regional policy

Statements, and Regional Coastal plans for

managing activities out to the 12 nautical mile

boundary in coastal waters.

Environmental Protection

Authority

Hazardous Substances and

New Organisms Act 1996

The Health and Safety at

Work (Hazardous

Substances) Regulations

2017

The HSNO Act controls the use of chemicals

and flammable materials. This excludes those

used in the motive power of a ship, which are

subject to regulation by Maritime New Zealand.

Controls on the use and storage of chemicals in

workplaces.



420. We have taken the MMRs listed in Table 6 into account when considering activities relevant to this

application. Based on the information we received, we are satisfied that we are aware of the nature

and effect of the MMRs. As explained in Section 15 of this decision, we have imposed conditions

only where necessary and we are satisfied there will be no conflict or unnecessary duplication of

requirements with any measure required by these other MMRs.

421. We also gave consideration to how MMRs regulate existing interests (such as fisheries) and whether

that is relevant to the management of effects and the imposition of consent conditions.

13.11 Section 59(2)(i) – Best Practice

422. Section 59(2)(i) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account industry or activity best practice. We

have had regard to industry best practice.

423. Section 7.10 of the IA notes that all operations will be undertaken in accordance with Good Oilfield

Practice. Appendix M of the IA defines ‘Good Oilfield Practice’ as “the practices, methods and acts

engaged in by professional and experienced producers of oil and natural gas in established

producing regions internationally, that would be expected to accomplish the desired result in a

manner consistent with law, regulation, reliability, safety, environmental protection, economy and

expedition”.

424. The EPA’s external expert on oil and gas operational activities (Mr Broomhead from OGS)

confirmed57 that OMV is committed to following industry best practice by adopting the ‘Environmental

Best Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry’ produced jointly by the Ministry for the

Environment and Maritime New Zealand.

425. Further, OMV proposed to undertake its monitoring in accordance with OTEMP, which also

constitutes best practice.

13.12 Section 59(2)(j) – Conditions

426. Section 59(2)(j) requires us to take into account the extent to which imposing conditions under

section 63 of the EEZ Act might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity.

427. We have considered carefully the question as to whether conditions can avoid, remedy, or mitigate

the adverse effects of the proposed activities. We considered the effects outlined in the IA, the

responses of commissioned expert and reports, and the conditions proffered by OMV to address

those effects contained in Appendix I of the IA. In some instances, we have determined that

conditions should be amended or strengthened, and we have added conditions where we consider

them appropriate to address specific effects or to achieve desired outcomes. We have also deleted a

number of the proffered conditions, particularly where they relate to (and thus duplicate) obligations

under other MMRs.

57 OGS Report – ‘Technical Review and Analysis of Operational Activities associated with Consent Application – Exploration &

Appraisal Drilling’ 19 September 2019 – page 8.


428. A set of draft conditions were circulated to OMV on 15 November 2019. OMV provided comments on

those changes and these were incorporated into the final EPA Conditions Report. We have

considered those comments in setting the final conditions of consent.

429. We believe that the conditions imposed will avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects to the extent

required to achieve the EEZ Act’s purpose. We discuss specific conditions further in Section 15 of

this decision.

13.13 Section 59(2)(k) – Regulations

430. Section 59(2)(k) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account relevant regulations. Regulations are

defined in section 4 of the EEZ Act to mean regulations made under the EEZ Act (not any other Act).

431. We have taken into account the Permitted Activity Regulations. These regulations state which

activities are permitted activities for the purpose of the EEZ Act and the conditions for undertaking

those activities without a marine consent.

432. As discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, we have taken into account the Exclusive Economic Zone

and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects — Non-notified Activities) Regulations 2014 which

confirm that the section 20 activities which are the subject of this application are classified as non-

notified and are not to be publicly notified.

433. We also took into account the D&D Regulations, which confirm that the section 20B discharge

activities which are the subject of this application are classified as non-notified and are not to be

publicly notified. We also reviewed two recent decisions issued by the EPA on OMV’s application to

discharge harmful substances from deck drains of the MODU(s) (EEZ100018) and a marine

discharge consent for its exploration drilling campaign in Taranaki (EEZ300011).

13.14 Section 59(2)(l) – Other Law

434. Section 59(2)(l) of the EEZ Act requires us to take account of any other applicable law. We have

considered other MMRs as required by section 59(2)(h) and discussed these earlier in this decision.

435. We have considered the need to avoid duplicating regulations and conditions that will be imposed by

regulators under other MMRs.

436. We referred to the MACAA in some of the previous sections of this decision. It is relevant in a similar

way to the RMA. That is, the marine and coastal area subject to the MACAA directly abuts the EEZ

and the AOI.

437. There are several applications (claims) for Crown engagement in the Otago and Southland region

and we note that those claims have not yet been resolved with the exception of one, Rakiura Māori

with customary interests in the islands of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka, whose application for

Customary Marine Title was granted on 22nd December 2016. The interests of some of those parties

will be potentially affected by the effects of any unplanned events.



438. Acknowledging the above, we recognise that MACAA claims exist and have taken that into account

in our decision.

13.15 Section 59(2)(m) – Any Other Matters

439. Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act is commonly referred to as the ‘catch-all’ provision. It provides the

potential for us to consider anything that we consider relevant and reasonably necessary and which

is not otherwise covered by the other matters referenced in section 59 of the EEZ Act.

440. Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act does not provide us with unlimited scope. We cannot expand on (or

take a different approach to) a specific requirement that Parliament has chosen to confine or regulate

in a particular way. We have therefore considered section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act in the context of

the specific matters required to be taken into account by section 59(2) of the EEZ Act, and related

matters which have a bearing on our decision. Importantly, we have been careful to consider

whether a matter has been expressly addressed by another section of the EEZ Act – before being

considered under section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act – in order to avoid the risk of double counting

issues.

441. We have not identified any other matters that we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to

determine this application. For completeness we record we have considered Māori perspectives on

the cultural impacts under our assessment of section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act.

13.16 Section 59(3) – Submissions and Evidence

442. Section 59(3) of the EEZ Act requires us to have regard to any submissions made, evidence, advice,

reports and information sought and received by us.

443. In this case there were no submissions as this is a non-notified application. However, in meeting this

requirement, we have had regard to the reports, and information sought by us during the

consideration process from the EPA, and also advice sought from experts by way of section 56 of

the EEZ Act, as well further information obtained from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act.

444. All the matters put before us, and requested by us, have been considered.


14. Overall Determination and Reasons for Decision

445. Pursuant to section 10 of the EEZ Act, we have taken into account decision-making criteria in section

59, 60, and 61 of the EEZ Act and have turned our minds to whether granting or refusing consent

best achieves the purpose of the EEZ Act, as set out earlier in this decision.

446. Overall, we find that the assessment of the activity against section 59 matters was adequately set

out in the IA. In summary, we find:

a) The actual and potential adverse effects on the biological environment, including cumulative

effects, of the activities associated with OMV’s EAD programme will either be avoided,

remedied and / or mitigated through compliance with consent conditions.

b) The actual and potential adverse effects on existing interests (which are dispersed

throughout the GSB), including the potential effects on commercial and customary fishing

activities, will be negligible.

c) Any adverse effects will be confined to the immediate vicinity (including the 200m discharge

mixing zone) of each well location and any adverse effects will be temporary. The proposed

operational procedures, mitigation measures and conditions will ensure that the biological

diversity of marine species, ecosystems and processes in the GSB will be protected.

d) There will be economic benefits to New Zealand from allowing the activity. While the

quantum of those benefits necessarily remains conjectural, those clearly will be real.

447. While this application is for the activities associated with OMV’s EAD programme that require

consent under the EEZ Act, OMV is also required to comply with a number of other legislative

regimes that relate to health and safety and environmental protection.

448. Not all of those other legislative requirements are relevant to this application. However, we do note

that those additional measures and approval requirements provide further environmental protections

and will minimise the potential for adverse unplanned events to occur.

449. OMV has stated that that it will follow industry best practice and comply with ‘Good Oilfield Practice’58

in relation to undertaking the EAD Programme. The conditions of consent imposed will assist in that

regard.

450. After considering all the information in front of us and taking into account the matters listed in

sections 59, 60, and 61 of the EEZ Act, we find that, subject to the conditions of consent we have

imposed, granting the marine consent and marine discharge consent sought by OMV for its EAD

programme in the GSB meets the purpose of the EEZ Act.

58 Refer to Appendix M – Good Oilfield Practices, of the Impact Assessment.

Chapter 6. Conditions and Duration


Chapter 6. CONDITIONS AND DURATION

15. Conditions

15.1 Introduction

451. Section 62(3) of the EEZ Act (refer to Appendix 2) states that a marine consent (by definition

including a marine discharge consent) may be issued subject to conditions. The ability to impose

conditions on a marine consent is governed primarily by sections 63 to 67 of the EEZ Act.

452. While the wording of section 63(1) appears to provide the DMC with a very wide scope in terms of

conditions it may impose on marine consents, two restrictions are specified in sections 63(3) and

63(4) and which prohibit:

a) the imposition of conditions which are inconsistent with the EEZ Act or any regulations made

under the EEZ Act (section 63(3)); and

b) the imposition of a condition to deal with an effect if the condition would conflict with a

measure required in relation to the activity by another MMR, or the Health and Safety at

Work Act 2015 (section 63(4)).

453. In addition, section 64(1AA)(b) of the EEZ Act proscribes the use of an adaptive management

approach with respect to a marine discharge consent. We confirm that we have neither used such an

approach nor imposed such a condition with respect to the marine discharge consent.

454. Section 63(4) does not prevent us imposing conditions which duplicate requirements in relation to

the activity by other MMRs where such a condition deals with adverse effects of the activity

authorised by the consent on the environment or existing interests. However, we consider that the

imposition of conditions which duplicate other MMRs requirements should be avoided provided we

are satisfied that the processes and approvals under those MMRs are robust and will adequately

deal with EEZ Act-relevant environmental effects or effects on existing interests. In such situations,

requiring the EPA to provide an additional approval/certification would be both inefficient and

unnecessary. We have followed that general principle.

455. Sections 63(2)(a)(i) and (ii) allows us to impose a condition which requires the consent holder to

provide a bond for the performance of any one or more conditions of the consent, and / or to obtain

and maintain public liability insurance of a specified value. Section 65 provides additional guidance

on bond conditions. In this case we do not consider it necessary to impose a bond for performance

of any condition, or for OMV to obtain public liability insurance.

456. Section 63(2)(a)(iii) and (v) allows us to impose conditions that require a consent holder to undertake

monitoring, and to provide records to the EPA for audit, respectively. Section 66 provides additional

guidance on monitoring conditions. We consider it appropriate to include conditions that require

monitoring and note that OMV’s proffered conditions included such conditions.


457. Section 63(2)(a)(iv) allows us to impose conditions that require a consent holder to appoint an

observer to monitor the activity and the effects on the environment. Section 67 provides additional

guidance on observer conditions and requires that any such condition must specify in detail the

observer’s duties in relation to the activity. Any observer must be ‘approved’ by the EPA for that

purpose. Section 67 outlines the circumstances under which such approval must be given by the

EPA. In this case we do not consider it necessary to impose such a condition – although we agree

that a condition requiring OMV to observe and report sightings of marine mammals (for example) is

appropriate.

15.2 OMV Proffered Conditions and EPA Conditions Report

458. OMV provided a set of proffered conditions in its IA (Volume 3, Appendix I) which set out the

procedures and operational and mitigation measures proposed to manage the effects of the activities

associated with the EAD programme.

