Environmental Impact Assessment

Liza Phase 1 Development Project

Esso Exploration and Production Guyana, Limited
May 2017
www.erm.com
David W. Blaha
ERM Partner

The business of sustainability

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Environmental Impact statement ............................................................................................................ i

EIS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i
EIS 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... iv
EIS 1.1 Project Sponsor ................................................................................................................ iv
EIS 1.2 Project Context ................................................................................................................. iv
EIS 1.3 Purpose of the Project....................................................................................................... v
EIS 1.4 Regulatory Framework and Purpose of this EIA ........................................................ v
EIS 2.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................. vi
EIS 2.1 Drilling and SURF/FPSO Installation .................................................................... vii
EIS 2.2 Production Operations ............................................................................................. viii
EIS 2.3 Decommissioning .......................................................................................................... ix
EIS 2.4 Onshore, Marine, and Aviation Support ................................................................... ix
EIS 2.5 Project Workforce ......................................................................................................... ix
EIS 2.6 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................. x
EIS 2.7 Public Consultation....................................................................................................... x
EIS 2.8 Alternatives .................................................................................................................... x
EIS 3.0 Project Impacts.................................................................................................................... xii
EIS 3.1 Planned Activities .......................................................................................................... xii
EIS 3.1.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................... xii
EIS 3.1.2 Marine Water Quality .............................................................................................. xiii
EIS 3.1.3 Marine Sediments and Marine Benthos .................................................................. xiv
EIS 3.1.4 Marine Biological Resources...................................................................................... xv
EIS 3.2 Unplanned Events ......................................................................................................... xvi
EIS 3.3 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................... xviii
EIS 3.4 Degree of Irreversible Damage ................................................................................... xix
EIS 3.5 Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan .......................................... xix
EIS 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... xx
EIS 4.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... xx
EIS 4.2 Recommendations....................................................................................................... xxii
Environmental Impact Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of this EIA ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 EEPGL Exploration Well Drilling History ........................................................................... 3
1.3 Goals and Objectives of the EIA ............................................................................................ 3
1.4 Components of the EIA ............................................................................................................ 4

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Overview of the Development Concept ............................................................................. 16
2.2.1 Development Concept...................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Management Systems ......................................... 18
2.3 Drilling and Well Design ...................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Drilling Program .............................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2 Typical Well Design ........................................................................................................ 19
2.3.3 Drilling Fluids .................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.4 Well Cleanup and Ancillary Processes ......................................................................... 23
2.4 Subsea, Umbilicals, Risers, and Flowlines ........................................................................ 23
2.4.1 Well Flow Connections ................................................................................................... 25
2.4.2 FPSO Topside Subsea Control System ......................................................................... 26
2.4.3 Risers, Flowlines, Umbilicals, and Manifolds ............................................................ 26
2.5 Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading Vessel ..................................................... 28
2.5.1 General Description ......................................................................................................... 28
2.5.2 FPSO Topsides ................................................................................................................. 32
2.5.3 FPSO Process Systems .................................................................................................... 32
2.5.4 FPSO Utility Systems ..................................................................................................... 35
2.5.5 Power Generation System .............................................................................................. 36
2.5.6 Integrated Control and Safety System (ICSS) ............................................................. 37
2.5.7 Communication Systems ................................................................................................ 37
2.5.8 Additional Vessel Systems ............................................................................................. 37
2.5.9 Safety and Personnel Protection Systems.................................................................... 39
2.6 Installation, Hook-up, and Commissioning ...................................................................... 39
2.7 Production Operations ........................................................................................................... 40
2.7.1 Common Flow Assurance Additives ............................................................................. 41
2.7.2 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Management............................................................................ 42
2.7.3 Marine Safety ................................................................................................................... 42
2.7.4 Offloading Tankers .......................................................................................................... 43
2.8 Onshore, Marine, and Aviation Support ............................................................................ 44
2.8.1 Onshore Supply and Support Activities ....................................................................... 44
2.8.2 Logistical Support ........................................................................................................... 46
2.9 End of Operations (Decommissioning) .............................................................................. 49
2.10 Materials, Emissions, Discharges, and Wastes .................................................................. 49
2.10.1 Materials Inventory......................................................................................................... 50
2.10.2 Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 52
2.10.3 Discharges ......................................................................................................................... 54
2.10.4 Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 57
2.11 Embedded Controls ................................................................................................................ 61
2.12 Project Workforce.................................................................................................................... 64
2.13 Worker Health and Safety ..................................................................................................... 65

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

2.14 Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 65

2.15 Project Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 66
2.16 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 67
2.16.1 Location Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 67
2.16.2 Development Concept Alternatives .............................................................................. 67
2.16.3 Technology Alternatives ................................................................................................. 67
2.16.4 No-go Alternative ............................................................................................................ 68
2.16.5 Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 68
3.0 Administrative Framework ....................................................................................................... 70
3.1 National Legal Framework .................................................................................................... 70
3.1.1 National Constitution of Guyana ................................................................................. 70
3.1.2 The Environmental Protection Act................................................................................ 70
3.1.3 The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act ..................................................... 71
3.1.4 The Petroleum Act............................................................................................................ 71
3.1.5 Other Resource-Specific National Environmental and Social Laws ....................... 72
3.2 National Policy Framework .................................................................................................. 75
3.2.1 National Development Strategy .................................................................................... 75
3.2.2 National Environmental Action Plan .......................................................................... 75
3.2.3 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Action Plan ................................................... 76
3.2.4 Protected Areas Act ......................................................................................................... 76
3.2.5 Guyana's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) .................... 76
3.2.6 Low Carbon Development Strategy and the Green Economy ................................... 77
3.2.7 Guyana Energy Agency’s Strategic Plan ...................................................................... 77
3.3 International Conventions and Protocols ........................................................................... 77
3.4 EEPGL’s Operations Integrity Management System ....................................................... 83
4.0 Methodology for Preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment................................ 85
4.1 Screening .................................................................................................................................. 86
4.2 Scoping and Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 86
4.3 Assessing Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 87
4.4 Interaction with Design and Decision-Making Process .................................................. 87
4.5 Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................... 87
4.5.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ....................................................................................... 88
4.5.2 Stakeholder Identification and Engagement Strategy................................................ 88
4.5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Process .................................................................................. 89
4.5.4 Stakeholder Comments and Considerations ................................................................ 93
4.6 Assessment of Impacts and Identification of Mitigation ................................................ 96
4.7 Mitigation, Management, and Monitoring ...................................................................... 101
5.0 Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................ 103
5.1 The Area of Influence........................................................................................................... 103
5.2 Project Interactions with Environmental and Socioeconomic Receptors................... 106

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

5.3 Resources/Receptors Assessed in the EIA ........................................................................ 107

6.0 Description of the Existing Environment ............................................................................. 115
6.1 Physical Resources ................................................................................................................ 115
6.1.1 Air Quality and Climate ............................................................................................... 115
6.1.2 Sound ............................................................................................................................... 117
6.1.3 Marine Geology and Sediments ................................................................................... 119
6.1.4 Oceanographic Conditions/Marine Water Quality .................................................. 128
6.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 135
6.2.1 Protected Areas and Special Status Species .............................................................. 135
6.2.2 Coastal Habitats............................................................................................................ 141
6.2.3 Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds ................................................................................. 145
6.2.4 Seabirds ........................................................................................................................... 146
6.2.5 Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 151
6.2.6 Marine Turtles ................................................................................................................ 158
6.2.7 Marine Fish ..................................................................................................................... 162
6.2.8 Marine Benthos .............................................................................................................. 167
6.3 Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................................... 173
6.3.1 Administrative Divisions in Guyana ......................................................................... 173
6.3.2 Population Distribution ............................................................................................... 175
6.3.3 Education ........................................................................................................................ 177
6.3.4 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 178
6.3.5 Economy .......................................................................................................................... 180
6.3.6 Employment and Livelihoods ...................................................................................... 190
6.3.7 Community Health and Wellbeing .............................................................................. 196
6.3.8 Marine Use and Transportation .................................................................................. 202
6.3.9 Social Infrastructure and Services............................................................................... 208
6.3.10 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................... 217
6.3.11 Ecosystem Services ........................................................................................................ 222
7.0 Assessment of Potential Impacts ........................................................................................... 225
7.1 Physical Resources ................................................................................................................ 226
7.1.1 Air Quality and Climate ............................................................................................... 226
7.1.2 Sound ............................................................................................................................... 236
7.1.3 Marine Geology and Sediments ................................................................................... 236
7.1.4 Marine Water Quality .................................................................................................. 242
7.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 252
7.2.1 Protected Areas and Special Status Species .............................................................. 252
7.2.2 Coastal Habitats............................................................................................................ 257
7.2.3 Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds ................................................................................. 258
7.2.4 Seabirds ........................................................................................................................... 258
7.2.5 Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 263
7.2.6 Marine Turtles ................................................................................................................ 279

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

7.2.7 Marine Fish ..................................................................................................................... 286

7.2.8 Marine Benthos .............................................................................................................. 295
7.2.9 Ecological Balance and Ecosystems............................................................................ 302
7.3 Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................. 307
7.3.1 Project Activities and Receptors ................................................................................. 307
7.3.2 Economic Conditions .................................................................................................... 309
7.3.3 Employment and Livelihoods ...................................................................................... 312
7.3.4 Community Health and Wellbeing .............................................................................. 317
7.3.5 Marine Use and Transportation .................................................................................. 321
7.3.6 Social Infrastructure and Services............................................................................... 331
7.3.7 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................... 338
7.3.8 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 341
7.3.9 Ecosystem Services ........................................................................................................ 344
7.3.10 Indigenous Peoples ........................................................................................................ 344
7.4 Unplanned Events ................................................................................................................. 345
7.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 345
7.4.2 Physical Resources ........................................................................................................ 365
7.4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 369
7.4.5 Transboundary Impacts ................................................................................................ 395
8.0 Cumulative Impact Assessment ............................................................................................. 400
8.1 Scope of the Cumulative Impact Analysis ....................................................................... 400
8.1.1 Potentially Eligible Resources ..................................................................................... 400
8.1.2 Other (non-Project) Relevant Activities .................................................................... 401
8.1.3 Relevant Resources ........................................................................................................ 402
8.1.4 Geographical Extent of Analysis ................................................................................. 403
8.1.5 Time Frame for Analysis ............................................................................................... 403
8.2 Resource/Receptor-Specific Cumulative Impact Assessment ...................................... 403
8.2.1 Special Status Species ................................................................................................... 403
8.2.2 Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 404
8.2.3 Marine Turtles ................................................................................................................ 405
8.2.4 Marine Fish ..................................................................................................................... 406
8.2.5 Community Health and Wellbeing .............................................................................. 407
8.2.6 Marine Use and Transportation .................................................................................. 408
8.2.7 Social Infrastructure and Services............................................................................... 409
8.2.8 Employment and Livelihoods ...................................................................................... 409
9.0 Environmental and SocioEconomic Management Plan Framework ............................... 411
9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 411
9.2 Regulatory and Policy Framework .................................................................................... 411
9.3 ESMP Structure ..................................................................................................................... 412
9.4 General ESMP Guiding Principles .................................................................................... 414
9.5 Management Plan Contents ................................................................................................ 414

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

9.6 Management of Change ....................................................................................................... 414

10.0 Conclusions and Summary of Impacts ................................................................................. 415
10.1 Planned Events ...................................................................................................................... 415
10.2 Unplanned Events ................................................................................................................. 415
10.3 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................................. 416
10.4 Degree of Irreversible Damage .......................................................................................... 416
10.5 Project Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 416
10.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 417
11.0 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 419
12.0 Project Team ............................................................................................................................... 425
13.0 References................................................................................................................................... 427
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 427
Administrative Framework ............................................................................................................. 427
Description of the Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 427
Physical Resources ........................................................................................................................ 427
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 430
Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................................. 435
Assessment of Potential Impacts ................................................................................................... 439
Physical Resources ........................................................................................................................ 439
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 440
Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................................. 443
Transboundary Impacts ................................................................................................................ 445
Personal Communications .............................................................................................................. 445

List of Tables
Table EIS-1 FPSO Key Design Rates ........................................................................................ viii
Table EIS-2 Resources and Receptors Considered in this EIA ..............................................xii
Table EIS-3 Summary of Production Operations Discharges ...............................................xiv
Table EIS-4 Coastal Resources Potentially Impacted by an Oil Spill ................................ xviii
Table EIS-5 Marine Resources Potentially Impacted by an Oil Spill ................................ xviii
Table EIS-6 Summary of Residual Impact Ratings ................................................................. xxi
Tab1e 1-1 EEPGL Stabroek Exploration Well Drilling History ............................................ 3
Table 1-2 EIA Review Checklist “Roadmap” ......................................................................... 4
Table 2-1 FPSO Key Design Rates .......................................................................................... 29
Table 2-2 Project Materials and Chemicals ........................................................................... 51
Table 2-3 Annual Air Emissions Summary .......................................................................... 53

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 2-4 Summary of Drilling and Completion-Related Discharges .............................. 55

Table 2-5 Summary of Commissioning and Production-Related Discharges ................. 56
Table 2-6 Summary of Estimated Annual Project Waste Generation and Management
Methods .................................................................................................................... 59
Table 2-7 List of Embedded Controls .................................................................................... 61
Table 2-8 Workforce Estimates ............................................................................................... 65
Table 3-1 Resource-Specific Environmental and Social Laws............................................ 72
Table 3-2 International Agreements Relevant to Environmental and Socioeconomic
Issues in Guyana ..................................................................................................... 78
Table 4-1 Themes in Scoping Comments Received and Consideration in EIA ............... 94
Table 4-2 Evaluation of Impact Significance ........................................................................ 97
Table 4-3 Evaluation of Risk ................................................................................................. 100
Table 5-1 Summary of Resources/Receptors Retained for Further Consideration in EIA
and Corresponding Potential Impacts, Primary Sources of Potential Impacts,
and Analytical Approach ..................................................................................... 109
Table 5-2 Resources and Receptors Excluded from Further Consideration in the EIA 113
Table 6-1 Major Geologic Formations of the Guyana Basin ............................................. 119
Table 6-2 Summary Results for Sediment Metals, Reported in µg g-1 dry weight ........ 121
Table 6-3 Summary Results for Sediment Hydrocarbons ................................................ 123
Table 6-4 EBS Water Column Heavy Metals Concentrations .......................................................... 135
Table 6-5 Protected Areas in Guyana .................................................................................. 136
Table 6-7 Definitions of IUCN Red List Threatened Categories .................................... 140
Table 6-8 Seabird Species Known to Occur in Guyana ..................................................... 148
Table 6-9 Marine Mammals with Ranges that include Waters Offshore Guyana ........ 151
Table 6-10 Marine Mammal Species Visually Observed during EEPGL Activities Since
2014.......................................................................................................................... 155
Table 6-11 Data Compiled from PSO Observations June 2014 to September 2016 ......... 156
Table 6-12 Fish Bycatch from the Nearshore Shrimp Trawling Fishery 2012-2015 (mt) 164
Table 6-13 Fish Species Observed in the Stabroek Block during EEPGL Activities Since
2014.......................................................................................................................... 164
Table 6-14 List of Common Macrofauna Families between the 2014 and 2016
Environmental Survey Reports ........................................................................... 169
Table 6-15 Regional Population Distribution in Guyana.................................................... 175
Table 6-16 Economic Sectors and Contribution to GDP, 2015 ........................................... 180
Table 6-17 Primary Characteristics of Marine Fisheries in Guyana .................................. 186
Table 6-18 Health Facilities in the Coastal Regions ............................................................. 199

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 6-19 Number of Educational Facilities in Guyana’s Coastal Regions .................... 213
Table 6-20 Policing Divisions in Guyana ............................................................................. 215
Table 7-1 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Air Quality and Climate ............. 227
Table 7-2 Annual Air Emissions Summary ........................................................................ 228
Table 7-3 WHO Ambient Air Quality Guidelines ............................................................. 230
Table 7-4 Modeling Results Summary at Potential Onshore Receptor Locations ........ 233
Table 7-5 Estimated Annual Project GHG Emissions ....................................................... 235
Table 7-6 Air Quality and Climate - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings .................................................................................................................... 236
Table 7-7 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Geology and Sediments. 237
Table 7-8 Summary of Modeling Results for Drill Cuttings Discharge Scenarios ........ 238
Table 7-9 Marine Geology and Sediments - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings .............................................................................................. 241
Table 7-10 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Water Quality ................. 243
Table 7-11 Summary of TSS Modeling Results for Drill Cuttings Discharge Scenarios 244
Table 7-12 Summary of Project-related Discharges ............................................................. 245
Table 7-13 Summary of Discharges and Modeled Constituents for Installation and
Production Operations ......................................................................................... 248
Table 7-14 Summary of Modeling Results for Most Conservative Bounding Case
(predictions at 100 m reference distance) .......................................................... 250
Table 7-15 Magnitude Ratings for Modeled Hydrotesting and Production Operations
Discharges .............................................................................................................. 251
Table 7-16 Marine Water Quality - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings .................................................................................................................... 252
Table 7-17 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Special Status Species ........................ 254
Table 7-18 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Special Status Species ........ 254
Table 7-19 Special Status Species - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings .................................................................................................................... 256
Table 7-20 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Seabirds ......................................... 259
Table 7-21 Seabirds - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings ........... 263
Table 7-22 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Mammals ......................... 264
Table 7-23 Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS) in
Low-Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs) . 270
Table 7-24 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
1 – FPSO Operations ............................................................................................. 271

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 7-25 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
2 – Installation of the FPSO Vessel, Including Mooring the FPSO and Using
Several Construction and Service Vessels ......................................................... 271
Table 7-26 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
3 – Installation of a Drill Center, Including Operation of a Drill Ship and a
Pipelaying Vessel .................................................................................................. 272
Table 7-27 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
4 – Operation of a Vertical Seismic Profiler ....................................................... 272
Table 7-28 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
5 – Installation of Manifold Foundation Piles ................................................... 272
Table 7-29 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario
6 – Installation of Mooring Piles for the FPSO .................................................. 273
Table 7-30 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Special Status
Species..................................................................................................................... 276
Table 7-31 Impact Magnitude and Receptor Sensitivity Ratings - Marine Mammals .... 276
Table 7-32 Marine Mammals - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
.................................................................................................................................. 278
Table 7-33 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Turtles .............................. 279
Table 7-34 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Special Status
Species..................................................................................................................... 283
Table 7-35 Impact Magnitude and Receptor Sensitivity Ratings - Marine Turtles ......... 284
Table 7-36 Summary of Impacts Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation
Measures - Marine Turtles ................................................................................... 285
Table 7-37 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Fish ................................... 286
Table 7-38 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts to Marine Fish ..... 293
Table 7-39 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Marine Fish ...... 294
Table 7-40 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation
Measures - Marine Fish ........................................................................................ 294
Table 7-41 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Benthos ............................ 296
Table 7-42 Area of Benthic Habitat Disturbed by FPSO and SURF Subsea Infrastructure
Installation .............................................................................................................. 299

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 7-43 Marine Benthos - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
.................................................................................................................................. 301
Table 7-44 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts to Ecological Balance
and Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 304
Table 7-45 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Ecological Balance
and Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 306
Table 7-46 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation
Measures – Ecological Balance and Ecosystems ............................................... 306
Table 7-47 Socioeconomic Receptors and Potential Impacts as a Result of Project
Activities ................................................................................................................. 308
Table 7-48 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Economic Conditions .................. 310
Table 7-49 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity for Impacts to Economic Conditions .. 311
Table 7-50 Economic Conditions – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings .................................................................................................................... 312
Table 7-51 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Employment and Livelihoods .... 313
Table 7-52 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Employment and
Livelihoods ............................................................................................................. 314
Table 7-53 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Employment and Livelihood
Impacts.................................................................................................................... 315
Table 7-54 Employment and Livelihoods – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings .............................................................................................. 316
Table 7-55 Project Activities and Potential Impacts - Community Health and Wellbeing
.................................................................................................................................. 318
Table 7-56 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Community Health and
Wellbeing................................................................................................................ 318
Table 7-57 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Community Health and
Wellbeing Impacts................................................................................................. 320
Table 7-58 Community Health and Wellbeing – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings .............................................................................................. 321
Table 7-59 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Use and Transportation . 323
Table 7-60 Definitions for Scale Ratings - Potential Impacts on Maritime Use and
Transportation ....................................................................................................... 325
Table 7-61 Magnitude Ratings – Potential Impacts on Marine Use and Transportation326
Table 7-62 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings – Potential Impacts to Maritime
Use and Transportation ........................................................................................ 326
Table 7-63 Sensitivity Ratings for Marine Use and Transportation Receptors ................ 327

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 7-64 Marine Use and Transportation Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings .............................................................................................. 329
Table 7-65 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Social Infrastructure and Services
(Housing and Utilities) ......................................................................................... 331
Table 7-66 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Housing and Utilities
.................................................................................................................................. 332
Table 7-67 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Housing and Utilities Impacts
.................................................................................................................................. 332
Table 7-68 Housing and Utilities Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings .................................................................................................................... 333
Table 7-69 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Onshore and Air Transportation334
Table 7-70 Magnitude of Impacts – Onshore and Air Transportation ............................. 335
Table 7-71 Receptor Sensitivity Ratings – Onshore and Air Transportation ................... 336
Table 7-72 Onshore and Air Transportation – Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual
Impacts.................................................................................................................... 337
Table 7-73 Summary of Relevant Project Activities and Potential Key Impacts ............. 338
Table 7-74 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Cultural Heritage
Impacts.................................................................................................................... 339
Table 7-75 Definitions for Sensitivity Ratings for Potential Impacts on Cultural Heritage
.................................................................................................................................. 340
Table 7-76 Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impacts – Cultural Heritage....... 341
Table 7-77 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Land Use ....................................... 342
Table 7-78 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Land Use .................. 342
Table 7-79 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Land Use Impacts .............. 343
Table 7-80 Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impacts – Land Use ..................... 343
Table 7-81 Levels of Likelihood for Unplanned Event Impact Assessment .................... 345
Table 7-82 Possible Hydrocarbon Spill Scenarios by Tier .................................................. 347
Table 7-83 Oil Thickness (g/m2) and Appearance on Water (NRC, 1985) ....................... 352
Table 7-84 Resources/Receptors Potentially Impacted by Unplanned Events ............... 365
Table 7-85 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts to Air Quality ............................................... 366
Table 7-86 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Geology and Sediments .......... 367
Table 7-87 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Water Quality ......................................... 369
Table 7-88 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Protected Areas and Special Status
Species..................................................................................................................... 372
Table 7-89 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Coastal Habitats ..................................... 373
Table 7-90 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds .......... 375

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Table 7-91 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Seabirds ................................................... 376
Table 7-92 Risk Ratings for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Mammals ................................. 377
Table 7-93 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Turtles ........................................ 378
Table 7-94 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Fish ............................................. 380
Table 7-95 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Benthos ...................................... 382
Table 7-96 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Ecological Balance and Ecosystems .... 384
Table 7-97 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Economic Conditions / Employment and
Livelihoods ............................................................................................................. 386
Table 7-98 Risk Rating for Oil Spill and Vehicle/Vessel Impacts on Community Health
and Wellbeing ........................................................................................................ 388
Table 7-99 Risk Rating for Oil Spill/Vessel Collision on Marine Use and Transportation
.................................................................................................................................. 389
Table 7-100 Risk Rating for Oil Spill and Vehicular Accident Risks to Social Infrastructure
and Services ........................................................................................................... 390
Table 7-101 Summary of Oil Spill Risk to Cultural Heritage ............................................... 391
Table 7-102 Potential Ecosystem Services Receptors and Impacts from a Large Marine Oil
Spill.......................................................................................................................... 393
Table 7-103 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Ecosystem Services ................................ 393
Table 7-104 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Indigenous Peoples................................ 395
Table 8-1 Eligibility of Resources/Receptors for Cumulative Impact Analysis ........... 401
Table 8-2 Identification of Relevant Resources/Receptors for the Cumulative Impact
Analysis .................................................................................................................. 402
Table 10-1 Summary of Residual Impact Ratings ................................................................ 418
Table 11-1 List of Proposed Embedded Controls ................................................................ 420
Table 11-2 List of Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 423
Table 12-1 Project Team........................................................................................................... 425

List of Figures
Figure EIS-1 Location of the Liza Project Development Area within the Stabroek Block ..... v
Figure EIS-2 Preliminary Liza Phase 1 Field Layout .................................................................vi
Figure EIS-3 Typical Drill Ship ................................................................................................... vii
Figure EIS-4 FPSO ......................................................................................................................... vii
Figure EIS-5 Typical FPSO Offloading to a Conventional Tanker........................................... ix
Figure EIS-6 Preliminary Project Schedule................................................................................... x

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Figure 1-1 Location of the Liza Project Development Area within the Stabroek Block ..... 1
Figure 2-1 Subsea Project Development Area for FPSO Installation, SURF, and Drill
Centers within Stabroek Block .............................................................................. 14
Figure 2-2 Surface Project Development Area for FPSO and Drill Centers within
Stabroek Block ......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-3 Preliminary Liza Phase 1 Field Layout ................................................................ 17
Figure 2-4 Typical Drill Ship .................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-5 Provisional Casing Program for Development Drilling Program.................... 20
Figure 2-6 Typical Subsea Drilling System............................................................................. 22
Figure 2-7 Representative SURF System ................................................................................ 24
Figure 2-8 Example of Wire Brush Cleaning Pig ................................................................... 24
Figure 2-9 Representative Subsea Trees, FLETs, Jumpers, and Manifold ......................... 25
Figure 2-10 Representation of Riser Connected to FPSO ....................................................... 26
Figure 2-11 Representative Integrated Dynamic Umbilical Cross Section .......................... 27
Figure 2-12 Representative Subsea Manifold........................................................................... 28
Figure 2-13 Computer Simulated Picture of Planned Liza Phase 1 FPSO ........................... 30
Figure 2-14 General Schematic of a Converted FPSO Topsides and Hull ........................... 31
Figure 2-15 Process Flow Diagram ............................................................................................ 33
Figure 2-16 General Offloading Configuration ....................................................................... 38
Figure 2-17 Preliminary Safety Exclusion Zones during Drilling, Installation, and
Offloading Operations............................................................................................ 43
Figure 2-18 Typical Shorebase Quay ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 2-19 Typical Laydown Yard ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 2-20 Typical Logistics Support Vessels......................................................................... 47
Figure 2-21 Potential Drilling and Operations Stage Peak Fleet Profile .............................. 48
Figure 2-22 Typical Waste Management Facilities at a Local Shorebase ............................. 60
Figure 2-23 Vertical Infrared Unit with Wet Scrubber and Oxidizer at Typical Waste
Management Facilities ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 2-24 Preliminary Project Schedule................................................................................. 66
Figure 3-1 Operations Integrity Management System.......................................................... 84
Figure 4-1 Environmental Application Invitation for Public Comment ............................ 91
Figure 4-2 Sample Draft Terms of Reference Invitation for Public Comment - Regions 2
and 3 .......................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4-3 Impact Prediction and Evaluation Process .......................................................... 98
Figure 5-1 Direct Area of Influence ....................................................................................... 104

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Figure 5-2 Indirect Area of Influence .................................................................................... 105

Figure 6-1 Typical Distribution of Mudbanks and Mangroves on Guyana’s Coast ...... 120
Figure 6-2 Marine Currents in the Vicinity of the Project Development Area................ 130
Figure 6-3 Vector Stick Plot for Stations on the Stabroek LADCP Transect .................... 131
Figure 6-4 LADCP Locations .................................................................................................. 132
Figure 6-5 Protected Areas of Guyana .................................................................................. 137
Figure 6-6 Shell Beach Protected Area .................................................................................. 138
Figure 6-7 Guyana’s Ecoregions ............................................................................................ 142
Figure 6-8 Guyana’s Mangrove Distribution (Georgetown west to Venezuelan Border)
.................................................................................................................................. 144
Figure 6-9 Mangrove Photographs ........................................................................................ 144
Figure 6-10 Location of IBAs with Importance to Seabirds Relative to Stabroek Block .. 150
Figure 6-11 Locations of Marine Mammal Sightings Relative to the Stabroek Block ...... 157
Figure 6-12 Location of Sea Turtle Sightings and Satellite Tracks Relative to the Stabroek
Block ........................................................................................................................ 161
Figure 6-13 Approximate Locations of Biological Observations Made Since 2014 .......... 165
Figure 6-14 Abundance of Major Taxonomic Groups Identified in 2016 EBS................... 169
Figure 6-15 Benthos Photographed in the Vicinity of the Liza-1 Well ............................... 170
Figure 6-16 Representative Photographs of the Circa-Littoral Sandy Mud Biotope
Photographed in the Vicinity of the Liza-1 Well .............................................. 172
Figure 6-17 Guyana’s Administrative Regions and Townships.......................................... 174
Figure 6-18 Regional Distribution of Ethnicity, 2012 ........................................................... 176
Figure 6-19 Amerindian Population by Region, 2012 .......................................................... 177
Figure 6-20 Land Cover in Coastal Guyana ........................................................................... 179
Figure 6-21 Rice Field in Region 2 Pomeroon-Supenaam .................................................... 181
Figure 6-22 Annual Rice Production, 2011-2015 .................................................................... 182
Figure 6-23 Sluice Gate (Koker) in Charity (Region 2) at High Tide .................................. 183
Figure 6-24 Aerial View of Sugar Plantations in Region 2 ................................................... 184
Figure 6-25 Annual Sugar Production, 2011-2015 ................................................................. 184
Figure 6-26 Annual Coconut Production, 2011-2015 ............................................................ 185
Figure 6-27 Commercial Fisheries Catch Volumes, 2007-2015 ........................................... 187
Figure 6-28 Fish Yields from Aquaculture, 2009-2015 .......................................................... 188
Figure 6-29 Annual International Visitors to Guyana, 2000-2015 ....................................... 190
Figure 6-30 Salted Fish Drying Outside a Fisherperson’s Home in Region 2 ................... 192
Figure 6-31 Fresh Fish Being Sold at Stabroek Market in Georgetown .............................. 192

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Figure 6-32 Fishing Boat Landed on a Coastal Mudflat in Region 2, September 2016 .... 194
Figure 6-33 Speedboats Docked in Parika, Region 3............................................................ 195
Figure 6-34 Malaria Incidence by Region, 2010 ..................................................................... 197
Figure 6-35 TB Incidence Rate by Region, 2010 ..................................................................... 198
Figure 6-36 Annual Number of HIV and AIDS Cases, 2001-2014....................................... 198
Figure 6-37 Percent of Population with Access to Improved Water Sources by Region,
2014.......................................................................................................................... 200
Figure 6-38 Percent of Population with Electricity by Region, 2014 ................................... 201
Figure 6-39 Household Access to Telecommunications, 2014 ............................................. 202
Figure 6-40 Offshore Shipping Lanes ...................................................................................... 205
Figure 6-41 Fishing Zones and Ports ....................................................................................... 206
Figure 6-42 Maritime Transportation Facilities ..................................................................... 207
Figure 6-43 Proportion of Housing Types by Region ........................................................... 208
Figure 6-44 Proportion of Home Ownership Types by Coastal Region ............................ 209
Figure 6-45 Demerara Harbour Bridge ................................................................................... 210
Figure 6-46 Electricity Generation in Guyana, 2009-2015 .................................................... 212
Figure 6-47 Locations of Schools that Occur in Near-coastal Portions of Regions 1-6..... 214
Figure 6-48 Locations of Security Facilities in Immediate Vicinity of Guyana’s Coast ... 216
Figure 6-49 SSS Targets UD08, UD011, and UD021 Found within the Main AUV Survey
Area ......................................................................................................................... 219
Figure 6-50 SSS Target SC17 in the Main AUV Survey Area............................................... 220
Figure 6-51 SSS Target SC110 in the Main AUV Survey Area............................................. 220
Figure 6-52 SSS Mosaic Showing SSS Targets, Including the Potential SGSCS Trinidad-
Guyana Cable, in the Skipjack Survey Area ...................................................... 221
Figure 7-1 Evaluation of Impact Significance ...................................................................... 225
Figure 7-2 Air Quality Modeling Domain ............................................................................ 232
Figure 7-3 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts on Air Quality..... 234
Figure 7-4 Auditory Weighting Functions for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as
Recommended by Southall el al. (2007) ............................................................. 267
Figure 7-5 Auditory Weighting Functions for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as
Recommended by Finneran (2015) ..................................................................... 267
Figure 7-6 Sediment Sample Locations and Deposition Areas ......................................... 298
Figure 7-7 Unplanned Events Risk Matrix ........................................................................... 345
Figure 7-8 Typical Impacts on Marine Organisms across a Range of Oil Classes .......... 350
Figure 7-9 Weathering Processes Acting on Spilled Oil ..................................................... 350

