Juliet Environmental Statement 2012

Classification - Extended

GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd Juliet Field Development Environmental Statement

JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 1 of 194

All GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd Contracts

STANDARD INFORMATION SHEET

Project Name Juliet Field Development

DECC Project Reference No. D/4136/2012

Type of Project Field Development subsea tie-back to existing infrastructure

Undertaker Name GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd

Undertaker Address 40 Holborn Viaduct, London, EC1N 2PB

Licences/Owners GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd

Short Description GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd is planning to develop the Juliet field

located in Block 47/14b in the southern North Sea. The

proposed development lies approximately 37 kilometres to

the east-north-east of the nearest landfall at Theddlethorpe.

The nearest transboundary line is the UK/Dutch line which

lies approximately 148 kilometres to the east of the

proposed development location. License partners include

GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd, the operator (51.56%), and First Oil

Expro Ltd (29.44%) and Hansa (19.00%).

The objective of the project is to produce gas from the as yet

undeveloped Juliet field and export it to shore, using a

combination of both new and existing infrastructure. This

will be achieved by drilling two horizontal subsea wells local

to the 47/14b-10 discovery well.

The Juliet subsea wells will be tied back by an export

pipeline and umbilical to the Pickerill A Platform operated by

Perenco UK Ltd, located approximately 22 kilometres to the

east of the Juliet field. Existing infrastructure will be used to

transport the Juliet gas from the Pickerill A Platform to the

onshore Theddlethorpe terminal.

The proposed Juliet development wells are expected to be

drilled using a standard jack-up rig, with the preliminary

spud date provisionally programmed for Q2/3 2013.

Topsides construction phase is provisionally planned for Q3

2012 with subsea construction in Q3 2013. First gas is

currently anticipated in Q4 2013.

Anticipated Commencement of Works Q3 2012

Previously Submitted Environmental

Documents

PON15B for the Juliet (47/14b-10) exploration well

(DECC Ref No. PON15B/105)

The Juliet Field Development Environmental Statement

(DECC Ref No. D/4063/2009)

Significant Environmental Impacts

Identified

None

Statement Prepared By GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd in association with RPS Energy.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 2 of 194


TABLE OF CONTENTS

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION 17

1.1 THE PROJECT 17

1.2 SCOPE 19

1.3 APPLICANT 19

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 19

1.5 CONSULTATIONS 20

1.6 STRUCTURE OF REPORT 21

1.7 CONTACT & INFORMATION REQUEST 21

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 23

2.1 THE JULIET FIELD 23

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE AND CONCEPT 24

2.3 DEVELOPMENT OPTION SELECTION 25

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 29

2.5 PRODUCTION AND EXPORT FACILITIES 31

2.5.1 JULIET SUBSEA FACILITIES 31

2.5.2 GAS EXPORT PIPELINE AND UMBILICAL 32

2.5.3 HOST FACILITY 34

2.6 OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 36

2.6.1 PIPELINE AND UMBILICAL INSTALLATION 36

2.6.2 JULIET SUBSEA INSTALLATION 39

2.7 DRILLING OPERATIONS 40

2.7.1 OVERVIEW 40

2.7.2 DRILLING RIG 41

2.7.3 WELL CONSTRUCTION 42

2.7.4 DRILLING MUDS AND CHEMICALS 43

2.7.5 DISPOSAL OF DRILL CUTTINGS 43

2.7.6 WELL COMPLETION 44

2.7.7 INITIAL WELLBORE CLEANING & FINAL WELL CLEAN-UP AND TESTING 44

2.7.8 SUPPORT OPERATIONS 45

2.7.9 TOTAL DRILLING EMISSIONS SUMMARY 45

2.8 PRODUCTION 47

2.8.1 PREDICTED GAS PRODUCTION 47

2.8.2 POWER GENERATION 51

2.8.3 PRODUCTION CHEMISTRY 51

2.8.4 CHEMICAL INJECTION 51

2.8.5 SAND PRODUCTION 51

2.9 MAINTENANCE 52

2.10 DECOMMISSIONING 52

2.11 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 52

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION 53

3.1 INTRODUCTION 53

3.1.1 DATA SOURCES 53

3.2 GEOGRAPHY 56

3.3 THE SEABED AND BATHYMETRY 57

3.3.1 BATHYMETRY 57



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 3 of 194


3.3.2 SEDIMENTS AND SEABED FEATURES 59

3.3.3 HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS 70

3.4 OCEANOGRAPHY 70

3.4.1 WAVES 70

3.4.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 71

3.5 AIR AND CLIMATE 72

3.5.1 WIND 72

3.5.2 AIR QUALITY 73

3.6 FLORA AND FAUNA 73

3.6.1 PLANKTON 73

3.6.2 SEABED COMMUNITIES 73

3.6.3 FISH 74

3.6.4 SEABIRDS 78

3.6.5 MARINE MAMMALS 82

3.6.6 MARINE REPTILES 85

3.7 PROTECTED AND SENSITIVE COASTAL HABITATS 85

3.7.1 COASTAL PROTECTED SITES 85

3.7.2 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 89

3.8 HUMAN POPULATIONS 94

3.8.1 COMMERCIAL FISHING 94

3.8.2 SHIPPING AND PORTS 96

3.8.3 COLLISION RISK ASSESSMENT 99

3.8.4 MILITARY ACTIVITY 99

3.8.5 PIPELINES, WELLS AND SUBMARINE CABLES 99

3.8.6 DREDGING AND DUMPING ACTIVITY 101

3.8.7 WIND FARMS 103

3.8.8 ARCHAEOLOGY 104

3.8.9 TOURISM AND LEISURE 105

3.9 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES 105

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS, EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 107

4.1 INTRODUCTION 107

4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF INTERACTIONS 108

4.3 DESIGN CONTROL MEASURES 109

4.4 PHYSICAL PRESENCE 110

4.5 SEABED DISTURBANCE 112

4.5.1 SEABED DISTURBANCE RESULTING FROM PIPELAY INSTALLATION 112

4.5.2 SEABED DISTURBANCE RESULTING FROM DRILLING OPERATIONS 114

4.5.3 FOOTPRINT OF THE JACK-UP RIG 115

4.5.4 RIG STABILISATION 115

4.5.5 SEABED DISTURBANCE SUMMARY 116

4.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION 116

4.6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON FISH 117

4.6.2 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON CETACEANS 118

4.7 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS 119

4.7.1 DRILLING AND INSTALLATION PHASES 119

4.7.2 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS DURING PRODUCTION OPERATIONS 122

4.8 MARINE DISCHARGES 122

4.8.1 WATER BASED DRILLING MUD (WBM) 122

4.8.2 COMPLETION FLUIDS 123



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 4 of 194


4.8.3 PIPELINE COMMISSIONING 123

4.8.4 DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWAGE 124

4.9 SOLID WASTES 124

4.10 LOSS OF CONTAINMENT 124

4.10.1 OIL SPILL SCENARIOS AND HISTORICAL UKCS SPILL DATA 124

4.10.2 OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION 126

4.10.3 DRILLING OPERATIONS 126

4.10.4 PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 132

4.11 DECOMMISSIONING 132

4.12 TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS 133

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 133

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 137

5.1 INTRODUCTION 137

5.2 GDF SUEZ E&P UKS QHSEMS 137

5.2.1 INTRODUCTION 137

5.2.2 STRUCTURE AND GOALS 137

5.2.3 HSE POLICY 138

5.3 ORGANISATION 141

5.3.1 KEY ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 141

5.4 JULIET DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES 141

5.4.1 ASSESSMENT 141

5.4.2 PLANNING AND RESOURCING 142

5.4.3 AUDIT AND REVIEW 142

5.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS 143

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 145

7.0 REFERENCES 149

APPENDIX A: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 153

APPENDIX B: DRILLING OPERATIONS SUPPORTING INFORMATION 156

APPENDIX C: OCNS & HMCS 161

APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY DATA 174

APPENDIX E: ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELLING 177

APPENDIX F: SEABED FEATURES ALONG THE JULIET PIPELINE ROUTE AND WELL SITE (GARDLINE

2009A) 179

APPENDIX G: SEABED IMAGERY ALONG THE JULIET PIPELINE ROUTE AND WELL SITE (GARDLINE,

2009A) 182

APPENDIX H: SEABED IMAGERY ALONG THE JULIET PIPELINE ROUTE AND WELL SITE (GARDLINE, 2011)

