Capricorn Greenland Exploration No.1 Ltd Environmental .../media/Nanoq/Files... · 3.5....

Capricorn Greenland Exploration No.1 Ltd Environmental Baseline Survey Disko West Block 1 (Sigguk) T4 Well

Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 30 May 2010

3.3.5 Quality Assurance ERT maintains fully accredited ISO 9001:2000 quality and ISO 14001:2004 environmental management systems in support of all work undertaken allowing ERT to provide a high quality service tailored to meet the needs and expectations of clients by continually monitoring and improving the way it works. ERT undertook detailed development, improvement and documentation of all laboratory practices specific to key chemical analytical test methods. This resulted in an external assessment visit in 2007 with subsequent accreditation against the provisions of the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard. ERT successfully maintained its accreditation in December 2008. The ERT chemistry laboratory has participated in the Quasimeme international laboratory performance studies for marine sediments since 1996. The laboratories also participate in both the Contest and Aquacheck schemes as part of the ISO 17025 standard requirements. The data obtained from these programmes are used in conjunction with internal laboratory checks to monitor laboratory performance for the various analysis requirements. In addition, ERT undertakes routine internal checks (recovery, reproducibility tests) in order to monitor performance. The GC-FID/GC-MS systems are calibrated at the start of each major project or on a monthly basis. The calibration is assured by analysing verification standard with each analytical batch run. In addition to calibration checks a sample blank is run with each batch. The ERT chemistry laboratory participates in QUASIMEME CONTEST and AQUACHECK laboratory performance schemes The QUASIMEME scheme focuses on environmental measurements of the marine environment made in laboratories throughout Europe. ERT has been involved with the scheme since 1996 and has provided data for inter calibration exercises assessing PAH in marine sediments, PAH in marine biota. The CONTEST and AQUACHECK schemes are run by LGC in the United Kingdom and provide proficiency testing samples for laboratories testing soils and waters. The sample groups ERT participate in focus on the analysis of PAH and THC. AQC project quality data for the current dataset is given in Appendix VIII.

3.4. Heavy & Trace Metal Concentrations

Sediment samples were homogenised and a 50g portion of each sample was air dried at room temperature. Each sample was then ground down to a fine powder (<100µm) by hand using a metal free mortar and pestle. A clean sand sample was hand ground prior to preparation of the field samples as a blank.

3.4.1. Sample Digestion Procedure Acid Leachable Metals (Mn, Fe, Ba, Sr , Al, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Mn, V, As, Pb ,Cd) Approximately 1g of the sediment was accurately weighed out and transferred to a beaker and wet with approximately 20ml of distilled water. Hydrochloric acid (6ml)



and Nitric acids (2ml) were added, and the covered sample left to digest for 4 hours in a steam bath. After digestion, the sample was filtered through a Whatman 542 filter paper into a 100ml standard flask. The watch-glass and beaker were rinsed thoroughly, transferring the washings to the filter paper. The filter paper was rinsed until the volume was approximately 90ml. The filter funnel was rinsed into the flask and then the flask was made up to a 100ml volume and mixed well. The filtrate was the analysed by ICP-OES and/or ICP-MS. Total Metals by ICPOES (Hydrofluoric /Boric acid Extractable Metals - Fe, Ba, Sr & Al.) Approximately 0.20g of the sediment sample was accurately weighed out and placed in an enclosed PTFE bottle and 2.5mls of Hydrofluoric acid was added. The bottle was then placed in an oven at 105±5°C for approximately 30 minutes and then allowed to air cool. A further 65mls of 4% Boric acid was then added to the bottle and the contents are then mixed thoroughly and placed in a polypropylene flask. The solution was then made up to 100ml with deionised water and analysed by ICP-OES. Total Metals by ICPMS (Hydrofluoric /Nitric acid Extractable Metals - Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, As, Pb, Sn, V & Cd) Approximately 0.10g of the sediment sample was accurately weighed out and placed in an enclosed PTFE bottle. Approximately 1ml of Hydrofluoric acid, 1ml of nitric acid and 1 ml of water were added and the bottle placed in an oven at 105±5°C for approximately 60 minutes. The bottle was then allowed to air cool. The extract was transferred to a plastic beaker and evaporated to dryness. The residue was then cooled and dissolved in 2 ml of nitric acid. This was transferred to a 100ml volumetric flask and made up to volume with deionised water. The metals concentrations in the extract were determined by ICP-MS. The mean detection limits are given in Table 3.6 for acid leachable (AL) and hydrofluoric acid (HF) digestions. Table 3.6 Heavy Metals - Mean Detection Limits (MDL)

MDL Analyte Unit AL HF

Ni µg.g-1 0.5 0.5 V µg.g-1 2 2 Al µg.g-1 10 10 Zn µg.g-1 3 3 Fe µg.g-1 15 10 Cu µg.g-1 0.5 0.5 Ba µg.g-1 5 5 Cr µg.g-1 0.5 0.5 As µg.g-1 0.5 0.5 Cd µg.g-1 0.1 0.1 Pb µg.g-1 0.5 0.5 Hg µg.g-1 0.1 0.01

ICPMS ICPOES



Mercury Digestion Procedure Approximately 1g of the sediment was accurately weighed out and transferred to a beaker. Hydrogen peroxide (10ml of 30 volumes) was added, and the covered sample left to digest for 0.5 hour in the fume cupboard. 10ml of nitric acid was added and the sample placed on the hotplate for 1 hour. After digestion, the sample was filtered through a Whatman 542 filter paper into a 100ml standard flask. The watch-glass and beaker were rinsed thoroughly, transferring the washings to the filter paper. The filter paper was rinsed until the volume was approximately 90ml. The filter funnel was rinsed into the flask and then the flask was made up to 100ml volume and mixed well. The filtrate was the analysed by ICP-MS. 3.4.2. Analytical Methodology Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry Calibration The instrument is calibrated using dilutions of the 1ml=10mg spectroscopic solutions. The final calibration solutions are matrix matched with the relevant acids. The calibration line consists of 5 standards. Specific metal wavelengths are given in table 3.7.

Inductively Coupled Plasma- Mass Spectrometry Calibration The instrument is calibrated using dilutions of the 1ml=10mg spectroscopic solutions. The calibration line consists of 7 standards. The atomic masses used are as given in table 3.7. The analytes are scaled against internal standards to take account of changes in plasma conditions as a result of matrix differences for standards and samples. The internal standards have a similar mass and ionisation properties to the target metals.

Table 3.7. Element Selection Criteria using ICP

Element ICPOES (nano metre)

ICP-MS (atomic mass)

As 189.04 75 Ba 233.53 - Cd 226.50 111 Cr 267.72 52 Pb 220.35 208 Hg - 80 Ni 231.60 60 V 290.88 51

Zn 213.86 66



Quality control consists of running full method blanks together with one in house reference material or certified reference material and one duplicate per batch of 20 samples. Instrument performance is monitored by the use of instrument blanks, continuing calibration checks and independent calibration checks. AQC project quality data for the current dataset is given in Appendix VIII. 3.5. Macro-invertebrate Analysis All macrofaunal determination was carried by Benthic Solutions Limited using specialist taxonomists and a temporary laboratory located in the field (onboard the MSV Nordica) for some initial sorting of the T4 and T3C3 sample sets, and in Nuuk Greenland. The senior taxonomist was involved with previous macrofaunal identification undertaken in previous temperate deep water environments (such as Ireland, Scotland, Faroes and sub-Antarctic waters). Benthic sediment samples were thoroughly washed with freshwater on a 500µm sieve to remove traces of formalin, placed in gridded, white trays and then hand sorted by eye followed by binocular microscope to remove all fauna. Sorted organisms were preserved in 70% Industrial Methylated Spirit (IMS) and 5% glycerol. Where possible, all organisms were identified to species level according appropriate keys for the region. Colonial and encrusting organisms were recorded by presence alone and where colonies could be identified as a single example these were also recorded, although these data have been removed from the analyses of the material. The presence of anthropogenic components were also recorded where relevant. Benthic Solutions is committed to total quality control from the start of a project to its completion. All samples taken or received by the company were given a unique identification number. All analytical methods were carried out according to recognised standards for marine analyses. All taxonomic staff are fully qualified to post-doctorate level. Documentation is maintained that indicates the stage of analysis that each sample has reached. A full reference collection of all specimens has been retained for further clarification of putative species groups where/if required. BSL is a participant in the National Marine Biological Association Quality Control (NMBAQC) quality assurance scheme. Digital datasets are kept for all sites in the form of excel spreadsheets (by sample and by station) on BSL’s archive computer. This system is duplicated onto a second archive drive in case of electronic failure. These data will be stored in this way for a minimum of 3 years, or transferred to storage disk (data CD or DVD). All taxa were distinguished to species level and identified to at least family level where possible, although information is limited for the area, many of the species that could not be fully identified were separated putatively. Whilst some of the groups were only partially separated in this document, ongoing analysis with further site-specific well sites will increase our knowledge of the area and a more definitive faunal matrix will be provided at a later point in time. Nomenclature for species names were allocated either when identity was confirmed, allocated as “cf.” when apparently identifying to a known species but confirmation was not possible (for example, incomplete specimens or descriptions), or allocated as “aff.” when close to but distinct from a described species. The terms “indet.” refers to being unable to



identify to a lower taxon and “juv” as a juvenile to that species, genus or family. Species lists for the three stations (30 samples (10 replicates per station)), together with univariate parameters for both sample replicates and stations, are given within section 4..8 and Appendix V. 3.5.1 Data Standardisation and Analyses In accordance to OSPAR Commission (2004) guidelines, all species falling into juvenile, colonial, planktonic of meiofaunal taxa are excluded from the full analyses within the dataset (this is discussed further within the text of section 4.6). This helps to reduce the variability of data undertaken during different periods within the year, or where minor changes may occur or where some groups may only be included in a non-quantitative fashion, such as presence/absence. Certain taxa, such as the Nematodes, normally associated with meiofauna, were included where individuals greater than 10mm were recorded. The following primary and univariate parameters were calculated for each all data by stations and sample (Table 3.8). Table 3.8. Primary and Univariate Parameter Calculations Variable Parameter Formula Description Total Species

S Number of species recorded Species richness

Total Individuals

N Number of individuals recorded Sample abundance

Shannon-Weiner Index

H(s)

where s = number of species & Pi = prop-ortion of total sample belonging to ith species.

Diversity: using both richness and equitability, recorded in log 2.

Simpsons Dominance

1-Lambda

where ni = number of individuals in the ith species & N = total number of individuals

Evenness, related to dominance of most common species (simpson 1949)

Pielou’s Equitability

J where s = number of species & H(s) = Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Evenness or distribution between species (Pielou, 1969)

Margalefs Richness

DMg where s = number of species & N = number of individuals.

Richness derived from number of species and total number of individuals (Clifford & Stevenson, 1975)



In addition to univariate methods of analysis, data for both sample replicates and stations were analysed using multivariate techniques. These serve to reduce complex species-site data to a form that is visually interpretable. A multivariate analyses was based on transformed data (double square root) to detect any improved relationships when effects of dominance were reduced. The basis for multivariate analyses was based upon the software PRIMER (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research). Similarity Matrices and Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering A similarity matrix is used to compare every individual sample replicate and/or stations with each other. The coefficient used in this process is based upon Bray Curtis (Bray & Curtis, 1957), considered to be the most suitable for community data. These are subsequently assigned into groups of replicates and/or stations according to their level of similarity and clustered together based upon a Group Average Method into a dendrogram of similarity. Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (nMDS): nMDS is currently widely used in the analysis of spatial and temporal change in benthic communities (e.g. Warwick & Clarke, 1991). The recorded observations from data were exposed to computation of triangular matrices of similarities between all pairs of samples. The similarity of every pair of sites was computed using the Bray-Curtis index on transformed data. Clustering was by a hierarchical agglomerative method using group average sorting, and the results are presented as a dendrogram and as a two-dimensional ordination plot. The degree of distortion involved in producing an ordination gives an indication of the adequacy of the nMDS representation and is recorded as a stress value as outline in Table 3.9. Table 3.9. Inference from nMDS Stress Values

nMDS Stress Adequacy of Representation for Two-Dimensional Plot

≤0.05 Excellent representation with no prospect of misinterpretation.

>0.05 to 0.1 Good ordination with no real prospect of a misleading interpretation.

>0.1 to 0.2 Potentially useful 2-d plot, though for values at the upper end of this range too much reliance should not be placed on plot detail; superimposition of clusters should be undertaken to verify conclusions.

>0.2 to 0.3 Ordination should be treated with scepticism. Clusters may be superimposed to verify conclusions, but ordinations with stress values >2.5 should be discarded. A 3-d ordination may be more appropriate.

>0.3 Ordination is unreliable with points close to being arbitrarily placed in the 2-d plot. A 3-d ordination should be examined.

SIMPER: the nMDS clustering program is used to analyse differences between sites. SIMPER enables those species responsible for differences to be identified by examining the contribution of individual species to the similarity measure. As all sites grouped within a single cluster, this program was subsequently not used.



3.6. Data Comparisons and Historical Datasets During the interpretation, data comparisons have been made to previous survey data from the Northeast Atlantic, Faroes area and the survey operations at the Disko West Greenland carried out in 2009. Sources used in this comparison are outlined below in Table 3.10: Table 3.10. Historical Datasets used for Comparison in the Survey Area Source and Year Contractor Region and Comment

AFEN 1996-2000

NOC Northeast Atlantic from 100-2000 metres water depth. Three cruises.

Agip 2002 Svitzer Faroes: Report 6072 Marimas field 6004/17 post-drill Environmental Baseline Survey

ENI Denmark 2008

BSL Faroes: Report 0706.1 Anne-Marie Exploration Well 6004/8a-A Environmental Baseline Survey Greenland: Disko West Block 1 Alpha Greenland: Disko West Block 1 Beta

Capricorn 2009 McGregor Geosciences

Greenland: Disko West Block 1 T8 (Gamma) Other referenced data will be based on standard North Sea and Northeast Atlantic levels as published by mean and 95th percentile values for background sediments (UKOOA, 2001).



4. DISCUSSION A summary of the general field conditions is given below. This is taken from a general review of the marine environment within the Disko West Area and a review of the geophysical survey reports submitted by McGregor Geoscience Limited at earlier survey sites (McGregor 2009) and observations acquired by the environmental personnel onboard the vessel. 4.1. Regional Geology and Seabed Features The proposed T4 survey area is located on the continental slope which increases in depth towards the west. The site is located to the North of the Uummannaq Channel and exhibits a seafloor which has been intensely scoured by iceberg keels which have resulted in steep-sided lateral berms with relief of up to 10m (top of berm to base of scour) and maximum local gradients likely to be in excess of 15°. The surface sediments at the T4 location comprise a patchy veneer of soft fine grained unconsolidated silt and clay representing Holocene sedimentation. This cover is generally expected to be either absent or to a few centimetres thick, although this may be thicker within the base of some iceberg scours. Where this layer is absent, clay-prone glacial sediments are expected at the seabed. Cobbles and boulders are also expected within the vicinity of the proposed T4 location – possibly concentrated along scour berms. Beneath the patchy Holocene veneer, soils are expected to comprise a clay-prone glacial deposit (Till) with occasional sand layers and lenses. In addition, gravel to boulder sized clasts are expected. The glacial sediments will possibly be over-consolidated and have relatively high shear strengths due to ice loading. Sub-bottom profiling data acquired during the exploration seismic of the area, break down the surface lithology. The Upper Quaternary is recorded down to around 125m, and is classified by Clay-prone, poorly sorted glacial (Till) deposits with possible sand interbeds/lenses and gravel to boulder sized clasts. These are also possibly over-consolidated. This is laid over the Lower Quaternary to around 285m. This is characterised by possible interbedded sand, silt and possibly clay glaciomarine deposits with interpreted thin glacial clay-prone intervals that may contain coarser clasts up to boulder size. Below this is the Base Quaternary (below 285m) which is characterised by a sand and silt sequence with possible clay and coarser (gravel?) sediment interbeds. This becomes the progradational shelf edge interval which is undifferentiated Tertiary material.

4.2. Survey Bathymetry

The interpretation of the seabed bathymetry was undertaken from combined swathe and single beam echo sounder data over the entire survey area. The depth at the centre of the survey area was 476m below lowest astronomical tide (LAT; Figure 4.1), with the seabed sloping gently from east to west at an average gradient of approximately 1 in 125m.



Figure 4.1. General Bathymetry of the T4 Survey Area Figure 4.1 shows a shaded representation of the bathymetry for the T4 survey area, where ice modification is clearly defined. In order to highlight the size and cross section of these trough features, a profiled cross section is drawn running for 2km through the central area. This shows that the majority of these features are typically 100m across and between 3 and 6m in depth. Also, it is important to note that the edges of these scars are not marked by a significant uplift or bank of material pushed out by the ice. This lack of a distinct berm is different to that previously observed at sites surveyed to south in 2009 where large banks or berms of coarse granular material were recorded marking the edges of some of these features. This would suggest that superficially, the shallow geology of the T4 is slightly different to that of the south exhibiting a lower incident of coarser gravel deposits at the surface compared to that seen further south. This was confirmed by seabed photography (see section 4.4).



The seabed across the T4 survey area ranged from approximately 456.6m along the eastern edge to 515.5m LAT to the western corner. Whilst the block shows a consistent regional gradient of the continental shelf slope, the localised bathymetry is dominated by iceberg keel scars which criss-cross the survey location for the entire area at all water depths. The majority of these are in a north south alignment, although a number of particularly straight examples border the south-eastern edge of the survey areas and follow a south-southwest route. Between scars, the majority of the seabed showed a consistent gradient of below 5°. However, where the surface sediments have been incised, localised gradients were generally much higher, typically found at around 10°, with some example found up to 21° for the clearest defined features (Figure 4.2). Figure 4.2. Surface Gradient of the T4 Survey Area



4.3. Survey Surface Geology and Seabed Features The nature of the sediments within the T4 survey area were evaluated using both a towed 3D imaging sonar and the backscatter from the multi-beam data. The latter, is shown in Figure 4.3 in comparison with the bathymetry over the same area where ice modification is clearly defined. Multi-beam backscatter intensity is extracted from the echo sounder return with Time-Varied Gain (TVG) and Auto-Varied Gain (AVG) applied to balance intensities within individual lines and to normalize gain values throughout the survey to ensure true variation. Resolution of the backscatter data was equivalent to that of the multibeam bathymetry with a grid processed to a 10m line separation. Regional trends are visible on the backscatter imagery which generally reflect features within the bathymetry. Areas of particularly high intensity are limited to very fine areas relating directly to the edges of the scars with little or no variations associated with the changing water depths or larger areas relating to regional sediment changes. Consequently, the backscatter data could describe the seabed as essentially homogeneous over the entire area, although locally, the impact of the keel scarring is likely to show habitats made up of heterogenic materials. The regional habitat variations are discussed further in the next section.

Figure 4.3. Whole Area Sediment Variability as shown by Backscatter The acoustic survey did not record any sensitive or interesting features within the survey area that would be impacted by the proposed exploration well program. This includes the absence of any large hard coral, octocoral or demosponge communities. Whilst some of the larger boulders are expected to have some epifaunal assemblages present, evidence from the seabed camera system indicated that these communities were generally small and undeveloped across all sites surveyed. Habitats of particular concern for this water depth and locality are those associated with biological activities around migrating biogenic or thermogenic gases, or deep water coral communities and associated carbonate mounds. Neither of these features were recorded within the survey area. Acoustic datasets indicated a slightly mixed, but consistent sediment type and habitat throughout. This related to post-glacial sediments of soft silts and clays and



occasional surface exposures of underlying gravels and older clay-prone glacial deposits (particularly along the scar edges). The resolution of the data was not sufficient to record the presence of boulders (drop stones or erratics from glacial activity), although a number of small examples of these are known to be present and were recorded by later ground truthing operations. Surface sediments were very thin but soft and expected to represent a slow depositional regime. Depths recorded during the sampling would suggest that the settlement of this material may be thicker in the base of the scar features but would generally be only a few decimetres thick over earlier deposits of glacial material, including gravels (see section 4.4).

4.4 Particle Size Distribution

The particle size of sediments across the survey area are based upon observations made from the acoustic and seabed photography and the analytical results acquired from vertically separated samples taken at three locations. At a general level, the nature of the sediment, as described in section 4.3 above, shows the seabed to be predominantly soft silty clays throughout, with intermittent areas of ice modification. This is in the form of occasional large drop-stones from glacial ice transiting across the site and areas of gravels and underlying clays exposed at the surface by earlier ice berg scour action. The latter are generally restricted to the edge of larger scour features as seen in figures 4.1 and 4.2 with a generally soft silt sedimentary layer recorded elsewhere. The thickness of the surface silts remained variable over the site, with some areas, as evidenced by the box coring, showing that this surface unit was only a few decimetres thick, overlying a coarse gravel pavement. Station T4-BC1 recorded 7 no-sample attempts due to either over-penetration by the sampler or by striking this underlying geology. This a attributed to ice modification at the bed, where ice berg keel scars create troughs that are susceptible to sedimentary material settlement, and raised ridges at the edges that are not.

The surface unit was a slightly reworked soft silt in which remained a high water content (ca. 45%) and low cohesion. This is evidence of a slight sedimentary regime. The key sample stations were established in arras of relatively thick surface silts as surveyed by the camera system. Material was recovered from the surface 6cm, with three sub-layers sectioned and analysed for each site (9 samples in total). Analytical results of all the processed samples indicated that the seabed was generally consistent around a poorly to very poorly sorted sediment of fine to coarse silts (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.4). This would be classified as sandy MUD, under the modified folk classifications scheme (Appendix I). Analytically, all stations indicated similar sediment types, with a marginal variation in the proportion of different silt sizes between the three sites.

