Decision on marine discharge consent application · BARAKLEAN-926 9.1C 3Drill stem testing – well cleaner 1.6 m BIOGUARD PLUS 9.1A MODU cooling system - antifoulant 1.233 m3 CAUSTIC

Decision on marine discharge consent application

OMV New Zealand Limited

EEZ300011

OCTOBER 2019

MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT EEZ300011

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

Act 2012, the application for marine discharge consent by OMV New Zealand Limited to undertake restricted

discretionary activities (listed in Schedule 1) associated with its exploration and appraisal drilling programme

at 11 well locations in five Petroleum Exploration Permit (PEP) areas in offshore Taranaki, is GRANTED.

Pursuant to section 71(2) of the EEZ Act this marine discharge consent commences on 9 October 2019.

Marine discharge consent EEZ300011 expires on 31 December 2025.

On 18 October 2019, an amended consent was issued pursuant to section 84 of the Exclusive Economic Zone

and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 correcting minor mistakes or defects.

Dated this 91h day of October 2019.

Michelle Ward

Acting General Manager, Climate, Land & Oceans

Under delegation from the Chief Executive of the Environmental Protection Authority

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent i

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent ii

SCHEDULE 1: OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT EEZ300011 AUTHORISED RESTRICTED ACTIVITES This marine discharge consent authorises the following restricted activity, subject to conditions listed in Schedule 2. Section 20B States that 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; however Section 20B(3) states that a person may discharge a harmful substance if the discharge is a permitted activity or authorised by a marine consent.

1. This consent authorizes the discharge of CAUSTIC SODA, LIME, PERFORMATROL, CLAY

GRABBER, ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE, BIOGUARD PLUS, RENACLEAN A, RENACLEAN B,

BARAKLEAN-926, EMBR11720A, JET-LUBE ALCO EP 73 PLUS, JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE, JET-

LUBE NCS-30 ECF, SEAL GUARD ECF, GASSTOP EXP, SHELL GTL SARALINE 185V,

SPHERELITE CEMENT ADDITIVE, MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER, HR-25L, and trace

amounts of hydrocarbons into the marine environment from any Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU)

used for Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) activities authorised by Marine Consent EEZ200010.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent iii

SCHEDULE 2: OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT

EEZ300011 CONDITIONS

DEFINITIONS Terms used in this Schedule of Conditions shall have the following meanings:

Campaign Means a series of exploration and appraisal wells drilled with a single MODU

within OMV-operated exploration permit areas as set out in the OMV Impact

Assessment

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 activity[ies] Means discharge activities authorised by this marine discharge consent only

Drilling Site Means any location authorised for exploration and appraisal drilling under Marine

Consent EEZ200010

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

Dumping and Discharge) Regulations 2015

EAD Exploration and Appraisal Drilling programme

ESRP Emergency Spill Response Plan

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

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

Harmful substance As defined in regulation 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015

IA Impact Assessment document entitled: Marine Discharge Consent Application –

Taranaki Basin. SLR Ref: 740.10078.00700‐R01. Version No: ‐v1.0. June 2019

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

drilling site 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 drilling

site as specified in Table 1 Schedule 2 of this marine discharge consent

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

PEP Petroleum Exploration Permit

OMV OMV New Zealand Limited (the applicant)

Working days Has the meaning given in section 4 of the EEZ Act

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent iv

CONDITIONS

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 application document entitled “Marine Discharge Consent Application – Taranaki Basin” (dated

June 2019) prepared by SLR Consulting NZ Limited; and

b. The responses by OMV to further information requests issued by the EPA under section 54 of the

EEZ Act received on 8 July 2019 and 16 July 2019.

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

of this marine discharge consent, the conditions shall prevail.

2. This marine discharge consent shall expire on 31 December 2025.

3. Pursuant to section 85 of the EEZ Act, this marine discharge consent shall lapse on 31 December 2025

unless it is given effect to prior to that date, or the EPA grants an extension to the date in accordance with

section 85(1)(b) of the EEZ Act.

4. 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.

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

of the activities authorised by this marine discharge consent have been informed of their obligations to

comply with the consent and its conditions.

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, required actions, and responsibilities under this

marine discharge consent. The consent holder shall provide a copy of this record to the EPA upon request.

7. The consent holder shall, at least 20 working days prior to first commencing the activities authorised by

this marine discharge consent, or any other timeframe agreed to by the EPA, provide to the EPA, in

writing, the name and contact details of the person with delegated 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.

8. At least 10 working days before it intends to commence activities authorised by this marine discharge

consent, or at any other timeframe agreed to by the EPA, the consent holder shall advise the EPA in

writing of the intended date activities will commence.

9. This marine discharge consent authorises the discharge of the harmful substances listed in Table 1,

Schedule 2 of this marine discharge consent.

10. When carrying out discharge activities at a drilling site the Consent Holder shall ensure that the discharge

activities do not exceed the maximum volume, or maximum mass (as applicable) per drill site, specified

for each harmful substance listed in Table 1, Schedule 2 of this consent.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent v

11. 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.

12. The consent holder shall keep a written record of the following for each well:

a. The name and location of the wells drilled;

b. The range of dates over which each well was drilled;

c. The total volume, or mass, as applicable, of harmful substances discharged in cement per well drilled;

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 each 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 a discharge(s).

The consent holder shall provide a copy of the above information for each well drilled during any

drilling campaign to the EPA within six months of completion of each campaign.

13. 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: Section 25 of the EEZ Act - Duty of persons operating in exclusive economic zone or on

continental shelf

(1) This section applies to every person who carries out or proposes to carry out an activity in the exclusive

economic zone, in or on the seabed of the continental shelf, or in the sea above the continental shelf

beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent vi

(2) The person has—

(a) a general duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity on the environment;

and

(b) a duty to provide—

(i) training and supervision to all of the person’s employees who are engaged in the activity in order

to ensure compliance with this Act, regulations, and any marine consent; and

(ii) sufficient resources to the person’s employees to ensure compliance with this Act, regulations,

and any marine consent, including establishing appropriate management systems.

Advice Note 3: Conditions 22 and 25 of marine consent EEZ200010 require the consent holder to

prepare and implement an Environmental Monitoring Plan for its Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

(EAD) programme. Sampling of the physical and chemical characteristics of the seabed sediments as

well as biological community composition (infauna and epifauna) and video imagery surveys are to be

incorporated into the monitoring programme. The results of this monitoring 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.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent vii

Table 1 – Harmful substances consented for discharge

Harumful substance HSNO

classification Discharge stream and use

Maximum

volume (m3)/

mass (t) per site

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 drilling site. **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.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent

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

OMV New Zealand Limited

Reasons for decision on application for marine discharge consent EEZ300011

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent Page i

Executive Summary

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

Act 2012 (the EEZ Act), the application for a non-notified marine discharge consent by OMV New

Zealand Limited (OMV) to undertake restricted discretionary discharge activities under section 20B of the

EEZ Act is GRANTED subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2 of this decision).

ii. The reasons for granting the marine discharge consent are set out in this decision as required under

section 69 of the EEZ Act. In making my decision, I have acted as a decision maker under delegated

authority from the Chief Executive of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

iii. On 19 June 2019 OMV New Zealand Limited (OMV NZ) lodged an application for consent to discharge

CAUSTIC SODA, LIME, PERFORMATROL, CLAY GRABBER, ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE,

BIOGUARD PLUS, RENACLEAN A, RENACLEAN B, BARAKLEAN-926, EMBR11720A, JET-LUBE

ALCO EP 73 PLUS, JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE, JET-LUBE NCS-30 ECF, SEAL GUARD ECF, GASSTOP

EXP, SHELL GTL SARALINE 185V, SPHERELITE CEMENT ADDITIVE, MICRO MATRIX CEMENT

RETARDER, HR-25L, and trace amounts of hydrocarbons into the marine environment from any Mobile

Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) used for Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) activities authorised by

Marine Consent EEZ200010.

iv. The proposed discharges are classified as non-notified discharge activities under the following regulations

as set out in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects –Discharge and

Dumping) Regulations 2015 (D&D Regulations):

a. Regulation 16(2) of the D&D Regulations - Discharge of harmful substances from production water

for the purposes of a test flow of an exploration well;

b. Regulation 20 of the D&D Regulations - Discharge harmful substances described in regulation

4(a) of the D&D Regulations from mining activities; and

c. Regulation 21 of the D&D Regulations - Discharge of harmful substances in drilling fluids.

v. After considering all the information available to me, taking into account the matters listed in sections 59

and 60, and the information principles under section 61 of the EEZ Act, I have determined the adverse

effects of the discharges on the marine environment are likely to be temporary and to affect small areas

(or low proportions) of the marine environment within OMV’s five PEPs. Overall the effects on the marine

environment within the five PEPs will be negligible.

vi. I have considered the effects of the proposed discharges on existing interests, and find that they will be

negligibly affected by the proposed discharges. I also acknowledge that the cultural interests of iwi with

existing interests may be negligibly affected by the proposed discharges.

vii. I consider the suite of conditions I have imposed on the consent will ensure than any adverse effects are

appropriately managed.

viii. Overall, I find that granting this marine discharge consent meets the purpose of the EEZ Act, as set out in

section 10 of the EEZ Act.

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent Page ii

Table of Contents

1. Background 1

2. Details of the application 2

2.1 Consented discharges ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Serving copies ................................................................................................................................ 6

3. Decision-making process 7

3.1 Documents supporting this decision .............................................................................................. 7

3.2 Requests for further information..................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Section 56 advice ........................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Hearing ........................................................................................................................................... 8

4. EEZ Act and regulations 8

4.1 Duties of the EPA ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Information Principles ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Decision making ........................................................................................................................... 10

5. Activities subject to EEZ Act authorization 11

6. Assessment of application EEZ300011 11

6.1 Section 59(2)(a) and 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act .............................................................................. 11

6.2 Section 59(2A)(b) of the EEZ Act ................................................................................................. 15

6.3 Sections 59(2)(d) and 59(2)(e) of the EEZ Act ............................................................................ 16

6.4 Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act .................................................................................................... 17

6.5 Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act .................................................................................................. 17

7. Section 73 - duration of consent 18

8. Conclusion 18

Tables and Figures Figure 1 A map of the PEPs and each of the 11 well locations on the Taranaki Bight ............................ 2

Table 1 Harmful substances to be discharged and relevant information ................................................. 5

Appendices Appendix One – EPA staff assessment of the application against the matters under section 59(2A) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 ...................... A1

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent Page iii

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

Dose A portion of a substance added during a process

BOP Blowout Preventer

EAD Exploration and Appraisal Drilling programme

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

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

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

Dumping and Discharge) Regulations 2015

Harmful substance As defined in regulation 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015.

IA Impact Assessment document entitled: Marine Discharge Consent Application –

Taranaki Basin. SLR Ref: 740.10078.00700‐R01. Version No: ‐v1.0. June 2019

OMV OMV New Zealand Limited (the applicant)

PEP Petroleum Exploration Permit

Produced water Water produced from a wellbore

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

Working days Has the same meaning as defined in the EEZ Act 2012

EEZ300011 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent Page 1

1. Background

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the marine consent authority for certain activities that

are restricted within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf beyond the 12 nautical

mile limit from New Zealand’s coastline.

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

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

discharge consents.

On 19 June 2019, OMV lodged an application for a non-notified marine discharge consent to discharge

harmful substances1 as part of its consented Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) programme

(EEZ200010).

Under Marine Consent EEZ200010, OMV has consent to drill up to nine (9) exploration wells and two

(2) appraisal wells in five (5) Petroleum Exploration Permit (PEP) areas2 in offshore Taranaki.

The discharges consented under this decision are necessary for OMV to carry out its consented EAD

programme.

1 Regulation 4 of the D&D Regulations - For the purposes of the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, harmful substance

means any of the following:

(a) a substance that is ecotoxic to aquatic organisms and is hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous

Substances (Minimum Degrees of Hazard) Regulations 2001:

(b) oil:

2 PEP 60092 (Ridgeline); PEP 57075 (Cloudy Bay); PEP 60093 (Toutouwai); PEP60091 (Te Whatu); and PEP51906 (Cascade).


2. Details of the application

Figure 1 below shows the location of the five PEPs and the proposed well locations labelled A-J, and

L.

Figure 1 A map of the PEPs and each of the 11 well locations on the Taranaki Bight


The PEPs all exist in the Taranaki Basin, at depths ranging from 106 m to 140 m, and at a maximum

distance of approximately 130 km offshore of Taranaki. The marine environment of the Taranaki Basin

is characterised by flat gently sloping continental shelf, dominated by sands and mud.

The Taranaki Basin exists in the ‘South-West North Island’ climate zone which is often windy, but

exhibits very few climatic extremes. The high winds of the Taranaki Bight make it a high energy wave

environment with waves peaking in late winter and being lowest in later summer.

The average water depth at the well locations at which the discharges will occur is 124 m. It may take

up to 90 days to drill a single well. If OMV drills all of the consented wells then it must do so before 31

December 2025 which is the date of expiration of EEZ200010.

The discharge activities will occur throughout the time that the MODU is in position at a well site, with

the majority of discharges occurring during drilling activities. OMV estimates that the MODU will be

drilling up to 40% of the time it is at a well site.

2.1 Consented discharges

The discharges of harmful substances for which a marine discharge consent has been granted are

from any Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) used for the EAD programme authorised by

EEZ200010 via the six discharge streams described below:

a) Discharge of drilling fluids/muds (regulation 21 of The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental

Shelf (Environmental Effects – Dumping and Discharge) Regulations 2015 [D&D Regulations]):

i. The drilling fluids to be discharged will be Water Based Muds (WBMs). WBMs are used

throughout the drilling of a well, which OMV states could take up to 90 days if well re-entry is

required or if a sidetrack well must be drilled to avoid complications in the well or formation

geology.

ii. WBMs will be discharged both continuously and in batches. The WBMs will contain harmful

WBM additives. OMV has provided information on the maximum amount of WBM additives

that could be discharged per well, but this does not provide any details on the exact volume,

frequency, and chemical mix of each WBM discharge. The exact nature of WBM discharges

will be determined by the drilling conditions.

iii. Prior to the installation of the riser system that will flow WBMs up to the MODU, and during

the drilling of the top well intervals, 2,303m3 of WBMs will be discharged directly to the seabed.