459. We sought advice from the EPA on those conditions, which was provided. The EPA Conditions

Report considered the appropriateness of the proffered conditions against the information in the IA,

technical reviews undertaken on behalf of the EPA and DMC - including the information provided by

persons to whom copies of the application were sent under section 56 of the EEZ Act.

460. The EPA Conditions Report provided a detailed assessment of OMV’s proffered conditions and

following consideration of the further information received and the technical input / reviews provided,

proposed a revised set of marine consent and marine discharge consent conditions. The conditions

proposed in the EPA Conditions Report were also restructured according to their purpose. i.e.

grouped and ordered as administrative conditions, conditions mitigating effects and reporting

conditions.

461. A draft copy of the EPA Conditions Report was circulated to OMV and its feedback incorporated into

the final version of the Conditions Report. Among the changes recommended in that finalised report

were:

f) Standardisation of conditions in terms of relevant and comparable other consents the EPA

has more recently issued;

g) Deletion of proposed conditions which unnecessarily duplicate other MMR requirements –

some of which were recommended for inclusion as Advice Notes rather than conditions;

h) Amendments to improve enforceability and interpretation of their intent; and

i) New conditions in respect of the proposed pre-installation monitoring programme and

addressing steps to be taken should this pre-installation monitoring identify sensitive

environments as present in and around the proposed well sites.



462. OMV provided comments on the draft conditions59 which were considered as part of the final drafting

of the Conditions Report. We have further considered those comments in determining the final

conditions of consent.

15.3 Commentary and Findings on Conditions

15.3.1 Introduction

463. We have used the conditions recommended in the EPA Conditions Report as our starting point in

terms of the final conditions that we have imposed. The following sections provide commentary on

the key points of difference or addition between OMV and the EPA on those recommended

conditions, and our reasons for preferring one or other. We have also made a few “editorial” changes

in the interest of clarity but do not discuss those.

464. The final conditions to which we refer are in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 of this decision. It should be

noted that that there are some numbering differences between the final conditions and both those in

the EPA Conditions Report and in OMV’s proffered conditions. That simply reflects either the

deletion or addition of conditions. As necessary we have identified that difference in the following

text.

465. We note that the final set of proposed conditions provided were substantially agreed between OMV

and Mr Moginie for the EPA.

15.3.2 Volume of Seabed Removed

466. OMV, in its proffered conditions (Condition 20 of the marine consent), included a maximum per well

volume of seabed that may be removed of 806 m3 and made provision for an additional volume of

758m3 where re-spudding was necessary.

467. We find that condition appropriate as it reflects the maximum (worst-case) volume of seabed that

may be removed at any one well location, but agree with the Conditions Report that it is important to

clarify that the volumes removed from the well can only be determined through calculation of the

designed well.

468. We also note that the drill cutting dispersal and deposition modelling has been run incorporating a re-

spud scenario, the results of which form the basis for the effects assessment, and in turn the

conclusions reached in the IA. We accept OMV’s position regarding the process for determining the

volume of disturbance.

469. Condition 27 in the marine consent reflects the above.

59 OMV GSB Ltd - Marine Consent and Marine Discharge Consent Application for GSB EAD Programme (EEZ200009):

Review of Draft Conditions dated 27 November 2019 - Enclosure 1. Explanatory comments on draft conditions for

EEZ200009.


15.3.3 The Environmental Monitoring Plan

470. OMV had included an EMP in its application and assumed that would effectively be approved as part

of the application. The EPA disagreed with that assumption. In short, its preference was for the EMP

to be finalised and approved subsequent to any grant of consent so that it could take account of any

relevant conditions imposed. As initially proposed by the EPA an EMP was to be developed,

approved and then updated for each subsequent well activity. OMV disagreed with that approach,

preferring that subsequent wells be subject to what it had referred to as a Well Specific Monitoring

Programme (WSMP), and also expressed concern that it seemed as though the EMP would be

required prior to any activity taking place – including the drilling of Tāwhaki-1, which would set the

EAP programme further back.

471. In the end it was agreed that the drilling of Tāwhaki-1 could take place at the same time as the EMP

was submitted; that all subsequent activity should be in accordance with the certified EMP, and that

a WSMP was to be lodged (i.e. for information purposes) with the EPA prior to any subsequent well

drilling. We accept that process.

472. The certification condition is included as condition 20 and the WSMP as condition 24 in the marine

consent.

15.3.4 Sensitive Environments

473. In our discussion on the effects of the drill cutting, we discussed the issue of pre- and post-

installation monitoring to determine the existence of any sensitive environments in and around each

well location (and any subsequent effects).

474. OMV had proposed a decision-making framework (discussed in Section 9 of this decision) in respect

of the identification of sensitive environments and the actions that would be taken to avoid effects on

such environments should they be found during the pre-installation surveys. OMV proffered

conditions 22 – 27 of the marine consent to that end.

475. These conditions were the subject of expert conferencing on Ecology, which proposed changes. The

JSE Ecology noted concern as to the applicability of the Habitat Model (a predictive model) in

identifying the actual occurrence of sensitive environments at each of the well sites and surrounding

areas. Therefore, the Ecology experts determined that it was not appropriate to use the habitat

modelling to determine the 5% threshold for the 0.1mm deposition trigger level for adverse effects on

sensitive environments. Instead, they recommended that the actual observed habitat distribution

should be used. The EPA Conditions Report reflects this position. The Ecology experts did, however,

accept that habitat suitability modelling is applicable for the broad slope basins, and therefore for

identifying potential habitat for xenophyophore populations.

476. OMV, in its response to the EPA Conditions Report, confirmed that the alternative wording proposed

is consistent with its intent to protect sensitive environments and protected species. OMV also noted

that it would be helpful to future management of the consent to include a statement on the pathway

for a change of conditions given refined knowledge gained from future monitoring.



477. We accept the approach agreed to by the Ecology expert conferencing, as refined and agreed

through the amended conditions. We also accept that it is appropriate in some cases to use habitat

modelling to inform an understanding of what the 5% threshold for a sensitive environment is - noting

that at this point in time, this only applies to Xenophyophore bed areas, but that this may change

over the course of the consent duration as further monitoring information comes to hand.

478. Overall, we find that, the condition now agreed is appropriate to ensure that the effects of the

consented activities associated with the EAD programme on any sensitive environments and / or

protected species will ensure that they do not result in significant adverse effects at a regional

population level. We have adopted that approach in imposing condition 11 in the marine consent.

479. We also note that OMV has requested that we reconsider whether proposed condition 10 (which

requires that no structures other than those associated with surveying or monitoring be placed on

any sensitive environment) is necessary with the revised condition 11 (above). We are unaware of

why OMV would need to place structures on such, noting that condition 11 is not a licence to destroy

5% and relates specifically to deposition. We find condition 10 appropriate.

15.3.5 Existing Interests

480. OMV’s proffered conditions included provision for existing interest parties to be provided with up to

date project information, including MODU location and monitoring information, for the duration of the

EAD programme (condition 13); as well as a requirement for OMV to invite specific parties with

existing cultural interests to be part of a ‘Forum’ through which project information can be shared

(condition 14).

481. The Conditions Report was not persuaded that proffered condition 13 was required as no relevant

adverse effect of significance had been identified and information would be provided through other

channels – such as maritime notices regarding the position of the MODU and the non-interference

zone. We agree and have not included that condition.

482. These conditions were subject to further commentary in the NKTT Report, as discussed above, and

subsequently responded to by OMV – which agreed with the proposed amendment to condition 14 to

clearly identify the parties to be invited to participate in the Forum. For similar reason as above, OMV

rejected the NKTT Report’s amendment to proffered condition 13 – and we agree similarly.

483. For completeness we also note that we have not accepted the NKTT Report’s recommendation for a

condition requiring a subsequent Cultural Values / Impact Assessment. At this stage no EEZ Act-

relevant specific adverse effect on the environment or existing interests has been identified that

might justify such a condition of consent. OMV has explained the consultation undertaken and the

cultural assessments provided (albeit in confidence). Furthermore, the DMC has not been advised

(for example) by the 25 Māori organisations and groups provided with copies of the application of

any outstanding matters.

484. We have adopted the amendments to the Forum condition as proposed as condition 37 in the marine

consent.


15.3.6 Discharge volume and substances

485. The approach proposed by OMV in its proffered conditions to control discharges from activities

associated with the EAD programme included providing a list of harmful substances, their purpose

and use, and the HSNO toxicity classification which could be discharged as part of the project

(condition 9 of the marine discharge consent).

486. The proffered conditions (condition 10 of the marine discharge consent) also proposed a process

through which OMV could use alternative substances provided the substitute substance was used

for the intended purpose of the original substance, the substance had the same or lower ecotoxic

classification as that being replaced, and if oil that is not ecotoxic was being replaced, the

replacement product should also be non-ecotoxic. The conditions also required the alternative

substances to be approved.

487. When considering the appropriateness of the OMV approach, the ERA Discharges Report clearly

identified that the level of risk associated with the discharge activities was directly linked to the

volume and concentrations of the harmful substances that OMV proposed to discharge as part of the

EAD programme. Those volumes and concentrations were specifically identified in the report and it

was recommended that these be adopted as limits within the marine discharge consent.

488. This approach was provided for in the EPA Conditions Report and, accordingly, the EPA did not

recommend or provide for the substitution of alternative substance.

489. While we acknowledge OMV’s concern over what it has referred to as the “change of conditions”

approach being disproportionate to the activity and its effects, we find that as the analysis of

discharge effects depends upon the substances discharged it is appropriate that a formal process for

changing those substances is followed. As this would be a non-notified, technical application process

we see no disproportionate element standing in the way of adopting the approach preferred in the

Conditions Report. If OMV is confident that its proposed substitute has the qualifying characteristics

it identified in its proffered condition, then a change of condition application under section 87 of the

EEZ Act should be straight-forward.



16. Duration

490. OMV seeks an expiration date for the marine consent to 30 December 2030 to provide sufficient time

for the EAD programme to be completed. This date also coincides with the expiry date on the

recently granted marine discharge consent to discharge residual amounts of harmful substances

from the MODU (EEZ100018).

491. In considering the duration of consent the DMC has considered the requirements under section 73 of

the EEZ Act.

492. The DMC is aware that there are timeframes included within OMV’s PEP 50119 that may ultimately

dictate when exploration activities must cease. However, we find that the requested expiry date of 30

December 2030 is appropriate for the marine consent and marine discharge consent as it provides a

common expiry date with the related marine discharge consent (EEZ100018) for discharges from the

MODU deck drainage system that was recently issued to OMV.