Overall, the sediments can be classed as dominated by a fine to medium silt component of approximately 30-40% of the sample, with a significant proportion (~16%) of clays with a distinct spike at the coarse clay fraction (Phi 9) of around 10% of total material. The proportion of sand particles was low at 16.7%, with little or no coarser materials (which ranged from 0 to 3.63%) recorded in any of the samples. Although this fraction relates to material greater than 2mm, notes from analysis suggested that in all cases this fraction was the results of biological origin (test, shell and concreted materials), with no finer gravels present.



Table 4.1. Summary of Surface Particle Size Distribution

Mean

Sediment Size Station mm Phi

Sorting Skewness Kurtosis % Fines

% Sands

% Gravel

T4 BC1 0-1cm 0.018 5.84 2.01 -0.04 1.10 83.03% 14.66% 2.31% T4 BC1 1-3cm 0.016 6.00 2.02 -0.01 1.01 83.76% 15.13% 1.11% T4 BC1 3-6cm 0.014 6.18 2.18 -0.04 1.00 83.80% 16.20% 0.00% T4 BC2 0-1cm 0.037 4.77 3.00 -0.33 1.16 72.07% 26.27% 1.67% T4 BC2 1-3cm 0.014 6.11 1.91 0.02 1.06 87.29% 12.71% 0.00% T4 BC2 3-6cm 0.015 6.08 2.15 -0.02 0.99 83.00% 17.01% 0.00% T4 BC3 0-1cm 0.015 6.05 1.95 -0.04 1.15 86.63% 9.74% 3.64% T4 BC3 1-3cm 0.013 6.29 2.04 -0.06 1.06 86.56% 13.44% 0.00% T4 BC3 3-6cm 0.015 6.10 2.08 -0.04 1.01 83.91% 16.09% 0.00%

T4 Mean 0.017 5.94 2.15 -0.06 1.06 83.3% 15.7% 1.0% T4 StDev 0.007 0.45 0.33 0.11 0.07 4.5% 4.5% 1.3% T4 variance 42.7% 7.5% 15.3% -171.3% 6.3% 5.5% 28.9% 137.0%

T3C3 mean 2010 0.014 6.18 2.05 -0.07 1.13 85.8% 13.3% 0.9% Faroes BSL 2008 200.0 2.81 3.59 0.15 1.44 28.6% 57.2% 14.2%

Historical comparisons are in blue Figure 4.4. Comparison of Particle Size Distributions

A summary of the size class distribution for all sites is shown in figure 4.4. Due to the very limited variability between stations, the three sediment sites were averaged for all samples as well as the three different vertical depths and plotted against the size distribution . These results show a slight variation in the properties of the sediments in relation to the depth of the sample. Material recovered from the very surface veneer showed an increase of coarser fractions (as expected from biological modification) but also a greater proportion of coarser silts (phi 4.5 to 6.5) but a

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 9.0 10.0 >10.0

Particle Size (microns)

Per

cen

tage

Pas

sin

g

T4 Mean 0-1cm

T4 mean 1-3cm

T4 mean 3-6cm

Mean T4



slightly lower clay component. As sample depth increased, subsequent levels of 1-3 and 6-9cm progressively showed a reduction of the coarser silts into the very finer components of clays. This is expected to be the results of sediment bioturbation where the surface sediments are progressively reworked by deposit feeders breaking down the flocculent pelagic sedimentation into their progressively finer clay components. This presence of bioclastic flocculants within the samples was observed during its processing using laser diffraction. As a result, samples were analysed several times to allow for the sediments to be viewed in both a raw and a dispersed sediment state. The difference in the two datasets is shown in figure 4.5 and clearly displays a trend that a proportion of the coarser materials (phi 0.5 to 4) are flocculent particles that break down into finer silts and clays after dispersion is applied.

Figure 4.5 Particle Size Variation following Sample Dispersion (Phi)

Whilst little is known of the sediments over the greater Disko West area, these results are similar to those previously recorded within this block in 2009 (McGregor 2009). Previous analysis of surface sediments at the Alpha, Beta and T8 (Gamma) survey locations in the Sigguk block, south of this present location indicated the proportion of silts and clays to be 57.6, 70.7 and 60% respectively. The variation between these sites were underpinned by a regional variation in sediment type between the three stations, where Alpha was located in a glacial bank and was highly ice modified, whilst Beta was located in a more sedimentary channel and T8 (Gamma) was around midway between the two. The proportion of surface gravels was higher at Alpha (mean 6.8%) as compared to the other two sites (3.1 and 3.2%). The present study generally indicates a greater level of sediment fines, lower consolidation and virtual absence of small surface gravels. This would all indicate that the T4 location is predominantly more depositional, exposed to a lower hydrodynamic regime and ice modification than those of the 2009 sites. Further comparisons are provided for a neighbouring site (T3C3) also surveyed in the Sigguk block during the current survey period (BSL, 2010), and a mixed sediment survey carried out off the Faroes in 2008 (BSL, 2008). The latter is included as a reference for future chemical comparison that are made later in this document.

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 9 10>10

.0

Particle Size Phi

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

T4 Change Following Dispersion



In addition to seabed sampling, a general review of the sediment sizes was also carried out using the seabed camera system. Given the limitations of the both the seabed sampler (box corer) and the small size of the sub-sample acquired for particle size analysis, analytical results tend to skew the data towards the finer, easily-sampled fraction of the substrate. By reviewing the seabed imagery dataset, the presence of an occasional coarse glacial deposit such as a large cobble or smaller boulders (known as erratics), can be identified (example photographs are in Figure 4.6). Although these features were generally low in number and will not significantly alter the habitat characteristics of the site, their presence will support a small epifaunal components within the survey area which require hard substrates for anchoring.

Figure 4.6 Examples of Ice Related Drop-stone of Different Sizes. These are Large

Cobbles (from Cam001) and a Small Boulder (from Cam004)

4.5. Total Organic Matter and Total Organic Carbon Total organic matter (TOM) was measured as a percentage of the total sample weight, and represents the combustible constituent within the sediments, Table 4.2. TOM is made up from a mixture of different organic materials, but is predominantly naphthenic materials (such as carboxylic acids and humic substances) which play an important role within the benthic community as a potential food source to deposit feeding organisms. This has led to the suggestion that variation in benthic communities is, in part, caused by the availability of organic materials (Snelgrove & Butman, 1994). Furthermore, organic matter is also an important scavenger of other chemical components, such as heavy metals and some hydrocarbon compounds (McDougall, 2000). Overall, the proportion of total organic matter by loss on ignition (LOI) is generally considered to be a coarse indicator in sediments as it is subject to errors such as over-estimation of organic content, due to loss of non-organic substances on ignition (i.e. volatile oxides and carbonates, and the bodies of living organisms).

The level of total organic matter was generally high but slightly variable ranging from 6.4 to 10.1% (mean 7.8%, SD 1.13%; Figure 4.7). No clear spatial or vertical pattern of distribution was observed between the stations or depths. The reason for this high level of organics is not know, although this level is not unusual when



compared to levels recorded at the neighbouring site (T3C3 at 6.8%, BSL, 2010) or the levels recorded at the Beta location within the sedimentary channel (also at 6.8%) in 2009 (Mcgregor 2009) . The source of this combustible material is expected to be allochthonous components within the pelagic sedimentation carried into the area by icebergs and ice floes. In addition to total organic matter, the sediments were also analysed for total organic carbon (TOC; Figure 4.7). This was similarly high, but very consistent ranging 1.17 to 1.46% (mean 1.28%, SD 0.09%). Overall, this can be considered to be organically rich, recording a notable increase over that previously recorded in the Sigguk block in 2009 ( 0.4, 0.35 and 0.09% for Alpha, Beta and T8 Gamma, respectively). Levels at the neighbouring site of T3C3 were similar, with high levels similarly recorded in glacially modified sediments in the Faroes (1.2%, BSL 2008). As with TOM, this material is expected to be strongly influenced by allochthonous material, although detrital material from autochthonous sources (such as phytoplankton blooms) are also likely to be significant. Table 4.2. Summary of Moisture and Organic Components

Station Moisture

Content (%) Total Organic

Matter (%)

Total Organic Carbon

(%)

Total Carbonates (%)

T4 BC1 0-1cm 59.4 8.89 1.36 0.23 T4 BC2 0-1cm 40.8 7.30 1.21 0.29 T4 BC3 0-1cm 41.3 7.38 1.27 0.47 T4 BC1 1-3cm 45.6 10.07 1.17 0.29 T4 BC2 1-3cm 45.3 6.44 1.23 0.22 T4 BC3 1-3cm 45.9 8.40 1.34 0.15 T4 BC1 3-6cm 51.0 7.31 1.28 0.13 T4 BC2 3-6cm 45.1 7.51 1.23 0.23 T4 BC3 3-6cm 45.0 6.89 1.46 0.20

T4 average 46.60 7.80 1.28 0.25 T4 StDev 5.62 1.13 0.09 0.10 T4 variance 12.1% 14.4% 7.0% 40.7%

Alpha 2009 - 3.30 0.40 - Beta 2009 - 6.78 0.35 - T8 (Gamma) 2009 - 3.92 0.09 - T3C3 Mean 2010 52.3 6.77 1.24 0.27 Faroes BSL 2008 30.1 3.8 1.2 nc

Historical comparisons are in blue Total inorganic carbon (carbonates) were generally low ranging from 0.15 to 0.47%. This would suggest that the proportion of material from shell and biological tests within the sediments is also generally very low.



Figure 4.7 Comparison of Sediment Total Organic Matter (TOM) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) with Historical Survey Values

1.28 1.240.40 0.36 0.09

1.20

3.80

3.92

6.79

3.30

6.777.80

0123456789

10

T4 Mean T3 Mean Alpha, 2009 Beta, 2009 T8 (Gamma),2009

Faroes, BSL2008

Perc

enta

ge (w

/wt) TOC TOM

4.6. Sediment Hydrocarbons

4.6.1. Total Hydrocarbons Concentrations

Results for hydrocarbon analysis are summarised and tabulated as total hydrocarbon concentrations, total n-alkane and homologue ratios in Table 4.3, with individual alkanes (nC12-nC36) listed in Table 4.4. The analytical gas chromatograms is shown as an example in Figure 4.10 (Appendix II) shows the aliphatic hydrocarbon traces for each station, labelled with every n-alkane, the isoprenoid hydrocarbon, Pristane and phytane, along with the internal standards hepta-methylnonane (A), deuterated hexadecane (B), 1-chlorooctadecane, (C) and squalane (D).

Table 4.3. Summary Hydrocarbon Concentrations

Station THC (µg.g-1)

Total n-alkanes

(µg.g-1)

Carbon Preference

Index

Pristane/ phytane

Ratio

P/B Ratio

Proportion of Alkanes

(%)

Total PAHs (ng.g-1)

NPD PAHs

(ng.g-1)

T4 BC1 0-1cm 4.0 1.05 2.13 3.75 0.30 26.3 938 707 T4 BC2 0-1cm 3.3 0.98 2.10 3.58 0.42 29.7 927 645 T4 BC3 0-1cm 3.5 0.99 2.05 3.07 0.29 28.3 898 690 T4 BC1 1-3cm 3.2 1.08 1.60 2.89 0.28 33.8 772 561 T4 BC2 1-3cm 3.3 0.90 2.09 2.53 0.28 27.3 497 360 T4 BC3 1-3cm 1.9 0.59 2.12 2.46 0.23 31.1 440 343 T4 BC1 3-6cm 1.3 0.42 2.08 2.77 0.30 32.3 424 321 T4 BC2 3-6cm 1.6 0.48 1.89 2.08 0.29 30.0 667 505 T4 BC3 3-6cm 1.8 0.51 2.08 2.12 0.29 28.3 575 407

T4 Mean 2.66 0.78 2.02 2.81 0.30 29.7 682.0 504.3 T4 StDev 0.99 0.27 0.17 0.59 0.05 2.4 209.6 153.5 T4 variance (%) 37.4% 34.9% 8.5% 20.9% 17.2% 8.2% 30.7% 30.4%

T3C3 Mean 2.40 0.72 1.91 2.30 0.35 30.0% 495.4 339.9 Alpha, 2009 2.24 0.48 1.93 6.77 - - 230 - Beta, 2009 3.83 0.97 1.96 5.3 - - 360 - T8 Gamma, 2009 1.55 0.35 2.18 3.85 - - 80 - Faroes BSL 2008 1.11 0.19 1.8 3.1 0.54 17.8% 12 8 Faroes, GSL 2003 0.31 0.23 1.25 4.21 0.28 73.6% 48 13

Historical comparisons are in blue



The total hydrocarbon content (THC) concentrations of the sediments, measured by integration of all non-polarised components within the GC trace, showed a low to moderate background concentrations at all sites sampled ranging from 1.3 to 4.0µg.g-1 (ppm, Table 4.3 & Figure 4.8). The mean for the whole of the survey area was 2.66µg.g-1, but the variability between sites was quite marked with a percentage variance (standard deviation over the mean) of 37.5%. This is predominantly due to a vertical pattern of distribution recorded within the sample dataset where the surface sediment levels (in 0 to 1cm) were marginally higher than those recorded at the underlying levels of 1-3 and 3-6cm. As the variability in other parameters (such as TOC, TOM and %fines) did not alter by the same degree, the variance in THC has been interpreted as assimilation through bioturbation and microbial activity over time (and depth). The source of this material is discussed in greater details in the next section. The overall mean level of THC is as expected when compared to similar sediments in other areas of the Disko West survey area such as Alpha, Beta and T8 (Gamma) surveyed last year, but marginally higher than would be expected for offshore deep water glacial sediments (such as those recorded in the Faroes). A comparison of these is shown in Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8 Comparison of Sediment Total Hydrocarbon Content with Historical Survey Values

1.111.55

3.83

2.242.402.66

0112233445


Faroes, BSL2008

Con

cent

rati

on (µ

g/g)

THC

The level of unresolved compounds ranged from 0.4 to 1.8µg.g-1 and also showed higher levels recorded in the very surface of the sediments. The mean for the survey was 1.06µg.g-1 and was equivalent to around 40% of all of the hydrocarbon material recorded for this survey. This component is likely to represent complex organic materials that are ubiquitous within this region of Baffin Bay. The presence of hydrocarbons is due to a range of predominantly natural sources. These are discussed further in the next section.

4.6.2. Saturate Alkanes All of the sample stations were analysed for n-alkanes using gas chromatography with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID). The results are summarised in Table 4.3 and individually listed in Table 4.4, which gives a breakdown of consecutive n-alkane content from nC12 through to nC36, together with the isoprenoid hydrocarbons Pristane (Pr) and Phytane (Ph). Similar to THC, the total n-alkane concentrations were low overall, ranging from 0.42 to 1.08 µg.g-1 (mean 0.72 µg.g-1. SD 0.27µg.g-1; Figure 4.9). These levels also indicated a clear



pattern of distribution relative to a notable alkane reduction with depth within the surface sediments. The overall concentration of alkanes typically made up only 30% of the total THC recovered. This is as expected for uncontaminated marine sediments where background hydrocarbons are continuously being replenished by a chronic source of alkanes, usually from allochthonous sources. This is not dissimilar to shallow coastal seas, such as the North Sea, where the level of saturate hydrocarbons is typically around 20% (UKOOA, 2001), with the remainder representative of heavily weather unresolved compounds. Previous levels at other sites surveyed in Sigguk block in 2009 indicated levels arranging from 21.4 to 25.3%. On inspection of the individual gas chromatograms at all stations (Figure 4.10 and Appendix II) indicated similar forms with little or no trends seen, other than those of natural background alkanes recorded in sediments of this type and region. This gave a consistent homologues series of saturates throughout the range, but without a significant background “noise” in any particular weight range. An example of the typical deep water sediment chromatogram (taken from the southern Faroes, BSL 2008) is shown within the figure which highlights an area of unresolved terrigeneous influence in the trace towards the larger nC25 to nC36 range. This is conspicuously absent from Disko West samples suggesting that the organic flux from general terrestrial sources in these sample is limited. There does, however, remain a slight pattern of elevated concentrations evident for the odd numbered alkanes in this range consistent with the presence of n-alkanes from the wax cuticles of higher plants, which typically comprise the long-chain, odd carbon number n-alkanes (nC25-

33) (Eglinton et al., 1962). Marine organisms (phyto- and zooplankton) preferentially synthesize short-chain, odd carbon number (nC15-21) (Blumer et al,, 1971). Terrestrial matter is often evident in marine sediments, particularly inshore sediments, although it has also been observed for samples from the Atlantic Margin (McDougall, 2000), having entered the marine environment through run-off from adjacent land masses. Figure 4.9 Comparison of Total Saturate Alkanes with Historical Survey Values A closer review of the different proportions of n-alkanes recorded can sometimes identify trends within the data or the source from which the different organic components derive. Even though the overall level of saturates is extremely low, the following ratios were further reviewed:

0.190.35

0.97

0.48

0.720.78

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


Faroes, BSL2008

Con

cent

rati

on (µ

g/g)

Alkanes



min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100

FID2 A, (2493 BENTHIC\B01.D) n

C12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Prist

ane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

Figure 4.10. Example Gas Chromatograms for Saturate Hydrocarbons Analysis For the Surface Central Location (T4 BC1 0-1cm)

Carbon Preference Index (CPI): The carbon preference index (CPI), is associated with the preference of biogenic n-alkanes (i.e. that of a preference for odd-carbon numbered homologues, particularly around nC27-33; Sleeter et al., 1980), derived from fatty acids, alcohols, esters and land plant waxes. The CPI was calculated for all sites and ranged from 1.60 to 2.13 (mean 2.02, SD 0.17; Figure 4.11) for the full saturate range (nC10- nC36). This is a small but consistent dominance by biogenic compounds although it is not clear if this is all allochthonous in nature. This can be compared to 1.93 to 2.18 previously recorded in the Disko West offshore area (McGregor 2009) and 1.80 recorded in a deep water sediment in the Faroes (BSL, 2008). Figure 4.11 Hydrocarbon Analysis – Carbon Preference Index (Ratio)

1.82.18

1.961.931.912.02

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


Faroes, BSL2008

CPI

Rat

io

Carbon Preference(Index (nC10-36)

Internal standards A – hepta-methylnonane B - d34 hexadecane C – 1-chlorooctadecane D – squalane C12 – 12 carbon homologue

min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FID1 A, (0626TPH_GC2\020F2001.D)

C12 PH

YTA

NE

C16 C

20 PR

ISTA

NE

C36

C24 C32

A

C28

C

B

Example Chromatogram from Faroes (BSL, 2008)



The carbon preference index is calculated as follows; Petrogenic/Biogenic or (P/B) Ratio:

Table 4.4. Total Aliphatic Concentrations (ng.g-1)

Station Surface 0-1cm 1-3cm T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3 T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3

nC12 22.4 21.8 23.7 22.8 19.3 13.1 nC13 24.1 21.2 22.2 20.9 18.9 12.6 nC14 17.2 14.4 15.5 16.3 12.4 8.9 nC15 33.9 28.5 32.7 32.1 28.1 19.5 nC16 19.9 19.9 19.7 113 18.5 11.5 nC17 30.6 25.9 26.8 26.8 24.2 15.9 pristane 45.0 40.8 31.5 32.4 27.1 16.1 nC18 29.5 25.5 27.0 26.0 22.6 15.0 phytane 12.0 11.4 10.3 11.2 10.7 6.6 nC19 37.5 34.0 32.8 34.7 30.8 21.5 nC20 30.0 24.9 28.1 26.4 23.5 15.3

nC21 41.7 37.5 40.5 36.8 36.1 23.2 nC22 37.5 38.0 40.2 37.7 33.9 21.9 nC23 53.8 51.7 50.8 50.0 43.6 30.2 nC24 40.4 40.0 40.2 39.9 34.5 24.8 nC25 71.0 67.0 66.6 66.4 63.8 42.3 nC26 46.7 43.9 43.1 43.8 40.3 26.7 nC27 110 103 104 103 94.1 62.0 nC28 44.2 40.0 40.7 40.3 38.7 24.6 nC29 141 131 131 132 122 78.2 nC30 27.2 26.9 25.9 27.8 27.2 15.6 nC31 110 102 101 102 92.1 60.3 nC32 12.6 11.4 12.2 12.1 12.2 7.0 nC33 54.3 50.1 49.6 48.7 44.5 29.2 nC34 5.7 6.1 6.1 5.6 6.7 3.9 nC35 9.8 9.1 8.7 10.3 11.7 5.5 nC36 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.2 2.4 1.0

Total n alkanes 1.05 0.976 0.992 1.08 0.902 0.589



Table 4.4. continued Total Aliphatic Concentrations (ng.g-1)

Station 3-6cm T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3

nC12 9.3 8.9 10.3 nC13 8.5 8.7 10.5 nC14 5.8 5.6 6.9 nC15 13.5 13.4 15.6 nC16 8.3 7.7 9.6 nC17 11.6 10.1 13.2 pristane 13.0 9.4 13.2 nC18 11.2 9.9 13.7 phytane 4.7 4.5 6.2 nC19 14.8 14.0 19.3 nC20 10.6 10.6 13.8

nC21 17.4 19.4 20.9 nC22 15.6 20.1 19.0 nC23 22.0 30.2 26.5 nC24 17.6 26.0 21.9 nC25 30.0 38.1 35.8 nC26 19.4 26.9 23.6 nC27 43.2 50.9 53.6 nC28 17.5 24.1 21.3 nC29 54.5 59.9 66.6 nC30 11.5 15.4 13.2 nC31 42.4 45.6 52.0 nC32 5.0 7.0 7.8 nC33 20.0 21.5 24.6 nC34 2.4 3.4 3.3 nC35 4.2 4.2 4.9 nC36 1.1 1.1 1.0 Total n alkanes 0.418 0.483 0.509

The P/B ratio compares the lighter, more petrogenic aliphatics with the heavier, and more biogenic aliphatics. Results were calculated for all stations showing a consistent but moderate ratio ranging from 0.23 to 0.42 (mean 0.30, SD 0.05) with no clear pattern of distribution. Overall this would suggest a slightly mixed hydrocarbon source. The Pristane/Phytane Ratio

Pristane and phytane are both isoprenoidal alkanes commonly found as constituents within crude oils (Berthou & Friocourt, 1981). However, in biogenic environments, only pristane is commonly found in the marine environment as naturally biosynthesised and a product of phytol moiety of chlorophyll. Phytane is generally absent or only present at low levels in uncontaminated natural systems (Blumer and Snyder, 1965). A presence of both isoprenoids at similar levels is typically taken as an indication of petroleum contamination.