185

APPENDIX I: JULIET DEVELOPMENT TO PICKERILL A PLATFORM PIPELINE ROUTE IN RESPECT TO THE

TRITTON KNOLLL WINDFARM BOUNDARY 188

APPENDIX J: PRODUCTION FIGURES 189

APPENDIX K: SEABED SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR 2011 SEABED SURVEY 194



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 5 of 194


NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd (hereafter referred to as GDF SUEZ E&P UK) is planning to develop the Juliet gas field, located in Block 47/14b in the southern North Sea gas basin. This

Environmental Statement (ES) has been produced in order to meet the requirements of the

GDF SUEZ E&P UK Quality, Health, Safety and Environment Management System and to

ensure compliance with the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of

Environmental Effects) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. It has been prepared by GDF SUEZ

E&P UK in conjunction with environmental consultants RPS Energy.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Juliet development will consist of two horizontal subsea wells local to the 47/14b-10

discovery well. The wells will be tied back to the Pickerill A Platform operated by Perenco UK

Ltd, approximately 22 kilometres to the east of the proposed Juliet development via a 12 inch

export pipeline and control umbilical. Existing infrastructure will be used to transport the Juliet

gas from the Pickerill A Platform to Theddlethorpe terminal onshore.

Subject to necessary consents and approvals, GDF SUEZ E&P UK plans a preliminary spud

date programmed for Q2/23 2013. Pipeline and manifold installation activities are planned

for Q3 2013, with the possibility of some platform works scheduled for Q3 2012. First gas is

currently anticipated in Q4 2013.

The design life of the Juliet development facilities is fifteen years. On cessation of production,

the Juliet field development, including all associated infrastructure will be abandoned in

accordance with the legislation prevailing at the time and consultation with the necessary

authorities.

THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The Juliet field is located in the southern North Sea, approximately 37 kilometres to the east -

north-east of the nearest landfall at Theddlethorpe, and approximately 148 kilometres to the

west of the UK/Dutch median line.

The Juliet area lies on the edge of the Silver Pit where water depths range from approximately

50 to 70 metres (Hydrographer of the Navy, 2002). The water depth at the Juliet wells

location is approximately 56 metres lowest astronomical tide (LAT) (Gardline, 2009a). Along

the pipeline route to the Pickerill A Platform, water depth ranges from 14.3 metres LAT to a

maximum of 55.7 metres LAT within the Silver Pit (Gardline, 2009a, Garline, 2011).

Sediment composition across the survey area was variable, ranging from sand, sligh tly gravelly

and gravelly sand and muddy sand. Despite the variability, sediment in the survey is

comparable to that previously identified within the region. On the southeast slope of the

Silver Pit silty shelly sand and gravel with numerous cobbles and occasional boulders and rare

shell fragments are present. Sediments from the start of the pipeline route have been

identified as an intermittent layer of shelly silty sand and gravel with chalk outcrops and

numerous cobbles and boulders until reaching KP0.180. From here sediments become

predominantly silty shelly sand and gravel with numerous cobbles and occasional boulders

(Gardline, 2011).

Of the ten most dominant species found during the environmental baseline survey for the

development, two were species of annelid polychaete (Spiophanes bombyx, Euclymene

oerstedii), three taxa of mollusca (Abra alba, Abra prismatica, Anomiidae sp.), two taxa of

crustacea (Urothoe elegans, Pisidia longicornis), one echinoderm taxa (Ophiura albida) and

two ascidian taxa (Dendrodoa grossularia, Ascidiella sp) (Gardline, 2011). Three of the most

dominant taxa recorded in the survey were also amongst the ten most dominant taxa in

comparative surveys (GEL, 2007, 2008b and Gardline 2008), suggesting that the faunal

community found within the Juliet survey was relatively typical for the wider area (Gardline,

2009b, Gardline 2011). None of the species listed in the top ten abundance ranking are

considered unusual for the region or sediment type and no evidence of biogenic reefs such as

those made by the tube dwelling polychaete Sabellaria spinulosa were observed during the



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 6 of 194


environmental baseline survey for the Juliet field development (Gardline, 2009a, 2009b,

2008). The environmental baseline survey conducted in 2011 confirmed this, with the

univariate statistics suggesting that the macrofaunal community along the proposed pipeline

corridor was a reasonably variable community with moderate species richness and taxonomic

diversity (Gardline, 2011). This was as expected considering the variable nature of the

sediments across the surveyed area. The macrofaunal levels reported in the 2011 survey

were slightly less even and less species rich than the surrounding area (Gardline, 2008;

Gardline, 2009a). This difference in community is likely due to the influence that four

impoverished sampling stations had on the 2011 dataset within an area of large mobile sand

waves, which were not sampled in the previous Juliet to Pickerill A pipeline survey (Gardline,

2011).

Four species spawn in the vicinity of the proposed development area: lemon sole

(Microstomus kitt), sole (Solea solea), sandeels (Spisula sp.) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus). In

addition to spawning grounds, the waters of the development area also act as a nursery area

for lemon sole, sandeels, sprat and whiting (Merlangius merlangus).

The offshore waters of the southern North Sea are visited by several seabird species mainly

for feeding purposes. Among the species using the waters in the vicinity of the proposed Juliet

field development, fulmars are present in highest numbers during the early and late breeding

seasons, leading to peak densities in September. Increased numbers of gannets (Morus

bassanus) occur in November and December when dispersion from breeding sites is at a

maximum. Kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) are widely distributed throughout the year. Lesser

black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus) are mainly summer visitors, while in contrast guillemot (Uria

aalge) numbers are present in greatest numbers during winter months. In addition,

substantial numbers of terns (Sterna hirundo) migrate northwards through the offshore North

Sea in April and May, with return passage from July to September (DECC - SEA 2, 2001).

The JNCC ranks seabird vulnerabilities on a four point scale (one is the highest vulnerability

and four the lowest). Seabird vulnerability in Block 47/14 is highest (1 out of 4) during the

months of August, November and December and is moderately high (2 out of 4) during the

months of February, and September. Seabird vulnerability is moderate to low (3 or 4 out of 4)

throughout the remainder of the year. Seabird vulnerability in Block 47/15 is highest (1 out of

4) during the months of August, November and December and is moderately high (2 out of 4)

during the months of February, April, September and October. Seabird vulnerability is

moderate to low (3 or 4 out of 4) throughout the remainder of the year. Seabird vulnerability

in Block 48/11 is highest (1 out of 4) during the months of August and November and is

moderately high (2 out of 4) during the months of February, April, September, October and

December. Seabird vulnerability is moderate to low (3 or 4 out of 4) throughout the remainder

of the year (JNCC, 2009). As such, periods of concern for drilling are in place in Block 47/14

from August to October (DEFRA), and from November to December (JNCC).

The diversity of marine mammals in this area of the southern North Sea is relatively low with

only harbour porpoise sighted in the vicinity of the development area, predominantly during

the late summer months.

The proposed Juliet field development lies within ICES Rectangle 36F0. The highest tonnages

landed from this area by all vessels are crustaceans (lobster, crabs, shrimps), molluscs

(scallops, whelks). Other species fished include cod, mackerel, and whiting. The highest fish

landings by weight occur between April and November with comparatively lower landings being

obtained at all other times of the year. (MMO, 2009).