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Figure 7-10 Stochastic Map for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of Crude
Oil (December through May) .............................................................................. 354
Figure 7-11 Deterministic Map for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of
Crude Oil (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate .......... 355
Figure 7-12 Deterministic Map for Scenario 8 – Mitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of Crude
Oil (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate ...................... 356
Figure 7-13 Oil Mass Balance Graph for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of
Crude Oil (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate .......... 357
Figure 7-14 Stochastic Map for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day Release of
Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May) .............................................. 358
Figure 7-15 Deterministic Map for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day
Release of Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May) Depicting
Weathering and Fate ............................................................................................. 359
Figure 7-16 Deterministic Map for Scenario 9 – Mitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day Release
of Crude Oil for 21 days (December through May) Depicting Weathering and
Fate .......................................................................................................................... 360
Figure 7-17 Oil Mass Balance Graph for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day
Release of Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May) Depicting
Weathering and Fate ............................................................................................. 361
Figure 9-1 ESMP Structure...................................................................................................... 413

VOLUME II-TECHNICAL APPENDICES

A: Signatures for EIA Preparers

B: EIA Team CVs
C: EIA Review Checklist
D: Air Quality Monitoring Report
Executive Summary
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Monitoring Approach
Instrumentation
Quality control/Quality assurance
Results

E: 2014 EBS Report

Introduction and EBS Objectives

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Field and Analytical Methods

Water Column Results
Sediment Physical and Chemical Results
Benthic Macrofauna Results
Evaluation of Data Quality
References
F: 2016 EBS Report
Introduction and Scope of Work
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Appendices
G: Flora and Fauna of Shell Beach
Avifauna of Shell Beach
Herpetofauna of Shell Beach
Mammals of Shell Beach
Fishes of Shell Beach
Plants of Shell Beach
Macroinvertebrates of Shell Beach
H: IUCN Listed Species
I: Birds of Guyana
J: MMO Executive Summaries and Summary of Data
Executive Summary
Introduction
Methodology
Survey Data
Protected Species Summary Table
K: List of Marine Fishes of Guyana
L: Air Quality Modeling Report
Introduction
Air Quality Modeling Methodology
Model Results
M: Water Quality Modeling Report
Introduction
Drill Cuttings and Deposition Modelling

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Table of Contents

Offshore Discharges Modelling

References
N: Underwater Noise Modeling Report
Introduction
Acoustic Effects Criteria
Methods
Model Parameters
Results
Discussion
Glossary
Literature Cited
Appendix A: Underwater Acoustics

VOLUME III-ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction and Scope

Environmental and Socioceconomic Framework
Project Specific Management Plans

VOLUME IV-OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLAN

Introduction
Scope
Initial Response Actions
Oil Spill Scenarios
Response Strategies
Response Strategy Implementation
Response Resources
Exercises and Training
Appendices

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms
% ................................... percent
%BFROC ...................... percentage of base fluid retained on cuttings
°C .................................. degrees Celsius
µg/m3 .......................... micrograms per cubic meter
μPa................................ micro pascal
AASM .......................... Airgun Array Source Model
AMS ............................. Alarm Management System
AOI .............................. Area of Influence
AQS .............................. air quality standards
AUV ............................. Automated Underwater Vehicle
bbl ................................. barrel(s)
BOEM........................... U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BOP .............................. blowout preventer
BOPD ........................... barrels of oil per day
CARICOM ................... Caribbean Community
CBP ............................... chlorinated by-products
CCC .............................. criterion continuous concentrations
CCR .............................. central control room
CFC............................... chlorofluorocarbon
CITES ........................... Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
CMC ............................. criterion maximum concentrations
CO ................................ carbon monoxide
COLREG ...................... Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea
CPACC ........................ Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change
CPI ................................ Carbon preference index
CR ................................. Critically Endangered
CREE ............................ Center for Rural Empowerment and the Environment
CSC ............................... International Convention for Safe Containers
CTD .............................. conductivity, temperature, and depth
dB.................................. decibel
DC................................. drill center
DDIA ............................ Declared Drainage and Irrigation Areas
DP ................................. Dynamic Positioning
EBS ............................... environmental baseline surveys
EEA .............................. European Environment Agency
EEPGL.......................... Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited
EIA................................ Environmental Impact Assessment
EITI ............................... Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
EMT .............................. emergency medical technician
EN ................................. Endangered
EPA .............................. Guyanese Environmental Protection Agency
ESMP ............................ Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan
EUNIS .......................... European Nature Information System

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

EX ................................. Extinct
EZZ ............................... Exclusive Economic Zone
F&G .............................. Fire and Gas
FAL ............................... Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic
FEED ............................ Front-End Engineering and Design
FGSI .............................. Fugro GeoServices Incorporated
FLET ............................. flowline end termination
FPSO............................. Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading
FSO ............................... Floating Storage and Offloading
FSV ............................... Fast Supply Vessel
ft .................................... Feet/Foot
Fugro ............................ Fugro Marine Geoservices, Inc.
Fugro EMU ................. Fugro EMU Limited
FWRAM ....................... Full Waveform Range-dependent Acoustic Model
GDP .............................. Gross Domestic Product
GEA .............................. Guyana Energy Agency
GEMSS-GIFT............... Generalized Integrated Fate and Transport
GGMC .......................... Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
GHG ............................. greenhouse gas
GINA............................ Government Information Agency
GLSC ............................ Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission
GMPHOM ................... Guide to Manufacturing and Purchasing Hoses for Offshore Moorings
GPHC ........................... Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation
GRA.............................. Guyana Revenue Authority
GT&T ........................... Guyana Telephone & Telegraph
GuySuCo ..................... Guyana Sugar Corporation
GWI .............................. Guyana Water Inc.
GYD .............................. Guyanese dollar
H2S ............................... hydrogen sulfide
ha .................................. hectares
HFC .............................. High-frequency cetaceans
HVAC .......................... Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBA................................ Important Bird Area
ICSS .............................. Control and Safety System
ICZM ............................ Integrated Coastal Zone Management
IDB................................ Inter-American Development Bank
IFC ................................ International Finance Corporation
ILO................................ International Labor Organization
IMF ............................... International Monetary Fund
IMO .............................. International Maritime Organization
IOGP............................. International Oil and Gas Producers
ITCZ ............................. Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone
IUCN ............................ International Union for Conservation of Nature
IUU ............................... Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
IWC .............................. International Whaling Commission
JNCC ............................ Joint Nature Conservation Committee
kbd................................ thousands of barrels per day

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

kHz ............................... kilohertz

km ................................. kilometers
LADCP......................... Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
LC ................................. Least Concern
LCDS ............................ Low Carbon Development Strategy
LFC ............................... Low-frequency cetaceans
LME .............................. Large Marine Ecosystem
MA................................ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MACT .......................... Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration
MARAD ....................... Maritime Administration
MARPOL 73/78.......... International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973,
as modified by the Protocol of 1978
MBES ............................ multi-beam echo sounder
MDG............................. Millennium Development Goal
MFC.............................. Mid-frequency cetaceans
mg/L ............................ milligrams per liter
mi .................................. miles
MICS ............................ Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
MMO ............................ marine mammal observation/observer
MOC ............................. North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
MONM ........................ Marine Operations Noise Model
MoNRE ........................ Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
MPV ............................. Multi-Purpose Vessel
MSC ............................. Marine Sustainability Council
mscfd ............................ million standard cubic feet per day
MW ............................... megawatt
M-weighted ................. Auditory weighting functions for marine mammals
N/A.............................. not applicable
NABF ........................... non-aqueous base fluid
NADF ........................... non-aqueous drilling fluid
NBC .............................. North Brazil Current
NBSAP ......................... National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NDC ............................. Neighbourhood Democratic Councils
NDIA............................ National Drainage and Irrigation Authority
NDS .............................. National Development Strategy
NTD.............................. Neglected Tropical Diseases
NEAP ........................... National Environmental Action Plan
NGO ............................. non-governmental organization
nm................................. nautical mile
NO2 ............................... nitrogen dioxide
NOAA .......................... U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOM ............................ naturally occurring organic matter
NT ................................. Near Threatened
O&G ............................. oil and grease
OAS .............................. Organization of American States
OCIMF ......................... Oil Companies International Marine Forum

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

OI .................................. Operations Integrity

OIMS ............................ Operations Integrity Management System
OSH .............................. Occupational Safety and Health
OSR............................... Oil Spill Response
OSRP ............................ Oil Spill Response Plan
P&A .............................. plugged and abandoned
PA/GA ........................ public address and general alarm system
PAH.............................. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PC ................................. Project Contribution
PCS ............................... Process Control System
PDA .............................. Project Development Area
PEC ............................... Predicted Environmental Concentration
PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of less than 10
micrometers
PM2.5 ............................. particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5
micrometers
POB .............................. personnel on board
POP .............................. Persistent Organic Pollutant
ppb ............................... parts per billion
PPE ............................... personal protective equipment
ppm .............................. parts per million
ppt ................................ parts per thousand
Pr/Ph Ratio ................. Ratio of pristane to phytane
Project .......................... Liza Phase 1 Development Project
PSC ............................... Private Sector Commission
PSV ............................... Platform Supply Vessel
PTS ............................... Permanent Threshold Shift
RMS .............................. root mean square
RO................................. reverse osmosis
ROV .............................. remotely operated vehicle
SBP................................ sub-bottom profiler
SBPA ............................ Shell Beach Protected Area
SC.................................. Scientific Committee
SCAT ............................ Shoreline Clean-up Assessment Technique
SDU .............................. Subsea Distribution Unit
SEA ............................... Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEL ............................... sound exposure level
SEP................................ Stakeholder Engagement Plan
SGSCS .......................... Suriname-Guyana Submarine Cable System
SHC .............................. Saturated and aliphatic hydrocarbons
SIS ................................. Safety Instrumented System
SO2 ................................ sulfur dioxide
SOLAS.......................... International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
SPAW ........................... Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
SPL................................ sound pressure level
SRU............................... Sulfate Removal Unit
SSHE ............................ Safety, Security, Health, and Environment

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

STCW ........................... International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping
SURF ............................ Subsea, Umbilicals, Risers, and Flowlines
TB.................................. Tuberculosis
THC .............................. total hydrocarbons
TIP ................................ Technical Information Paper
TOC .............................. total organic carbon
ToR ............................... Terms of Reference
TSS ................................ total suspended solids
TV ................................. Tug Vessel
UCM ............................. Unresolved complex mixture
UNAIDS ...................... Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS
UNESCO...................... United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCC ........................ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UPS ............................... uninterruptible power supply
USD .............................. U.S. Dollars
USEPA ......................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VLCC ........................... Very Large Crude Carrier
VOC.............................. volatile organic compounds
VSP ............................... Vertical Seismic Profile
VU ................................ Vulnerable
WBDF ........................... water-based drilling fluids
WHO ............................ World Health Organization
WRC ............................. Wider Caribbean Region
WRF.............................. Weather Research and Forecasting

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

Glossary

Term Definition
Anthropogenic Made by humans, or attributable to human activity.
Barrel The basic unit for measuring oil. A barrel is equal to 42 U.S. gallons.
Biogenic Made by living organisms, or attributable to the activity of living organisms.
Increasing concentration of a persistant substance, usually a pollutant or
Biomagnification toxin, in the tissues of organisms at successively higher levels in a food
chain
A deep, narrow hole drilled in the earth for the purpose of extracting a core,
Borehole (or wellbore)
releasing gas, oil, water, etc.
Steel pipe inserted into an oil or gas well to prevent the wall of the borehole
from caving in, to prevent movement of fluids from one formation to
Casing
another, and to improve the efficiency of extracting petroleum (for
producing wells).
Circumtropical Distributed throughout the world's tropical latitudes.
Tending to gather in large groups on a cyclical or otherwise regular and/or
Congregatory
predictable basis
Liquid petroleum as it comes out of the ground. The properties of crude oil,
Crude oil
such as color, gravity, and viscosity, can vary.
Broken bits of solid material produced as the drill bit advances through the
Cuttings (or drill borehole in the rock or soil. Cuttings are usually carried to the surface by
cuttings) the drilling fluid circulating up from the drill bit, and can be separated from
the drilling fluid using a variety of treatment methods (e.g., centrifuge).
A well drilled in a proven area in a field for the purposes of producing
Development well
hydrocarbons.
A self-propelled floating offshore drilling unit that is a ship constructed to
Drill ship permit a well to be drilled from it. Drill ships are generally the preferred
option for drilling wells in deep, remote waters.
Specially-formulated fluids which are typically a mixture of barite, clay,
water, and other chemical additives. Drilling fluids are circulated into the
Drilling fluids
borehole to lubricate and cool the rotary drill bit, to lift the cuttings out of
the borehole and to the surface, and to help maintain well control.
A unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one
Equivalent barrels (or barrel of crude oil. Quantities of natural gas and natural gas liquids are
barrel of oil equivalent often translated into barrels of oil equivalent (BOE). The energy content of
[BOE]) six thousand cubic feet of gas (6 MCF) is roughly equivalent to one barrel of
oil.

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

Term Definition
The search for oil and gas. Exploration operations include aerial surveys,
Exploration geophysical surveys, geological studies, core testing and the drilling of test
(wildcat) wells.
A well drilled to 1) find oil or gas in an undiscovered or unproven area
Exploratory well
(wildcat), or 2) extend the limits or depths of a known area.
In the oil industry: A system of piping and burners used to dispose (by
Flare (or Flaring)
burning) of surplus gas or vapors produced with the oil.
A floating vessel that is used for offshore oil and gas operations and is
Floating Production
designed to process hydrocarbons and store oil until the oil can be offloaded
Storage and
onto a tanker ship or transported via pipeline. The processing equipment
Offloading (FPSO)
(or topsides) is located on the FPSO’s deck, while the oil storage is below the
vessel
deck within the hull of the vessel.
The surface pipe through which oil travels from a well to processing
Flowline
equipment or to storage.
A way in which pressure vessels such as pipelines, plumbing, gas cylinders,
boilers and fuel tanks can be tested for strength and leaks. The test involves
filling the vessel or pipe system with a liquid, usually water, which may be
Hydrostatic test
dyed to aid in visual leak detection, and pressurizing the vessel to the
specified test point. Pressure tightness can be tested by shutting off the
supply valve and observing whether there is a pressure loss.
Fish eggs and larvae that drift with the ocean currents, usually near the
Ichthyoplankton
surface, prior to developing directional swimming ability.
A well in which fluids, such as gas or water, are injected to increase
Injection well pressure in the reservoir and drive the oil remaining in the reservoir to the
vicinity of production wells.
Type of gridless atmospheric model in which pollutant particles move
according to the wind field, buoyancy, and turbulence effects. Term is often
Lagrangian
used to differentiate such models from Eulerian models, which use a
gridded field.
An area that has been cleared for the temporary storage of equipment and
supplies. Laydown areas are usually covered with rock and/or gravel to
Laydown area
ensure accessibility and safe maneuverability for transport and offloading of
vehicles.
A specific area of water where persons, vessels, and other activities are
Marine safety prohibited as the area has been designated for exclusive use by an activity; a
exclusion zone form of safety control measure utilized to keep unauthorized persons and
vessels away from a higher risk activity/event.
A highly compressible, highly expansible mixture of hydrocarbons, which
Natural gas at atmospheric conditions of temperatures and pressure, are in a gaseous
phase.

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

Term Definition
The surface area covering one or more reservoirs containing oil. The oil
Oil field field also usually includes the reservoir, the wells, and the production
equipment, etc.
Overboard water Another name for produced water or brine produced from oil and gas wells.
An immobile structure used in offshore drilling on which the drilling rig,
Platform
crew quarters, and other related items are located.
The sealing off of the fluids in the stratum penetrated by a well so that the
Plugging of well
fluid from one stratum will not escape into another or to the surface.
Water that comes up a well with the oil and gas. Produced water is usually
high in salinity. After leaving the well, the produced water is separated
Produced water
from the oil and gas. Can also be referred to as formation water, saltwater,
or oilfield brine.
A well that is used to retrieve petroleum or gas from an underground
Production well
deposit.
The facility where the characteristics of petroleum or petroleum products
Refinery
are changed.
A porous and permeable sedimentary rock containing commercial
Reservoir
quantities of oil and gas.
The pipe and special fittings used on floating offshore drilling rigs to
establish a seal between the top of the wellbore, which is on the ocean floor,
and the drilling equipment, located above the surface of the water. A riser
pipe serves as a guide for the drill stem from the drilling vessel to the
Risers wellhead and as a conductor of drilling fluid from the well to the vessel. The
riser consists of several sections of pipe and includes special devices to
compensate for any movement of the drilling rig caused by waves. Risers
are also used to connect subsea equipment to a surface facility such as an
FPSO.
The land based facility that provides logistical and material support for
Shorebase
offshore activities and facilities.
A group of mooring lines distributed from the bow and stern of a vessel
(FPSO) to anchors on the seafloor. The vessel is positioned in a fixed
heading, which is determined by the sea and weather conditions. The
Spread mooring
symmetrical arrangement of anchors helps to keep the vessel on its fixed
anchor system
heading location. The spread mooring system does not allow the vessel to
weathervane, which means to rotate in the horizontal plane due to wind,
waves or current.
The outer layer of large diameter, heavy-wall pipe installed in wells drilled
from floating installations to isolate very shallow sediments from
Structural casing
subsequent drilling, resist the bending moments imposed by the marine
riser, and to help support the wellhead installed on the conductor casing.

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project List of Acronyms

Term Definition
The assembly of valves, pipes and fittings used to control the flow of oil and
Tree
gas from the casing head.
A structure that is installed at the top of a natural oil or gas well. Its main
function is to ensure a safe operation and manage the flow of oil or gas from
the well into the gathering-system. It is a system composed of valves, spools
Wellhead
and assorted adapters that control the pressure of the production well. It
acts as an interface between the surface facilities and the casing-strings in
the wellbore.

May 2017
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

EIS Executive Summary

Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) proposes the “Liza Phase 1
Development Project” (Project) to develop the Liza field located in the Stabroek Block offshore
Guyana. EEPGL obtained an offshore prospecting license for the Stabroek Block from the
Government of Guyana. In 2015, oil was discovered in the Liza field within the eastern half of
the Stabroek Block approximately 190 km (~120 mi) offshore from Georgetown in waters
approximately 1,500 to 1,900 meters (m) deep. Subsequent surveys and exploratory drilling
have identified a reservoir of oil in a sandstone formation approximately 3,600 m below the
seabed (approximately 5,400 m below sea level). This reservoir is estimated to have a
recoverable resource of 0.8 to 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels.
EEPGL (45%), together with Hess Guyana Exploration Limited (30%) and CNOOC Nexen
Petroleum Guyana Limited (25%), are parties to a Petroleum Agreement with the Government
of Guyana. Under this agreement, and in light of the Liza field discovery, EEPGL has applied
for a Petroleum Production Licence and submitted a Project Development Plan to the Minister
Responsible for Petroleum.
A key permit required for EEPGL to develop the Liza field is the Environmental Authorisation
from the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Guyana
Environmental Protection Act of 1996 (EP Act Cap. 20:05). As part of its regulatory role, the
EPA, considering recommendations from the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), is responsible for deciding whether and
under what conditions to grant EEPGL’s Application for Environmental Authorisation
(Application), which was filed with the EPA on July 5, 2016. Based on an initial assessment of
the Project, the EPA determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required.
The purpose of the EIA is to provide the factual and technical basis required by EPA, EAB, and
the GGMC to make an informed decision on EEPGL’s Application. EEPGL has conducted a
robust public consultation program to both inform the public about the Project and to
understand community and stakeholder concerns so this feedback could be incorporated and
addressed in the EIA, as applicable.
EEPGL proposes to drill approximately 17 subsea development wells and use a Floating
Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel to process, store, and offload the recovered
oil. The FPSO will be connected to the wells via separate production (oil, gas, and produced
water), gas injection, and water injection flowlines and risers, and associated subsea equipment.
The Project will also involve shorebase facilities and marine/aviation services to support
development drilling, FPSO and subsea equipment installation, production operations, and
ultimately decommissioning. EEPGL will utilize proven and industry accepted standards and
has incorporated many embedded controls into the overall Project design to minimize
environmental and socioeconomic impacts. It could take up to four years to drill the wells, with
drilling planned to begin as early as 2018. The initial production is expected to begin by mid-
2020, with operations continuing for at least 20 years. The Project is expected to employ up to

May 2017 i
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

600 persons during well drilling, approximately 600 persons at the peak of the installation stage,
and up to about 140 persons during production operations.
The planned activities of the Project are predicted to have minor impacts on physical resources
(i.e., air quality, marine sediments, and water quality), no impacts on coastal biological
resources, minor impacts on marine biological resources, and largely positive impacts on
socioeconomics. These predictions are based on the fact that the bulk of the Project activity will
occur approximately 190 km (~120 miles) offshore, and the Project will capture and re-inject
produced natural gas, which is not used as fuel on the FPSO, back into the Liza reservoir; treat
required wastewater streams prior to discharge to the sea; have a very small physical footprint
(e.g., infrastructure construction disturbs only about 0.3 km2 of benthic habitat); and use Marine
Mammal Observers (MMO) during selected activities to minimize the potential impacts to
marine mammals due to auditory injury and ships strikes.
Unplanned events, such as a large oil spill, are considered unlikely to occur because of the
extensive preventative measures employed by EEPGL. Nevertheless, an oil spill is considered
possible, and EEPGL has conducted oil spill modeling to evaluate the range of likely spill
trajectories and rates of travel. The location of the Project 190 km (~120 mi) offshore, prevailing
northwest currents, the light nature of the Liza field crude oil, and the region’s warm waters
would all help minimize the severity of a spill. Accounting for these factors, the modeling
indicates only a 5 to 10 percent probability of any oil reaching the Guyana coast, without taking
into consideration the effectiveness of any oil spill response, and in the unlikely event that a
spill were even to occur.
Although the probability of an oil spill reaching the Guyana coast is very small, a spill at a Liza
well would likely impact marine resources found near the well, such as sea turtles and certain
marine mammals that may transit or inhabit the area impacted by a spill. Air quality, water
quality, seabirds, and marine fish could also be impacted, although likely to a lesser extent
because the duration of acute impacts would not be long and the impacts are reversible. A spill
could potentially impact Guyanese fishermen if commercial fish and shrimp were impacted.
The magnitude of this impact would depend on the volume and duration of the release as well
as the time of year the release were to occur (e.g., whether a spill would coincide with the time
of year when these species are more common). Effective implementation of the Oil Spill
Response Plan (OSRP) would help mitigate this risk by further reducing the ocean surface area
impacted by a spill and thereby reduce oil exposure to these species.
As described above, although a large oil spill is considered unlikely and the probability of
reaching the Guyana coast is very low, nevertheless, given the sensitivity of many of the
resources that could be potentially impacted by a spill (e.g., Shell Beach Protected Area, marine
mammals, critically endangered and endangered sea turtles, coastal Guyanese and Amerindian
communities reliant on ecosystem services for sustenance and their livelihood), preparation for
spill response is warranted. Therefore, we believe it is critical that EEPGL commit to regular oil
spill response training exercises, document the availability of appropriate response equipment
on board the FPSO, and demonstrate that offsite equipment could be mobilized for a timely
response.

May 2017 ii
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

It is recommended that all EEPGL embedded controls, recommended mitigation measures, and
appropriate Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plans, including an OSRP, be
adopted. With the implementation of such controls, mitigation measures, and management
plans, the Liza Phase 1 Development Project is expected to pose only minor risks to the
environmental and socioeconomic resources of Guyana, while potentially offering significant
economic benefits to the residents of Guyana.

May 2017 iii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Liza Phase 1
Development Project (Project) in accordance with the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (November 2000) and the Project Final
Terms of Reference (February 2017).
This EIS was prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), which is an
international environmental and social consulting firm with extensive experience in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for offshore oil and gas development
projects. ERM is also a Guyana EPA registered consultant. EIA Appendix B provides the
Curriculum Vitae of the key members of the EIA team.
ERM did not encounter any specific difficulties in preparing the EIA. The information provided
on the Project and the resources found in the Project Development Area (PDA) were adequate
for ERM to prepare a robust impact assessment.

EIS 1.1 Project Sponsor

The Project Sponsor is a joint venture among Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited
(EEPGL), Hess Guyana Exploration Limited (Hess), and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana
Limited (Nexen). EEPGL will be the operator of the Project, and is used in this EIA to represent
the joint venture. EEPGL, which is an affiliate of ExxonMobil Corporation, was formed on
October 16, 1998 and subsequently registered in Guyana on June 29, 1999. ExxonMobil
Corporation, either directly or through subsidiaries, conducts oil and gas exploration activities
worldwide.

EIS 1.2 Project Context

EEPGL obtained an offshore petroleum prospecting license for the Stabroek Block from the
Government of Guyana. In 2015, oil was discovered in the Liza field within the eastern half of
the Stabroek Block approximately 190 kilometers (~120 miles) offshore from Georgetown in
waters approximately 1,500 to 1,900 meters (m) deep (Figure EIS-1). Subsequent surveys and
exploratory drilling have identified a reservoir of oil in a sandstone formation approximately
3,600 m below the seabed (approximately 5,400 m below sea level). This reservoir is estimated
to have a recoverable resource of 0.8 to 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels.
EEPGL, together with Hess and Nexen, are parties to a Petroleum Agreement with the
Government of Guyana. Under this agreement, and in light of the Liza field discovery, EEPGL
has applied for a Petroleum Production Licence and submitted a Project Development Plan to
the Minister Responsible for Petroleum.

May 2017 iv
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Figure EIS-1 Location of the Liza Project Development Area within the Stabroek Block

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

EIS 1.3 Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the Project is to achieve safe and efficient production of hydrocarbons from the
Liza field. A confidential Petroleum Agreement between EEPGL, Hess, Nexen, and the
Government of Guyana defines how revenues from the Project are to be shared between the
parties. The Government of Guyana would begin receiving oil revenues when oil is produced.

EIS 1.4 Regulatory Framework and Purpose of this EIA

In order to develop the Liza field, EEPGL needs to obtain approval of an Application for
Environmental Authorisation (Application) from the Guyana EPA in accordance with the
Guyana EP Act (Cap. 20:05). Toward that end, EEPGL filed its Application with the EPA on July
5, 2016. As part of its regulatory role, the EPA, taking into consideration recommendations from
the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and GGMC, is responsible for deciding whether and
under what conditions to grant EEPGL’s Application. Based on an initial assessment of the
Project, the EPA determined that an EIA was required. The purpose of this EIA is to provide the
factual and technical basis required by EPA, EAB, and the GGMC to make an informed decision
on EEPGL’s Application. If approved, the EPA would issue an Environmental Permit1 with the
terms and conditions necessary to effectively protect the environment.

1-TheEnvironmental Authorisation granted by the EPA is also commonly referred to as an environmental permit,
and may be used interchangeably.

May 2017 v
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project proposes to develop the offshore resource by drilling approximately 17 subsea
development wells and using a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel to
process, store, and offload the recovered oil. The FPSO will be connected to the wells via
associated equipment, collectively referred to as subsea umbilicals, risers, and flowlines (SURF),
to transmit produced fluids (i.e., oil, gas, produced water) from production wells to the FPSO,
as well as treated gas and water from the FPSO to the injection wells. The Project drilling and
production operations activities will collectively occur in what is referred to as the Project
Development Area (PDA), which is an approximately 50 km2 area located approximately 190
km (~120 mi) offshore (Figure EIS-2). The Project will also involve use of onshore shorebase
facilities and marine/aviation services to support development drilling, SURF and FPSO
installation, production operations, and ultimately decommissioning.
Figure EIS-2 Preliminary Liza Phase 1 Field Layout

Natural gas will be produced in association with the produced oil. EEPGL will use some of the
recovered gas as fuel on the FPSO, and proposes to re-inject the remaining gas back into the
Liza reservoir, which will assist in optimizing management of the reservoir. Alternative uses of
gas for future phases are being studied and would be addressed in a separate environmental
authorization.
Phase 1 will consist of essentially three stages: (1) Drilling and Installation, (2) Production
Operations, and (3) Decommissioning. Each of these stages is described briefly below.

May 2017 vi
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 2.1 Drilling and SURF/FPSO Installation

EEPGL will use one or two drill ships
Figure EIS-3 Typical Drill Ship
(Figure EIS-3), to drill the development
wells. The approximately 17
development wells are currently planned
to include eight production wells (for
recovering the oil), six water wells (to
inject water into the Liza reservoir to
maintain pressure), and three gas wells
(to re-inject recovered gas not used on
the FPSO into the reservoir). The wells
will be clustered around two drill
centers. For safety reasons, a 500 m
marine safety exclusion zone around the
drill ships and major installation vessels will be established to avoid interactions with
unauthorized vessels. For each well, the initial section (i.e., structural casing section) will feature
a pipe inserted into the borehole and cemented in place. This section will be drilled using water
based drilling fluids (WBDF), and drill cuttings from this section will be discharged to the
seafloor near the well. Subsequent (lower) sections of the wells will be drilled using low-toxicity
non-aqueous drilling fluids (NADF) with low to negligible aromatic content. The used cuttings
from the lower sections will be directed to the drill ship, where the drilling fluids will be
recovered for reuse to the extent practicable and the cuttings will be treated to limit the
percentage of fluid retained on the cuttings. After treatment, the cuttings are then discharged to
the sea.
Once each well is drilled, a wellhead and tree are installed and the well is connected to a
manifold, which is connected, as appropriate to an umbilical and production, gas, or water
flowline. The flowlines will be laid on the seafloor,
Figure EIS-4 FPSO and risers will connect the seafloor infrastructure to
the FPSO. The flowlines and risers will be
hydrostatically tested with treated seawater to ensure
no leakage. After the testing, the hydrostatic water
used to test the water and gas injection flowlines will
be discharged near the seafloor, and the fluid used to
test the production flowlines will be recovered and
treated prior to discharging overboard.
The FPSO (Figure EIS-4) will be a converted double
hull tanker with the capacity to store 1.6 million
barrels of stabilized crude oil. The FPSO will be
secured to the seafloor by a 16- to 20-point spread mooring anchor system. The FPSO and the
mooring system are designed to remain in place for at least 20 years and to sustain extreme
(100-year return period) environmental conditions. The FPSO will also provide living quarters

May 2017 vii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

and associated utilities for approximately 140 personnel. For safety reasons, the FPSO will have
a two nautical mile exclusion zone to avoid interactions with unauthorized vessels.

EIS 2.2 Production Operations

The FPSO will be designed to separate the recovered reservoir fluids into its oil, water, and gas
phases (Table EIS-1). The oil will be treated to remove impurities (e.g., sulfate and other salts)
and then sent to storage tanks in the hull. The water from the reservoir (referred to as produced
water) will be treated to remove hydrocarbons and will then be discharged to the sea. The FPSO
will dehydrate, compress, and re-inject the produced natural gas into the Liza reservoir,
although some of the gas will be used as fuel on the FPSO, and some gas may be occasionally
flared on a non-routine, temporary basis. The FPSO will also have the capacity to treat (by
filtration, deaeration, and sulfate removal) seawater for injection into the reservoir to maintain
reservoir pressure (and offset the withdrawal of reservoir fluids) to enhance oil production.

Table EIS-1 FPSO Key Design Rates

Service Design Rate*
Oil Production 100,000 barrels per day (bpd)
(designed to safely operate at sustained peaks of 120,000 bpd)
Produced Water 100,000 bpd
Total Liquids 150,000 bpd
Produced Gas 180,000,000 standard cubic feet per day
Gas Injection 160,000,000 standard cubic feet per day
(assumes some produced gas will be used as fuel gas for the FPSO)
Water Injection 190,000 bpd
* Project facilities will have the potential to safely operate at sustained peaks above the design rate. For purposes of
this EIA, potential impacts generated by the Project (e.g., air emissions) were based on a potential peak production
volume of 144,000 bpd to be conservative in the analysis.

The FPSO will offload produced crude oil to conventional oil tankers on a regular basis. The
tanker, under the guidance of a Mooring Master, will maneuver to within approximately 120 m
(390 feet) of the FPSO and hold position with the aid of up to three tugboats (Figure EIS-5).
Crude oil will be pumped from the FPSO storage tanks to an offloading tanker using a floating
hose at a rate of approximately one million barrels of oil in about 28 hours.

May 2017 viii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Figure EIS-5 Typical FPSO Offloading to a Conventional Tanker

EIS 2.3 Decommissioning

Prior to the end of operations (estimated at approximately 20 years), EEPGL will initiate
detailed planning for facility decommissioning, including filing a Notice of Intent for
Decommissioning to the GGMC and EPA. All development wells will be permanently plugged
and abandoned. It is expected that the SURF equipment and the FPSO mooring lines will be
abandoned in place on the seafloor in accordance with standard industry practice (subject to the
decommissioning plan). The FPSO will be disconnected from its mooring system and towed to a
shipyard for decommissioning.

EIS 2.4 Onshore, Marine, and Aviation Support

Shorebases, laydown areas, warehouses, fuel supply, and waste management facilities will
support the Project across the Project stages as described above. EEPGL is planning to utilize
shorebases in Guyana and Trinidad to support the Project. Marine support will include various
supply vessels with an average of 12 trips per week during drilling and installation and about 7
trips per week during production operations. These vessels are planned to originate from
shorebases in Guyana and/or Trinidad. Aviation support is expected to average about 30 to 35
flights per week during drilling and installation and about 20 to 25 flights during production
operations.