The pristine/phytane ratio ranged from 2.08 to 3.07 (Mean 2.81). This would indicate a clear pristine dominance of biogenic origin. It should be noted that Pristane/Phytane ratio can often be difficult to interpret due to its erratic nature and should be used mainly to substantiate other interpretations. The use of the ratio in interpretative discourse is open to criticism, mainly owing to the natural occurrence of phytane in some older sediments and the confusing variation of sedimentary pristane induced by the variability of phytoplankton numbers (Blumer & Synder, 1965). This may be the case with the current study where high levels of background phytane (petrogenic in origin) are masked by even higher levels of pristine due to significant plankton influence.

4.6.3. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Quantitative polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were analysed at each station using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). Results of the single ion current (SIC) analyses are summarised in Table 4.3, and detailed in Table 4.5, showing concentrations for both parent compounds and their alkyl derivatives. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons listed under the United States Environmental Protection Agency, for the 16 priority pollutants for air, water and sediment quality are listed in Appendix III. The EPA 16 are used globally in assessments of contamination relating to both environmental and human health studies. A summary of PAH distributions are also given in Appendix III. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and their alkyl derivatives have been recorded in a wide range of marine sediments (Laflamme & Hites, 1978) with the majority of compounds produced from what is thought to be pyrolytic sources. These are the combustion of organic material such as forest fires (Youngblood & Blumer, 1975), the burning of fossil fuels and, in the case of offshore oilfields, flare stacks, etc. The resulting PAHs, rich in the heavier weight 4-6 ring aromatics, are normally transported to the sediments via atmospheric fallout or river runoff. Another PAH source is petroleum hydrocarbon, often associated with localised drilling activities. These are rich in the lighter, more volatile 2 and 3 ring PAHs (NPD; naphthalene (128), phenanthrene, anthracene (178) and dibenzothiophene (DBT) with their alkyl derivatives). Total PAH concentrations (2-6 compounds) were generally moderate for all sites analysed, ranging from 424ng.g-1 at 938ng.g-1 (mean 602 and SD 209 ng.g-1; Figure 4.12). As with the THC and saturates, Total PAHs indicated a similar pattern of distribution with reduced concentrations in the slightly deeper parts of the sediment cores. Overall, these levels are higher than those recorded at a neighbouring site at T3C3 (mean 495 ng.g-1) or previous sites sampled in the Disko West area of Alpha, Beta and T8(Gamma) sampled in 2009 (averages of 230, 360 and 80 ng.g-1). The possible origin of this material is discussed below.



Figure 4.12. Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (2-6 Ring)

12

80

360230

495682

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0


Faroes, BSL2008

2-6

Rin

g PA

Hs

(ng/

g) 2-6 Ring PAHs

The NPD fraction, like total PAH, was also at a moderate level ranging from 321 to 707 ng.g-1 (mean 504, SD 152 ng.g-1). This reflects a low pretrogenic influence to the sediments with a very consistent 69.6 to 78% of total PAH concentration represented by 2 and 3 rings aromatics. Consequently the ratio of NPD to 4-6 ring polyaromatics was generally high ranging from 2.42 to 3.54. There was no pattern of distribution with these high levels (either spatially or vertically) showing that the distribution of these different fractions were consistent throughout the site and with sediment depth. Further information on the source(s) of PAH in the sediment may be obtained from a study of their alkyl homologue distributions (i.e. the degree of methyl, ethyl, substitution of the parent compounds). Pyrolytically, derived PAH are predominantly unalkylated whereas petrogenically derived PAHs are formed at relatively low temperatures (<150°C), and contains mainly alkylated species. The distribution of parent 2 - 6 ring PAH compounds also reflects whether the source is petrogenic or pyrolytic. The trend is represented graphically in Appendix III. These are three-dimensional plots which show the PAH concentrations, the parent compound distribution and the alkyl homologue distribution of the aromatic material in each of the sediments analysed. A predominantly petrogenically skewed nature of the aromatic material present at all stations is demonstrated with less than a third of all PAHs represented by parent compounds. These results combined with the proportion of more petrogenically derived naphthalenes, phenanthrenes and dibenzothiophenes is demonstrated further in figure 4.13. This also indicates a predominantly petrogenic origin for the PAHs. Overall, whilst the amplitude of the hydrocarbon signature within the substrates remain relatively low and at trace level, these data would suggest a strong petrogenic influence and minor pyrolytic component within the marine sediments. Given the remote location of these sites along with their limited exposure to anthropogenic sources for thermogenic hydrocarbons, the most likely source of this material is will be natural hydrocarbon seeps within the Disko West Area, or from a location upstream along a residual current flow.



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

NPD/2-6 Ring PAH

Par

ent/

2-6

Rin

g P

AH

T4 WellT3C3 Well

Figure 4.13 PAH Source Assignment for the T4 and Neighbouring Well Site.

Following the discovery of oils seeps on the Nuussuaq Peninsula at Marraat, in the early 1990s, NERI conducted an assessment of the chemical impacts of this material on the surrounding sediments and biota (NERI, 2007). The study compared sediments from a collection of studies over a larger West Greenland area and the relationship between total PAHs and the proportion of total organic matter (by loss on ignition) and the proportion of fines sediments bellow 63µm further investigated. The results concluded that there was a clear relationship between these three parameters, the closest of which was display between PAH and TOM. Figure 4.14 is a modified figure from that report comparing PAH and TOM across the greater Western Greenland area. The summary datasets for the three sites surveyed in 2009 and those of the current studies (T4 and T3C3) have also been added. Results show that whilst the sediments close to Nuussuaq and Disko had a higher concentration of PAH expressed on basis of their content of organic matter, this was not entirely matched by the results of the current study. However, an elevated level of PAHs on the basis of organic matter was seen in the current study and could relate to an enhancement in the concentrations based on a thermogenic seep in this general area.

Figure 4.14 Modified Plot of the Concentration of PAH against the Loss on Ignition for Greenland West Coast Sediments.

Pyrolytic

Mixed

Petrogenic



Table 4.5. Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations

(Single Ion Currents, ng.g-1)

Surface 0-1cm 1-3cm Station T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3 T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3

Naphthalene 12 11 13 11 11 8 C1 Naphthalenes 43 39 47 40 39 28 C2 Naphthalenes 116 107 100 112 67 94 C3 Naphthalenes 99 88 85 91 56 79 C4 Naphthalenes 50 41 37 43 26 36 Sum Naphthalenes 320 286 282 297 199 245 Phenanthrene / Anthracene 30 27 32 29 26 19 C1 178 40 35 41 36 34 24 C2 178 48 42 49 42 41 28 C3 178 23 19 23 19 19 13 Sum 178 141 123 145 126 120 84 Dibenzthiophene 2 2 3 2 3 2 C1 Dibenzthiophenes 3 3 3 3 3 2 C2 Dibenzthiophenes 2 2 2 2 2 1 C3 Dibenzthiophenes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sum Dibenzthiophenes 8 8 9 8 9 6 Fluoranthene / pyrene 21 19 23 19 18 14 C1 202 16 14 18 14 13 11 C2 202 11 10 12 9 9 7 C3 202 7 6 8 6 6 4 Sum 202 55 49 61 48 46 36 Benzanthracene / chrysene 16 16 17 16 14 10 C1 228 14 13 15 13 12 9 C2 228 12 12 15 12 12 8 Sum 228 42 41 47 41 38 27 Benzfluoranthenes / benzopyrenes 57 53 61 52 50 36 C1 252 17 16 19 16 15 11 C2 252 9 7 9 7 7 5 Sum 252 83 76 89 75 72 52 Aranthanthrenes / indeno- pyrene / benzperylene 13 12 15 12 13 8 C1 276 6 6 7 5 6 3 C2 276 6 5 7 5 6 3 Sum 276 25 23 29 22 25 14 Sum of NPD fraction 469 417 436 431 328 335 % NPD 70 69 66 70 64 72 Total 2-6 ring PAH 674 606 662 617 509 464 Parent to derivative ratio 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.26



Table 4.5. cont Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations

(Single Ion Currents, ng.g-1)

3-6cm Station T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3

Naphthalene 5 5 6.4 C1 Naphthalenes 19 18 23.6 C2 Naphthalenes 69 46 51.5 C3 Naphthalenes 57 38 43.6 C4 Naphthalenes 26 18 22.1 Sum Naphthalenes 176 125 147.2 Phenanthrene / Anthracene 13 13 14.9 C1 178 15 15 20.8 C2 178 17 18 28 C3 178 7 8 14.5 Sum 178 52 54 78.2 Dibenzthiophene 1 1 1.5 C1 Dibenzthiophenes 1 1 1.8 C2 Dibenzthiophenes 1 1 1.2 C3 Dibenzthiophenes <1 <1 0.6 Sum Dibenzthiophenes 3 3 5.1 Fluoranthene / pyrene 9 11 11.3 C1 202 6 8 9 C2 202 4 5 5.8 C3 202 2 3 3.6 Sum 202 21 27 29.7 Benzanthracene / chrysene 7 7 7.4 C1 228 5 6 7 C2 228 5 6 6.4 Sum 228 17 19 20.8 Benzfluoranthenes / benzopyrenes 24 26 28.2 C1 252 7 8 9.2 C2 252 3 4 4.5 Sum 252 34 38 41.9 Aranthanthrenes / indeno- pyrene / benzperylene 5 6 7.5 C1 276 2 3 3.4 C2 276 2 3 3.2 Sum 276 9 12 14.1 Sum of NPD fraction 231 182 230.5 % NPD 74 65 68 Total 2-6 ring PAH 312 278 337 Parent to derivative ratio 0.26 0.33 0.30



4.7 Heavy and Trace Metal Concentrations

Results for heavy and trace metal analysis are given in Table 4.6 and figure 4.15 to 4.25. All of the heavy and trace metals analysed (Al, Ba, Sr, As, Fe, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, V and Zn), with the exception of mercury (Hg), underwent a double aqua regia followed by a hydrofluoric (HF) digestion and extraction, to provide a sub-digestion values (sometimes reported as “bioavailable”) in addition to total sediment metals. The question of biolavailability of metals to marine organisms is a complex one, as sediment granulometry and the interface between waters and sediment all affect the bioavailability and subsequently toxicity. Therefore, even if a metal is found in higher concentrations it does not necessarily follow that this will have a detrimental effect on the environment, if present in an insoluble state. Historically, several extraction techniques have been applied to metal analysis in the past, with the most common applying to an HF/perchloric extraction for total metals, and a weaker nitric or aqua regia extraction for bioavailable metals. The latter techniques have shown close correlation to metal burdens in the tissues of benthic organisms (Luoma and Davies, 1983; Bryan and Langston, 1992). However the overall extent to which a particular digests reflects bioavailability is still not well understood. A further fusion analysis was not considered necessary for the barium parameter due to the unlikely occurrence of insoluble barium typically recorded in areas where previous drilling activities have occurred. Metals occur naturally in the marine environment, and are widely distributed in both dissolved and sedimentary forms. Some are essential to marine life while others may be toxic to numerous organisms (Paez-Osuna & Ruiz-Fernandez, 1995). Rivers, coastal discharges, and the atmosphere, the principal route by which lead enters offshore areas (Schaule & Patterson, 1983), are the principal modes of entry for most metals into the marine environment, with anthropogenic inputs occurring primarily as components of industrial and municipal wastes. Historically, several heavy and trace metals are found in elevated concentrations where drilling fluids or produced waters have been discharged by Oil & Gas installations, both through intentional additives (such as metal based salts and organo-metallic compounds in the fluids) as well as impurities within the mud systems used during drilling, such as clays (e.g. bentonites; a gelling and viscosifying agent) and metal lignosulphates (a viscosity controllers; McCourt et al, 1991). Metals most characterised by offshore contamination to the sediments are barium, chromium, lead and zinc (Neff, 2005), although these may vary greatly dependant upon the constituents used. Trace metal contaminants in the marine environment tend to form associations with the non-residual phases of mineral matter, such as iron and manganese oxides and hydroxides, metal sulphides, organics, and carbonates. Metals associated with these non-residual phases are prone to various environmental interactions and transformations (physical, chemical and biological) potentially increasing their biological availability (Tessier et al, 1979). Residual trace metals are defined as those which are part of the silicate matrix of the sediment and that are located mainly in the lattice structures of the component minerals. Non-residual trace metals are not part of the silicate matrix and have been incorporated into the sediment from aqueous solution by processes such as adsorption and organic complexes and may include trace metals originating from sources of pollution. Therefore, in monitoring



trace metal contamination of the marine environment, it is important to distinguish these more mobile metals from the residual metals held tightly in the sediment lattice (Chester & Voutsinou, 1981), which are of comparatively little environmental significance. Contaminants transported into the Arctic are of concern because of a number of factors. They typically persist for a long time and many circumpolar aboriginal people depend on a diet of high-fat meats and seafood, which tend to concentrate many contaminants through bioaccumulation. Recent international studies into contamination in Arctic marine regions include those carried out by the Canadian Northern Contaminants Program (NCP; reviewed by Macdonald et al, 2000), research groups such as the National Environment Research Institute (NERI) from Denmark and most recently, the circumpolar studies under the framework of the International Polar Year (IPY). These studies describe the baseline concentrations in the Arctic terrestrial and marine ecosystem and also the sources, fluxes and pathways. The contaminants found to be of greatest concern include PAHs and those of the heavy metals; mercury, cadmium and lead. In 2000, the ratio of anthropogenic to natural sources was 4 for cadmium, 27 for lead and 2 for mercury (Macdonald et al, 2000). In this study, an analytical procedure involving digestion of sediment in hydrofluoric (HF) acid was employed to analyse the total elemental content of sediments retrieved across the survey area. The results constitute both residual and non-residual heavy metals concentration, much of which may not be available for biological uptake. Of those metals of particular contamination concern, although not directly related to the Oil and Gas Industry, cadmium (Cd) levels consistently gave moderately high concentrations at all samples with a mean concentration of 0.68µg.g-1 (SD 0.09µg.g-1), with approximately 30% of this recovered using a weaker aqua regia dissolution (i.e. mean 0.2µg.g-1. (note the detection limit for AR testing was an order of magnitude less under current laboratory accreditation). These total levels are higher than those previously recorded at the Disko West site as undetectable to 0.13µg.g-1 (McGregor, 2009), or 0.15µg.g-1 recorded by Loring and Asmund (1996). There remains some debate as to toxicity of cadmium to marine and terrestrial organisms. Some papers describe cadmium as “very toxic” (Muniz et al 2004), whilst others consider this metals to have no negative effects (McLeese et al, 1987). Other attempts to quantify the critical level of cadmium toxification were carried out by Buchman (1999) and suggested ‘probable effect level’ of around 4.2µg.g-1. The highest level recorded in this study was 0.88µg.g-1 at T4 BC3 3-6cm. Of the other metals of toxicity concern within the Arctic, mercury (Hg) remained undetectable following aqua regia digestions to 0.1µg.g-1, but was picked up at very consistent low concentration of 0.03µg.g-1 using ICP-MS at all but one station which recorded 0.05 µg.g-1. This was generally the same as the upper limit recorded within Disko West in 2009, and relates to the mean concentration recorded at the Beta location which was high, but still lower than that of the present study. Lead (Pb) was also consistent, recording a mean concentration of 19.1µg.g-1 (SD 7.7) following HF digest or 13.9 µg.g-1 following AR, approximately 73% of the total. This is in close accordance to levels recorded in 2009, 17 to 21 µg.g-1, or 19µg.g-1 recorded by Loring.



Of particular relevance to the offshore oil and gas industry are metals associated with drilling related discharges. These can contain substantial amounts of barium sulphate (barites) as a weighting agent (NRC, 1983) and barium is frequently used to detect the deposition of drilling fluids around offshore installations (Chow & Snyder, 1980; Gettleson & Laird, 1980; Tricine & Trefry, 1983). Barites also contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals as impurities, including cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and zinc (Zn; NRC, 1983). Heavy metals, either as impurities or additives are also present in other mud components. For this survey, natural barium (Ba) levels remained relatively low and consistent throughout the area ranging from 386µg.g-1 to 476µg.g-1 (mean 440 µg.g-1), with no pattern of distribution. The majority of barium is typically insoluble in the form of a non-toxic sulphate form (Gerrard et al, 1999), this metal is rarely of toxicological concern to the marine fauna. This is partially supported by the weaker digestion results that indicated a mean concentration of only 181 µg.g-1, 41% of that recorded by the stronger dissolution method. Of the other metals, chromium (Cr) nickel (Ni), copper (Cu) and vanadium (V) all gave slightly lower respective concentration means of 61.3, 65.4, 40.3 and 73.8 µg.g-1

and consistent variability (around 13%), with no pattern of distribution. Previous levels recorded similar maximum concentration of 232, 81, 43 and 102µg.g-1 for the same metals sampled in 2009, or 163, 82, 49 and 129 µg.g-1 recorded by Loring. These metals have relatively high concentrations due to the occurrence of Tertiary volcanic rocks in the Disko Island area which affects offshore sediments through the ice erosion pathways. However, whilst the concentrations in the current study are moderately high, they are lower than those previously recorded. This may be due to the lack of ice-rifting material recorded within the very fine sediments of the current study. Weaker acid digestions have very consistent recoveries of between 71 and 85% of total dissolution for all metals. Vanadium is often associated with the oil and gas industry as it is present in relatively high concentrations in most crude oils (Khalaf et al, 1982). Most vanadium enters seawater in suspension or colloidal form, passing quickly out of the water column and into silt deposition (Cole et al, 1999). Of the other metals analysed, the crustal or matrix metals iron (Fe) and aluminium (Al) also gave consistent results (mean 5.09 and 6.33%, respectively), and a % variance of 5.6 and 3.7%. This reflects the homogeneity of the base sediments both by depth and location within the survey area. Aluminium is often used as a normalisation metal in areas where significant changes in sediment parameters can mask relative changes in other metals. As this was not seen here, this was not applied to the results for comparison. Iron is an important metal as it is often associated with other elements, such as Arsenic (As) to which they adsorb. Arsenic remained at a low and slightly variable throughout this study (mean 6.5 µg.g-1, variance of 40%), with an almost matched level of recovery achieved by the weaker acid digestion (at 97%).