Up to 5.32%, or 122 m3 of this volume could be harmful WBM additives.

iv. The remaining discharges of WBMs would be via the following three discharge streams:

o WBMs discharged to replenish the drilling fluid system (7.95 m3 ‐ 15.9 m3 of WBMs in

periodical batch discharges);

o Batch Discharge – WBMs discharged at the end of a well (31.8 m3 of WBMs from down‐

hole and 127.2 m3 – 159 m3 surface volume total); and


o WBMs adhering to discharged cuttings (continuous discharge while drilling – exact

volumes unknown).

b) Discharge of trace amounts of hydrocarbons (regulation 20 of the D&D Regulations):

i. This discharge may occur when drilling through hydrocarbon‐bearing rocks, as trace amounts

of hydrocarbons could become entrained in drilling muds as they are flowed back to the

MODU.

ii. The drilling muds and drill cuttings are separated on the MODU, but small amounts of drilling

muds, and any entrained trace amounts of hydrocarbons, that are still adhered to drill cuttings

could then be discharged to the marine environment.

c) Discharge from drill stem test (regulation 16(2) of the D&D Regulations):

i. Drill stem testing will only occur if hydrocarbons are encountered. Drill stem testing is the

process of flowing hydrocarbons that are newly encountered during exploration drilling back

to the MODU for sampling and testing.

ii. Prior to flowing the hydrocarbons back to the MODU, the well requires cleaning.

iii. Prior to taking samples of the hydrocarbons, chemicals are added to help separate the

hydrocarbons from water and impurities.

iv. The majority of the hydrocarbons that are flowed back to the MODU are not sampled, but are

flared-off (combusted) via the environmentally distinct burner (EDB), some of the chemicals

that are added to the hydrocarbons will also be flared-off.

v. Any water, chemicals and other impurities (slops) that are produced during drill stem testing,

and that are not soluble in oil (and therefore not flared off) will be routed through a tank that

will filter out any oil prior to releasing the slops for discharge. Chemicals will then be required

to clean the slops tank filtration system.

vi. All of these drill stem testing processes involve the use and discharge of harmful substances.

d) Discharge of Blowout Preventer (BOP) fluid (regulation 20 of the D&D Regulations):

i. The BOP is a critically important piece of infrastructure for maintaining control of a well. A BOP

is a structure that is placed atop of a wellhead. The BOP contains a series of valves that can

be shut to contain any hydrocarbons produced at high pressures during drilling, thus

maintaining control of the well.

ii. The BOP must be periodically tested during drilling. These tests can involve opening and

closing small numbers of valves, to full tests of the BOP in which all of the valves are shut.

iii. Each time a valve is shut, small volumes of hydraulic fluids are released from the BOP, some

of which are harmful substances. If a full BOP test is carried out up to 1000 L of harmful

substance could be released into the marine environment.


e) Discharge of excess cement (regulation 20 of the D&D Regulations):

i. Cement is required throughout drilling to install subsea infrastructure, such as wellhead

systems and well casings. The discharge of cement and any harmful substances added to

each cement mix will be episodic. The majority of discharges will occur as a result of the

discharge of extra batches of cement (up to 10 m3 per batch), or of batches of cement that are

unsuitable for use.

ii. Some smaller discharges could arise when cement used for installing infrastructure on the

seabed comes into contact with the water column and diffusively releases harmful substances

during the time it takes to set, or, during the cleaning of the MODU cement system.

f) Other operational discharges (regulation 20 of the D&D Regulations):

i. These discharges involve the continuous release of a harmful substance in cooling water from

the MODU cooling system, and the dissolution of lubricants containing harmful substances

into the marine environment.

ii. The cooling water system pumps seawater around the MODU to keep systems operating at

safe temperatures. This water is dosed with antifoulant to help prevent marine organisms from

colonizing and damaging the cooling water system.

iii. Lubricants are used to prevent the corrosion of any infrastructure and systems that are in

direct contact with the marine environment. These lubricants could potentially dissolve harmful

substances into the marine environment.

Table 1 lists all the harmful substances that have been consented for discharge, including maximum

volume/mass and aquatic ecotoxicity classification.

Table 1 Harmful substances to be discharged and relevant information.

Substance Discharge stream Use Relevant

D&D Reg

Maximum

Volume/ Mass of

substance to be

discharge per

well

Aquatic

ecotoxicity

classification*

Environmental

effect at each

well site

CAUSTIC SODA Discharge of drilling

fluids pH control Reg 21 2.7 t 9.1D Medium

LIME Discharge of drilling

fluids pH control Reg 21 2.1 t 9.1D Medium

PERFORMATROL Discharge of drilling

fluids Shale stabiliser Reg 21 40 t 9.1D Very Low

CLAY GRABBER Discharge of drilling

fluids Viscofier Reg 21 10 t 9.1B Medium

ERIFON HD 603

HP NO DYE BOP Fluid Hydraulic fluid Reg 20 2,333 L 9.1A Medium

BIOGUARD PLUS MODU Cooling

System Antifoulant Reg 20 1,233 L 9.1A Negligible


Substance Discharge stream Use Relevant

D&D Reg

Maximum

Volume/ Mass of

substance to be

discharge per

well

Aquatic

ecotoxicity

classification*

Environmental

effect at each

well site

RENACLEAN A MODU Slops Tank Cleaning agent Reg 20 67 L 9.1D Negligible

RENACLEAN B MODU Slops Tank Cleaning agent Reg 20 67 L 9.1B Very Low

BARAKLEAN-926 Drill Stem Testing Cleaning agent Reg 16(2) 1,300 L 9.1C Negligible

EMBR11720A Drill Stem Testing Demsulsifier Reg 16(2) Trace amounts 9.1B Negligible

JET-LUBE ALCO

EP 73 PLUS

MODU System

Lubricants Lubricant Reg 20 Trace amounts 9.1B Negligible

JET-LUBE KOPR-

KOTE

MODU System

Lubricants Lubricant Reg 20 Trace amounts 9.1A Negligible

JET-LUBE NCS-

30 ECF

MODU System

Lubricants Lubricant Reg 20 Trace amounts 9.1C Negligible

SEAL GUARD

ECF

MODU System

Lubricants Lubricant Reg 20 Trace amounts 9.1C Negligible

GASSTOP EXP Cement Additive Fuid loss

additive Reg 20 114.5 L NA** Negligible

SHELL SARALINE

185V Drill Stem Testing Cushion Reg 16(2) Trace amounts NA** Negligible

SPHERELITE Cement Additive Density

increaser Reg 20 8 t 9.1C Very Low

MICRO MATRIX

CEMENT

RETARDER

Cement Additive Retarder Reg 20 75.7 L 9.1C Negligible

HR25-L Cement Additive Retarder Reg 20 189.27 9.1D Negligible

Trace amounts

of hydrocarbons

Trace amounts of

hydrocarbons NA Reg 20 Trace amounts NA** Negligible

*Classified according to the Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act 1996 (HSNO) – 9.1A = very

ecotoxic to the marine environment, 9.1B = ecotoxic to the marine environment, 9.1C = harmful to the

marine environment, 9.1D slightly harmful to the aquatic environment.

**These substances are not classified as ecotoxic to aquatic organisms, but are oils and so are

considered to be harmful substances under the EEZ Act.

2.2 Serving copies

Under section 45 of the EEZ Act, the EPA is required to serve copies of the application on specific

parties. The EPA served copies of the application on 14 parties on 26 July 2019.

These parties were served by way of email with a link to the application documents on the EPA

website. These parties consisted of:


14 iwi authorities that the EPA determined may be affected by the application;

Maritime New Zealand;

The Minister for the Environment; and

The Minister of Conservation

3. Decision-making process

3.1 Documents supporting this decision

In my consideration of this application I have taken into account the findings from the EPA Staff

Evaluation Report which has two appendices: the EPA staff Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) of

the discharges, and the EPA staff assessment of the application against the matters under section

59(2A) of the EEZ Act3 (EPA staff assessment)

The EPA staff reports have taken into consideration the material provided in OMV’s Impact

Assessment (IA), the appendices to the IA, and the further information received under section 54 of

the EEZ Act by the EPA from OMV on 8 July 2019, and 16 July 2019. In the respect that I have taken

into account the findings of the EPA Staff Evaluation Report, I have considered this material.

3.2 Requests for further information

Further information was received by the EPA from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act on 8 July

2019, and 16 July 2019 in relation to:

a. The volumes, masses and constituents of the discharges;

b. The volume of water required to make WBM batches; and

c. How the hazardous drains tank processes production water.

The majority of information required by the EPA for the assessment of this application was sought from

chemical suppliers. These requests related to the constituents of each substance OMV proposed to

discharge, and the specific ecotoxic properties of each constituent. This information was then used as

the basis for the EPA staff ERA, on which the assessments of effects contained in Appendix One of

this decision are based.

3.3 Section 56 advice

I did not consider it necessary to seek external technical advice or commission any additional reports

under section 56 of the EEZ Act in order to determine the application. However, the EPA staff ERA

has been independently reviewed by an expert in ecotoxicology.

3 Appendix One of this document.


No advice was requested from the Maori Advisory Committee (Ngā Kaihautū Tinkaga Taiao) because

the discharges will occur at least 25 km from any existing interests held by iwi.

Although I have concluded that cultural interests may be negligibly affected by the discharges, I do not

deem it necessary to commission a report from Ngā Kaihautū Tinkaga Taiao, as a report was

commissioned for by the EPA when considering Marine Consent Application EEZ200010.

3.4 Hearing

Section 50 of the EEZ Act stipulates that the EPA may conduct a hearing on an application for a marine

consent for a non-notified activity if the EPA considers it necessary or desirable, and that the EPA

must hold a hearing if the applicant requests one.

A hearing was not held for this application, because the EPA did not consider a hearing necessary or

desirable for this application and the applicant did not request a hearing.

4. EEZ Act and regulations

4.1 Duties of the EPA

4.1.1 Purpose of the EEZ Act

Section 10 of the EEZ Act states that its purpose is to promote the sustainable management of natural

resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

“10 Purpose

(1) 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.

(2) 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.


(3) 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 and the consideration

of applications for marine consent.”

4.2 Information Principles

Section 61 of the EEZ Act sets out my obligations to request and analyse information from the applicant

and obtain advice for marine consents.

“61 Information principles

(1) When considering an application for a marine consent, the Marine Consent 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 –

a) apply to an application for –

i. a marine dumping consent; or

ii. a marine discharge consent; or

iii. a marine consent in relation to an activity referred to in section 20(2)(ba); or

b) 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.”

I consider the information sought and provided is commensurate to the scale, intensity and duration of

the effects of the proposed activities and was sufficient for the purpose of determining this application.

4.2.1 Full use of powers

I am required to make full use of my powers to seek out information, base my decision on the best

available information and consider any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available. The


concept of best available information is defined by the EEZ Act. It means the best information that, in

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

In addition to the information lodged with the application, the EPA requested further information from

OMV during the assessment period. These requests covered the matters discussed in Section 3.2 of

this decision report.

I am satisfied I have made full use of my powers to request and access information and I consider I

have met my responsibilities under sections 61(1)(a) of the EEZ Act.

4.2.2 Best available information

It is important to note that best available information is not necessarily ‘all information’. I have exercised

my judgement to obtain the best available information and the EPA has sought additional advice where

necessary. I have exercised my judgment about what information is the best available information for

this application, having regard to issues of cost, effort and time.

I have had the benefit of the further information provided by the applicant as outlined in section 3.2,

and all of the information provided to EPA staff by the chemical suppliers. I did not deem it necessary

to seek any further information or expert advice beyond this.

I am satisfied that I have been able to make my decision based on the best available information in

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

4.2.3 Certainty and caution

Section 61(2) of the EEZ Act require me firstly to consider whether the information put before me is

uncertain or inadequate. If I consider that it is uncertain, then the same section requires me to favour

caution and environmental protection in making my decision.

In making that judgment, I have followed section 61(2) of the EEZ Act by favouring caution and

applying environmental protection to the extent I consider necessary.

The consent holder will have to conduct the consented activities in such a way that it avoids adverse

effects, remedies adverse effects, or mitigates them. I have imposed conditions which manages the

potential for effects on the environment in these ways.

My decision acknowledges that the effects at each well site will be temporary and no more than

medium within 1,784 m from the point of discharge, and that the overall effects on the broader marine

environment will be negligible.

4.3 Decision making

Section 59(2A) of the EEZ Act set out matters I “must take into account”, and section 59(3) of the EEZ

Act states I “must have regard to” any submissions or evidence given to me, any advice or reports I

have sought, and any advice from the Maori Advisory Committee.


Submissions are not applicable to non-notified applications and the only advice sought was further

information from the applicant.

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

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.

5. Activities subject to EEZ Act authorization

The details of the discharge activities that are subject to this consent under section 20B of the EEZ

Act are set out in Table 1.

6. Assessment of application EEZ300011

I have provided my consideration of all of the section 59 matters that I consider to be the most important

based on the nature and specifics of the proposed activities.

The matters that are not explicitly dealt with here, are addressed in the EPA staff evaluation, and I

adopt the conclusions in the EPA staff assessment on those matters as my own.

Section 4.1 of the IA submitted as part of OMV’s application described the physical environment in the

Taranaki Basin. I have adopted that information for the purpose of my decision.

I also adopt the description of the existing environment provided in the EPA staff assessment, which

outlines that the existing environment will be modified by the preceding consented drilling activities

and other lawfully established activities.

6.1 Section 59(2)(a) and 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act

When considering whether to grant or refuse this application, I must, under section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ

Act, take into account any effects on the environment or existing interests including cumulative effects

and effects in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive

economic zone.

The ERA characterised the environmental risk to the marine environment and informs the EPA staff

assessment of the effects on the environment and existing interests, and assessment of cumulative

effects. I have used the staff assessment as the basis of my decision on the matters set out in sections

59(2)(a) and 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act.

Effects on the marine environment

The ERA sets out a detailed analysis of the potential environmental risks of each proposed discharge

and takes into account the volume, concentration and ecotoxic characteristics of each harmful

substance to be discharged. The results of the ERA show that the most significant environmental

effects of the activity are driven by a subset of the discharges, primarily the discharge of WBMs. The


discharge of WBMs will result in short term as well as long term effects that will last for weeks to

months after the discharge activities have ceased.