Appendix 1. Procedural History

Timeline for Application

13 June 2019 DMC appointed by EPA, including the delegation of decision-making power to it

9 August 2019 Applications for marine consent and marine discharge consent lodged with EPA by

OMV GSB Ltd

20 August 2019 DMC Meeting 1

30 August 2019 EPA issues record of consideration under Section 44 regarding need for joint

processing with EEZ100018

4 September 2019 Applicant advised of EPA’s intention to commission technical advice/reviews under

Section 56 of the EEZ Act in relation to: OMV’s proposed operations against best

industry practice; oceanographic modelling included in the impact assessment; marine

ecology conclusions reached in the impact assessment; and EPA’s environmental risk

assessment of environmental eco-toxic effects associated with the marine discharge

consent

5 September 2019 Letter from Greenpeace received requesting that the DMC holds a hearing to consider

the applications

6 September 2019 EPA confirms that application is complete

12 September 2019 EPA responds to Greenpeace

13 September 2019 EPA requests further information from the applicant (Further Information Request #1)

16 September 2019 DMC Induction and Meeting 2

20 September 2019 Technical comments on application received from Oil and Gas Solutions Ltd -

Assessment Report - Technical Review and Analysis of OMV Operational Activities

associated with Consent Application - Great South Basin Exploration & Appraisal

Drilling, 19 September 2019

23 September 2019 Applicant provides response to Further Information Request #1

24 September 2019 Technical comments on application received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd on

ecological effects and drill cuttings dispersal modelling:

Review of Marine Ecology Aspects of OMV Great South Basin Exploration and

Appraisal Drilling Programme Consent Application (Marine Consent and

Marine Discharge Consent) 24 September 2019;

Technical Review of Drill Cuttings Dispersion Modelling OMV New Zealand

Ltd. Application EEZ200009, 24 September 2019

27 September 2019 DMC requests further information from the applicant about Māori engagement under

Section 54 of the EEZ Act

26 September 2019 DMC Meeting 3

Review of EPA Environmental Risk Assessment for the marine discharge consent

received from Cora Drijver

Appendices


27 September 2019 DMC requests further information from the applicant on Māori engagement under

Section 54 of the EEZ Act (Further Information Request #2)

30 September 2019 Applicant advised of EPA’s intention to commission technical advice/review under

Section 56 of the EEZ Act in relation to spill modelling in the impact assessment (in

addition to a review of oceanographic modelling)

2 October 2019 DMC requests further information from the applicant under Section 54 of the EEZ Act

(Further Information Request #3)

DMC requests comments on the application from Department of Conservation; NZ

Biosecurity; NZ Fisheries; Worksafe NZ; and Maritime NZ under Section 56 of the

EEZ Act

3 October 2019 Applicant provides response to Further Information Request #2

7 October 2019 Comments on application received from Worksafe NZ

10 October 2019 Second letter received from Greenpeace requesting a hearing.

11 October 2019 DMC requests comments on the application from Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (the

EPA’s Māori Advisory Committee)

Applicant provides responses to Further Information Request #3.

Technical comments on application received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd on

Hydrocarbon Dispersion Modelling

14 October 2019 Comments on the application received from Maritime NZ

15 October 2019 Section 45 Memorandum signed (re: serving of copies of the application on parties)

16 October 2019 Comments on the application received from Fisheries NZ

18 October 2019 DMC issues Minute 1 – Expert Conferencing on benthic ecology effects

EPA completes Environmental Risk Assessment for Discharges

First batch of Section 45 letters and emails sent by EPA

21 October 2019 Comments on the application received from Biosecurity NZ

24 October 2019 DMC Meeting 4

25 October 2019 Comments on the application received from Department of Conservation

30 October 2019 Joint Statement of experts in the field of benthic ecology received

4 November 2019 Further comments received from Oil and Gas Solutions Ltd

Further request for hearing from Greenpeace5 November 2019 Minute 2 issued –

Response to Greenpeace request for hearing

6 November 2019 Further comments received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd received on drill cutting

dispersion modelling.

Second batch of Section 45 letters and emails sent by EPA (to DOC concession

holders).

7 November 2019 Section 45 response received from Professor Mary Morgan-Richards.


8 November 2019 Section 45 response received from Bill Chisholm, Commercial Fisheries Forum.

11 November 2019 Minute 3 issued – Time extension

NIWA Habitat Modelling Report received from applicant

Section 45 response received from Aukaha

Further comments received from Greenpeace

12 November 2019 DMC Meeting 5

Further comments received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd regarding ecological effects

and cuttings dispersion.

Further discussions between EPA and DOC staff regarding draft conditions for

seabirds and marine mammals.

14 November 2019 Further comments received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd on NIWA Habitat Modelling

Report.

EPA responds to Greenpeace

18 November 2019 Comments on application received from Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (the EPA’s Māori

Advisory Committee)

25 November 2019 Further comments received from Coffey Services (NZ) Ltd regarding cuttings

dispersion.

27 November 2019 Comments from OMV received on draft conditions, should the DMC be of a mind to

grant the consents.

10 December 2019 DMC Meeting 6

Minute4 issued – S158 Direction for redaction of sensitive information in Environmental

Impact Assessment for marine discharge consent

Minute 5 issued - Need for hearing

11 December 2019 Further letter from Greenpeace

13 December 2019 EPA responds to Greenpeace, including the provision of Minute 5 regarding need for

hearing

17 December 2010 Last day of time extension

Appendices


Appendix 2. EEZ ACT - Decision-Making Framework

Section 10 of the EEZ Act – Purpose

Section 10(1) of the EEZ Act states:

“The purpose of this Act is –

(a) to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone

and the continental shelf; and

(b) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and the waters above the

continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone, to protect the

environment from pollution by regulating or prohibiting the discharge of harmful substances and

the dumping or incineration of waste or other matter.”

‘Sustainable management’ is defined in section 10(2) as follows:

“In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of

natural resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to provide for their economic well-being

while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably

foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

The resources to be sustainably managed under the EEZ Act are the “natural resources of the exclusive

economic zone and continental shelf”. Section 4(1) of the EEZ Act defines ‘natural resources’ as:

“(a) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, includes seabed, subsoil, water, air, minerals, and

energy, and all forms of organisms (whether native to New Zealand or introduced); and

(b) in relation to the continental shelf, means the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed

and subsoil and sedentary species.”

Section 4(1) of the EEZ Act defines ‘environment’ as:

“the natural environment, including ecosystems and their constituent parts and all natural resources,

of—

(a) New Zealand:

(b) the exclusive economic zone:

(c) the continental shelf:

(d) the waters beyond the exclusive economic zone and above and beyond the continental shelf.”


Section 10(3) of the EEZ Act states:

“In order to achieve the purpose, decision-makers must—

(a) take into account decision-making criteria specified in relation to particular decisions; and

(b) apply the information principles to the development of regulations under section 27, 29A, 29B, or

29E and the consideration of applications for marine consent.”

The decision-making criteria referred to in section 10(3)(a) of the EEZ Act are set out in sections 59 and 60 of

the Act. The information principles are found in section 61.

Section 11 of the EEZ Act – International Obligations

Section 11 of the Act confirms that New Zealand’s international obligations are implicit in the EEZ Act. Section

11 of the EEZ Act states:

“This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations under various

international conventions relating to the marine environment, including—

(a) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).

(b) the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.

(c) the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (MARPOL).

(d) the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, 1972

(the London Convention).

(e) International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea 1972.”

Section 12 of the EEZ Act – Treaty of Waitangi

Section 12 of the Act outlines the specific actions that the EPA (and this DMC) must undertake in order to

recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Section 12 of the EEZ Act states:

“In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty

of Waitangi for the purposes of this Act,—

(a) section 18 (which relates to the function of the Māori Advisory Committee) provides for the Māori

Advisory Committee to advise the [Environmental Protection Authority] so that decisions made

under this Act may be informed by a Māori perspective; and

(b) section 32 requires the Minister to establish and use a process that gives iwi adequate time and

opportunity to comment on the subject matter of proposed regulations; and

(c) sections 33 and 59, respectively, require the Minister and the [Environmental Protection Authority]

to take into account the effects of activities on existing interests; and

Appendices


(d) section 46 requires the Environmental Protection Authority to notify iwi authorities, customary

marine title groups, and protected customary rights groups directly of consent applications that

may affect them.”

Section 20 of the EEZ Act – Restriction on activities other than discharges and

dumping

20 Restriction on activities other than discharges and dumping

1) No person may undertake an activity described in subsection (2) in the exclusive economic zone

or in or on the continental shelf unless the activity is a permitted activity or authorised by a marine

consent or section 21, 22, or 23.

2) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

a) the construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a structure on or

under the seabed:

b) the construction, placement, alteration, extension, removal, or demolition of a submarine

pipeline on or under the seabed:

ba) the abandonment of a submarine pipeline that is on or under the seabed:

c) the placement, alteration, extension, or removal of a submarine cable on or from the seabed:

d) the removal of non-living natural material from the seabed or subsoil:

e) the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect

on the seabed or subsoil:

f) the deposit of any thing or organism in, on, or under the seabed:

g) the destruction, damage, or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to

have an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat.

3) No person may undertake an activity described in subsection (4) in the sea of the exclusive

economic zone unless the activity is a permitted activity or authorised by a marine consent or

section 21, 22, or 23.

4) The activities referred to in subsection (3) are—

a) the construction, mooring or anchoring long-term, placement, alteration, extension, removal,

or demolition of a structure, part of a structure, or a ship used in connection with a structure:

b) the causing of vibrations (other than vibrations caused by the propulsion of a ship) in a

manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine life:

c) the causing of an explosion.


5) However, this section does not apply to—

a) the discharge of harmful substances; or

b) the dumping of waste or other matter; or

c) lawful fishing for wild fish under the Fisheries Act 1996.

Section 20B of the EEZ Act – Restriction on discharges of harmful substances

from structures and submarine pipelines

20B Restriction on discharges of harmful substances from structures and submarine

pipelines

(1) No person may discharge a harmful substance from a structure or from a submarine pipeline

into the sea or into or onto the seabed of the exclusive economic zone.

(2) No person may discharge a harmful substance into or onto the continental shelf beyond the

outer limits of the exclusive economic zone or into the sea above that part of the continental

shelf from—

(a) a New Zealand structure; or

(b) a structure (other than a New Zealand structure) involved in a mining activity; or

(c) a submarine pipeline.

(3) However, a person may discharge a harmful substance if the discharge is a permitted activity

or authorised by a marine consent or section 21, 22, or 23.

Section 59 of the EEZ Act – Matters to be Taken into Account

Sections 59 and 60 of the EEZ Act set out the matters we must consider in coming to a decision on an

application for marine discharge consent.

“59 Environmental Protection Authority’s consideration of application

(1) This section and sections 60 and 61 apply when the [Environmental Protection Authority] is

considering an application for a Marine Consent and submissions on the application.

(2)

(2) …[the Environmental Protection Authority] must take into account—

(a) any effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the activity, including—

(i) cumulative effects; and

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the

continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone; and

Appendices


(b) the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area

covered by the application or in its vicinity, including—

(i) the effects of activities that are not regulated under this Act; and

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the

continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone; and

(c) the effects on human health that may arise from effects on the environment; and

(d) the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species,

ecosystems, and processes; and

(e) the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened

species; and

(f) the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application; and

(g) the efficient use and development of natural resources; and

(h) the nature and effect of other marine management regimes; and

(i) best practice in relation to an industry or activity; and

(j) the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate

the adverse effects of the activity; and

(k) relevant regulations (other than EEZ policy statements); and

(l) any other applicable law (other than EEZ policy statements); and

(m) any other matter the [Environmental Protection Authority] considers relevant and

reasonably necessary to determine the application.

(2A) If the application is for a marine discharge consent, the EPA must take into account –

(a) the matters described in subsection (2) except paragraph (c); and

(b) the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances if consent is granted.

…

(3) The [Environmental Protection Authority] must have regard to—

(aa) EEZ policy statements; and

(a) any submissions made and evidence given in relation to the application; and

(b) any advice, reports, or information sought under this Part and received in relation to the

application; and

(c) any advice received from the Māori Advisory Committee.

…


(5) Despite subsection (3), the [Environmental Protection Authority] must not have regard to—

(a) trade competition or the effects of trade competition; or

(b) the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air; or

(c) any effects on a person’s existing interest if the person has given written approval to the

proposed activity.