EIS 2.5 Project Workforce

EEPGL estimates it will require a workforce of approximately 600 persons at the peak of the
development well drilling, approximately 600 persons at the peak of the installation stage,
approximately 150 shorebase and marine logistical support onshore staff (some of whom will be
Project-dedicated while others will be shared resources) at the peak of installation and drilling
activities, approximately 100 to 140 persons at peak of production operations, and
approximately 60 persons at the peak of decommissioning.

May 2017 ix
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 2.6 Project Schedule

It could take up to four years to drill the approximately 17 wells, with drilling planned to begin
in 2018 or 2019. Installation of the SURF and FPSO are likely to be initiated in 2019 to be ready
for initial production by mid-2020, with operations continuing for at least 20 years (Figure EIS-
6).
Figure EIS-6 Preliminary Project Schedule

EIS 2.7 Public Consultation

EEPGL has conducted a robust public consultation program to both inform the public about the
Project and to understand stakeholder concerns so this feedback could be incorporated into the
EIA, as applicable. EEPGL has held various workshops with the government and others
regarding offshore oil and gas development. EEPGL and/or ERM have held meetings with over
30 Guyana government agencies/commissions, many elected officials and Regional
Administrators, over 15 professional or business associations, various international and
domestic non-governmental organizations, several universities and research institutes, various
religious and ethnic organizations, and the media. EEPGL and ERM participated in two sector
agency scoping meetings, with over 150 attendees of which approximately 100 were members
of the general public. These were followed by six public scoping meetings in Regions 1 through
6, which had over 300 attendees, of which over 200 were public participants.

EIS 2.8 Alternatives

The EIA considered a range of potential Project alternatives, as summarized below.
 Location Alternatives - The location of the Project, and the development wells in particular,
is driven by the location of the resource to be recovered. There are no meaningful
differences in location alternatives for the FPSO, SURF equipment, and drill centers within
the PDA, as the nature of the seafloor and the water surface are not expected to vary
appreciably across the area; thus, no environmental or social benefits would be achieved by
minor location modifications.

May 2017 x
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

 Development Concept Alternatives –

o Facility Type: Given the water depth and distance to shore of the Liza field, the
development alternatives are primarily limited to floating production systems (e.g.,
FPSO, semi-submersible, tension leg platforms). With the exception of the FPSO
concept, the other deepwater production systems would necessitate the use of a
separate Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessel for oil storage and offloading,
which would increase environmental impacts. The FPSO was chosen because it is a
more efficient, stand-alone solution for deepwater oil processing and storage, and is
also the environmentally preferred alternative.
o Gas Disposition: Three primary alternatives were considered for addressing
associated gas produced during Phase 1 operations: gas re-injection, gas export, and
continuous flaring. Gas re-injection was determined to be feasible for Phase 1, and it
also provides benefits in reservoir management. As such, produced gas not used as
fuel gas on the FPSO will be re-injected under normal operations. Continuous flaring
of gas on a routine basis is not preferred, primarily due to the associated air
emissions. Gas export alternatives continue to be evaluated, particularly given
challenges related to commercialization of associated gas. The FPSO has been
designed to allow for future gas export should an export alternative be identified.
 Technology Alternatives – EEPGL is using the most appropriate industry-proven
technology in developing the Project in terms of well drilling, drilling fluids, equipment
selection, development concepts, and environmental management. EEPGL’s parent
company ExxonMobil and its contractors have extensive experience in delivering offshore
deepwater development projects around the world, particularly with FPSO and SURF
components, and are applying that knowledge, experience, and technology in the
development of the Project in Guyana.
 No-go Alternative – Under this alternative the Project would not be executed and the
existing conditions in the PDA would remain unaffected by the Project, and the potential
positive and negative impacts assessed would not be realized. Therefore, evaluating the no-
go alternative means evaluating the tradeoff between positive and negative impacts.

Overall, the proposed Project reflects optimized locational siting, appropriate development
concept, use of industry-proven technology, and also selection of the environmentally preferred
action alternative.

May 2017 xi
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 3.0 PROJECT IMPACTS

This section summarizes the predicted environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Project
resulting from planned activities and potential unplanned events (specifically an oil spill), as
well the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on important resources and receptors.
The resources/receptors considered in this analysis are listed in Table EIS-2. The impacts of the
Project were evaluated against the conditions of the existing environment, as described in the
Section 6 of the EIA.

Table EIS-2 Resources and Receptors Considered in this EIA

Physical Resources Biological Resources Socioeconomic Resources
Air Quality and Climate Protected Areas and Special Economic Conditions
Status Species
Sound Coastal Habitats Employment and Livelihoods
Marine Geology and Sediments Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds Community Health & Wellbeing

Marine Water Quality Seabirds Marine Use and Transportation

Marine Mammals Social Infrastructure and
Services
Marine Turtles Cultural Heritage
Marine Fish Land Use
Marine Benthos Ecosystem Services
Ecological Balance and Indigenous Peoples
Ecosystems

EIS 3.1 Planned Activities

The Project is an offshore oil development and all drilling, installation, production operation,
and decommissioning activities will occur over 190 km (~120 miles) off the coast of Guyana.
The Project should not disturb any natural onshore habitats. There may be a minor increase in
traffic congestion near the onshore shorebases, and a Road Safety Management Procedure
should mitigate those impacts. The Project will generate benefits for the citizens of Guyana
through revenue sharing with the Government of Guyana, a minor increase in employment,
and select Project purchasing from Guyanese businesses. The only resources with the potential
to incur any meaningful adverse impacts from planned Project activities would be air quality
and marine-oriented resources (i.e., marine sediments, water quality, and biological resources),
which are discussed briefly below.

EIS 3.1.1 Air Quality

Emissions generated by the Project generally emanate from three source categories: (a) specific
point sources such as the power generating units and diesel engines on drill ships and on the
FPSO, (b) non-routine flaring used to combust produced gas when not consumed as fuel gas on
FPSO or re-injected, and (c) general area sources such as support vessels, construction vessels,
tug boats, and helicopters. Such emissions contribute to increases in the ambient air
concentrations of certain pollutants.

May 2017 xii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

The CALPUFF model was used to assess the dispersion of air pollutants and the potential
impact for onshore human receptors. For all modeled constituents, the maximum onshore
concentrations predicted to result from Project activities are negligible relative to World Health
Organization (WHO) guidelines (the highest being less than or equal to 1 percent of the WHO
guideline).
The Project will also emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) throughout its predicted lifecycle, with
peak emissions during steady-state production operations stage estimated to be approximately
980 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalents per year. There are no applicable regulatory criteria against
which these GHG emissions can be compared, but these emissions are disclosed in accordance
with good international practice to aid in managing GHG emissions at a national and
international level. EEPGL proposes to re-inject recovered natural gas (which is not used as fuel
on the FPSO) back into the Liza reservoir, which represents a significant reduction in potential
GHG emissions versus that which would result from routine gas flaring.

EIS 3.1.2 Marine Water Quality

The Project will impact marine water quality in a localized manner via planned discharges
during well drilling, hydrostatic testing of the flowlines and risers following installation, and
production operations stages.
During well drilling as each well is started, the Project will release a small volume of WBDF and
cuttings at the seafloor. Low toxicity NADF will be used for the remainder of the well drilling,
but will be captured, recovered to the extent practicable, and reused. EEPGL would treat the
drill cuttings to reduce the drilling fluids retained on the cuttings prior to discharging
overboard. Modeling indicates that the residual NADF on the cuttings may have a localized,
minor impact on water quality.
During installation, the subsea flowlines and risers must be hydrostatically tested to confirm
there are no leaks. Treated seawater is used for this purpose to prevent biofouling. A hydrate
inhibiting substance, such as methanol or ethylene glycol, will also be used to prevent
formation of hydrates during commissioning of the production and gas injection lines. After the
completion of the testing, the hydrostatic test water and hydrate inhibitor from the gas injection
line will be released at the seafloor. The hydrostatic test water and hydrate inhibitor from the
production lines will be returned to the FPSO, treated, and discharged from the overboard
water line. These discharges would be a one-time, short term impact, and the treated seawater
and hydrate inhibitor would be quickly diluted within the water column.
During production operations, the FPSO will discharge five primary effluent streams to the
ocean (Table EIS-3). The FPSO systems associated with these discharges will be designed to
ensure applicable discharge criteria are met, which may require treatment in some cases.
Modeling indicates that concentrations of chemical constituents would be reduced to
insignificant levels within approximately 100 meters of the discharge point.

May 2017 xiii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Table EIS-3 Summary of Production Operations Discharges

Discharges Source Potential Discharge Rate Comments
Contaminants
Cooling Water Process water to dissipate heat Temperature, ≤ 700,000 bpd Discharge will
from FPSO systems, no Chlorine meet
hydrocarbon contact internationally
recognized
standards
limiting
increases in
ambient water
temperature.

Produced Water Water separated from reservoir Oil & grease, ≤ 100,000 bpd Will be treated
fluids Temperature, to meet
Residual internationally
production and recognized
water treatment limits on oil &
chemicals grease content.
Sulfate Removal Removal of sulfates from Biocide, ≤ 100,000 bpd Discharge
and Potable Water seawater prior to injection; Chlorine, meets
Processing Brines potable water processing Oxygen applicable
scavenger, standards
Scale inhibitor without
treatment.
Domestic & Personnel black and gray Nutrients, 9,000 bpd Will be treated
Sanitary water, food wastes chlorine, in accordance
Wastewater bacteria with
internationally
recognized
standards prior
to discharge.
Offloading Tanker Offloading tanker will None ≤ 1,100,000 Discharge will
Ballast Water discharge ballast water as it anticipated barrels during be conducted in
loads oil from the FPSO each loading accordance
with
internationally
recognized
standards.

EIS 3.1.3 Marine Sediments and Marine Benthos

The drilling of wells and the placement of flowlines and other subsea equipment will physically
disturb approximately 0.3 km2 of the sea bottom. After the initial structural casing section is
installed, the remaining NADF drill cuttings will be returned to the drill ship for treatment to
remove associated drilling fluids prior to discharge to the sea in order to meet acceptable
discharge thresholds. The planned discharge of NADF drill cuttings will result in the localized
accumulation of cuttings on the seafloor, primarily around the well locations, with the
distribution of deposition determined by oceanographic conditions. Modeling has indicated
that the discharge of these cuttings will not significantly impact sediment quality because of the

May 2017 xiv

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

relatively low toxicity and expected dispersion. Overall, the Project impact on marine sediments
will be negligible.
Marine benthos (organisms living on the seafloor) could also be impacted by Project-related
seafloor disturbance by potential smothering from the drill cuttings. Based on surveys of the
seafloor, however, benthic organisms, primarily consisting of polychaete worms, occur at low
densities. Modeling indicates that smothering effects from drill cuttings would be limited to a
very small area around the well (approximately 43 m diameter area).

EIS 3.1.4 Marine Biological Resources

Marine resources (i.e., seabirds, fish, mammals, and turtles) have the potential to be impacted
by the Project, but it was determined that the significance of these impacts range from minor to
negligible for the reasons explained below.
The Project could impact seabirds by interfering with their migration (i.e., lights serving as
attraction), and potential exposure to the radiant heat from the flare. The Project lighting will be
downcast to minimize its attraction potential and flaring will be non-routine and temporary
(i.e., during select maintenance activities), so the overall Project impact on seabirds was
determined to be negligible.
The Project could impact marine fish by deterioration of water quality from the discharges
described above and the potential to entrain (suck in) fish at the cooling water intake. Modeling
indicates that water quality will return to near background conditions within 100 m of the
FPSO, so the area impacted will be very small, and fish are mobile and are known to avoid
areas with degraded water quality. Water intakes will be designed to minimize the entrainment
of fish.
Marine mammals may be impacted by two types of sound: continuous sound from vessels and
machinery operating in the PDA, and by comparatively louder, shorter duration impulse sound
from Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) and driven piles. Both the continuous sound and impulse
sound sources would be loud enough to cause injury in the immediate vicinity of the source,
but would attenuate to non-injurious levels approximately 10 m horizontal distance from the
vessels, approximately 100 m from the VSP, and approximately 1300 m from the driven piles (at
depths > 1000m). Many of the larger baleen whales and dolphins would naturally avoid the
area of potential effect (especially around Drill Center 2) because it would be deeper than their
typical maximum dive depths. Others, such as sperm whales, dive deep enough that they could
potentially be exposed to injurious sound levels throughout the PDA, however it would not be
expected that they would be exposed for continuous time periods predicted to be necessary to
result in injury. Vessel strikes would likely pose more of an immediate threat than auditory
injury. Marine observers will be used to monitor for mammals present prior to or approaching
during the VSP, and soft start procedures will be used to allow any mammals in the immediate
vicinity of the VSP and pile driving to vacate the area before sound levels reach potentially
injurious levels in accordance with JNCC guidelines. Vessel crews will also lookout for marine
mammals to minimize the potential for vessel strikes.

May 2017 xv
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Marine turtles are generally considered to be less sensitive to marine sound than marine
mammals, so underwater sound from Project activities would not have the same potential to
impact marine turtles as marine mammals. The most significant potential Project-related
impacts on marine turtles would be from marine vessel strikes and the same measures
employed to manage risks of strikes on mammals would help manage risks of strikes on turtles.
Numbers of vessel trips are modest in relation to existing vessel activity in Guyana waters; thus,
impacts to marine turtles are not anticipated to result in a significant impact.

EIS 3.2 Unplanned Events

An unplanned event is defined as an event that is not planned to occur as part of the Project
(e.g., accidents), but that could potentially occur. Since these events are not planned, they are
evaluated using methods different from those used for planned events, specifically taking into
consideration the likelihood that an unplanned event will occur. For purposes of the Project,
three types of unplanned events were identified and considered – hydrocarbon spill, vessel
collision, and onshore vehicular accident. While a vessel collision and a vehicular accident
could result in injuries, significant injuries or fatalities would be expected to be rare occurrences
considering likely vessel and vehicle speeds in areas where risk of collisions is highest. Thus,
vessel collisions and vehicular accidents are considered to have small, temporary, and localized
impacts. The remainder of this section focuses on the potential impacts from an oil spill.
The Project will be producing, processing, storing, and offloading oil as its core activity, so the
risk of an oil spill would be present. EEPGL has identified nine spill scenarios, including spills
of different types of hydrocarbons (e.g., crude oil, marine diesel, fuel oil, lubricating oil, NADF),
with several being applicable for spills at the shorebases and on vessels in the Demerara River
estuary (e.g., from supply vessel) or in the Atlantic Ocean (e.g., from a well, drill ship, supply
vessel, tanker, FPSO). The largest of these scenarios considers a loss of well control incident at
the seafloor releasing 20,000 barrels of oil per day for 30 days.
EEPGL’s well control philosophy is focused on blowout prevention using safety and risk
management systems, management of change procedures, global standards, and trained
experienced personnel. EEPGL has a mature program that emphasizes attention to safety, well
control, and environmental protection. This includes proper preparation for wells (e.g., well
design, well control equipment inspection and testing), detecting changes in pressure quickly,
and efficiency in the process for temporary closing of a well (personnel training and proficiency
drills).
In addition to these prevention measures, EEPGL also has developed a detailed Oil Spill
Response Plan (OSRP) to ensure an effective response to an oil spill, if one were to occur. The
OSRP identifies the organizations that would respond to a release event depending on the
magnitude and complexity of the spill. The OSRP clearly delineates the responsibilities of each
entity that would take part in a response and describes how EEPGL would mobilize both its
own resources and those of its oil spill response contractors, as well as notifying the
government of Guyana with respect to mobilizing its resources.

May 2017 xvi

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Due to the precautionary measures proposed by EEPGL to prevent and control an oil spill, as
described above, the likelihood of an oil spill occurring is expected to be unlikely. Nevertheless,
EEPGL has conducted oil spill modeling and coastal sensitivity mapping to identify and
characterize the resources/receptors with the potential to be exposed to oil in the event of a
spill. An overview of this modeling and mapping is provided below.
The spill modeling evaluated the range of possible trajectories and rate of travel of an oil slick
from an extended loss of well control (20,000 barrels of oil per day for 30 days). Several factors
would inherently reduce the severity of an oil spill occurring in the Liza offshore development
area and would increase subsequent ecosystem recovery rates, including the following:
 Location of Spill – a Liza well control incident would occur approximately 190 km (~120 mi)
offshore. It would take some time for oil to reach the Guyana shoreline, which allows time
to implement the Project’s OSRP, and also allows more time for evaporative and dispersive
forces to act on the spilled material.
 Prevailing Currents – the Guiana Current is a strong, nearly year round westerly flowing
current along the coast of Guyana. Modeling indicates that this current significantly reduces
the probability of spilled oil reaching the sensitive coastal resources of Guyana.
 Properties of Spilled Oil – the Project will be producing a light crude oil, which has low
smothering potential and tends to spread readily on the ocean surface, both of which can
reduce severity of impacts to shoreline resources.
 Climate – the relatively warm year-round waters of the Project area would keep any spilled
oil less viscous, which helps clean-up operations such as skimming and pumping.

The modeling predicted that surface oil would generally travel towards the northwest in all
scenarios during both the summer and winter seasons. The oil spill model indicates that even in
the unlikely event of an oil spill, there is only a 5 to 10 percent chance of shoreline oiling in
Guyana. It is important to note that this modeling does not account for any oil spill response
(e.g., aerial, vessel or sub-sea dispersant application, offshore containment and recovery, source
control operations), so any preventative measures taken to keep oil from reaching the coast
during a response would further reduce the potential of shoreline oiling in Guyana below the
estimated 5 to 10 percent.
It is highly unlikely oil spilled in the Liza field would reach the Guyana shoreline in the case of
an actual spill. In addition to the low probability of oil reaching the Guyana shoreline in the
absence of any spill response, it would take 5 to 15 days for oil to reach shore. This would allow
ample time for mobilization of spill response resources to further reduce the risk of oil actually
reaching the shoreline. Despite this, if oil were to reach the Guyana shoreline, those resources
most at risk would include protected areas (i.e., Shell Beach), coastal habitats (especially
mangroves and marshes), and coastal wildlife (especially birds and furbearers), as well as
coastal communities and indigenous peoples dependent on fishing in the ocean and other
ecosystem services (Table EIS-4). However, the combination of the low probability of an oil spill
actually reaching the shoreline and the time available to allow for spill response, results in the
residual risk to these resources being considered minor.

May 2017 xvii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Table EIS-4 Coastal Resources Potentially Impacted by an Oil Spill

Resource Potential Impact Residual
Risk Rating
Protected Areas Per oil spill model, Shell Beach Protected Area and its vicinity Minor
could be impacted if oil were to reach the Guyana shoreline.
Coastal Habitats Mangroves and wetlands are common habitats along the Minor
and Wildlife Guyana coastline (and support many species) and are
considered sensitive to oil contamination.
Ecosystem Services, Many rural coastal communities, and especially Indigenous Minor
Coastal communities, rely on many ecosystem services (e.g., for food,
Communities and housing materials, medicinal plants, income producing
Indigenous Peoples products, flood protection) for sustenance and livelihoods.

Even though the probability of a spill impacting the coastal resources of Guyana is very low,
such an oil spill would likely have adverse impacts on marine resources in the area impacted by
the spill. Those resources most at risk would be water quality, seabirds, marine mammals, and
marine turtles, as described in Table EIS-5. Effective implementation of the OSRP would help
mitigate this risk by further reducing the ocean surface area impacted by a spill and oil
exposure to these species.

Table EIS-5 Marine Resources Potentially Impacted by an Oil Spill

Resource Potential Impact Residual
Risk Rating
Marine Water Dissolution of some spilled oil into the water column, but light Moderate
Quality oil expected to degrade quickly and the impacts are reversible.
Seabirds Seabirds are typically among the species most impacted by an Minor
oil spill because they spend significant time on the water surface
and so may come in contact with the spilled oil, but seabirds are
primarily transient in the PDA.
Marine Mammals Ingestion and respiratory irritation from inhalation of vapors at Moderate
the water surface, and the potential for fouling of baleen whale
plates, which are used to feed.
Marine Turtles Dermal irritation from contact with oil, ingestion, and Moderate
respiratory irritation from inhalation of vapors at the water
surface.

EIS 3.3 Cumulative Impacts

The Project is located approximately 190 km (~120 mi) offshore, so there are few opportunities
for the Project to cumulatively impact resources that would be impacted by other activities.
There is the potential for other future offshore Guyana oil and gas exploration and possibly
development. If such non-Project activities were to occur, the Project and non-Project activities
together could cumulatively impact some resources such as Marine Mammals (via vessel strikes
or sound), Marine Turtles (vessel strikes), Marine Fish (degraded water quality and seawater
entrainment), Community Health and Wellbeing (increased demand on limited medical
treatment capacity), Marine Use and Transportation (marine congestion especially near

May 2017 xviii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Georgetown harbor), and Social Infrastructure and Services (increased demand for limited
housing, utilities, and services). Many of the above potential impacts that require offshore
interaction between the Project and others have a limited chance of co-occurring, given the size
of the Stabroek Block. Thus, potential cumulative impacts were considered to be of Minor
significance.

EIS 3.4 Degree of Irreversible Damage

The planned Project would not cause irreversible damage to any onshore areas of Guyana.
There would be a very minor (approximately 0.3 km2) permanent loss of benthic habitat as a
result of the installation of wells, flowlines, and other subsea equipment, which may be
proposed to be left in place upon decommissioning. However, this equipment can ultimately
provide the substrate for recolonization of the impacted areas. Even in the unlikely event of an
oil spill, little irreversible damage would be expected, although it could take a decade or more
for all resources to fully recover, depending on the on the volume and duration of the release as
well as the time of year the release were to occur.

EIS 3.5 Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan

An Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan (ESMP) has been developed to
manage and mitigate the impacts identified in the EIA. The ESMP includes the following:
 Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan Framework
 Environmental Management Plan, including:
o Air Quality Management
o Water Quality Management
o Waste Management Plan
o Marine Ecosystems Management
 Socioeconomic Management Plan, including:
o Stakeholder Engagement Plan
o Grievance Management
o Transportation and Road Safety Management
o Cultural Heritage Management and Chance Finds
 Environmental and Socioeconomic Monitoring Plan
 Oil Spill Response Plan, including
o Oil Spill Modeling
o Coastal Sensitivity Mapping
o Emergency Preparedness and Response Procedures
 Preliminary End of Operations Decommissioning Plan

May 2017 xix

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

EIS 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EIS 4.1 Conclusions

The planned Project is predicted to have minor impacts on physical resources (i.e., air quality,
marine sediments, and water quality), no impacts on coastal biological resources, minor impacts
on marine biological resources, and largely positive impacts on socioeconomics. These
predictions are based on the fact that the bulk of the Project will occur approximately 190 km
(~120 miles) offshore, and the Project will capture and re-inject produced natural gas; treat all
significant wastewater streams prior to discharge to the sea; have a very small footprint (e.g.,
only physically disturb about 0.3 km2 of benthic habitat); and use MMOs during VSP operations
to minimize the potential for auditory damage and injury from ship strikes to marine mammals.
The Project will generate benefits for the citizens of Guyana through revenue sharing with the
Government of Guyana, a minor increase in employment, and select Project purchasing from
Guyanese businesses.
Unplanned events, such as a potential oil spill, are considered unlikely to occur because of the
extensive preventative measures employed by EEPGL. Nevertheless, an oil spill is considered
possible, and oil spill modeling has been conducted to evaluate the range of likely spill
trajectories and rates of travel. The location of the Project 190 km (~120 miles) offshore,
prevailing northwest currents, the light nature of the Liza field crude oil, and the region’s warm
waters would all help minimize the severity of a spill. Accounting for these factors, the
modeling indicates only a 5 to 10 percent probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast, without
taking into consideration the effectiveness of any oil spill response.
Although the probability of an oil spill reaching the Guyana coast is very small, a well control
spill at a Liza well would likely impact marine resources found near the well, such as sea turtles
and certain marine mammals (especially baleen whales) that may transit or inhabit the area
impacted by a spill. Air quality, water quality, seabirds, and marine fish could also be impacted,
although likely to a lesser extent because the duration of acute impacts would not be long and
the impacts are reversible. A spill could potentially impact Guyanese fishermen if commercial
fish and shrimp were impacted. The magnitude of this impact would depend on the volume
and duration of the release as well as the time of year the release were to occur (e.g., whether a
spill would coincide with the time of year [May to September] when these species are more
common in the PDA). Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk by further
reducing the ocean surface area impacted by a spill and oil exposure to these species.
Table EIS-6 provides a summary of the predicted residual (taking into consideration proposed
mitigation measures) impact significance ratings for impacts to each of the resources/receptors
that may result from each of the Project stages (i.e., well drilling, SURF/FPSO installation,
production operations, and decommissioning), unplanned event (i.e., oil spill), and cumulative
impacts.

May 2017 xx
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

Table EIS-6 Summary of Residual Impact Ratings

Resource Drilling and Production Decommissioning Oil Spill* Cumulative
Installation Operations Impacts
Air Quality and Climate Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Sound2 None None None Minor None
Marine Geology/Sediments Negligible None None Minor Negligible
Marine Water Quality Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor
Protected Areas None None None Minor None
Special Status Species:**
 Critically Endangered and
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Terrestrial Species
 Vulnerable/Near Threatened
Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Species (sharks & bony fish)
 Endangered Fish and Black
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Capped Petrel
Coastal Habitats None None None Minor None
Coastal Wildlife/Shorebirds None None None Minor None
Seabirds Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Marine Mammals Moderate Negligible Negligible Moderate Minor
Marine Turtles Minor Negligible Negligible Moderate Minor
Marine Fish Minor Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Marine Benthos Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Ecological Balance &
Negligible Minor Negligible Minor Negligible
Ecosystems
Economic Conditions Positive Positive Positive Minor Negligible
Employment/Livelihoods Positive Positive Positive Minor Negligible
Community Health &
Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Wellbeing
Marine Use/Transportation
 Commercial cargo Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
 Commercial fishing Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
 Subsistence fishing Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Social Infrastructure
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
/Services
Cultural Heritage Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Land Use Negligible Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Ecosystem Services None None None Minor None
Indigenous Peoples None None None Minor None
*Based on oil spill modeling of an unmitigated well control event in the PDA that indicates oil reaching Guyana
shoreline is highly unlikely (5-to 10 percent probability).
** Excludes listed sea turtles, which are covered in the Marine Turtles resource category.

2 Sound-related impacts on Marine Mammals are factored into the Marine Mammal impact assessment.

May 2017 xxi

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement

The Project will also generate benefits for the citizens of Guyana in several ways:

 Through revenue sharing with the Government of Guyana, although the details of this
revenue sharing is confidential. The type and extent of benefits associated with revenue
sharing will depend on how decision makers in government decide to prioritize and
allocate funding for future programs, which is unknown and outside the scope of the
EIA;

 By procuring select Project goods and services from Guyanese businesses to the extent
reasonably practicable; and

 By hiring Guyanese nationals where reasonably practicable, although the potential

magnitude of hiring will be limited.

In addition to direct revenue sharing, expenditures, and employment, the Project would also
likely generate induced economic benefits as other non-Project related businesses benefiting
from direct Project purchases or worker spending will re-invest locally or expand spending in
the area, thereby also generating more local value-added tax. These beneficial “multiplier”
impacts will occur throughout the Project life.

EIS 4.2 Recommendations

ERM recommends the following measures be considered by EPA, GGMC, and the EAB as
conditions of any approval of the Project:
 Embedded Controls – incorporate all of the proposed embedded controls (see EIA Chapter
11).
 Mitigation Measures – adopt the recommended mitigation measures (see EIA Chapter 11).
 Management Plans – implement the proposed Environmental and Socioeconomic
Management Plan.
 Oil Spill Response –EEPGL has proactively embedded many controls into the Project design
to prevent a spill from occurring, and we agree that a spill is unlikely. But given the
sensitivity of many of the resources that could be impacted by a spill (e.g., Shell Beach
Protected Area, marine mammals, critically endangered and endangered sea turtles,
Amerindian communities reliant on ecosystem services for sustenance and their livelihood),
we believe it is critical that EEPGL commit to regular oil spill response drills, simulations,
and exercises, document the availability of appropriate response equipment on board the
FPSO, and demonstrate that offsite equipment could be mobilized for a timely response.

With the adoption of such embedded controls, mitigation measures, and management plans,
and requirements for emergency response preparedness, the Liza Phase 1 Development Project
is expected to pose only minor risks to the environmental and socioeconomic resources of
Guyana, while potentially offering significant economic benefits to the residents of Guyana.

May 2017 xxii

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL)3, together with its joint venture
partners Hess Guyana Exploration Limited and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Limited, is
seeking an environmental authorization for the first phase of oil field development of the Liza
prospect in the eastern half of the Stabroek Block (hereafter referred to as the Liza Phase 1
Development Project, or the Project), which is located approximately 190 km (~120 mi) offshore
from Georgetown (Figure 1-1). Based on exploration and assessment activities in the Stabroek
Block, including three exploration wells (Liza-1, Liza-2, and Liza-3, respectively), EEPGL
believes these reservoirs potentially contain a recoverable resource of between 0.8 and 1.4
billion oil equivalent barrels.
Figure 1-1 Location of the Liza Project Development Area within the Stabroek Block

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

3 EEPGL will be the operator of the Project, and is used in this EIA to represent the joint venture.

May 2017 1
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this EIA

Guyanese law requires EEPGL to obtain an environmental authorization from the Guyana
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake the Project. The EPA oversees the
effective management, conservation, protection, and improvement of the environment in
Guyana. In this role, the EPA is responsible for managing the environmental authorization
process. EEPGL filed an Application for Environmental Authorisation (Application) with the
EPA on July 5, 2016. Based on an initial assessment of the Application, the EPA determined that
an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required in support of the Application.
The purpose of this EIA is to provide the factual and technical basis required by EPA to make
an informed decision on EEPGL’s Application for Environmental Authorisation4 to permit the
Project. After submission and review of this EIA, the EPA takes into account recommendations
from the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission (GGMC), the public’s comments, and EPA’s own review, including support from
technical experts within other ministries, in deciding whether and under what conditions to
grant EEPGL’s Application.
The GGMC has several functions, including promoting and regulating the exploration and
development of the country’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Petroleum Division of the
GGMC is responsible for promoting Guyana’s petroleum potential and monitoring exploration
and production activities. GGMC oversees EEPGL’s Prospecting Licence, under which offshore
exploration and drilling activities (e.g., Liza 1, 2, and 3 wells) were conducted, and has received
EEPGL’s application for a Petroleum Production Licence and associated Development Plan for
the first phase of the Liza field development. GGMC will also provide technical input into the
review of the EIA, as discussed above, and will consider the findings of the EIA as part of its
evaluation of EEPGL’s application for Petroleum Production Licence for the Liza Phase 1
Project.
The EAB is an independent body that contributes to the development and review of the EIA
and makes recommendations to the EPA on whether the EIA should be accepted, amended, or
rejected and whether the environmental authorization should be granted, and if so, under what
terms and conditions.
This EIA was prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), which is an
international environmental and social consulting firm with extensive experience in the
preparation of EIAs for offshore oil and gas development projects. In the Project’s Final Terms
of Reference (ToR), EPA approved ERM as the independent consultant to undertake the EIA.
This EIA has been prepared in compliance with the Guyana Environmental Protection Act (EP
Act, Cap.20:05), the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations (2000), the
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines – Volume 1, Version 5 (2004), the Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines – Volume 2, Version 4 (2000), other applicable Guyana

4The Environmental Authorisation granted by the EPA is also commonly referred to as an environmental permit,
and may be used interchangeably.

May 2017 2
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

regulations, international good practice, EEPGL’s corporate standards, and in accordance with
ERM’s standard practice.

1.2 EEPGL Exploration Well Drilling History

EEPGL has drilled five exploration wells within the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana, with a
sixth well planned in 2017, as indicated in Table 1-1 below. After completion of the exploration
testing, each of these wells was closed consistent with good industry practice. EEPGL has plans
to explore in other blocks, but no drilling has yet occurred outside of Stabroek Block.

Tab1e 1-1 EEPGL Stabroek Exploration Well Drilling History

Well Name Year Drilled Result
Liza-1 2015 Successful (oil found)
Liza-2 2016 Successful
Liza-3 2016 Successful
Skipjack 2016 Dry well (no oil found)
Payara 2016 Successful
Snoek Planned for 2017 Not available

1.3 Goals and Objectives of the EIA

The goals of the EIA are to:
 Provide the factual and analytical basis required by EPA and the GGMC to make an
informed decision on EEPGL’s Application for Environmental Authorisation to permit the
Project; and
 Provide a basis for EEPGL to understand and appropriately avoid or manage the risks
imposed by the Project via design or other management measures.

In support of those goals and in accordance with the EIA Final ToR, which were approved by
the EPA on February 17, 2017, the underlying objectives of the EIA are to:
 Describe the Project, including its various components and activities and full life cycle
through to decommissioning;
 Describe the existing conditions within the Project’s Area of Influence (AOI);
 Identify and assess the potential direct and indirect environmental and socioeconomic
impacts that could credibly result from the Project using a risk-based assessment process;
 Evaluate the potential for cumulative impacts;
 Describe a strategy to manage the identified significant adverse impacts of the Project;
 Characterize potential positive benefits of the Project; and
 Recommend monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy.