The other discharges will result in some measurable environmental effects, which will be short in

duration and will not be detectable once the discharge activities have ceased.

The EPA staff assessment in Appendix One to this report describes the nature of the environmental

effects of WBM discharges on pelagic and benthic environments. This is because the CHARM model4

approach followed in the ERA calculates the risk to both of these environments when assessing WBM

discharges. For all other discharges, the CHARM model calculates the environmental risk to the

marine environment as a whole, and the EPA staff assessment reflects this procedure.

The nature of the overall effects of the proposed discharges on the marine environment can be broken

down into acute5 and chronic6 effects.

The majority of the proposed discharges will result in acute effects on the pelagic environment. These

effects could result in the mortality of small species of plankton or fish that come into contact with a

concentrated discharge plume. Mortality of smaller marine species is only likely to occur in close

proximity to the point of discharge.

Mortality will only occur in larger pelagic species such as fish, if they come in contact with an ecotoxic

concentration of a substance for an extended period of time. The ecotoxicological data used to predict

environmental risks of discharges in the ERA represent the effects on aquatic species after a minimum

of 24 hours exposure to a given concentration of a substance. As any large species of pelagic fish or

plankton are highly transient they will be unlikely to die as a result of coming into contact with any of

the proposed discharges. However, larger pelagic species could be acutely affected which could be

manifested as temporary immobilisation, irritation, and displacement effects.

The proposed discharges are likely to cause chronic effects to the benthic environment. These effects

could result in mortality of benthic invertebrates and potentially some benthic fish species. This is

because chemicals take up to ten times longer to break down in the sediment compared to the water

column. This means that there is a higher probability that relatively immobile benthic invertebrate

species could come into contact with ecotoxic levels of a substance for periods of time up to and over

24 hours.

It is less likely that benthic fish species will suffer mortality, as they are more mobile than benthic

invertebrates and could avoid ecotoxic levels of a substance. However, there is the potential that some

4 The CHARM model is used by the EPA staff to make predictions on the environmental risk of discharges, these predictions

then form the basis of the assessment of environmental effects of an application. The CHARM model is used internationally to

assess discharges from oil and gas facilities. 5 Short term and likely to cease immediately after discharges are stopped, or very shortly after an individual is no longer in

contact with a discharge plume. 6 Long term effects that could last for extended periods, from weeks to months, depending on the volume and ecotoxicity of the

substance driving the effects.


individuals of benthic fish species may not be able to avoid the discharge plume, become immobilised,

and eventually die due to prolonged exposure to a harmful substance.

Non-lethal effects such as displacement are likely to affect benthic fish species and larger mobile

species of crustaceans. Non-lethal irritation effects could result in the reduction of growth or feeding

abilities of non-mobile benthic invertebrates.

The conclusion reached in the EPA staff assessment is that the environmental effects of the proposed

discharges will occur along a spatial and temporal gradient. Effects will be most intense, have the

largest magnitude of impact, and longest duration within the immediate vicinity of the point of

discharge. During and immediately after the discharge activities these effects will reduce to

undetectable levels within a short distance beyond 1,784 m from the discharge point, but that effects

at this point could be medium7.

Over time the effects of the discharges at a well site will dissipate to undetectable levels in an order of

weeks to months. I note that it is the effects of the drilling activities consented under EEZ200010 that

will cause effects that could take a number of years to return to undetectable levels.

OMV’s planned EAD programme could result in discharges occurring at eleven well sites over five (5)

years. The EPA staff assessment highlighted that the discharge activities will only affect 1.2% of the

area covered by OMV’s PEPs, and that this area will not be affected in one single event, but in eleven

spatially and temporally discrete events over 5 years. EPA staff determined that this level of effect was

negligible at the scale of the marine environment that is encapsulated by the five (5) PEPs.

Having considered all of the information available to me on the environmental effects of the proposed

discharges, I have concluded that overall the proposed discharge activities will result in negligible

effects on the marine environment of the Taranaki Basin.

Based on the information provided in the EPA staff assessment it is clear to me that the environmental

effects of the discharges at any well site could be medium at 1,784 m from the point of discharge.

In my opinion the effects associated with the discharges will be temporary and will become

undetectable at each well site after a number of months. The environmental effects associated with

the proposed discharges can be adequately managed via the conditions I have imposed to this

consent.

7 Measurable long term damage to local plant and animal communities, but no obvious spread beyond defined boundaries,

medium term individual ecosystem damage, no species damage.


Effects on existing interests8

The ERA provides results that enabled EPA staff to make an assessment of the likely spatial and

temporal effects of the discharge activities. I have based my findings of the effects on existing interests

on the conclusions reached by EPA staff in the EPA staff assessment.

Lawfully established activities

I consider that iwi authorities and other fisheries quota holders carry out relevant lawfully established

activities as the fish species for which they hold quotas are known to occur in the application area.

The EPA staff assessment outlines that at any given well site, the effects on fish and therefore

commercial fisheries and the existing interests of quota holders will be negligible. This is because the

primary commercial fish stocks fished in the areas around the proposed well sites are pelagic transient

species that forage over large areas and are highly unlikely to come into contact with the proposed

discharges for extended periods. This is an important consideration as prolonged exposure, in excess

of 24 hours, to ecotoxic concentrations of a substance is required for a species to be adversely

affected. I agree with the conclusions reached in the EPA staff assessment, and it is my opinion that

discharge plumes will be temporary and only exist at ecotoxic concentrations in a localised area around

each well site (relative to the size of the area of the Taranaki Basin), and that it is highly unlikely that

any commercial fish species will be adversely affected.

Given that the overall environmental effects of the discharge activities on the marine environment in

the Taranaki Basin will be negligible, and that commercial fish species are unlikely to be adversely

affected by the discharges, I find that iwi authorities and other fisheries quota holders and will be

negligibly affected by the discharge activities.

Effects on marine consents granted under the EEZ Act, and resource consents granted under the RMA

I concur with the conclusions reached in the EPA staff assessment that the activities will not affect

the existing interests of the holders of marine consents or resource consents because the discharge

activities will occur at distances greater than 17 km from these areas.

8 Existing interest means, in relation to New Zealand, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental shelf (as applicable), 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.


Effects on contemporary claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

The EPA staff assessment outlines that customary fishing rights established under the Treaty of

Waitangi Act 1875 exist within 12 nm of the coastline, and that the proposed discharge activities will

occur at distances greater than 25 km from any customary fishing rights. Based on this information my

finding on this matter aligns with that of the EPA staff assessment, which is that customary fishing

rights will not be affected by the proposed activities.

My conclusion is that the activities will negligibly affect the existing interests of fishing quota holders

in paragraph 65 of this report is also relevant to any fishing quotas established under the Treaty of

Waitangi Act 1975.

Effects on any contemporary claims under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

All existing applications for customary right or customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal

Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 are located within the CMA, and a minimum of 25 km inshore of the

well locations. All of these applications are currently undetermined and so no rights have been granted.

As such, I find that there are no protected customary rights or customary marine titles which are

considered existing interests that would be adversely affected by this marine discharge consent

application.

Cumulative effects

I have taken into account the cumulative effects of the discharges and used the conclusions reached

in the EPA staff assessment as a guide in reaching my decision on this matter.

I note that the primary source of environmental effects associated with OMV’s planned EAD

programme will be the drilling activities consented under EEZ200010, and the EPA determined that

the cumulative effects on the environment of the drilling activities would be negligible.

I agree with the EPA staff assessment and deem that it is likely that the discharge activities will add in

some measurable way to cumulative effects within a localised area around each well site. I also note

that the cumulative effects of the consented drilling activities and the proposed discharge activities will

be temporary and are likely to return to undetectable levels in three (3) to five (5) years.

Overall, when considering the proposed activities in the context of the marine environment of the

Taranaki Basin, the cumulative effects on the environment and existing interests will be negligible.

I consider that the cumulative effects of the proposed discharges can be adequately managed through

conditions.

6.2 Section 59(2A)(b) of the EEZ Act

Section 59(2A)(b) of the EEZ Act requires me to take into account the effects on human health of the

discharge of harmful substances if consent is granted. I have taken into account the effects on human

health of the activities.


My finding on this matter is closely linked to my decision on the matter of the effects of the discharges

on commercial fisheries and fishing quota holders. This is because the primary way for human health

to be affected by the activities would be via the consumption of contaminated fish.

The EPA staff assessment states that 98% of the fish caught within 100 km of any of the proposed

wells are pelagic schooling fish that have vast foraging ranges. The behaviour of these species means

that they are unlikely to be affected by the discharge activities, as I have already discussed in

paragraph 65 of this report.

The 500 m exclusion zone that will be put in place around any MODU used for the EAD programme

will preclude any fishing from occurring in those areas in close proximity to the wellhead with the

highest chance of causing ecotoxic effects to marine species. This will further reduce the chances of

the consumption of contaminated seafood by humans, and therefore the effects on human health of

the discharges.

I find that the effects on human health of the discharge activities will be negligible.

6.3 Sections 59(2)(d) and 59(2)(e) of the EEZ Act

Section 59(2)(d) of the EEZ Act requires me to take into account the importance of protecting the

biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes.

Section 59(2)(e) of the EEZ Act requires me to take into account the importance of protecting rare and

vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species.

I have taken into account both of these matters and reached a conclusion that directly aligns with my

findings of the effects on the environment and existing interests, and the cumulative effects of the

activities.

The marine environment and existing interests will be negligibly affected by the discharges, and the

cumulative effects of the activity will be negligible. The conditions I have placed on this consent will

adequately manage these effects.

I note that there are no known occurrences of rare and vulnerable ecosystems in the area captured by

OMV’s PEPs.

I acknowledge that the Taranaki Basin provides habitat for some threatened species, but based on the

overall environmental effects of the discharges, the Taranaki Basin will not be impacted in a way that

would affect the habitats of any threatened species.

As the overall environmental effects of the activities are negligible and given the conditions imposed,

I consider that the effects on elements of the marine environment outlined in sections 59(2)(d) and

59(2)(e) of the EEZ act from the discharge activities to be negligible.


6.4 Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act

Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires me 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. I

have done so, and I have imposed the conditions contained in Schedule 2 of the consent.

The conditions I have imposed restrict the volumes of harmful substances that can be discharged at

each well site. This will limit the level of effects of the activity to those anticipated by the EPA, and

outlined in this report. I am satisfied that the conditions I have imposed on this consent will adequately

manage the effects associated with the discharges.

EPA staff concluded that the monitoring requirements in Condition 22 of the parent consent

EEZ200010 will suffice in detecting any potential effects of the discharge activities, I agree with this

conclusion.

I am satisfied that the requirement in Condition 14 of EEZ200010 on the consent holder to hold a

Kaitiaki Forum to which a representative from each of the iwi and Hapū shall be invited will suffice to

address the potential cultural effects of the discharges.

I have taken into account that the requirement to monitor the environmental effects of the EAD

programme is already contained in Condition 22 of Marine Consent EEZ200010. Those monitoring

requirements are capable of detecting any of the potential environmental effects of the proposed

discharge activities and any effects that could occur, which are greater than those originally

anticipated.

6.5 Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act

Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act requires me to take into account any other matters the EPA considers

relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

I recognise that iwi with settlement claims have cultural interests in the marine environment that extend

beyond legal and statutory boundaries across the EEZ. I acknowledge these interests, and find that

they may be moderately affected by discharges in the immediate vicinity around each well, due to the

impact the discharges may have on the mauri9 of the application area.

I note that the environmental effects of the discharges at each well site will dissipate to undetectable

levels in the order of weeks to months. I therefore consider that the level of cultural effects arising from

the discharges at each well site will be negligible after a number of weeks to months.

I am satisfied Condition 14 of the parent consent EEZ200010, requiring the consent holder to hold a

Kaitiaki Forum, will adequately manage these potential cultural effects.

9 Mauri refers to the life force or essence of an entity.


7. Section 73 - duration of consent

Section 73 of the EEZ Act sets out the matters relevant to determining the duration of the consent. It

states:

“(1A) The duration of a marine discharge consent or a marine dumping 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 a consent, the EPA 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.”

Pursuant to section 73(2)(b) of the EEZ Act, in determining the duration of the consent, I must take

into account the duration sought by OMV. OMV sought a duration of 5 years, with an expiration date

of 31 December 2025, which aligns with the expiration date of EEZ200010.

8. Conclusion

Pursuant to my delegated authority, the application by OMV New Zealand Limited for a marine

discharge consent is GRANTED, subject to conditions listed in Schedule 2 on the basis that:

a. All relevant matters under sections 59(2A) to 63 of the EEZ Act have been taken into account and

that, in summary, I find that there is sufficient and adequate information to confirm that:

i. There are will be no more than negligible effects on the environment within OMV’s five (5)

PEPs;

ii. Effects on existing interests will be negligible;

iii. The effects on human health of the proposal will be negligible; and

iv. The effects on the cultural interests of iwi will be negligible.

b. Granting the application meets the purpose of the EEZ Act, and

c. The conditions imposed in Schedule 2 of this decision will ensure that any potential adverse effects

of the activity authorised by this consent are appropriately managed.

d. Condition 14 and Condition 22 of the parent consent EEZ200010 will adequately deal with the

cultural effects of the proposal, and environmental monitoring respectively.

e. The consent is to be granted for five (5) years to align with the expiry of OMV’s marine consent

EEZ200010 on 31 December 2025.


EEZ300011 OMV Marine Discharge Consent

APPENDIX ONE: STAFF ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE RELEVANT MATTERS UNDER SECTION 59(2A) OF THE EEZ ACT

EEZ300011 OMV Marine Discharge Consent Page A1

Information taken into

account under section 59

of the EEZ Act

Assessment

Section 59(2)(a) any effects

on the environment or

existing interests10 of allowing

the activity including-

(i) cumulative effects

Sections 59(2)(a)(i) and (ii) require the EPA to take into account effects on the environment. An understanding of effects requires

a clear understanding of the existing environment in which the proposed discharge activities will take place.

The existing environment

The proposed discharge activities are part of OMV’s consented Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) programme which will

involve drilling up to 11 wells located in the following five (5) Petroleum Exploration Permit Areas in offshore Taranaki:

PEP 60092 (Ridgeline);

PEP 57075 (Cloudy Bay);

PEP 60093 (Toutouwai);

PEP60091 (Te Whatu); and

PEP51906 (Cascade).