Table 4.6. Total Heavy & Trace Metal Concentrations (µg.g-1 or ppm)

Element

Acid Extract

T4 BC1 0-1cm

T4 BC2 0-1cm

T4 BC3 0-1cm

T4 BC1 1-3cm

T4 BC2 1-3cm

T4 BC3 1-3cm

T4 BC1 3-6cm

T4 BC2 3-6cm

T4 BC3 3-6cm

T4 Mean

T4 StDev

Alpha 2009

Beta 2009

T8 2009

Faroes BSL 2008 Loring

HF 6.54 6.30 6.46 6.09 5.55 6.89 6.42 6.34 6.42 6.33 0.36 6.25 6 6.15 41250 - Al (%) AR 3.39 2.96 3.25 3.01 3.23 3.31 3.24 2.75 3.03 3.13 0.20 2.9 2.6 1.5 11936 HF 8.1 7.1 5.5 9.6 10.4 4.2 3.7 6.4 3.1 6.5 2.6 4.78 10.27 5.47 4 -

As AR 7.4 6.3 5.5 9.6 10.4 4.3 3.6 3.2 6.2 6.3 2.5 5.5 5.7 2.5 4 - HF 452 444 451 419 386 476 442 435 457 440.2 25.6 503.75 698.33 575.38 303 -

Ba AR 184 171 189 175 187 193 183 180 172 181.6 7.7 339.3 312.2 122.9 31 - HF 0.76 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.61 0.64 0.69 0.88 0.56 0.68 0.09 <0.01 0.13 0.11 0.5 0.15

Cd AR 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.11 0.10 0.08 <0.1 - HF 64.3 50.9 57 63.2 47.2 61.2 71.4 69.4 67.3 61.3 8.2 232 153.67 192.5 38 163

Cr AR 42.3 38.8 44.1 44.1 41.0 47.5 46.5 47.7 39.9 43.5 3.3 78.3 95.8 105.7 20 - HF 41.4 38.3 34.6 42.2 33.3 40.5 50.0 38.7 44.1 40.3 5.0 30.88 43 31.18 19 49

Cu AR 27 25.7 29.1 28.7 27.4 31.1 29.9 33.6 26.6 28.8 2.5 41.3 39.0 24.5 18 - HF 5.27 4.88 5.05 5.22 5.36 5.28 4.96 4.91 4.90 5.09 0.19 3.63 4.59 3.07 34457 -

Fe (%) AR 4.72 4.21 4.54 4.71 4.76 4.50 4.49 3.89 4.37 4.46 0.27 4.3 4.2 2.3 23443 -

Hg HF 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.015 0.032 0.015 <0.01 - HF 69.4 62.7 56.1 70.9 54.6 65.4 80.5 62.6 66.5 65.4 7.9 81.08 79.59 44.56 21 82

Ni AR 44.6 41.8 46.8 49.4 45.5 49.4 48.1 48.8 42.4 46.3 2.9 77.1 70.8 33.4 18 - HF 18.7 38.7 14.7 16 17 14 13.6 19.5 19.9 19.1 7.7 17.13 21.51 17.3 12 19

Pb AR 12.8 26.1 11.8 12 13.3 11.3 10.4 16.3 10.7 13.9 4.9 13.5 13.8 8.5 7 - HF 227 217 209 205 189 212 199 201 198 206.3 11.4 253.75 274.22 287.25 234 -

Sr AR 93 83 84 84 90 77 77 69 77 81.6 7.4 89.40 87.34 52.25 <3 - HF 75.3 61.1 72.4 75.9 57.5 74.4 80.8 83.4 83.7 73.8 9.2 89.75 102.11 68 62 129

V AR 63.1 56.5 64.3 65.6 60.8 66.7 63.9 66.4 58.8 62.9 3.5 90.0 86.8 54.3 50 - HF 53.4 82 49.4 47.8 47.8 50.4 48.2 45.1 50.6 52.7 11.2 52.65 91.88 54.38 34 77

Zn AR 45.7 74.5 46.8 50.9 44.9 48.9 47.8 58.5 41.8 51.1 9.9 87.27 81.79 44.76 32 -

HF = Total metals by hydrofluoric extraction, AR = “bioavailable” metals by aqua regia extraction Values in Green are where the AR digest achieved a slightly higher concentration than that of HF. This can occur when metals are analysed independently and a complete dissolution is achieved with AR. Historical comparisons are in blue



Figure 4.15. Heavy Metal Concentration for Cadmium (Cd; µg.g-1)

0.680.81

0.01 0.13 0.11

0.50

0.150.20 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.01

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

T4 Mean T3 Alpha 2009 Beta 2009 T8 2009 Faroes BSL2008

Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g) Cd HF

Cd AR

Figure 4.16. Heavy Metal Concentration for Mercury (Hg; µg.g-1)

0.03 0.03

0.02

0.03

0.020.01

0.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.05


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Hg HF

Figure 4.17. Heavy Metal Concentration for Lead (Pb; µg.g-1)

19.1 18.6 17.121.5

17.312.0

19.013.9

42.8

13.5 13.88.5 7.0

0

10

20

30

40

50


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g) Pb HF

Pb AR

Figure 4.18. Heavy Metal Concentration for Barium (Ba; µg.g-1)

440.2 441.7503.8

698.3

575.4

303.0

181.6140.3

339.3 312.2

122.931.0

0100200300400500600700800


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g) Ba HF

Ba AR



Figure 4.19. Heavy Metal Concentration for Chromium (Cr; µg.g-1)

61.3 62.5

232.0

153.7

192.5

38.0

163.0

43.5 41.7

78.395.8 105.7

20.0

0

50

100

150

200

250


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Cr HF Cr AR

Figure 4.20. Heavy Metal Concentration for Nickel (Ni; µg.g-1)

65.473.7

81.1 79.6

44.6

21.0

82.0

46.3

11.4

77.170.8

33.4

18.0

0

20

40

60

80

100


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Ni HF Ni AR

Figure 4.21. Heavy Metal Concentration for Copper (Cu; µg.g-1)

40.344.2

30.9

43.0

31.2

19.0

49.0

28.825.8

41.3 39.0

24.518.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g) Cu HF

Cu AR

Figure 4.22. Heavy Metal Concentration for Vanadium (V; µg.g-1)

73.8 71.7

89.8102.1

68.062.0

129.0

62.9 60.4

90.0 86.8

54.3 50.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

V HF V AR



Figure 4.23. Heavy Metal Concentration for Iron (Fe; %)

5.1 5.3

3.6

4.6

3.13.4

4.5 4.74.3 4.2

2.3 2.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Loring

Per

cen

tage

(d

ry w

t) Fe (%) HFFe (%) AR

Figure 4.24. Heavy Metal Concentration for Aluminium (Al;%)

6.3 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.2

4.1

3.1 3.22.9 2.6

1.5 1.2

012345678


Loring

Per

cen

tage

(d

ry w

t) Al (%) HFAl (%) AR

Figure 4.25. Heavy Metal Concentration for Arsenic (As; µg.g-1)

6.57.2

4.8

10.3

5.5

4.0

6.3 5.8 5.5 5.7

2.5

4.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Loring

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g) As HF

As AR



4.8. Macrofaunal Analysis

A macrofaunal analysis was carried out on all thirty replicates obtained at the three key baseline sediment sites sampled around the proposed T4 well area. The sediments at all stations was consistent as a very soft slightly sandy silt but with some variability with respect to thickness of this layer relative to an underlying gravel pavement or scar-edge feature, predominantly made up of clay exposures and the occasional drop-stone. The proportion of coarser sediments within samples was entirely due to biological modification to the surface sediments through shells, foram concretions or sponge spicule matting. Macrofaunal samples were processed in the field using a 500µm mesh size. Subsequent macrofaunal taxonomy of all recovered fauna identified a total of 5,595 individuals/colonies from the 30 samples analysed, excluding a large number of foraminifera which dominated all of the samples. These were excludes from the overall assessment but were equivalent to around 35,000 further individuals to the samples. Faunal data for each sample are listed in Appendix V, whilst univariate analyses are summarised in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. Of the 170 species recorded, 140 were infaunal, consisting of 53 annelids species accounting for 45.8% of the total individuals. The molluscs were represented by 23 species (8.1% of individuals), the crustaceans by 43 species (34.8%) and the echinoderms by only 6 species (and only 1.2% of individuals), while all other groups (cnidaria, nemertea, nematoda, sipuncula, pycnogonida, brachiopoda, ascidia and chordata) and accounted for the remaining 10.1% , or 15 species. A distribution of the different taxa is presented in figures 4.26 and 4.27 by sample replicate, or figure 4.28 by station. With the exception of species that have been intentionally grouped into higher taxonomic levels (e.g. Nematoda, Nemertea etc.), the majority of adult specimens were identified to species level. This was approximately 85.7% of specimens (excluding juveniles and fragmented species), with a further 5.8% to genus/putative species level. Only three juvenile specimens were recorded throughout the survey area (possibly reflecting the spring time of the sampling), of which all were echinoids. Juveniles are often excluded from community analyses due to their high mortality prior to reaching maturity and difficulties in distinguishing species of the same genus. Consequently, they tend to induce a recruitment spike at certain times of the year due to rapid settlement and colonisation, but are essentially an ephemeral part of the population masking the underlying trends within the mature adults. Owing to their very small number (<0.06% of individuals), these specimens have been excluded from the multivariate analyses. Fragments from a further 7 different family or genus were also recorded accounting for 39 specimens or 0.7% of the community recorded. These have been separated from the multivariate analyses as it is not often possible to differentiate the number of animals from which fragments are derived. These have been listed separately in Appendix V.



Figure 4.26 Proportion of Individual Abundance by Main Group and Replicate Figure 4.27 Proportion of Species Richness by Main Group and Replicate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

T4 B

C1 F1

T4 B

C1 F2

T4 B

C1 F3

T4 B

C1 F4

T4 B

C1 F5

T4 B

C1 F6

T4 B

C1 F7

T4 B

C1 F8

T4 B

C1 F9

T4 B

C1 F10

T4 B

C2 F1

T4 B

C2 F2

T4 B

C2 F3

T4 B

C2 F4

T4 B

C2 F5

T4 B

C2 F6

T4 B

C2 F7

T4 B

C2 F8

T4 B

C2 F9

T4 B

C2 F10

T4 B

C3 F1

T4 B

C3 F2

T4 B

C3 F3

T4 B

C3 F4

T4 B

C3 F5

T4 B

C3 F6

T4 B

C3 F7

T4 B

C3 F8

T4 B

C3 F9

T4 B

C3 F10

Epifaunal Species

Other

Echinodermata

Mollusca

Crustacea

Annelida

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

T4 B

C1 F1

T4 B

C1 F2

T4 B

C1 F3

T4 B

C1 F4

T4 B

C1 F5

T4 B

C1 F6

T4 B

C1 F7

T4 B

C1 F8

T4 B

C1 F9

T4 B

C1 F10

T4 B

C2 F1

T4 B

C2 F2

T4 B

C2 F3

T4 B

C2 F4

T4 B

C2 F5

T4 B

C2 F6

T4 B

C2 F7

T4 B

C2 F8

T4 B

C2 F9

T4 B

C2 F10

T4 B

C3 F1

T4 B

C3 F2

T4 B

C3 F3

T4 B

C3 F4

T4 B

C3 F5

T4 B

C3 F6

T4 B

C3 F7

T4 B

C3 F8

T4 B

C3 F9

T4 B

C3 F10

Epifaunal Species

Other

Echinodermata

Mollusca

Crustacea

Annelida



Figure 4.28 Proportion of Individual Abundance and Richness by Main Group and Station

4.8.1. Infaunal Trends The macrofauna was typical for a deep-water mixed substrate with the community dominated by small polychaetes and crustacean both by species and abundance. The key dominant species across the area were, in order of dominance, the tubiculous amphipd Haploops tubicola, the polychaetes Tharyx marioni, Lumbrineris fragilis, Minuspio cirrifera and Amphicteis gunneri, followed by large Nematods. The distribution of these key species remained consistent at all of the sites within the area. A measure of the overall dominance pattern in the sampling area was achieved by ranking the top species per sample replicate according to abundance, giving a rank score of 10 to the most abundant species, decreasing to 1 for the tenth most abundant species, and summing these scores for all thirty samples to provide an overall dominance score (Eleftheriou & Basford, 1989) for each species. The top 10 species are shown in Table 4.7. This ranking varied only very slightly from that of the numerical ranking for the species overall, further highlighting the consistency of the key species along the survey corridor.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

T4 B

C1

T4 B

C2

T4 B

C3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

T4 B

C1

T4 B

C2

T4 B

C3

(a) Individual Abundance (b) Species Richness



Table 4.7. Overall Species Ranking (Top 15 Species)

Overall Top 10 Rank

Species/Taxon Total rank score

(out of 300)

Numerical Abundance

(30 replicates)

Numerical Top 10 rank

1 Haploops tubicola 298 1534 1 2 Lumbrineris fragilis 221 353 3 3 Tharyx marioni 215 390 2 4 Minuspio cirrifera 190 347 4 5 Nematoda unid. 141 217 6 6 Amphicteis gunneri 126 331 5 7 Thyasira gouldi 116 174 7 8 Nemertea unid 81 151 8 9 Golfingia diaphanes 72 127 10

10 Aglaophamus malmgreni 71 128 9 11 Brada villosa 43 92 11 12 Dorvillea rudolphi 29 77 12 13 Notoproctus abyssus 29 74 13 14 Maldane arctica 21 61 14 15 Limutula subauriculata 19 41 22

Polychaete: Of the 51 Polychaeta, only about six are confined to the Western

Atlantic seaboard, with the rest widely distributed across the Northern Atlantic, and some species being cosmopolitan. The species mostly of prominence in the samples were the Nephtyid Aglaophamus malmgreeni, the Cirratulid Tharyx marioni, the Lumbrinerid Lumbrineris fragilis the Spionid Minuspio cirrifera and the Flabelligerid Brada villosa. (Note: there remains an element of doubt over Lumbrineris fragilis; whilst agreeing with the type description in every detail the colour of the aciculae is yellow in the specimens found instead of black. There are a couple of specimens with black aciculae which however differ in a number of characteristics and could not be ascribed to any other species at the time of taxonomy). Whilst numerically of importance, the population of Amphicteis gunneri consists generally of very small specimens, with few fully grown adults, which are vastly larger.

Also of interest are the polychaete specimens provisionally ascribed to Macrochaeta sp (Fam Macrocirridae). This is a very poorly known family of six species, with several only described from one or two incomplete specimens. The polychaete was not uncommon in the samples, and complete specimens with their tubes were obtained. Characteristic of this genus/family are two tentacles on the prostomium; this feature and seta details match the generic definition. If this diagnosis is correct, this is likely to be a new species.



Polychaete assigned to the group Cirratulidae sp. could not be assign a genus. This is an extremely shortened worm not unlike Travisia in form, but more spindleshaped and with a more conical posterior shape.

Mollusca: Amongst the Mollusca the number of Aplacophoran species was

notable. Three genera with four species were found in two distinct forms. These were Chaetoderma, as well as a species of Scutopus and of Rhopalomenia. There are clear differences between them in major characteristics like presence and absence of a ventral furrow and the nature of the dermal spicules.

The bivalve fauna was dominated by

Thyasira gouldi, Bathyarca pectunculoides, Limatula subauriculata and Astarte crebricostata. L. subauriculata specimens with one exception were of a uniform size, whilst all the others species came in different size classes (Figure 4.29). This may indicate that recruitment of this species is irregular. The faunal composition is typically deep water and Arctic.

Figure 4.29 Bivalve Limatula subauriculata

Crustacea: The Crustacean fauna was dominated by the tube building

Amphipod Haploops tubicola; the arrangement of the tubes, three to four centimetres in length, is shown in figure 4.30 below. The overall number of other Amphipoda species is rather low, both in species and specimen numbers.

Figure 4.30 Photographs of Haploops tubicola and its Tubes

By contrast Isopoda were well represented, with a number of striking species. The Paranthurid Calathura brachiata for example reaches a size of three to four centimetres. Again the faunal composition is



typical for deep water Northern latitudes (Figure 4.31). Decapods were completely absent from the samples although Natantia (Pandalus borealis) and the spider crabs (Macropodia?) were seen in seabed photographs. A single specimen of a Euphausia species was also recorded; it is not clear if this specimen was caught midwater or on the bottom (this was removed from faunal matrix during analysis).

Figure 4.31 Isopod Calathura brachiata

Echinoderms: This group consisted of Ophiuroidea and Holothuroidea. Three brittle stars were found; the identification of Ophiopleura borealis is tentative due to the damaged state of the specimens.

The deposit feeding Holothurian Molpadia arctica is the most striking of the echinoderms found. It is comparatively large, even in the preserved and contracted state, and may be responsible for the large number of U-shaped burrows both recorded within the samples and in seabed photographs, although the species Molpadia musculus has been observed feeding head down (Amaro et al, 2010), which would not be compatible with a U-shaped burrow. The burrows seem to persist even after abandonment as the number of burrows seen in photographs cannot be matched to any of the faunal recorded in the samples.

The other Holothurian recorded is the tiny Synaptid Myriotrochus vitreus, an essentially Arctic deep water species.

Figure 4.32 Species Abundance and Richness by Replicate (0.1m2)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

T4

BC

1-F1

T4

BC

1-F2

T4

BC

1-F3

T4

BC

1-F4

T4

BC

1-F5

T4

BC

1-F6

T4

BC

1-F7

T4

BC

1-F8

T4

BC

1-F9

T4

BC

1-F1

0

T4

BC

2-F1

T4

BC

2-F2

T4

BC

2-F3

T4

BC

2-F4

T4

BC

2-F5

T4

BC

2-F6

T4

BC

2-F7

T4

BC

2-F8

T4

BC

2-F9

T4

BC

2-F1

0

T4

BC

3-F1

T4

BC

3-F2

T4

BC

3-F3

T4

BC

3-F4

T4

BC

3-F5

T4

BC

3-F6

T4

BC

3-F7

T4

BC

3-F8

T4

BC

3-F9

T4

BC

3-F1

0

Sp

ecie

s A

bu

nd

ance

(per

0.1

m2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sp

ecie

s ri

chn

ess

(per

0.1

m2)

Abundance

Richness



Figure 4.33. Macrofauna – Species Richness

106

15.6 18.8 18.3

46.161

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T4 Mean Alpha 2009 Beta 2009 T8 2009 Faroes BSL2008*

GEM, 2001**

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Number ofSpecies per m2 (S)

Figure 4.34. Macrofauna – Species Abundance (per m2)

1803

554 629491

1280

630

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

T4 Mean Alpha 2009 Beta 2009 T8 2009 Faroes BSL2008

GEM, 2001

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Number of Individuals per m2 (N)

Figure 4.36. Macrofauna – Shannon-Weiner Diversity (H(s))

4.603

2.072.38 2.65

4.44.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

T4 Mean Alpha 2009 Beta 2009 T8 2009 Faroes BSL2008

GEM, 2001

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Shannon-WienerDiversity

Figure 4.37. Macrofauna – Simpson’s Dominance

0.895

0.800

0.850

0.900 0.900

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

T4 Mean Alpha 2009 Beta 2009 T8 2009 Faroes BSL 2008

Con

cen

trat

ion

(µg

/g)

Simpsons (1-Lambda')



4.8.2. Univariate Parameters The primary and univariate parameters are listed for individual macrofaunal replicates, together with aggregated stations in Tables 4.8 (by replicates) and Table 4.9 (by stations), respectively. The number of individuals and taxon recorded during this study is notably higher than previous survey results shown for the sites surveyed in 2009 in similar water depths (Mcgregor 2009). The total number of individuals varied from 65 to 316 per 0.1m2 (1,669 to 1,870 by station (1m2)) and taxa varied from 18 to 54 per 0.1m2 (100 to 111 by station (1m2)), with the greatest abundance, both by taxa and individuals, at stations T4-BC1. The mean number of individuals and taxa for the survey (based on 10 x 0.1m2 replicates) was 1,802 (SD 115) and 106 (SD 5.7), respectively. Individual 0.1m2 replicates recorded taxa of 40 per 0.1m2. and the relationship between the number of taxa and the individuals is shown in figure 4.32. These data can be compared to results of the 2009 survey which indicated mean species per replicate of 15.6, 18.8 and 18.3 for the sites Alpha, Beta and T8 (Gamma), respectively. These same sites gave average abundance levels of 554, 629 and 491 individuals per metres squared (Figures 4.33 and 4.34). The consistent accumulation of taxa with each replicate is demonstrated in a bioaccumulation curve shown in figure 4.35. This demonstrates the even nature of species accumulation and the levelling off of the data into a plateau towards the latter end of the curve showing that few additional species were being found towards the latter end of the survey. By interpolation, approximately 67% of the total population (two thirds) was achieved by sampling between 5 and 7 replicates. Diversity remained at a moderate level by replicate at 4.22 and consistent with only an 8.2% variance (i.e. the proportion of standard deviation against the mean). For the station, this mean increased to 4.6 and a variance of 3.1% (Figure 4.36). The Pielou’s Equitability was only moderate with a mean of 0.68 (SD 0.02 or 2.4% variance), indicating a slight species dominance across the sampling template. Margalef’s Index (Species Richness) recorded a mean of 14.1 (SD 0.79 or 5.7% variance) whilst Simpson’s evenness was 0.90 (SD 0.02 or 2.4% variance; Figure 4.37). Figure 4.35 Bioaccumulation Curve of the T4 Samples

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Number of samples (0.1m2)

Nu

mb

er o

f S

pec

ies

Species Accululation (optimum curve)

Species Accululation (as sampled)

Species Accululation (Mean Curve)

67% of total population



Overall, the diversity of the macrobenthos at the survey area was moderate to high and much higher than that previously recorded in the Disko West area last year (McGregor 2009). However, the univariate properties of these earlier datasets were generally lower than expected for the sediment type and latitude. Probably of closer comparison were the results of a similar sediment type but slightly deeper water surveyed off southern Faroes (BSL, 2008). Here, a similarly moderate number of species and individuals were recorded, associated with the slightly mixed nature of the sediments in Arctic influenced bottom waters. AFEN (2000), showed that there was a general decline in diversity (or increase in dominance) with depth consistent with the low diversity of Arctic and Norwegian Basin deep-sea benthos. A close link between the hydrography was shown to exist within the macrobenthos for intermediate depths within the Faroe-Shetland Channel (Figure 4.38). Diversity was shown to be enhanced in the region of maximal temperature variation (c. 400 m and 6 degrees) where the mixing of water masses supports both sets of fauna, increased niche availability and biotic interaction over well developed epifaunal communities. Using this model, we would expect a species richness of around 18 to 20 taxon/0.1m2, for a 2 to 3 degree water temperature rather than the mean of 40 recorded during the present study. Figure 4.38 Illustration of correlation between diversity and water temperature, West of Shetlands (Source: AFEN 2000) This moderately high diversity reflects the large number of species and the generally low numbers of individuals recorded for many of those species. Although the site, as whole, was dominated by the amphipod Haploops tubicola which was recorded in all 30 samples at an average density of 511 per 1m2, these samples also recorded 5 other species or groups that were consistently found within all samples at an average density of more than 70 individuals per m2. Only 11 taxa in total were recorded during the survey with an average density of more than 30 per m2. Conversely, only 15 of the 132 infaunal taxa where recorded in only sample, although 51 taxa were represented, on average, by only a single specimen per sample (equivalent to 10 individuals per m2).