May 2017 3
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

1.4 Components of the EIA

As required by the Guyana EP Act (Cap. 20:05) and further described in the Guyana
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, this EIA includes the required components of an
EIA:
 Project Description – see Chapter 2 of the EIA;
 Environmental Baseline Studies – see Chapter 6 of the EIA;
 Environmental Assessment – see Chapters 7, 8, and 10 of the EIA;
 Environmental Impact Statement – provided at the beginning of the EIA; and
 Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan – the Environmental and Social
Management Plan (ESMP) Framework is provided as Chapter 9 of the EIA.

EEPGL has elected to submit these components as one document.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines Volume 1 – Rules and Procedures for Conducting
and Reviewing EIAs (November 2004) includes as Appendix 2 an EIA Review Checklist.
Provided below in Table 1-2 is an EIA “roadmap” that shows where all of the Checklist “Items
Evaluated” can be found in this EIA.

Table 1-2 EIA Review Checklist “Roadmap”

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference
1. Adherence to the ToR
 Adherence to the ToR confirmed

Adherence to the ToR must be verified simply by checking that

all items and information requested in the ToR have been
presented, regardless of the content or quality of such
information.

2. Multidisciplinary Team
 Chapter 12 lists all team members and
references, Appendix A provides
The accuracy of the EIA depends on the qualifications of the signatures, and Appendix B includes
multidisciplinary team not only regarding the EIA process and all CVs.
methods but also regarding their knowledge of the several stages
of the specific type of project. Therefore, individual CVs should
be submitted as part of the EIA Annexes. Signatures of each
member of the team must be affixed.

3. Inter-disciplinary Achievement
 Chapter 7 includes assessment of all
three categories of resources
An EIA must present information regarding the interactions and
integration between the physical, biological and socio-economic
aspects of the environment in that particular area of the study.

May 2017 4
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

4. Executive Summary
 Executive Summary included in EIS

The Executive Summary, also referred to as the non-technical

summary, should provide a brief description of the project and
information regarding the potential impacts of the project,
arranged in order of significance, along with the proposed
mitigation/compensatory measures for each impact. The
summary should end with the consultants’ recommendations.

5. Project Description
 5.01 – see Chapter 2
 5.02 – see Section 2.3 (Drilling), 2.6
The process of environmental impact assessment depends on the (Installation, Hookup, and
full understanding of the project proposal and accurate Commissioning), 2.7 (Production
identification of the project actions. If actions are unclear, Operations), and 2.9
sufficiently detailed impacts are not likely to be identified with (Decommissioning)
the accuracy and specificity needed to enable the development of  5.03 – see Section 2.1, all stages occur
appropriate mitigation measures. within this same area
5.01 Is the project proposal fully understood?  5.04 – see Section 2.8, only onshore
supply and support has any land
5.02 Are all phases identified (e.g. planning, construction,
requirements
operation and decommissioning)?
 5.05 – see Section 2.10
5.03 Is the geographical area for each phase identified?  5.06 – see Section 2.10
5.04 Are the land use requirements for each phase identified?  5.07 – see Section 2.10
 5.08 – Noise impacts are quantified in
5.05 Is there an inventory of the nature and quantity of materials Section 7.2.5; thermal and liquid
used in the production process? discharges are quantified in Section
5.06 Are there inventories of the type and quantity of products, 7.1.4; and air (gaseous) emissions are
by-products and effluents expected to be produced by the project? quantified in Section 7.1.1
 5.09 – see Section 2.12
5.07 Is there an inventory of the type and quantity of residues?
5.08 Are the levels of emissions expected detailed with respect to
- Noise?
- Vibration?
- Light?
- Heat?
- Radiation?
- Gases?
- Liquids?
Are the types and levels of any other emissions included?
5.09 Is information on employment provided?

May 2017 5
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

6. Identification and Description of Alternatives
The assessment of sound alternatives is necessary to validate the  6.01 – see Section 2.16
EIA process. Therefore reasonable alternatives have to be fully  6.02 – see Section 2.16
and comprehensively considered. As a minimum, one of the  6.03 – see Section 2.16
following alternatives must be considered: location, project  6.04 – see Sections 2.16 and 10
layout, technology, scheduling, project scale.
6.01 Did the developer consider alternatives?
6.02 Was the “no-project” scenario considered?
6.03 Were the environmental factors adequately presented for
each alternative?
6.04 Is the final choice adequate?

7. Definition and Justification of Physical Boundaries

(Direct and Indirect Area of Influence)  See Section 5.1

Inconsistency in identifying the correct areas of influence will

inevitably lead to inconsistency in the baseline data and the
impact analysis. The indirect area of influence is the area likely
to be affected by indirect, secondary and/or long term impacts.

8. Analysis of the Legal Aspects Involved

 See Sections 3.1 through 3.3

The analysis of the legal framework involves more than a list of

legal Acts. It involves assessing the consequences for the project
of enforcing all the environmental legislation and regulations
regarding the proposed site and sectoral requirements related to
the proposed activity.

9. Identification of Other Existing Planned Activities or

Projects in the Area of Influence  See Chapter 8, which discusses other
This information is of utmost importance to ensure that land-use activities in the AOI, as part of the
and other types of conflicts do not arise later during the project Cumulative Impact Assessment
implementation.  9.01 – see Section 8.1.2
 9.02 – see Section 8.1.2
9.01 Has the compatibility between the proposal and the  9.03 – see Section 8.1.2
identified existing activities been analysed?
9.02 Are the activities compatible?
9.03 Does the inventory of existing activities match what is
observed?

May 2017 6
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

10. Adequacy and Completeness of Relevant Baseline
Data  See Chapter 6
 10.01 – see Chapter 6
 10.02 – see Chapter 6
Baseline data must be specific and relevant to the area of  10.03 – see Chapter 6
influence. General and superficial information does not allow
for the use of adequate impact prediction techniques.
10.01 Is the information presented specific and relevant?
10.02 Were difficulties in attaining information (if any)
documented?
10.03 Have the impact indicators identified been adequately
covered (see Section 13)

11. Appropriateness of EA Methods

The use of appropriate EA methods is necessary to ensure  See Chapter 4 for a description of the
reliability of the results of the EIA study. Each type of EA EIA methodology
method has different strengths and vulnerabilities regarding its  See Chapter 7, which includes
appropriateness to perform each step of the EIA study. Some EA description of analytical approach for
methods are unable to provide the means of identification of each resource
cause-effect relationships; others do not enable the identification
of indirect, secondary and/or long-term impacts. Scientific and
technical accuracy of the EIA methods used must therefore be
evaluated to ensure the reliability of the conclusions drawn from
the impact assessment.

12.1. Physical Impacts

 See Section 7.1, which addresses
- Have all the identified impacts on air, water, soil, noise, impacts to physical resources
landscape and natural resources been checked against the
relevant impacts defined in the ToR?
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?

12.2. Biological Impacts

 See Section 7.2, which addresses
- Have all the identified impacts on flora, fauna, rare / impacts to biological resources
endangered species, sensitive ecosystems, species habitats and
ecological balance been checked against the relevant impacts in
the ToR.

May 2017 7
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?

12.3. Social and Health Impacts

 See Section 7.3, which addresses
Have all the identified impacts on the social and health context impacts to socioeconomic resources
been checked against the relevant impacts defined in the ToR?
- Are impacts identified with respect to human health,
demographic and household characteristics, employment
opportunities, size and distinguishing characteristics of resident
population, the provision of social services and infrastructure?
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?
- To what extent does the project protect/improve human health?
- To what extent does the project protect/improve human living
conditions?

12.4. Cultural, Historical and/or Archeological Impacts

 See Section 7.3.7, which addresses
- Have all the identified impacts related to cultural, historical cultural heritage resources
and/or archeological sites and heritage been checked against the
relevant impacts defined in the ToR?
- Are impacts identified with respect to cultural heritage?
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?

May 2017 8
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?

12.5. Economic Impacts

 See Section 7.3, which addresses
- Have all the identified impacts on the economy (local, regional, economic resources (combined with
national) been checked against the relevant impacts defined in other socioeconomic resources)
the ToR?
- Are impacts identified with respect to economic assets and
activities?
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?
- Are impacts identified with respect to income generation for the
community and at the National Level?
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
- Have the social implications of the impacts been assessed?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?

12.6. Other impacts

 Other potentially impacted resources
- Have all other impacts been checked against the relevant not specifically listed above have been
impacts defined in the ToR? included, such as marine sediments,
marine use and transportation, and
- Are impacts identified with respect to _____________? indigenous peoples.
- Are impacts characterized (positive/negative, direct/indirect,
primary/secondary, short/medium/long term,
reversible/irreversible, temporary/permanent,
local/regional/national/strategic, avoidable/unavoidable)?
- Have the magnitudes been estimated?
- Have the impacts been assigned a significance?

May 2017 9
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

- Has the social distribution of the impacts been identified?
- Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?

13. Cumulative Impacts

There may be cases where an activity/project will contribute to a  13.01 - see Chapter 8
cumulative impact on the environment although individually it  13.02 – see Section 8.2
may not have a significant environmental impact. This may be as  13.03 – see Section 8.2
a result of the presence of similar activities within the vicinity of  13.04 – see Section 8.2
the project.  13.05 – see Section 8.2
13.01 Have cumulative impacts been adequately identified and
characterized?
13.02 Have the magnitudes been estimated?
13.03 Have the impacts been assigned a significance?
13.04 Has the social distribution of the impacts been identified?
13.05 Have cause/effect relations been properly identified?

14. Impact Indicators Impact indicators are the parameters

used to estimate the magnitude of the impacts.  See Chapter 4, which outlines
approach for characterizing
14.01 Were the impact indicators used adequate for all the magnitude of impacts
impacts identified?  See Chapter 7, which assesses
magnitude for impacts
15. Prediction Techniques
 15.01 – see Chapter 4, which describes
the impact assessment methodology
Impact prediction techniques are necessary to enable the used; Chapter 7 describes
estimation of the magnitude of the impacts. Without the use of methodology and results of analytical
adequate impact prediction techniques, accurate impact analysis approaches for each resource/receptor
is not possible.  15.02 – see Chapter 4
15.01 Have the impact prediction techniques used been
described?
15.02 Are they adequate?

16. Magnitude of Impacts

 See Chapter 4, which describes the
approach for characterizing
Magnitude is the estimate of the absolute magnitude of impacts
measure/value/dimension of the difference between the  Chapter 7 assesses magnitude for
environmental situation of a given parameter before and after the impacts for each resource/receptor
project is implemented. In the majority of cases – physical,
biological and economic impacts – it must be expressed in
quantitative values. The estimation of the magnitude of each
relevant impact is one of the most important steps in impact
analysis. It ensures the accuracy of the EIA and allows for the

May 2017 10
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

identification of appropriate and cost-effective mitigation
measures. Have the magnitude of all the relevant impacts been
adequately estimated (refer to impact indicators – Section 14)?

17.0 Importance/Significance of Impacts

 17.01 – see Chapter 4, which describes
Usual methods involve objective criteria regarding the ecological the approach for characterizing the
and social relevance of the project importance and significance of
17.01 Is the relative importance/significance of each impact with impacts
regard to the environmental factor affected, and with regard to  17.02 – see Chapter 7, which describes
the other impacts given? the methodology and results of
analytical approaches for each
17.02 Is the significance based on objective criteria in order to
resource/receptor
minimize subjectivity of judgments?

18 Social Distribution of Impacts

 See Chapter 7.3, which addresses
Identifies which social groups will be affected by the positive and impacts to socioeconomic resources
the negative impacts. These groups are often not the same. The (specifies affected groups)
balance between positive and negative impacts cannot be done
without the correct identification of the social distribution of the
impacts, because it would not have scientific and technical
relevance.

19 Stakeholder Participation
 19.01 – see Section 4.5
19.01 Are the results of stakeholder participation, such as the  19.02 – No specific questionnaires
results of interviews, hearings etc. clearly documented? were used, but numerous Key
Informant Interviews, informal
19.02 Have questionnaires used been included? meetings, capacity building
19.03 Are the extent and method of stakeholder participation workshops as well as two
adequate? Agency/Sector scoping meetings and
six public scoping meetings from
19.04 Are the conclusions drawn valid, based on available data? Regions 1-6 were held.
 19.03 – see Section 4.5
 19.04 – see Section 4.5

20 Analysis and Selection of Best Alternative

 See Section 2.16 and Chapter 10

Selection must be based on criteria derived from the impact

assessment, and appropriate analysis and decision-making
methods must be used.

21 Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

 See Chapter 9 and the ESMP

May 2017 11
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 1
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Introduction

EIA Review Checklist Items Corresponding EIA Reference

An EMP is sometimes called an Impact Management Plan. It is
a necessary step to ensure that the developer is effectively
committed to the implementation of the mitigation measures. It
is also a useful corporate management tool. Does the EMP, as a
minimum, present
- The set of mitigation, remedial or compensatory measures?
- A detailed description of each one, with indication and criteria
for their effectiveness?
- Detailed budgets for each one?
- Timetables for implementation?
- Assignment of responsibilities, including an Environmental
Manager?
- The Environmental Policy

22 Monitoring
 See Section 9.6 and the ESMP

Monitoring is a necessary step to ensure cost-effectiveness of the

EMP. It is usually addressed under the EMP (see Section 20)
Does the monitoring plan, as a minimum, address
- What is going to be monitored (impact indicators)?
- Where will samples be taken?
- How the samples will be analysed (method/technique)?
- Criteria used to evaluate the results?
- Financial and human resources required?

23 Implementation Plan for the Mitigation Measures and

the Environmental Management Plan  See Chapter 9 and the ESMP

Implementation mechanisms must be in place to ensure effective

implementation of the mitigation measures and all other
recommendations that might arise from the EIA study. It usually
involves the assignment of a person responsible for
environmental management and an approved timetable for
implementation of measures.

May 2017 12
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Previous seismic testing and exploratory drilling have determined the presence of a high
porosity sandstone reservoir of crude oil with an estimated recoverable resource of 0.8 to 1.4
billion oil-equivalent barrels in an area referred to as the Liza field, located within the eastern
half of the Stabroek Block.
The purpose of this Project is to develop the Liza field and produce the oil in what is referred to
as the Liza Project Development Area (PDA). Phase 1 of the Project will consist of the drilling of
approximately 17 development wells, the installation and operation of Subsea Umbilicals,
Risers, and Flowlines (SURF) equipment, the installation and operation of a Floating
Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) facility, and ultimately Project decommissioning.
The Project will also involve onshore facilities and marine/aviation services to support
development drilling, installation, production operations, and decommissioning.
This section discusses the following information related to the Project:
 Project location;
 Overview of development concept;
 Drilling and well design;
 SURF;
 FPSO vessel, including topsides facilities and the vessel mooring system;
 Installation, hook-up, and commissioning activities;
 Production operations, including offloading by conventional tankers;
 Onshore, marine, and aviation support;
 End of operations (decommissioning);
 Materials, emissions, discharges, and wastes;
 Embedded controls;
 Project workforce;
 Worker health and safety;
 Project schedule; and
 Project alternatives.

2.1 Project Location

The Stabroek Block, which covers an area of approximately 26,800 km2, is oriented roughly
parallel to the Guyana coastline, extending across the entire width (northwest to southeast) of
Guyana territorial waters. Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of the Liza PDA, which is located
approximately 190 km (~120 mi) from the coastline northeast of Georgetown, within the
Stabroek Block.
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the preliminary conceptual layout of the FPSO, SURF equipment,
and drill centers within the Stabroek Block; their proximity to the Liza-1, Liza-2 and Liza-3
exploration wells; and the subsea and surface extents of the PDA, respectively.

May 2017 13
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-1 Subsea Project Development Area for FPSO Installation, SURF, and Drill
Centers within Stabroek Block

Note: Locations on figure subject to change.

May 2017 14
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-2 Surface Project Development Area for FPSO and Drill Centers within Stabroek
Block

Note: Locations on figure subject to change.

May 2017 15
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

The locations of the future development wells will be finalized before Project implementation;
however, the decision has been made that the wells will be drilled from two main drill centers5.
During the development drilling, installation of the FPSO/SURF facilities, and production
operations stages, work may be performed in the area denoted on Figure 2-1 as the Subsea
PDA, covering an estimated 4,500-5,000 hectares (ha). Most of this subsea area will not be
physically disturbed; the estimated subsea area to be disturbed during installation of SURF
equipment and the FPSO mooring system (see Figure 2-1) is approximately 400,000 m2 (30 ha)
(incorporating a 50 percent contingency factor).
During the development drilling and FPSO production operations stages, work may be
performed on the surface of the ocean within the area denoted on Figure 2-2 as the Surface
PDA, also covering an estimated 4,500-5,000 ha. As further described in subsequent sections
and represented on Figure 2-2, some of the ocean surface would have operational constraints
that would restrict unauthorized vessels from entering a defined safety exclusion zone during
drilling, installation, and production operations. Note, however, that while Figure 2-3 shows
four potential exclusion zones around the drilling locations, a maximum of only two drill ships
will be operating at any one time. The safety exclusion zones for the large installation vessels
are not specifically denoted on Figure 2-2; however, exclusion zones similar to those for the drill
ships will be maintained for these vessels while working in the PDA.

2.2 Overview of the Development Concept

2.2.1 Development Concept

The Liza field will be developed during Phase 1 with approximately 17 development wells
drilled from two drill centers, each with separate production, gas, and water injection
manifolds. Figure 2-3 illustrates the preliminary field layout of the proposed Liza field
development, which includes the development wells, SURF, and a spread-moored FPSO vessel.
The facility layout will continue to evolve during the design development process. The various
components shown on Figure 2-3 are further described in the relevant Drilling, SURF, and FPSO
sections in this chapter.

5
A drill center is defined as a group of wells (including production, water injection, and/or gas injection wells)
clustered around one or more manifolds. Each drill center incorporates separate manifolds that are separated by
several kilometers and are designed for production or injection. For example, Drill Center 1 will be separated into 1-P
(production) and 1-I (injection) components.

May 2017 16
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-3 Preliminary Liza Phase 1 Field Layout

February 2017 17
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

The development wells consist of production wells, water injection wells, and gas injection
wells. A portion of the associated gas (i.e., gas entrained in the wellstream) produced from the
reservoir will be used onboard the FPSO as fuel gas, and the remaining balance will be re-
injected back into the reservoir via the gas injection wells. Alternative uses of gas for future
phases are being studied and would be addressed in a separate or amended EIA. Water
injection will be used as needed to maintain reservoir pressure for optimal production over the
life cycle of the Project.
The Liza field will be developed using a spread-moored FPSO (see Section 2.5). The FPSO will
be a converted double hull Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) that will support the topsides
facilities, process the produced wellstream from the production wells, and store the processed
crude oil. Offloading of the processed crude oil for export will occur directly to conventional
tankers in a tandem configuration. Subsea production, gas, and water injection wells and
manifolds will be tied back to the FPSO via flowlines and risers (see Section 2.4).

2.2.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Management Systems

The various aspects of engineering design and operations will be carried out according to
applicable Guyana statutory requirements, applicable international design codes and standards,
as well as the EEPGL Operations Integrity Management System (OIMS)6 and the EEPGL Safety,
Security, Health, and Environment (SSHE) policies7. EEPGL and its contractors will have
structured management systems to verify the ongoing application of all necessary codes,
standards, procedures, and SSHE management systems. An overview of the EEPGL OIMS
Framework is included in Section 3.

2.3 Drilling and Well Design

2.3.1 Drilling Program

The Project proponent is considering the use of up to two drill ships, similar to the drill ship
shown on Figure 2-4, to drill the development wells during Phase 1. Both drill ships may be
operated simultaneously. Drilling operations may occur prior to, during, and after the
installation of the FPSO and SURF components.

6 http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/company/about-us/safety-and-health/operations-integrity-management-
system
7 The SSHE policies are part of the overall Standards of Business Conduct policy:

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/about-us/guiding-principles/standards-of-business-conduct

May 2017 18
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-4 Typical Drill Ship

During the drilling process, drill ships will require various tubulars, instruments, and devices
(collectively referred to as the drill string) to conduct the well construction process, which will
be as follows: drilling the borehole, running and cementing casings, and installing the
completion and production tubing. The drilling program will employ high-angle and extended
reach drilling technologies. These technologies allow wells to reach targets up to approximately
4 km (~2.5 mi) from the drilling seabed location. The wells will be clustered around two drill
centers rather than distributed over the producing reservoir. This approach reduces the number
of drilling locations, thereby reducing the area potentially impacted by drilling operations
including discharged drill cuttings8. The planned development drilling program and its cuttings
management approach is consistent with industry practices, considered protective of the
environment, and has been the basis for the Liza-1, Liza-2 and Liza-3 exploration wells.

2.3.2 Typical Well Design

Once the borehole is started for a well, pipe (also known as casing) must be inserted into the
borehole and cemented in place (to keep the well from collapsing and to seal the casing to the
formation). As shown on Figure 2-5, various sized casings will be progressively set as the wells
are drilled deeper. The size and strength of the casings to be used in the design of the well takes
into account the peak reservoir temperature and pressure conditions that may be encountered
during drilling and during production operations when the wells are flowing reservoir fluids.
After each casing string cement job is completed, pressure testing will be performed to confirm

8
Drill cuttings are the broken bits of solid material produced as the drill bit advances through the borehole in the
rock or soil. The cuttings are usually carried to the surface by drilling fluid circulating up from the drill bit.

May 2017 19
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

integrity according to standard industry practices. A provisional well program and design,
including casing types and sizes, setting depths, drilling fluid types, and discharge locations for
the development drilling program is shown on Figure 2-5.

Figure 2-5 Provisional Casing Program for Development Drilling Program

The first (i.e., most shallow) section of each well, also known as the structural casing section,
will be jetted or drilled with seawater. Drill fluids and cuttings from this section will be
discharged to the sea at the mudline without treatment per standard industry practice. For each
subsequent section of the well to be drilled, the drill string will be removed and the casing will
be lowered into the hole to prevent its collapse. Wet cement will then be pumped down the

May 2017 20
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

casing and forced into the annular space between the hole and the outside of the casing, as well
as into the annular space between the present and previously set casing.
The conductor casing, which is designed to hold back seabed surface soils and support the
weight of the entire well, is then set and cemented back to the seabed. Drilling fluids and
cuttings from this section will be discharged to the sea at the mudline per standard industry
practice.
A drilling riser will be deployed to connect the conductor casing and the drill ship, and the
blowout preventer9 (BOP) will be installed. Marine drilling risers with buoyant joints and
tension will be used to connect the wells via the BOP to the drill ship. BOPs will be periodically
tested during the well construction process.
After this point, all returns of drilling fluids and cuttings will be directed to the drill ship for
treatment (i.e., solids control and centrifugal cuttings dryer system) to reduce solids in the
fluids as well as the fluids retained on cuttings. After treatment, the cuttings will be discharged
to the sea from the drill ship. Based on prior analysis from the Liza-1 exploration program,
cuttings disperse in the ocean current as they descend through the water column, which
typically prevents significant accumulations of cuttings in any particular location on the
seafloor.
The surface casing will then be set and cemented in competent rock at a depth below the
mudline to allow drilling to the top of reservoir. The production casing will be set and
cemented at the top of reservoir, and it is the casing string in which the production tubing is
run.
The production tubing carries the reservoir fluids from the production zone to the wellhead
when the wells are flowing. The production tubing includes the subsurface safety valve (SSSV),
which is designed to mitigate the uncontrolled release of fluids from the reservoir during the
production process. The production tubing also protects the production casing from corrosion
and deposition of by-products, such as sand, paraffins, and asphaltenes.
After the production tubing is run, the well will be suspended (i.e., flow prevented) by
installing barriers to flow; the riser and BOPs will be removed; and the subsea tree will be
installed and tested. At that point, the well is ready for future connection to the SURF
components.
Figure 2-6 shows the various components of a typical subsea drilling system.

9
Blowout preventers are secondary safety devices that are installed at the top of a well, which may be closed in order
to prevent the uncontrolled flow of liquids and gases in the event of a loss of well control during drilling operations.

May 2017 21
 EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-6 Typical Subsea Drilling System Riser Tensioners

Riser Tensioners
Riser Tensioners
Riser Tensioners
Riser Tensioners Riser Tensioners
Riser Tensioners
Riser Tensioners

Upper flex joint (UFJ)

Upper flex joint (UFJ)
Telescopic Joint
Upper flex Upper flex joint (UFJ)
joint (UFJ)
Telescopic Joint
Upper flex joint (UFJ) Upper flex joint (UFJ)
TelescopicTelescopic
Joint Joint Upper flex joint (UFJ)
Upper flex joint (UFJ)
Telescopic Joint TelescopicTelescopic
Joint Joint
Telescopic Joint
Marine Drilling Riser with
bare joints,
Marine pupRiser
Drilling joints and
with
Marine
Marine Drilling RiserDrilling buoyant
Riser
with bare withjoints
joints, pup joints and
Marine Drilling Riser withbare joints,
Marine bare
Marine
Drilling joints,
pupRiser
joints pup
and
Drilling
with joints
buoyant
Riser and
joints
with
bare joints,
Marine pupRiser
Drilling joints buoyant
and
with
bare buoyant
joints
bare
joints, joints
pupjoints,
joints pup
and joints and
buoyant
bare joints
joints, buoyant joints
buoyant joints
pup joints and
buoyant joints
Lower Marine
Riser Package
Lower (LMRP)
Marine
Lower Marine Lower Marine
with Riser
Lower Flex Joint
Package (LFJ)
(LMRP) Blow-out Preventer (BOP)
Lower Marine Riser Package Riser(LMRP)
Lower Package
with (LMRP)
Lower
Marine MarineFlex Joint (LFJ)
Lower Blow-out Preventer (BOP)
Riser Package
Lower (LMRP)
with Riser
Marine with
LowerPackage
FlexRiserSubsea
Lower
Joint FlexWellhead
(LFJ)
Package
(LMRP) Joint
(LMRP) System (SSWHLD)
(LFJ) Blow-out (BOP)
Blow-out Preventer Preventer (BOP)
with Riser
LowerPackage
Flex Joint (LFJ)
(LMRP)
with Lowerwith Subsea
FlexLower
Joint FlexWellhead
(LFJ)
Blow-out Joint System
(LFJ)
Preventer (BOP) (SSWHLD)
Blow-out (BOP)
Blow-out Preventer Preventer (BOP)
Mudline (ML)
with Lower FlexSubsea SubseaSystem
Wellhead
Joint (LFJ) Wellhead System (SSWHLD)
(SSWHLD)
Blow-out Preventer (BOP)
Subsea Wellhead System (SSWHLD)
Subsea SubseaSystem
Wellhead Wellhead System (SSWHLD)
(SSWHLD) Mudline (ML)
Subsea Wellhead System (SSWHLD) Mudline (ML)
Mudline (ML)
Mudline (ML) Mudline (ML)Mudline (ML)
Mudline (ML)

2.3.3 Drilling Fluids

Two categories of drilling fluids will be used: water-based drilling fluids (WBDF) and low-
toxicity non-aqueous drilling fluids (NADF) in which the continuous phase is an International
Oil and Gas Producers Association (IOGP) Group III non-aqueous base fluid (NABF) with low
to negligible aromatic content. WBDF will be used when drilling the upper sections of the well.
To avoid formation of hydrates (ice-like crystals) due to the cold water temperature and high
pressure, salt or organic inhibitors may be added to the WBDF.
Based on wellbore stability analysis and experience gained from Liza-1 and Liza-2 drilling,
NADF will be required to maintain borehole stability while drilling all well sections below the
conductor casing.
Cuttings treatment equipment will be installed on the drill ships to allow recovery of NADF
and reduce the percentage of NABF retained on cuttings (%BFROC). The cuttings will be
discharged to the sea after treatment, in accordance with standard industry practice. The use of
cuttings dryers on other similar projects has significantly reduced the %BFROC.
During completion activities, a solids-free weighted brine composed of a fresh water base with
water–soluble salts will be utilized. Viscosified brine-based fluid will be utilized during
displacement and gravel packing operations. The brine will be filtered through diatomaceous
earth and cartridge filters. Brine, gravel pack fluids, proppant, diatomaceous earth (fossilized
skeletal remains of marine diatoms), and filtered solids will be discharged to the sea in
accordance with standard industry practice.

May 2017 22
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Any unused or used and recovered drilling fluids and products will be re-used, recycled or
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices. A preliminary list of
the types of drilling, completion and treatment fluids that may be utilized can be found in
Section 2.10.

2.3.4 Well Cleanup and Ancillary Processes

To facilitate well cleanup, development wells will be drilled, completed, and tied-back to the
FPSO. Completion and treatment fluids and solids left in the wellbore will be flowed back to the
FPSO, where they will either be treated and discharged or collected for onshore disposal. The
wells will not be cleaned up to the drill ship using temporary well test equipment; but, rather,
all wells will be cleaned up through the subsea tree/flowlines/production equipment on the
FPSO. Such small quantities of fluids will be incorporated with the crude product from other
wells. Resulting gas and water will be processed along with fluids from other wells. No well
tests of the Phase 1 development wells are planned.
Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) data may be collected to improve velocity modeling and reduce
uncertainty in reservoir mapping. VSP surveys can be used to correlate the surface-seismic data
to the information on the physical properties and characteristics of the hydrocarbons gained
from drilling the well. VSP data provides further time/depth information to improve
knowledge and understanding of the structure and stratigraphy of the reservoir.
A VSP survey, which can be conducted from a drill ship or other support vessel, requires a
sound source (commonly compressed air) and a receiver. Data is acquired by the receiver,
which is installed within the wellbore. The source may be located with zero offset from the well
(directly above the wellbore), at a fixed offset (a defined lateral distance from the well), walk
away (at a range of offsets), or walk above (at zero offset to the down hole well location). The
final scope of the VSP survey and specific geophysical tools to be used is still under review.

2.4 Subsea, Umbilicals, Risers, and Flowlines

The SURF facilities concept for the Project is comprised of subsea production trees, and
gas/water injection trees clustered around subsea manifolds in two subsea drill centers. The
risers, flowlines, and umbilicals10 will connect the subsea facilities on the seafloor to the FPSO.
The production manifolds will consolidate the production fluid from the individual production
wells to the flowlines, and the injection manifolds will distribute injection gas/water to the
individual gas/water injection wells. The subsea production control system on the FPSO will
monitor and control the subsea facilities through an umbilical and subsea control distribution
system that supplies power, communication, hydraulic fluid, and chemicals. The hydraulic
fluid for operating the subsea hydraulic valves will be a low-toxicity, water soluble hydraulic
fluid. The SURF system will be designed to withstand the full shut in pressure from the
production wells, and the gas/water injection components will be designed to withstand the

10
An umbilical is a cable and/or hose that provides the electrical, hydraulic, chemical, and communications
connections needed to provide power and control between the FPSO and subsea equipment.

May 2017 23
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

highest required injection pressures. Overpressure protection will be provided on the FPSO, in
accordance with industry standards, to protect the subsea systems. Figure 2-7 shows an
illustration of a representative SURF system similar to what is currently being designed for the
Project.
Figure 2-7 Representative SURF System

Note: Schematic is not necessarily representative of number of drill centers or wells.

The production drill centers will be connected to the FPSO with round-trip piggable production
flowlines. A pig is a specially designed device that is placed in the riser/flowline at a launcher
at one end and pushed by pressure until it reaches the receiving trap or catcher at the other end.
Pigging is performed to aid and assist in the maintenance, operations, cleaning, and inspection
of flowlines. Figure 2-8 shows an example of a pig.
Figure 2-8 Example of Wire Brush Cleaning Pig

May 2017 24
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.4.1 Well Flow Connections

Well flow connections between the subsea wells and the FPSO include several components.
Each subsea development well is capped by a subsea tree, which include several isolation
valves and a choke valve to control production and water and gas injection. For a given set of
wells tied to the same manifold, the subsea trees are connected by well jumpers to the subsea
manifold, which is then connected by flowline jumpers to flowline end terminations (FLETs)
located towards the drill center end of the flowline.
A typical configuration of the subsea trees, FLETs, flowlines, and manifolds expected at a drill
center for the Project is indicated on Figure 2-9.
Figure 2-9 Representative Subsea Trees, FLETs, Jumpers, and Manifold

From the drill center, the rigid flowlines travel on the seabed to the vicinity of the FPSO and
transition to vertical risers, where they connect to the FPSO at the surface. The risers carry fluids
up to the FPSO at the surface, as shown on Figure 2-10. In the case of injection streams (i.e., for
gas and water injection), the same configuration is used, but flow is from the FPSO downward
through the risers to the water or gas injection manifolds.

May 2017 25
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-10 Representation of Riser Connected to FPSO

2.4.2 FPSO Topside Subsea Control System

The FPSO will provide power, utilities, cabling, and tubing tie-ins to subsea control equipment
installed on its topsides to control the subsea equipment. The FPSO will be configured with
back-up power, in the event primary power is lost.
The subsea trees and manifolds will be monitored and controlled through the subsea control
system on the FPSO via a dynamic and static steel tube umbilical. Subsea control system will
accommodate typical monitoring requirements such as pressure and temperature measurement.