In its application for marine discharge consent (EEZ300011) OMV provided an Impact Assessment (IA)11 as required under section

38(2)(c) of the EEZ Act. This was determined to be complete by the EPA on 15 July 2019 under section 40 of the EEZ Act. OMV’s

description of the existing environment is contained in Section 4 of its IA

In its IA, OMV states that the proposed discharge activities will take place concurrently with the drilling activities consented under

Marine Consent EEZ200010. I consider that the modification of the environment as a result of the drilling activities forms part of

the existing environment against which I assess the effects of the proposed discharges. I also take into account the effects on the

marine environment of the already consented drilling activities in my assessment of cumulative effects later in this report. A detailed

10 “Existing interests” is defined in section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. 11 https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Marine-Activities EEZ/Activities/bf9eaa0850/EEZ300011_Marine_Discharge_Consent_IA.pdf

https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Marine-Activities%20EEZ/Activities/bf9eaa0850/EEZ300011_Marine_Discharge_Consent_IA.pdf


description of the drilling activities is provided in the IA submitted as part of OMV’s application EEZ20001012. In the following

section I provide a brief description of the main drilling activities that will modify the existing environment.

Description of the EAD programme

The 11 proposed well locations are more than 38 km from the west coast of Taranaki in depths ranging between 106 m and 142

m. These wells spread throughout five (5) permit areas held by OMV. The shortest distance between any of the proposed wells is

4.8 km, with some wells coming within 25 km of the Tui Field, 17 km of the Maari Field, and 20 km of Maui B.

1. Installation of MODU[s]

Multiple different Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) could be used for the EAD campaign. A jack-up MODU, or

semisubmersible MODU are the two potential MODU types that OMV has stated it may use. Installing these MODUs will involve

the disturbance of the seabed via the placing of anchors in the case of a semisubmersible MODU, or via the placement of

spudcans13 in case of a jack-up MODU. It is estimated that up to 800 m2 of seabed could be disturbed during the installation of

jack-up MODU, and 16,236 m2 during the installation of a semisubmersible MODU. This will occur at each well site at which a

MODU is installed. The seabed will also be disturbed during the removal of any MODU.

2. Drilling

Well depth will vary with well location but will be between 3,050 m and 4,500 vertical metres deep from the seafloor. The discharge

and deposition of drill cuttings is a key driver of environmental effects associated with drilling. Based on a maximum well depth of

4,500 m the anticipated maximum volume of cuttings is approximately 1,543 m³ for each of the well locations. When drilling first

commences, cuttings from the surface hole are deposited directly to the seabed. Once the wellhead system and riser are installed,

drill cuttings are returned to the MODU and then discharged into the sea in a continuous stream.

The deposition of drill cuttings was modelled at four well sites to give a representation of the likely depositional patterns across the

application area. Deposition will vary at each location but in general drill cuttings discharged near the surface will be dispersed

over a greater area of seafloor and in a thinner layer than cuttings discharged at the seabed close to the wellhead.

12 https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Marine-Activities-EEZ/Activities/6fbfbafb1f/Impact-Assessment-OMV-EAD-EEZ200010.pdf 13 Spudcans are the inverted cones at the bottom of a jack-up MODUs legs that provide stability to vertical and lateral forces on the jack-up MODU.

https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Marine-Activities-EEZ/Activities/6fbfbafb1f/Impact-Assessment-OMV-EAD-EEZ200010.pdf


Drill cuttings discharged from the MODU will increase the suspended sediment levels in the water column around the point of

discharge and will form a plume that will be carried away from the MODU by ambient currents. This plume will eventually disperse,

through dilution, and through drill cutting particle fallout to the seabed.

Drill cutting depositional thickness will be greatest in the area around the well head, with maximum of 10.6 mm of deposition

predicted to occur within 50 m of the well head, and a maximum of 1 mm expected at 212 m from the wellhead. Depositional

thickness is predicted to reduce to 0.2 mm at 1000 m from the MODU release point.

Assessment against section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act: Effects on the environment

Summary of findings on the environmental effects of the discharges

It is my opinion that the overall environmental effects of the proposed discharges at a well site will be no more than medium at

1,784 m from the point of discharge. These effects will be lethal for any organisms that cannot avoid coming into prolonged contact

with ecotoxic concentrations of a substance. I expect that these lethal effects will predominantly occur within between 50 m – 100

m of the point of discharge, and will largely affect plankton, species of fish, and benthic invertebrates.

Beyond 100 m any adverse effects that occur will be predominantly non-lethal to marine species, but could result in temporary

displacement or ecotoxic effects. The level of effect of a discharge will dissipate along a temporal and spatial gradient, with the

highest level of effects being experienced closer to the point of discharge.

The effects of the overall EAD programme discharges on the marine environment in OMV’s five (5) PEPs will be negligible. The

five permit areas cover a total of 8,960 km2. My assessment has concluded that the worst case scenario is that medium

environmental effects will occur at 1,784 m2 from the point of discharge at each well site. A highly conservative estimate of the total

area around a well site that will experience environmental effects14 is 10 km2. This would theoretically mean that up to 110 km2 of

the marine environment could experience medium effects as a result the proposed discharges, which is 1.2% of the total area

14 It is noteworthy that any areas that present environmental risks to the marine environment as a result of a discharge will be non-uniform and will occur in the direction of the ambient hydrodynamic

conditions at that time. This means that the entire area around any well location will not contain elevated levels of risk. Instead, the environmental risks will be present in more restricted areas that

follow the ambient flow axis at the point of discharge.


covered by the five (5) PEPs. As the chronic effects of the discharges could last for a number of weeks to months, some temporal

overlap of environmental effects may occur. However, it is highly unlikely that there will be any spatial overlap of effects from the

proposed discharges as the shortest distance between two wells is 4.8 km.

Overall, in my opinion the effects associated with the proposed discharges will be temporary and will become undetectable at each

well site after a number of months. In my opinion the environmental effects associated with the proposed discharges can be

adequately managed via conditions that limit the number and volume of harmful substances that can be discharged at each well

site.

EPA assessment of the environmental risk associated environmental effects of the proposed discharges

The following sections discuss the EPA findings on the environmental effects of the proposed discharges. In the instance that there

is a significant difference between an EPA finding and a conclusion reached by OMV in its IA, a brief discussion about the reasons

for these differences is provided.

I assess the effects of the proposed discharges on the marine environment by drawing on the predictions of the level of risk to the

environment made in the EPA ERA. I have converted the predicted risk levels into measures of environmental effects for the

purposes of this assessment of environmental effect under section 59 of the EEZ Act. The definitions of each measure of

environmental effect I use in this assessment are provided in the EPA Staff Evaluation Report.

I focus on the effects on the benthic and pelagic environments of WBM additives as the CHARM model makes predictions on the

level of risk to both when calculating Risk Quotients (RQ) for WBM discharges.

For the other discharges focus on the adverse effects to the marine environment as a whole as the CHARM model provides a

prediction of risk to the marine environment rather than for both the benthic and pelagic environment as is the case for WBMs.

Throughout my assessment I will refer to the effects at either 500 m from the discharge point, or at 1,784 m from the point of

discharge. These are the distances at which the CHARM model applies dilution factors to discharges, 500 m for continuous

discharges, and 1,784 m for batch discharges. The effect levels at these distances represent a point along an effect gradient

moving from high levels of effects to undetectable effects with distance from the point of discharge. The level of environmental


effects of the proposed discharges will not decrease linearly with distance from the discharge point, instead it is expected that in

that the level of effect will decrease rapidly beyond the points at which a level of environmental effect has been predicted.

1. Water Based Muds (WBMs)

Results of EPA assessment of pelagic effects of continuous discharges of WBM additives

The effects of the continuous discharge of each WBM additive on the pelagic environment at 500 m from the point of discharge at

a well site were assessed as having low to negligible effects on the marine environment.

Any effects on the pelagic environment from each discharge of WBM additives will largely be acute15, as the WBM additives

disperse quickly due to dilution. The environmental effects of continuous discharges of WBM additives could result in the mortality

of small species of plankton or fish that come into contact with ecotoxic concentrations of a substance. Mortality will only occur in

larger pelagic species if they are in contact with ecotoxic concentration of a substance for extended period of time. All the

ecotoxicological data I used to predict environmental risks of discharges in the ERA represent the effects on aquatic species after

a minimum of 24 hours of exposure to a given concentration of the substance being assessed. As any large species of pelagic fish

or plankton are highly transient it is unlikely that they will be mortally affected as a result of coming into contact with any of the

proposed discharges. However, pelagic species that are not mortally affected could be acutely affected which could be manifested

as temporary immobilisation, irritation, and displacement.

As small amounts of WBM additives will be continuously discharged to the sea surface from the MODU, there will be a certain

level of effect associated with those small volumes of WBM additives. These effects could be classified as chronic16 as they are

continuously present in the water column during drilling, however, they will dissipate immediately after drilling has ceased.

The level of risk and associated environmental effect was calculated for each WBM additive using data on pelagic species. This

risk level is representative of the concentration of each substance at 500 m from the point of discharge, as this is the distance at

which the CHARM model applies a dilution factor to continuous discharges.

15 Short term and likely to cease immediately after discharges are stopped, or very shortly after an individual is no longer in contact with a discharge plume. 16 Long term effects that could last for extended periods, from weeks to months, depending on the volume and ecotoxicity of the substance driving the effects.


No environmental effects are expected to occur beyond 500 m from the point of discharge of LIME and CAUSTIC SODA because

the risk level is predicted to be negligible at 500 m.

Some environmental effects could occur beyond 500 m due to the discharge of CLAY-GRABBER and PERFORMATROL as risk

levels for these substances were assessed as low to very low respectively at 500 m. This result indicates that a gradient of

environmental effects is predicted to arise from the discharge of these substances, and that 500 m is a point along that gradient at

which environmental effects are still expected to occur.

The extent, duration, and intensity of any effects occurring beyond 500 m is difficult to predict, but given that the calculated risk

levels for CLAY-GRABBER and PERFORMATROL are conservative, it is reasonable to expect that any environmental effects

resulting from the continuous discharge of WBM additives that are experienced outside of 500 m will cease immediately after

drilling, and until then will be no more than minor.

Overall I find the effects of continuous discharges of WBM additives at a well site to be low and to manageable through conditions

that limit the number of substances and the volumes of those substances that can be discharged at any well site.

Results of the EPA assessment of benthic effects of continuous discharges of WBM

When following the CHARM approach chemicals in sediments are assumed to be exposed to oxygen only 10% of the time, and

therefore can take far longer to breakdown in the sediments compared to the water column.

The effects of continuous discharges on the benthic environment are covered in the assessment of effects of batch discharges

below. This is because the assessment of batch discharges assumes that the whole volume of WBM additives that would be

required to drill a well interval will be discharged as a single batch discharge event. This is a highly conservative assumption.

It is also more likely that large batch discharges will stay concentrated enough to enter into the sediments at environmentally

meaningful levels compared to highly dilute continuous discharges.

Results of EPA assessment of pelagic effects of batch discharges of WBM additives

At a well site the environmental effects on pelagic species at 1,748 m from the point of batch discharge of WBM additives will

range from negligible to medium depending on the substance, and the volume of that substance that is discharged.


Mortality may occur in local populations of small fish or plankton. Mortality in larger species is unlikely, as batch discharges will not

be present in the water column for long enough time periods. However, some acute effects such as immobilisation, irritation, and

displacement are likely to occur as a result of each batch discharge. The intensity of these acute effects will be greater for the

batch discharge of the more ecotoxic substances such as CLAY GRABBER.

The ERA results clearly show that the vast majority of the risk to the marine environment from all of the proposed discharges will

arise from large batch discharges of WBM additives. The highest risks to the pelagic environment from batch discharges of WBM

additives have been assessed as being medium.

This is a conservative estimate of risk for the pelagic environment as it does not take into account the fact that the assessed

volumes will be discharged via smaller events over time. Therefore, the actual risk to the pelagic environment at any given time

during drilling, from each batch discharge of WBM additives is likely to be less than medium.

This risk level of medium is representative of the concentration of a substance at 1,784 m from the point of discharge (the length

of the radius of a circle of 10 km2). In reality this level of risk will exist in a smaller area with a less uniform distribution which will

be determined by hydrographic conditions.

Overall, the environmental effects of the batch discharge of WBM additives on the pelagic environment at 1,784 m from the point

of discharge at a well site will be acute, and no more than medium. I have determined that these effects are manageable via

conditions that limit the number and volume of WBM additives to be discharged at each well site.

Results of EPA assessment of benthic effects of batch discharges of WBM

At a well site the environmental effects on the benthic environment at 1,784 m from the point of discharge will be no more than

medium.

Adverse effects to the benthic environment could result in mortality of benthic invertebrates and potentially some benthic fish

species. This is because chemicals take up to ten times longer to break down in the sediment compared to the water column. This

means that there is a higher probability that relatively immobile benthic invertebrate species could come into contact with ecotoxic

levels of a substance for periods of time up to and over 24 hours. It is less likely that benthic fish species will suffer mortality, as

they are more mobile than benthic invertebrates and could avoid ecotoxic levels of a substance. However, there is the potential


that some individuals of benthic fish species may not be able to avoid the discharge plume, become immobilised, and eventually

die due to prolonged exposure to a harmful substance.

Non-lethal effects such as displacement are likely to affect benthic fish species and mobile species of crustaceans such as crabs

and prawns. Non-lethal irritation effects could result in the reduction of growth or feeding abilities of non-mobile benthic

invertebrates. These non-lethal effects are more likely to occur approximately 50 m – 100 m from the point of discharge.

During the drilling of the top well intervals LIME and CAUSTIC SODA will be discharged to directly to the seafloor, and therefore

have the highest potential to adversely affect the benthic environment.

CLAY GRABBER and PERFORMATROL also have the potential to enter the benthic environment. However, PERFORMATROL

and CLAY GRABBER will not be discharged directly to the seafloor but at the sea surface from the MODU as batch discharges or

continuously discharged on drill cuttings.