(6) Subsection (5)(c) does not apply if the person has given written approval but the person withdraws

the approval by giving written notice to the marine consent authority –

(a) before the date of the hearing, if there is one; or

(b) if there is no hearing, before the marine consent authority decides the application.

60 Matters to be considered in deciding extent of adverse effects on existing interests

In considering the effects of an activity on existing interests under section 59(2)(a), the [Environmental

Protection Authority] must have regard to—

(a) the area that the activity would have in common with the existing interest; and

(b) the degree to which both the activity and the existing interest must be carried out to the

exclusion of other activities; and

(c) whether the existing interest can be exercised only in the area to which the application

relates; and

(d) any other relevant matter.”

Appendices


Section 61 of the EEZ Act – Information Principles


“61 Information principles

(1) When considering an application for a Marine Consent, the [Environmental Protection Authority]

must—

(a) make full use of its powers to request information from the applicant, obtain advice, and

commission a review or a report; and

(b) base decisions on the best available information; and

(c) take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available.

(2) If, in relation to making a decision under this Act, the information available is uncertain or

inadequate, the marine consent authority must favour caution and environmental protection.

(3) If favouring caution and environmental protection means that an activity is likely to be refused,

the marine consent authority must first consider whether taking an adaptive management

approach would allow the activity to be undertaken.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to an application for a marine discharge consent or limit section 63

or 64.

(5) In this section, best available information means the best information that, in the particular

circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time.”

Section 63 of the EEZ Act – Conditions of marine consents


(1) A marine consent authority may grant a marine consent on any condition that it considers

appropriate to deal with adverse effects of the activity authorised by the consent on the

environment or existing interests.

(2) The conditions that the marine consent authority may impose include, but are not limited to,

conditions—

(a) requiring the consent holder to—

(i) provide a bond for the performance of any 1 or more conditions of the consent:

(ii) obtain and maintain public liability insurance of a specified value:

(iii) monitor, and report on, the exercise of the consent and the effects of the activity it

authorises:

(iv) appoint an observer to monitor the activity authorised by the consent and its effects

on the environment:


(v) make records related to the activity authorised by the consent available for audit:

(b) that, if section 64 applies, together amount or contribute to an adaptive management

approach.

(3) However, the marine consent authority must not impose a condition on a consent if the condition

would be inconsistent with this Act or any regulations.

(4) To avoid doubt, the marine consent authority may not impose a condition to deal with an effect if

the condition would conflict with a measure required in relation to the activity by another marine

management regime or the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Section 73 of the EEZ Act – Duration of consents


“(1A) The duration of a marine discharge consent is—

(a) the term specified in the consent, which must not be more than 35 years; or

(b) if no term is specified, 5 years after the date of the granting of the consent.

(2) When determining the duration of the consent, the [Environmental Protection Authority]

must—

(a) comply with sections 59 and 61; and

(b) take into account the duration sought by the applicant; and

(c) take into account the duration of any other legislative authorisations granted or

required for the activity that is the subject of the application for consent.”

Appendices


Appendix 3. Joint Statement of Experts in the field of Benthic Ecology

1 epa1_epa1-9_001.docx

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the Act)

AND

IN THE MATTER of Applications under Section 38 of the Act by OMV GSB Limited (OMV) applications for marine consent and marine discharge consent for non-notified activities associated with exploration and appraisal drilling programme in the Great South Basin (the Application)

__________________________________________________

JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF BENTHIC ECOLOGY

Dated 30 October 2019

_________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1. Expert conferencing of the benthic ecology effects experts took place in person and by telephone

on Tuesday 22nd and Wednesday 23rd October 2019

2. The conference was facilitated by Mr Jason Welsh (ChanceryGreen) and attended by.

a) Mr Owen Anderson (NIWA)

b) Dr Jennifer Beaumont (NIWA)

c) Dr David Bowden (NIWA)

d) Mr Dan Govier (SLR)

e) Dr June Mire (Tetra Tech)

f) Mr Ivan Steward (Coffey)

CODE OF CONDUCT

3. We confirm that we have read the Environment Court's Code of Conduct 2014 and agree to

comply with it. We confirm that the issues addressed in this Joint Statement are within our area of

expertise.

SCOPE OF STATEMENT

4. In our conference we discussed the issues relevant to the Application which arise within our field

of expertise. Prior to attending the conference, we each read the relevant parts of the Marine

Consent Application (the Application). Our discussions were guided by the Minute of the Decision-

making Committee dated 18 October 2019.

5. The three issues that have been raised relate to the potential effects on the benthic ecosystem

and include effects at the level of:

1) Rare and Vulnerable Ecosystems;

2) Habitats of threatened benthic species; and

3) Integrity of marine benthic species, ecosystems and processes (including protected

species.

6. In relation to each issue we discussed points of agreement and disagreement in relation to:

a) Facts;

b) Assumptions;

c) Areas of uncertainty or lack of information; and

d) Expert opinions / conclusions.

7. In this Joint Statement we report the outcome of our discussions in relation to each issue by

reference to points of agreement and disagreement relating to facts, assumptions, uncertainties

and expert opinions / conclusions. We have noted where each of us is relying on the opinion or

epa1_epa1-9_001.docx

advice of other experts. Where we are not agreed in relation to any issue, we have set out the

nature and basis of that disagreement.

8. We have also considered the draft marine consent conditions proposed by the Applicant and have

considered whether they are appropriate having regard to our opinions, should the Environmental

Protection Authority grant the consents sought by the Applicant.

Defining the area of impact

9. The area of impact has been defined as the 0.1mm predicted sediment deposition contour

(MetOcean 2019), as defined in the Application. This is less conservative than the 0.01 mm

sediment deposition contour used to inform the pre-drill survey design but is significantly more

conservative than the 6.5 mm deposition threshold below which benthic taxa mortality is not

expected to occur across coastal shelf environments (Smit et al. 2008; IOPG 2016). The 6.5 mm

threshold has been used for impact assessments across shelf environments around the world as

a threshold for biological effects. The 6.5 mm deposition threshold was used in a marine consent

application for the depth at which ecological effects may occur to a sensitive environment for an

exploration drilling programme in the Taranaki Basin. This marine consent was granted by the

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in January 2019 (i.e. Marine Consent EEZ200010). A

sediment deposition contour of 0.1 mm was considered appropriate for the Tāwhaki -1 exploration

drilling programme due to the deep-sea nature of the proposed drill site. There is little evidence

within the literature of adverse effects from less than 1 mm sediment deposition.

10. Conservatism is built into the sediment deposition modelling in that it incorporates both the drilling

of an initial well to (almost) target depth and a secondary ‘respud’ well (should this be required), a

short distance away from the initial well, also to near-target depth. The volume of drill cuttings in

the deposition model, therefore, incorporates the volume of two wells drilled from the same

location. The model is also based on a wider-bore drill hole than will be used, also increasing the

volume of drill cuttings in the model compared with the expected volume of drill cuttings.

11. As a result of this conservatism, consideration of a broader area of effect based on confidence

intervals around the modelled sediment deposition thresholds and associated threshold distances

for where an ecological effect on a sensitive environment could occur is unnecessary.

12. Deposition modelling produced separate contours for each month, to account for seasonal

variability in current direction and strength. The 0.1 mm deposition contour used to define the area

of impact discussed here is an annual aggregate; the maximum extent of all the monthly

deposition model outputs combined.

13. The predicted maximum Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration at the seabed associated

with the deposition zone of 0.1 mm (from 250 m to 1000 m from the drill site) is 0.806 mg/L (as

stated in MetOcean 2019).

LIST OF ISSUES

The following facts are agreed:

Issue 1: Rare and Vulnerable Benthic Ecosystems (including sensitive environments)

14. We interpret this issue as having two parts: a discussion of rare and vulnerable marine

ecosystems (sensu FAO 2009; Parker et al. 2009) within the survey area and a separate

discussion around sensitive environments (sensu MacDiarmid et al. 2013) observed within the

survey area.

15. A 30-day voyage incorporating a regional baseline survey and a pre-drill survey centred on the

proposed exploration well site (Tāwhaki-1) was conducted in March 2019 by NIWA onboard the

RV Tangaroa. The sampling methodology consisted of video imagery and multicore samples

across the regional survey area, as described in detail in the Application.

16. The density of sampling carried out for the regional survey was similar to that used for sampling

on the Chatham Rise, which is currently the most intensively sampled deep-sea area within the

EEZ.

Rare ecosystems

17. In the absence of a formal definition of rare ecosystems we took “rare” to mean any community of

ecosystem that those present in the group would not have expected to find in the survey area

(e.g. cold seeps or hydrothermal vents).

18. We agreed that there were no rare ecosystems observed within the regional survey area to the

best of our knowledge. We discussed evidence of new and/or undescribed species observed

during the survey and that the discovery of undescribed species is not uncommon in deep-sea

studies and would not in itself directly indicate a rare ecosystem.

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

19. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) (FAO 2009; Parker et al. 2009 and references within) are

any deep-sea environments that are highly vulnerable to one or more kinds of fishing activity.

Criteria for identifying VMEs include uniqueness or rarity of species or habitats, their functional

significance, fragility, and structural complexity as well as life histories that limit the probability of

recovery from disturbance (Rowden et al. 2013). Based on these criteria, Parker et al. (2009)

identified eight taxa as indicators of VMEs in the South Pacific:, Actiniaria; Alcyonacea;

Antipatharia; Brisingida; Crinoidea; Gorgonacea; Pennatulacea; Porifera; Scleractinia, and

Stylasteridae.

20. Work on identifying definitions, thresholds, and criteria for defining and assessing VMEs (in

relation to fisheries activities) is ongoing. It is noted also that the sensitive environments

definitions (as per Schedule 6 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects – Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013) were developed, in part, as a

subset of work on the VME definitions.

21. It was agreed that it is appropriate to defer to Schedule 6 for criteria of taxa such as sponges and

scleractinian stony corals. The sensitive environments and criteria for their definitions are

described by MacDiarmid et al. (2013). However, we note that this was a work in progress and

criteria were often defined by expert opinion due to lack of empirical data from the deep sea.

22. VMEs may be physically or functionally fragile, easily disturbed, and very slow to recover (or they

may never recover) (FAO 2009; Parker et al. 2009). Examples of VMEs include habitat-forming

cold-water corals, hydrothermal vents, sponge fields, and communities dominated by other erect

suspension feeding taxa.


23. Representatives of all of the VME indicator taxa listed above (e.g. Parker et al. 2009), with the

exception of the Antipatharia (black corals), were observed in the regional survey, with most

occurrences limited to seamount and channel features.

24. No VME indicator taxa were observed in the pre-drill survey within the predicted area of impact.

25. The benthic environments and associated communities observed within the regional survey

appear to be similar to those in other parts of New Zealand’s EEZ at these depths.

Sensitive environments

26. Sensitive environments were understood by the group to be as defined in Schedule 6 of the

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Permitted Activities)

Regulations 2013.

27. Three types of sensitive environment were observed in the regional survey area: stony coral

thickets; brachiopod beds, and xenophyophore beds.

28. Porifera were widely observed throughout the survey. The highest abundances of Porifera were

observed at channel features to the north of the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill location. However, no

sponge gardens (as per the sensitive environments defined by Schedule 6 of the Exclusive

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Permitted Activities) Regulations

2013) were observed within the regional survey area.

29. Pennatulacea, bryozoa, and bivalves were also observed during the survey, but not at density

thresholds required to trigger sensitive environment classification.