A shipping study and collision assessment of the Juliet development location was undertaken

in January 2012. There are an estimated 21,307 ships per year passing within 10nm of the

proposed Juliet location, corresponding to an average of 58 vessels per day, mainly

comprising of cargo vessels. Based on installing a Jack-up at the development location, the

annual collision frequency is estimated to be 7.5 x 10 -3, corresponding to a collision return

period of 133 years. This is well above the historical average ship collision frequency for

offshore installations on the UKCS which reflects the very high levels of traffic in the vicinity of

proposed Juliet Drilling Centre. The proposed drilling operation at the Juliet location will have

an impact on the closest passing routes, with vessels likely to adjust their passage to achieve

a clearance of typically 1-2nm from the rig (Anatec, 2012a).

A pipeline risk review was conducted for the Juliet development to Pickerill A Platform pipeline

route in January 2012. The proposed pipeline is in a busy shipping area with an average of 67



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 7 of 194


ships per day within 10nm, with the majority being cargo vessels. The shipping density

analysis shows that the shipping activity over the pipeline is ranked as medium/high. There is

regular crossing traffic east/west between Humber/Germany and northwest/southeast

between Tees and Continental Europe, e.g., Rotterdam (Anatec, 2012b).

The Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC)

lies 15 kilometres to the south of the proposed Juliet development. This candidate SAC has

been considered by the UK Government and added to a list sent to the European Commission.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 now apply to this area.

The proposed Juliet development is approximately 37 kilometres to the east-north-east of the

nearest landfall at Theddlethorpe. Numerous protected sites lie along the nearest coastline

including Flamborough Head, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast and the Overstrands Cliff SACs.

The key environmental sensitivities arising from the review of the existing environment and

the proposed Juliet field development are:

Fish spawning area for lemon sole, sole, sandeels and sprat

Nursery area for lemon sole, sandeels, sprat and whiting;

Seabird vulnerability in Block 47/14 is very high during the months of August, November and December.

Seabird vulnerability in Block 47/15 is very high during the months of August, November and December

Seabird vulnerability in Block 48/11 is very high during the months of August and November.

Moderate densities of harbour porpoise in August and September, in addition to lower densities of this species during February and March;

Fishing activity occurs year round in the area, but effort is low compared to other areas of the southern North Sea, predominately concentrated on shellfish species;

Shipping densities are high, with traffic comprised predominantly of cargo vessels.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 8 of 194


Seasonal Environmental Sensitivities

Activity in Blocks 47/14, 47/15 and 48/11 surrounding waters and adjacent coast

Component Abundance/Activity J F M A M J J A S O N D

Plankton Phytoplankton and zooplankton

Benthic

Fauna

Benthic faunal communities

Fish

Spawning

Herring

Lemon sole N N N N N

Sole

Sandeels N N N N

Sprat N N N N

Whiting N N N N N

Seabirds

(Offshore

Vulnerability)

Block 47/14 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 1

Block 47/15 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 1 2 2 1 1

Block 48/11 4 2 3 2 3 4 1 2 2 1 2

Cetaceans Harbour porpoise abundance

Resource

Users

Commercial fishing (36F0)

Shipping and ports

Military Activity (Block 47/11)



Oil and gas activity (inc. pipelines /

cables)

Marine Protected Sites

Coastal Protected Sites

Tourism, recreation & leisure

activities

Numbers refer to the seabird vulnerability index used by JNCC (1999) (1) highest vulnerability (4) lowest.

Coastal occurrence Activity in Blocks 47/14, 47/15 and 48/11 and surrounding

waters

Peak Low None Peak High Lo

w

None N Nursery



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 9 of 194


HAZARDS, EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The environmental assessment of the Juliet field development indicates that the key hazards,

the resulting environmental effects, and the measures proposed by GDF SUEZ E&P UK to

mitigate those effects are as follows:

ROUTINE HAZARDS

Hazard & Effect(s) Effects and Mitigation Residual Impact

Physical Presence

Disruption to

other sea users

From the review of effect on navigation, it was concluded

that there are high volumes of traffic passing close to the

location. This can be divided into NW-SE traffic heading via

the Outer Dowsing Shoal and East-West traffic heading

to/from the Humber TSS. The proposed drilling operation at

the Juliet location will have an impact on the closest

passing routes, with vessels likely to adjust their passage

to achieve a clearance of typically 1-2nm from the rig.

(Anatec, 2012a)

During drilling operations a 500 metre exclusion zone will

be set up around the drilling rig. A dedicated standby

vessel will be present for the duration of the drilling

programme and will enforce the safety exclusion zone.

Any interference with fishing will be limited to temporary

restrictions around the drilling rig, installation vessels and the

potential for temporary displacement of static fishing gear

along the pipeline route. The pipeline and umbilical will be

buried in order to reduce the risk of potential damage to fishing

gear.

Pipeline installation and trenching will occur

simultaneously and therefore any impact due to

interference with shipping and fishing will be similarly short

term. During pipelay and dive Support Vessel (DSV) works,

a fishing representative will be hired by GDF SUEZ E&P UK

and will be on the vessels to liaise with the fishing vessels

in the area.

Prior to operations commencing, the appropriate

notifications will be made and maritime notices posted.

All vessel activities will be in accordance with national &

international regulations. Appropriate navigation aids will be

used to ensure other users of the sea are made aware of the

presence of vessels.

Negligible. The

work within the

exclusion zone is

expected to have

an effect on other

third parties

although only for

the duration of the

drilling programme.

Seabed

Disturbance

Caused by the

deposition of

cuttings,

disturbance from

installation of

pipeline and

umbilical and

from the footprint

of the rig.

It is estimated that drilling the Juliet development wells will

generate a maximum total of 2,036 tonnes of cuttings. 576

of these are associated with WBM, generated from drilling

the upper hole section of the wells, and will be discharged

directly to the seabed. The remaining 1,460 tonnes of

cuttings are associated with LTOBM from the lower sections

and will be skipped and shipped for processing onshore.

The deposition of cuttings and fine solids can have a direct

effect on seabed fauna. Trenching and placement of rock

dump as well as disturbance due to spud can penetration

can lead to disturbance and smothering of the seabed.

Spot rock dumping along the pipeline may be required if the

post-installation (out of straightness) survey shows remedial

dumping is required to mitigate upheaval buckling in specific

locations. Further rock dump is required at a permanent

subsea crossing location, where the new Juliet pipeline and

Negligible to Minor.

Benthic

communities found

in the area of the

proposed

development are

typical of this

region of the

southern North

Sea. Previous

studies have shown

that biological

communities will

recover rapidly.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 10 of 194


ROUTINE HAZARDS


umbilical crosses the existing CMS 26 inch export and 4

inch methanol pipelines. GDF SUEZ E&P UK is committed to

limiting the quantity of rock dumped to keep the impact on

the environment and other users of the sea to a minimum. It

is currently envisaged that a maximum of up to 23,000

tonnes may be required for spot rock dumping along the

Juliet development to the Pickerill A Platform pipeline and

umbilical route covering a total area of 4,600 square

metres. This assumes the rock will be placed at locations of

larger imperfections along the pipeline and the 23,000

tonnes will be laid as spot rock dumps along the proposed

route, apart from the permanent crossing location where an

estimated 2,800 tonnes is required. It has been assumed

that the minimum practical rock placement for the vessel is

2.5 tonnes per metre, which results in a minimum rock

dump height of approximately 0.3 metres based on a rock

berm slope of 30 percent.

The width of pipeline corridor has yet to be confirmed,

however it is envisaged that it will be in the order of

approximately 20 metres including the profile of trench and

spoil piles. A figure of 20 metres has been used as it

provides the maximum width a typical trenching device can

trench. Based on a 20 metre trench width and a 22

kilometre pipeline, the total envisaged footprint on the

seabed is estimated at 440,000 square metres.

As a worst case, therefore, the benthic infaunal communities

over the entire 440,000 square metres of the pipeline

impact corridor could be impacted by the trenching

operations.