Up to 2 t of LIME, and up to 1.115 t of CAUSTIC SODA will be diluted in 1901.6 m3 of WBM and discharged along with drill cuttings

directly to the seabed during the drilling of the top well intervals. The assessment of these discharges was based on pelagic species

data, not sediment reworker17 data. The results indicate that the discharge of CAUSTIC SODA will present a very low risk, and

the discharge of LIME will present a negligible risk to the pelagic environment.

As chemicals take longer to degrade in the sediments than in the water column it is possible that the actual risk to the benthic

environment from the discharge of CAUSTIC SODA and LIME could be higher than those outlined above.

CAUSTIC SODA and LIME are both classified as slightly harmful to the aquatic environment (9.1D), and CLAY-GRABBER is

classified as ecotoxic to the aquatic environment (9.1B). The level of risk calculated for a large batch (10 t diluted in 353.6 m3)

discharge of CLAY-GRABBER using sediment reworker data was medium. Even though this volume of CLAY-GRABBER will not

be directly discharged to the benthic environment, theoretically this CLAY-GRABBER discharge scenario has considerably higher

17 Sediment reworker refers to benthic fauna that that carry out bioturbation (the act of aerating sediments by introducing oxygenated water into the sediment matrix as a result of that

animals movement through the sediment), which is a key mechanism involved in the aerated degradation of matter in surficial sediments. The CHARM model assumes that a substance

is only exposed to oxygen 10% of the time, and so applies an extrapolation factor of 1000 to the lowest EC50/LC50.


potential to adversely affect the benthic environment than the discharges of CAUSTIC SODA and LIME described above (Up to 2

t of LIME, and up to 1.115 t of CAUSTIC SODA will be diluted in 1901.6 m3 of WBM).

Out of the abundance of caution, and given that no sediment reworker data is available for CAUSTIC SODA or LIME it is assumed

that their discharge to the seabed will result in a medium risk to the benthic environment.

It is important to take into account that this risk level will be temporary, and that the distribution of CAUSTIC SODA and LIME in

the sediment will be determined by ambient weather and current conditions at the time of discharge. This will produce a distribution

of CAUSTIC SODA and LIME that is not uniform, and that will be spatially and temporally variable.

Overall, the environmental effects of the batch discharge of WBM additives at a well site on the benthic environment at 1,784 m

will be chronic, and no more than medium. I have determined that these effects are manageable via conditions that limit the

number and volume of WBM additives to be discharged at each well site.

Discussion of OMV and EPA findings on discharges of WBM additives

OMV predicted a risk level of negligible and an impact magnitude of negligible for pelagic communities, and a risk level of

moderate and impact magnitude of minor for benthic communities. These predictions were made using the results of calculations

done for a batch discharge scenario of one substance (CLAY GRABBER) using ecotoxicity data for pelagic species. The

calculations gave the volume of water required to dilute the substance to below ecotoxic levels, and the size of the area that would

be required for this level of dilution to occur. This assessment is a useful proxy measure for the potential environmental effects of

CLAYGRABBER only, but does not give a full description of all of the potential environmental effects associated with the discharge

of each harmful WBM additive.

OMV converted its calculation results into predictions by adapting the MacDiarmad et al., (2012)18 methodology, which sets out a

risk assessment framework for activities in the EEZ and extended continental shelf.

The EPA ERA findings on the risks to the pelagic environment are different to OMV’s. I have concluded that very low to negligible

risks to the pelagic environment could arise as a result of the continuous discharge of the WBM additives. This means that it is

18 MacDiarmid, A., Beaumont, J., Bostock, H., Bowden, D., Clark, M., Hadfield, M., Heath, P., Lamarche, G., Nodder, S., Orpin, A., Stevens, C., Thompson, D., Torres, L., Wysoczanski,

R., 2012. ‘Expert Risk Assessment of Activities in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone and Extended Continental Shelf’, prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, NIWA

Client Report No: WLG2011-39, 139pp.


possible that very low risks to the marine environment could occur beyond 500 m of the point of discharge, which is different to

OMV’s prediction of negligible risks to pelagic communities beyond the 200 m zone of reasonable mixing.

My assessment of the risks posed to the benthic environment from the batch discharge of WBM additives predicts that the highest

level of risk to the benthic environment is medium. The EPA qualitative descriptors describe a medium risk as being likely to occur,

and associated with a moderate magnitude19 of adverse effects. Based on the definitions used by OMV in its classification of risk

and magnitude, in my opinion OMV’s conclusion that the discharge of WBM additives will result in a moderate risk20, and minor

impact magnitude for benthic communities, is not significantly different to my own.

Overall, I find that it would be impossible to disentangle the ecotoxic effects of WBM additives from those of drill cuttings deposition,

in a way that could exactly measure the effects attributable to WBM additives only. It is my opinion that it is reasonable to expect

that at least some of the detectable changes that will arise in the benthic environment as a result of the EAD programme and the

associated discharges could be attributable to the ecotoxicity of WBM additives. These effects could partially extend beyond

1,784 m of the point of discharge, and take a number of months to dissipate, and therefore the classification of the level of risk to

the benthic environment from the discharge of WBM additives as medium is appropriate.

The assessment methodology followed by the EPA is more conservative and thorough than that followed by OMV, as it takes into

account the discharge of all the WBM additives, multiple discharge scenarios of each WBM additive, and follows worst case

principles. The EPA adopted this approach because the actual environmental effects of the proposed discharges of WBMs are

difficult to estimate, as the exact volume, frequency, and duration of the discharge activities cannot be exactly predicted. Producing

a conservative estimate of risk in this manner encapsulates a significant proportion of the potential environmental risk associated

with a discharge, and enables a decision to be made on information that accounts for the uncertainty inherent in the proposal.

19 Measurable long term damage to local plant and animal communities, but no obvious spread beyond defined boundaries, medium term individual ecosystem damage, no species

damage. 20 Moderate Risk – requires additional control measures where possible or management/communication to maintain risk at less than significant levels. Small environmental impact from

a discharge to the environment. Where risk cannot be reduced to ‘Low’ control measures must be applied to reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable. Requires continued

tracking and recorded action plans.


The implication of adopting OMV’s risk assessment findings is that the level of environmental effects of the proposal could be

underestimated. The risk being that this could result in the imposition of conditions that are inadequate at managing the adverse

environmental effects of the proposed discharges.

It is my opinion that the environmental effects of WBM additives at a well site will be no more than medium at 1,784 m from the

point of discharge. These effects will be lethal for any organisms that cannot avoid coming into prolonged contact with ecotoxic

levels of a WBM additive. These lethal effects will predominantly occur within between 50 m – 100 m of the point of discharge.

Beyond this point effects will largely be sub-lethal, and result in ecotoxic and displacement effects. All of the effects associated

with the proposed discharges will be temporary and undetectable after a number of months.

The overall effects of the discharge of WBM additives to the marine environment in OMV’s five (5) PEPs will be negligible.

I conclude that the environmental effects can be adequately managed via conditions that limit the number and volume of WBM

additives that can be discharged at each well site.

2. Discharge of BOP fluid

ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE is a BOP hydraulic fluid that will be discharged from the BOP during BOP system testing, and is

very ecotoxic to the aquatic environment (9.1A). Up to 2,333 L of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE could be discharged per well. If

the well takes 90 days to drill the daily average discharge volume would be 25.9 L.

Results of the EPA assessment of the effects on the marine environment from the discharge of BOP fluid

The effects on the marine environment at a well site 1,784 m from the point of discharge of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE will be

no more than medium. It is possible that some lethal effects on marine species may occur, with small species of fish and plankton

being the most affected in the water column, and sessile benthic invertebrates being the most affected on the seafloor. The majority

of effects will be non-lethal and could cause displacement and ecotoxic reactions in some species. All of these effects will be

temporary and will dissipate to undetectable levels over time, with most ceasing directly after discharges, and some benthic effects

persisting for a number of weeks to months after the discharges ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE have stopped.

A worst case scenario batch discharge of 2,333 L of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE was assessed by the EPA. This discharge

scenario was predicted to present a medium risk to the marine environment at 1,784 m from the point of discharge.


A risk level of medium at 1,784 m is a highly conservative estimate of the risk and associated environmental effects. Given that

ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE is discharged at the seabed, and that it is denser than water, it is likely that smaller discharges of

this substance will not be carried 1,784 m from the discharge point. The more realistic discharge scenario is a full BOP test, when

up to 1000 L of harmful substance will be discharged. The plume created by a large BOP discharge event has the potential to be

carried by currents in the benthic boundary layer21. ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE is soluble in water, which means that any

discharge plume will undergo significant mixing and dilution in the water column before sinking to the seafloor.

When considering the actual effects of the discharge of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE on the marine environment, it must be taken

into account that up to 1280.5 m3 of drill cuttings and 1901.6 m3 of WBMs will already have been discharged directly to the seabed

prior to the wellhead system and BOP being installed. ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE will be discharged into an already modified

environment, and it is very ecotoxic to aquatic organisms, so it has the potential to acutely affect any marine organisms or habitats

present within 1,784 m of its discharge.

The exact spatial footprint of environmental risk arising from the discharge of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE is difficult to predict,

but in my opinion it is reasonable to expect that the majority of environmental effects will exist within 1,784 m of the discharge, and

will largely be acute.

Discussion of OMV and EPA findings on discharges of BOP fluid

There are significant differences between the conclusions reached by OMV in its IA, and the predictions of risk made in the EPA

ERA. OMV has assessed the risk level and magnitude of the impact of the discharge of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE as negligible,

which is significantly less than the conclusion of medium risk that I reached in my assessment. This is for a number of reasons,

including those related to the difference in risk assessment methodologies, but also because of the further information the EPA

received from the chemical supplier which showed that ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE is very ecotoxic to the aquatic environment

(9.1A), as opposed to harmful to the aquatic environment (9.1C) as assumed by OMV in its IA.

In summary, the discharge of 2,333 L of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE at a well site will at worst, result in medium environmental

effects at 1,784 m from the point of discharge. In my opinion, if any effects occur at 1,784 m from the point of discharge, they will

21 The benthic boundary layer is a discrete layer of flowing sea water above a benthic substrate, delimited vertically by its contact with free stream flow.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/benthic-boundary-layer).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/benthic-boundary-layer


quickly dissipate to undetectable levels beyond this point. In my opinion these effects can be adequately managed through

conditions that limit the volume of ERIFON HD 603 HP NO DYE that can be discharged at each well site.

3. Other operational discharges

a. Discharge of antifoulant in MODU cooling system

BIOGUARD PLUS is used as an antifoulant in MODU cooling systems and is very ecotoxic to the marine environment (9.1A). The

cooling system of the COSL Prospector discharges 32,436 m3 of cooling water per day. 1,233 L of BIOGUARD PLUS could be

dosed into the cooling water system over 90 days, which means that the daily discharge volume would be 14 L BIOGUARD PLUS

diluted in 32,436 m3 of cooling water.

Results of EPA assessment of the effects on the marine environment from the discharge of antifoulant in the MODU cooling system

A negligible level of risk to marine environment at 500 m was predicted for this discharge. This risk will manifest itself in the marine

environment as minute levels of lethal effects on small pelagic species and a highly localised displacement and ecotoxic effects

on marine species within 500 m of the point of discharge.

This assessed discharge scenario is not a worst case scenario as the cooling system requirements are fully understood, which

precludes the need for a conservative assessment to deal with uncertainty in the environmental outcomes of the discharge.

BIOGUARD PLUS is very ecotoxic to the marine environment, and its active component is marginally persistent (68%

biodegradation in 28 days). However, the volumes of water in which it will be discharged are so large that its concentration at the

point of discharge is almost lower than the lowest endpoint value (concentration at point of discharge = 0.04 ppm, and lowest EC50

= 0.01). This means that each litre of cooling system discharge requires just fourfold dilution to bring the concentration of

BIOGUARD PLUS to below the lowest acute endpoint value.

In this instance it is reasonable to assume that the level of environmental effect at a well site will be negligible well within 500 m

of the point of discharge. This level of effect can be managed by conditions that limit the volume of BIOGUARD PLUS that can be

discharged per well.


b. Discharge of MODU system lubricants

The environmental effects at a well site of all MODU system lubricants would be negligible, and occur within an extremely localised

area of just a few metres around any infrastructure that have lubricants applied. Overall the exposure of lubricants in the marine

environment will have unmeasurable effects.

JET-LUBE ALCO EP 73 PLUS is a lubricant that is applied to drill joints and drill collars, and is ecotoxic to the marine environment

(9.1B). This substance may come into direct contact with the marine environment if it is present on the outside of the riser connector.

The discharge of JET-LUBE ALCO EP 73 PLUS was qualitatively assessed as being highly likely to occur and to cause negligible

environmental risks.

JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE is a lubricant that is applied to threaded connections, and is very ecotoxic to the marine environment

(9.1A). This substance may come into direct contact with the marine environment if it is present on the outside of the riser connector.

The discharge of JET-LUBE KOPR-KOTE was qualitatively assessed as being highly likely to occur and to cause negligible

environmental risks.

JET-LUBE NCS-30 ECF and SEAL GUARD ECF are lubricants that are applied to the riser connector, and are both harmful to the

aquatic environment (9.1C). These substances may come into direct contact with the marine environment if they are present on

the outside of the riser connector. The discharge of JET-LUBE NCS-30 ECF and SEAL GUARD ECF were qualitatively assessed

as being highly likely to occur and to cause negligible environmental risks.

4. Drill Stem Testing

Discharges during drill stem testing will only occur if hydrocarbons are encountered. Given that this is highly unlikely to occur at

every exploration well, I consider all of these discharges as being unlikely to occur and factor this into my assessment of their

environmental effects.


a. Discharge of well cleaning chemical

This discharge will only occur if hydrocarbons are encountered. Given that this is highly unlikely to occur at every well site, I

consider all of these discharges as unlikely to occur, and to have the potential to result in negligible adverse environmental effects

at 1,784 m from the point of discharge. Within close proximity to the discharge point small pelagic species could be lethally affected.

Highly localised displacement and ecotoxic effects on any marine species will occur within 1,784 m and it is reasonable to expect

that at any time the effects of this discharge will be undetectable beyond 1,784 m.

BARAKLEAN-926 will be used to clean a well prior to drill stem testing if hydrocarbons are encountered, and is harmful to the

aquatic environment (9.1C). A single batch discharge of 1.3 m3 of BARAKLEAN-926 in 12.72 m3 of water was assessed. This

assessment predicted a negligible level of risk to the marine environment at 1,784 m from the point of discharge.