30. Stony corals thickets and brachiopod beds were observed only on the seamount and channel

features. The seamounts are approximately 18 km away from the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill site

and the nearest channel feature is 8.5 km to the north of it; both features being outside the area of

impact (as shown in Figure 55 of the Application).

31. Stony coral thickets are associated with hard substrates and topographic elevation. As such, it is

unlikely that stony coral thickets will be present in other parts of the regional survey area (i.e., at

sites on the broad slope basin).

32. Brachiopod beds were observed at only one site, on a seamount feature, but could possibly also

occur in channel features and at other seamount features. They are associated with hard

substrates and are not expected to occur at sites on the broad slope basin.

33. The regional sampling sites R8, R9, R10 and R25 mark the prominent seamount features within

the regional survey area and these are the closest seamount features to the proposed Tāwhaki-1

drill location. No other significant seamount features were observed within the survey area.

34. The observed locations of both the stony coral thicket and the brachiopod bed sensitive

environments were outside of the area predicted to be influenced by the proposed exploration

drilling activities at Tāwhaki-1, being 18 kilometres or more away from the 0.1 mm predicted

contour of sediment deposition (i.e., the predicted area of impact).

35. Of the sensitive environments observed within the survey, only xenophyophore beds were present

in the vicinity of the proposed well site, with the closest xenophyophore bed located 2 km (site

O17) from the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill location. Site O17 is located between the 0.05- and 0.01-

mm modelled sediment deposition contours as displayed in Figure 56 of the Application.

36. Xenophyophores were difficult to observe during video imagery surveys due to their small size

and obscurity.

37. The close scrutiny of video and still image analyses in the Great South Basin (GSB) survey

allowed faunal observations somewhat smaller than NIWA’s normal threshold of 5 cm. This

resulted in higher densities of xenophyophores being recorded than in comparable deep-sea

surveys in the EEZ. However, because the xenophyophores in the current survey were at the

lower size-limit of practical detection with the survey methods used, it may not be appropriate to

make direct comparisons with existing data from other regions.

38. It is possible that the xenophyophores observed within the GSB could represent different species

to those regularly observed in benthic surveys on the Chatham Rise.

39. The knowledge about the distribution, abundance, and species composition of xenophyophores

around New Zealand is largely from video/photo identification, as their inherent fragility means

that physical specimens are rarely captured intact.

40. Sediment profile imaging could be used to better understand xenophyophores but no one is

aware of the technique being used in any deep-sea environment within New Zealand

41. More effort has been put into estimating the abundance of xenophyophores in the recent GSB

regional survey than has previously been undertaken anywhere else in New Zealand. This survey

has significantly increased the knowledge of xenophyophore communities within the New Zealand

EEZ.

42. No rare or vulnerable marine ecosystems or sensitive environments were observed or are

expected to be found within the predicted area of impact so no discussion of the response to

sedimentation or expected recovery times are provided here.

43. Xenophyophores were present within the area of impact but in lower densities than the criteria for

sensitive environments. The discussion on these is included within Issue 3.

10b the likelihood and consequence of any impacts including (but not limited to):

10bi – Expected recovery timeframes

Nothing to report

10bii – The influence of sedimentation

Nothing to report

10Biii – Habitat suitability modelling

44. Habitat suitability modelling was carried out using taxon abundance data (from DTIS video

transects) from 73 sites. Data were split into 25 m segments and presence/absence and

abundance datasets were generated for each segment. The random forest modelling method

was used with two-part (‘Hurdle’) models developed using a combination of a binomial

presence/absence model, and a regression abundance model using presence sites. Outputs were

combined to produce an estimate of abundance across the survey area (100 km x 100 km).

45. A Multi-beam Echo Sounder survey (MBES) provided an accurate bathymetry layer at a grid

resolution of 25 m2. From this, slope, aspect roughness, and other physical aspects of the sea

floor were derived, as well as back-scatter representing surface hardness. The broad slope basin

across the GSB has a relatively uniform depth and composition, limited the usefulness of these as

environmental predictors in the model. However, there was strong differentiation between

seamount, channel and broad slope basin features.


46. Models therefore relied primarily on environmental data derived from global databases of physical

and chemical parameters of water column (at a 1 km scale) and grainsize data generated from

multicore samples from across the survey area.

47. Parameters used within the models were: Percent mud (1-5 cm), Aragonite saturation state,

Phosphate, Particulate organic carbon export, Vertically Generalized Production Model –

Minimum, Vertically Generalized Production Model – Maximum, Carbon-based Productivity Model

– Mean, Carbon-based Productivity Model – Minimum, Carbon-based Productivity Model –

Maximum.

48. The models use a resampling method for estimating precision, which is presented as an

associated map. As a result, this is one of the areas where we can quantify aspects of

uncertainty.

49. The fishery research model that Owen completed in 2019 included data that was from outside of

the GSB area. The scale of predictions was large (1 km2 resolution) and is not considered

relevant for the GSB regional survey area.

50. The results from the NIWA regional survey area is far more representative than the fishery

research model in terms of predicting the taxa that are likely to be present. Different data sets

were used between the fisheries research model and the regional survey area and habitat

classification modelling

51. Habitat suitability modelling was carried out for key taxa observed within the regional survey area

and was limited to those with sufficient observations for models to produce a sensible result. Of

the three sensitive environments identified within the survey, only xenophyophores could be

modelled effectively.

52. Habitat suitability models for xenophyophores showed highest estimated abundances to the north

of the proposed drill site and beyond the predicted 0.1 mm deposition threshold. Low abundances

were predicted across the remainder of the regional survey area. Modelling inputs for this taxon

were based on the video survey results from both the regional benthic survey and the pre-drill

monitoring focused around the Tāwhaki-1 drilling location.

53. Using outputs from the habitat suitability model, it was possible to estimate that approximately

0.006 % of xenophyophores predicted to occur within the survey area would be located within the

area of impact based on the 0.1 mm deposition contour (as in the Application). This extent of

disturbance to xenophyophores is not considered a threat to the regional population of

xenophyophores or to the value of the biogenic habitat they create.

10C. Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse impacts on rare

and vulnerable benthic ecosystems.

54. Pre-drill and post-drill monitoring will be undertaken to assess impacts, with the survey design

based on a sediment deposition model and as defined within the Environmental Monitoring Plan

(EMP) submitted with the Application.

55. A condition was proffered by OMV and detailed within the EMP that states; should a sensitive

environment be found within the 0.1 mm deposition threshold, the Applicant will look to move the

well location so that there is no overlap between the 0.1 mm deposition threshold and the

sensitive environment. If the well location cannot be moved due to operational constraints, then a

sensitive environment analysis will be undertaken to assess whether the 0.1 mm deposition

contour will overlap with 5% of the sensitive environment observed throughout the regional survey

area. If the area potentially impacted by the drilling comprises less than 5% of the total observed

population within the regional survey for the sensitive environment taxa, then condition 27 of the

Application would allow the well to be drilled at the intended location. If more than 5% is affected,

then OMV will be required to move the well to a location where the depositional thickness of drill

cuttings on the area containing the sensitive environment does not exceed 0.1 mm as

demonstrated by cuttings deposition modelling. The 5% threshold is cumulative across the

regional survey area for any further disturbance events.

56. We agree that the above (condition 27) is acceptable to the group.

Issue 2: Habitats of threatened benthic species 57. We define the habitats of threatened benthic species as those habitats supporting any species

listed within the report on the Conservation status of New Zealand marine invertebrates (Freeman

et al. 2013).

58. The New Zealand Threat Classification System is used to assess the threat status of all taxa. The

threat classification system for New Zealand species is administered by DOC. Those species that

are classed as Threatened have no protection afforded under this classification system.

59. We note that the lists of At Risk and Threatened species within the report do not include a

particularly well-supported list for the deep sea, with expert opinion rather than data forming the

basis of many of the lists, and mostly related to the footprint of impacts such as bottom trawling.

60. Direct anthropogenic disturbance in these depths is rare, therefore few deep-sea taxa would be

expected to be listed as threatened within the Freeman et al. (2013) report.

61. We note that there are no data available on deep-sea taxa with respect to their vulnerability status

except for those which are in areas of existing anthropogenic impacts (e.g., from bottom trawling).

62. We note that the difficulty in studying deep-sea taxa means there is not a good understanding of

the ecology of deep-sea systems.

63. The epifaunal data from the current study were generated from video analyses and, as is

characteristic of such analyses, many taxa could not be identified to species-level. As a result,

the data for the taxa observed during the video transect surveys have a relatively low taxonomic

resolution by comparison with physical sampling methods. Therefore, the species list within

Freeman et al. (2013) has been aggregated to the lower resolution of Family for this discussion.

64. There are many undescribed taxa within the deep sea and several potentially new species and

genera were recorded from sediment core samples in the regional survey. However, being

previously undescribed does not imply that they are at risk or threatened and so these taxa have

not been considered within this issue.

65. There were a number of potentially at-risk or threatened benthic species (as defined within

Freeman et al. 2013) observed during the survey:

a. At Risk – Declining: Enallopsammia sp. and Madrepora sp. (branching, thicket-forming stony

corals) and members of families including Gorgonocephalidae (snake stars) and

Paragorgiidae (Bubblegum corals).

b. Nationally vulnerable: A species of Paragorgiidae.

c. 55 Data Deficient taxa (and six taxonomically indeterminate taxa) which are suspected to be

at risk or threatened: Isididae (Bamboo corals), Primnoidae (Sea fans/gorgonians),

Paragordiidae (Bubblegum corals), Stylasteridae (red corals), Gorgonocephalidae (basket

star) and glass sponges (Porifera).


66. All sponges, except for carnivorous sponges, were grouped into Porifera within the data as it was

not always possible to differentiate between the Hexactinellidae and Demospongiae.

67. The taxa listed above were all observed at seamount and some channel sites. All but one of these

taxa (Gorgonocephalidae) require hard substrates for attachment and so their distribution would

be expected to be confined to the seamount and channel sites within the regional survey area.

The Gorgonocephalidae are predominantly, but not exclusively, associated with hard substrate

and the associated gorgonians.

68. Most of these taxa were not observed on the broad slope basin features within the regional survey

area. Exceptions include the occasional soft-sediment gorgonian whip (Radicipes sp.).

69. There are no predicted impacted habitats of threatened benthic taxa observed in the regional

survey area; therefore, it was considered unnecessary to describe their expected recovery

timeframes or response to sedimentation.

70. Habitat suitability model.

71. The habitat suitability models predicted no clearly suitable habitat for the taxa associated with

seamounts and channel sites in locations within the 100 x 100 km extent of the model, with the

exception of those features included in the regional survey.



72. Nothing specific to Issue 2

Issue 3: Integrity of marine benthic species, ecosystems and processes (including protected species) 73. We are unsure of the intention of the word “integrity” in relation to marine benthic species.

74. As per the discussion of issues 1 and 2, we agree there will be no unacceptable impact on

broader ecosystem functioning as a whole. We have, therefore, focused on ecological processes

and marine benthic species (including protected species) on the scale of the predicted area of

impact in response to Issue 3.

75. The dominant taxa observed within the area of impact were cup corals (Scleractinia), sea urchins

(Echinoids), sea anemones (Actiniaria), sponges (Porifera: Hexactinellidae), gastropods, sea

squirts (tunicates), worms and sea cucumbers (holothurians) with 47%, 14%, 10%, 6%, 5%, 4%,

3% and 2% of total observed abundances respectively. Note that these data were generated

from two Deep Tow Imaging Survey (DTIS) transects. These transects ran perpendicular to each

other across the full diameter of the predicted area of impact and included all pre-drill monitoring

sites within this area.