Sediments and seabed communities will also be disturbed

around the footprint of the drilling rig at each well. The

placement of the spud cans of the jack-up rig on the seabed

will disturb localised areas and can be expected to impact

approximately 462 square metres per rig location, which

corresponds to 154 square metres at each spud can,

assuming a rig spud can diameter of 14.02 metres (46 feet).

This equates to a total seabed disturbance from the spud

can placement of 924 square metres from the Jack-up rig

positioning for this campaign.

However, effects on benthic organisms are expected to be

limited to a relatively small area around the drilling locations

and along the pipeline and umbilical route and to last for

only a short time period. In addition, from the grab samples

analysed, none of the species listed in the top ten

abundance ranking are considered unusual for the region or

sediment type and no evidence of biogenic reefs such as

those made by the tube dwelling polychaete Sabellaria

spinulosa were observed during the environmental baseline

survey (Gardline, 2011, 2009a, 2009b, 2008).

Noise & Vibration

Noise is thought

to have the

potential to

disturb or confuse

There will be a low number of additional vessel movements

during drilling and installation activities. GDF SUEZ E&P UK

will ensure that the vessels associated with the proposed

Juliet development will avoid using undue speed; cavitation

of vessel propellers will be minimised and vessels will not

Studies indicate

effects are likely to

be negligible.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 11 of 194


ROUTINE HAZARDS


cetaceans unnecessarily approach any marine mammals.

Atmospheric

Emissions

Emissions from

vessels required

for both drilling

and installation of

the development

facilities.

Emissions from

power generation

and well clean-up

Additional power generation emissions during installation

and drilling activities will be minimised by advanced

planning to ensure efficient operations, well maintained and

well operated equipment and generators, and regular

monitoring of fuel consumption.

No well test is planned.

GDF SUEZ E&P UK will ensure that high combustion

efficiency burners are used during well clean-up.

GDF SUEZ E&P UK will ensure that contract specification

and control processes require all equipment and generators

to be well maintained and operated.

Negligible. There

will be low local

effect and gases

disperse rapidly.

Emissions from gas

combustion will

contribute towards

global greenhouse

gas emissions.

Marine

Discharges

Will include

discharge of mud

& cuttings,

drainage water,

sewage, well

completion fluids,

hydrotest water

and production

chemicals.

Planned use of seawater and/or water based muds (WBM)

in the upper hole section of the wells with selection of most

environmentally benign mud and cement chemicals. 99

percent of the WBM is comprised of chemicals considered to

pose little or no risk to the environment. Installation of

cuttings / mud cleaning equipment will ensure optimal

cuttings cleaning and continuous mud mass balance will be

maintained throughout the drilling programme.

GDF SUEZ E&P UK will ensure good housekeeping standards

are maintained on the drilling rig to control the amount of

hydrocarbons & other contaminants entering the drainage

system & that appropriate sewage treatment systems are on

all vessels.

During the short duration of flowline hydrotest de-watering,

GDF SUEZ E&P UK will ensure that discharge rates are

controlled to allow maximum dispersion/ dilution.

All drilling & pipeline chemicals will be assessed using the

CHARM methodology where appropriate, in accordance with

the Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002. Chemicals

identified to be high risk will be substituted for more

environmentally friendly alternatives where practicable.

Negligible. Due to

the low toxicity of

the majority of the

discharges & the

anticipated dilution

& dispersion, all

impacts are

predicted to be

short-term and

localised. Studies

indicate recovery of

benthos following

cuttings deposition

will occur within

months.

Solid Wastes

Wastes will

include OBM

cuttings, scrap

metal, waste oil &

surplus chemicals

Waste will be segregated by type and transported to shore to

be recycled or disposed of in a controlled manner under the

duty of care regulations (EPA 1990). Appropriate Waste Management practices, including provisions for Hazardous

Waste, will be applied by all contractors working on the Juliet

development. As far as reasonably practicable, materials

such as scrap metal, waste oil and surplus chemicals will be

sent for recycle or re-use. OBM contaminated cuttings will

be contained on the drilling rig and returned to shore for

processing and disposal by a licensed contractor. Other

waste will be sent to authorised landfills or incineration

facilities, depending on its nature.

Negligible. Wastes

will be treated

where appropriate.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 12 of 194


NON-ROUTINE HAZARDS

Potential Spill

Source

Prevention & Mitigation Measures Taken

Leaks of drilling

mud

Procedural controls on transport and disposal. Transfer protocols similar to those

used for refuelling.

Diesel fuel

bunkering

All efforts shall be made to ensure the drilling rig arrives on site fully bunkered to

negate or reduce the need for diesel fuel bunkering during the project.

Transfer hoses and associated equipment will be inspected to ensure their

integrity. Bulk fuel transfer hoses will have non-return valves, refuelling hoses to

have dead man closures and floatation collars to be used on all hoses. Bunding

will be provided around each of the loading stations and around the main fuel oil,

tank vents on the main deck. Transfer hoses inspected prior to use and replaced

and regular intervals.

Offshore fuel and bulk transfer to the drilling rig will be supervised at all times and

communication links will be tested. All transfers to and from the rig / vessel plus

all internal transfers will be controlled by written work instructions. Fuel transfer

will be restricted to conditions of visibility that allow effective monitoring of the

loading operation and suitable weather conditions (which will be defined with

contractor prior to operations commencing).

Fuel transfer will be stopped if a spill occurs.

Oil, diesel &

aviation fuel and

chemical spills

during bunkering /

refuelling

Bunding to contain spills, spills on rig directed to hazardous drains or slop tanks,

on-board absorbent materials available on all vessels.

Oil spill during on-

board tank filling

Spills directed to the hazardous drains system, where oil will be removed by the

centrifuge or oil skimming apparatus or diverted to the slop/bilge tanks.

Rig storage tank

leaks

A clear record of the chemicals store will be maintained at all times and

compliance with OCR reporting requirements will be observed.

Tanks provided with appropriate bunding. Material directed to the hazardous

drains system, where oil will be removed by the centrifuge or oil skimming

apparatus.

Absorbents provided for spill management of diesel lube oil and stored chemicals.

All such spills directed to hazardous open drains system with trip and alarm

systems in place. Training will be given in spill clean-up techniques.

Special training will be given to personnel with the responsibility of operating

valves, and particularly dump valves. Training in the correct identification and

utilisation of these valves will be provided prior to their use, and awareness will be

raised on the importance of preventing spills.

Hazardous drains system will not be able to remove chemicals prior to discharge so

chemicals could be directed to slop/bilge tanks and taken to shore for treatment.

Procedure to minimise and prevent spills from draining and filling of heating and

cooling systems.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The management of environmental risks associated with the Juliet development is integral to

the decision making process. Environmental hazards are identified at all stages in the

development life cycle and risks are assessed and managed within GDF SUEZ E&P UKs Quality & Health, Safety and Environment Management System (QHSEMS).



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 13 of 194


The QHSEMS clearly defines the environmental responsibilities of individuals at all levels of

the organisation and provides a framework through which a process of continual improvement

in the environmental awareness is implemented. The system ensures the application of

appropriate management controls thereby reducing any environmental risks arising from GDF

SUEZ E&P UKs operations.

Actions to ensure protection of the environment within this Environmental Statement will be

incorporated into an Environmental Program or Action Plan as defined within the management

system. It will be the responsibility of the Project QHSE team leader, with assistance from the

HSE Advisor, to ensure that these actions are implemented and completed during field

development. When the field goes into production, on-going monitoring and reporting will be

the responsibility of the host facility operator. GDF SUEZ E&P UK will monitor performance

over time to ensure that the production operations continue to meet the environmental

performance required by legislation and defined within this Environmental Statement.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, although there will be some environmental impact during each phase of the Juliet

field life cycle, adverse long term environmental impacts from the Juliet developme nt will be

negligible. Incremental cumulative impacts of the development will be minimal and there will

be no transboundary effects.

GDF SUEZ E&P UK will manage any potential impacts through careful planning and design

controls.