2.4.3 Risers, Flowlines, Umbilicals, and Manifolds

2.4.3.1 Risers and Flowlines

The Project will incorporate production, water, and gas injection flowlines and risers, as shown
on Figure 2-3. Flowline and umbilical lengths will range from approximately 3.2 to 6.4 km
(~2 mi to 4 mi), excluding risers, in water depths of approximately 1500 to 1900 m. The current

May 2017 26
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

design lengths are based on preliminary shallow hazard surveys and current field layout, which
may be adjusted during detailed design.

2.4.3.2 Umbilical

The umbilical (Figure 2-11) will be designed as an integrated bundle of tubes and cables to
transport hydraulic fluid, injection chemicals, and electrical power/communication. A single
dynamic umbilical, which will be connected to the FPSO at the surface and end at production
Drill Center 1 (DC1-P), will service the Liza field during Phase 1. In-field umbilicals will be used
to further distribute these services to the other subsea equipment.
Figure 2-11 Representative Integrated Dynamic Umbilical Cross Section

2.4.3.3 Manifolds

Manifolds are gathering points, or central connections made up of valves, hubs, piping, sensors,
and control modules. Manifolds include a protective structural framework that rests on a
seabed foundation where multiple trees, jumpers, and flowlines gather to consolidate flows
before they are either transported to the FPSO on the surface as part of production or back
down for injection of water and gas into the reservoir (Figure 2-12).

May 2017 27
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-12 Representative Subsea Manifold

2.4.3.4 Gas Lift System

The FPSO riser support system will be designed for gas lift capability. The gas lift system is not
required for initial startup, and it will be installed at some time during the Project production
operations stage based on the production characteristics of the Liza reservoirs. This system will
include a riser and flowline to DC-1P with connections to the production flowlines.

2.5 Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading Vessel

2.5.1 General Description

The FPSO vessel to be utilized for the Project will be a VLCC tanker, which utilizes a spread
moored configuration to maintain station continuously for at least 20 years. The FPSO will be
designed to receive the full production wellstream from the development wells and will process
crude oil at a design rate of 100,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD), with potential to safely
operate at sustained peaks of up to approximately 120,000 BOPD. For the purposes of this EIA,
potential impacts generated by the Project will be based on the highest potential oil production
volume, which is conservatively based on 144,000 BOPD11. The FPSO hull will be capable of
storing a minimum of 1.6 million barrels of stabilized crude oil. The FPSO will be able to offload
approximately 1 million barrels to a tanker in a period of approximately 28 hours.

11 144,000 BOPD is 20% over the sustained peak volume of 120,000 BOPD.

May 2017 28
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

The FPSO will also have the capability to process, dehydrate, compress, and re-inject the gas
produced from the reservoir. The FPSO will be configured to treat seawater used for facility
cooling purposes for injection into the reservoir, and to treat produced water for disposal
overboard into the sea. Living quarters and associated utilities will be provided in order to
support the operations on the FPSO.
Table 2-1 provides an estimate of the design rates for the FPSO facility. Although the Project
nameplate oil production capacity is 100,000 barrels per day (bpd), the Project facilities will
have the potential to safely operate at sustained peaks above the design rate. For purposes of
this EIA, potential impacts generated by the Project (e.g., air emissions) were based on a
potential peak production volume of 144,000 bpd to be conservative in the analysis.

Table 2-1 FPSO Key Design Rates

Service Design Rate(1) (2)
Oil Production (bpd) 100,000
Produced Water (bpd) 100,000
Total Liquids (bpd) 150,000
Produced Gas (Mscfd) 180
Gas Injection (Mscfd) 160 (assumes 20 Mscfd of produced gas will be used
as fuel gas for the FPSO)
Water Injection (bpd) 190,000
Notes:
bpd = barrels per day
Mscfd = million standard cubic feet per day
1 All design rates are presented as the peak annual average.
2 The facilities will have the potential to safely operate at sustained peaks of oil production up to approximately

120,000 bpd. For the purposes of the EIA, 144,000 bpd has been used as the basis to analyze potential impacts from
the Project.

Key FPSO design features include the following:

 The FPSO will be designed to remain moored for at least 20 years without dry-docking and
will include facilities to support in-water hull/structural surveys and repair and
maintenance.
 The FPSO will be designed to operate in extreme (100-year return period) environmental
conditions (associated wind, waves, and current).
 The FPSO will be designed to re-inject the produced gas back into the reservoir, except
during times of injection system unavailability, which will require temporary, non-routine
flaring.

A computer simulated picture of the planned FPSO and a general schematic of a converted
FPSO topsides and hull are provided on Figures 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.

May 2017 29
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-13 Computer Simulated Picture of Planned Liza Phase 1 FPSO

May 2017 30
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-14 General Schematic of a Converted FPSO Topsides and Hull

May 2017 31
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.5.2 FPSO Topsides

The FPSO’s topsides design employs an interconnected module concept where process
equipment is packaged in modules. The design concept maximizes pre-commissioning and
functional testing of the modules prior to arrival offshore Guyana. The FPSO will arrive for
installation, hook-up, and commissioning in the Stabroek Block fully fabricated, pre-assembled
and most facilities, modules, components and systems pre-tested.
The principal functions of the topsides process facilities will be:
 To receive, separate, and process the produced reservoir fluids to provide:

o a crude oil product for offloading onto conventional tankers,

o produced water from the reservoir to be of sufficient quality for environmentally
acceptable discharge to the sea, and
o produced gas to meet requirements for FPSO turbine generator fuel gas and for re-
injection into the reservoir;

 To treat seawater to provide a suitable supply of injection water to support the reservoir
depletion plans; and
 To provide support systems for the safe accommodation of approximately 80-120 personnel
involved in the operation of the production facilities and, on occasion, personnel involved
with the drilling program.

Temporary accommodations may also be utilized during key activities including hook-up,
commissioning and maintenance operations to increase accommodations capacity up to
approximately 140 personnel.

2.5.3 FPSO Process Systems

The process facilities on the FPSO topsides are shown schematically on Figure 2-15 and are
described in the subsequent sections.

May 2017 32
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-15 Process Flow Diagram

HP Flare
LP Flare

Notes:
GI = Gas re-injection
WI = Water injection
HP = High pressure
IP = Intermediate pressure
LP = Low pressure
SRU = Sulfate Removal Unit

2.5.3.1 Oil / Water / Gas Separation and Oil Desalting

An inlet manifold will receive full wellstream fluids (consisting of oil, gas, and water) from the
production flowlines and will route the fluids to the FPSO processing facilities. The wellstream
fluids will be separated into oil, water, and gas phases in a single train of separation. The
separation train consists of three stages (high, intermediate, and low pressure) of flash
separation to produce a stabilized crude product. Fresh water will then be added to the
stabilized crude product to remove dissolved salts as part of oil desalting. The final crude oil
product from the flash separation / stabilization process will be treated to meet the
specifications for sale prior to being sent to the crude product storage tanks in the FPSO hull.
Further processing of the water and gas streams from the separation process and the process for
treating seawater for injection are described below.

May 2017 33
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.5.3.2 Gas Processing

For Phase 1, the Project will re-inject produced gas (that will not be consumed as fuel gas on the
FPSO) back into the reservoir. The purpose of the FPSO gas processing system is to condition
the associated produced gas (which is not consumed as FPSO fuel gas) to the appropriate
specification prior to re-injection into the reservoir. It comprises systems to compress gas,
dehydrate gas, and direct gas to be re-injected.
During equipment maintenance and process upsets, including startup and shutdown scenarios,
part or all of the off-gas from the separation/stabilization process will be sent to the High
Pressure (HP) or Low Pressure (LP) Flare Systems. Flaring will be temporary and non-routine.
Flaring is discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.4.3 below.

2.5.3.3 Produced Water Treatment

The produced water treating system will be designed to collect produced water from the FPSO
processing facilities and treat the water for discharge overboard per standard industry practice.
The system will consist of primary and secondary treatment. Primary treatment will consist of
either a skim vessel or hydrocyclones for removal of large oil droplets from the produced water.
Secondary treatment will consist of a gas flotation for removal of small oil droplets in order to
meet the discharge specification. Produced water that does not meet the overboard discharge
specification will be routed to an appropriate tank in the hull for further treatment.

2.5.3.4 Seawater Treatment and Water Injection System

Water injection will be used for reservoir pressure maintenance to enhance oil production.
Seawater used for injection water will be treated prior to injection into the producing reservoirs,
per standard industry practice. The seawater treatment system will include sea lift pumping,
filtration, deaeration, and sulfate removal. Seawater lift pumps on the FPSO will be used to
pump seawater from depths up to 100 meters below the surface in order to access colder
seawater than what is available from the ocean surface. The filtration system will consist of both
coarse filtration (strainers) and fine filtration (multi-media filtration) for removal of particulate
from the incoming seawater. Following filtration, seawater will be vacuum deaerated for
removal of oxygen. The deaerated seawater will then be pumped through a membrane system
for removal of sulfate ions from the seawater as the final treatment step. The treated seawater
will then be pumped to the necessary pressure for injection into the producing reservoir.
A portion of the treated seawater will be further treated through a reverse osmosis system to
make fresh water. Fresh water is required for removal of salt from the crude product as part of
oil desalting, as described in Section 2.5.3.1.

May 2017 34
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.5.4 FPSO Utility Systems

This section discusses the utility system requirements for the FPSO. For the most part, the utility
systems designed to support the process facilities will be located above deck. Marine utility
systems may be used to support topside systems where appropriate.

2.5.4.1 Process Cooling

Cooling of process streams via a closed loop, water-based cooling medium system is required to
dissipate heat generated by the oil and water treating systems, the compression systems, and
miscellaneous utility systems.
The seawater lifting system described in Section 2.5.3.4 will also supply the required seawater
for cooling. Process hydrocarbon fluids do not come into contact with this seawater. Treated
seawater will be disposed of overboard at a suitable temperature so as not to significantly
impact marine life.

2.5.4.2 Process Heating

A process heating system is required as part of the crude oil treatment process to achieve the
required crude oil product specifications. A closed loop, water-based heating medium system
will be used to add heat to the incoming production. Waste heat from the power generation
system will be used as the source of heat.

2.5.4.3 Flaring System

EEPGL intends to re-inject all operationally produced gas under routine conditions, except that
which will be utilized for FPSO operations (e.g., fuel gas). A flare system will be provided for
the collection and safe disposition of produced hydrocarbon gases resulting from unplanned,
non-routine relief and blowdown events. Relief events occur to prevent overpressure scenarios
in the process equipment. Blowdown events occur to depressure the facilities in a controlled
manner as a result of emergency shutdown events. In addition, temporary, non-routine flaring
will occur during equipment maintenance, process upsets, and start-up. The flare system will
include both an HP and LP flare sharing a common flare tower, as shown on Figure 2-15. The
flare tower has elevated flare tips for both high and low pressure flares, which provides for the
safe ignition of hydrocarbon gases. Both flares will support high-efficiency combustion and will
utilize pilots that have minimal emissions.

2.5.4.4 Topsides and Subsea Chemical Injection

The FPSO will have storage and injection facilities to inject the required amounts of chemicals
and methanol into the production fluids to support production operations, both for subsea
chemical injection requirements and for topsides chemical injection requirements. These
chemicals are further described in Section 2.10. Table 2-6 provides a summary of the key
effluent characteristics for planned discharges to water.

May 2017 35
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.5.4.5 Air

An air compression system will be provided to supply FPSO hull and topsides equipment.
Compressed air is primarily required for the operation of control valves and other process
instrumentation requirements.

2.5.4.6 Nitrogen

Instrument air will feed the nitrogen generation system. Nitrogen will be provided as required
for purging (i.e., removing residual amounts of products), inerting (i.e., introducing non-
flammable gas to prevent ignition), blanketing (i.e., filling vapor space in tanks with non-
flammable gas to prevent ignition), and as required for miscellaneous utilities.

2.5.4.7 Drains

The FPSO topsides shall be equipped with the following drain systems:
 Non-hydrocarbon open drain. Used to collect drain fluids (e.g., rainwater) from non-
hydrocarbon areas and to route them to the slop tank in the FPSO hull or direct overboard.
 Hydrocarbon open drain. Used to collect drain fluids (e.g., oil contaminated water) from
hydrocarbon areas and to route them to the slop tank in the FPSO hull.

2.5.4.8 Other

Two deck cranes will be provided for supply boat offloading and materials handling and to
support general maintenance activities. Workshops, a laboratory capable of checking the
properties of the produced and injection fluids as well as select discharges for compliance,
medical facility, and storage facility for supplies and spare parts will also be provided. Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems will be provided for buildings and
enclosures.

2.5.5 Power Generation System

The required power for the FPSO will be generated by three systems as follows:
 The main power generation system will be gas turbine driven generator sets with spares
available in the case of unplanned downtime. All generator sets will be dual fuel (diesel,
produced gas) capable to allow for restoring power to the facility (i.e., black start).
 The essential services power generation system will be a diesel driven generator set.
Essential services include systems required for facility restart and for flow assurance
hydrate mitigation activities after an unplanned shutdown.
 The vessel emergency power generator set will be diesel driven and will provide power to
both the hull and topsides emergency systems (e.g., safety systems including emergency
lighting, telecommunication).

May 2017 36
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Additionally, for back-up power during emergency situations, the uninterruptible power
supply (UPS) system will be provided to power equipment such as the Integrated Control and
Safety System (ICSS) and subsea controls, among others.

2.5.6 Integrated Control and Safety System (ICSS)

Monitoring and control of the FPSO production operations will be performed by an ICSS.
Located in the main control room of the FPSO, the ICSS will include process shutdown,
emergency shutdown, and fire and gas systems to protect the facilities and personnel. These
systems will interface to a public address and general alarm system (PA/GA) to provide
distinct audible and visual alarm notification.
The ICSS includes the Process Control System (PCS), Safety Instrumented System (SIS), the Fire
and Gas (F&G) system, the Alarm Management System (AMS), the Operator graphics /
consoles; and the third-party interfaces to packaged systems (such as compressors, subsea, and
marine, among others).

2.5.7 Communication Systems

Telecommunications equipment will be installed on the FPSO to enable safe operation of the
facilities in normal and emergency conditions. This equipment will allow communication with
the shorebase, support vessels, helicopters, and tankers as well as communication on the FPSO.

2.5.8 Additional Vessel Systems

2.5.8.1 FPSO Cargo Systems

The main purpose of the FPSO cargo system will be:

 To receive, distribute, and store on-specification crude oil from the process facilities into the
FPSO cargo tanks;
 To receive and store off-specification crude oil from the process facilities into a designated
FPSO cargo tank; and
 To offload the crude oil stored in the FPSO cargo tanks into a conventional tanker at regular
intervals.

In addition to the FPSO cargo tanks, there will be a slop tank to receive stripping water from the
cargo tanks and discharge from the topsides non-hazardous and hazardous drain system. The
oil and water will be gravity-separated by a minimum residence and retention time. Once
separated, the oil will be skimmed off the top and sent to the cargo tanks, and the water will be
discharged overboard to specification.
The FPSO cargo tanks will be blanketed with inert gas. As depicted on Figure 2-15, a tank vent
system will be provided to release vapor and inert gas from the cargo tanks to a safe location,
toward the bow of the FPSO, to prevent an overpressure event in the tanks.

May 2017 37
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

The marine cargo system supports the following routine activities:

 Flushing of the crude oil offloading export hose;
 Emergency and temporary ballasting of FPSO cargo tanks with seawater; and
 Inspection and maintenance of FPSO cargo tanks and piping systems between offloading
operations.

2.5.8.2 Custody Transfer Meter

For offloading, crude will be pumped from the FPSO hull storage tanks through a custody
transfer metering package on the topsides and into the offloading system at a rate sufficient to
achieve transfer of approximately 1 million barrels of oil in up to 28 hours up to a VLCC class
tanker size.

2.5.8.3 Crude Oil Offloading

Export of the crude oil from the FPSO will be via a floating hose to the midship manifold of a
conventional tanker. The FPSO will be configured for tandem offloading to a conventional
tanker which will be owned/operated by others. The separation distance between the stern of
the FPSO and the conventional tanker will be approximately 120 m (390 ft). The maximum
conventional tanker size envisioned is a VLCC class. During offloading operations, the
conventional tanker will maneuver and hold station relative to the FPSO with the aid of up to
three assistance tugs, as shown on Figure 2-16. Crude will be transported to buyers’ final
location by the conventional tankers after each offloading operation.
Figure 2-16 General Offloading Configuration

May 2017 38
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.5.8.4 Ballast System

Ballast water will be required during the transit from the shipyard to the site. Once on site, the
unneeded ballast water from the FPSO may be discharged overboard.

2.5.8.5 Spread Mooring System

The FPSO will be permanently moored by fixed, spread mooring with up to a 20 point mooring
line system each connected to their respective anchor pile embedded into the seafloor. The
anchor piles will be either suction piles or driven piles. The mooring system will be designed to
maintain the FPSO on station for a 100-year environmental condition.

2.5.9 Safety and Personnel Protection Systems

FPSO safety systems will include:

 Firewater System – The firewater system will have one pump each located at the fore and aft
ends of the FPSO, with one pump serving as a redundant backup.
 Fire and Gas Detection Systems – Fire and smoke detectors will be located throughout the
topsides and living quarters and will be wired centrally with alarms sounding in the central
control room (CCR), which will activate the general alarm system on the FPSO. Gas
detectors will be placed in areas where gas might be released or could accumulate.
 Blanket Gas Generation – To prevent fires, the cargo tanks will be operated with an inert gas
blanket at all times except during tank entry. The inert gas for cargo tanks will be supplied
by an inert gas system utilizing flue gas from the marine boilers. To provide gas blanketing
for other spaces, including the methanol and xylene tanks, inert gas will be provided by
routing compressed air through the nitrogen membrane package.
 Lifeboats and Life Rafts – The FPSO will be provided with lifeboats on either side of the
accommodation, having a capacity on each side for 100 percent of the personnel on board
(POB). A fast rescue boat will also be provided, complete with a davit launching and
retrieving system.

2.6 Installation, Hook-up, and Commissioning

The sequence and duration of each FPSO and SURF installation, hook-up, and commissioning
activity will be further defined as part of ongoing Project planning and development. The final
sequence and durations of activities will depend on a number of factors, including, but not
limited to, final Project design, marine vessel and equipment availability, mobilization times,
and weather, among other factors. Key installation, hook-up, and commissioning activities will
include:
 FPSO Mooring Installation – Installation of the FPSO’s anchor piles and mooring lines.
Following installation, the mooring lines will be staged on the seafloor until arrival of the
FPSO.

May 2017 39
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

 Flowline/Riser Installation – Installation of the production, water injection, and gas

injection flowlines and risers. These components will be cleaned and tested to verify and
ensure integrity after installation, and then staged on the seafloor until arrival of the FPSO.
 FPSO Positioning and Mooring Connection – Positioning of the FPSO using support tugs
followed by retrieval of the FPSO mooring lines from the seafloor and hook-up of the FPSO
to its mooring system.
 Manifold/Drill Center Installation – Installation of the manifolds, manifold foundation
piles, jumpers, Subsea Distribution Units, and flying leads at the drill centers followed by
integrity testing and verification.
 Umbilical Installation – Installation of the umbilical and umbilical termination unit.
 Riser Connection – Retrieval from the seafloor, pull-in, and connection of the risers to the
FPSO.
 Testing and Commissioning – Testing and commissioning of the connected, integrated
FPSO and SURF production systems, including testing and de-watering / displacing
flowlines and umbilicals with commissioning fluids, which are further discussed in Section
2.10, and testing SURF control and shutdown systems. Some of these commissioning fluids
may be discharged to the sea per standard industry practice, as shown in Section 2.10.2,
Table 2-6. Any unused or used and recovered commissioning fluids and products will be re-
used, recycled, or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices.

The above activities will be executed in an optimal sequence with activities completed in
parallel where possible.
During the FPSO/SURF installation stage, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) may be
periodically utilized to support the above mentioned activities (e.g., underwater observations,
connections, and sampling, among others).

2.7 Production Operations

The Project will include a leased FPSO, owned and operated by the FPSO contractor, and a
subsea development, owned by EEPGL and operated by the FPSO contractor under the
direction of EEPGL. Throughout production operations, EEPGL’s personnel will perform
oversight and monitoring of the FPSO contractor to ensure that management systems pertinent
to safety, the environment, and operations integrity are properly implemented. To accomplish
this, EEPGL plans to utilize an onboard representative (OBR) supported by operational and
technical specialists to monitor, and direct as necessary, operation of the FPSO and SURF
facilities.
Operating processes will include flowing the hydrocarbon well stream from the reservoir to the
FPSO, where further fluid separation, stabilization, storage, and management will occur prior to
offloading the crude oil to the conventional tankers. General maintenance of the FPSO and
SURF components will also be performed offshore during production operations. Some
industry standard chemicals will be required as part of the processing and handling of the oil
and associated gas on the FPSO, as well as treating produced water prior to discharge. Both the
FPSO and SURF facilities will also require the use of industry standard additives to provide

May 2017 40
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

flow assurance and prevent corrosion, scale, hydrate, and asphaltene formation as previously
noted in Section 2.5.4.4 and described in Section 2.7.1. These subsea and topsides chemicals will
separate into the oil, water or gas phases of the process stream, depending on their solubilities
and applications. Therefore, residual quantities of these chemicals may be contained in the
processed crude oil, discharged with produced water, or emitted to the atmosphere with vented
and fugitive gases.
The final chemical requirements and quantities will be determined as part of the ongoing FPSO
and SURF facilities design work, and a preliminary list is provided in Table 2-2. Any unused or
used and re-captured production chemicals will be re-used, recycled, or disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations and best practices.
The objective of the following sections is to provide a general overview of the flow assurance
challenges and strategies.

2.7.1 Common Flow Assurance Additives

2.7.1.1 Hydrates

Ambient seafloor temperatures in the Liza area are sufficiently cold that hydrates could form in
the FPSO and SURF equipment. To prevent the formation of hydrates, a combination of
inhibitor (methanol), thermal insulation, and operating practices will be utilized.

2.7.1.2 Paraffin and Asphaltenes

The insulation needed for hydrate mitigation is sufficient to prevent Paraffin (wax) deposition
in the subsea production system. Paraffin inhibitor can be injected along with downhole
asphaltene inhibitor downhole if needed. Asphaltene precipitation and/or deposition are
expected at near wellbore and in production wells. Asphaltene deposition will be mitigated
with continuous asphaltene inhibitor downhole. In case asphaltene deposition cannot be
mitigated by asphaltene inhibitors, production wells will be soaked with xylene as remediation.
Pigging operations with or without xylene may also be used for remediating any asphaltene
deposition in the production flowline and riser.

2.7.1.3 Scale Control

Scale formation will be managed using scale inhibitor downhole and by sulfate reduction with
Sulfate Removal Unit (SRU) at topsides.

2.7.1.4 Corrosion Control

Internal corrosion of the subsea facilities shall be managed by a combination of material

selection and injection of inhibitor. Components in the production path upstream of the
flowlines will be fabricated from corrosion-resistant alloys suitable for the intended service.
The carbon steel flowlines and risers will be protected by the injection of corrosion inhibitor at
the subsea production manifold headers.

May 2017 41
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.7.2 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Management

The concentration of H2S will be extremely low for the initial stage (i.e., 5-10 years) of
FPSO/SURF production operations. There may be potential for the reservoir to sour over time,
which influences material selection and corrosion inhibition for certain FPSO, SURF, and
drilling systems. In the unlikely event that concentrations of H2S increase to a level that could
represent potential health or safety concerns for the Project’s offshore workforce, additional
management measures will be implemented as appropriate (e.g., training programs, personal
protective equipment, response planning, and equipment for leak detection and alarms).

2.7.3 Marine Safety

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure is responsible

for issuing notices to mariners concerning safety at sea.
MARAD will be advised of the location of drill ships during the drilling of the development
wells and the performance of well workovers in the PDA, and of the location of installation
vessels during major installation activities so that mariners are aware of these activities. Safety
exclusion zones with a 500 m (~ 1640 ft) radius will be established around drill ships during
drilling operations and around drill centers during well workovers, as well as around major
installation vessels in accordance with industry standards and practices, as represented on
Figure 2-17.
Authorizations for in-water activities will be obtained from MARAD and notices to mariners
will be issued for all marine vessels including the FPSO, supply and support vessels, tugs, and
those vessels employed during the FPSO/SURF installation, hook-up, and commissioning
stage. The Project will also communicate major vessel movements to commercial cargo,
commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel operators who might not ordinarily receive
Notices to Mariners, and where possible communicate Project activities to those individuals to
aid them in avoiding Project vessels through the stakeholder engagement process.
As also shown on Figure 2-17, during the production operations stage, the FPSO will have a 2
nautical mile (nm) radius encircling the vessel where marine support and tanker off-loading
will occur. No unauthorized vessels will be allowed to enter this approximately 4,000 ha
operational marine safety exclusion zone. EEPGL will use radar and visual surveillance of the
marine safety exclusion zones to monitor vessel traffic. Any vessels that may inadvertently
enter the marine safety exclusion zone without authorization will be contacted via radio and
instructed to leave the area. If EEPGL is unable to contact the vessel by radio, a Project supply
vessel will approach the encroaching vessel and notify them that they have entered a marine
safety exclusion zone. If the encroaching vessel ignores these instructions, EEPGL will contact
the Guyana Coast Guard for support.

May 2017 42
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-17 Preliminary Safety Exclusion Zones during Drilling, Installation, and
Offloading Operations

2.7.4 Offloading Tankers

Conventional tankers supporting offloading operations typically arrive anywhere from one day
to several hours ahead of the scheduled loading time, as a function of weather and ocean
conditions. When the conventional tanker is ready to approach, a Mooring Master will board
the vessel approximately 2 km (~1 mi) from the FPSO, in order to guide it to the FPSO for
offloading. The conventional tankers will export the crude oil to the buyer’s final location after
offloading operations have been completed.

May 2017 43
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.8 Onshore, Marine, and Aviation Support

2.8.1 Onshore Supply and Support Activities

Shorebase(s), laydown areas, pipe yards, warehouses, fuel supply, heliport, and waste
management facilities in Guyana will be utilized to support development drilling, FPSO/SURF
installation, production operations, and ultimately decommissioning. These onshore facilities
will be owned/operated by others and will not be dedicated to the Project. The specific
shorebase(s) and onshore support facilities (e.g., warehouses, laydown yards) to be utilized in
Guyana have not yet been identified by EEPGL. A preliminary footprint estimate for onshore
staging and storage in Guyana is approximately 30,000-50,000 m2. However, the final area
required will be determined as the Project development plan progresses. Accordingly, ERM has
performed the impact assessment on the basis that the Project will utilize existing shorebase(s)
located in Georgetown that meet this minimum requirement. Should any new or expanded
shorebase(s) or onshore support facilities be utilized, the construction/expansion and any
required dredging, as well as the associated permitting, of such facilities would be the
responsibility of the owner/operator and such work scope would not be included in the scope
of the EIA.
A typical shorebase quay is shown in Figure 2-18, and a typical laydown yard is shown in
Figure 2-19. Where existing Guyana shorebase(s) do not have the technical and/or capacity
requirements to support Project activities, EEPGL will potentially consider the use of other
onshore support facilities and services in Guyana, as identified and deemed necessary.
Additional logistical support may be provided by other regional suppliers outside of Guyana,
as informed by inputs from EEPGL contractors after contract award, to address Project needs
(e.g., deepwater port access in Trinidad).
Onshore support facilities will include pier/port/quayside space with sufficient draft for
receipt of cargo vessels bringing materials to and from the shorebase(s). Marine support vessels
will service the offshore activities and operations. A marine berth and secure warehousing
space for indoor and outdoor storage of materials and goods, trucking, stevedoring, freight
forwarding, customs logistics, receiving, inspection, and associated container handling and
storage operations will also be utilized.
Daily activities and operations to be performed at the shorebase(s) will generally include:
 Storage of pipe, equipment and spares;
 Loading and unloading cargo from trucks and marine vessels;
 Use of cranes and other lifting equipment;
 Bulk storage of chemicals, fuels, and industrial consumables;
 Potential operation of a cement and drilling and completion fluids plant to support offshore
drilling operations; and
 Secure handling and storage of wastes pending final recycling, treatment, or disposal.

May 2017 44
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Most of the major SURF equipment will be shipped preassembled and pre-tested directly to the
offshore Project site from their points of origin. Other minor equipment, supplies, and materials
may be temporarily staged at the shorebase(s) and associated laydown yards and warehouses
until transferred offshore for installation or use. The owners/operators of these contracted
facilities will be required to seek environmental authorization for any changes to current
operations (e.g., bulk storage of chemicals and fuels or facility expansions).
Figure 2-18 Typical Shorebase Quay

May 2017 45
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-19 Typical Laydown Yard

Support and supply vessels will require sufficient water depths to transit between the Liza field
and the shorebase(s). There is potential for some initial and periodic maintenance dredging to
be performed by the shorebase owner/operator(s), with any required permitting being the
responsibility of the shorebase owners/operators.

2.8.2 Logistical Support

An average of 10 round-trip helicopter flights is currently being made per week to support
ongoing exploration drilling activities. It is estimated that during development drilling and
FPSO/SURF installation, an incremental 20 to 25 helicopter flights per week will be added, for a
total of 30 to 35 round-trip flights per week. During FPSO/SURF production operations, an
estimated 20 to 25 round-trip helicopter flights per week will be necessary to support
FPSO/SURF production operations and development drilling activities.
There will be a variety of marine and aviation support equipment supporting the FPSO,
installation vessels, and drill ships, as shown on Figure 2-20. The support vessels will consist of
Platform Supply Vessels (PSVs) conducting re-supply trips to the FPSO and drill ships, Tug
Vessels (TVs) supporting tanker offloading activities, and Multi-Purpose Vessels (MPVs)
supporting subsea installation and maintenance activities. Based on current drilling activities
and past experience with similar developments, it is estimated that during development drilling
and FPSO/SURF installation, an average of 12 vessel trips per week may be made to the PDA.
During FPSO/SURF production operations, it is estimated that this number will be reduced to
approximately 7 vessel trips per week. The vessels are planned to be loaded and offloaded at
shorebase facilities in Guyana and/or Trinidad. Figure 2-21 depicts a conceptual diagram and

May 2017 46
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

estimated number and types of logistical support equipment that will be utilized to support the
Project.
Figure 2-20 Typical Logistics Support Vessels

May 2017 47
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-21 Potential Drilling and Operations Stage Peak Fleet Profile

May 2017 48
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.9 End of Operations (Decommissioning)

In advance of the completion of the Phase 1 production operations stage, EEPGL will prepare a
decommissioning plan for the facility in compliance with the laws and regulations in effect at
that time, while also considering the most appropriate technology available at that time. The
decommissioning plan and strategy will be based on a notice of the intent for decommissioning
the production facilities and plugging and abandonment of the development wells, which will
be provided to the GGMC and EPA to obtain approval in accordance with the requirements of
the Guyana Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act (1998) and EP Act (Cap. 20:05).
EEPGL will perform inspections, surveys, and testing to assess, and report to the EPA the
conditions that will provide the basis and required information to prepare a plan for
decommissioning. All risers, pipelines, umbilicals, subsea equipment, and topside equipment
will be safely and properly isolated, de-energized, and cleaned to remove hydrocarbons and
other hazardous materials to a suitable level prior to being taken out of service.
Near the time of decommissioning, EEPGL will work with the EPA and the GGMC to select the
final decommissioning strategy based on a comparative assessment, which is designed to
evaluate the potential safety, environmental, technical, and economic impacts and associated
mitigation measures in order to finalize the decommissioning plan.
Wells will be permanently plugged and abandoned (P&A) by restoring suitable cap rock to
prevent escape of hydrocarbons to the environment. P&A barriers will be installed in the
wellbore, of adequate length to contain reservoir fluids and deep enough to resist being
bypassed by fracturing. The number of barriers required will depend on the distribution of
hydrocarbon-bearing permeable zones within the wellbore.
It is expected that the risers, pipelines, umbilicals, subsea equipment, FPSO mooring lines and
anchor piles will be disconnected and abandoned in place on the seafloor, unless an alternative
strategy is selected based on the results of the comparative assessments.
The FPSO will be disconnected from its mooring system, removed from the production location,
and towed to a new location for re-use or decommissioning.
Selected waste streams associated with decommissioning activities, including hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes, will be managed and disposed of in accordance with standard industry
practice and applicable regulations. Methods may include injection downhole into the reservoir,
separation and incineration offshore, or transport to onshore waste management facilities for
management and disposal.