Table 4.8. Univariate Faunal Parameters (0.1m2 replicates)

Station Number of Species per

0.1m2 (S)

Number of Individuals

per 0.1m2

(N)

Richness (Margalef)

Evenness (Pielou's

Evenness)

Shannon-Wiener

Diversity

Simpsons (1-

Lambda')

T4 BC1-F1 40 187 7.455 0.7522 4.003 0.8641 T4 BC1-F2 43 212 7.841 0.7909 4.292 0.8949 T4 BC1-F3 45 215 8.193 0.7093 3.895 0.8513 T4 BC1-F4 39 231 6.982 0.7719 4.080 0.8859 T4 BC1-F5 43 146 8.428 0.7803 4.234 0.8809 T4 BC1-F6 44 145 8.640 0.8171 4.461 0.9259 T4 BC1-F7 36 157 6.922 0.7502 3.878 0.8652 T4 BC1-F8 46 245 8.180 0.7666 4.234 0.9031 T4 BC1-F9 45 192 8.369 0.7853 4.313 0.9117 T4 BC1-F10 40 141 7.881 0.7624 4.057 0.8793 T4 BC2-F1 44 266 7.701 0.7814 4.266 0.9164 T4 BC2-F2 34 155 6.543 0.7431 3.780 0.8525 T4 BC2-F3 35 137 6.911 0.801 4.109 0.8908 T4 BC2-F4 42 209 7.675 0.7906 4.263 0.9081 T4 BC2-F5 39 144 7.646 0.8460 4.471 0.9383 T4 BC2-F6 34 147 6.613 0.7809 3.973 0.8884 T4 BC2-F7 35 130 6.985 0.7873 4.038 0.8985 T4 BC2-F8 50 175 9.487 0.8486 4.789 0.9477 T4 BC2-F9 42 190 7.814 0.7626 4.112 0.8837 T4 BC2-F10 43 116 8.835 0.8265 4.485 0.9249 T4 BC3-F1 18 65 4.072 0.8285 3.455 0.8875 T4 BC3-F2 50 278 8.707 0.8124 4.585 0.9337 T4 BC3-F3 24 104 4.952 0.7184 3.294 0.7954 T4 BC3-F4 36 165 6.855 0.7299 3.774 0.8339 T4 BC3-F5 33 142 6.457 0.7146 3.605 0.8240 T4 BC3-F6 54 316 9.208 0.7420 4.270 0.8718 T4 BC3-F7 49 183 9.214 0.7311 4.105 0.8564 T4 BC3-F8 45 214 8.2 0.7373 4.049 0.8614 T4 BC3-F9 42 204 7.709 0.6773 3.652 0.8022 T4 BC3-F10 53 198 9.833 0.7758 4.444 0.8899

T4 Mean 40 180 7.603 0.771 4.087 0.882 T4 St Dev 7.8 53.9 1.246 0.041 0.337 0.038 % variation 19.30% 30.00% 16.40% 5.40% 8.20% 4.30%

Faroes BSL 2008 33.5 127.8 6.74 0.84 4.22 0.92

Historical comparisons are in blue



Table 4.9. Univariate Faunal Parameters (for m2 station)

Station Number of Species

per m2 (S)

Number of Individuals per m2

(N)

Richness (Margalef)

Evenness (Pielou's

Evenness)

Shannon-Wiener

Diversity

Simpsons

T4-BC1 111 1870 14.6 0.6774 4.602 0.8934 T4-BC2 108 1669 14.42 0.7023 4.744 0.9164 T4- BC3 100 1869 13.14 0.6715 4.462 0.8741

T4 Mean 106 1803 14.053 0.684 4.603 0.895 T4 St Dev 5.7 115.8 0.796 0.016 0.141 0.021

% variation 5.30% 6.40% 5.70% 2.40% 3.10% 2.40%

Alpha 2009 15.6 554 - 0.85 2.07 0.80 Beta 2009 18.8 629 - 0.78 2.38 0.85

T8 (Gamma) 2009 18.3 491 - 0.90 2.65 0.90

Farioes BSL 2008 46.1* 1280*** 8.2 0.8 4.4 0.9

GEM, 2001 61** 630*** nc 0.79 4.7 nc * number of species based on dataset 1/5th that of the present study ** number of species based on dataset half that of the present study *** number of individuals altered to reflect m2 for direct comparison Historical comparisons are in blue

4.8.3. Multivariate Analyses To provide a more thorough examination of the macrofaunal community, multivariate analyses was performed upon the data for both the replicate and aggregated stations using Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research software (PRIMER; Clarke & Warwick 1994) to illustrate data trends. Unlike univariate parameter, multivariate analyses preserve the identity of the different species by assigning a similarity or dissimilarity between the samples. The analyses were undertaken on double square-root transformed data, as these data gave the clearest interpretation. (a) Dendrogram – Group Average Method The similarity dendrogram is given for all replicates in Figure 4.39. This diagram shows that intra-station relationships are relatively weak compared to Inter-station variability. Consequently, many of the replicates cluster with the replicates of the different stations with varying similarity between 50 to 70%. This suggests that there is little or no significant variability in the macrofaunal populations from different stations and that replicate samples represent a sub-sets of a broad homogeneous macro-invertebrate community.



Figure 4.39. Dendrogram of Macrofaunal Replicates T

4 B

C3

F1

T4

BC

2 F7

T4

BC

1 F9

T4

BC

1 F3

T4

BC

3 F5

T4

BC

1 F7

T4

BC

3 F3

T4

BC

3 F4

T4

BC

1 F5

T4

BC

1 F2

T4

BC

1 F4

T4

BC

3 F9

T4

BC

1 F1

0

T4

BC

2 F1

0

T4

BC

2 F2

T4

BC

1 F1

T4

BC

2 F3

T4

BC

2 F5

T4

BC

3 F7

T4

BC

2 F9

T4

BC

3 F2

T4

BC

3 F8

T4

BC

3 F6

T4

BC

3 F1

0

T4

BC

1 F6

T4

BC

1 F8

T4

BC

2 F8

T4

BC

2 F6

T4

BC

2 F1

T4

BC

2 F4

100

80

60

40

This is further supported in figure 4.40 which shows a similarity dendrogram by station made up of combined ten replicates (total surface area of 1m2). Results indicate a much higher and generally consistent level of similarity at around the 80-82% with no outlier sites. This shows that although only three stations were sampled, their significant replication and resulting area coverage demonstrates a relatively high level of similarity. Consequently, if representative of all dominant sediment types within the survey, these results would describe these sediments as a homogeneous macro-invertebrate environment. Figure 4.40. Dendrogram of Macrofaunal Stations

Similarity

Similarity

T4

BC

3

T4

BC

1

T4

BC

2

100

95

90

85

80

75



(b) nMDS Ordination Plot The replicate similarities were presented into a 2-dimensional representation with two axes of similarity. This multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination is presented in Figure 4.41 for all 30 replicates. This shows a general “cloud” of sample replicates with very little separation between them. Very few outlier replicates are seen with samplers T4 BC3-F1 and T4 BC2-F7 (highlighted) showing the greatest variability. Both of these sites were distinct in the field as the sediments were significantly impacted by large quantities of spicule matting left by sponge debris in these areas. Figure 4.41. nMDS Ordination Plot by Replicate

T4 BC1 F1

T4 BC1 F2T4 BC1 F3

T4 BC1 F4

T4 BC1 F5

T4 BC1 F6

T4 BC1 F7

T4 BC1 F8

T4 BC1 F9

T4 BC1 F10

T4 BC2 F1

T4 BC2 F2T4 BC2 F3

T4 BC2 F4

T4 BC2 F5

T4 BC2 F6

T4 BC2 F7

T4 BC2 F8

T4 BC2 F9

T4 BC2 F10

T4 BC3 F1

T4 BC3 F2

T4 BC3 F3

T4 BC3 F4

T4 BC3 F5

T4 BC3 F6

T4 BC3 F7

T4 BC3 F8

T4 BC3 F9

T4 BC3 F10

Stress: 0.25

The stress values recorded within the statistical representations is poor for these replicates, measured at 0.25. This level of ordination should be treated with caution and scepticism as the resulting separation may not be necessarily consistent. This fact also point to the conclusion that the all replicates generally support sub-sets of the same macrofaunal populations with no significant difference (or subsequent separation between them). An nMDS ordination cannot be presented for the stations samples due to the low number of sites. As all 30 replicates and resulting 3 stations essentially showed sub-sets of the same general macrofaunal community, the statistical program SIMPER, used to summarise the key species (in rank order) responsible for the separation of clustered communities, was not used.



4.8.4. Environmental Variables

Owing to the low number of stations analysed within the survey area and the homogeneity recorded within both the macrofaunal population as well as the physico-chemical samples, relationships between the biological populations and environmental variables for each station could not be established. Results show that the sites sampled within the T8 template represent the same benthic habitat exhibiting similar physical, chemical and biological qualities throughout. 4.8.5. Epifaunal and other Biological Groups All of the macrofaunal samples recorded the presence of invertebrate species that are generally considered to be epifaunal that are not statistically assessed within the infauna. Whilst the acoustic survey showed the habitats within the survey area to be slightly heterogeneous due to the intermittent exposures of underlying clays, glacial tills and sporadic drop-stones (see section 4.3 and 4.4) all caused by ice modification, the benthic samples themselves indicated no surface gravels, with most epifaunal examples represented by colonial species. The consistency and importance of the epifaunal assemblages is demonstrated in Figure 4.42, which highlight both abundance and richness when compared with infauna by station. As many of the species exist in colonial type assemblages, the incidents of some epifaunal groups into the macrofaunal analyses would be misleading. Consequently, these data have been removed and are listed separately in Appendix V. Figure 4.42 Epifaunal Abundance and Richness versus Infauna, by Station. Sessile epifauna was comparatively well represented, with a number of well known species of porifera, coelenterata and bryozoa.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

AM

-08-01

AM

-08-01_ 1

AM

-08-01_2

AM

-08-02

AM

-08-03

AM

-08-04

AM

-08-05

AM

-08-06

AM

-08-07

AM

-08-08

AM

-08-09

AM

-08-10

AM

-08-11

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Epifaunal SpeciesInfaunal Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

AM

-08-01

AM

-08-01_1

AM

-08-01_2

AM

-08-02

AM

-08-03

AM

-08-04

AM

-08-05

AM

-08-06

AM

-08-07

AM

-08-08

AM

-08-09

AM

-08-10

AM

-08-11

Nu

mb

er o

f S

pec

ies

Species Richness

Individual Abundance



Porifera: Amongst the sponges calcareous species like Sycon sp and Clathrina coriacea were recorded regularly, growing on Rhabdaminna spp. (Foraminifera). Clathrina often occurred in a club-shaped form made up of anastomosing tubes not normally seen in shallow water.

Amongst the Demospongia were largely species to be expected giving depth and geographical latitude. The carnivorous sponge Asbestopluma sp, was very common, with a habitus more like a sea pen rooted in the soft substrate; these prey on small crustaceans. This genus appears not have been previously recorded in Western Greenland (based on the literature available at the time of the report). Triaxonida sponges were represented by Thenea muricata and Tetilla cranium, both species also recorded in seabed photography, as were regular examples of Asbestopluma. Numerically of most importance were the Hadromerida sponges with species like Radiella sol, Tentorium semisuberites, Stylocordyla boreals, Polymastia spp and Sphaerotylus schoenus. Hadromerida have a free living larval stage of a week or more, allowing easy dispersal. These species all have a wide distribution in northern waters.

Coelenterata: This group was not well represented. A couple of large specimens of

the solitary Hydroid Corymorpha nutans were obtained and also seen on photographs. A small number of sea pens were obtained and the most common anthozoan was the sea anemone Amphianthus sp. This was similar in habit and habitat preference to the more southern species Amphianthus dohrni, commonly found on gorgonarians like Eunicella ; its settlement surface here was the stem of Asbesopluma sp.

Bryozoa: The bryozoan fauna contained a couple of species of interest. These

were the species Alcyonidium sp, an upright finger shaped form frequently seen on the photographs. It roots in the substrate similar to Metalcyonidium and Pseudalcyonidium, both deep sea forms and very much smaller.

The cyclostome bryozoan Idmidronea atlantica can frequently be seen on photos; it typically grows in a Y- shaped form of longish branches. Overall the Bryozoa show more disparity with the Eastern Atlantic fauna than do the porifera which are largely identical.

Further photographic examples of epifaunal species are given in the video section of the report Section 4.9. In line with observations made from the macrofaunal analysis at the Disko West sites in 2009 (McGregor, 2009), the sediments of the T4 well location are dominated by the presence of large numbers of foraminifera. Although these species are generally ignored in benthic surveys due to their partial pelagic existence and very high settlement variability within the benthic environment, there importance to the benthos can be significant if their test deposits alter the sediments (such as oozes) are large predatory forms, or as is the case in this survey, are encountered in very large numbers.



Forams have previously been used in Greenland as a dominant group, to characterize benthic communities (e.g. Lloyd 2006). As with the results of the three 2009 benthic surveys, the most dominant forams recorded during the current study was Rhabdammina sp. and was estimated to be found to be patchy in number ranging from estimates 500 to 34,000 individuals per m2 (mean 11,000 per m2). Quinquiloculina sp was also common, though not as abundant, occurring at all stations and estimated to be between 10 and 220 per m2 (mean 94 per m2). Both Rhabdammina and Quinquiloculina have previously been sampled in west Greenland continental shelf environments in the area (Carpenter 1876; Lloyd 2006). R. abyssorum is the main species in the deepwater foraminifer community in the southern Davis Strait reported by Carpenter (1876) and Thorson (1936). The species was also found in deepwater (622-658 m) in the central Davis Strait (MacLaren Marex Inc. 1978). Two other forms relating to a unidentified “rooted foram” and a “white triangular” species were also recorded during the current survey, although numbers were not so abundant, averaging 140 and 30 individuals per m2, respectively. Previous surveys in Disko West have also identified Cribrostomoides crassimargo at all previous sites. 4.9 Video/Photographic Survey of Sediment Habitats In addition to the analysis and interpretation of the benthic samples, some additional photographic ground truthing data was also obtained at 8 sites within the survey area in areas of acoustic interest or on sediments representative of typical habitats encountered for the area. As the acoustic dataset indicated a generally homogeneous habitat of slightly mixed sediment types relative to features created by ice modification, additional sampling effort was unnecessary. A list of the ground truth sites and their locations is given in Table 2.2. No environmentally sensitive habitats or benthic communities were recorded at or surrounding the proposed T4 well location (or within the 3 x 3km area). This includes the absence of potential Annex 1 habitats such as gas escape feature, biogenic reefs or geological reefs, currently protected under the European Habitats Directive. Survey operations were carried out using a combined digital video and still camera system deployed in a drop-down frame (see Section 2). Results for each of the eight ground truthing locations are summarised in Figure 4.43 for the dominant habitats encountered, or Figure 4.44 for the common faunal groups encountered. A more detailed summary and further photographic examples are given in Appendix VII. These data confirmed expectations acquired from the environmental interpretation given from the regional habitat assessment and surveyed from the acoustic dataset (see Section 4.1). The seabed features chart showed a significantly ice-modified sediment with small area of harder substrate at the perimeter of the keel scars but generally consistent featureless soft sediments elsewhere. An assessment of the epifaunal assemblages shown within the seabed photographs displayed a relatively sparse community of species overall, but some minor aggregations recorded on the occasional drop-stone. Many of the species recorded are associated with deep water and/or cold water environments. A summary of the main taxa recorded, along with some example photographs is given in Figure 4.44.



Figure 4.43 Summary of Sediment Habitat Type Recorded by Seabed Photography Details Transect Example Photograph (#12) Example Photograph (#24)

Site Cam 001 (39 photos)

Easting (UTM) 395272 to 395109 Northing (UTM)

7894344 to 7894494 Depth (m)

496 Description

Slightly sandy silts and clays with occasional small

cobbles (#12) and exposures of underlying clays (#24) at scar edges

Transect crossing shallow scar

Details Transect Example Photograph (#86) Example Photograph (#112) Site

Cam 002 (42 photos) Easting (UTM)

395397 to 395535 Northing (UTM)

7893000 to 7892846 Depth (m)

488 Description

Slightly sandy silts and clays (#112)with occasional

small cobbles (#86) and exposures of underlying

clays at scar edges

Transect between shallow scars



Figure 4.43 cont. Summary of Sediment Habitat Type Recorded by Seabed Photography Details Transect Example Photograph (#10) Example Photograph (#17)



7895413 to 7895442 Depth (m)

508 Description

Featureless slightly sandy silts and clays throughout (#10 and #17). Numerous

small surface burrows.

Short transect in flat area




7894468 to 7893986 Depth (m)

490 Description

Slightly sandy silts and clays with occasional small

cobbles (#38) and exposures of underlying clays at scar edges (#65)

Extended transect along several shallow iceberg keel scars






7893746 to 7893708 Depth (m)

490 Description

Featureless slightly sandy silts and clays throughout

(#7 and #8). Numerous small surface burrows.

Short transect in central area


Cam 005a (34 photos) Easting (UTM)


7894558 to 7894773 Depth (m)

505 Description



Transect along generally flat seabed






7893097 to 7892933 Depth (m)

485 Description

Edge of deep iceberg keel scar. Veneer of slightly sandy silts and clays over intermittent

exposures of clays from plough berms (#17). Some small

epifauna on hard areas (#18).

Transect along edge of keel scar

Details Transect Example Photograph (#15) Example Photograph (19) Site



7894822 to 7895004 Depth (m)

495 Description



Transect along generally flat seabed



Figure 4.44. Epifaunal and Megafauna Species Recorded at the T4 Site

Species Examples from Seabed Photography

Octocoral: Eunephytia sp

Octocoral: Umbellula lindahlii

Anenome: Actinauge richardi

Anenome: Cerianthus sp

Sea Pen: Virgularia sp

Sea Pen: Kophobelemn stelliferum

Sea Pen: Anthoptilum grandiflorum

Hydroid: Corymorpha nutans

Sponge: Myxilla sp

Sponge: Histoderma physa

Sponge: Stylocordyla borealis

Sponge: Polymastia sp



Sponge: Asbestopluma sp

Sponge: Possibly Jophon sp

Sponge: Polymastia sp

Polychaete: Nemeretan Worm

Polychaete: Serpulid worm

Bryozoan; Idmidronea atlantica

Bryozoan: Alcyonidium

Ophiuroid: Ophiopus arcticus

Asteroid: Hypasteria phrygiana

Holothurian:Molpadia burrowing(?

Pycnogonid: Nymphon sp

Amphipod: Harpinia sp

Euphasid

Fish: Lyenchelys sarsii

Fish: Sebastes sp



From each of the camera transects a set of 5 photographs were evaluated semi-quantitatively for their megafaunal/epifaunal content and the results (listed in Appendix VII) statistically analysed using the PRIMER software (Clarke & Warwick 1994) program to assess any significant population variations between groups. The analyses were undertaken on double square-root transformed data and the similarity dendrogram produced for all replicates, given in Figure 4.45. This diagram shows that the eight camera sites group into two separate clusters with stations Cam 1, 2, 4 and 7 (cluster A) separated from Cam 3, 5, 5a and 8 (Cluster B). Each small cluster is similar at around 65 to 75% similarity, but only to each other at the 55% similarity. By using SIMPER to identify the species responsible for the dissimilarity of these two groups , the results show that it is lower number of the Molpadia c.f. arctica type burrows(?) and higher numbers of the sponge Asbestopluma sp that are responsible for the separation between these two groups. Other factors were variations in the numbers of unidentified Calcareous sponge, and the two bryozoans Idmidronea atlantica and Hornera lichenoides were also important in the separation of these groups. Geographically, the group clustered as B was located in slightly deeper waters to the west of the survey area and may have been taken on slightly flatter seabed with less variability due to keel scarring. However, overall these variations are small and inconclusive and may not statistically be relevant based on this size of dataset. Figure 4.45 Dendrogram of Megafaunal Transects from

Photographic Identification

T4

Cam

007

T4

Cam

001

T4

Cam

002

T4

Cam

,004

T4

Cam

003

T4

Cam

005a

T4

Cam

005

T4

Cam

008

100

90

80

70

60

50



Figure 4.46 Summary of the Distribution of Dominant Taxa Recorded From Seabed Photography at the T4 Location

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

T4 Cam

001

T4 Cam

002

T4 Cam

003

T4 Cam

004

T4 Cam

005

T4 Cam

005a

T4 Cam

007

T4 Cam

008

T4 Com

bined

Photographic Transect

Perc

enta

ge o

f T

axa

ChilicerataCrustaceaBryozoaEchinodernataAnnelidaMolluscaCoelenterataPorifera

Overall, the phylogenetic make-up of the megafauna observed was dominated by the poriphera (sponges) with approximately 39% of the fauna recorded within the groups made up of 15 different species Figure 4.46. Another large group in terms of different species were the coelentarata, which had 12 different taxa, although constituted only 9% of the observations. Echinoderms were represented by 8 taxa and 31% of observations, although this is mostly due to the possible association of holothurians to the burrows recorded widely across the site. The last major group were the bryozoans with 5 species and 16% of the observations. Previous assessments of the epifaunal component from seabed photographic records taken at the Alpha, Beta and T8 (Gamma) Disko West proposed well positions showed slightly different communities based on a clear separation of sediment type encountered. These were softer sediments associated with the base of the Uummannaq channel recorded at the Beta location; this was dominated by burrowing anemones (Ceriantharia and Hormathidae) and an unidentified shrimp and the occasional clustered community around hard surfaces, in particular bryozoans and tunicates. The alternate were images recorded at the Alpha and T8 (Gamma) locations related to a community containing taxa more exclusively associated with harder substrates (ice-rafted rocks and material disturbed by ice-berg scour). The shrimp Pandalus sp was one of the dominant species with Serpulid polychaetes, tunicates, sponges and bryozoans. Although the nature of the coarser substrates were notably different at these latter sites relative to the present study, it is clear that many of the sessile species recorded were similar to those of the present study.



5. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amaro, T., 2010. The trophic biology of the holothurian Molpadia musculus at

3500m in the Nazare Canyon (NE Atlantic) Geosciences discuss., 7. 3061-3094, Berthou F & Friocourt MP., 1981. Gas Chromatographic Separation of

Diastereometric Isoprenoids as Molecular Markers of Oil Pollution. Journal of Chromatography, 219: pp 393 - 402.

Benthic Solutions Limited, 2008. Faroes: Report 0706.1 Anne-Marie Exploration

Well 6004/8a-A Environmental Baseline Survey . Benthic Solutions Limited , 2010. Environmental Baseline Survey, Disko West Block

1 (Sigguk) T3C3 Well. Report to Capricorn FGreenland explorations No.1 Limited. June 2010.

Blumer, M. & Synder, W.D., 1965. Isoprenoid hydrocarbons in recent sediments:

presence of pristane and probably absence of phytane, Science 150, 1588. Blumer, M., Guillard, R.R.L. & Chase, T. 1971. Hydrocarbons in marine

phytoplankton. Mar. Biol.8:183-189. Bray, J.R. & Curtis, J.T., 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of

Southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 27: 325-349. Buchman, M.F., 1999. NOAA screening Quick Reference Tables. NOAA HAZMAT

Report 99-1. Seattle, WA. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12pp.

Carpenter, W.B. 1876. Foraminifera. In: J.G. Jeffreys, ed., On the Biology of the

Valorous Cruise, 1875. Preliminary report on the biological results of a cruise in HMS Valorous to Davis Strait in 1875. Proc. Roy. Soc. 25 (173): 177-202.