The RQ value associated with the negligible risk level was 4.26E-06. The fact that this value is so far below one (1) indicates that

the gradient of effects reaches the negligible threshold inside of 1,784 m of the discharge point.

This is a worst case scenario as this assessment approach assumes that this discharge will occur at every well that is drilled. This

is highly unlikely to be the case as in reality a 100% drilling success rate is highly improbable.

Overall, the negligible effects of the discharge of BARAKLEAN-926 at a well site can be managed through conditions that limit

the volume of this substance that can be discharged at a well site.

b. Discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances

The discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances at a well site will result in negligible environmental effects. These effects

will be undetectable at very short distances from the point of discharge.

EMBR11720A is a demulsifier used during drill stem testing to help separate hydrocarbons from the other produced fluids.


Up to 500 L of EMBR11720A could be used during drill stem testing. As EMBR11720A is insoluble in water and soluble in

hydrocarbons it will partition into the oil phase and be flared off by the Environmentally Distinctive Burner (EDB) with any

hydrocarbons produced during drill stem testing.

There is potential that some trace amounts of EMBR11720A that are not combusted during flaring may be discharged to the sea

as flaring fallout. EMBR11720A was qualitatively assessed given the small volume of its discharge. EMBR11720A is ecotoxic to

the aquatic environment (9.1B).

As discharges during drill stem testing are contingent on hydrocarbons being encountered, and the fallout efficiency of the EDB is

99.99952% only trace amounts of EMBR11720A will be discharged into the marine environment. Therefore the discharge of this

substance was qualitatively assessed as being unlikely to occur and to result in negligible risk to the marine environment.

SHELL SARALINE 185V may be used in well testing activities as a cushion22. OMV states in its application documents that this

substance will not be discharged. 80 - 90% of the fluid will be recovered and reused in the next well test with the remainder

partitioning into the oil phase and being combusted via the EDB. OMV also states that once the well testing is complete the

recovered fluids will be sent back onshore. Only trace amounts of SHELL SARALINE 185V will be discharged as EDB fallout.

As SHELL SARALINE 185V is not ecotoxic to the aquatic environment, but is an oil, and will be largely recycled, with only trace

amounts to be discharged, it was qualitatively assessed as being unlikely to occur, and to result in negligible risk to the marine

environment.

The negligible level of environmental effects of discharging trace amounts of harmful substances at a well site can easily be

managed by ensuring through conditions that the proposed discharge volumes are not exceeded.

22 A fluid column put in the drill stem to provide the desired backpressure at the start of a drill stem test.


c. Discharge of treatment chemicals from MODU slops tank

The MODU slops tank will be used to process fluids produced during drill stem testing that are not flared off. The slops tank filtration

system will filter out any hydrocarbons present in the produced fluids to an oil-in-water level of 30 ppm. This filtration system will

require periodic cleaning using treatment chemicals.

The environmental effects of the discharge of treatment chemicals from the MODU slops tank at a well site will cause no more

than very low environmental effects at 1,784 m. The kind of effects that will arise from these discharges will be the same as

previously discussed for other discharges, they will be lethal for some species in close proximity to the discharge point but mostly

non-lethal to undetectable to marine species out to 1,784 m.

RENACLEAN A and RENACLEAN B are treatment chemicals used to clean the membranes in the slops tank filtration system. Up

to 67 L each of RENACLEAN A and RENACLEAN B could be discharged in 7.95 m3 of water per well, if hydrocarbons are

encountered.

RENACLEAN A is slightly harmful to the aquatic environment (9.1D), and RENACLEAN B is ecotoxic to the aquatic environment

(9.1B). The respective risk of environmental effect occurring of negligible to very low at 1,784 m were predicted for the batch

discharge of RENACLEAN A and RENACLEAN B.

Overall it is important to take into account that these discharges will only occur if hydrocarbons are encountered. This is unlikely

to be the case at every well as in reality a 100% drilling success rate is highly improbable. The potential effects of these discharges

can be managed by setting conditions that limit the volumes of these substances that can be discharge per well.

5. Discharge of additives in cement;

GASSTOP EXP is classified as contingent in Appendix B of OMV’s application, meaning that it will only be used when necessary,

and will not be present in every cement batch used for drilling.


GASSTOP EXP is not ecotoxic to aquatic organisms, but given its ‘harmful’ status under the D&D Regs, its discharge is qualitatively

assessed as being likely to occur and to result in negligible risk to the marine environment, which means that it will cause negligible

environmental effects at a well site.

A risk level of negligible was calculated for the discharge of the ecotoxic cement additives MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER,

HR25-L, and a risk level of very low was calculated for the ecotoxic substance SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE. These results

mean that MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER and HR25-L will cause negligible effects, and SPHERELITE CEMMENT

ADDITIVE will cause very low effects on the marine environment at a well site.

Worst case scenarios were assessed in each instance. In the case of MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER and HR25-L, the

worst case scenario assessment assumed that all of the total volume of each substance will be discharged in one batch. This is

highly unlikely to occur, as the majority of these substances will be used and contained in cement in the well bore and wellhead

systems, with the remainder potentially being discharged in multiple batches at far lower concentrations than those assessed.

A worst case scenario was also assessed for SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE. Large volumes of this substances are planned

to be used during cement operations, and therefore SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE is likely to be discharged at higher

volumes than the other cement additives. As a result SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE is likely to be present at higher

concentrations in any discharged cement batches relative to MICRO MATRIX CEMENT RETARDER and HR25-L. The result of

the assessment of this substance indicates that if a batch discharge contained 100% SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE, its

discharge would only result in very low environmental effects. It is highly unlikely that any cement batch discharge would contain

100% SPHERELITE CEMMENT ADDITIVE, as other additives are required to make a cement mix.

Overall I find that the risk to the marine environment at a well site from the discharge of a batch of cement will be no more than

very low.


6. Discharge of trace amounts of Hydrocarbons;

This discharge may occur when drilling through the hydrocarbon‐bearing rocks, as trace amounts of hydrocarbons could become

entrained in drilling muds as they are flowed back to the MODU. It is not possible to assign a HSNO 9.1 classification to

hydrocarbons that may be produced during the planned drilling. However, oils (petroleum in any form) are considered to be harmful

substances under the EZ Act, and so the potential discharge of trace amounts of hydrocarbons in drilling fluids was assessed

being unlikely to occur and to result in negligible risk to the marine environment, which means that any effects to the marine

environment will be negligible.

OMV’s approach to assessing the environmental risk associated with the proposed discharges

In section 7 of its IA OMV included its own ERA which focussed on effects on the marine environment that could occur outside of

a 200 m zone of reasonable mixing around the point of discharge. OMV used two assessment groups in its assessment of effects

on the marine environment: benthic communities and pelagic communities.

OMV provided the following definition of the 200 m zone of reasonable mixing: “This ‘zone of reasonable mixing’ is an explicitly

defined area around the point of discharge within which initial mixing of the discharge with the receiving water occurs and within

which water quality guidelines may be exceeded. At and beyond the zone of reasonable mixing the quality of the receiving water

will be such that environmental values are protected”.

No water quality guidelines exist that could be followed to effectively detect harmful levels of the majority of the substances which

OMV proposes to discharge. The ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines (2018) are an established set of guidelines that primarily

provide threshold values for some organic pollutants and heavy metals. The EPA frequently requires that the ANZECC (2018)

guidelines are hardcoded in conditions of consents, and used as measures of compliance for operators carrying out discharges

and dumping activities. However, none of the constituents of the substances that OMV proposes to discharge are represented in

the ANZECC (2018) guidelines.


Based on the findings of the EPA ERA it is likely that the assumption that “At and beyond the zone of reasonable mixing the quality

of the receiving water will be such that environmental values are protected” will be incorrect for most of the proposed discharge

scenarios.

Also, somewhat in contradiction to the definition it provided for the 200 m zone of reasonable mixing, OMV termed the area outside

of the 200 m zone of reasonable mixing in which environmental effects could occur as the “zone of influence”. OMV defined zone

of influence as “being the area away from the point of discharge within which the potential environmental effects could occur”. In

its ERA, OMV only assessed the effects on the marine environment that occur outside of 200 m of the point of discharge.

OMV assessed the potential effects of each discharge stream on benthic and pelagic communities by estimating the size of the

potential zone of influence. This was done by focussing on the most ecotoxic constituent of one of the substances to be discharged

via that discharge stream and estimating the volume of water that would be required to dilute that constituent to below ecotoxic

levels. This approach provides an estimation of effects for that constituent, and does not consider the other ecotoxic constituents

in the same substance, or all of the other ecotoxic substances that could be discharged via the same discharge stream.

In reality, predicting the exact environmental effects of every ecotoxic constituent of every ecotoxic substance in a discharge is

complex. Environmental effects associated with discharges are generally estimated through conservative predictions of risk. OMV’s

approach sufficed in providing a high level overview of the potential spatial and temporal effects of the proposed discharges.

However, some of the conclusions OMV reached on the environmental effects of the proposed discharges differ to the findings in

the EPA ERA. This is because:

The EPA has assessed the environmental risk presented by every harmful substance23 proposed to be discharged;

The EPA based its assessment on worst case principles;

The EPA used the CHARM model approach to predict the environmental risk associated with each discharge;

The CHARM model approach takes into account levels of environmental risk at set distances from the point of

discharge, 500 m from the discharge point for continuous discharges, and 1,784 m for batch discharges; and

23 For the purposes of the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, harmful substance means any of the following:

(a) a substance that is ecotoxic to aquatic organisms and is hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Substances (Minimum Degrees of Hazard) Regulations 2001:

(b) oil:


The EPA considers all areas, including those within 200 m of the point of discharge in it assessment of effects, as for

some discharges this is the area in which the majority of environmental effects will be experienced.

Assessment against section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act: Effects on existing interests24

Assessment of effects on existing interests

I have assessed the potential effects on existing interests of the proposed discharges. I based my assessment on my own findings

relating to the spatial and temporal environmental effects of the proposed discharges.

I have not considered each individual discharge in the same manner as in my assessment of environmental effects, instead I have

considered the entire proposed suite of discharges, and their potential combined effect on existing interests.

In my consideration of effects on existing interests I have taken into account the parties listed in section 4.5 of OMV’s IA, and the

list of parties identified by the EPA under sections 45(a) and 45(b) that may be affected by the application.

1. Effects on any lawfully established activity

OMV identified the Deepwater group and Te Ohu Kaimoana and associated quota holders as lawfully established existing interests

that may be affected by the proposed discharges. OMV’s concluded that the effects on these existing interests will be negligible.

I agree that fisheries quota holders and Iwi authorities are the relevant lawfully established activities as the fish species for which

they hold quotas are known to occur in the application area.

Although my conclusion on the environmental effects of the proposed discharges found that there could be medium effects on the

pelagic and benthic environments up to 1,784 m from the point of discharge this risk level must be contextualised in relation to

fisheries and therefore the effects on existing interests who hold quota. Medium environmental effects of discharges are associated

24 existing interest means, in relation to New Zealand, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental shelf (as applicable), 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.


with worst case scenarios for large discharges of WBMs and harmful BOP fluids only. These effects may occur at 1,784 m from

some of the proposed well locations but is unlikely to occur at all of them, as it is highly improbable that worst case scenario

discharges will occur at all eleven wells over the duration of the drilling campaign. When medium effects arise at 1,784 m from the

point of discharge they will occur in spatial isolation from the effects associated with other wells drilled during the same campaign,

due to the large distance between wells. Any effects will be temporary, especially those posed to pelagic species as the level of

risk will dissipate rapidly due to dilution. Environmental effects may persist in the benthic environment for an extended period, and

this may affect demersal fish species.

It is noteworthy that any areas that exhibit environmental effects will be non-uniform spatially and temporally over time and will

occur in the direction of the ambient hydrodynamic conditions at that time, meaning that the affected area will not be uniformly

distributed in a circle within 1784 m of the point of discharge. Instead, the effects will be present in patchy restricted areas in the

direction of the ambient flow axis at the point of discharge.

I also note that in combination with all of the conservative assumptions followed in my technical assessment of the discharges,

another inbuilt conservatism is the fact that all the ecotoxicological data I used when calculating RQs represent the effects on

aquatic species after a minimum of 24 hours of exposure to a given concentration of the substance being assessed. Transient

pelagic species such as commercial fish are extremely unlikely to be in the vicinity of any discharge activities for that length of time

and therefore will not be affected at a level that would then affect commercial fisheries quota holders. Another relevant

consideration is that fact that the vast majority of the harmful substances are not bioaccumulative. The two substances that may

have some bioaccumulation potential are discharged in small volumes, and are highly unlikely to be present at concentrations that

could adversely affect marine species including commercial fish stocks.

This leads me to conclude that the proposed discharges will not affect fish populations at a scale that would adversely impact on

commercial fishery stocks. Therefore, in my opinion the proposed discharges, will only negligibly affect the existing interests of

any commercial fishing quota holders including Iwi interests.


2. Effects on marine consents granted under the EEZ Act

In section 5.1.2 of its IA OMV lists the marine consents related to current activities in offshore Taranaki. It highlights that there are

live consents for various petroleum mining activities in the Maui Field (PML381012), the Tui Field (PEP38158), and Maari Field

(PEP38160). The closest proposed well is 17 km from any consented petroleum mining activities.

OMV did not consider that the existing interests of the holders of these marine consents or petroleum mining licenses would be

affected by the proposed discharges.

I concur with OMV’s finding on the effects on the existing interests of marine consent holders because of the distance between the

proposed discharge activities and these existing interests, and the fact that the environmental effects of the discharge activities

will be temporary and occur within approximately 2 km of the discharge locations.

3. Effects on resource consents granted under the RMA

In section 5.1.3 OMV highlights that although any activities being undertaken under the authority of a resource consent granted

under the Resource Management Act (1991) is considered an existing interest under the EEZ Act, resource consents can only be

granted within 12 nautical miles of mean high water spring tides on the coastline (the Coastal Marine Area: CMA).

Given the distance of the proposed discharge activities from any existing resource consents, OMV did not consider the existing

interests of any holder of resource consents in the CMA to be affected by the proposal.

I agree with OMV’s finding as the prosed discharge activities will take place at a significant distance (minimum of 25 km) from any

resource consents held in the CMA.