Environmental management at GDF SUEZ E&P UK is undertaken in accordance with an

established and proven QHSE Management System, which is certified under ISO 14001. GDF

SUEZ E&P UK also has experience in this area of southern North Sea and therefore has a good

understanding of the environmental sensitivities in the vicinity of the Juliet field development.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 14 of 194


ABBREVIATIONS

ACOPS Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea

AIS Automatic Identification System

ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable

AoNB Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AoSP Areas of Special Protection

API American Petroleum Institute

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BAT Best Available Technique

BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

BGS British Geological Survey

BOP Blow-out Preventer

CAPEX Capital Expenditure

CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CHARM Chemical Hazard Assessment and Risk Management

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

cSAC Candidate Special Area of Conservation

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change

dB Decibel

dSAC Designated Special Area of Conservation

DST Drill Stem Test

DSV Diving Support Vessel

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EC50 Effective Concentration for 50% of organisms

EMS Environmental Management System

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EPS European Protected Species

ERP Emergency Response Plan

ES Environmental Statement

EU European Union

FEED Front-End Engineering and Design

FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offload (vessel)

GEL Gardline Environmental Limited

HMCG Her Majestys Coast Guard

HMCS Harmonised Mandatory Control Scheme

Hs Significant wave Height

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

HSS Health and Safety Standard



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 15 of 194


ICES International Council for Exploration of the Seas

IRM Intervention and Routine Maintenance

IMO International Maritime Organisation

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LTOBM Low Toxicity Oil Based Mud

LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide

LOS Line of Sight

LP Low Pressure

MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency

MFA Marine Fisheries Agency

MoD Ministry of Defence

MRCC Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre

MW Mega Watts

nm Nautical Mile

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

No2 Nitrogen Dioxide

OBM Oil Based Mud

OCNS Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme

OCR Offshore Chemical Regulations

OGP Oil and Gas Producers

OGUK Oil & Gas United Kingdom (formerly UKOOA)

OPEP Oil Pollution Emergency Plan

OPEX Operational Expenditure

PHA Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PLONOR Posing Little Or No Risk (to the environment)

PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration

pSAC (proposed) Special Areas of Conservation

QHSEMS Quality & Health, Safety and Environment Management System

ROV Remotely Operated Vessel

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SACs Special Areas of Conservation

SFF Scottish Fishermans Federation

SGMD Scottish Government Marine Directorate

SOx Sulphur Oxides

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest

SWT Scottish Wildlife Trust

TD Total Depth

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TOM Total Organic Matter



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 16 of 194


THC Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations

UK United Kingdom

UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf

UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association

WAT Wax Appearance Temperature

WBM Water Based Mud

WGS World Geodetic System

WPS Well Protection Structure

WHO World Health Organisation



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 17 of 194


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE PROJECT GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd (hereafter referred to as GDF SUEZ E&P UK) is planning to develop the Juliet gas field, located in Block 47/14b in the southern North Sea, approximately 37

kilometres to the east-north-east of the nearest landfall at Theddlethorpe. The nearest

transboundary line is the UK/Dutch line which lies approximately 148 kilometres to the east of

the proposed development location (Figure 1.1).

The Juliet development will consist of two subsea wells drilled local to each other and it is

intended that the two wells will be drilled from the same jack-up rig location. The wells will be

tied back via a single 12 inch export pipeline and controlled by an umbilical from the Pickerill

A Platform owned and operated by Perenco UK Ltd located approximately 22 kilometres east

of the Juliet field.

Reservoir fluids from the Juliet field will be exported to shore from the Pickerill A Platform via

the existing 24 inch Pickerill Theddlethorpe Pipeline into Theddlethorpe Terminal operated by Conoco Phillips. The Juliet subsea wells and infrastructure will be monitored, controlled

and operated on a day to day basis from the onshore control room at the Bacton Terminal

(Although Pickerill ties back to Theddlethorpe gas terminal, control is performed at Bacton) .

The two subsea horizontal development wells will be drilled local to the existing 47/14b-10

discovery well. One will target the west of the Juliet structure, the other the east. It is

anticipated that the wells will be drilled using a standard jack-up rig. Subject to necessary

consents and approvals, GDF SUEZ E&P UK plans a preliminary spud date programmed for

Q2/3 2013. Topsides construction phase is provisionally planned for Q3 2012 with subsea

construction in Q3 2013. First gas is currently anticipated in Q4 2013.

The design life of the Juliet field development facilities is fifteen years. On cessation of

production, the Juliet field development, including all associated infrastructure will be

abandoned in accordance with the legislation prevailing at the time and consultation w ith the

necessary authorities.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 18 of 194


Figure 1.1. Location of the Proposed Juliet Development



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 19 of 194


1.2 SCOPE The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for the proposed Juliet development

has assessed the potential impacts on the existing environment in the southern North Sea for

all main phases of the hydrocarbon lifecycle: from drilling, through construction and

installation, to production operations and field decommissioning.

This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared to report the EIA, to ensure compliance

with the requirements of the Offshore Petroleum and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental

Effects) Regulations, 1999 (as amended), and to meet GDF SUEZ E&P UKs QHSE Management System (refer to Section 5). An overview of the statutory fram ework applicable

to offshore oil and gas operations is included in Appendix A.

1.3 APPLICANT GDF SUEZ E&P UK has been active in the UK since 1997, growing rapidly through both

acquisition and active participation in the UK licensing rounds. GDF SUEZ E&P UK is an

established exploration and production operator in the UK, owning interests in more than fifty

offshore gas and oil licences on the UK continental shelf , distributed across West of

Shetlands, central and southern North Sea. The company has interest in fifteen producing

fields, of which the Minke is operated in the southern North Sea.

The UK forms a significant share of the global GDF SUEZ business and makes a significant

contribution to the Groups targets in securing gas supplies through production. As such GDF SUEZ is committed to developing its existing portfolio in the UK. The development of the Juliet

field fits within this target.

GDF SUEZ E&P UKs Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Policy is applied to all areas of activity and universally endorses health, safety and environmental excellence as a key

component of the operating philosophy and culture. HSE management is integrated into the

companys activities.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT This Environmental Statement presents the results of the environmental assessment of the

proposed Juliet development. An environmental assessment is an important management

tool which ensures that environmental hazards and effects are identified, evaluated, and that

appropriate control measures are implemented.

The process comprised four main stages:

Characterise the environment and identify the environmental hazards associated with the activity;

Assess the magnitude and significance of the hazards and effects;

Implement control techniques to eliminate or lessen the severity of the effects and to manage the hazard;

Review and, where necessary, develop plans and procedures to manage the consequences of accidental events.

Consultations are undertaken throughout the environmental impact assessment process with

interested parties, including statutory consultees and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

These consultations focus on potential environmental issues, project goals and environmental

strategies (refer to Section 1.5).

In practice, environmental control measures are an integrated part of planning operations and

in some instances are indirect benefits of other considerations. This environmental

assessment has been undertaken to confirm the effectiveness of standard engineering

controls and to identify specific circumstances that may warrant additional control measures.

This document addresses all offshore operations associated with the Juliet development.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 20 of 194


1.5 CONSULTATIONS Prior to submission of this ES to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the

views of a number of organisations were solicited by letter in November 2009 and September

2011. The issues raised during this preliminary consultation process have been considered in

detail by GDF SUEZ E&P UK and addressed, where appropriate, in the ES (refer to Table 1.1).

A meeting between GDF SUEZ E&P UK, DECC and the JNCC was held in September 2011 to

discuss the proposed Juliet development and progress so far.

Table 1.1. Summary of Responses Received During the Juliet Consultation Process

Organisation Issues Raised ES Section Reference

JNCC Proposed Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and

North Ridge possible Special Area of

Conservation (pSAC), which is located

south to the Juliet Field in the outer Wash

area should be discussed in the ES.

Section 3.7.2

DECC Juliet is close to an environmentally

sensitive area for birds. Discussion needs

to be included in the ES, although Juliet

development should not have any impact.

Rock dumping quantities and impacted

area should be fully discussed in the ES.