Chester R & Voutsinou FG, 1981. The Initial Assessment of Trace Metal Pollution in

Coastal Sediments. Mar Pol Bull, 12: 84 - 91. Chow TJ & Snyder CG, 1980. Barium in the Marine Environment: A Potential

Indicator of Drilling Contamination. In Symposium Proceedings: Research on environmental fate and effects of drilling fluids and cuttings. Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 2: 723 - 736.

Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M. 1994. Chanbes in marine communities; an approach

to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Natural Environmental Research Council, UK . 144pp.

Clifford, H.T. & Stephenson, W. 1975. An Introduction to numerical classification.

Academic Press, London.



Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. and Zabel, T., 1999. Guidelines for managing water quality impacts with European marine sites. Report prepared for the UK Marine SACs project. October 1999, Swindon WRc.

DTI, 1993. Annex 3 conditions for the discharge of oil contaminated cuttings

resulting from offshore drilling operations. Department and Trade and Industry.

Eglinton, G., Gonzalez, A.G., Hamilton, R.J & Raphael, R.A. 1962. Hydrocarbon

constituents of the wax coatings of plant leaves; a taxonomic survey. Phytochemistry. 1:89-102.

Eleftheriou, A. & Basford, D.J., 1989. The macrobenthic infauna of the offshore

northern North Sea. J.Mar. Biol.Ass. UK., 69: 123-143. Folk, 1954. The destinction between grain size and mineral composition in

sedimentary rock neomenclature. Journal of Geology 62: 344-349. Gerrard, S., Grant, A., March, R. and London, C., 1999. Drill Cuttings Piles in the

North Sea. Management options during Platform Decommissioning. Centre for Environmental Risk Report No 31. University of East Anglia.

Gettleson DA & Laird CE, 1980. Benthic Barium Levels in the Vicinity of Six Drill

Sites on the Gulf of Mexico. In Symposium Proceedings: Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings. Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 2: 739 - 785.

Hart, B., 1996. Ecological Monitoring Unit - Confirmation of the reproducibility of

the Malvern Mastersizer Microplus Laser Sizer and comparison of its output with the Malvern 3600E sizer. Brixham Environmental Laboratory report BL2806/B.

Khalaf, F., Literathy, V. and Anderlini, V., 1982. Vanadium as a tracer of oil

pollution in the sediments of Kuwait. Hydrobiologica, 91-92:147-154. Laflamme, R.E. & Hites, R.A. 1978. The global distribution of polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons in recent sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 42: 289-303. Lloyd, J. M. 2006. Modern Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera from Disko Bugt,

West Greenland. J. Foram. Res. 36/4, 315 – 331. Lloyd, M. & Ghelardi, R.J., 1964. A table for calculating the "equitability" component

of species diversity.J.Anim.Ecol.,3:217-225. Loring, D.H. and G. Asmund. 1996. Geochemical factors controlling the

accumulation of major and trace elements in Greenland coastal and fjord sediments, Environmental Geology 28(1): 2 – 11.



Macdonald, R. W., L. Barrie, T. Bidleman, M. Diamond, D. Gregor, R. Semkin, W. Strachan, Y. Li, F. Wania, M. Alaee, 2000. Contaminants in the Canadian Arctic: 5 years of progress in understanding sources, occurrence and pathways. The Science of The Total Environment, 254, 2:93-234

MacLaren Marex Inc. 1978. Report on Marine Benthic Invertebrates of the Southern

Davis Strait and Ungava Bay. Report to: Imperial Oil Ltd, Aquitaine Co. of Canada, and Canada Cities Service Ltd, Arctic Petroleum Operators Association Project No. 138.

McCourt CB, Price RJ, John SD, Penny DM & Clarke LJ (1991). Environmental

Applications of Plasma Spectrometries within the Oil Industry. SPE, Proceedings First International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands 10 - 14 November 1991, SPE 23349, 301 - 309.

McDougall, J. 2000. The significance of hydrocarbons in the surficial sediments from

Atlantic Margin regions. in Atlantic Margin Environmental Surveys of the Seafloor, 1996 & 1998. Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network. CD-Rom.

Mcgregor Geosciences Limited, 2009. Environmental Baseline Survey Report Disko

West Block 1 And 3 (Sigguk And Eqqua) Offshore West Coast Of Greenland McLeese, D.W., J.B. Sprague and S. Ray. 1987. Effects of cadmium on marine biota.

p. 171-198. In: Nriagu, J.O. and J.B. Sprague (eds.). Cadmium in the Aquatic Environment. Advances in Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 19. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 272 pp.

Muniz, P. Danulat, E., Yannicelli, B., Garcia-Alonso, J. and Bicego, M.C., 2004.

Assessment of contamination by heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments of Montevideo harbour (Uraguay). Environmental International. 29: 1019-1028.

National Research Council (NRC) (1983). Drilling Discharges in the Marine

Environment. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 180 pp. Neff, J.M. 2005. Bioaccumulation in marine organisms. Effects of contaminats from

oil well produced water. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. NERI Technical Report 621, 2007. A chemical and biological study of the impact of a

suspected oil seep at the Coast of Marraat, Nuussuaq, Greenland. Mosbech et al 55 pp.

OSPAR Commission, 2004. OSPAR guidelines for monitoring the environmental

impact of offshore oil and gas activities. Meeting of the OSPAR Offshore Industries Committee (OIC), 15 – 19 March, 2004.

Paez-Osuna F & Ruiz-Fernandez C (1995). Comparative Bioaccumulation of Trace

Metals in Penaneus Stylirostris in Estuarine and Coastal Environments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 40: 35 to 44.



Pielou, E.C. 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley, New York. Schaule BK & Patterson CC, 1983. Perturbations of the Natural Lead Depth Profile

in the Sargasso Sea by Industrial Lead. In: Trace Metals in Seawater. Plenum Press, New York.

Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W., 1949. The mathematical theory of communication.

University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 125pp. Sleeter, T.D., Butler, J.N. and J.E. Barbash, 1980. Hydrocarbons in the Sediment of

the Bermuda Region: Lagoonal to Abyssal Depths. Pp 267-288 In: Petrakis, L. and Weiss, F.T. (Eds.). Petroleum in the Marine Environment. Chem Soc., Washington, D.C.

Snelgrove, P.V.R., and Butman, C.A., 1994. Animal-sediment relationships revisited:

cause versus effect. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 32: 111-177. Tessier A, Campbell PGC & Bisson M (1979). Sequel Extraction Procedure for the

Speciation of Particulate Trace Metals. Analytical Chemistry, 51: 844 - 851. Thorson, G.T. 1936. The larval development, growth, and metabolism of Arctic

marine bottom invertebrates. Medd. Om. Grønland. Bd. 100(6), 79 p. Tricine RP & Trefry JH, 1983. Particulate Metal Tracers of Petroleum Drilling Mud

Dispersion in the Marine Environment. Environ Sci Technol, 17: 507 - 512. UKOOA, 2001. An Analysis of UK Offshore Oil & Gas Environmental Surveys 1975-

1995., Report by Heriot-University. 141pp. Warwick, R.M. & Clarke, K.R., 1991. A comparison of some methods for analysing

changes in benthic community structure. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., 71: 225-244. Youngblood, W.W. & Blumer, M., 1975. Plycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the

environment: homologues series in soils and recent marine sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta, 39:1303-1314.


Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 I May 2010

APPENDIX I: Particle Size Distribution

T4 Particle Size Distribution

Sample No.: Operator Ian Wilson Sample No.: Operator Ian WilsonSource Data: Date&Time: 02/06/2010 23:28 Source Data: Date&Time: 02/06/2010 23:17

Aperture Aperture Percentage Sediment Aperture Aperture Percentage Sediment(µm) (Phi unit) Fractional Cumulative Description (µm) (Phi unit) Fractional Cumulative Description8.000 -3.0 0.00 0.0 8.000 -3.0 0.00 0.04.000 -2.0 0.00 0.0 4.000 -2.0 0.00 0.02.000 -1.0 2.31 2.3 Granule 2.000 -1.0 1.11 1.1 Granule1.000 0.0 0.42 2.7 V.Coarse Sand 1.000 0.0 0.00 1.1 V.Coarse Sand0.710 0.5 0.25 3.0 0.710 0.5 0.00 1.10.500 1.0 0.21 3.2 0.500 1.0 0.00 1.10.355 1.5 0.24 3.4 0.355 1.5 0.00 1.10.250 2.0 0.64 4.1 0.250 2.0 0.41 1.50.180 2.5 1.42 5.5 0.180 2.5 1.55 3.10.125 3.0 2.83 8.3 0.125 3.0 3.38 6.50.900 3.5 3.61 12.0 0.900 3.5 4.27 10.70.063 4.0 5.02 17.0 0.063 4.0 5.51 16.20.044 4.5 6.58 23.5 0.044 4.5 6.52 22.80.032 5.0 7.91 31.5 0.032 5.0 7.29 30.10.022 5.5 10.28 41.7 0.022 5.5 9.24 39.30.016 6.0 10.72 52.5 0.016 6.0 9.78 49.10.011 6.5 10.67 63.1 0.011 6.5 10.13 59.20.008 7.0 9.43 72.5 0.008 7.0 9.45 68.60.006 7.5 8.03 80.6 0.006 7.5 8.50 77.10.004 8.0 6.20 86.8 0.004 8.0 6.90 84.00.002 9.0 7.35 94.1 Coarse Clay 0.002 9.0 8.70 92.7 Coarse Clay0.001 10.0 3.21 97.3 Medium Clay 0.001 10.0 4.06 96.8 Medium Clay

<0.001 >10.0 2.66 100.0 Fine Clay <0.001 >10.0 3.20 100.0 Fine Clay

Graphical mm StDev (mm) Phi Graphical mm StDev (mm) PhiMean (MZ) 0.018 0.068 5.84 Mean (MZ) 0.016 0.052 6.00

Median 0.017 5.87 Median 0.015 6.04Sorting Value Sorting Value

Coefficient 2.01 Coefficient 2.02

Skewness -0.04 Skewness -0.01

Kurtosis 1.10 Kurtosis 1.01

% Fines 83.03% % Fines 83.76%% Sands 14.66% % Sands 15.13%% Gravel 2.31% % Gravel 1.11%

T4 BC1 0-1cm T4 BC1 1-3cmCapricorn Capricorn

Pebble Pebble

Coarse Sand Coarse Sand

Medium Sand Medium Sand

Fine Sand Fine Sand

V.Fine Sand V.Fine Sand

Coarse Silt Coarse Silt

Medium Silt Medium Silt

Fine silt Fine silt

V.Fine Silt V.Fine Silt

Inference InferenceVery Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted

Symmetrical Symmetrical

Mesokurtic Mesokurtic

Fine SiltMedium Silt

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0

Particle Diameter (Phi)

Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0

Particle Diameter (Phi)Vo

lum

e (%

)

Fractional Volume

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Project BSL 0933Capricorn Disko West Block 3 (Eqqua) T4.












Pebble Pebble



Fine Sand Fine Sand




Fine silt Fine silt


Inference InferenceVery Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted

Symmetrical Very Negative(fine)

Mesokurtic Leptokurtic

Coarse SiltFine Silt

Fractional Dry Mass

0112233445

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Particle Diameter (Phi)

Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02

468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Fractional Dry Mass

01234567

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


lum

e (%

)









Skewness 0.02 Skewness -0.02




Pebble Pebble



Fine Sand Fine Sand




Fine silt Fine silt

V.Fine Silt

Inference Inference

V.Fine Silt

Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted


Mesokurtic Mesokurtic

Fine SiltFine Silt

Fractional Dry Mass

011223344

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


lum

e (%

)







Median 0.015 6.07 Median 0.012 6.39Sorting Value Inference Sorting Value






Pebble Pebble



Fine Sand Fine Sand




Fine silt Fine silt


InferencePoorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted


Leptokurtic Mesokurtic

Fine SiltFine Silt

Fractional Dry Mass

011223344

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Fractional Dry Mass

011223344

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

2

3

4

5

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0

20

40

60

80

100

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

02468

1012

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


lum

e (%

)



Sample No.: Operator Ian WilsonSource Data: Date&Time: 03/06/2010 00:11

Aperture Aperture Percentage Sediment(µm) (Phi unit) Fractional Cumulative Description8.000 -3.0 0.00 0.04.000 -2.0 0.00 0.02.000 -1.0 0.00 0.0 Granule1.000 0.0 0.00 0.0 V.Coarse Sand0.710 0.5 0.00 0.00.500 1.0 0.00 0.00.355 1.5 0.04 0.00.250 2.0 0.85 0.90.180 2.5 2.29 3.20.125 3.0 4.03 7.20.900 3.5 4.17 11.40.063 4.0 4.71 16.10.044 4.5 5.49 21.60.032 5.0 6.46 28.00.022 5.5 8.53 36.60.016 6.0 9.29 45.90.011 6.5 9.94 55.80.008 7.0 9.69 65.50.006 7.5 9.09 74.60.004 8.0 7.58 82.20.002 9.0 9.66 91.8 Coarse Clay0.001 10.0 4.64 96.5 Medium Clay

<0.001 >10.0 3.54 100.0 Fine Clay

Graphical mm StDev (mm) PhiMean (MZ) 0.015 0.054 6.10

Median 0.014 6.19Sorting Value

Coefficient 2.08

Skewness -0.04

Kurtosis 1.01

% Fines 83.91%% Sands 16.09%% Gravel 0.00%

T4 BC3 3-6cmCapricorn

Pebble

Coarse Sand

Medium Sand

Fine Sand

V.Fine Sand

Coarse Silt

Medium Silt

Fine silt

V.Fine Silt

InferenceVery Poorly Sorted

Symmetrical

Mesokurtic

Fine Silt

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0102030405060708090

100


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Dry Mass

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Cumulative Dry Mass

0102030405060708090

100


Dry

Mas

s (%

)

Fractional Volume

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)

Cumulative Volume

020406080

100

-3.0

-1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 9.0


Volu

me

(%)



Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 II May 2010

Modified Folk Classification


Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 III May 2010

APPENDIX II: GC-FID Traces



min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100

FID2 A, (2493 BENTHIC\B01.D)

nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC

30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

T4-BC1 0-1cm T4-BC1 1-3cm

min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 nC23

nC24 n

C25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 nC33

nC34

nC35

nC36

T4-BC1 3-6cm



min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stan

e

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100


nC12

nC

13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC

35

nC36


min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC

22

nC23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

T4-BC2 3-6cm



min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22 n

C23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC

29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


nC12

nC13

A

nC14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stane

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22

nC23

nC24

nC25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32

nC33

nC34

nC35

nC36


min6 8 10 12 14 16 18

pA

20

40

60

80

100


nC12

nC13

A

nC

14

nC15

B n

C16

nC17

Pri

stan

e

nC18

Phyt

ane

nC19

nC20

C n

C21

nC22

nC23

nC24

nC

25

nC26

D n

C27

nC28

nC29

nC30

nC31

nC32 n

C33

nC34

nC35

nC36

T4-BC3 3-6cm



APPENDIX III: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Capricorn Greenland Explorations No.1 Ltd (Disko West Block 3 Eqqua - T4 Well)

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Parent and Alkylated Compounds

T4 BC1 0-1cm T4 BC2 0-1cm



ParentC1

C2C3C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number

Molecular Weight of Parent Compound

ParentC1

C2C3

C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


ParentC1

C2C3

C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


ParentC1

C2C3C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


ParentC1

C2C3

C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number

Molecular Weight of Parent Compound Parent

C1C2

C3C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


Benthic Solutions Report 0933Appendix IV

Capricorn Greenland Explorations No.1 Ltd (Disko West Block 3 Eqqua - T4 Well)

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Parent and Alkylated Compounds

T4 BC3 0-1cm

T4 BC3 1-3cm

T4 BC3 3-6cm

ParentC1

C2C3

C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


ParentC1

C2C3C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


ParentC1

C2C3

C4

128178

184202

228252

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ng.g-1

Alkyl Carbon Number


Benthic Solutions Report 0933Appendix IV



Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations (ng/g dry weight basis) EPA 16 PAHs

Station : T4 BC1 0-1cm

T4 BC2 0-1cm

T4 BC3 0-1cm

T4 BC1 1-3cm

T4 BC2 1-3cm

T4 BC3 1-3cm

T4 BC1 3-6cm

T4 BC2 3-6cm

T4 BC3 3-6cm

PAH Mass 0-1 cm 1-3cm

3-6cm

Naphthalene 128 12.4 11.2 12.7 11.2 10.7 7.7 5.3 4.8 6.4 Acenaphthylene 152 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.4 Acenaphthene 154 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 0.7 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.8 Fluorene 166 10.5 9.8 9.3 9.7 6.0 9.0 6.2 4.5 5.0 Phenanthrene 178 28.9 26.4 30.4 27.5 25.1 18.0 12.1 11.6 14.2 Anthracene 178 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 Fluoranthene 202 9.9 8.9 10.0 9.1 7.9 6.2 4.5 4.1 4.8 Pyrene 202 11.0 9.6 12.9 10.1 9.7 7.7 5.0 6.7 6.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 228 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.5 3.4 2.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 Chrysene 228 12.4 12.3 13.0 12.4 11.0 7.9 5.7 5.1 5.3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 252 16.6 16.0 16.6 16.2 14.4 10.3 7.5 6.9 7.3 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 252 4.8 4.7 5.5 5.4 5.1 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 252 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 Indeno(123cd)pyrene 276 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.5 Benzo(ghi)perylene 278 7.0 6.4 7.7 6.4 6.9 4.0 2.6 3.2 3.6 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 276 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6

Total EPA 16 127 119 133 121 109 82.5 57.5 55.2 63.4



APPENDIX IV: Sampling Log Sheets

Seabed Sampling Log Sheets

Seabed Sampling (Surveyors Observations)

Sample Number

Station Number

Fix #Time (UTC)

RetentionWater Depth

Northing EastingRange

(m)Offset (°)

Penetration (cm) & sample integrity

Accept?Fauna pot

size (L)°C (1/5/10cm)

mV (1/5/10cm)

Sediment Description

Surface Colour

Surface casts/ tubes

StratificationConspicuous

Fauna/Comments

Additional comments regarding analysis

Comment

#4 T4_BC1 Fix #4 06:26 DNT 496 7894405 395212 106 337 None. - - - - - - - - - - Did not trigger.

#5 T4_BC1 Fix #5 07:01 N/S 496 7894405 395212 4.4 300

<10cm, disturbed and partially washed out due to gravel between bucket

and spade.

No. Stones with epi kept for interest only - NOT

quantitative sample.1 x 3L - -

Soft mud with some

gravel/pebbles and 1 or 2

cobbles

Olive green/brown

-Not possible to

assessNot possible to

assess

Stones kept for interest only. Not be analysed as a quantitative

sample.

Limited penetration due to what appears to be gravel pavement below

surface silt/mud.

#6 T4_HG2 Fix #6 21:20 N/S 488 7892930 395459 4.5 302Over full. Disturbed

with surface layers lost. No. - - - very soft mud

Olive green/brown

-Not possible to

assessNot possible to

assessN/A

Sediment not suitable for hamon grab - too soft. Appears to have fully sunk

into mud up to top of frame (?).

#7 T4_BC2 Fix #7 22:01 1, 2 488 7892930 395459 6.2 309 40cm F1 & F2, *CHEM 1F1 - 1x1L; F2 -1 x

1L- - No data

Olive green/brown

No data No dataSeapens,

ophiuroids, siphon tubes

Note: photo marked HG2_1 not BC2_1. Time also incorrect -

should be 22:01, not 21:20.

#8 T4_BC2 Fix #8 22:56 3, 4 488 7892932 395458 4.5 321 70cm F3 & F4 tbc - - Soft mudOlive

green/brownTubes

0-5cm Olive green/brown.

Grey stiffer mud underneath

Forams, siphons, spicule matt

-


green/brown- No data


-

#10 T4_BC2 Fix #10 00:52 7, 8 488 7892935 395458 6.5 301 70cm F7 & F8 tbc (F7 2 pots) - - Soft mudOlive



-

#11 T4_BC2 Fix #11 01:45 9, 10 488 7892931 395457 0 0 70cm F9 & F10 tbc 0.6/2.3/2.9 190/183/185 Soft mudOlive



-

#12 T4_BC3 Fix #12 16:11 9, 10 508 7895405 394936 44.2 172 >70cm F9 & F10 tbc - - Soft mudOlive

green/brownTubes



Forams, siphons, spicules,

polychaete tubes-

#13 T4_BC3 Fix #13 17:24 N/S 506 7895362 394942 4.4 256 >70cm, over penetration No - - - Soft mudOlive

green/brown- - - -


green/brownTubes



Forams, spicules, bivalves,

polychaetes-

#15 T4_BC1 Fix #15 19:51 N/S 496 7894306 395249 5.7 295 >70cm, over penetration. Disturbed.

No. - - - Soft mud -

#16 T4_BC1 Fix #16 22:21 1, 2, CH 1 496 7894309 395248 11.8 322 55cm. F1 & F2, CHEM 1 tbc 0.9/2.3/2.9 194/193/197 Soft mudOlive

green/brownTubes



Siphons, tubes and spicules

-

#17 T4_BC1 Fix #17 23:11 3, 4 496 7894316 395248 12.2 46 55cm. F3 & F4 tbc - - Soft mudOlive

green/brownTubes



Forams, poly tubes -

#18 T4_BC1 Fix #18 00:07 DNT 496 7894315 395262 13.1 65 None. - - - - - - - - - - Did not trigger.

#19 T4_BC1 Fix #19 00:45 N/S 496 7894312 395265 15.1 357 None, few stones only No. - - - few stones only - - - - - Stones in jaw.