4. Effects on any Historical Claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

In section 5.1.4 OMV notes that the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Act 2016 gives effect to the Taranaki Iwi Deed of Settlement

and includes a number of statutory acknowledgement areas, one of which is the Taranaki Iwi Coastal Marine Area.

OMV does not consider that the Taranaki Iwi Coastal Marine Statutory Acknowledgement Area will be affected by the proposed

activities.


I do not wholly agree with OMV’s assessment as I recognise that iwi with settlement claims have cultural interests in the marine

environment that extend beyond the legal and statutory boundaries across the EEZ. I acknowledge these interests and find that

they may be negligibly affected by the proposed discharges due to the impact they may have on the mauri of the application area.

5. Effects on any contemporary claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

a. Customary Fishing Rights

In section 5.1.5.2 OMV acknowledges the existence of customary fishing areas in the coastal and inshore areas, but again

considers there to be no effect of the proposed discharges on these existing interests.

I agree with the conclusion reached by OMV because there is too much distance between the proposed discharges and this

existing interest for there to be any conceivable overlap of physical effects.

b. Fishing quota holders

In section 5.1.5.2 of its IA OMV notes that in addition to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, the Maori

Fisheries Act 2004 establishes the regime for allocating fisheries settlement assets, including income shares in Aotearoa Fisheries

Limited (now trading as Moana New Zealand) and quota to iwi recognised under that Act.

OMV does not consider that fish populations will be affected at a scale that would adversely affect commercial fish stocks, and

concludes that the existing interests of fishing quota holders are negligibly affected.

My findings in relation to the effects on fisheries quota holders is detailed in section 1 above. I conclude that the proposed

discharges will affect fish populations at a scale that would only negligibly affect the existing interests of any commercial fishing

quota holders including iwi interests.

6. Effects on any contemporary claims under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

There are a number of applications for customary right or customary marine title, but they are all located within the CMA, and a

minimum of 25 km inshore of the well locations. These are all undetermined applications and so no rights have been granted. As

such, there are no protected customary rights or customary marine titles which are considered existing interests that would be

adversely affected by this marine discharge consent application.


Given that there are only applications for customary rights or customary marine title, and no confirmation of such rights, I find that

these existing interests do not exist, and cannot be affected by the proposed discharges25.

Summary of findings

I find that existing interests will be negligibly affected by the proposed discharges.

Section 59(2)(a) any effects


existing interests26 of allowing

the activity including-

(i) cumulative effects

Assessment against section 59(2)(a)(i) of the EEZ Act: Cumulative effects

Results of assessment of cumulative effects

Overall I conclude that the proposed discharges will add to the effects on marine environment arising from other existing lawfully

established activities. The other lawfully established activities that I have considered in my assessment are:

Fisheries;

Shipping;

Consented drilling activities; and

The proposed discharges.

I consider that the proposed discharges will result in level of cumulative effects that can be adequately managed through conditions.

The primary source of environmental effects will be the consented drilling activities, but it is likely that the discharge activities will

add in some measurable way to these effects. I also note that the cumulative effects of the consented drilling activities and the

proposed discharge activities will be temporary and are likely to return to undetectable levels in three (3) to five (5) years. In my

opinion cumulative effects will at worst be medium at the point of discharge and dissipate to low levels 1,748 m away from the

point of discharge as detailed below. In the context of the entire area covered by the five (5) PEPs the cumulative effects on the

marine environment and existing interests will be negligible.

25 The Justice Churchman decision on the Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd. application for marine consent, found that applications under MACA, are not existing interests under the EEZ

Act. 26 “Existing interests” is defined in section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.


For the purpose of this assessment I have chosen to classify the cumulative effects of this proposal at three distances from the

point of discharge:

At 212 m from the point of discharge, to align with the first point of measurement in the drill cutting deposition modelling;

At 500 m from the point of discharge, to align with the distance at which the CHARM model applies dilution factors to

continuous discharges; and

At 1,784 m from the point of discharge, to align with the distance at which the CHARM model applies dilution factors

to batch discharges.

1. Cumulative effects at 212 m

At this point the existing environment will be highly modified. All discharges will have some level of effect within this area, with

some having effects far beyond this point. The benthic environment will be chronically affected beyond the time it will take to drill

a well, with the pelagic environment only being affected during drilling operations. Given that the recovery of the benthic

environment at 212 m could be in the order of years and some of this delayed recovery could be attributable to some of the

proposed discharges, I find that it is highly likely that cumulative effects will occur and that the magnitude of these effects will be

medium27.

The amount that the proposed discharges will contribute to this overall estimate of cumulative effects is difficult to quantify. Based

on my assessment of effects of the proposed discharges I deem that it is reasonable to expect that all of the discharges have the

potential to add to the intensity and prolong the duration of effects within 212 m of the point of discharge.

In my opinion the proposed discharges could measurably add to the intensity and duration of the cumulative effects within 212 m,

but do so in a way that can still be managed through the imposition of conditions.

2. Cumulative effects at 500 m

At this point the level of effects from the discharges will decrease, as not all discharges will result in environmental effects between

212 m and 500 m of the point of discharge. The effects on the pelagic environment at this point will be significantly less than at

27 Measurable long term damage to local plant and animal communities, but no obvious spread beyond defined boundaries, medium term individual ecosystem damage, no species

damage.


212 m. Similarly the benthic environment will not be as affected, but it is possible that detectable changes in the benthic

environment could be attributable to the proposed discharges. The recovery of the benthic environment in this area could be in the

order of weeks to months. Therefore I find that it is highly likely that cumulative effects will occur at 500 m, and that the magnitude

of these effects will be low28.


on my assessment of effects of the proposed discharges I deem that it is reasonable to expect that some of the discharges have

the potential to add to the intensity and prolong the duration of effects up to 500 m of the point of discharge.

In my opinion some of the proposed discharges could measurably add to the intensity and duration of the cumulative effects at

500 m, but do so in a way that can still be managed through the imposition of conditions. It is noteworthy that the cumulative effects

of the authorised drilling activities and the proposed discharge activities will be temporary and be undetectable in three (3) to five

(5) years.

3. Cumulative effects at 1,784 m

The level of cumulative effects will decrease with distance from the point of discharge because of the decrease in the rate of spatial

and temporal overlap of stressors. At 1,784 m the existing environment will not be extensively modified, and any discharges that

may reach this point will largely result in acute effects. Some chronic effects may occur in the benthic environment but the

magnitude of these chronic effects will be far less than those experienced closer to the point of discharge. I conclude that it is likely

that some detectable cumulative effects on the marine environment could occur at 1,784 m from the point of discharge, and that

the magnitude of these effects will be very low29.


on my assessment of effects of the proposed discharges I deem that it is reasonable to expect that only four (4) of the discharges

have the potential to add to the intensity and prolong the duration of effects up to 1,784 m of the point of discharge.

In my opinion up to four (4) of the proposed discharges could measurably add to the intensity and duration of the cumulative effects

at 1,784 m, but do so in a way that can still be managed through the imposition of conditions. It is noteworthy that the cumulative

28 Contained reversible environmental impact, some local plant or animal communities temporarily damaged, no discernible ecosystem impact or species damage. 29 Highly localised and contained environmental impact, affecting a few (less than ten) individuals members of communities of flora or fauna, no discernible ecosystem impact.


effects of the authorised drilling activities and the proposed discharge activities will be temporary and be undetectable in three (3)

to five (5) years.

Approach to assessment of cumulative effects

The EEZ Act does not provide a specific definition of cumulative effects. However, section 6(d) of the EEZ Act defines an effect as

including any cumulative effect “that arises over time or in combination with other effects”. I have used this definition to guide my

interpretation of cumulative effects.

In its application OMV identifies shipping activities and fishing activities as the other activities that could theoretically combine with

the effects of its proposal, but in my opinion the effects on the marine environment of the preceding MODU installation process

must also be taken into account.

OMV’s assessment of effects focuses only on areas outside of 200 m from the point of discharge. In my opinion this approach

neglects to consider the area in which the highest levels of effects will be encountered. OMV’s approach to assessing cumulat ive

effects has not considered the cumulative effects of the proposed discharges in combination with the drilling activities consent.

In my opinion there are several matters that must be taken into account when considering cumulative effects:

Spatial and temporal characteristics of each stressor

Spatial and temporal overlap of each stressor

Additive, antagonistic, and synergistic interactions of stressors

1. Spatial and temporal characteristics of each stressor

a. Other lawfully established activities

i. Fisheries

The other activities that could combine with OMV’s proposed EAD programme to cumulatively effect the environment and existing

interests are shipping and fishing.

As the application area does not overlap with a designated shipping channel, the effects of shipping in the application area can be

assumed to be transient. When they occur, they may cause excess noise, discharge oil in water from ballasts, and physically


displace species from the water surface and top of the water column. These effects will be temporary and highly localised and will

reduce to undetectable levels within a short period of time after a ship has passed through an area.

Fishing activities will result in similar effects to shipping in terms of displacement and noise. In addition to these effects, the removal

of species from the water column continuously over time will impact on pelagic commercial and bycatch fish species populations.

Bottom trawling will impact demersal and benthic fish species, and will also leave a physical impact on the seafloor.

The magnitude of the impact of bottom trawling on the benthic environment will depend on the sensitivity of the environment to

physical disturbance. In the application area, it is unlikely that many sensitive environments exist. However, even homogenous

sedimentary benthic environments, such as those that characterise the Taranaki Bight, can take months to years to recover from

bottom trawling activities30.

In section 4.5.1.2 of its IA OMV quoted the results of an analysis of data provided by Fisheries New Zealand, which showed that

98% of commercial fish species caught within 100 km2 of each well location over the last five (5) years were pelagic species. This

indicates that there will be minimal existing benthic effects from fishing for the consented drilling activities, or the proposed

discharge activities to overlap with.

ii. Lawfully established drilling activities (EEZ200010)

The drilling activities consented by Marine Consent EEZ200010 are also a lawfully established activity that has the potential to

contribute to the cumulative effects of the proposal. I discuss the scale and nature of the consented drilling activities in the following

section.

b. The modification of existing environment as a result of the drilling activities

The exact spatial extent of the modification of the receiving environment due to the drilling activities prior to the first discharges is

difficult to predict, but up to 800 m2 of seabed could be disturbed during the installation of jack-up MODU, and 16,236 m2 during

the installation of a semisubmersible MODU. This disturbance will cause temporary increased levels of turbidity in the water column

which will in turn result in the deposition and potential smothering of benthic communities in areas around the newly installed

30 Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. M. J. Kaiser1,*, K. R. Clarke2, H. Hinz1, M. C. V. Austen2, P. J. Somerfield2, I. Karakassis3. 1School of Ocean

Sciences, University of Wales-Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK. 2Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK. 3Institute of Marine

Biology of Crete, PO Box 2214, Heraklion 71003, Crete, Greece.


MODU. I consider the benthic environment to be adversely affected in this area, and that its integrity will be compromised prior to

receiving any drill cuttings or discharges.

When drilling first commences, cuttings from the surface wellbore are deposited directly to the seabed. As the top of the wellbore

is the widest section of the well (up to 1.07 m in diameter), it will produce the largest amounts of drill cuttings, and it is expected

that 1280 m3 of drill cuttings will be deposited directly on to the seabed prior to the installation of the wellhead system and marine

riser. Once the wellhead system and riser are installed, drill cuttings will be returned to the MODU before being discharge to the

sea.

Drill cutting depositional thickness will be greatest in the area around the well head, with maximum of 10.6 mm of deposition

predicted to occur within 50 m of the well head, and a maximum of 1 mm expected at 212 m from the wellhead. Depositional

thickness is predicted to reduce to a maximum of 0.2 mm at 1000 m from the MODU release point.

Deposition rates will vary at each location but in general drill cuttings discharged from the MODU (up to 262.1 m3) will be dispersed

over a greater area of seafloor and in a thinner layer than cuttings discharged at the seabed close to the wellhead.

Drill cuttings discharged from the MODU will increase the suspended sediment levels in the water column around the point of

discharge and will form a plume that will be carried away from the MODU by ambient currents. This plume will eventually disperse,

through dilution and drill cutting particle fallout to the seabed.

Drill cutting deposition on the seabed will compound the initial effects of MODU installation by further compacting the sediment

thereby decreasing oxygenation in the sediment, and delaying the recolonization and recovery of the benthic environment.

c. The proposed discharge activities

Cooling system

The initial discharges from the MODU will be that of the cooling system, which will continuously discharge dilute amounts of a

harmful substance which will have highly localised impacts on the pelagic environment around the MODU.

Discharge of WBM to the seafloor

The first major discharges of harmful substances will occur as the top intervals of the wellbore is drilled, which will result in up to

1230 m3 of drill cuttings and 1901.6 m3 of WBMs, 3.115 t of which will be harmful substances (CAUSTIC SODA and LIME). This


discharge could occur over days to weeks, and will not necessarily be continuous, but will occur episodically during drilling.

CAUSTIC SODA and LIME are ecotoxic to aquatic organisms, and are persistent, but are not considered to be bioaccumulative.

Their discharge directly to the seabed will temporarily create an environment that will not be conducive to immediate recolonization,

with only the most stress tolerant first order opportunistic species31 likely to begin recolonising after weeks to months. These

conditions will improve with distance from the point of discharge. Drill cuttings modelling indicated that deposition falls to 0.2 mm

depth at 1000 m. In my opinion the effects of WBM additives on the benthic environment will be minimal at this point.

Discharge of cement

The discharge of cement containing additives that are harmful substances will negligibly affect the pelagic and benthic

environments. These discharges will occur episodically in small batches (up to 10 m3). The discharge of excess cement from the

MODU will result in pelagic effects as harmful substances are dissolved into the water column, as the cement mix descends and

finally deposits on the seabed below. This deposition has been consented under EEZ200010.

Cement used for installing infrastructure on the seabed, that comes into contact with the water column will release harmful

substances during the time it takes for it to set. This same process of dissolution of harmful substances from cement into the

surrounding environment will also occur when excess cement batches are deposited on the seafloor. These discharges will occur

throughout the time it takes to drill the well, and smaller effects on the marine environment in the area around the MODU in

comparison to other larger more frequent discharges.

Discharge from the BOP

The discharge of hydraulic fluids during routine BOP tests will occur sporadically over the length of time it takes to drill the well.