2.10 Materials, Emissions, Discharges, and Wastes

This section describes the materials (i.e., primarily chemicals) used across the various stages of
the Project, as well as the Project’s planned emissions, discharges, and wastes.
The Project may potentially produce small amounts of Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM) from the reservoir over the life of the production operations stage. The Project
may also utilize radiography periodically to support installation and maintenance activities

May 2017 49
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

(e.g., non-destructive examination of materials for quality control purposes). The Project will
follow standard industry practices to manage any workforce exposure to NORM or
radiography. Any equipment containing such sources will be registered, strictly tracked,
controlled, and returned to the vendor at the end of their use or if they must be replaced at any
time.
The Project will not generate any meaningful vibration which could impact
resources/receptors. EEPGL will manage airborne sound through engineering controls,
through administrative controls, and by providing appropriate Personal Protection Equipment
(PPE) to its Project workforce as described in Section 7.1.2. Underwater sound is discussed as
part of the Marine Mammal impact evaluation (see Section 7.2.5). The Project generates heat,
primarily in the form of a cooling water discharge to the sea, which is discussed as part of the
Marine Water Quality impact evaluation (see Section 7.1.4). The Project generates light, which is
discussed as part of the Seabird and Marine Turtle impact evaluations (see Sections 7.2.4 and
7.2.6, respectively).

2.10.1 Materials Inventory

Offshore oil development is primarily an extractive process (e.g., producing oil from the Liza
field). This extractive process will, however, require the use of various equipment described in
this chapter (e.g., drill ships, pipes, flowlines, FPSO), as well as some chemicals used to facilitate
well drilling, oil recovery, water/waste treatment, pipeline maintenance, and other purposes,
which have been described in prior sections of this chapter. The required volumes of these
chemicals are yet to be determined.
Table 2-2 below provides preliminary inventories of the primary chemicals that would be used
as part of the Project’s drilling, installation/commissioning and production operation stages,
respectively. Residual quantities of drilling and production chemicals may be discharged to the
sea as components of drilling fluid or produced water, injected into the reservoir, or emitted to
the atmosphere, as described in prior sections of this chapter. Unused or used and recovered
chemicals will be re-used, recycled, or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations
and best practices.
All chemicals will be stored, either at the shorebase(s) or on the drill ship or FPSO, in
appropriate storage containers with either secondary containment or appropriate drainage
control.

May 2017 50
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Table 2-2 Project Materials and Chemicals

Project Phase Primary Chemical Materials / Products

Water-based drilling fluid (WBDF) Non-aqueous drilling fluid (NADF)

 Water, seawater, or inorganic  Base Oil (IOGP Group III)
salts  Barite
 Barite  Calcium chloride brine
 Clays  Organophilic clay
 Water-soluble biopolymers and  Emulsifier
modified biopolymers  Wetting Agent
 Thinners  Viscosity modifiers
 Shale Inhibitors  Fluid loss modifiers
 Calcium Carbonate  Lime
 Lost circulation material  Calcium Carbonate
 Caustic Soda
Drilling  Soda Ash

Completion & Treatment Fluids Cement

 Brines  Cement class “G”
 Barite  Extender
 Water Soluble Polymers  Accelerator
 Inorganic and Organic Acids  Defoamer
 Calcium Carbonate  Retarder
 Caustic Soda  Surfactant
 Surfactants  Dye
 Hydrate Inhibitor
 Oxygen Scavenger
 Corrosion Inhibitor
 Low-toxicity, water soluble  Marine gas oil
hydraulic fluid  Biocide
SURF Equipment  Nitrogen  Oxygen scavenger
Commissioning  Hydrate inhibitor (e.g.,  Corrosion inhibitor
methanol, ethylene glycol)
 Corrosion inhibitor  Polyelectrolyte
 Scale inhibitor  Triethylene glycol
 Asphaltene inhibitor  Hydrogen sulfide scavenger
 Xylene  Oxygen scavenger
Production Operations
 Methanol  Biocide
 Deumulsifier  Clarifier/coagulant
 Defoamer  Hydraulic fluid

February 2017 51
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.10.2 Emissions

The Project will include several sources of atmospheric emissions. The principal sources of
atmospheric emissions from the Project operations can be divided into four main categories:
 Combustion Emissions: generated from combustion of liquid fuel or natural gas during
aviation and marine support and installation activities, operation of the FPSO and drill
ships, waste incineration, and non-routine flaring of gas that is not re-injected into the
reservoir;
 Venting Emissions: consisting of emissions related to tank storage operations (flashing
emissions, standing/working/breathing losses – dominated by FPSO product storage tanks,
but also including other tank storage);
 Vessel loading emissions: dominated by emissions released during the transfer of crude oil
from FPSO to tankers, but also including fuel transfer operations; and
 Fugitive Emissions: leakage through process equipment components (e.g., valves, flanges),
and potential unplanned CFC releases from the HVAC and refrigeration systems.

Table 2-3 provides estimated maximum annual Project atmospheric emissions in three distinct
periods, selected to account for differing activity levels over the Project life. Primary activities in
each of these periods to which the corresponding emissions can be attributed are as follows:
 2018 – 2019: Drilling, SURF installation and commissioning, and operation of related
support vessels
 2020 – 2021: Drilling, FPSO startup and associated temporary, non-routine flaring,
beginning of production operations, tanker loading
 2022 – 2040: Production operations following cessation of drilling, including temporary non-
routine flaring, operation of related support vessels, and tanker loading.

May 2017 52
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Table 2-3 Annual Air Emissions Summary

Pollutant Source Category Annual Emissions
(Tonnes unless otherwise specified)
2018-2019 2020-2021 2022-2040
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
FPSO
0 1,635 1,545
FPSO Flaring
0 375 175
(temporary, non-routine)
Tanker Loading 0 135 140
Area Sources12 2,385 1,125 1,125
Drill ship 1,255 1,670 0
Total 3,640 4,945 2,975
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
FPSO 0 45 50
FPSO Flaring
0 0 5
(temporary, non-routine)
Tanker Loading 0 110 115
Area Sources 85 40 40
Drill Ship 45 60 0
Total 130 250 205
Particulate Matter (PM)
FPSO 0 45 35
FPSO Flaring
0 15 5
(temporary, non-routine)
Tanker Loading 0 10 10
Area Sources 170 80 80
Drill Ship 90 120 0
Total 260 210 130
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
FPSO 0 425 405
FPSO Flaring
0 2,030 940
(temporary, non-routine)
Tanker Loading 0 30 30
Area Sources 500 235 235
Drill ship 265 350 0
Total 765 3,070 1,610
Other Pollutants
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) FPSO Flaring
n/a <1 <1
(temporary, non-routine)
Volatile Organic Compounds All Sources
95 10,250 10,720
(VOCs)
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs All Sources
195 1,510 980
[kilotonnes CO2-equivalents])
Note: The annual estimated totals currently reflect the preliminary Project schedule, which could change.

12Area Sources are mobile equipment such as aviation and marine support vessels (besides the FPSO and drill ships)
used during drilling, installation, production operations, and decommissioning.

May 2017 53
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.10.3 Discharges

The Project will have several planned discharges to water related to the operations and
maintenance of the drill ships, FPSO, installation and commissioning activities. These planned
discharges, based on the preliminary design information, are listed in Table 2-4. Potential
discharges include drill cuttings and fluids, well completion and treatment fluids, produced
water, cooling water, sulfate removal and potable water processing brines, topsides drainage,
hydrostatic test water, ballast water, BOP testing fluids, and sanitary and domestic wastewater,
as described below. All Project vessels will be equipped to comply with the water pollution
control standards required by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
(MARPOL 73/78).
Drill Cuttings and Fluids: WBDF, as listed in Table 2-2, and associated cuttings will be discharged
to the sea without treatment per standard industry practice. The process for treating and
discharging cuttings with residual NABF, as listed in Table 2-2, is described in Section 2.3.3.
Cement: Cement slurry returns are only expected during the cementing of the first casing
string for each development well. The excess spacer and lead slurry will be discharged
directly to the seafloor immediately around the well. Excess/unused cement will be
discharged to the sea.
Well Completion and Treatment Fluids: Well completion and treatment fluids will be treated and
discharged to the sea or shipped to shore for appropriate treatment/disposal per standard
industry practice.
Produced Water: The produced water treating system will collect produced water from process
facilities and treat the water prior to discharge overboard, as described in Section 2.5.3.3.
Cooling Water: Seawater is used to dissipate heat generated by the oil and water treating
systems, the compression systems, and miscellaneous utility systems. Process hydrocarbon
fluids do not come into contact with this seawater. Cooling water will be disposed of overboard
at a suitable temperature so as not to significantly impact marine life.
Sulfate Removal & Potable Water Processing Brines: These brine disposal streams are byproducts of
the membrane processes used offshore to generate sulfate-free water for injection and to
generate fresh water for crude desalting and for living quarters requirements. No treatment of
these streams (essentially seawater) is required prior to discharge.
Topsides Drainage: The topsides will have a non-hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon drain system.
The hydrocarbon drain system will direct drainage to a slop tank, where oil and water will be
gravity separated. Once separated, the oil will be skimmed off the top and sent to the cargo
tanks, and the water will be discharged overboard in accordance with treatment specifications.
The non-hydrocarbon drain system (e.g., rainwater) will route the drain fluids to the slop tank
in the FPSO hull or directly overboard.
Hydrostatic Test Water: Seawater treated with chemicals (e.g., biocides) will be injected in the
flowlines and risers to ensure the lines are sealed properly during installation, prior to the flow

May 2017 54
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

of hydrocarbons. The treated seawater used for hydrostatic testing of the water and gas
injection lines will be discharged near the seafloor per standard industry practice. The treated
seawater used for hydrostatic testing of the production lines will be round-trip pigged to the
FPSO and will be treated and discharged overboard with produced water.
Commissioning Fluids: A hydrate inhibiting substance (e.g., methanol or ethylene glycol) will be
used to prevent formation of hydrates during commissioning of the production and gas
injection lines. The fluid used for the gas injection line will be discharged at the seafloor, and the
fluid used for the production lines will be returned to the FPSO, treated, and discharged from
the overboard water line.
Ballast Water: Discharges of ballast water will be required for initial FPSO installation and
recurring tanker offloading.
BOP Testing Fluids: During periodic testing (approximately every two weeks) of the BOP
system, approximately 30 barrels of low-toxicity power fluid (i.e., fluid used to hydraulically
move the preventers) will be discharged near the seafloor. The typical composition of this fluid
is ~97 percent water with ~3 percent biocide/lubrication/corrosion protection chemicals.
Gray Water/Black Water/Food Preparation Wastes: The Project will provide wastewater treatment
for sanitary wastes (black water/sewage) and food preparation wastes in accordance with
MARPOL requirements. Gray water will be discharged overboard.
Table 2-4 summarizes drilling-related discharges and Table 2-5 summarizes commissioning and
production-related discharges.

Table 2-4 Summary of Drilling and Completion-Related Discharges

Fluid Type Estimated Discharge Per Well (bbl) a

Drill Cuttings Discharges 6,000

Water-Based Drilling Fluid (WBDF) Discharges 13,000

Non-Aqueous Base Fluid (NABF) retained on cuttings 400

Cement Returns 3,800

Completion and Treatment Fluids 6,000

a Values based on deepest well

May 2017 55
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Table 2-5 Summary of Commissioning and Production-Related Discharges

Type of Discharge and Effluent Expected Discharge Discharge Criteria Treatment
Characteristics Volume/Rate Required to
Meet Criteria?
SURF & FPSO Installation / Commissioning Discharges
≤ 500,000 bbl total 1) Perform discharge No
in accordance with
Ballast Water (FPSO initial deballasting) IMO requirements
2) No visible oil
sheen on receiving
water
25,000 bbl (total volume No visible oil sheen No
Hydrostatic Test Water
for all flowlines and on receiving water
 Biocide: ≤ 500 ppm
risers, occurring
 Oxygen scavenger ≤ 100 ppm
throughout SURF
 Corrosion inhibitor ≤ 100 ppm
commissioning phase)
Gas Injection Line Commissioning Fluids 400 bbl total None N/A
 Hydrate inhibitor (e.g.,
methanol or ethylene glycol)
Production Discharges
≤ 100,000 bpd Oil in water content: Yes
29 mg/L (monthly
Produced Water average); 42 mg/L
 Oil & Grease (daily maximum)
 Residual production and water Temperature rise
treatment chemicals <3°C at 100 m from
discharge

≤ 700,000 bpd No visible oil sheen No

on receiving water
Cooling Water
Temperature rise
 Hypochlorite: ≤ 5 ppm
<3°C at 100 m from
discharge
Sulfate Removal & Potable Water ≤ 100,000 bpd None N/A
Processing Brines
 Hypochlorite: ≤ 1 ppm
 Electrolyte: ≤ 1 ppm
 Biocide: ≤ 5 ppm
 Oxygen Scavenger: ≤ 10 ppm
 Scale Inhibitor: ≤ 5 ppm

Subsea Hydraulic Fluid Discharge ≤ 5 bpd None N/A

 Water soluble, low-toxicity

May 2017 56
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Type of Discharge and Effluent Expected Discharge Discharge Criteria Treatment

Characteristics Volume/Rate Required to
Meet Criteria?
1,800 bpd Oil in water content: Yes
FPSO Bilge Water
<15 mg/L
Inert Gas Generator Cooling Water Negligible None N/A
Negligible Oil in water content: Yes
29 mg/L (monthly
FPSO Slop Tank Water
average); 42 mg/L
(daily maximum)
Miscellaneous Discharges including Boiler <10 bpd None N/A
Blowdown, Desalinization Blowdown, Lab
Sink Drainage
1,100,000 bbl total (at 1) Perform in No
each tanker crude accordance with IMO
loading) requirements
Tanker Ballast Water
2) No visible oil
sheen on receiving
water

BOP System Testing Water-Soluble Low- 30 bbl every two weeks None N/A
Toxicity Hydraulic Fluid
Rain Water/Deck Drainage/Wash Down Rainfall dependent No visible oil sheen N/A
Water on receiving water
Gray Water 5,000 bpd None N/A
4,000 bpd Total residual Yes
chlorine as low as
Black Water (sewage)
practical but not less
than 1 ppm
<30 bpd Macerated to <25 Yes
Food Preparation Wastes
mm diameter
Notes:
bbl = barrels
bpd = barrels per day

2.10.4 Waste Management

The Project will generate a variety of solid wastes including both hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes, which vary over time by Project stage. As Table 2-6 indicates, waste will begin to be
generated when drilling commences, as early as 2018 per the current project schedule. Waste
volumes generated will increase as drilling activity increases in 2019 and 2020. Additional waste
will be generated from SURF installation and FPSO commissioning and hookup activities in the
2019-2020 timeframe. Waste volumes will then begin to decrease as drilling activity declines in
2021 and significantly decrease during the production operations stage once drilling activity is

May 2017 57
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

complete (2022 to 2039). When production operations cease, some waste will be generated from
decommissioning activities.

May 2017 58
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Table 2-6 Summary of Estimated Annual Project Waste Generation and Management
Methods
Representative Estimated Annual Waste Generation (metric
Waste Streams tonnes)(1)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2039 2040
Totals by Classification
Non-hazardous Plastic, glass, 1850 4220 5870 2480 400 330
wastes(2) paper, scrap
metal
Hazardous Used oil, paint 1770 4050 5470 2170 190 210
wastes waste, oil-
contaminated
cement
Totals by Management Method
Offshore Wood, paper, 250 600 830 360 80 110
Incineration cardboard
Onshore Used NADF, oil 1670 3820 5140 2014 140 140
Treatment / sludge, unused
Incineration chemicals
Onshore Landfill General trash, 1610 3630 5030 2080 280 230
(all non- incinerator ash,
hazardous)(2)
Recycle into Used oil, oily 0 0 20 30 30 20
Process water
Recycle (all non- Plastic, glass, 90 220 320 170 70 60
hazardous) scrap metal
(1) The annual totals reflect the current preliminary Project schedule (see Section 2.14), which could change.
(2) Non-hazardous volumes include estimated quantities of residue from treatment of hazardous waste

Solid waste generated offshore will be reduced, recycled, treated, and disposed offshore (i.e.,
incinerated and accounted for in Table 2-4 under FPSO source) where practicable, with the
remainder directed for onshore treatment, recycling, reuse, or disposal. For the exploration
drilling program, EEPGL is currently utilizing a regional supplier who is operating an existing
onshore waste treatment/incineration facility at a local shorebase in Georgetown, Guyana (see
Figures 2-22 and 2-23). The Project is planning to utilize similar facilities in Guyana or the
region during the development drilling, FPSO/SURF production operations, and
decommissioning stages. To the extent that solid wastes are being disposed of by a Guyanese
licensed onshore disposal facility (i.e., landfill, incinerator) in accordance with their permit, then
impacts from the proper disposal of these wastes are not further discussed in this EIA. All
Project waste streams will be managed in accordance with the Waste Management Plan that
will be part of the Project Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan (ESMP).

May 2017 59
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-22 Typical Waste Management Facilities at a Local Shorebase

Figure 2-23 Vertical Infrared Unit with Wet Scrubber and Oxidizer at Typical Waste
Management Facilities

May 2017 60
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.11 Embedded Controls

EEPGL has incorporated the embedded controls13 provided in Table 2-7 into the Project:

Table 2-7 List of Embedded Controls

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted

Drilling and SURF/FPSO Installation and Commissioning

 Utilize WBDF to the extent reasonably practicable and in other cases use Marine sediments, water
low-toxicity IOGP Group III NABF. quality, mammals,
turtles, fish, and benthos
 When NADF is used, utilize a solids control and cuttings dryer system to Marine sediments, water
treat drill cuttings prior to discharge such that end of well maximum quality, mammals,
weighted mass ratio averaged over all well sections drilled using non- turtles, fish, and benthos
aqueous fluids shall not exceed 6.9 percent wet weight base fluid
retained on cuttings.
 For VSP activities, commence such operations during daylight hours Marine mammals,
after a suitable pre-watch by Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) is marine turtles
performed and begin with soft start procedures, which incrementally
increase source sound levels in order to allow marine mammals and
turtles time to move away from the activity before full sound source
energy is utilized, in accordance with JNCC guidelines.
 With respect to prevention of spills of hydrocarbons and chemicals Air quality, marine
during the drilling stage: sediments, marine water
quality, protected areas,
o Change liquid hydrocarbon transfer hoses periodically sensitive species, coastal
o Utilize dry-break connections on liquid hydrocarbon bulk transfer habitats, coastal wildlife
hoses and shorebirds, marine
o Utilize a liquid hydrocarbon checklist before every bulk transfer mammals, turtles, fish,
benthos, ecology and
o Perform required inspections and testing of all equipment prior to
ecosystems
deployment/installation;
o Utilize certified Blowout Prevention (BOP) equipment;
o Regularly test certified BOP equipment and other spill prevention
equipment;
o Utilize overbalanced drilling fluids to control wells while drilling;
o Perform operational training certification (including well control
training) for drill ship supervisors and engineers;
o Regularly audit field operations on the drill ships, FPSO, and
shorebase(s) to ensure application of designed safeguards; and
o Controls for mitigating a failure of the dynamic positioning system
on the drill ships and maintain station keeping, which include:

13Embedded controls are engineering specifications, components, and/or operational procedures that are planned as
part of the Project.

May 2017 61
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
 Use of a Class 3 Dynamic Positioning (DP) system, which
includes numerous redundancies;
 Rigorous personnel qualifications and training;
 Seatrials and acceptance criteria;
 Continuous DP proving trials;
 System Failure Mode and Effects Analysis;
 Continuous DP failure consequence analysis; and
 Establishment of well-specific operations guidelines.

 During pile driving activities, gradually increase the intensity of hammer

energy to allow sensitive species to vacate the area before injury occurs Marine mammals
(i.e., soft starts).
 Maintain marine safety exclusion zones with a 500 m (~1,640 ft) radius
around drill ships and major installation vessels to prevent unauthorized Marine use and
vessels from entering potentially hazardous areas. transportation safety
Production Operations
 Re-inject produced gas which is not utilized as fuel gas on the FPSO to Air quality
avoid routine flaring. With respect to non-routine flaring, the following
measures will be implemented:
o Monitor flare performance to maximize efficiency of flaring
operation;
o Ensure flare equipment is appropriately inspected and function
tested prior to production operations; and
o Ensure flare equipment is appropriately maintained and monitored
during production operations.

 Treat produced water on the FPSO to limit oil and grease (O&G) content Marine water quality,
to 29 mg/L monthly average and 42 mg/L daily maximum. mammals, turtles, fish,
and benthos, seabirds,
ecology and ecosystems
 Design produced water and cooling water processes to avoid increases Marine water quality,
in ambient water temperature of more than 3˚C at 100m (~328 ft) from mammals, turtles, fish,
the FPSO when discharging. and benthos, seabirds,
ecology and ecosystems
 Perform onboard waste incineration for certain categories of waste. Land use
 Utilize a Mooring Master from the FPSO located onboard the offloading Marine use and
tanker to support safe tanker approach/departure and offloading transportation safety
operations.
 Utilize support tugs to aid tankers in maintaining station during Marine use and
approach/departure from FPSO and during offloading operations. transportation safety
 Utilize a hawser with a quick release mechanism to moor the FPSO to Marine use and
the tanker at a safe separation distance during offloading operations. transportation safety
 FPSO offloading to tankers will occur within an environmental Marine sediments, water
operating limit that is established to ensure safe operations. In the event quality, mammals,
that adverse weather occurs during offloading operations that is beyond turtles, fish, benthos, and

May 2017 62
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
the environmental operating limit the tanker will cease the offloading seabirds
operations, and may disconnect and safely maneuver away from the
FPSO as appropriate.
 Utilize a marine bonded, double-carcass floating hose system certified by Marine sediments, water
Class or other certifying agency that complies with the recommendations quality, mammals,
of OCIMF Guide to Manufacturing and Purchasing Hoses for Offshore turtles, fish, benthos, and
Moorings (GMPHOM) 2009 Edition or later. seabirds
 Utilize breakaway couplers on offloading hose that would stop the flow Marine sediments, water
of oil from FPSO during an emergency disconnect scenario. quality, mammals,
turtles, fish, benthos, and
seabirds
 Utilize a load monitoring system in the FPSO control room to support Marine sediments, water
FPSO offloading. quality, mammals,
turtles, fish, benthos, and
seabirds
 Utilize leak detection controls during FPSO offloading which include: Marine sediments, water
quality, mammals,
o Leak detection for breach of the floating hose that complies with turtles, fish, benthos, and
the recommendations of OCIMF GMPHOM 2009 Edition or later; seabirds
o Utilization of instrumentation/procedures to perform volumetric
checks during offloading.

 Provide trained medical personnel on board the FPSO and major Community health and
installation vessels to minimize reliance on medical infrastructure and wellbeing
facilities in Guyana.
 Utilize marine safety exclusion zone of 2 nautical miles around the FPSO Marine use and
to prevent unauthorized vessels from entering potentially hazardous transportation safety
areas.
 Project vessels will conduct ballasting operations in accordance with Ecological Balance and
IMO regulations. Ecosystems
General Measures
 Maintain equipment, marine vessels, and helicopters in good working Air quality, water
order and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications in quality, marine
order to reduce atmospheric emissions and sound levels to the extent mammals, marine turtles
reasonably practicable.
 Regularly inspect and service shorebase cranes and construction Air quality
equipment in order to mitigate the potential for spills and to maintain air
emissions at optimal levels.
 Shut down (or throttle down) sources of combustion equipment in Air quality
intermittent use where reasonably practicable in order to reduce air
emissions.
 Utilize secondary containment for bulk fuel storage, drilling fluids, and Water quality
hazardous materials, where practical.
 Regularly check pipes, storage tanks, and other equipment associated Water quality
with storage or transfer of hydrocarbons/chemicals for leaks.
 Perform regular audits of field operations on the drill ship, FPSO, and Air quality, water
shorebase to ensure application of designed safeguards. quality

May 2017 63
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
 Treat sewage to applicable standards under MARPOL 73/78. Marine sediments, water
quality, mammals,
turtles, fish, benthos, and
seabirds
 For those wastes that cannot be reused, treated, or discharged/disposed Land use
on the drill ship or FPSO they will be manifested and safely transferred
to appropriate onshore facilities for management. Waste management
contractors will be vetted prior to utilization. If deficiencies in
contractors’ operations are noted, an action plan to address the identified
deficiencies will be established.
 Utilize oil/water separators to limit oil in water content in bilge water to Marine sediments, water
<15 parts per million (ppm; per MARPOL). quality, mammals,
turtles, fish, benthos, and
seabirds
 Provide standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to avoid Marine mammals,
marine mammals and turtles while underway and reduce speed or marine turtles
deviate from course, as needed, to reduce probability of collisions.
 Provide standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to avoid Seabirds
any identified rafting seabirds when transiting to and from PDA.
 Observe standard international and local navigation procedures in and Marine use and
around the Georgetown Harbour and Demerara River, as well as best transportation safety
ship-keeping and navigation practices while at sea.
 Project workers will be subject to health screening procedures to Community health and
minimize risks of communicable diseases. wellbeing
 Utilize an established SSHE program to which all Project workers and Occupational and
contractors will be required to mitigate against risk of injury/illness to community health,
workers. safety, and wellbeing
 All workers and contractors will receive training on implementation and
will be required to adhere to its principles.
 Maintain an OSRP to ensure an effective response to an oil spill, All resources and
including maintaining the equipment and other resources specified in receptors
the OSRP and conducting periodic training and drills.
 Where practicable, direct lighting on FPSO and major vessels to required Seabirds and marine
operational areas rather than at the sea surface or skyward. turtles
 Provide screening on FPSO and drill ships for seawater intakes to Marine fish
minimize the entrainment of aquatic life, where practical.

2.12 Project Workforce

Preliminary workforce estimates are provided in Table 2-8. These estimates have been slightly
revised since submittal of the Application for Environmental Authorisation.

May 2017 64
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Table 2-8 Workforce Estimates

Project Stage Estimated Workforce
Development Drilling Approximately 600 persons offshore at peak,
when utilizing up to two drill ships concurrently

(Dependent upon final drill ships and support

vessels selected)
Installation, including FPSO and SURF Mobilization, Approximately 600 persons offshore at peak
and Hook-up/Commissioning
(Dependent upon final installation and support
vessels selected)
Production Operations, including FPSO and Approximately 100 to 140 persons offshore at
conventional tanker peak (an additional 25 to 30 persons would be
onboard the tanker)

(Dependent upon conventional tanker schedule)

Decommissioning Approximately 60 persons offshore at peak

In addition to the offshore components, there will also be personnel providing shorebase and
marine logistical support onshore (approximately 100-150 persons), some of whom will be
Project-dedicated while others will be shared resources. The onshore logistical support staff will
ramp up gradually through the installation stage until reaching a peak during the development
drilling campaign and FPSO/SURF installation activities, and then will diminish during
FPSO/SURF production operations. The logistical support onshore staff level is expected to
increase again briefly during decommissioning.

2.13 Worker Health and Safety

EEPGL and its parent company, ExxonMobil, are committed to protecting the safety, security,
and health of its employees, contractors, and the public, with a goal of Nobody Gets Hurt. It has a
robust and effective management system to protect its Project workforce. EEPGL will
implement its Operations Integrity Management System (OIMS) (see Section 2.2) during each
Project stage. This program is designed to manage occupational risks to Project workers and,
therefore, occupational health and safety are not discussed further in this EIA.

2.14 Project Schedule

At this time, the proposed Project schedule is still being refined. The Project life cycle will
include development drilling, installation, production operations, and decommissioning, as
well as associated logistics and onshore support. The engineering stage will precede FPSO and
SURF installation and development drilling operations, and will include front-end engineering
and design (FEED) and detailed engineering. The execution stage will include procurement,
fabrication and construction, drilling, installation, hook-up, commissioning, and start-up.
Operations and maintenance will follow start-up and will be the longest stage of the Project.

May 2017 65
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

Figure 2-24 provides a preliminary schedule for the major Project components and activities. As
depicted on Figure 2-24, oil production and export from the Project is planned for
approximately mid-2020. To support this goal, development well drilling from up to two drill
ships is planned to start in early 2019, with the potential for mobilization in 2018. The
installation of the SURF components and the FPSO are planned to commence in 2019.
Production will continue for at least 20 years. The milestones are still being refined and are
subject to change.
This schedule provides for simultaneous development drilling and FPSO/SURF production
operations, which will involve bringing the initial production wells online as subsequent
development wells are being drilled.
Figure 2-24 Preliminary Project Schedule
Liza Phase 1 Project - Preliminary Schedule

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Engineering Fabrication Tow
FPSO
Engineering Manufacturing and Transportation
SURF
Shorebase Support
Logistics
SURF & FPSO Installation
FPSO/SURF Installation
HU&C
Hook-up & Commissioning
Engineering Procurement Drilling (up to 2 Drill Ships)
Development Drilling
Startup

Production

2.15 Project Benefits

The Project will generate benefits for the citizens of Guyana in several ways:
 Through revenue sharing with the Government of Guyana, although the details of this
revenue sharing is confidential. The type and extent of benefits associated with revenue
sharing will depend on how decision makers in government decide to prioritize and
allocate funding for future programs, which is unknown and outside the scope of the EIA;
 By procuring select Project goods and services from Guyanese businesses to the extent
reasonably practicable; and
 By hiring Guyanese nationals where reasonably practicable, although the potential
magnitude of hiring will be limited.

In addition to direct revenue sharing, expenditures, and employment, the Project would also
likely generate induced economic benefits as other non-Project related businesses benefiting
from direct Project purchases or worker spending will re-invest locally or expand spending in
the area, thereby also generating more local value-added tax. These beneficial “multiplier”
impacts will occur throughout the Project life.

May 2017 66
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

2.16 Alternatives
This section describes the alternatives to the proposed Project that were considered:
 Location alternatives;
 Development concept alternatives;
 Technology and process alternatives; and
 No-go alternative.

2.16.1 Location Alternatives

The location of the Project, and the development wells in particular, is driven by the location of
resource to be recovered. There are no meaningful location alternatives for the FPSO, SURF
equipment, and drill centers within the PDA.

2.16.2 Development Concept Alternatives

Given the water depth and distance to shore of the Liza field, the development alternatives for
Phase 1 are primarily limited to floating production systems (e.g., FPSO, semi-submersible,
tension leg platforms). With the exception of the FPSO concept, the other deepwater production
systems would necessitate the use of a separate Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessel
for oil storage and offloading in order to enable export of the oil to buyers. The use of an FSO
would significantly increase the Project offshore infrastructure, which would increase Project
impacts on air quality (e.g., increased air emissions), marine water quality (e.g., additional
wastewater discharges), marine benthos (e.g., increased disturbance of the seafloor FSO for
mooring system), marine use and transportation (e.g., expanded exclusion zones for other
marine vessels). Therefore, the FPSO was chosen as the preferred concept for Phase 1 because it
is a more efficient, stand-alone solution for deepwater oil processing and storage, and it also
provides for fewer environmental impacts.
Three primary alternatives were considered for addressing associated gas produced during
Phase 1 operations: gas re-injection, gas export, and continuous flaring. Gas re-injection was
determined to be feasible for Phase 1, and it also provides benefits in reservoir management and
reduced air emissions. As such, produced gas not used as fuel gas on the FPSO will be re-
injected under normal operations. Continuous flaring of gas on a routine basis is not preferred,
primarily due to the associated air emissions. Gas export alternatives for future development
continue to be evaluated, particularly given challenges related to commercialization of
associated gas. The FPSO has been designed to allow for future gas export should an export
alternative be identified.

2.16.3 Technology Alternatives

EEPGL is using the most appropriate industry-proven technology in developing the Project in
terms of well drilling, drilling fluids, equipment selection, development concepts, and
environmental management. EEPGL’s parent company ExxonMobil and its contractors have
extensive experience in delivering offshore deepwater development projects around the world,

May 2017 67
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

particularly with FPSO and SURF components, and are applying that knowledge, experience,
and technology in the development of the Project in Guyana.

2.16.4 No-go Alternative

The no-go alternative means that the proposed Project would not be executed. If this alternative
is applied, the existing conditions described in Chapter 6 would remain unaffected by the
Project and the potential positive and negative impacts assessed in Chapter 7 would not be
realized. Therefore, evaluating the no-go alternative means evaluating the tradeoff between
positive and negative impacts.

2.16.5 Summary of Alternatives

EEPGL considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project and their environmental
impacts, and has selected the best action alternative, which is also the environmentally
preferred alternative, for use during Phase 1. The FPSO and SURF production system is a
proven development concept for deepwater oil developments and would leverage both
operator and industry proven technologies and experiences.

May 2017 68
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 2
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Description

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017 69
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

The Project must comply with applicable policies, guidelines, and legislation in Guyana (see
Section 1.1, Purpose of the EIA). This chapter reviews the relevant legislations and policies in
Guyana that are applicable to the Project and is divided into three sections:
 Section 3.1 describes Guyana’s national legal framework, focusing on laws that apply to
environmental issues in a general context such as the Constitution of Guyana, as well as
specific national laws and regulations that focus on environmental issues such as the EP Act
(Cap. 20:05) and the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations of 2000, and
petroleum development issues. It also identifies several resource-specific environmental
laws that are more narrowly focused and are directly or indirectly relevant to the Project.
 Section 3.2 describes the elements of the national policy framework that apply to the Project.
These strategies and policies articulate the government’s goals with respect to various
environmental issues.
 Section 3.3 describes the various international and regional conventions and protocols to
which Guyana is a signatory that are applicable to the Project.