Section 3.6.4

Section 4.5.3

CEFAS The proposed development site lies within

a spawning area for lemon sole, sole,

sandeel and sprat. Due to the presence of

spawning sole, the field development will

be subject to timing restriction on seismic

activities between January and May

(inclusive).

The proposed development lies within

ICES Rectangle 36F0 and not 35F0.

Landings data for 36F0 in 2008 show that

Fishing by English registered vessels in

this block was high and mainly consisted

of potting for crabs, lobster and whelks,

and bottom trawling for whiting.

Section 3.6.3

Section 3.8.1

RWE The RWE Triton Knoll Windfarm

development area lies immediately south

of the Juliet development. The initial

indication is that no proximity agreement

will be needed as the nearest Triton Knoll

turbine location is sufficiently distant.

Consultation has been initiated and is

ongoing.

Section 3.8.7

Ministry of

Defence No Concern Section 3.8.3

National

Federation of

Fishermen's

Organisations

No response received at time of printing. N/A

Natural

England No response received at time of printing. N/A

Consultations and liaison with interested parties is a continuous part of the environmental

management process and will continue throughout the Juliet development.



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 21 of 194


1.6 STRUCTURE OF REPORT The report is presented in six main sections.

Section 1: Introduction provides a background to the project.

Section 2: The Proposed Development provides details of the proposed field development including project overview and option selection, installation of the facilities, drilling operations,

export of oil and decommissioning.

Section 3: Description of the Environment describes the background physical environmental characteristics in the southern North Sea, identifies the flora and fauna likely to be present

within the vicinity of the development and describes other sea users within this area.

Section 4: Environmental Hazards, Effects and Mitigation Measures identifies the potential interactions of the proposed development with the environment and details the control and

mitigation measures to be implemented to limit the impacts.

Section 5: Environmental Management provides an outline of how GDF SUEZ E&P UK will manage the project to ensure protection of the environment throughout the life of the

development.

Section 6: Conclusions of the Environmental Statement

In addition, the report includes a non-technical summary of the environmental assessment,

highlights its main conclusions, and provides a list of references used to obtain data and

information to support the assessment. Further information is also included in the

appendices.

1.7 CONTACT & INFORMATION REQUEST Any questions, comments or requests for additional information regarding the Environmental

Statement shall be addressed to:

EIA Co-ordinator

Environmental Management Team

Energy Development Unit

Department of Energy and Climate Change

4th Floor, Atholl House

86 88 Guild Street Aberdeen, AB11 6AR

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 01224 254019



JF00-06-EB-72-00001 Rev C1 Page 22 of 194


This page is intentionally blank



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 23 of 194


2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 THE JULIET FIELD The Juliet field lies in Block 47/14b on the western flank of the southern gas basin,

approximately 22 kilometres west of the Pickerill A Platform operated by Perenco UK Ltd (refer

to Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Juliet Field Location Map

The Juliet field is a dip closed structure that relies in part on a fault seal, notably at its north -

east flank. The fault seal separates the field from Amethyst East. The reservoir consists of

Aeolian dunes with secondary sandsheet and fluvial deposits of the Permian, Rotliegendes,

Lower Leman Sandstone Formation. The field top seal is provided by evaporates of the

overlying Zechstein Group. The general stratigraphy of the development area is shown in

Figure 2.2

The Juliet field is a dry gas discovery sourced from coals and shales of Westphalian and

Namurian age. The structure was discovered in 2008 by the 47/14b-10 well. This well flowed

gas at a sand constrained rate of 38 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d) from a 20

foot interval of high quality sandstone. Reservoir fluid analysis of samples taken from the

47/14b-10 well indicates that the Juliet field contains gas with some condensate. Th e well

test observed an average condensate to gas ratio (CGR) of 12 barrels per million cubic feet of

gas (bbl/mmscf). No hydrogen sulphide was reported. Formation water can be expected from

both Juliet wells.

Further gas discovery potential in the region exists in a fault block adjacent to the field known

as Juliet West. This structure is believed to be separated from the Juliet field by a north

east/south west trending fault.

GDF SUEZ E&P UK is operator of the Juliet field with a net equity interest of 51.56%. First Oil

has a net equity of 29.44% and Hansa a net equity of 19.00%.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 24 of 194


Figure 2.2. Juliet Stratigraphic Column

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE AND CONCEPT The objective of the project is to produce gas from the as yet undeveloped Juliet field and

export it to shore, using a combination of both new and existing infrastructure. The current

development plan is to drill two new horizontal wells into the structurally high areas of the

field to maintain the maximum standoff distance from the Gas Water Contact (GWC). The first

well will be drilled towards the west of the field and the second towards the east. The wells

will be tied back to the Perenco UK Ltd operated Pickerill A Platform, located in Block 48/11,

via an approximately 22 kilometre long 12 inch export pipeline and control umbilical.

The Juliet export pipeline will be a fully rated carbon steel pipeline. The Juliet flowline will be

routed between the manifold and the new risers on Pickerill A. The flowline will tie-in to the

Pickerill A Platform riser via a spool tied in to a new riser.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 25 of 194


From the Pickerill A Platform, gas from Juliet will be exported onshore to the Conoco Phillips

Theddlethorpe terminal via the existing pipeline from the Pickerill field. On entering the

terminal the gas from Pickerill is processed and any condensate and water separated. The

gas stream is then metered before mixing with other gases and undergoing further processing

in dewpointing and condensate stabilisation facili ties. Gas is then fed into the National Grid

and condensate sent to the Humber Oil Refinery.

The Juliet wells will be monitored by individual gas flow meters and data transmitted through

topside equipment and then by Line of Sight (LOS) to the onshore Bacton terminal. Controls to

the Juliet wells will be via a newly installed control umbilical between the wells and the

Pickerill A Platform. The control umbilical will also carry production chemicals for injection at

each well.

This ES considers the following phases of development:

Offshore Facility Installation and Commissioning

Installation of the Juliet subsea wellheads and protective fishing friendly structures;

Installation of approximately 22 kilometre 12 inch flexible carbon steel pipeline and control umbilical from the Juliet subsea wells to the Pickerill A Platform;

Testing and commissioning of Juliet wellheads, export pipeline and umbilical;

Topsides modifications on Pickerill A Platform.

Development Drilling

The drilling of the Juliet Eastern well (47/14b-J1) from surface location 53033 13.51 North and 0045 20.832 East, targeting the West zone of the Juliet reservoir;

The drilling of the Juliet Western well (47/14b-J2) from surface location 53033 13.26 North and 0o45 21.28 East, targeting the East zone of the Juliet reservoir;

Completion and clean-up of the Juliet development wells.

Production and Maintenance

Export of the Juliet reservoir reserves to the Pickerill A Platform;

Maintenance of facilities.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning of facilities.

These elements, together with a description of the proposed facilities and schedule for

development, are discussed in the following sections.

2.3 DEVELOPMENT OPTION SELECTION Several options were considered for the export route and a screening study undertaken to

identify the option which presented the least risk to the project (GDF Suez E&P UK Ltd, 2011).

To summarise, elements considered as part of the screening study included:

Environmental and safety issues;

Overall capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX);

Commercial issues;

Technical complexity; and

Schedule.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 26 of 194


The options considered included:

Several export routes via mechanical tie-in (subsea and platform);

Several export routes via hot tap (platform only); and

Direct tie-back to the beach (platform only).

An option screening study was undertaken to identify all potential offtake routes for Juliet

fluids. The methodology consisted of a number of important steps prior to final screening and

selection evaluation. These were as follows:

Identification of export route options;

Identify HSE and technical risks associated with each of the options;

Perform preliminary flow assurance work for pipe sizing for each of the export route options;

Determine the likely topsides modifications works associated with each of the export route options;

Produce capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) estimates for each of the proposed development options and perform economics on those;

Perform a series of evaluation workshops to determine the preferred export and development type which best suits the Juliet development;

Identify a preferred solution and progress risk based assessments on schedule, costs and HSE criteria;

Produce a high level project execution plan for the project based on the preferred option.