76. Table 1 (below) shows the taxonomic groups observed within the 0.1 mm sediment deposition

contour and the relative occurrence of each (% observations).

Table 1. Taxonomic groups observed from DTIS transects within the 0.1mm sediment deposition

contour

Taxonomic group % Observations Functional group

Cnidaria_Scleractinia_Cup_Corals 46.97 Sessile suspension feeders

Echinoderm_Echinoid 14.30 Mobile grazer/mobile deposit feeder

Cnidaria_Actinaria 9.94 Sessile predators

Porifera (hexactinellidae) 5.69 Sessile filter feeders

Mollusc_gastropod 4.79 Mobile scavenger/predator

Tunicata 4.12 Sessile filter feeders

Worm 3.15 Sedentary deposit feeder

Echinoderm_Holothurian 2.29 Mobile deposit feeders

Mollusc_Scaphopoda 1.79 Mobile deposit feeders

Porifera (demospongiae) 1.41 Sessile filter feeders

Echinoderm_Ophiuroid 1.34 Mobile deposit feeders

Fish_Bony 1.07 Highly mobile

Crustacean_Isopoda 0.50 Mobile scavenger/predator

Xenophyophore 0.50 Sessile (unknown feeding mode)

Echinoderm_Asteroid 0.48 Mobile scavenger/predator

Fish_Eels 0.36 Highly mobile

Bryozoan 0.31 Sessile suspension feeders

Crustacean_shrimp 0.31 Mobile scavenger/predator

Pycnogonid 0.25 Mobile scavenger/predator

Mollusc_Octopod 0.11 Highly mobile

Porifera 0.10 Sessile filter feeders

Fish_Cartilagenous 0.06 Highly mobile

Cnidaria_Zoanthidea 0.04 Sessile suspension feeders

Echinoderm_Crinoidea 0.04 Mobile suspension feeder

Cnidaria_Alcyonacea 0.02 Sessile suspension feeders

Cnidaria_Hydrozoa 0.02 Sessile suspension feeders

Cnidaria_Pennatulacea 0.02 Sessile suspension feeders

Crustacean_galatheid 0.02 Mobile scavenger/predator

Mollusc_Bivalvia 0.02 Sessile filter feeders

77. The dominant functional groups observed within the area of impact were sessile suspension

feeders (47%), mobile deposit feeders (14%), sessile filter feeders (11%), and sessile predators

(10%).

78. For taxa recorded within the 0.1 mm deposition contour around the Tawhaki-1 drill site (i.e., area

of impact), Table 2 (below) shows the percentage representation of nine functional groups.

79. The dominant functional groups observed within the area of impact were sessile suspension

feeders (47%), mobile deposit feeders (14%), sessile filter feeders (11%), and sessile predators

(10%).

80. For taxa recorded within the 0.1 mm deposition contour around the Tawhaki-1 drill site (i.e., area

of impact), Table 2 (below) shows the percentage representation of nine functional groups.


Table 2. Functional groups observed within the predicted area of impact.

Functional group % observations

Sessile suspension feeders 47.38

Mobile deposit feeders 13.82

Sessile filter feeders 11.34

Sessile predators 9.94

Mobile scavenger/predator 6.34

Mobile grazer 5.90

Sedentary deposit feeder 3.15

Highly mobile 1.60

Sessile (unknown feeding mode) 0.50

Mobile suspension feeder 0.04

81. The xenophyophores reported within the area of impact were those large enough to be observed

in video analysis; analysis of still images indicated that a substantial fraction of xenophyophores

are undetectable in the video imagery.

82. Cup corals were in highest densities to the south of the area of impact (i.e., 0.1 mm deposition

contour) at sites O10 and O11, which are in vicinity of 0.01 and 0.05 mm predicted sediment

deposition contours, respectively. Data for sites O10 and O11 were collected at distances

between 1.4 and 2 km, and between 0.75km and 1.4 km from the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill

location, respectively.

83. Small discrete foraminifera (as opposed to the larger agglutinated foraminifera/xenophyophores),

polychaetes and nematodes dominated the infauna found within the regional survey area.

84. Cup corals are in the order Scleractinia and therefore are protected by the Wildlife Act (1953). It

was agreed that any discussions around the relevance, intent or enactment of the Wildlife Act

regarding the Application were outside the area of expertise of those involved in this conferencing.

The influence of sedimentation

85. The discharge of drill cuttings and drilling fluids associated with an exploration drilling programme

has the potential for adverse impacts on benthic organisms due to the deposition of cuttings on

the seabed and transport of suspended particulates from the cuttings. These impacts may include

growth inhibition, smothering or burial, reduced feeding efficiency, mortality, displacement of

fauna and altered biological communities (Gray et al. 1990; Cranford et al. 1999; Currie and

Isaacs 2005; Ellis et al. 2012; Hewitt and Lohrer 2013)

86. There have been few deep-sea studies that deal specifically with the effects of sedimentation on

benthic taxa and/or community structure.

87. There was no evidence for adverse effects on benthic taxa for depositional depths less than 1 mm

at 400 m water depth on the Chatham Rise was reported in the literature (e.g. Hewitt and Lohrer

2013) or at sediment concentrations of less than 0.5 mg/L (Bakke et al. (2013)

88. The impact of sedimentation at the Tāwhaki-1 drill location is expected to be very localised within

the footprint of deposition (i.e., 0.1 mm deposition thickness) rather than at a wider ecosystem

scale (e.g. Jones et al. 2012).

89. Indirect effects on benthic organisms of sedimentation caused by the proposed activities include

increased vulnerability to predation, higher density of predators and scavengers in the area,

reduced condition (organisms use energy for cleaning rather than growth, reproduction etc.),

altered predator/prey relationships, and modification of habitat with coarser sediments and

contaminants.

90. An increase in mobile scavenging and predatory species such as decapods, asteroids and

ophiuroids following disturbance is well-documented. This is a temporary response to the

increased availability of dead and injured organisms as food. Predation risk for any surviving

organisms may increase as mobile predators move into the area. Overall biomass in the area may

increase for a short time while mobile scavengers/predators are there, but then fall to pre-

disturbance levels that reflect the loss of resident fauna (e.g. Sciberras et al. 2018).

91. There is little available data on the response of New Zealand deep-sea fauna to sedimentation.

Responses are expected to vary among taxa, driven by differences in ecological traits (e.g.,

morphology, mobility, position in/on the sediment, and feeding mode). (e.g. Hewitt and Lohrer

2013).

92. Suspension feeders and filter feeders are most susceptible to increased inorganic suspended

sediments that can clog gills and increase energetic costs associated with processing or clearing

sediments from tissues.

93. Deposit feeders are more susceptible to adverse effects of sediment deposition, which may

smother the organism, restrict its movement through the new sediment, and change the nutritional

value of the sediment, especially if the inorganic content is high.

94. Small species and juveniles of larger species are more likely than larger organisms to be

completely covered by relatively small deposits of sediment.

95. Cup corals (sessile suspension feeders) were numerically the dominant taxa within the impacted

area (46% of all observations).

96. No data are available on life histories, reproductive strategies, or growth rates of cup corals and

little is known about the response of Scleractinian cup corals to sedimentation. However, cup

corals are sessile and have a relatively low profile, suggesting they may be vulnerable to

smothering and burial.

97. Echinoids were the second most dominant taxonomic group observed within the area of impact

(14% of observations). The deposit-feeding spatangoids (heart urchins) were the dominant urchin

observed (59% of echinoids). Other mobile deposit feeders observed include holothurians,

scaphopods, and ophiuroids. Mobile deposit feeders may be vulnerable to smothering and burial.

98. Other dominant echinoids included cidarid urchins and Tam O’Shanter urchins, both are mobile

grazers. Cidarids use spines and tube feet to move across the substrate. Respiration occurs

through membranes associated with tube feet and buccal sacs predominantly on the ventral side

of the test. The tube feet and specialised appendages (pedicellaria) are used for keeping the test

clean,and removing both debris and colonising larvae of sessile species.

99. The Tam O’Shanter urchin may be more vulnerable to the effects of sedimentation due to the low

and flat shape of its soft and flexible test. However, as with the cidarids, Tam O’Shanter urchins

have tube feet and pedicellaria for cleaning the test.

100. Actiniaria (anemones) were reported in 10% of all observations within the impacted area. These

sessile predators extend soft tentacles into the water column to feed They typically retract their

feeding tentacles when disturbed and may be susceptible to smothering and starvation under

heavy sedimentation.

101. Porifera (Hexactinellidae) contributed to 6% of all observations within the impacted area.

Hexactinellids are sessile filter feeders (a feeding strategy also used by tunicates, demosponges,


bivalves and other (undetermined) porifera (4%, 1.4%, 0.2% and 0.1% of observations,

respectively). Members of this functional group are vulnerable to respiratory clogging by excess

suspended sediments and burial by sediment deposition. Of the group, bivalves are most likely to

withstand these stressors; most bivalves are able to close their valves when environmental

conditions are unfavourable (although they cannot feed while the valves are closed. Many

bivalves can recover from deposition of soft material by moving vertically through sediment to

reach the sediment-water interface.

102. Mobile scavengers/predators (6% of observations) included gastropods, isopods, asteroids,

shrimps and galatheid squat lobsters. The animals are less vulnerable than sessile taxa to

smothering or burial by sedimentation. Many of these taxa may increase in the area of impact

following disturbance to forage on dead or injured organisms.

103. Xenophyophores accounted for 0.5% of all observations within the impacted area. Note that the

raw counts from video imagery do not include the small and cryptic xenophyophores which may

have been present.

104. There is no known information on xenophyophore response to sedimentation. However, they are

considered vulnerable to smothering and burial.

105. Xenophyophores are thought to be suspension feeders, surface deposit feeders or use passive

trapping within test folds or cavities (Gooday et al. 1993). Xenophyophores probably feed on

sediment and associated organic material, including bacteria (Gooday et al. 2011).

106. Small discrete foraminifera (as opposed to the larger agglutinated foraminifera/xenophyophores),

polychaetes and nematodes dominated the infauna. Small, mobile deposit feeding infaunal

polychaetes have been found to be relatively resilient to tailing dispersal (references in Hewitt and

Lohrer 2013).

107. Meiofauna within the GSB regional survey area was dominated by nematodes, nauplii larvae and

harpacticoids. Little is known of the response or vulnerability of meiofauna to sedimentation,

though the abundance of meiofauna has been shown to decrease immediately following

disturbance, then to increasing rapidly after a few months (e.g. Radziejewska 2014).

Expected recovery timeframes

108. There are two main pathways for recolonisation of disturbed sediments by benthic invertebrates:

lateral migration of mobile adults/juveniles from nearby undisturbed sediments; and the dispersal

of planktonic larvae from source populations of reproductive adults (some mobile taxa and most

sessile taxa) (e.g. Beaumont and Rowden 2013).

109. Changes in sediment properties of the disturbed sediments compared to pre-disturbance

sediments can result in an altered infaunal and epifaunal community.

110. The area of impact has a relatively small footprint and so, should sediment properties allow,

recolonization by lateral migration of some mobile taxa could be expected to be relatively rapid

(e.g. Sciberras et al. 2018).

111. We found no data on the recolonization by larval dispersal, settlement or recruitment for deep-sea

fauna in New Zealand or elsewhere.

112. We found no data on recovery times for New Zealand deep-sea fauna. However, Clark et al.

(2019) found no evidence of recovery of seamount communities after 15 years. This was using

camera survey data to assess recovery of seamount communities following disturbance by bottom

fishing and not soft-sediment communities as observed at the Tāwhaki-1 drill location.