In addition to these Guyana regulations, Section 3.4 discusses EEPGL’s Operations Integrity
Management System (OIMS), which establishes common expectations to address risks inherent
in its business.

3.1 National Legal Framework

This section provides an overview of the key legislation currently in force in Guyana that
pertains to resources that could be affected by the Project.

3.1.1 National Constitution of Guyana

Guyana is governed according to the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, as

amended. The constitution took effect in 1980 and expressly provides for protection of the
environment. Article 25 establishes “improvement of the environment” as a general duty of the
citizenry.

3.1.2 The Environmental Protection Act

In 1996, the EP Act (Cap. 20:05) was ratified to implement the environmental provisions of the
Constitution. The EP Act (Cap. 20:05) is Guyana’s single most significant piece of
environmental legislation because it articulates national policy on important environmental
topics such as pollution control, the requirements for environmental review of projects that
could potentially impact the environment, and the penalties for environmental infractions. It
also provides for the establishment of an environmental trust fund. Most importantly, the EP
Act (Cap. 20:05) authorized the formation of the EPA, and establishes the EPA as the lead
agency on environmental matters in Guyana (FAO, 2013). The EPA is one of the agencies
included within the Ministry of Natural Resources. The EP Act (Cap. 20:05) further mandates

May 2017 70
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

the EPA to oversee the effective management, conservation, protection, and improvement of the
environment (EPA, 2012). It also requires the EPA to take the necessary measures to ensure the
prevention and control of pollution, assessment of the impact of economic development on the
environment, and the sustainable use of natural resources.
The EPA has issued an official guidance document entitled “Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines” which describes the general components and content of a typical EIA. This EIA has
been prepared consistent with the recommendations in this document (see Table 1-2).

3.1.3 The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act

The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Act was enacted in 1979 and authorized the
government to establish the GGMC, which is within the Ministry of Natural Resources. The
GGMC promotes and regulates the exploration and development of the country’s mineral
resources. The GGMC has a dedicated Petroleum Unit charged specifically with regulatory
supervision of the oil and gas sector; however, petroleum-related activities also occur in other
divisions, such as the Geological Services Division and the Environment Division.

3.1.4 The Petroleum Act

The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act was enacted in 1986 to regulate the
prospecting for and production of petroleum in Guyana, including the territorial sea,
continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone. This act identifies persons allowed to hold
prospecting licenses, establishes the process for obtaining prospecting licenses, and specifies
requirements for further resource development in the event petroleum resources are
discovered.
The GGMC has a dedicated Petroleum Unit charged specifically with regulatory supervision of
the oil and gas sector; however, petroleum-related activities also occur in other divisions, such
as the Geological Services Division and the Environment Division. In 2012, the Commonwealth
Secretariat was commissioned by the Government’s then Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, now the Ministry of Natural Resources, to prepare recommendations to reform
Guyana’s regulatory regime that governs the upstream petroleum sector. In September 2015,
the Minister of Governance (via the GGMC’s Petroleum Unit) announced plans to upgrade the
country’s upstream oil and gas policy, which was originally crafted in 2012 and finalized in
2014. In June 2016, the Ministry of Natural Resources completed a new national oil and gas
policy and announced pending revisions to the Petroleum Act. These revisions were due for
consideration by Guyana’s National Assembly before the end of 2016 (Kaieteur News, 2016) but
had not been presented for approval as of February 2017. In late January 2017, Guyana’s
Government Information Agency (GINA) announced the Ministry of Natural Resources’ plan to
conduct a national outreach program to provide information to the public and answer questions
on the emerging oil and gas sector (GINA, 2017).

May 2017 71
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

3.1.5 Other Resource-Specific National Environmental and Social Laws

Several additional Guyanese environmental laws with more narrowly defined scopes pertain to
specific biological or physical natural resources. Other laws which primarily have a public
health related focus are also indirectly related to the environment. Several of Guyana’s
environmental statutes were enacted prior to the 1980 Constitution and were subsequently
incorporated into the newly formed national legal framework, but most were enacted after 1980.
Table 3-1 identifies these laws and summarizes their relevance to the Project.

Table 3-1 Resource-Specific Environmental and Social Laws

Title Objective Relevance to the Project
Biological Resources
Fisheries Act, 2002 Regulates fishing and related The Fisheries Act authorizes the
activities in Guyana territorial prohibition and/or regulation of
waters. deposition or discharge of
substances harmful to fish.
Would primarily affect the
contents of routine discharges
from Project vessels and the
FPSO.
Wild Birds Protection Act, Protects listed wild birds in Sections 3 and 6 prohibit
1987 Guyana. knowingly wounding or killing
wild birds listed in the First and
Second Schedule of the Act and
establishes penalties.
Species Protection Provides for the establishment of Provides for wildlife protection,
Regulations, 1999 a Management Authority and a conservation, and management.
Scientific Authority in compliance
with the Convention on
International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Wildlife Management and Provides for the establishment of Provides a supportive
Conservation Regulations, a Management Authority and the mechanism cognizant of the
2013 (recently management of the country’s flora national goals for wildlife
supplemented by passing of and fauna. protection, conservation,
Wildlife Conservation and management and sustainable
Management Bill, 2016) use.

May 2017 72
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Physical Resources
Environmental Protection Focused on setting effluent Regulates discharges of listed
Water Quality Regulations, standards, reporting substances, which could include
2000 requirements, penalties for substances used during the
violations of standards, and Project. Would affect the
permitting requirements for concentrations of certain
discharges. constituents (primarily metals,
but including others such as
nitrogenous compounds,
fluoride, and sulfate) that could
be discharged in the routine
discharges from the Project.
Environmental Protection Sets ambient air quality standards, Regulates discharges that could
Air Quality Regulations, reporting requirements, penalties be emitted during the Project,
2000 for violations of standards, and including smoke, particulates,
permitting requirements for and carbon monoxide (CO).
stationary and mobile sources.
Environmental Protection Establishes requirements for Identifies wastes subject to
Hazardous Waste generating, handling, and regulation, including several
Regulations, 2000 disposing of hazardous waste as types of waste that could be
well as penalties for violations of produced by the Project.
these requirements.
Toxic Chemicals Control Provides for the formation of a Establishes regulations
Act No. 13 of 2000, as Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals pertaining to the use of toxic
amended in 2007 Control Board. Establishes chemicals and pesticides.
requirements for registration, Pesticides will not be required
licensure, and trade in pesticides for this Project, but small
and toxic chemicals. Amended in amounts of chemicals may be
2007 to provide rules for the used. The Act would regulate
exportation of pesticides and toxic the importation, registration,
chemicals. and use of these chemicals.
Environmental Protection Establishes general provisions for Tools and equipment includes
Noise Management noise avoidance and restrictions pile drivers, steam shovels,
Regulations, 2000 from multiple commercial and pneumatic hammers, pumps,
industrial sources including vent or valve devices and any
sound making devices, night other similar equipment. A
clubs, equipment, tools, and regulated facility includes any
construction activities. offshore installation and any
other installation, whether
floating or resting on the seabed.

May 2017 73
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Draft Guyana Standard, Compulsory standard used for Sets limits for key parameters in
Requirements for Industrial monitoring of effluents into discharges of industrial effluent.
Effluent Discharge into the freshwater, estuarine, and marine Would affect the concentrations
Environment, 2015 water resources. of many of the same constituents
in routine discharges that would
be regulated under the
Environmental Protection Water
Quality Regulations 2000.
Would also dictate the general
water chemistry parameters
(e.g., temperature, biological
oxygen demand, pH) of these
discharges.
Public Health
Occupational Safety and Legally defines the responsibilities Would generally apply to
Health Act, 1997 of workers and management with workers and Project-related
respect to keeping workplaces activities on the Project site(s).
safe.
Food & Drug Regulations Regulates the sale, advertisement, Governs the preparation of food
(Food and Drug Act) preparation, and handling of food and provision of medications at
products. Regulates the Project facilities.
manufacture, advertisement,
trade, and administration of
pharmaceuticals. Provides the
Ministry of Health authority to
inspect facilities to establish
compliance with sanitation
standards.
Social / Cultural Resources
National Trust Act Stewardship of historic resources Governs the management of any
and places of cultural significance. building, structure, object, or
other man-made or natural
feature that is of historic or
national cultural significance
that could be impacted by the
Project. Includes shipwrecks and
other marine features. Would
only apply to the Project in the
event of a chance find, in which
case the Act would require
EEPGL to work cooperatively
with the National Trust to
manage any resources
discovered.

Most recently, the Minister of Natural Resources, who functions as the sponsoring Minister for
the Oil and Gas industry, announced plans in September 2015 to upgrade the country’s
upstream oil and gas policy, which was originally crafted in 2012 and finalized in 2014,
indicating an evolving policy and regulatory framework surrounding the oil and gas industry
in Guyana.

May 2017 74
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

To date, there are 16 laws concerning oil and gas in Guyana. The majority of these laws are
housed with the EPA, National Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health, Guyana
Revenue Authority (GRA), GGMC, or Guyana National Bureau of Standards.

3.2 National Policy Framework

Guyana’s government has articulated national policies on several environmental and social
topics that are relevant to the Project. This section provides an overview of the key government
policies applicable to the Project.

3.2.1 National Development Strategy

The National Development Strategy (NDS) recommends priorities for Guyana's economic and
social development policies for the next decade. The draft document contains technical analysis
of problems and future prospects in all sectors of the economy and in areas of social concern.
The NDS contains six volumes. Volumes 3 and 5 are the most relevant to the Project. Volume 3
of the NDS sets government policy with regard to the environment as well as social equality
issues. It identifies 12 distinct “features” of Guyana’s natural resources and environment, and
sets policies governing the management of each feature. Relevant features to this Project
covered under Volume 3 include the coastal zone, fisheries, waste management, pollution
control, and environmental impacts of private-sector activities (NDS, 1997).
Volume 5 of the NDS relates in part to the energy sector. It describes the condition of the energy
sector in Guyana, reviews past government policies related to the energy sector, identifies
challenges facing the energy sector in Guyana, and describes the government’s vision for
development and regulation of the sector into the future (NDS, 1997).

3.2.2 National Environmental Action Plan

Guyana’s National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) articulates the national government’s
approach to managing the environment from the perspective of economic development. The
NEAP considers the issues of environmental management, economic development, social
justice, and public health to be inextricably linked. It identifies deforestation, pollution, and
unregulated gold mining as historically minor but with growing environmental problems, and
identifies private sector investment as one of the primary opportunities to generate the
necessary capacity within Guyana to: 1) provide an appropriate level of public services to its
citizens; 2) reduce and/or eliminate the avoidable environmental degradation that occurs when
resource development occurs in a regulatory vacuum; and 3) reduce unsustainable uses of
natural resources due to the socioeconomic pressures of widespread poverty.
The NEAP is directly relevant to the Project in several ways. It identifies the coastal zone, which
will support Project activities, as an area in need of focused management due to the
concentrated human population along the coast and the susceptibility of the coastal
environment to both natural and human-induced degradation. It identifies private sector-led
development projects as a mechanism to build capacity and ultimately support more

May 2017 75
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

responsible environmental management. Finally, it identifies petroleum resources as a potential

target for development.

3.2.3 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Action Plan

Guyana’s Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) process is an ongoing initiative to:
promote the wise use, development, and protection of coastal and marine resources; enhance
collaboration among sectorial agencies; and promote economic development. In 2000, after two
years of study, the ICZM Committee produced an ICZM Action Plan, which was approved by
the Cabinet in 2001.
The ICZM Action Plan addresses policy development, analysis and planning, coordination,
public awareness building and education, control and compliance, monitoring and
measurement and information management (GLSC, 2006). Other coastal-zone related tasks
currently being undertaken by the Government include: strengthening the institutional setup
for ICZM; conducting a public awareness campaign to increase public understanding of the
vulnerability of the coastal zone to sea level rise and climate change; and creating a database of
coastal resources to facilitate improved ICZM. Currently, the EPA is mandated to coordinate
the ICZM program and coordinate the development of the ICZM Action Plan through the
ICZM Committee.
Under the Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change project, Guyana has also
conducted a socioeconomic assessment of sea-level rise as part of a wider vulnerability
assessment and developed a Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Implementation Strategy
for coastal and low-lying areas.

3.2.4 Protected Areas Act

The Protected Areas Act was enacted in 2011. It provides for protection and conservation of
Guyana's natural heritage and natural capital through a national network of protected areas,
and established a Protected Areas Commission to oversee the management of this network. It
also highlights the importance of maintaining ecosystem services of national and global
importance and public participation in protected areas and conservation, and it establishes a
protected areas trust fund to ensure adequate financial support for maintenance of the network.
Other functions of this Act include promoting national pride in and encouraging stewardship of
Guyana's natural heritage, recognizing the conservation efforts and achievements of
Amerindian Villages and Amerindian Communities, and promoting the recovery and
rehabilitation of vulnerable, threatened, and endangered species.

3.2.5 Guyana's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

Guyana’s current National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was formally adopted in 2015,
and is the third iteration of the NBSAP. It establishes the national vision for biodiversity, which
is to sustainably utilize, manage, and mainstream biodiversity by 2030, thereby contributing to
the advancement of Guyana’s bio-security, and socio-economic and low carbon development. It
is intended to guide national policy with respect to biodiversity through 2020. It recognizes the

May 2017 76
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

importance of biodiversity to the growing ecotourism industry and other economic sectors. It
also simultaneously recognized the importance of the mining industry to the national economy
and the potential for conflicts between the mining industry and ecotourism if land degradation
is associated with mining activity is not appropriately managed. The NBSAP set forth nine
strategic objectives intended to promote conservation and sustainability on a national scale,
improve biodiversity monitoring, harmonize legal and policy-based mechanisms across all
levels of government to support biodiversity conservation, and prioritize funding to meet these
objectives.

3.2.6 Low Carbon Development Strategy and the Green Economy

In June 2009, the Government of Guyana announced the Low Carbon Development Strategy
(LCDS). The LCDS aims to protect and maintain the forests in an effort to reduce global carbon
emissions and at the same time attract payments from developed countries for the climate
services that the forests provide. In 2013 the LCDS was updated to focus on two main goals: (1)
transforming the national economy to deliver greater economic and social development by
following a low carbon development path while simultaneously combating climate change (2)
providing a model for the world of how climate change can be addressed through low carbon
development in developing countries. The LCDS identifies Reducing Deforestation and Forest
Degradation Plus as a primary mechanism for achieving the goals of the strategy.
Although there is no formal government plan for achieving a “green economy”, the
Government of Guyana has expressed interest in the concept. President David Granger has
defined the “green economy” as consisting of the four “pillars” of energy, environmental
security, ecological services, and enterprise and employment (Kaieteur News, 2016). The LCDS
provides the conceptual framework for implementing the “green economy”.

3.2.7 Guyana Energy Agency’s Strategic Plan

The Guyana Energy Agency (GEA) was established by the Guyana Energy Agency Act of 1997
with a mandate to advise the Prime Minister on energy related issues, develop a national
energy policy, improve energy efficiency, monitor the energy sector, and educate the public on
energy efficiency and renewable energy (GEA, undated). The GEA’s Strategic Plan for 2014-
2018 specifically charges the Agency with monitoring “the production, importation,
distribution, and utilization of petroleum and petroleum products.”

3.3 International Conventions and Protocols

Guyana is signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions relating to
environmental management and community rights, although not all of these agreements have
been translated into national legislation. The key agreements relevant to the Project to which
Guyana has acceded or is a signatory are listed in Table 3-2.
Guyana is a member state of two organizations that administer multiple international treaties
and conventions: the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Maritime
Organization (IMO). The ILO has established eight “fundamental” conventions which provide

May 2017 77
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

certain general protections to workers in signatory states such as the right to organize,
standards for remuneration, restrictions on child labor (including minimum ages to work), and
protection from forced labor. In addition to these fundamental agreements, Guyana is
signatory to several specific agreements that would govern certain specific aspects of the Project
as they relate to labor.
The IMO is a similar organization whose member states have agreed to one or more
conventions related to maritime activities. These include three “key” conventions (the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) as well as several other agreements concerning
more specific aspects of maritime activity such as safety and security at sea, maritime pollution,
and liability for maritime casualties. Guyana’s Maritime Administration manages compliance
with the requirements of the agreements Guyana is signatory to under the IMO, with technical
assistance from the IMO’s Regional Maritime Advisory Office in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
The agreements to which Guyana is party through its membership in the ILO and IMO are
identified in bold in Table 3.2.

Table 3-2 International Agreements Relevant to Environmental and Socioeconomic Issues

in Guyana

Agreement/
Objective Status Relevance to Project
Convention
Climate Change/Air Quality
United Nations Promote international cooperation Acceded Provides for controls on
Framework to limit average temperature and greenhouse gas
Convention on Climate increases and resulting changes in Ratified in emissions within
Change climate. Promote international 1994 Guyana’s territory
cooperation to adapt to these (maritime and land), and
impacts. establishes national
policy regarding
adaptation to climate
change.
Kyoto Protocol Extends the UNFCCC and Acceded in Establishes national
commits countries to reduce 2003 emission reduction
greenhouse gas emissions. targets.
Vienna Convention on Provides a framework for the Acceded in Establishes measures for
the Protection of the protection of the ozone layer. 1993 protecting the ozone
Ozone Layer layer.
Montreal Protocol on Is a protocol to the Vienna Acceded in Prohibits the use of
Substances that Convention and is designed to 1993 several groups of
Deplete the Ozone protect the ozone layer by phasing halogenated
Layer out the production of numerous hydrocarbons that may
substances that are responsible for deplete the ozone layer.
ozone depletion.

May 2017 78
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Pollution Prevention
International Regulates various forms of marine Acceded in Impacts the handling and
Convention for the pollution, including oil and fuel, 1997 disposition of controlled
Prevention of Pollution noxious liquid, hazardous substances from the drill
from Ships substances, sewage, garbage, air ships, FPSO, and support
emissions, and ballast water. vessels.

International Promote the safe transport and Acceded in Regulates the

Convention for Safe handling of containers through 1997 manufacture, use, and
Containers generally acceptable test integrity of containers
procedures and related strength used on board the drill
requirements, and facilitate the ships, FPSO, and support
international transport of vessels.
containers by providing uniform
international safety regulations,
equally applicable to all modes of
surface transport.
International Confirms the right of coastal Acceded in Would protect Guyana’s
Convention Relating to member states to take specific 1997 rights to respond to an
Intervention on the actions when necessary to prevent oil spill if such an event
High Seas in Cases of pollution from oil following a were to occur.
Oil Pollution maritime casualty
Casualties

International Establishes vessel owners’ liability Acceded in Would not apply directly
Convention on Civil for damages caused by pollution 1997 to EEPGL’s activities, but
Liability for Oil from oil spills and provides for would apply to potential
Pollution Damage compensation would be available spills from tankers that
where oil pollution damage was had received oil from the
caused by maritime casualties FPSO.
involving oil tankers
Basel Convention on Reduce and control the Acceded in Would apply to the
the Transboundary movements of hazardous waste 2001 Project only if hazardous
Movement of between nations and discourage waste generated in
Hazardous Wastes and transfer of hazardous waste from Guyana were disposed
Their Disposal developed to less developed outside Guyana, or if
countries. hazardous waste was
brought into Guyana
from a foreign state for
disposal during
execution of the Project.
Rotterdam Convention Provides a mechanism for Acceded in Would apply to the
on the Prior Informed formally obtaining and 2007 Project only if chemicals
Consent Procedure for disseminating decisions of party and/or pesticides listed
Certain Hazardous nations as to whether they wish to under the convention
Chemicals and receive future shipments of listed were shipped into or out
Pesticides in chemicals, and for ensuring of Guyana.
International Trade compliance with these decisions
by exporting party nations.

May 2017 79
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Stockholm Convention Requires party nations to take Acceded in Would apply to the
on Persistent Organic measures to eliminate or reduce 2007 Project only if POPs were
Pollutants (POPs), as the release of persistent organic released to the
amended pollutants. environment during the
course of Project-related
activities in Guyana.
International Establishes measures for dealing Ratified in Requires ships to have a
Convention on Oil with marine oil pollution incidents 1997 shipboard oil pollution
Pollution emergency plan.
Preparedness,
Response and
Cooperation

Ecological/Environmental Quality/Cultural Heritage

The Cartagena Provide framework for Acceded Sets general goals for
Convention for the international protection and and protection for the marine
Protection and development of the marine Ratified in environment, especially
Development of the environment across the Caribbean 2010 from pollution.
Marine Environment in region.
the Wider Caribbean
Region
Protocol on Specially Protocol supplementing and Acceded Elaborates on the wildlife
Protected Areas and supporting the Cartagena and goals established in the
Wildlife Convention. Requires signatories Ratified in Cartagena Convention
to adopt an ecosystem approach to 2010 and Convention on
conservation. Provides mechanism Biological Diversity.
for compliance with the
Convention on Biological
Diversity.
Convention on Promotes biological conservation Signed in Discourages activities
Biological Diversity within the framework of 1992, that would negatively
sustainable development and use Ratified in impact biodiversity.
of biological resources, and the fair 1994
and equitable sharing of benefits
of genetic resources.

May 2017 80
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

United Nations Defines nations’ rights and Concluded Defines legal status of
Convention on the Law responsibilities in terms of their in 1982 and subsea mineral resources
of the Seas use of oceans and provides ratified in as the “common heritage
guidance on environmental and 1994 of humankind,”
natural resource management. encourages resource
development to be done
in a way that supports
healthy global economic
growth and trade
balance, and mandates
that states take measures
to prevent, control, and
reduce pollution of the
oceans.

Convention on Protects endangered plants and Acceded in Restricts collection and

International Trade in animals from international trade. 1977 trade of endangered
Endangered Species of species.
Wild Flora and Fauna
UNESCO Convention Protects “all traces of human Ratified in Applies to shipwrecks.
on the Protection of the existence having a cultural, 2014
Underwater Cultural historical, or archaeological
Heritage character” that have been under
water for over 100 years.

Labor/Health/Safety
International Specifies minimum standards for Acceded in Affects construction,
Convention for the the construction, equipment and 1997 operation, and
Safety of Life at Sea operation of vessels, compatible equipment on board the
with their safety. Allows drill ships, FPSO,
governments of participating installation vessels, and
states to inspect vessels flagged in support vessels.
other participating states to ensure
compliance.
Convention for the Promotes safety at sea by Acceded in Would apply to any
Suppression of criminalizing actions that would 2003 activity intended to
Unlawful Acts against endanger a vessel or its cargo, or endanger vessels while at
the Safety of Maritime contributing to activities that sea conducting permitted
Navigation would do so. activities related the
Project.
Dock Work Regulates activities associated Acceded Would apply to loading
Convention with the loading and unloading of 1983 and offloading activities
cargo onto/from oceangoing at the shorebase.
vessels when at port.

May 2017 81
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Repatriation of Requires vessel owners/operators Acceded Would apply to workers

Seafarers Convention to repatriate (at the operator’s 1996 onboard both EEPGL
(Revised) expense) seafarers that have owned/operated vessels,
successfully concluded a their contractors, and
minimum period of service tankers receiving oil from
onboard a vessel (minimum time the FPSO.
to qualify for this benefit to be
determined by the member state
but not to exceed 12 months)
Seafarer’s Identify Requires signatory states to issue Acceded Would apply to seafarers
Documents identity cards to seafarers and for 1966 entering or egressing
Convention other signatory states to allow Guyana prior to or
holders of these cards entry to following employment
their territories for the purposes of on vessels operated by
shore leave, joining a crew, or EEPGL or its contractors,
repatriation after completing a and to seafarers on shore
voyage. leave while employed by
EEPGL or its contractors.
Convention on the Officially recognizes the Acceded in Governs operation of
International importance of traffic separation in 1997 drill ships, FPSO,
Regulations for the marine environment and installation vessels, and
Preventing Collisions codifies basic measures to support vessels.
at Sea accommodate traffic separation,
including safe speed, signaling
conventions, and general vessel
conduct.
International Obligates crews operating vessels Acceded in Impacts required
Convention on flagged in signatory states to 1997 capabilities of crew on
Standards of Training, adhere to minimum standards board the drill ships,
Certification and relating to training, certification FPSO, installation
Watchkeeping and watch keeping. Requires vessels, and support
signatory states to submit detailed vessels, and provides for
information to the International inspection by authorities
Maritime Organization concerning to ensure compliance.
administrative measures taken to
ensure compliance with the
convention.
Convention on Prevent unnecessary delays in Acceded in Facilitates entry of drill
Facilitation of maritime traffic arising from 1998 ships, FPSO, installation
International Maritime burdensome documentation vessels, and support
Traffic requirements, and establish vessels into Guyana.
uniform formalities and other
procedures to permit
transboundary maritime
commerce and travel.

Guyana also belongs to other international organizations such as the Organization of American
States, the International Monetary Fund, and the Caribbean Community.
To highlight Guyana’s adherence to international standards and guidelines relevant to the oil
and gas sector, in May 2010 the country announced its commitment to the implementation of

May 2017 82
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and in September 2015, the country
recommitted its support to the ILO.

3.4 EEPGL’s Operations Integrity Management System

The Company and its affiliates (including EEPGL) are committed to conducting business in a
manner that is compatible with the environmental and economic needs of the communities in
which it operates, and that protects the safety, security, and health of its employees, those
involved with its operations, its customers, and the public. These commitments are documented
in its Safety, Security, Health, Environmental, and Product Safety policies. These policies are
put into practice through a disciplined management framework called OIMS.
EEPGL’s OIMS Framework14 establishes common expectations used by Company affiliates
worldwide for addressing risks inherent in its business. The term Operations Integrity (OI) is
used to address all aspects of its business that can impact personnel and process safety, security,
health, and environmental performance.
Application of the OIMS Framework is required across all Company affiliates, with particular
emphasis on design, construction, and operations. Management is responsible for ensuring that
management systems that satisfy the OIMS Framework are in place. Implementation will be
consistent with the risks associated with the business activities being planned and performed.
Figure 3-1 provides a high level description of the OIMS Framework and its 11 essential
Elements.

14http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/company/about-us/safety-and-health/operations-integrity-management-
system15 The European Nature Information System (EUNIS) is a habitat classification system developed by the
European Environment Agency (EEA) in collaboration with international experts. The EUNIS includes all types of
natural and artificial habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial.

May 2017 83
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 3
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Administrative Framework

Figure 3-1 Operations Integrity Management System

May 2017 84
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

4.0 METHODOLOGY FOR PREPARING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this EIA is to assess the potential physical, biological, and socioeconomic
(including social, economic, community health, and cultural) impacts of the Project. This
chapter provides a summary of the approach and methodology used to assess the potential
impacts associated with the Project. The EIA has been undertaken in a manner consistent with
the Guyana Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines – Volumes 1 and 2 (2000 and 2004,
respectively).
This chapter also describes the process used to conduct the EIA. The EIA was prepared to
provide an independent, science-based evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the
development drilling, installation, production operations, and decommissioning stages of the
Project. The EIA is also intended to share those findings with stakeholders and decision-makers
so they can make informed decisions regarding the potential benefits and impacts of the Project,
as well as the measures proposed to enhance these benefits and mitigate these impacts.
This EIA has been undertaken following a systematic process that evaluates the potential
impacts that the Project could have on physical, biological, and socioeconomic
resources/receptors, and that identifies measures that EEPGL will take to avoid, reduce, and
remedy adverse impacts. For the purposes of the EIA, an “impact” is defined as any alteration
of existing conditions (adverse or beneficial) caused directly or indirectly by the Project. The EP
Act (Cap. 20:05) defines an “adverse” impact as meaning one or more of the following:
 Impairment of the quality of the natural environment or any use that can be made of it;
 Injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life;
 Harm or material discomfort to any person;
 An adverse effect on the health of any person;
 Impairment of the safety of any person;
 Rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for use by human or unfit for its role in
the ecosystem;
 Loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and
 Interference with the normal conduct of business.

Information on potential impacts, including potential cumulative impacts related to the Project,
was obtained by ERM from various primary and secondary sources, including: consultation and
key informant interviews with the EPA, GGMC, and other stakeholders; environmental impact
assessments for other similar projects worldwide; and scientific research and literature.
The key stages for this EIA approach are:
 Screening;
 Scoping and Terms of Reference;
 Assessing Existing Conditions;
 Project Description and Interaction with Design and Decision-Making Process;

May 2017 85
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

 Stakeholder Engagement;
 Assessment of Impacts and Identification of Mitigation;
 Mitigation, Management, and Monitoring; and
 Disclosure and Reporting.

The methodologies for the key stages are described in the subsequent sections.

4.1 Screening
The first stage of the EIA process involved the EPA screening the Project to determine the
appropriate level of analysis to support the Application for Environmental Authorisation
(Application) submitted by EEPGL. The EPA screens projects based on the information
provided in the Application and determines the depth of environmental assessment/type of
document required to support the Application. Based on the results of its screening assessment,
the EPA may determine that the information included in the application is sufficient to support
a permitting decision, or it may require a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Management Plan, and/or an Environmental Impact Assessment. The EPA determined that the
Project could result in potentially significant impacts, and, in accordance with the EP Act (Cap.
20:05), indicated on July 29, 2016 that the Project requires an Environmental Impact Assessment
to inform a decision to approve or reject the Project.

4.2 Scoping and Terms of Reference

The key objectives of scoping are to:
 Identify key sensitivities and those actions having the potential to cause or contribute to
significant impacts on physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources/receptors;
 Identify potential siting, layout, and technology alternatives for the Project;
 Obtain stakeholder views through consultation; and
 Help inform the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA through consultation to ensure that
the process and output are focused on the key issues. The ToR describes the scope, technical
approach, and issues of importance to be considered in the EIA.

EPA issued a draft ToR for the Project on September 8, 2016, and its availability was advertised
in the newspaper on September 9, 2016. Sector Agency Scoping Meetings were held on October
5 and 6, 2016, to receive government agency comments on the draft ToR. Public Scoping
Meetings were held in each of the six coastal regions as follows to receive public comments on
the draft ToR:
 Region 1: November 14, 2016
 Region 2: October 26, 2016
 Region 3: October 24, 2016
 Region 4: December 3, 2016
 Region 5: December 2, 2016
 Region 6: November 8, 2016.

May 2017 86
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Following the public scoping meetings, the EPA required the submittal of an updated Project
Summary, which EEPGL submitted on January 13, 2017. The EPA issued a public notice for the
updated Project Summary with an additional 28-day public comment period. EPA approved
the Final ToR on February 17, 2017. The Final ToR was developed to guide the preparation of
the EIA and outline the requirements of the same. The Final ToR incorporated the concerns,
issues, and suggestions garnered during the 28-day Public Notification Period and the public
and sector agency meetings described above.

4.3 Assessing Existing Conditions

The description of existing physical, environmental, and socioeconomic conditions provides
information on resources/receptors identified during scoping that have the potential to be
significantly impacted by the Project. The description of existing conditions is aimed at
providing sufficient detail to meet the following objectives:
 Identify the key conditions and sensitivities in areas potentially impacted by the Project;
 Provide a basis for extrapolation of the current situation, taking into consideration natural
variability, and development of future scenarios without the Project;
 Provide data to aid the prediction and evaluation of potential impacts of the Project;
 Understand stakeholder concerns, perceptions, and expectations regarding the Project;
 Inform development of appropriate mitigation measures; and
 Provide a benchmark to inform assessments of future changes and of the effectiveness of
mitigation measures.

Field studies conducted to document existing conditions for the EIA are described in Chapter 6.

4.4 Interaction with Design and Decision-Making Process

The interaction between the EIA team and the design and decision-making process was one of
the key areas in which the EIA influenced how the Project would be developed. It included
involvement in defining the Project and identifying those activities with the potential to cause
physical, biological, or socioeconomic impacts. Project planning, decision making, and
refinement of the Project description continued throughout the assessment process in view of
identified impacts and proposed mitigation measures. During the EIA process, there was
extensive communication between the impact assessment team and the Project design team
with regard to identifying alternatives, potential impacts, and mitigation measures.

4.5 Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement has been conducted to support the development of the EIA and
associated ESMP. The objectives of the Project’s stakeholder engagement activities are to:
 Promote the development of respectful and open relationships between stakeholders and
EEPGL during the Project life cycle;
 Identify Project stakeholders and understand their interests and concerns in relation to
Project activities, and incorporate such interests and concerns into the EIA and ESMP
development processes, and, if appropriate, the Project design;

May 2017 87
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

 Provide stakeholders with timely information about the Project, in ways that are
appropriate to their interests and needs, and also appropriate to the level of expected risks
and potential adverse impacts;
 Satisfy regulatory and EEPGL expectations for stakeholder engagement; and
 Record feedback and resolve any grievances that may arise from Project-related activities
through a formal feedback mechanism.

4.5.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Project stakeholder engagement activities are guided by a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP),
which describes:
 Stakeholders identified for engagement;
 A program of engagement and communications activities, and their frequency throughout
the Project life cycle;
 A dedicated phone line and email address through which stakeholders can contact EEPGL
to voice concerns, provide information, or ask questions about the Project and its activities;
and
 Mechanisms through which EEPGL will monitor and report on external engagement and
communications.