#20 T4_BC1 Fix #20 01:50 5, 6 496 7894322 395252 60cm F5 & F6 tbc - - Soft mud - - - - -

#21 T4_BC1 Fix #21 02:41 DNT 496 7894322 395252 15.2 357 None. - - - - - - - - - - Did not trigger.

#22 T4_BC1 Fix #22 03:22 N/S 496 7894322 395252 14.8 356 None. - - - - Soft mud - - - - -Over penetration and fallen over on

seabed - very disturbed sample.

#23 T4_BC1 Fix #23 04:18 N/S 496 1894322 395252 15 357 None. - - - - - - - - - - No sample. Frame caught up on spade.

#24 T4_BC1 Fix #24 05:00 N/S 496 7894322 395252 15.3 356 None. - - - - - - - - - - Stone in spade, no sample.

#25 T4_BC1 Fix #25 05:38 N/S 496 7894307 395252 0.5 285 None. - - - - - - - - - - Stone in spade, no sample.

#26 T4_BC1 Fix #26 06:19 7,8, CH 2 496 7894313 395246 9.4 312 51cmF7 & F8, CHEM 2 &

intact core #2F7 1x1L; F8 1x1L 1.7/2.6/2.9 195/196/198

Soft mud with some small gravel

Olive green/brown

Tubes



#27 T4_BC3 Fix #27 09:37 1, 2, CH 1 508 7895402 394941 5.9 122 57cm F1 & F2, CHEM 1 F1 1x1L; F2 1x1L - -Soft mud with

some small gravelOlive

green/brownTubes



Sponge spicule matt

#28 T4_BC3 Fix #28 10:47 3, 4, CH 2 508 7895408 394946 9.6 74 63cm F3 & F4, CHEM 2 F3 1x1L; F4 1x1L 1.8/2.0/2.4 242/241/243Soft mud with


green/brownTubes



Sponge spicule matt

#29 T4_BC3 Fix #29 12:04 N/S 508 7895408 394944 9.1 68 None. - - - - - - - - - - Did not trigger

#30 T4_BC3 Fix #30 13:16 N/S 508 7895408 394945 9.1 71Over Penetration (>70cm)

with surface layers lost.No. - - - - - - - -

14/05/2010

15/05/2010

12/05/2010

13/05/2010

Benthic Solutions Limited: BSL0933 Capricorn ; Disko West Block 3 (Eqqua) T4

Seabed Sampling Log Sheets

Seabed Sampling (Surveyors Observations)

Sample Number

Station Number

Fix #Time (UTC)

RetentionWater Depth

Northing EastingRange

(m)Offset (°)

Penetration (cm) & sample integrity

Accept?Fauna pot

size (L)°C (1/5/10cm)

mV (1/5/10cm)

Sediment Description

Surface Colour

Surface casts/ tubes

StratificationConspicuous

Fauna/Comments

Additional comments regarding analysis

Comment

#31 T4_BC3 Fix #31 14:02 5, 6 508 7895408 394944 8.9 70 60cm F5 & F6 tbc - -Soft mud with


green/brownTubes



ubes, forams, spicules


green/brownTubes

Olive green/brown

over grey stiffer mud underneath

Tubes, spicules

DNT = Did not trigger

N/S = No sample (see comment)




APPENDIX V: Macrofaunal Species Lists

Macro-Infaunal Matrix

SiteSample F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

COELENTERATAANTHOZOAAmphianthus sp.Edwardsia sp. 1Eunephtya spKophobelemnon stellifera Mueller 1776 1Virgularia sp 1

NEMERTEANemertea unid 3 8 5 7 3 2 1 6 3 3

NEMATODANematoda unid. 8 12 12 8 1 7 12 14 6 4

POLYCHAETAAedicira sp. 1Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879) 9 3 3 7 6 5 6 3 6 2Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864) 1 1Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835) 4 15 37 12 3 22 7 42 6 1Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879 2 2 7 1 6 1 2Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887 1 5 1 3 2 1Autolytus sp. 1Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843) 9 3 1 11 5 3 3 1 12 1Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867 1 1 3 1Chitinopomoides sp. 1 1Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828) 1 2 7 2 3 2 4 5 1Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843) 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862) 2 1 1Eunoe cf. nodosa (Sars, 1861) 1 2 2 1Glycera capitata Oersted, 1843Glyphanostomus pallescens (Theel, 1878) 2 5 1 2 1 1 6 2Isocirrus planiceps (M.Sars, 1872)Jasmineira elegans (Saint-Joseph, 1894) 3 1 5 5 2 1 2 3 1 1Lumbrineris fragilis (O.F.Mueller, 1766) 15 13 5 15 2 10 15 11 13 16Lumbrineris sp.Macrochaeta? sp. 4 1 1Maldane sarsi Malmgreen 1865 1 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 2 2Melinna elisabethae McIntosh, 1918Minuspio cirrifera (Wren, 1883) 10 11 4 16 18 5 6 9 13 6Myriochele sp. 1 1 1 2 2Nereis sp. 1Nicomache quadrispinata Arwidson 1907 1 1 1Nothria conchylega (Sars, 1835) 1Notomastus latericeus Sars 1850 1Notoproctus abyssus Hartman & Fauchald, 1971 2 4 4 1 7 8Notoproctus oculatus Sars 1851 1Ophelina abranchiata Stoep-Bowitz, 1848 1 1 7 2 2 1Ophelina acuminata Oersted, 1843Pherusa plumosa (O.F.Mueller, 1776) 1Pholoe anoculata Hartmann, 1965 1 1Pista cristata (O.F.Mueller, 1776)Potamilla neglecta (Sars, 1851) 2 1Scalibregma inflatum Rathke, 1843 1Scolelepis sp. 1 4 1 1 1 1 1Siboglinum sp. 1Sphaerodoridium philippi (Fauvel, 1911) 1Sphaerodorum peripatus ) (Johnston in Thompson, 1844) 1Sphaerosyllis erinaceus Claparede, 1863 2 1Spiochaetopterus typicus M.Sars, 1856 2 1 2 1 1Spiophanes kroyeri Grube, 1860 3 1Terebellides stroemi Sars, 1835 1 1Tharyx marioni (Saint-Joseph, 1894) 10 9 8 20 2 8 13 19 22 15

OLIGOCHAETAOligochaeta unid. 1 5 1 1

SIPUNCULIDAGolfingia diaphanes E. Cutler and Cutler, 1980 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 5 7 7

PRIAPULIDAPriapulus bicaudatus Danielssen, 1868 1

AuthorityT4 BC1







POLYCHAETAAedicira sp. 1Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879) 9 3 3 7 6 5 6 3 6 2Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864) 1 1Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835) 4 15 37 12 3 22 7 42 6 1Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879 2 2 7 1 6 1 2Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887 1 5 1 3 2 1Autolytus sp. 1Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843) 9 3 1 11 5 3 3 1 12 1Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867 1 1 3 1Chitinopomoides sp. 1 1Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828) 1 2 7 2 3 2 4 5 1Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843) 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862) 2 1 1

AuthorityT4 BC1

MOLLUSCACAUDOFOVEATAChaetoderma c.f.nitidulum Loven 1845 1 1Chaetoderma sp 1 1Rhopalomenia spScutopus sp 1GASTROPODAAlvinia sp. 1Cerithiella sp.Diaphana minuta Brown, 1827 1Eulima sp. 1Lamellaria groenlandica Moller 1842 1Oenopota spBIVALVIAAstarte crebricostata MacAndrew & Forbes, 1847. 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 8 1Astarte crenata (Gray 1824) 1 2 2Bathyarca pectunculoides (Scacchi, 1834) 1 2 1 1 2Cuspidaria gracilis (Jeffreys 1882). 1 1 2 1 1Cuspidaria obesa (Lovén, 1846) 3 3 1Delectopecten greenlandicus (Sowerby 1842 1 1Limutula subauriculata (Montagu, 1808) 2 1 4 4Nucula delphinodonta Mighels & C. B. Adams, 1842 1 2 1Thyasira gouldi (Philippi, 1844) 6 7 6 2 4 6 1 8 7 1Thyasira pygmaea Verrill and Bush, 1898 . 1 2 1 1 1Yoldiella lucida (Loven 1846) 2 1 1 1 1 2 1Yoldia myalis (Couthouy, 1838) 1 1Yoldiella sp.SCAPHOPODAPulsellum sp. 1

CRUSTACEACOPEPODACopepoda indet 2 1 1AMPHIPODAAtylus falcatus Metzger, 1871 1 1 3 1c.f.Bathymedon sp 1Byblis gaimardi (Krøyer, 1846)Dulichia spp 2 1 2Halice abyssi Boeck, 1871 1Haploops tubicola Lilljeborg, 1855 64 62 72 69 46 28 52 56 46 43Haploops setosa Boeck 1871 1 1Harpinia propinqua Sars, 1891 1 2 3Laetmatophilus sp. 1Leucothoe sp. 2 1 1Maera c.f.loveni (Bruzelius, 1859)Maera sp. 1Orchomene pectinatus Sars, 1882 Stenothoe sp.Tryposella sp.ISOPODACalathura brachiata (Stimpson, 1853) 1 3 1Desmosoma sp. 1 1







POLYCHAETAAedicira sp. 1Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879) 9 3 3 7 6 5 6 3 6 2Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864) 1 1Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835) 4 15 37 12 3 22 7 42 6 1Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879 2 2 7 1 6 1 2Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887 1 5 1 3 2 1Autolytus sp. 1Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843) 9 3 1 11 5 3 3 1 12 1Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867 1 1 3 1Chitinopomoides sp. 1 1Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828) 1 2 7 2 3 2 4 5 1Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843) 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862) 2 1 1

AuthorityT4 BC1

Echinozone coronata (Sars 1870) 2Gnathia elongata (Kroyer, 1846) 2 1 1Gnathia praniza 1Janiropsis sp. 1Jlyarachna longicornis (G. O. Sars, 1864) 1 1 1Macrostylis sp. 1 2 3Munna palmata Lilljeborg, 1851 3 2Munnopsis typica. M. Sars, 1861 1Nannoniscus sp. 1 2 3Pleurogonium inerme G.O. Sars, 1882 1 1 1 1 2Pseudomesus brevicornis Hansen, 1916 4 2 3 1TANAIDACEAApseudes.sp. 1 2 1 2 1 1Leptognathia manca Sars 1882Typhlotanais aequiremis (Lilljeborg 1864) 1 2CUMACEABrachydiastylis resima (Krøyer, 1846) 1 2 1Campylaspis rubicunda (Liljeborg, 1855) 2 1 `1Diastylis lucifera (Krøyer, 1841) 1 1 1Diastylis rathkei (Kröyer, 1841) 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1Diastylis spinulosa Heller, 1875.Diastylis sp. 1Eudorella sp. 3 3 3 1 1 2 1Leucon nasicoides (Krøyer, 1841) 3 1 1 1 1

CHELICERATANymphon sp. 2

BRACHIOPODABrachiopoda, endopunctate, ribbedGlaciarcula spitzbergensis (Davidson,1852) 1Terebratulina septentrionals (Couthouy, 1838) 1

ECHINODERMATAOPHIUROIDEAOphiacantha bidentata (Bruzelius, 1805)c.f.Ophiopleura borealis Danielssen & Koren, 1877 2 1 1 1Ophiopus arcticus Ljungman, 1867 1 2 2 3 2HOLOTHUROIDEAMolpadia arctica von Marenzeller, 1877 1 1 1Myriotrochus vitreus (M. Sars, 1872) 1

TUNICATASOLITARYMolgula sp 1 1Pelonaia c.f. 1 1 1 1 1 1

Count 40 43 45 39 43 44 36 46 44 40Sum 187 212 215 231 146 145 157 245 191 141



SiteSample

COELENTERATAANTHOZOAAmphianthus sp.Edwardsia sp.Eunephtya spKophobelemnon stellifera Mueller 1776Virgularia sp

NEMERTEANemertea unid

NEMATODANematoda unid.

POLYCHAETAAedicira sp.Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879)Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864)Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835)Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887Autolytus sp.Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843)Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867Chitinopomoides sp.Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828)Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843)Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862)Eunoe cf. nodosa (Sars, 1861)Glycera capitata Oersted, 1843Glyphanostomus pallescens (Theel, 1878)Isocirrus planiceps (M.Sars, 1872)Jasmineira elegans (Saint-Joseph, 1894)Lumbrineris fragilis (O.F.Mueller, 1766)Lumbrineris sp.Macrochaeta? sp. Maldane sarsi Malmgreen 1865Melinna elisabethae McIntosh, 1918Minuspio cirrifera (Wren, 1883)Myriochele sp.Nereis sp.Nicomache quadrispinata Arwidson 1907Nothria conchylega (Sars, 1835)Notomastus latericeus Sars 1850Notoproctus abyssus Hartman & Fauchald, 1971Notoproctus oculatus Sars 1851Ophelina abranchiata Stoep-Bowitz, 1848Ophelina acuminata Oersted, 1843Pherusa plumosa (O.F.Mueller, 1776)Pholoe anoculata Hartmann, 1965 Pista cristata (O.F.Mueller, 1776)Potamilla neglecta (Sars, 1851)Scalibregma inflatum Rathke, 1843Scolelepis sp.Siboglinum sp.Sphaerodoridium philippi (Fauvel, 1911)Sphaerodorum peripatus ) (Johnston in Thompson, 1844)Sphaerosyllis erinaceus Claparede, 1863Spiochaetopterus typicus M.Sars, 1856Spiophanes kroyeri Grube, 1860Terebellides stroemi Sars, 1835Tharyx marioni (Saint-Joseph, 1894)

OLIGOCHAETAOligochaeta unid.

SIPUNCULIDAGolfingia diaphanes E. Cutler and Cutler, 1980

PRIAPULIDAPriapulus bicaudatus Danielssen, 1868

AuthorityF1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

31

1

2

11 5 2 6 6 1 2 8 2 2

11 8 7 11 13 7 6 8 3 7

18 2 4 3 5 3 2 4 51 1 1

35 2 31 1 25 3 13 6 12 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 5 1 2 3 1

1

3 9 1 1 2 2 2 7 1

3 1 2 4 1 5 3 22 6 1 3 2 2 1 2 12 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

11

2 2 2 11

2 1 2 4 221 13 9 15 17 11 7 16 12 12

21

4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 31 1

17 2 10 9 12 4 30 11 16 33 1 2

1 115 1 6 5 7

1 11 1 2 2 4 1 4 1

13 11 2 1 1 1

1 11 2 3 4 1 2 2

1 1 1 13 1 1 2 1 2 1

1

11 1 1

3 2 1 7 1 2 31 1

1 1 132 11 5 11 10 9 12 5 20 9

1 3 1 4 4 1

9 9 4 6 5 1 11 5 1

1 1 2

T4 BC2



SiteSample




POLYCHAETAAedicira sp.Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879)Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864)Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835)Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887Autolytus sp.Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843)Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867Chitinopomoides sp.Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828)Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843)Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862)

Authority

MOLLUSCACAUDOFOVEATAChaetoderma c.f.nitidulum Loven 1845Chaetoderma spRhopalomenia spScutopus spGASTROPODAAlvinia sp.Cerithiella sp.Diaphana minuta Brown, 1827Eulima sp.Lamellaria groenlandica Moller 1842Oenopota spBIVALVIAAstarte crebricostata MacAndrew & Forbes, 1847.Astarte crenata (Gray 1824)Bathyarca pectunculoides (Scacchi, 1834)Cuspidaria gracilis (Jeffreys 1882).Cuspidaria obesa (Lovén, 1846)Delectopecten greenlandicus (Sowerby 1842Limutula subauriculata (Montagu, 1808)Nucula delphinodonta Mighels & C. B. Adams, 1842Thyasira gouldi (Philippi, 1844)Thyasira pygmaea Verrill and Bush, 1898 .Yoldiella lucida (Loven 1846)Yoldia myalis (Couthouy, 1838)Yoldiella sp.SCAPHOPODAPulsellum sp.

CRUSTACEACOPEPODACopepoda indetAMPHIPODAAtylus falcatus Metzger, 1871c.f.Bathymedon spByblis gaimardi (Krøyer, 1846)Dulichia sppHalice abyssi Boeck, 1871Haploops tubicola Lilljeborg, 1855 Haploops setosa Boeck 1871Harpinia propinqua Sars, 1891Laetmatophilus sp.Leucothoe sp.Maera c.f.loveni (Bruzelius, 1859)Maera sp.Orchomene pectinatus Sars, 1882 Stenothoe sp.Tryposella sp.ISOPODACalathura brachiata (Stimpson, 1853)Desmosoma sp.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

31

1

2

11 5 2 6 6 1 2 8 2 2

11 8 7 11 13 7 6 8 3 7

18 2 4 3 5 3 2 4 51 1 1

35 2 31 1 25 3 13 6 12 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 5 1 2 3 1

1

3 9 1 1 2 2 2 7 1

3 1 2 4 1 5 3 22 6 1 3 2 2 1 2 12 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

T4 BC2

11 1 3 2 1 1

1 15

1

1 1

3 1 5 1 3 2 11

1 1 1 4 1 14 2 3 1

11 1 1

2 4 4 2 1 5 11 1

1 4 9 6 4 2 6 2 9 81

1 1 1 1

1

1 1

1 1

1

1 1 2 3 2 12

51 55 41 49 22 39 24 27 57 261

22

1 1 11

3 1 1 21 1 1 1



SiteSample





Authority

Echinozone coronata (Sars 1870)Gnathia elongata (Kroyer, 1846) Gnathia pranizaJaniropsis sp.Jlyarachna longicornis (G. O. Sars, 1864)Macrostylis sp.Munna palmata Lilljeborg, 1851Munnopsis typica. M. Sars, 1861Nannoniscus sp.Pleurogonium inerme G.O. Sars, 1882Pseudomesus brevicornis Hansen, 1916TANAIDACEAApseudes.sp.Leptognathia manca Sars 1882Typhlotanais aequiremis (Lilljeborg 1864)CUMACEABrachydiastylis resima (Krøyer, 1846)Campylaspis rubicunda (Liljeborg, 1855)Diastylis lucifera (Krøyer, 1841)Diastylis rathkei (Kröyer, 1841)Diastylis spinulosa Heller, 1875.Diastylis sp.Eudorella sp.Leucon nasicoides (Krøyer, 1841)

CHELICERATANymphon sp.

BRACHIOPODABrachiopoda, endopunctate, ribbedGlaciarcula spitzbergensis (Davidson,1852)Terebratulina septentrionals (Couthouy, 1838)

ECHINODERMATAOPHIUROIDEAOphiacantha bidentata (Bruzelius, 1805)c.f.Ophiopleura borealis Danielssen & Koren, 1877 Ophiopus arcticus Ljungman, 1867HOLOTHUROIDEAMolpadia arctica von Marenzeller, 1877Myriotrochus vitreus (M. Sars, 1872)

TUNICATASOLITARYMolgula spPelonaia c.f.

CountSum

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

31

1

2

11 5 2 6 6 1 2 8 2 2

11 8 7 11 13 7 6 8 3 7

18 2 4 3 5 3 2 4 51 1 1

35 2 31 1 25 3 13 6 12 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 5 1 2 3 1

1

3 9 1 1 2 2 2 7 1

3 1 2 4 1 5 3 22 6 1 3 2 2 1 2 12 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

T4 BC2

11

1 1 13 1 1 3

11 1

1 1 12 1 1

1 2

1 2 31 1 1

1 2 11

11 1 21 1

3 1 2 4 3 1 1 22 1 1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 111 1 4 2 1 3 1

1 2 1

1

44 34 35 42 39 34 35 50 42 43266 155 137 209 144 147 130 175 190 116



SiteSample




POLYCHAETAAedicira sp.Aglaophamus malmgreni (Theel, 1879)Ampharete finmarchica (M.Sars, 1864)Amphicteis gunneri (Sars 1835)Ancistrosyllis groenlandica McIntosh, 1879Aricidea quadrilobata Webster & Benedict, 1887Autolytus sp.Brada inhabilis (Rathke, 1843)Brada villosa (Rathke 1843)Chaetozone setosa Malmgreen, 1867Chitinopomoides sp.Cirratulidae sp.Dorvillea rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828)Ehlersia cornuta (Rathke, 1843)Euchone rubrocincta (Sars , 1862)Eunoe cf. nodosa (Sars, 1861)Glycera capitata Oersted, 1843Glyphanostomus pallescens (Theel, 1878)Isocirrus planiceps (M.Sars, 1872)Jasmineira elegans (Saint-Joseph, 1894)Lumbrineris fragilis (O.F.Mueller, 1766)Lumbrineris sp.Macrochaeta? sp. Maldane sarsi Malmgreen 1865Melinna elisabethae McIntosh, 1918Minuspio cirrifera (Wren, 1883)Myriochele sp.Nereis sp.Nicomache quadrispinata Arwidson 1907Nothria conchylega (Sars, 1835)Notomastus latericeus Sars 1850Notoproctus abyssus Hartman & Fauchald, 1971Notoproctus oculatus Sars 1851Ophelina abranchiata Stoep-Bowitz, 1848Ophelina acuminata Oersted, 1843Pherusa plumosa (O.F.Mueller, 1776)Pholoe anoculata Hartmann, 1965 Pista cristata (O.F.Mueller, 1776)Potamilla neglecta (Sars, 1851)Scalibregma inflatum Rathke, 1843Scolelepis sp.Siboglinum sp.Sphaerodoridium philippi (Fauvel, 1911)Sphaerodorum peripatus ) (Johnston in Thompson, 1844)Sphaerosyllis erinaceus Claparede, 1863Spiochaetopterus typicus M.Sars, 1856Spiophanes kroyeri Grube, 1860Terebellides stroemi Sars, 1835Tharyx marioni (Saint-Joseph, 1894)

OLIGOCHAETAOligochaeta unid.