The discharges will primarily be small (average daily discharge of 2.9 L), these smaller discharges are likely to undergo significant

dilution, and only affect the pelagic and benthic environments in a highly localised area around the well head. During a full BOP

test up to 1000 L of harmful substance will be discharged, this plume of harmful substance has the potential to be carried by

31 The most stress tolerant and highly fecund fauna and flora that are the first colonisers of a physically or chemically disturbed site.


currents in the benthic boundary layer32. Based on the results of my worst case scenario assessment of this discharge, detectable

effects in the water column and benthic environment could occur at a distance of up to 1,784 m from the point of discharge.

Other smaller and less frequent discharges

Discharges of lubricants on MODU systems into the marine environment will result in negligible effects, and the affected areas will

only exist in the area of water column into which the lubricants dissolve. Given that most of the lubricants are insoluble in water,

this rate of diffusion will be extremely low. These effects will cease as soon as these pieces of infrastructure are removed after

drilling.

Discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances as fallout from flaring will only occur if hydrocarbons are encountered, and will

result in negligible effects on the marine environment in the top few metres of the water column in the vicinity of the MODU.

Discharges of treatment chemicals from the atmospheric slops tank, and well clean-up chemicals are also contingent on

hydrocarbons being encountered. If these discharges occur, slops tank treatment chemicals, and well clean-up chemicals will

result in very low to negligible effects on the pelagic environment up to 1,784 m from the point of discharge.

Trace amounts of hydrocarbons will be discharged only if hydrocarbons are encountered and become entrained in WBMs adhered

to drill cuttings that are discharged from the MODU. This will result in spatially restricted negligible and temporary effects.

2. Spatial and temporal overlap of each stressor

Shipping and fishing activities can only directly overlap with the modified environment and the proposed discharges beyond

500 m exclusion zone that will be in place around the MODU.

It is possible that residual benthic impacts of bottom trawling may be present within 500 m of the well location, if this is the case

there will be direct overlap between the physical disturbance effects of fishing, the modified environment and the effects of

proposed discharges. Given that only 2% of fishing effort within 100 km of each well location was bottom trawling it is unlikely that

there will be significant levels of overlap.

32 The benthic boundary layer is a discrete layer of flowing sea water above a benthic substrate, delimited vertically by its contact with free stream flow.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/benthic-boundary-layer).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/benthic-boundary-layer


Spatial overlap of mid-water fisheries with the modified environment and the proposed discharges are highly unlikely given the risk

of fishing gear entanglement with infrastructure and vessels involved with the EAD programme.

The most significant levels of overlap of stressors will occur in the immediate vicinity of the points of discharge at the MODU and

wellhead system. The rate of overlap between the modified environment and the proposed discharges will decrease with distance

from the point of discharge.

Information on the spatial extent of overlap between the modified environment and the proposed discharges can be inferred from

the results of the drill cutting deposition modelling, estimates of the total disturbance footprint of a MODU, and the results of my

assessment of the proposed discharges:

There will be a disturbance footprint of up 16,236 m2 around well location as a result of MODU installation;

There will be a depositional footprint of drill cuttings that follow the major flow axis at the well location which will

decrease from 10.6 mm of deposition within 50 m of the well head, to 1 mm at 212 m from the wellhead, to 0.2 mm at

1000 m from the wellhead; and

Every proposed discharge will have an effect on the environment in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. The

larger volume batch discharges could adversely affect the marine environment up to and beyond 1,784 m from the

point of discharge.

The proposed discharges will overlap with the modified existing environment in time. The extent of this temporal overlap will depend

on the nature interaction of each stressor.

3. Additive, antagonistic, and synergistic interactions of stressors

Direct overlap of stressors does not mean that the resulting environmental effects will increase in an additive linear manner. Some

overlaps can result in non-linear synergistic and antagonistic effects, especially in the case of chemicals.

The overlap of fishing or shipping with the proposed discharges and the modified environment will be insignificant and will negligibly

add to the overall environmental effects in the area around each well location.


If residual benthic effects of bottom-trawling are present at a well location then these effects will form part of the modified

environment over which the proposed discharges will overlap.

When considered individually each proposed discharge will add to the levels of environmental effect in the area around the well

location. Once drilling has ceased, and the MODU has been removed along with associated infrastructure such as anchors and

BOP, pelagic species will no longer be affected by the proposed discharges.

Each individual discharge that has the potential to adversely affect the benthic environment will further modify the environment by

introducing chemicals into the sediment that will not be conducive to the immediate recolonization of the benthic environment. As

chemicals breakdown and bioturbation rates increase the temporal cumulative benthic effects will reduce to below background

levels of natural variability.

It is difficult to predict the synergistic and antagonistic effects of chemicals discharged into the marine environment. In my opinion

it is acceptable to assume that the proposed discharges will result in additive cumulative effects on the environment. While some

subtle synergistic and antagonistic effects may occur due to the reaction of some chemicals, these are unlikely to override the

overall additive effect of all of the proposed discharges.

Section 59(2)(a)(ii) effects

that may occur in New

Zealand33 or in the waters

above or beyond the

continental shelf beyond the

outer limits of the exclusive

economic zone

Assessment against section 59(2)(a)(ii) of the EEZ Act: 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

I have provided my findings on effects in my assessment against sections 59(a) and 59(a)(i) of the EEZ Act above. None of my

findings indicate that there is any potential for any of the proposed discharge activities to be capable of affecting any environments

or existing interests in New Zealand waters outside of the application area, or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits

of the EEZ.

33 New Zealand is defined in section 29 of the Interpretation Act (1999) as ”the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand”.


Section 59(2)(b)(i) the effects


existing interests of other

activities undertaken in the

area covered by the

application or in its vicinity

including the effects of

activities that are not

regulated under this Act

Assessment against section 59(2)(b)(i) of the EEZ Act: the effects on the environment or

existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its

vicinity including the effects of activities that are not regulated under this Act

In my assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed discharge activities I took into account the other activities that could

be undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity. These activities included drilling activities, shipping, and

fishing.

The DMC that granted consent for application EEZ200010 found that the drilling activities will adversely affect the marine

environment in the application area, but will only negligibly affect existing interests. I agree with this assessment.

Other relevant activities that are not regulated under this Act are shipping and fishing. I find that the effects of shipping on the

environment and existing interests are negligible.

As lawful fishing activities in the vicinity of the proposed discharges are regulated under another Act I find that the effects of fishing

on the environment and existing interests to be negligible.

Section 59(2)(b)(ii) the

effects on the environment or

existing interests of other

activities undertaken in the

area covered by the

application or in its vicinity

including effects that may

occur in New Zealand or in

the waters or beyond the

continental shelf beyond the

outer limits of the exclusive

economic zone

Assessment against section 59(2)(b)(ii) of the EEZ Act: the effects on the environment or

existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its

vicinity including effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters or beyond the

continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone

No other activities have been identified as occurring in the area affected by the discharges other than those covered under section

59(2)(b)(i).


59(2A) If the application is for

a marine discharge consent,

the EPA must take into

account-

(b) The effects on human

health of the discharge of

harmful substances if

consent is granted

Assessment against section 59(2A)(b) of the EEZ Act: The effects on human health of the

discharge of harmful if consent is granted

OMV consider the potential impact on human health to be negligible as the discharges are occurring at substantial distances from

shore.

I agree that the effects on human health are likely to be negligible. I also note that the most likely way for human health to be

affected by the proposed discharge activities is through the consumption of fish that have been contaminated by a harmful

substance.

In my opinion this is extremely unlikely to occur, as 98% of the fish caught within 100 km of any of the proposed wells are pelagic,

schooling fish that have vast foraging ranges. If any of these species come into contact with the proposed discharges, they will not

be present for the extended periods of time required to illicit an ecotoxic response in an individual. It is also important to note that

in combination with all of the conservative assumptions followed in my technical assessment, another inbuilt conservatism is the

fact that all the ecotoxicological data I based my findings on represent the effects on aquatic species after a minimum of 24 hours

of exposure to a given concentration of the substance being assessed. Therefore, as transient pelagic species are extremely

unlikely be in the vicinity of any discharge activities for that length of time, it is highly unlikely that any individuals will be affected,

and in turn affect human health.

Given that only 2% of fishing effort within 100 km of any well location is focussed on demersal fish species, and that such activities

would occur at distance from infrastructure in place during drilling, I find that demersal fish species will be similarly uncontaminated.

Section 59(2)(d) the

importance of protecting the

biological diversity and

integrity of marine species,

ecosystems and processes

Assessment against section 59(2)(d) the importance of protecting the biological diversity and

integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes

I have considered the effects of the activities on the receiving biological environment and, more generally, the ecosystems and

process in the area.

I have chosen to consider the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes at the scale of the

covered by the five PEPs which is 8,960 km2. It is important to consider the relevant ecological scale when assessing environmental


effects of anthropogenic activities. In my opinion in this instance when considering the importance of marine species, and

ecosystems, it is appropriate to consider the ecosystem captured by each of the PEPs.

I consider that the integrity of marine species and ecosystem of the marine ecosystem across the PEPs will be negligibly affected

by the proposed discharges because the proposed activities will not affect enough individuals of any species to endanger the entire

population of that species.

I also consider that although there will be temporary localised reductions in biodiversity because of the proposed discharge

activities this will negligibly affect the biodiversity of the marine ecosystem within the PEPs.

Section 59(2)(e) the

importance of protecting rare

and vulnerable ecosystems

and the habitats of

threatened species

Assessment against section 59(2)(e) the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable

ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species

I have considered the presence of rare and vulnerable flora and fauna in the areas affected by the discharges. I acknowledge there

may be transient marine mammal species and threatened seabirds present in the wider region.

I consider the effects of the proposed discharges will impact a very small part of the natural habitat range for these species, and

the overall effects on rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species are negligible.

Section 59(2)(f) the economic

benefit to New Zealand of

allowing the application

Assessment against section 59(2)(f) the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the

application

The proposed discharges are a direct result of OMV exercising its consent to undertake an EAD programme in five (5) permit areas

on the Taranaki Bight.

The economic benefit of the EAD programme is discussed in the decision document for EEZ20001034. In summary, the Decision

Making Committee (DMC) found the evidence (presented in section 6 of OMV’s IA submitted in support of application EEZ200010)

demonstrated a significant likelihood of economic benefit.

I adopt that finding on the basis that this discharge consent enables OMV to undertake exploration and appraisal drilling and to

realise those benefits.

34 Page 52 of the DMC decision on Marine Consent EEZ200010.


Section 59(2)(g) the efficient

use and development of

natural resources

Assessment against section 59(2)(g) the efficient use and development of natural resources

As EEZ200010 was consented by a DMC that found that the drilling activities consented under EEZ200010 will enable the efficient

use and development of natural resources. I find that the proposed discharge activities are necessary for OMV to carry out the

drilling activities that have already been consented by the EPA.

Section 59(2)(h) the nature

and effect of other marine

management regimes

Assessment against section 59(2)(h) the nature and effects of other marine management

regimes

The effect on human health of using harmful substances on board the offshore installations such as MODUs is regulated under

the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

I do not consider the nature and effect of any other marine management regimes are relevant to this activity.

Section 59(2)(i) best practice

in relation to an industry or

activity

Assessment against section 59(2)(i) best practice in relation to an industry or activity

In Appendix D of its application OMV commits to adhering to ‘Good Oilfield Practice’. OMV stated that ‘Good Oilfield Practice’ can

be defined 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”.

OMV also notes the international conventions, and regulations that set standards that will be utilised for the planning and

operational procedures for the EAD Programme.

I note that best practice internationally, in the northeast Atlantic, provides regional goals including a ‘zero discharge’ goal for oil,

added process chemicals and naturally occurring substances in produced water. Zero discharge in practice means banning

substances that are likely to present a risk to the marine environment. In Norway, operators are required to report to regulators

regarding the progress of their zero discharge work on an annual basis. There is no parallel regulatory requirement in New Zealand.

It is my opinion that the operational processes that OMV proposes to follow in its application, in combination with the recommended

conditions for this consent, and the controls and safety measures that will be placed on OMV’s operations via the Emergency Spill

Response Plan, will ensure that the discharge activities are carried out to an acceptable standard relative to industry best practice.


Section 59(2)(j) the extent to

which imposing conditions

under section 6335 might

avoid, remedy, or mitigate the

adverse effects of the activity

Assessment against section 59(2)(j) the extent to which imposing conditions under section

63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity

I find that the adverse effects of the proposed discharge activities that I have identified can be appropriately mitigated through the

imposition of conditions that will:

1. List the harmful substances that are consented for discharge, limiting the suite of chemicals that can be discharged from any

MODU;

2. Set a maximum mass/ volume for each consented harmful substance, capping the volumes that can be discharged per well;

3. Have notification requirements, which set out that the applicant must 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.

4. Advise the consent holder of the EPAs powers to review the duration and conditions of the consent at any time or times

specified in the consent for the purpose of, inter alia, dealing with any adverse effects on the marine environment that may

arise as a result of exercising the consent.

A full list of the conditions will be provided in the draft decision should the decision maker be minded to accept my recommendation

on this application.

Section 59(2)(k) relevant

regulations (other than EEZ

policy statements)

Assessment against section 59(2)(k) relevant regulations (other than EEZ policy statements)

I do not consider any other legislation is relevant to this decision.

Section 59(2)(l) any other

applicable law (other than

EEZ policy statements)

Assessment against section 59(2)(l) any other applicable law (other than EEZ policy

statements)

35 Section 63 of the EEZ Act allows the EPA to 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, unless the condition would be inconsistent with the EEZ Act or any regulations made under the EEZ Act, or conflicts with a measure required in

relation to the activity by another marine management regime or the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.


I do not consider any other law is applicable to this decision.

I note that OMV must abide by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for the handling of harmful substances aboard the MODU.

Section 59(2)(m) any other

matter the EPA considers

relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the

application

Assessment against section 59(2)(m) any other matter the EPA considers relevant and

reasonably necessary to determine the application

I recognise that iwi with settlement claims have cultural interests in the marine environment that extend beyond legal and statutory

boundaries across the EEZ. I acknowledge these interests, and find that they may be negligibly affected by the proposed

discharges due to the impact they may have on the mauri of the application area.