113. Despite some age and growth estimates from other regions and species there is insufficient data

to estimate the recovery of cup corals to the impacts of sediment deposition.

114. Reticulammia labyrinthica was amongst the species of xenophyophores observed near the

proposed drill site (Tāwhaki-1). Relatively high growth rates have been observed in-situ for this

species of xenophyophore in the abyssal northeast Atlantic, with an estimated 3–10 fold increase

in volume in 8 months (Gooday et al. 1993). Gooday et al. (1993) estimated the large specimens

observed (~70 mm diameter) were approximately 1–2 years old.

115. Studies examining the re-colonisation of seabed fauna within disturbed/defaunated sediments

have noted that the establishment of xenophyophore densities approaching background densities

is on the scale of years (Hess et al. 2001, South China Sea, 2338 - 4265 m).

116. Very little is known about reproduction rates or strategies of xenophyophores (Gooday et al.

2017). However, following the observation of the relatively rapid recolonization of

xenophyophores following a large-scale volcanic ash deposit, it was suggested that

xenophyophores may recolonise through larval dispersal (e.g. Hess et al. 2001).

117. Small soft-bottom infauna are expected to begin recovery almost immediately following the

cessation of drilling/deposition activities, with considerable signs of recovery potentially evident

within three years at depths between 800 m and 2000 m. However, recovery regimes are taxa-

dependent and larger fauna are expected to take longer than this (e.g. Burd et al. 2000; Blake et

al. 2009; Shimmield et al. 2011).

118. Changes in meiobenthos community structure and a reduction in total abundance were reported

immediately following bottom disturbance. However, seven years later nematode and

harpacticoid abundances were elevated compared with pre-disturbance abundances. (e.g.

Radziejewska 2014). Baseline meiofaunal data are available for the Tāwhaki-1 pre-drill area for

comparison with post-drilling communities, in accordance with the EMP included in the

Application.

119. The limited available evidence suggests that recovery of megafauna/epifauna communities in the

deep sea environment could be on the scale of years to decades (e.g. Jones et al. 2012).

Habitat suitability modelling.

120. Modelling was carried out on the key taxonomic groups observed within the regional survey area

using the inputs observed from the DTIS transects undertaken across the regional survey area as

detailed above under Issue 10biii.

121. Echinoids (mostly spatangoids, cidarids and Tam O’Shanters) were predicted to be widespread

across the survey area with the highest predicted abundances to the east, south and south-east

of the Tāwhaki-1 location.

122. The model indicates that the highest abundances of Actiniaria are in the southern part of the

regional survey area.

123. The model predicts that the highest abundances of cup corals are close to but south of the 0.1

mm deposition area of impact. The predicted abundance of cup corals within the 0.1mm area of

impact is estimated to be 0.2% of the total abundance of cup corals across the survey area (Error!

Reference source not found.).


Figure 1 Predicted density (scale at right; numbers per 25 m section of DTIS transect) of cup corals

around the Tāwhaki-1 well location, with observed densities from camera transects overlaid.

124. The highest predicted abundance of Porifera were within and to the north of the channel habitats.

Abundances of carnivorous sponges were associated with channel features.

125. Highest predicted abundances of gastropods were to the northwest of the survey area and

northeast of the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill location, with relatively low abundances predicted at the

drill location.

126. The highest predicted abundances of scaphopods were to the far east of the regional survey area,

within the channel system, with relatively low abundances predicted across the wider survey area.

127. The model was not effective at predicting the abundances of infauna. However, simple

interpolation plots effectively illustrate the distributions of the various infaunal taxa. For example,

discrete foraminifera (different to large agglutinating foraminifera/xenophyophores) were

widespread and in particularly high abundances to the north and north-east of the survey area.

Branching foraminifera were in high densities at some sites in the vicinity of the proposed

Tāwhaki-1 drill location and widespread across the south of the regional survey area.

Polychaetes were widespread across the survey and in highest abundances to the north and west

of the regional survey area.

128. Copepods had high abundances around the proposed Tāwhaki-1 drill location and were

widespread across the north of the regional survey area and ostracods had low densities at the

drill site.

129. Multivariate analysis didn’t show any community structure of the macrofaunal or meiofaunal data

and no uniqueness of the proposed drill site.

130. The model output showed most taxonomic groups observed within the predicted area of impact

were relatively widespread throughout the broad slope basin habitat of the regional survey area.

The exception to this were the cup corals.

131. There was no dispute of the modelling output.



132. The measures provided for Issue 1 also apply here.

ASSUMPTIONS

133. We agree on the following assumptions in relation to this issue:

134. The survey sites, DTIS transects and multicore sites were adequately representative of the

regional survey area.

135. EXPERT OPINION/CONCLUSION

136. We now know more about seabed habitats and fauna in this part of the GSB than we do of any

other area at these depths within the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), with the

exception of the Chatham Rise and parts of the Hikurangi Margin and Bay of Plenty.

137. There is no evidence for the existence of xenophyophore beds (as defined by EEZ Act for a

sensitive environment) within the defined area of impact for the Tāwhaki-1 drilling location.

138. Recovery of the low density xenophyophores populations within the defined area of impact may

take years rather than decades.

139. The susceptibility of cup corals to sedimentation cannot be characterised because too little is

known about their life histories and response to, and recovery from, sedimentation. The highest

abundances of cup corals are within the vicinity of proposed drill site but habitat suitability

modelling estimated that only 0.2% of total predicted abundance is within the predicted area of

impact.

140. The effects of an exploration drilling programme at Tāwhaki-1 drilling location will be long-term but

reversible, given the assumed trajectory of recovery and the limited area of impact.

141. Uncertainty exists around the response of xenophyophores to sedimentation. However, recovery

potential of xenophyophores is considered likely to be on a scale of years (rather than decades).

The highest abundances of xenophyophores were observed outside of the predicted area of

impact.

142. Recovery timeframe of the benthic communities within the impacted area is largely unknown, but

likely on a scale of years to decades for most taxa, assuming sediment properties are favourable.

143. There will be impacts to the benthos within a localised footprint in proximity to the proposed

Tāwhaki-1 drilling location.

144. The proposed exploration drilling programme at Tāwhaki-1 will have no unacceptable adverse

impacts to ecosystem functions or processes or to habitats of threatened taxa.


Cumulative impacts

145. Conferencing was approached on the basis of one well (Tāwhaki-1) given that the available

information was specific to that location.

146. During expert conferencing, further explanation and clarification was provided by Mr Govier

regarding the potential for and impacts of, cumulative effects.

147. Although the anticipated impacts of the single well considered during this conferencing are

considered acceptable, this conclusion cannot be extrapolated to additional wells drilled in the

larger Project Area. Each subsequent pre-drill monitoring programme should assess the potential

for cumulative effects in the context of existing effects from Tāwhaki-1 and other existing drill

sites, for which approval will be required. We understand that the cumulative effects of up to ten

wells in this licence area may need to be managed appropriately through the consent conditions

and EMP and the subsequent pre-drill monitoring programme and review by the EPA.

Seasonality

148. We note that diurnal variability in timings between pre-drill sampling and post-drill monitoring is

acceptable because vertical migrations are minimal in this deep-sea environment and taxa of

interest are predominantly sessile.

149. However, seasonal differences in abundances and life stages of infauna and mobile epifauna may

be relevant. Seasonal processes may include spawning (including that of cup corals), rate of

deposition of organic matter from the plankton, and quantity or quality of planktonic food sources

near the bottom within the area of impact.

150. Given the potential for undocumented seasonal variability, it is important that post-drill monitoring

occur in the same season as the pre-drill monitoring. If logistical constraints prevent achieving this

goal, additional sampling may be recommended.

151. It is intended that post-drill monitoring will be conducted at the same time of year as the pre-drill

monitoring to avoid seasonality components, and this is stipulated in the EMP.

Importance

[ISSUE 3]

152. In our opinion the integrity of marine benthic species, ecosystems and processes (including

protected species) is of importance to the application because it highlights the presence of a

protected species within the area of impact and the lack of available information on the likely

response of protected taxa to disturbance.

UNCERTAINTIES

153. We agree that the following material matters are uncertain, largely due to incomplete baseline

knowledge, and other constraints associated with the deep-sea environment.

154. The cup coral identification is tentative; this taxon was identified by a leading expert from still

images rather than samples. Key life history traits (e.g., growth rates, reproductive season and

strategy, response to and recovery from sedimentation, life span, population structure and

regional connectivity, and other factors) are unknown.

155. The similarity of sediment tolerance and recovery in cup corals to other Scleractinia is unknown.

156. The scale of the potential impact is uncertain as there are no data on the threshold/tipping points

for deep sea fauna. The area of impact has been defined as the 0.1 mm sediment deposition

contour. We are in agreement that this can be considered a conservative threshold for the effects

of sediment deposition and suspended sediments; however, empirical data from comparable

depths to support this finding are lacking.

157. The pre-and post-drill monitoring extends to include the 0.01 mm sediment deposition contour

because the dispersal extent of soluble contaminants is uncertain. However, sediment chemical

analysis will be undertaken for each of the core samples taken to assess any chemical or physical

changes to the sediment.

158. Uncertainty exists around the life history of xenophyophores.

159. Uncertainly exists around the sensitivity and response of xenophyophores to sedimentation.

160. Xenophyophores were difficult to observe during video imagery surveys due to their small size

and inconspicuous form; the regional and national status of the species observed in the Project

Area is unknown.

161. The detailed video images and still images that were analysed to assess the xenophyophore

densities against the Schedule 6 sensitive environment criteria in the GSB survey were

undertaken to measurements smaller than NIWA’s normal threshold of 5 cm for standard video

analysis. No minimum size limit is defined within Schedule 6, and so the very detailed analysis

was undertaken to capture as accurately as possible the densities of xenophyophores within the

survey area. This high-resolution analysis of imagery may have resulted in higher estimates of

xenophyophore densities in the Project Area than within other NIWA deep-sea surveys.

162. The Application presented estimates of total abundance of xenophyophores, based on scaling up

from high-resolution still images of select locations. Uncertainties arise from the selection of the

images to analyse in detail, and whether the scaling methods were uniformly suitable for

xenophyophore species of all sizes (e.g., Psammina sp. as well as species too small or cryptic to

be seen in videos).

163. The xenophyophores observed within the GSB could be of the same or different species to those

observed in benthic surveys on the Chatham Rise and other regions of the EEZ. Knowledge of

the distribution, abundance and species composition of xenophyophores around New Zealand is

derived largely from video/photo identification rather than from direct sampling.

164. Uncertainty exists around the strategies and timing of reproduction, the longevity, and the

recovery potential of the xenophyophore species observed within the survey area. The available

data on recovery were on different species to those observed within the GSB.

CONDITIONS

165. We agree that the following conditions within our area of expertise would likely be appropriate to

deal with adverse effects of the proposed activities:

Condition 22

a) The consent holder shall, for all the proposed wells except the well referred to as “Tāwhaki-1” in the IA (located at or about NZTM 1496397E 4801084N), submit a Well Specific Monitoring Programme (WSMP) to the EPA to be certified prior to undertaking any activities authorised by this marine consent.

b) The purpose of each WSMP is to:

i) identify whether there are any sensitive environments (refer definitions) that may be affected by the activities authorised by this marine consent;


ii) identify the measures to be used to ensure that the activities authorised by this marine consent do not result in effects beyond the nature and scale described in the

application;

iii) assess the cumulative impacts in the context of existing effects from Tāwhaki-1 and other existing drill sites;

iii) report on observations and measurements on any effects of the activities authorised by this marine consent on the benthic environment.

c) The WSMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) and shall be consistent with the EMP that is included in the application documents, and shall include:

i) the location coordinates of sampling sites in relation to the well location;

ii) the frequency and duration of sampling, including prior to, during, and after each well being drilled;

iii) the parameters to be monitored;

iv) the sampling methodology to be employed; and

v) reporting requirements and reporting frequencies.

d) In developing the environment monitoring methodology, the consent holder shall seek to ensure any effects of monitoring on marine mammals, fish, and benthic communities are minimised.