The major technical issues for the Juliet development concept were as follows:

Selection of the number and types of wells - two horizontal wells have been selected based upon initial subsurface work. Technical review concluded that the wells should

be horizontal completions.

Drilling of the wells initial technical review indicated that the wells should be drilled from a single location. Moreover, the existing suspended 47/14b-10 well will not be

side tracked.

One of the key drivers towards the development type (subsea or platform) was the likelihood and type of intervention required. Whether Juliet could be developed through

the use of subsea completions or a wellhead tower.

The initial host options screening considered all local gas infrastructure in the vicinity of Juliet.

The options considered included tie-backs to surrounding platforms, hot tapping into export

pipelines and a direct tie-back to an onshore terminal. However, most of the options

considered were discounted during the concept selection due to High CAPEX and OPEX costs,

environmental impacts, safety concerns and commercial difficulties.

Following the loss of the Amethyst export route in the desired timeframe, an appraisal of the

options the project was recycled back to concept select with consideration given to the

following options:

Subsea development tied back to Pickerill A Platform

Tie into one of the other platforms in the surrounding area (platforms up to 50 kilometres from Juliet wells were considered)

Hot tap into one of the main export routes in the vicinity.

Tieback to the beach



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 27 of 194


Whilst all of these have previously been considered, the project revisited all options to identify

a clear export route and development type which limits HSE and commercial risks whilst

achieving as early a first gas date as possible.

The methodology followed to reach a final development concept consisted of a number of

important steps prior to this final screening and selection evaluation. These were as follows:

Identification of export route options.

Perform preliminary flow assurance work for pipe sizing for each of the export route options.

Determine the likely topsides modifications works associated with each of the export route options.

Commence and progress (where possible) commercial agreements with each of the export route owners.

Produce CAPEX and OPEX estimates for each of the proposed development options and perform economics on those.

Identify HSE and technical risks associated with each of the options.

Perform a series of evaluation workshops to determine the preferred export and development type which best suits the Juliet development.

Identify a preferred solution and progress risk based assessments on schedule, costs and HSE criteria.

Produce a project execution plan for the project based on the preferred option.

The conclusion of this work has identified the following preferred option for the Juliet

development which represents the least risk in terms of HSE, schedule, cost and technical

difficulty:

Two new horizontal wells completed with sand screens.

A Subsea Development located in 56 metres water depth.

Tieback to the existing Pickerill A Platform

Following the concept selection stage, the following tie-back type was selected.

Pickerill A Platform (Figure 2.3)

Table 2.1 presents the reasons why this export route was chosen.

Table 2.1. Selected Route

Develop

ment

Type

Export

Route

Distance

from

Juliet

Facilities/

Technical/Cost Environmental

Subsea Pickerill A

Riser

22 km Lowest CAPEX and OPEX cost

Least topsides modifications

required

Not the shortest pipeline tie-back

however the Amethyst A2D

platform was

unavailable for

the Juliet works.

Least amount of offshore construction activity therefore

reduces environmental impact

As there is no new platform with this type of development there

is less operational HSE risks

associated with ship collision,

helicopter travel etc

No significant environmental issues with the seabed along

the proposed route



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 28 of 194


Figure 2.3. Pickerill A (Subsea)

As shown in Table 2.1, the Pickerill A Platform with new 12 inch riser tieback option (Figure

2.3) was the preferred development option. The following bullet points detail the key reaso ns

for this.

Subsea Development

The Juliet proposed well locations are in an area of high density shipping, with a major shipping lane routing though the area. The addition of a new platform in this area

would cause a significant potential shipping impact risk. This could potentially result in

the need for a new shipping lane route which would be problematic given the existing

platform infrastructure in this area;

Installation of a new platform would add operational hazards including additional risks from ship collision, helicopter traffic, occupational hazards from operating a new

platform etc. There is also additional risks from a construction perspective during the

installation of the platform;

Less CAPEX and OPEX costs for the development, making it more economical.

Less scheduling risk a subsea option is less complex and therefore installation is more straight forward;

It is expected that minor intervention works on the wells is possible later in the field life of Juliet. These interventions will require a drill rig irrespective as the platform type

considered would have been a small unmanned platform, which could not support

intervention works.

Piggybacking the umbilical to the pipeline was considered but was not technically feasible due to the nature of the seabed sediments along the route.

24 63km Pickerill Theddlethorpe

Pipeline

22km 12 Juliet Pickerill Flowline

and Umbilical

THEDDLETHORPE

Juliet Subsea Wells

2 Wells + 1

Spare

Pickerill A

Tie-in via new 12 Riser

26 CMS pipeline



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 29 of 194


Figure 2.4. Justification diagram for tieback to Pickerill A Platform

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE A provisional project schedule for the Juliet development is shown in Table 2. 2. This

programme may change subject to detailed scheduling and, in particular, availability of the

drilling rig and the fabrication times of various key elements.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 30 of 194


Table 2.2. Preliminary Schedule for key Project Milestones

Task 2012 2013

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

FEED and

Detailed design

Subsea/Topsides

Detailed Design

Installation

Engineering

Topside

Construction

Phase 1

Development

Drilling

Topside

Construction

Phase 2

Subsea

Installation

First gas



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 31 of 194


2.5 PRODUCTION AND EXPORT FACILITIES

2.5.1 Juliet Subsea Facilities

The Juliet subsea facilities will comprise two subsea wells tied into a subsea manifold. The

most likely tie-back option and subsea facilities are shown in Figure 2.5. However, the design

is subject to change once additional engineering studies have been completed. Consideration

will be given to a subsea wet gas meter which will be housed in the manifold. The control

umbilical will come from the Pickerill A Platform and will carry corrosion inhibitor and hydrate

inhibitor and have a wash water injection core for potential Halite treatment. Juliet controls

will be electro-hydraulic and will utilise as much of the existing controls and hydraulic power

as possible to minimise topsides modifications.

Figure 2.5. Diagram of Juliet subsea facilities



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 32 of 194


2.5.2 Gas Export Pipeline and Umbilical

Gas and associated reservoir fluids will be exported from the Juliet development wells via a

new 22 kilometre, 12 inch carbon steel pipeline and tied to the base of a new riser, subsea

(Figure 2.6). A new riser will be installed on the platform. A new J Tube will also be installed

which will house the control umbilical.

Fabricated spool pieces will connect the export pipeline and umbilical to the manifold. The

control umbilical will be terminated subsea with a Subsea Umbilical Termination Unit (SUTU)

which will be housed in the manifold. The manifold will also have rigid pipe work for chemical

injection requirements.

The Juliet export pipeline will have a nominal wall thickness of 20.6 millimetres (wall

thickness to be confirmed during FEED and detailed design). The pipe on the bends and the

tie-in spools may be thicker; however this will be confirmed during a later stage of the Juliet

development.

Chemical injection will be from the Pickerill A Platform via dedicated cores within the control

umbilical. Continuous injection of corrosion inhibitor will be required to protect the carbon

steel pipeline, riser and manifold pipe work.

There will be continuous methanol dosing to inhibit hydrate formation during normal

operations. There may be a requirement for a higher rate of dosing during the start up period.

All chemicals discharged will meet the requirements of the Offshore Chemicals (Amendment)

Regulations, 2011 and will be subject to a PON 15C permit under this legislation .

Consideration will be given to a wet gas meter within the manifold to meter production from

each of the wells.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 33 of 194


Figure 2.6. Juliet Subsea Location and Proposed Export Pipeline / Umbilical Route

(Source GdF)



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 34 of 194


2.5.3 Host Facility

The Pickerill A Platform is located approximately 22 kilometres to the west of the Juliet

development. Perenco is the operator of the Pickerill field, situated in Block 48/11 with both

the Pickerill A and Pickerill B platforms which flow gas through a dedicated pipeline to the

terminal at Theddlethorpe.