SIPUNCULIDAGolfingia diaphanes E. Cutler and Cutler, 1980

PRIAPULIDAPriapulus bicaudatus Danielssen, 1868

AuthorityT4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3 Total

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

5 1 3 6 91 1 1 1 2 4

1 1 1 2 31 1 1 2 3

1 2 3

2 17 4 4 2 11 4 10 7 4 41 45 65 151

3 6 1 7 4 12 2 7 5 5 84 81 52 217

5 1 1 2 1 1 9 112 8 3 6 4 6 1 3 5 4 50 36 42 128

2 3 529 2 2 16 5 2 9 149 117 65 331

1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 21 8 20 494 6 1 2 13 17 13 43

1 1 21 1 1

4 1 2 6 2 49 28 15 926 6

1 2 1 31 1 1 3 3

4 2 2 2 10 2 5 1 1 27 21 29 771 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 16 20 18 54

1 1 4 10 2 161 1 6 1 2 9

1 1 1 22 1 2 20 7 5 32

1 11 2 2 24 11 5 40

11 13 9 10 13 16 12 7 4 10 115 133 105 3531 2 1 34 4 1 3 3 2 2 6 1 19 26

1 2 1 2 5 1 4 21 24 16 611 1 1 1 1 2 5 76 45 6 12 3 14 8 16 11 14 98 114 135 347

1 2 1 7 6 4 171 1

1 3 1 41 1 1 2 2 5

1 1 25 1 8 3 1 6 26 24 24 74

1 2 32 3 1 2 2 2 2 14 16 14 44

1 11 1 4 1 6

1 2 6 1 92 2

2 1 1 2 3 15 6 241 1 1 4 2 7

1 1 2 1 4 2 1 2 2 10 11 16 371 1 2

3 1 3 1 7 81 1 2

2 3 1 1 3 3 7 131 2 2 5 2 5 1 7 19 18 441 1 1 1 2 4 2 6 12

1 1 1 1 2 3 4 910 18 5 6 11 16 22 23 17 12 126 124 140 390

6 5 2 3 8 14 16 38

2 3 4 9 5 4 3 4 1 41 51 35 127

1 2 1 4 3 8

T4 BC3



SiteSample





Authority

MOLLUSCACAUDOFOVEATAChaetoderma c.f.nitidulum Loven 1845Chaetoderma spRhopalomenia spScutopus spGASTROPODAAlvinia sp.Cerithiella sp.Diaphana minuta Brown, 1827Eulima sp.Lamellaria groenlandica Moller 1842Oenopota spBIVALVIAAstarte crebricostata MacAndrew & Forbes, 1847.Astarte crenata (Gray 1824)Bathyarca pectunculoides (Scacchi, 1834)Cuspidaria gracilis (Jeffreys 1882).Cuspidaria obesa (Lovén, 1846)Delectopecten greenlandicus (Sowerby 1842Limutula subauriculata (Montagu, 1808)Nucula delphinodonta Mighels & C. B. Adams, 1842Thyasira gouldi (Philippi, 1844)Thyasira pygmaea Verrill and Bush, 1898 .Yoldiella lucida (Loven 1846)Yoldia myalis (Couthouy, 1838)Yoldiella sp.SCAPHOPODAPulsellum sp.

CRUSTACEACOPEPODACopepoda indetAMPHIPODAAtylus falcatus Metzger, 1871c.f.Bathymedon spByblis gaimardi (Krøyer, 1846)Dulichia sppHalice abyssi Boeck, 1871Haploops tubicola Lilljeborg, 1855 Haploops setosa Boeck 1871Harpinia propinqua Sars, 1891Laetmatophilus sp.Leucothoe sp.Maera c.f.loveni (Bruzelius, 1859)Maera sp.Orchomene pectinatus Sars, 1882 Stenothoe sp.Tryposella sp.ISOPODACalathura brachiata (Stimpson, 1853)Desmosoma sp.

T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3 TotalF1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

5 1 3 6 91 1 1 1 2 4

1 1 1 2 31 1 1 2 3

1 2 3

2 17 4 4 2 11 4 10 7 4 41 45 65 151

3 6 1 7 4 12 2 7 5 5 84 81 52 217

5 1 1 2 1 1 9 112 8 3 6 4 6 1 3 5 4 50 36 42 128

2 3 529 2 2 16 5 2 9 149 117 65 331

1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 21 8 20 494 6 1 2 13 17 13 43

1 1 21 1 1

4 1 2 6 2 49 28 15 926 6

1 2 1 31 1 1 3 3

4 2 2 2 10 2 5 1 1 27 21 29 771 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 16 20 18 54

1 1 4 10 2 16

T4 BC3

1 2 1 1 42 4 2 9 6 173 1 2 1 2 7 9

1 1 5 1 7

1 1 1 1 3 41 1 1

1 1 2

1 11 1 1 2 3 5

1 1 1 2 1 1 2 20 16 9 451 5 1 1 7

1 2 1 2 1 2 2 7 9 11 271 3 3 2 3 1 1 6 10 14 301 1 1 7 1 3 111 1 2 3 2 7

1 1 1 3 2 3 11 19 11 411 2 1 4 2 4 10

3 13 8 8 8 12 6 13 4 48 51 75 1741 1 1 1 6 1 4 11

1 1 1 2 2 1 9 4 8 212 2

1 1

1 1 2 1 4

1 1 4 2 2 8

6 1 71 1

1 1 2 21 1 1 5 10 3 18

1 2 315 34 45 64 56 106 64 73 87 61 538 391 605 1534

1 2 1 1 2 1 5 83 2 3 2 3 1 6 2 14 22

1 1 1 2 2 54 4

1 1 13 1 3 4

1 1 13 3

1 1 5 7 2 141 2 4 1 7



SiteSample





Authority

Echinozone coronata (Sars 1870)Gnathia elongata (Kroyer, 1846) Gnathia pranizaJaniropsis sp.Jlyarachna longicornis (G. O. Sars, 1864)Macrostylis sp.Munna palmata Lilljeborg, 1851Munnopsis typica. M. Sars, 1861Nannoniscus sp.Pleurogonium inerme G.O. Sars, 1882Pseudomesus brevicornis Hansen, 1916TANAIDACEAApseudes.sp.Leptognathia manca Sars 1882Typhlotanais aequiremis (Lilljeborg 1864)CUMACEABrachydiastylis resima (Krøyer, 1846)Campylaspis rubicunda (Liljeborg, 1855)Diastylis lucifera (Krøyer, 1841)Diastylis rathkei (Kröyer, 1841)Diastylis spinulosa Heller, 1875.Diastylis sp.Eudorella sp.Leucon nasicoides (Krøyer, 1841)


BRACHIOPODABrachiopoda, endopunctate, ribbedGlaciarcula spitzbergensis (Davidson,1852)Terebratulina septentrionals (Couthouy, 1838)

ECHINODERMATAOPHIUROIDEAOphiacantha bidentata (Bruzelius, 1805)c.f.Ophiopleura borealis Danielssen & Koren, 1877 Ophiopus arcticus Ljungman, 1867HOLOTHUROIDEAMolpadia arctica von Marenzeller, 1877Myriotrochus vitreus (M. Sars, 1872)

TUNICATASOLITARYMolgula spPelonaia c.f.

CountSum

T4 BC1 T4 BC2 T4 BC3 TotalF1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

5 1 3 6 91 1 1 1 2 4

1 1 1 2 31 1 1 2 3

1 2 3

2 17 4 4 2 11 4 10 7 4 41 45 65 151

3 6 1 7 4 12 2 7 5 5 84 81 52 217

5 1 1 2 1 1 9 112 8 3 6 4 6 1 3 5 4 50 36 42 128

2 3 529 2 2 16 5 2 9 149 117 65 331

1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 21 8 20 494 6 1 2 13 17 13 43

1 1 21 1 1

4 1 2 6 2 49 28 15 926 6

1 2 1 31 1 1 3 3

4 2 2 2 10 2 5 1 1 27 21 29 771 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 16 20 18 54

1 1 4 10 2 16

T4 BC3

2 1 31 1 4 1 2 7

1 11 1

1 1 1 3 3 3 93 1 1 1 2 1 6 8 9 23

1 5 1 1 71 2 36 3 9

2 1 3 6 4 6 163 1 1 10 3 5 18

1 2 1 8 6 4 181 3 1 4

1 2 1 1 3 5 8

4 4 82 1 1 1 3 1 5 9

1 3 1 1 51 1 3 1 4 2 4 3 13 4 19 36

1 2 1 31 1

5 1 2 1 3 1 14 17 13 443 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 7 4 14 25

2 1 2 1 3 6

1 11 1

1 1 1 1 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 115 1 6

2 4 1 1 10 13 8 31

1 1 3 4 2 92 1 1 3 4

2 23 6 1 3 10

18 50 24 36 33 54 49 45 42 53 110 107 100 13265 278 104 165 142 316 183 214 204 198 1869 1668 1869 5406


Epifaunal, Fragmented and Colonial Faunal Matrix


Epifaunal SpeciesFORAMINIFERARhabdammina sp. 1000 1200 900 1800 1200 700 400 1000 1200 900unid. "Rooted Foram" 24 32 18 24 12 10 13 19 17 16White Triangular foram. 2 5 1 2 1Quinqueloculina sp. 7 15 12 4 2 10 12 22 16

COELENTERATAHYDROIDEACorymorpha nutans M.Sars 1835

PORIFERACALCAREAClathrina coriacea Montagu 1818 1 1 1Sycon sp. 1 1 4 2DEMOSPONGIAAsbestopluma sp 4 1 1 1 1Histoderma physa (O.Schmidt(1875Hymedesmia similis Lundbeck 1910

Lissodendoryx spPolymastia sp. 1Radiella sol Schmidt 1870 1 1 1Sphaerotylus schoenus (Sollas 1882)Stylocordyla borealis (Loven 1868) 1Tentorium semisuberites Schmidt 1870 1 1Tetilla cranium (.F.Mueller 1776)Thenea muricata (Bowerbank 1858) 1 1

BRYOZOACYCLOSOMATAIdmidronea atlantica (Forbes In Johnson, 1847 + +CTENOSTOMATAAlcyonidium sp 1 1 1Bowerbankis c.f. +Penetrantia choncharum Silén, 1946,

CHEILOSTOMATABicellarina sp + + +Carbasea sp + + + +Cellepora pumicosa (Pallas, 1766) + + +Cellepora spCelleporella sp.Escharella klugei Hayward 1979Eucratea loricata (Linnaeus 1758) +Palmicellaria spPorelloides strumi (Norman, 1868). + + + + + +Smittina sp.

CRUSTACEACIRRIPEDIAScalpellum sp 4 1 1 1

TUNICATACOLONIAlLeptoclinides faroensis Bjerkan, 1905 + + +Colonial sp, resting 1 1

Fragmented FaunaPOLYCHAETAChaetopterus sp ? Fragments 1 1 1 1 1 1Maldanis frag.Terebellid fragment 1

CRUSTACEAAMPHIPODAAmphipoda frag. 1 1

Juvenile FaunaECHINODERMATAECHINOIDEAEchinoid reg. juv. 1 1

Possible Pelagic FaunaCRUSTACEAOSTRACODAOstracoda indet 1 1EUPHAUSIACEAEuphausiacea indet. 1

Items in Red are estimated numbers

T4 BC1



SiteSample

Epifaunal SpeciesFORAMINIFERARhabdammina sp.unid. "Rooted Foram"White Triangular foram.Quinqueloculina sp.


PORIFERACALCAREAClathrina coriacea Montagu 1818

Sycon sp.DEMOSPONGIAAsbestopluma spHistoderma physa (O.Schmidt(1875Hymedesmia similis Lundbeck 1910

Lissodendoryx spPolymastia sp.Radiella sol Schmidt 1870Sphaerotylus schoenus (Sollas 1882)Stylocordyla borealis (Loven 1868)Tentorium semisuberites Schmidt 1870Tetilla cranium (.F.Mueller 1776)Thenea muricata (Bowerbank 1858)

BRYOZOACYCLOSOMATAIdmidronea atlantica (Forbes In Johnson, 1847

CTENOSTOMATAAlcyonidium spBowerbankis c.f.Penetrantia choncharum Silén, 1946,

CHEILOSTOMATABicellarina spCarbasea spCellepora pumicosa (Pallas, 1766)Cellepora spCelleporella sp.Escharella klugei Hayward 1979Eucratea loricata (Linnaeus 1758)

Palmicellaria spPorelloides strumi (Norman, 1868).

Smittina sp.

CRUSTACEACIRRIPEDIAScalpellum sp

TUNICATACOLONIAlLeptoclinides faroensis Bjerkan, 1905

Colonial sp, resting

Fragmented FaunaPOLYCHAETAChaetopterus sp ? Fragments

Maldanis frag.Terebellid fragment

CRUSTACEAAMPHIPODAAmphipoda frag.

Juvenile FaunaECHINODERMATAECHINOIDEAEchinoid reg. juv.

Possible Pelagic FaunaCRUSTACEAOSTRACODAOstracoda indetEUPHAUSIACEAEuphausiacea indet.


F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

50 1300 400 800 700 1100 1500 900 1200 8007 7 6 13 8 23 17 11 21 23

12 1 3 3 1 315 4 11 5 4 18 9

1

1 1 12 2 2 2 2

2 1 1 1 1 1 + + +

1 1 1 +

1 1 21 2 1

+ + + + + +

2 1

+

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

1

+ 11 1

1 1 1 1 11 2 1

1

1

31 1 2 1

T4 BC3



SiteSample

Epifaunal SpeciesFORAMINIFERARhabdammina sp.unid. "Rooted Foram"White Triangular foram.Quinqueloculina sp.


PORIFERACALCAREAClathrina coriacea Montagu 1818

Sycon sp.DEMOSPONGIAAsbestopluma spHistoderma physa (O.Schmidt(1875Hymedesmia similis Lundbeck 1910

Lissodendoryx spPolymastia sp.Radiella sol Schmidt 1870Sphaerotylus schoenus (Sollas 1882)Stylocordyla borealis (Loven 1868)Tentorium semisuberites Schmidt 1870Tetilla cranium (.F.Mueller 1776)Thenea muricata (Bowerbank 1858)

BRYOZOACYCLOSOMATAIdmidronea atlantica (Forbes In Johnson, 1847

CTENOSTOMATAAlcyonidium spBowerbankis c.f.Penetrantia choncharum Silén, 1946,

CHEILOSTOMATABicellarina spCarbasea spCellepora pumicosa (Pallas, 1766)Cellepora spCelleporella sp.Escharella klugei Hayward 1979Eucratea loricata (Linnaeus 1758)

Palmicellaria spPorelloides strumi (Norman, 1868).

Smittina sp.

CRUSTACEACIRRIPEDIAScalpellum sp

TUNICATACOLONIAlLeptoclinides faroensis Bjerkan, 1905

Colonial sp, resting

Fragmented FaunaPOLYCHAETAChaetopterus sp ? Fragments

Maldanis frag.Terebellid fragment

CRUSTACEAAMPHIPODAAmphipoda frag.

Juvenile FaunaECHINODERMATAECHINOIDEAEchinoid reg. juv.

Possible Pelagic FaunaCRUSTACEAOSTRACODAOstracoda indetEUPHAUSIACEAEuphausiacea indet.


F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

3400 1800 2000 1100 2700 1400 100 800 500 8008 11 11 9 15 10 10 10 12 71 3 4 5 2 3

17 4 8 8 1 3

1

1 21 3 1 1

3 2 1 3 2 1

+ +

1 1 1

11

1 1

+ + + + + +

1 1 2 1 1 2

+ + 1 + +

+ +

+

+ + + +

4

+1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111

T4 BC2




APPENDIX VI: Sample Photographs



T4-BC1

T4 BC1-F4 Sieve No Photograph

T4 BC1-F6 Box Core No Photograph




T4-BC2






Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 IV May 2010


Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 V May 2010

T4-BC3



Benthic Solutions Limited 0933.1 VI May 2010



APPENDIX VII: Seabed Photograph

Semi-Quantitative Photo Analysis

SPECIES cap

0026

cap

0024

cap

0012

cap

0007

cap

0005

cap

0117

cap

0114

cap

0112

cap

0092

cap

0086

cap

0017

cap

0016

cap

0010

cap

0008

cap

0074

cap

0065

cap

48

cap

0038

cap

0009

Faunal Species IdentifedPORIFERAAplysilla sulfureaAsbestopluma sp 2 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 3 2 3 4 4 3Calcareous sponge 3 2 1 6 4 2 1 4 4 2c.f. ClionaHistoderma physaHymedesmia spMyxylla spPolymastia sp 1 1Porifera unid 2 3 3 1Radiella sol 1Stylocordyla borealis 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1Suberites sp.Tentorium semisuberites 1Thenea muricataTetilla cranium 1 1 1 2 1

COELENTERATAActinauge richardii 1 1 1 1 1 1Amphianthus sp. 1 3 1 1 1 1 2Anthoptilum grandiflorum 1 1Corymorpha nutans 1 1 1 1 1Edwardsia sp.Eunephtya spp 1 3 1 1 1Hydroidea unid 1 1Kophobelemnon stelliferum 1Pennatulacea unid.Sea anemone unid.Umbellula lindahliiVirgularia sp. 1

MOLLUSCACerithiella sp (Gastropod) 1Dorid NudibranchGastropod shellLimatula subauriculataPulsellum sp

POLYCHAETAGlyphanostomum Potamilla neglecta 1 1 1Serpulidae unid. 1 3 1

ECHINODERMATAHypasteria phrygiana 1Molpadia c.f. arctica burrows? 5 2 1 9 3 1 5 14 3 2 9 7 7Molpadia c.f. arctica Ophiuroid, likely Ophiopus arcticus 1Ophiuroid,aff OphiuraOphiacantha bidentata 2 1Synaptid Holothurian (Myriotrochus?Yellow starfish (Leptasterias?)Zoroaster fulgens

BRYOZOAAlcionidium sp 1 1 1Eucratea loricataHornera lichenoides 4 5 1 1 3Idmidronea atlantica 3 1 2 1 5 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1Sigmataechos violacea

TUNICATAAscidiella spColonial Ascidian cf Synoicum pulmonaria 1

CRUSTACEAAmphipoda c.f. Harpinia 1Amphipoda unid.Astacilla sp 3Euphausia spMacropodia c.f.Pandalus borealis

CHELICERATANymphon sp. 1 1

Phyla Present (5 photographs)Species Present (5 photographs)Number of Individuals (5 photographs)

Vertebrates, non-quantifiable feature/Leberspuran PISCES? Gurnard typeLycenchelys sarsii c.f. 1Scate

CRUSTACEAHaploops tubes1 1

ANNELIDAMuddy tubes 3 3 4 4 1 7 1 1 1 4 6

67 72 43 8720 18 9 207 5 6 5

T4 Cam 001 T4 Cam 002 T4 Cam 003 T4 Cam,004


Semi-Quantitative Photo Analysis

SPECIES

Faunal Species IdentifedPORIFERAAplysilla sulfureaAsbestopluma spCalcareous spongec.f. ClionaHistoderma physaHymedesmia spMyxylla spPolymastia spPorifera unidRadiella solStylocordyla borealisSuberites sp.Tentorium semisuberitesThenea muricataTetilla cranium

COELENTERATAActinauge richardiiAmphianthus sp.Anthoptilum grandiflorumCorymorpha nutansEdwardsia sp.Eunephtya sppHydroidea unidKophobelemnon stelliferumPennatulacea unid.Sea anemone unid.Umbellula lindahliiVirgularia sp.

MOLLUSCACerithiella sp (Gastropod)Dorid NudibranchGastropod shellLimatula subauriculataPulsellum sp

POLYCHAETAGlyphanostomum Potamilla neglectaSerpulidae unid.

ECHINODERMATAHypasteria phrygianaMolpadia c.f. arctica burrows?Molpadia c.f. arctica Ophiuroid, likely Ophiopus arcticusOphiuroid,aff OphiuraOphiacantha bidentataSynaptid Holothurian (Myriotrochus?Yellow starfish (Leptasterias?)Zoroaster fulgens

BRYOZOAAlcionidium spEucratea loricataHornera lichenoidesIdmidronea atlanticaSigmataechos violacea

TUNICATAAscidiella spColonial Ascidian cf Synoicum pulmonaria

CRUSTACEAAmphipoda c.f. HarpiniaAmphipoda unid.Astacilla spEuphausia spMacropodia c.f.Pandalus borealis


Phyla Present (5 photographs)Species Present (5 photographs)Number of Individuals (5 photographs)

Vertebrates, non-quantifiable feature/LeberPISCES? Gurnard typeLycenchelys sarsii c.f.Scate

CRUSTACEAHaploops tubes1

ANNELIDAMuddy tubes

cap

0029

cap

0027

cap

0023

cap

0020

cap

0015

cap

0009

cap

0008

cap

0007

cap

0004

cap

0003

cap

0018

cap

0016

cap

0014

cap

0013

cap

0007

cap

0023

cap

0019

cap

0015

cap

0011

cap

0009

13 1 1 3 1 2 5 11 7 6 19 1 4 1 1

1 3 1 1 9 1 2 3 6 1 4 2 2 5 3 4 4

1

11 5 1

1 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1

12 1 1 1 1

11 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

11 1

4 1

11 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 11 2 21

1

1 6 4 4 6 5 8 16 15 11 5 9 1 5 6 3 8 1

1 11

1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

1 1 2 3 1 1 1 +

1 1 2 3 8 9 3 3 1 6 1 3 1 3 3 1 6

1 1

1

8 14 4

3 4 1 1 4

71 120 123 8415 15 18 14

T4 Cam 007 T4 Cam 008

5 6 5 6

T4 Cam005 T4 Cam 006




T4_CAM_001 (13.05.10) Depth (490m)

UTM zone 21N ,57° West, projection and datum WGS84

Photo Northing Easting

5 7894344 395272

7 7894348 395268

12 7894377 395237

24 7894421 395190

26 7894424 395186

5 7 12

24 26

Capricorn Greenland Exploration No.1 Ltd Environmental .../media/Nanoq/Files... · 3.5....

Documents

Transcript of Capricorn Greenland Exploration No.1 Ltd Environmental .../media/Nanoq/Files... · 3.5....