Advice Note: The consent holder has already undertaken the pre-drill (baseline) monitoring for Tāwhaki-1 and this has confirmed that no sensitive environments exist at that well site and no such environments will be adversely affected by the activities authorised by this marine consent. The EMP which was submitted with the application provides details of the environmental monitoring approach around each well. The EMP is modified from and consistent with the report entitled “Recommendations for an Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol: Drilling- and production-related discharges” (Cawthron Report No. 2124 dated 14 April 2014, Johnston et al. 2014). The EMP submitted with the application includes a WSMP that outlines the details of the monitoring that will be undertaken after the drilling of Tāwhaki-1 and does not need to be certified by the EPA. However, this condition requires an WSMP to be prepared for all wells other than Tāwhaki-1 and each WSMP must be consistent with the EMP provided with the application. The WSMP will need to provide details of the proposed monitoring at and around those other well locations, including determination of whether any sensitive environments exist or may be affected at those other well sites.

Condition 23

No activities authorised by this marine consent shall commence for any of the proposed wells, except the well referred to as “Tāwhaki-1” in the IA (located at or about NZTM 1496397E 4801084N), until a WSMP for that well, required by condition 22, has been certified by the EPA, or it is deemed to be certified.

Condition 26

The period of time between the pre-drill monitoring programme for each well and any pre-drill works shall not exceed 15 months.

Condition 27

In the event that pre-drill monitoring identifies any sensitive environment (refer to definitions) in proximity to the location of any well in the drilling campaign that may be potentially affected by the activities authorised by this marine consent, the consent holder shall comply with the following:

a) No structure, other than structures associated with seabed surveys and environmental monitoring, shall be placed on or within any sensitive environment; and

b) The consent holder shall:

i) Move the location of the well to the extent required to ensure that the depositional thickness of drilling cuttings on the area containing the sensitive environment does not exceed 0.1 mm, as demonstrated by cuttings deposition modelling. For the purposes of this assessment the modelled 0.1 mm depositional footprint for the month(s) that drilling is proposed shall be used; or

ii) If moving the well results in any operational constraints on the drilling programme, the consent holder shall engage the services of a suitably qualified and experienced marine ecologist to undertake a ‘sensitivity analysis’ (outlined below). If that analysis confirms that less than 5% of the applicable sensitive environment(s) within the regional survey area will receive more than 0.1 mm of sediment deposition, then the consent holder may drill the well at the intended location, otherwise the consent holder shall move the location of the well so as to comply with clause b) i) of this condition.

For the purposes of clause b) ii) of this condition, the ‘sensitivity analysis’ to be undertaken by the suitably qualified and experienced marine ecologist shall involve, as a minimum, the following:

A) A detailed review of the criteria, including the species and/or habitats, that triggered the environment to be considered a sensitive environment under to Schedule 6 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects— Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013;

B) An assessment of susceptibility of the applicable sensitive environment(s) to sediment deposition;

C) An estimation of the area of the applicable sensitive environment(s) present within the regional survey area. This estimation shall be based on, but not necessarily be limited to, a review of results from the 2019 regional survey undertaken by the consent holder and interrogation of NIWA’s habitat suitability model for the area;

D) An assessment of percentage of the applicable sensitive environment(s) within the regional survey area that will receive more than 0.1 mm of sediment deposition by the proposed drilling as predicted by the deposition modelling, including the cumulative area of all wells drilled to date;

E) Consultation with the EPA regarding the sensitivity analysis and its conclusions; and

F) Preparation of a short report outlining the results of the sensitivity analysis outlined above, including a conclusion on whether the percentage of the applicable sensitive environment(s) within the regional survey area that is predicted by the modelling to receive more than 0.1 mm of sediment deposition by the proposed drilling is less than or more than 5% of the regional survey area.

The short report referred to in F) shall be submitted to the EPA prior to the installation of the MODU at any location to which this condition applies.

Condition 28

a) The consent holder shall prepare and provide to the EPA a Compliance Report for each drilling campaign. A Compliance Report shall be provided within eight months of the completion of the environmental monitoring programme for each drilling campaign.

b) Each Compliance Report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s).


c) Each Compliance Report shall include the following:

i) A description, analysis, evaluation and discussion of any environmental monitoring undertaken, including those undertaken in accordance with the WSMP (as required by condition 22); and,

ii) A copy of the raw results from any environmental monitoring undertaken, including those undertaken in accordance with the WSMP (as required by condition 22). In addition to including raw monitoring data in the Compliance Report, these data shall also be provided to the EPA in an electronic format agreed to by the EPA.

iii) An assessment of how each drilling campaign has complied with the conditions of this marine consent.

David Bowden

Ivan Steward

June Mire

Jennifer Beaumont

Owen Anderson

Dan Govier

References

We have referred to the following documents in our discussions:

Bakke, T., Klungsoyr, J., Sanni, S. (2013) Environmental impacts of producted water and drilling waste

discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Marine Environmental Research, 92: 154-

169.

Beaumont, J., Rowden, A.A. (2013) Potential for recolonisation and recovery by benthic communities

following mining disturbance on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report WLG2013-7. Prepared for

Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd: 35 p.

Blake, J.A., Maciolek, N.J., Ota, A.Y., Williams, I.P. (2009) Long-term benthic infaunal monitoring at a

deep-ocean dredged material disposal site off Northern California. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical

Studies in Oceanography, 56 (19-20): 1775-1803.

Burd, B., Macdonald, R., Boyd, J. (2000) Punctuated recovery of sediments and benthic infauna: A 19

year study of tailings deposition in a British Columbia fjord. Marine Environmental Research, 49(2):

145-175.

Clark, M.R., Bowden, D.A., Rowden, A.A., Stewart, R. (2019) Little evidence of benthic community

resilience to bottom trawling on seamounts after 15 years. Frontiers in marine science, 6:63: 16 p.

10.3389/fmars.2019.00063

Cranford, P.J., Gordon Jr, D.C., Lee, K., Armsworthy, S.L., Tremblay, G.H. (1999) Chronic toxicity and

physical disturbance effects of water- and oil-based drilling fluids and some major constituents on

adult sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). Marine Environmental Research, 48(3): 225-256.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1136(99)00043-4

Currie, D.R., Isaacs, L.R. (2005) Impact of exploratory offshore drilling on benthic communities in the

Minerva gas field, Port Campbell, Australia. Marine Environmental Research, 59(3): 217-233.

10.1016/j.marenvres.2004.05.001

Ellis, J.I., Fraser, G., Russell, J. (2012) Discharged drilling waste from oil and gas platforms and its

effects on benthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 456: 285-302.

FAO (2009) Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems - Processes and practices in the high seas. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper 595.

ISSN 207-7010. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5952e.pdf.

Freeman, D., Schnabel, K., Marshall, B., Gordon, D., Wing, S., Tracey, D., Hitchmough, R. (2013)

Conservations status of New Zealand marine invertebrates, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification

Series 9: 24 p.

Gooday, A.J., Aranda da Silva, A., Pawlowski, J. (2011) Xenophyophores (Rhizaria, Foraminifera)

from the Nazare Canyon (Portugese margin, NE Atlantic). Deep Sea Research II, 58: 2401-2419.

Gooday, A.J., Bett, B.J., Pratt, D.N. (1993) Direct observation of episodic growth in an abyssal

xenophyophore (Protista). Deep-Sea Research I, 40(11/12): 2131-2143.

Gray, J., Clarke, K., Warwick, R., Hobbs, G. (1990) Detection of initial effects of pollution on marine

benthos: an example from the Ecofisk and Eldfisk oil fields, North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress

Series, 66: 285-299.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1136(99)00043-4

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5952e.pdf


Hess, S., Kuhnt, W., Hill, S., Kaminski, M.A., Holbourn, A., de Leon, M. (2001) Monitoring the

recolonization of the Mt Pinatubo 1991 ash layer by benthic foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology,

43: 119-142.

Hewitt, J.E., Lohrer, A.M. (2013) Impacts of sedimentation arising from mining on the Chatham Rise.

Prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate, NIWA Client Report HAM2012-132: 36 p.

IOPG (2016) Environmental fates and effects of ocean discharge of drill cuttings and associated

drilling fluids from offshore oil and gas operations. IOGP report 543, March 2016: 144 p.

Johnston, O., Barter, P., Ellis, J., Elvines, D. (2014) Recommendations for an offshore Taranaki

environmental monitoring protocol: Drilling- and production- related discharges. Cawthron Report: 53

p.

Jones, D.O.B., Gates, A.R., Lausen, B. (2012) Recovery of deep-water megafaunal assemblages from

hydrocarbon drilling disturbance in the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Marine Ecology Progress Series,

461: 71-82.

MacDiarmid, A.B., Bowden, D.A., Cummings, V., Morrison, M., Jones, E., Kelly, M., Neil, H., Nelson,

W., Rowden, A.R. (2013) Sensitive Marine Benthic Habitats Defined. NIWA Client Report to the

Ministry for Environment, WLG2013-18: 72.

MetOcean (2019) Dispersal of drill cuttings. Numerical modelling of the dispersal and deposition of

cuttings dischared to the sea from Tawhaki-1. Report prepared for OMV/SLR.

Parker, S.J., Penney, A.J., CLark, M.R. (2009) Detection criteria for managing trawl impacts on

vulnerable marine ecosystems in high seas fisheries of the South Pacific Ocean. Marine Ecology

Progress Series, 397: 309-317.

Radziejewska, T. (2014) Meiobenthos in the Sub-equatoria Pacific Abyss. A proxy in Anthropogenic

Impact Evaluation. In: G. Lohmann, L.A. Mysak, J. Notholt, J. Rabassa & V. Unnithan (Eds).

SpringerBriefs in Earth System Sciences, South America and the Southern Hemisphere. Springer: 119

pp. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41458-9

Rowden, A.A., Guinotte, J.M., Baird, S.J., Tracey, D.M., Mackay, K.A., Wadhwa, S. (2013) Developing

predictive models for the distribution of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean

region. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report: 70.

Sciberras, M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Kneafsey, B., Clarke, L.J.,

Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O.,

Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., Kaiser, M.J. (2018) Response of benthic fauna to experimental bottom

fishing: A global meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 19: 698-715.

Shimmield, T., Black, K.D., Fox, C., Hughes, D., Howe, J. (2011) Independent evaluation of deep sea

mine tailings placement (DSTP) in PNG8.ACP.PNG.18-B. A review and evaluation of marine

environmental information on Deep Sea Tailings Placement with particular reference to Lihir and

Misima mines. Papua New Guinea. Scottish Association for Marine Science.

Smit, M.G.D., Holthaus, K.I.E., Trannum, H.C., Neff, J.M., Kjeilen-Eilertsen, G., Jak, R.G., Singsaas, I.,

Huijbregts, M.A.J., Henricks, A.J. (2008) Species sensitivity distributions for suspended clays,

sediment burial, and grain size change in the marine environment. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry, 27(4): 1006-1012.