Subsea inspection and maintenance is the responsibility of GDF SUEZ E&P UK. Maintenance

of the topsides and riser will be the responsibility of the Pickerill owners, Perenco. However, it

is likely that the inspection of the Subsea infrastructure will be performed by GDF SUEZ E&P

UK as part of an overall inspection programme and any remedial works required will be

performed by GDF SUEZ E&P UK.

The offshore modifications to the Pickerill platform will be undertaken by Perenco wi th

assistance from Juliet owners. The offshore work is envisaged to be carried out during

summer 2012 and Q2/3 2013.

The Juliet flowline will be routed between the manifold and the new risers on Pickerill A. The

selection of the Pickerill A allows for a new riser and J tube to be installed on the platform.

This minimises any concerns over integrity of tying into existing risers. By allowing for a new J

tube, previous concerns over the spare J tube mean that there are fewer restrictions on the

umbilical size.

Currently tie-in of the Juliet pipeline to the Pickerill A riser will come from the west, as

illustrated in Figure 2.7.

No offshore gas processing, water or condensate separation will occur on Pickerill A for the

Juliet gas stream. All processing of Juliet fluids will occur onshore at the Theddlethorpe

terminal.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 35 of 194


Figure 2.7. Pickerill A Platform Approach



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 36 of 194


Host Platform Modifications

Modifications on the Pickerill A Platform required to enable Juliet gas to be processed are as

follows:

Controls tie-in;

Extension of the chemical injection system.

New riser

Pipework tie-in

J-tube

As far as possible the existing controls/Hydraulic Power Units (HPU) will be utilised for the

Juliet development to minimise the modifications required.

The control umbilical will come from the Pickerill A platform and will have a wash water

injection core for halite treatment and will also carry corrosion and hydrate inhibitor. HPUs,

topsides umbilical termination units (TUTU), and chemical injection equipment will be required

to be installed at the Pickerill A platform in addition to communications equipment.

Topsides modifications will include:

The installation of a new riser and J tube to the jacket of the platform. The riser will terminate in a topsides Emergency Shutdown Valve (ESDV) located on a new

sub cellardeck access platform to facilitate access to the ESDV, pig receiver, and

control umbilical termination point.

The Julliet flowline will go up to a new allocation flowmeter and eductor (a type of jet pump) located on a new cantilever platform at the cellar deck level.

Pickerill A & B export line to entrain the Pickerill gas in the co-mingled export flowline, which will be connected to the existing export pipeline to Theddlethorpe.

The Juliet wellhead pressures at the commencement of the Juliet field production life are such that there is a high risk of hydrate formation at the wellhead. To mit igate

against this, the Juliet development will re-commission the mothballed methanol

system on Pickerill A. This system is not capable of supplying methanol to the

upstream side of the subsea choke due to the high gas pressure at the start of field

life, therefore the project will install a methanol booster pump to be used during start -

up to address this requirement. This pump will be installed on the cellar deck

adjacent to the existing methanol facilities.

The installation of a new hydraulic power unit (HPU) located on the upper weather deck for topsides and subsea control motive requirements.

Control of all the new Juliet equipment will be achieved, utilising or augmenting the existing

systems on Pickerill A together with Perenco's onshore control room in Bacton. It should be

noted that notification for construction works for the Subsea and topsides works wil l be done

as separate applications.

2.6 OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION

2.6.1 Pipeline and Umbilical Installation

Pipelay

A rigid reel lay vessel will be commissioned to undertake pipelay operations. The vessel will

be a dynamically positioned offshore construction ship.

The pipeline and umbilical will be laid in separate trenches, approximately 30 metres apart.

Installation of the pipeline will be carried out by two or three reel lay type vessel.

Pipelay operations are expected to take approximately 14 days to complete (not including

mobilisation, demobilisation, transit or weather down time). During this time the pipelay

vessel will lay the pipeline on the seabed ready for trenching.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 37 of 194


On completion of pipelay operations a post lay survey will be undertaken to identify the status

of the installed pipelines and debris incidence. This will take approximately one day to

complete. A pipeline systems strength test, lasting one day will be carried out on the newly

installed pipeline to ensure that it has not been damaged during the installation process. This

will be undertaken from either the pipelay vessel or a dedicated survey vessel.

Trenching

Pipeline trenching operations will employ a pipeline plough or mechanical trenching device

which will be supported from a trenching vessel. During normal operations the plough or

mechanical trenching device will deposit the excavated trench spoil either side of the trench.

The trench will then be mechanically backfilled in a separate operation. Once the pipelay and

backfilling operation have been completed a post lay survey will be carried out.

It is anticipated that the pipeline trench will be approximately one metre deep, allowing the

pipeline and umbilical to be buried below the natural seabed level to a depth sufficient to

ensure at least 0.6 metres cover over the top of the pipe. This figure has been chosen to

minimise upheaval buckling and subsequently the need for rock dumping. The pipeline

corridor width has yet to be confirmed, however it is envisaged that it will be in the order of

approximately 20 metres, including the profile of trench and spoil piles. This figure of 20

metres has been used as it provides the maximum width a typical trenching device can trench.

Given a 20 metre trench width a total effected footprint on the seabed of 440,000 square

metres, based on a 22 kilometre pipeline, is envisaged.

For the trenching of the umbilical it is assumed that a 0.75 metre trench corridor will be

required for the entire 22 kilometre umbilical line. A tota l effected footprint on the seabed of

A 16,500 square metres is therefore expected.

The pipeline route survey found that along the majority of the pipeline route seabed sediments

comprise of intermittent layers of very loose to medium dense slightly silty sand with extensive

chalk outcrops with numerous cobbles and boulders also present. There are also small areas ,

approximately half way along the route, where the seabed comprises loose to medium silty

sand with occasional shell fragments. Towards the landward end of the pipeline route seabed

sediments comprised of very loose to medium silty sand with occasional gravel, and numerous

cobbles and boulders, becoming less gravelly and with fewer boulders as the seabed shoals

(Gardline, 2011). These different sediments will be considered when installing the pipeline

however they are not considered to pose an issue with the installation of the pipeline, any

boulders over 0.4 metres will be displaced if necessary. Trenching and backfilling operations

are expected to take a total of nine days to complete.

Spot rock dumping along the pipeline may be required if the post -installation (out of

straightness) survey shows remedial dumping is required to mitigate upheaval buckling in

specific locations (Figure 2.8). Further rock dump will be required at a permanent subsea

crossing location, where the new Juliet pipeline and umbilical crosses the existing CMS 26

inch export and 4 inch methanol pipelines (PL929 & PL930 respectively). GDF SUEZ E&P UK

is committed to limiting the quantity of rock dumped to keep the impact on the environment

and other users of the sea to a minimum. It is currently envisaged that a maximum of up to

23,000 tonnes may be required for spot rock dumping along the Juliet development to the

Pickerill A Platform covering a total area of 4,600 square metres. This assumes the rock will

be placed at locations of larger imperfections along the pipeline and the 23,000 tonnes will

be laid as spot rock dumps along the proposed route, apart from the permanent c rossing

location where an estimated 2,800 tonnes is required. It has been assumed that the minimum

practical rock placement for the vessel is 2.5 tonnes per metre, which results in a minimum

rock dump height of approximately 0.3 metres based on a rock berm slope of 30 percent.

23,000 tonnes is currently an initial worst case estimate of the quantity of rock which will be

dumped along the proposed pipeline route and has been calculated based on the sediments

found over the Juliet development location to Pickerill A pipeline route and previous rock

dumping experience within the vicinity of the proposed development. The total predicted rock

volume and tonnage will be revisited during detailed design and will be included as part of the

pipeline works authorisation.



JF00-01-EB-108-00001 Rev C1 Page 38 of 194


Figure 2.8. Example of a Spot Rock Dumping Operation over a Fallpipe (AoD, 2009)

Pipeline and Umbilical Tie-Ins

Fabricated spool-pieces

Juliet Environmental Statement 2012

Documents

Transcript of Juliet Environmental Statement 2012