The SEP is a document that is updated periodically as the Project progresses to reflect new
information, changing conditions, and additional stakeholders.

4.5.2 Stakeholder Identification and Engagement Strategy

Project stakeholders have been identified through a combination of desktop research and in-
country assessment and engagement. Stakeholder categories include, but are not limited to:
government officials; communities (including indigenous peoples); interest groups; non-
governmental organizations (NGOs); the private sector; media; academic and research
institutions; and professional, business, and worker associations.
Building on the stakeholder identification and mapping analysis, EEPGL’s stakeholder
engagement strategy identifies mechanisms and tools to facilitate stakeholder communications
and public information sharing. These tools are divided into two tiers that interact to facilitate
informed engagement. The first tier is information sharing, in which EEPGL provides
information about the Project to stakeholders to support their understanding of what is
proposed to occur. The second tier is consultation, in which EEPGL seeks to support open
dialogue and to receive stakeholder feedback, opinions, concerns, and knowledge regarding the
way the Project may interact with the natural and social environment. The objective of the
consultation is to ensure that EEPGL has identified key stakeholder issues and concerns.
EEPGL may disseminate information through print and online publications, media releases, as
well as presentations and open houses. The intent of these types of activities is to provide
information to a broad audience or group of stakeholders as efficiently as possible.
Consultation or dialogue activities involving a two-way flow or exchange of information

May 2017 88
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

between stakeholders and the Project may include one-on-one and small group meetings, public
meetings including a question and answer session, and feedback mechanisms such as a
dedicated email address ([email protected]) and phone line (+592 231 2866,
extension 12400). The intention of these activities is to allow for not only a two-way exchange of
information, but also a means for EEPGL to gather information concerning topics that are
important to its stakeholders. These activities also help ensure stakeholders’ comments and
opinions are heard and legitimate concerns can be addressed.

4.5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Process

Stakeholder engagement activities are an integral part of the Project lifecycle: from the initial
notification when the Project is proposed, to the scoping of potential impacts, to the EIA, and
throughout the life of the Project.
EEPGL has conducted a robust public consultation program to both inform the public about the
Project and understand community and stakeholder concerns so they could be incorporated
into the EIA. The different stages of the Project each require stakeholder engagement that is
tailored in terms of its objectives and intensity, as well as the forms of engagement used. The
various engagements completed and/or planned specific to the EIA stage are summarized
below.
 EEPGL has held many meetings and various workshops with the government and others on
offshore oil and gas exploration and development.
 The submission of the Application was posted in the local newspaper on August 9, 2016, by
EPA (Figure 4-1) and was subject to a 28-day public comment period. There were no
comments received from the public in regards to the Application.
 EEPGL and/or ERM have held meetings or key informant interviews with over 30 Guyana
government agencies/commissions, many elected officials and Regional Administrators,
over 15 professional or business associations, international and domestic non-governmental
organizations, several universities and research institutes, various religious and ethnic
organizations, and the media to inform stakeholders about the Project and to collect
information needed for the EIA. Although questionnaires were not used, these meetings are
documented in the SEP and inputs from these engagements were incorporated into the
existing conditions and impact assessment components of the EIA (Chapters 6 and 7,
respectively).
 The Draft ToR was developed and published by the EPA on their website on September 8,
2016.
 Sector Agency Scoping Meetings were held with EEPGL, the EPA, and other government
agencies on October 5 and 6, 2016, with over 150 attendees of which approximately 100 were
members of the general public, to discuss the Draft ToR, scope potential impacts, and
capture agency-level stakeholder feedback on the Draft ToR.
 Public Scoping Meetings for the purpose of scoping potential impacts and capturing
stakeholder opinions from the general public on the Draft ToR were held in Regions 1
through 6 during October, November, and December 2016 with over 300 attendees, of which
over 200 were public participants (Figure 4-2).

May 2017 89
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

 Following the public scoping meetings, the EPA required the submittal of an updated
Project Summary, which EEPGL submitted on January 13, 2017, that was followed by an
additional 28-day public comment period.
 The EPA approved the TOR for the Project on Feburary 17, 2017.
 Several select stakeholders were consulted following acceptance of the TOR, including:
 50 business community stakeholders at the Marriott hotel in Georgetown on February
20, 2017;
 the Guyana Oil and Gas Association on February 21, 2017; and
 Once the EIA was submitted to the EPA on February 27, 2017, the EPA administered a 60-
day public comment period, during which the public was invited to submit comments to the
EPA on the EIA.
 During the 60-day public comment period, EEPGL held a number of small group and
individual meetings with various stakeholders including government
agencies/commissions and NGOs, Regional Administrators, and academic and
ethnic/religious institutions. The purpose of these meetings was to provide an overview of
the EIA results and answer questions relating to the EIA process and results.
 During the 60-day public comment period, EEPGL also held public meetings in Regions 1
and 6. The meetings included an overview presentation of the EIA results, and provided the
public the opportunity to pose questions about the EIA and the Project.

May 2017 90
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4-1 Environmental Application Invitation for Public Comment

May 2017 91
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4-2 Sample Draft Terms of Reference Invitation for Public Comment - Regions 2 and 3

May 2017 92
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Once the EIA process is complete, and assuming EEPGL obtains environmental authorization
and other approvals from EPA, GGMC, and EAB, the Project will, subject to a final investment
decision, transition into execution. Plans for stakeholder engagement during Project execution
are described in the SEP, and engagement activities will be adjusted to reflect evolving Project
status and activity level, as well as stakeholder concerns over the life of the Project. During
Project execution, the emphasis of engagement shifts from input gathering to disclosure about
planned activities as well as consultation (including receipt of feedback) on ongoing and
planned activities. EEPGL will keep the public informed about the general progress of the
Project (e.g., completion of Project stages such as well drilling) and will respond to any
grievances (e.g., specific concerns) filed under the Project’s Grievance Procedure, which is
described in the SEP. The Grievance Procedure will be in place throughout the life of the
Project.

4.5.4 Stakeholder Comments and Considerations

This section summarizes the key comments and suggestions received from stakeholders during
the EIA consultation processes to date and how these comments have been considered and
addressed in the EIA (Table 4-1).
During the Project’s EIA scoping phase, the EPA led a series of eight scoping meetings (two
meetings attended by agency representatives, and one public meeting each in Regions 1-6).
These meetings served to inform stakeholders about, and receive feedback on, the EIA Terms of
Reference (ToR) which were also made available on the EPA website throughout the scoping
phase. The public was also made aware that comments could be submitted directly to the EPA
during the 28-day public comment period of the scoping phase.
A total of 163 comments were received from public stakeholders over the course of the scoping
phase. Some were raised in person at the scoping meetings, while others were submitted via
comment boxes at the meetings, or by letter to the EPA. The largest number of comments (58)
pertained to the EIA approach, process and/or methodology, including questions about the EIA
timeline, the company conducting the EIA, delineation of the Area of Influence (AOI), data
collected for the EIA, stakeholder engagement efforts over the course of the EIA process, and
content of the ESMP. There were also numerous questions and comments (37) about potential
impacts of the Project, including impacts to marine life and other biological resources, fishing
livelihoods, air quality, indigenous lands, and potential for accidents. A total of 40 comments
pertained to the Project Description, including the project location, life of the project, processes
for waste management, use of produced gas, and measures to prevent and address oil spills. A
total of 19 comments were received about possible socioeconomic benefits of the Project,
including employment, government revenues, and local content. Seven comments were
received regarding the EPA’s role and capacity in the EIA process, and three questions were
received about the administrative framework regulating oil and gas development in Guyana.
Table 4-1 below summarizes key themes raised by stakeholders during the EIA scoping phase,
and indicates how these have been considered in the EIA.

May 2017 93
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 4-1 Themes in Scoping Comments Received and Consideration in EIA

Key Theme Consideration in EIA

Differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2, Phase 2 has not been defined. Any future phases would
types of SURF and FPSO equipment and be addressed through a separate permitting process. A
methods, gas re-injection Project Description is provided in Chapter 2.
EIA methodology, hierarchy, data collection
The methodology for the EIA including existing
techniques, types of surveys and studies,
condition data collection, assessment, and mitigation
limitations, predictive analysis, and
analysis is discussed in Chapter 4.
considerations for mitigation
OSR planning is discussed in Chapter 7.
Oil spill response (OSR) capabilities,
Potential impacts as a result of an unplanned event,
protection measures, vessel information,
such as an oil spill, are assessed in Section 7.4.
response capacity (e.g., trained responders,
A separate Oil Spill Response Plan for the Project is
equipment), notifications, liability
being developed.
Area of Influence (AOI) determinations The AOI for the Project is described in Chapter 5.
Details related to the EIA process and the
Timing for public comment period, cut-off administrative frameworks are discussed in Chapter 3.
dates, and how comments are incorporated Details related to the public comment period and how
into the EIA stakeholder feedback is incorporated into the EIA are
discussed here in Section 4.5.
A brief description of ERM and its experience
conducting EIAs for offshore oil and gas projects is
Credentials and experience of the company
presented in Section 1.0 of the EIA. Curriculum vitae for
developing the EIA.
the key EIA team members are provided in Appendix B
of the EIA.
Subcontractor management and
Details related to subcontractors and logistical support
monitoring, logistical support
are described in Chapter 2.
requirements, and onshore shorebases
Decommissioning information is presented in Chapter
Decommissioning
2.
An alternatives analysis is included in Section 2.
Alternatives analysis, particularly as it Further details pertaining to Air Quality, Climate
pertains to Air Quality Change, and the impact on receptors is discussed in
Chapter 7.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) The SEA that was submitted to EPA in March 2014 and
details, current and previous stakeholder includes previous stakeholder information can be found
engagement information on the EPA website.
Information pertaining to marine mammal data
Role of Marine Mammal Observers collection can be found in Chapter 6.

Socioeconomic benefits of the Project are discussed

Potential socioeconomic benefits of the generally in Section 7.3.2 and Section 7.3.3 of the EIA.
Project including employment and Opportunities for local employment and procurement
government revenue. are currently under study; details will be elaborated in a
Project-specific local content plan.
Potential adverse impacts to employment, livelihoods
Potential adverse impacts on livelihoods
and economy are discussed in Section 7.3.2, Section
and economy, including fishing livelihoods.
7.3.3. and Section 7.4.4.

May 2017 94
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Key Theme Consideration in EIA

A description of the gas production rate, and its

Management and use of produced gas management and use by the Project are described in
Section 2.5 of the EIA.

A list of chemicals that the Project intends to use is

provided in Section 2.10.1 of the EIA. Management of
Use and disposal of hazardous substances
wastes including hazardous waste is provided in
Section 2.10.4.

An estimated annual emissions summary is provided in

Section 2.10.2 of the EIA, while assessments of Project
Emissions and their impacts
emissions on ambient air quality and climate are
provided in Section 7.1.1.

Descriptions of the Project vessels’ discharges, and

Waste streams and their management and
management/disposal systems and practices are
discharge
provided in Sections 2.10.3 and 2.10.4.

Assessment of impacts to coastal resources is provided

Possible effects on coastal resources
in Section 7.2.1, Section 7.2.2, Section 7.2.3, Section 7.4.3
including mangroves and artisanal fisheries
and Section 7.4.4 of the EIA.

An assessment of impacts to biological receptors,

Possible effects on marine life including marine wildlife, can be found in Section 7.2
and Section 7.4.3 of the EIA.

Assessment of impacts to fishing livelihoods can be

Possible effects on fishing livelihoods
found in Section 7.3.3 and Section 7.4.4.

A discussion of indigenous people and resources and

Impacts to indigenous people, lands and
their potential to be affected by the Project is provided
resources
in Section 7.3.10 and Section 7.4.4.8.

Oil spill modeling results, and assessment of potential

Oil spill potential impacts and impacted
impacts of an oil spill are discussed in Section 7.4 of the
locations
EIA.

Potential for social changes such as Potential impacts to community safety are assessed in
trafficking, prostitution, drug trade etc. Section 7.3.4 of the EIA.

The guiding principles and an overview of general

Principles and content of the Environmental
structure and content of the ESMP are discussed in
and Social Management Plan (ESMP)
Chapter 9 of the EIA.
The type of anchor mooring or other positioning
Type of anchor mooring on offshore vessels mechanism to be utilized by Project vessels is discussed
in Section 2.

May 2017 95
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Some questions were raised during the scoping meetings that were outside the scope of an EIA
(e.g., the potential for an oil refinery in Guyana) and/or are confidential, such as the details of
EEPGL’s agreement with the Government of Guyana, and are therefore not discussed in Table
4-1.
During the Project’s 60-day public comment period, EEPGL conducted a series of individual
and small group meetings, as well as two public consultations (one in in Region 1 and one in
Region 6). The stakeholders that were engaged during this period include:

 Environmental Protection Agency  Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs

 Ministry of Natural Resources  National Trust of Guyana

 Maritime Administration Department  Conservation International Guyana

 Civil Defense Commission  World Wildlife Fund Guyana

 Ministry of Agriculture, Department of  Guyana Marine Conservation Society

Fisheries
 Guyana Geology and Mines Commission  University of Guyana

 Ministry of Health  Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha

 Region 2 Administration  Region 1 (public consultation)

 Ministry of Communities  Region 6 (public consultation)

Stakeholder comments were documented over the course of these engagement events.
Comments and questions related to a range of topics including potential impacts on fishing
livelihoods, potential impacts to marine biodiversity, potential impacts on air emissions and
how these were assessed, financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill, application of the
mitigation hierarchy, Project employment opportunities and other socioeconomic benefits, and
the Project’s stakeholder engagement process. EEPGL compiled comments received over the
course of the 60-day public comment period that could necessitate changes to the EIA and
ESMP. In addition, the EPA received written comments from stakeholders during the public
comment period which were forwarded to EEPGL. Upon conclusion of the public comment
period, EEPGL thoroughly considered all comments received and updated the EIA and ESMP
as relevant and appropriate.

4.6 Assessment of Impacts and Identification of Mitigation

The primary purpose of an EIA is to predict the potential impacts resulting from a proposed
Project and to identify and evaluate the efficacy of measures to avoid, reduce, or remedy these
impacts. ERM uses a standard impact assessment methodology for evaluating the impacts and

May 2017 96
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

significance of projects around the world – the ERM Impact Assessment Standard. This
methodology takes into consideration both the magnitude of an impact and the
sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the resource/receptor to determine the significance of
the impact (see Table 4-2), which is described in more detail below.

Table 4-2 Evaluation of Impact Significance

Impacts can be “direct”, “indirect”, or “induced”, as defined below:

 Direct – Impacts that result from a direct interaction between the Project and a
resource/receptor (e.g., disturbance of a benthic community habitat on the seafloor);
 Indirect – Impacts that follow indirectly from the direct interactions between the Project and
its environment as a result of subsequent interactions within the environment (e.g., impacts
to marine fish who feed off a directly impacted benthic community); and
 Induced – Impacts that result from other activities (that are not part of the Project) that
happen as a consequence of the Project (e.g., influx of job seekers).

May 2017 97
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

The assessment of impacts proceeded through an iterative four-step process, as illustrated in

Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 Impact Prediction and Evaluation Process

Step 1: Predict Impacts

The EIA evaluates potential Project impacts by predicting and quantifying to the extent possible
the magnitude of those impacts on resources/receptors and the
sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the impacted resources/receptors.
“Magnitude” is a function of the following impact characteristics:
 Type of impact (i.e., direct, indirect, induced; avoidable or unavoidable)
 Nature of the change (what is impacted and how; positive or negative);
 Size, scale, or intensity;
 Geographical extent and distribution (e.g., local, regional, national, international);
 Duration and/or frequency (e.g., temporary, short term, long term, permanent); and
 Reversibility (reversible or irreversible).

Magnitude therefore describes the change that is predicted to occur in the resource / receptor
(e.g., the area and duration over which air or groundwater may become polluted, the level of
increase in concentration, the degree and probability of impact on the health or livelihood of a
local community). The magnitude of impacts are predicted and evaluated using a variety of
different methods appropriate to the resources/receptors potentially impacted by the Project.
For example, models are used to evaluate potential impacts on physical resources (e.g., water
quality, oil spill, air dispersion, and underwater sound models). Table 5-1 provides additional
information on the analytical methods used in assessing impacts for resources/receptors.
The magnitude of an impact takes into account all the various dimensions of a particular impact
in order to make a determination as to where the impact falls on the spectrum (in the case of
adverse impacts) including Negligible, Small, Medium, and Large. Some impacts can result in
changes to the environment that may be immeasurable, undetectable, or within the range of
normal natural variation. Such changes can be regarded as essentially having little or no impact,
and are thus characterized as having a Negligible magnitude. Other impacts may result in
changes that are substantial and/or extremely widespread, and these are characterized as

May 2017 98
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

having a Large magnitude. In the case of positive impacts, this EIA does not attempt to
characterize magnitude. In determining the magnitude of impacts on resources / receptors,
embedded controls are taken into consideration. For example, the assessed magnitude of
impacts on seawater quality from proposed produced water discharge considers the efficacy of
produced water treatment measures that are part of the Project design.
The “sensitivity/vulnerability/importance” of the impacted resource/receptor is characterized
by considering the nature of the resource/receptor as well as other factors including legal
protection, government policy, stakeholder views, and economic value. The definitions for Low,
Medium, and High sensitivity/vulnerability/importance designations will vary on a
resource/receptor basis.
Step 2: Evaluate Impacts
For routine aspects of the Project, the significance for each impact was assigned based on the
evaluations of the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the
resource/receptor using the matrix shown in Table 4-2 above. This matrix applies to all
resources/receptors. The assignment of a significance rating enables decision-makers and
stakeholders to understand key potential Project impacts.
The following considerations are provided to clarify what the various significance designations
represent.
 An impact of Negligible significance is one where a resource/receptor will not be impacted
by a particular activity, or the predicted impact is deemed to be imperceptible or is
indistinguishable from natural background variations, or small magnitude impacts are
predicted only to low sensitivity receptors.
 An impact of Minor significance is one where a resource/receptor will experience a
noticeable impact, but the impact magnitude is Small or Medium and/or the
resource/receptor is, respectively, of Medium or Low sensitivity/vulnerability/ importance.
 An impact of Moderate significance has an impact magnitude that falls somewhere in the
range from a threshold above which the impact is Minor, up to a level that might be just
short of being considered Major.
 An impact of Major significance is one where the impact magnitude is Medium or Large for a
resource/receptor of High sensitivity/vulnerability/importance (or Large magnitude for a
Medium sensitivity/vulnerability/importance resource/receptor).
 An impact of Positive significance is one that has been identified as having a positive impact
on the receptor/resource. This EIA does not attempt to characterize magnitude for positive
impacts.

The specific criteria used to evaluate significance of impacts for each resource/receptor are
presented in Chapter 7.
Non-routine/unplanned events related to the Project (e.g., oil spills, traffic accidents, or other
events with a low probability of occurrence do not lend themselves readily to the analysis
described above. For these types of events, understanding the significance of the risk requires
understanding of the:

May 2017 99
EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

 Consequence (potential) of the event if it were to occur; and

 Likelihood of the event occurring.

As such, for these unplanned events, a Risk Table (Table 4-3) based on event consequence and
likelihood is used to assess the significance of impacts associated with the events.

Table 4-3 Evaluation of Risk

“Consequence/severity” takes into consideration the magnitude, as defined for Step 1, of the
potential impact if the unplanned event were to occur.
“Likelihood” reflects the probability of occurrence and is defined as follows:
 Unlikely—considered a rare event, and there is a small likelihood that an event could occur;
 Possible—the event has a reasonable chance to occur at some time during normal operating
conditions; and
 Likely—the event is expected to occur during the life of the facility.

Likelihood is estimated on the basis of experience and/or evidence that such an outcome has
previously occurred. It is important to note that likelihood is a measure of the degree to which
the unplanned event is expected to occur, not the degree to which an impact is expected to
occur as a result of the unplanned event. The latter concept is referred to as uncertainty, and this
is typically dealt with in a contextual discussion in the impact assessment, rather than in the
impact significance assignment process.
Step 3: Mitigation and Enhancement
The next step in the process for this EIA is the identification of measures that can be taken to
mitigate, as far as reasonably practicable, the identified potential impacts of the Project.
A mitigation hierarchy is used where preference is always given to avoid the impact before
considering other types of mitigation. The preferred hierarchy of measures followed in this EIA
is:
 Avoid—remove the source of the impact by employing alternative designs or operations to
avoid risks related to environmental and socioeconomic impacts;
 Reduce—lessen the probability and/or consequence of impacts that cannot be avoided
(e.g., reduce the size of the project footprint); and
 Remedy—if significant impacts cannot be avoided or reduced, then “repair” the
consequences of the impact after it has occurred through rehabilitation, reclamation,
restoration, compensation, and/or offsets.

May 2017 100

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

Management measures are generally not developed for potential adverse impacts that are
assessed as Negligible. Practicable measures, as available, are adopted for higher levels of impact
significance.
Step 4: Determine and Manage Residual Impacts
The final step in the iterative impact evaluation process for this EIA is the determination of
“residual impacts” (i.e., impacts that are predicted to remain after both embedded controls and
committed mitigation measures have been taken into consideration). This typically involves
pursuing elements of Step 1 and Step 2 to re-evaluate the magnitude and then the significance
of the potential impact now considering the implementation of proposed mitigation measures.
If significant residual impacts remain, efforts aligned with Step 3 are made to identify
additional or alternative cost-effective and practicable mitigation measures.
 The management emphasis for Moderate and Major impacts is on reducing the impact to a
level that is as low as reasonably practicable. This does not necessarily mean, for example,
that impacts of Moderate significance have to be reduced to Minor, but rather that impacts
are being managed effectively and efficiently.
 Although a goal of an impact assessment is to eliminate Major residual impacts through
impact avoidance or other measures, for some resources/receptors, there may be Major
residual impacts after all practicable mitigation options have been exhausted. Decision-
makers must weigh such negative factors against the positive ones, such as employment, in
reaching a decision on the Project.

4.7 Mitigation, Management, and Monitoring

In support of the EIA process, ERM and EEPGL developed a Project ESMP (as summarized in
Chapter 9) that includes:
 Management measures identified in the impact assessment;
 Summary of how the measures will be implemented; and
 Monitoring strategy to evaluate the effectiveness of the management measures.

The management strategy uses an adaptive approach during the Project life cycle to ensure that
recommended management measures are implemented as planned and produce the desired
outcomes. This adaptive approach provides the Project, in consultation with the EPA and other
stakeholders, the opportunity to:
 Address unanticipated adverse impacts that are encountered through the addition of new
management measures (following the avoid/reduce/remedy hierarchy);
 Adjust or replace existing management measures when appropriate during the Project life
cycle to address evolving impacts; and
 Retire existing management measures when no longer demonstrating value.

EEPGL recognizes that demonstrating capacity to manage non-routine, unplanned events, such
as oil spills, is an important and integral component of the impact management process. As
such, the ESMP includes an Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) to address the possibility of non-
routine, unplanned events.

May 2017 101

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 4
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Methodology Preparing for the Environmental Impact Assessment

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017 102

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

5.0 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The scope of the EIA includes all Phase 1 Project stages (i.e., development drilling, installation,
hook-up/commissioning, production operations, and decommissioning) as described in
Chapter 2 and planned activities listed in Section 5.2. The EIA also addresses non-routine,
unplanned events (e.g., spills and releases). This EIA builds on the previous Strategic
Environmental Assessment prepared for EEPGL’s original Exploration Drilling in the Stabroek
Petroleum Prospecting License Area (March 2014), and the Environmental Management Plan
prepared for EEPGL’s Liza Field Multiwell Exploration Program (February 2016). The collection
of additional data and completion of further analyses, however, were required to evaluate the
potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of all stages of the Project, which are
addressed in this EIA.

5.1 The Area of Influence

The area potentially impacted by a project is referred to as its Area of Influence (AOI). For
purposes of this impact assessment, the Project AOI was divided into a direct and an indirect
AOI, as described below:
 Direct AOI, within which the Project is expected to have direct impacts (Figure 5-1). This
area includes: (1) the PDA (i.e., the Liza Phase 1 area including the subsea wells, SURF
equipment, and the FPSO); (2) the marine transit corridors between the PDA and shore-
based activity centers in Guyana and Trinidad; and (3) the city of Georgetown; and
 Indirect AOI, within which the Project is expected to have indirect impacts (Figure 5-2). This
area includes: (1) coastal areas and marine waters within the territorial boundary of Guyana
that could potentially be impacted by an unplanned event (i.e., an oil spill; see Section 7.4
for more details on oil spill modeling) and (2) coastal Regions 1 to 6 who could be impacted
to a greater extent by the Project than the other regions because of their subsistence and
commercial marine fisheries (e.g., potential impacts on fish and marine transport) and
increased exposure to Project socioeconomic impacts. Although all 10 regions of Guyana
would potentially benefit from the shared government revenue stream from the Project, the
Indirect AOI does not include the entire country because the extent to which any specific
region could benefit from the revenues is dependent on the government’s policies rather
than on EEPGL’s activities as assessed in this EIA.

As described in Section 8, cumulative impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources

could potentially result from incremental impacts of the Project, when combined with other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects/developments within the AOI. The
geographic area of concern for the cumulative impacts analysis is generally consistent with the
Project AOI.

May 2017 103

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

Figure 5-1 Direct Area of Influence

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 104

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

Figure 5-2 Indirect Area of Influence

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 105

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

5.2 Project Interactions with Environmental and Socioeconomic Receptors

In order to define the scope of the environmental and socioeconomic impact analysis, it is
necessary to identify the potential interactions between the Project and the resources/receptors
within the AOI. These interactions are the mechanisms that could trigger Project-related
impacts on resources/receptors.
Each of the Project activities and potential unplanned events listed below has the potential to
interact with existing resources/receptors in the AOI, which could potentially create
environmental or socioeconomic impacts.
 Development Drilling Stage:
o Drill ship and drilling operations
 Power generation
 Drill cuttings discharges
 Drilling fluids discharges
 Wastewater discharges
 Offshore waste treatment and disposal including incineration
o VSP
o ROV operations
o Onshore waste management, recycling, treatment, and disposal

 Installation of FPSO/SURF Components Stage:

o Marine installation vessels and FPSO
 Power generation
 Install mooring system (e.g., driven or suction piles for FPSO and select SURF
equipment)
 Discharge of hydrostatic test water, hydrate inhibitor, ballast water
 Wastewater discharges
 Limited waste incineration
o ROV operations and installation of SURF equipment
o Hook-up and commissioning of FPSO and SURF equipment
o Onshore waste management, recycling, treatment, and disposal

 Production Operations Stage:

o FPSO Vessel Operations
 Power and heat generation
 Non-routine, temporary flaring
 Produced water discharges
 Brine discharges from sulfate removal and potable water processing
 Sanitary wastewater discharges
 Ballast water discharge (one time at mobilization)
 Non-hydrocarbon contact cooling water discharges
 Gas re-injection into reservoir
 Seawater intake

May 2017 106

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

 Seawater injection into reservoir

 Chemical use (topsides, subsea, downhole)
o Oil Offloading to Conventional Tankers
 Tanker power generation
 Venting of cargo tanks during oil loading
 Seawater intake for ballast operations
 Tanker ballast water discharge on arrival
 Tanker domestic wastewater discharge
o Offshore waste treatment and disposal including waste incineration
o Onshore waste management, recycling, treatment, and disposal

 Decommissioning Stage:
o Marine decommissioning vessels and FPSO
 Power generation
 Disconnection of mooring system and SURF equipment
 Wastewater discharges
 Limited waste incineration
o Onshore waste management, recycling, treatment, and disposal

 Logistical Support (across all Project stages):

o Supply and support vessel/aircraft operations
o Onshore fuel transfers from suppliers
o Utilization of shorebases, including pipe yards and warehouses
o Onshore waste management, recycling, treatment, and disposal

 Non-routine, Unplanned Events:

o Oil spill or release – FPSO/SURF production operations
o Oil spill or release – Well control event
o Other oil spills or releases
o Other unplanned events

5.3 Resources/Receptors Assessed in the EIA

One of the purposes of the scoping process is to identify which resources/receptors could
potentially be significantly impacted by the Project, and which resources/receptors would not
have the potential to be significantly impacted by the Project. Based on the Project Description
and understanding of existing conditions at the time of scoping, Table 5-1 lists those
resources/receptors that were identified as having the potential to be impacted by the Project,
subject to further assessment. These resources/receptors were retained for further consideration
in the EIA.

May 2017 107

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the EIA

Table 5-2 lists those resources/receptors that have been identified as unlikely to have the
potential to be impacted by the Project and the rationale for this determination. These
resources/receptors are excluded from further consideration in the EIA.

May 2017 108

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 5-1 Summary of Resources/Receptors Retained for Further Consideration in EIA and Corresponding Potential Impacts, Primary Sources of Potential Impacts, and Analytical Approach
Resource or Receptor Potential Impacts Primary Sources of Potential Impacts Analytical Approach
Physical Resources
Air Quality and Climate Air emissions resulting from the Project have the  Power generation To describe actual air quality conditions in the vicinity of the Project, ambient
potential to change ambient air quality in the Project  Other combustion sources air quality data were collected at the proposed Project site approximately 190
AOI on a localized basis. Air quality is important for  Non-routine, temporary flaring km (120 mi) offshore of Guyana, including measurements of particulate matter
health of humans and wildlife.  Fugitive emissions from storage and loading (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
Potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the  Waste incineration nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Project on climate change.  Helicopter and aviation emissions Measurements were taken onboard a research vessel.
Air emission inventories were prepared for these pollutants and a screening
level analysis was conducted to identify potential air quality impacts
associated with Project activities. Dispersion modeling was conducted to assess
potential impacts to ambient air quality. Potential impacts were described.
Estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Project were calculated.

Sound Auditory impacts on Project workers.  Equipment/machinery operating onboard the FPSO or drill Managing occupational-related risks through appropriate PPE.
ships

Marine Geology and Sediments The Project will disturb marine geology and sediments  Drilling of development wells A fate and transport model (GIFT) was used to evaluate cuttings and drilling
on a localized basis in the PDA and could impact  Installation of FPSO and SURF components fluid deposition surrounding the development wells. The physical differences
sediment quality from non-aqueous base fluid (NABF) between the native seafloor and the accumulated drill cuttings, as well as the
on drill cuttings discharges. distribution of residual NABF on drill cuttings, were described based on the
results of the modeling analysis.
Marine Water Quality The Project could have localized impacts to marine  Drilling of development wells (cuttings and fluid discharge) A fate and transport model (GIFT) was used to evaluate total suspended solids
water quality in the PDA from discharge of drill  Cooling water discharges (TSS) concentrations resulting from discharge of drilling fluid and cuttings
cuttings and from routine operational and  Installation of FPSO and SURF components based on global ocean currents data.
hydrotesting discharges. The Project could potentially  Wastewater discharges USEPA’s CORMIX model was used to simulate the mixing zone around the
impact marine water quality in the Project AOI as a  Produced water discharges drill ships and FPSO, and to support an analysis of impacts on marine water
result of non-routine, unplanned events.  Hydrotesting discharges quality from routine production operations discharges and one-time
 Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) hydrotesting discharges.
Oil spill modeling was used to estimate concentrations of dissolved
hydrocarbons that might result from different unplanned event scenarios
Biological Resources
Protected Areas and Special The Project is not expected to impact Protected Areas  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) Oil spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill and assess
Status Species during routine, planned operations and activities in  Underwater sound generated by marine component operations the risk of oiling impacting any designated Protected Areas.
the Project AOI. The Project could potentially impact and activities Consistent with the approach taken for marine mammals, turtles, and fish
Protected Areas in the Project AOI as a result of non-  Lighting on offshore facilities (e.g., FPSO, drill ships) without special status designation, the scientific literature was reviewed for
routine, unplanned events.  Seawater intake by FPSO information on the impacts of planned offshore activities on special status
The Project could potentially impact some special  Wastewater discharges species, including marine turtles, fish, and marine mammals. Oil spill
status species (e.g., endangered or listed species) in a  Drilling of development wells (cuttings and fluid discharge) modeling was used to assess potential spill-related impacts.
localized manner in the PDA as a result of underwater  Cooling water discharges Underwater sound was modeled to assess potential auditory impacts
sound, light, seawater withdrawal, and changes in  Produced water discharges associated with marine activities.
marine water quality. The Project could potentially  Hydrotesting discharges USEPA’s CORMIX model was used to simulate the mixing zone around the
impact special status species in the Project AOI as a  Vessel movements drill ships and FPSO, and to support an analysis of impacts on marine water
result of non-routine, unplanned events. quality from routine operational discharges and one-time hydrotesting
discharges. The GIFT model was used to evaluate TSS concentrations resulting
from discharge of drilling fluid and cuttings based on global ocean currents.

May 2017 109

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Resource or Receptor Potential Impacts Primary Sources of Potential Impacts Analytical Approach
Coastal Habitats The Project is not expected to impact beaches,  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) Oil spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill and assess
mangroves, or wetlands in the Project AOI during the risk of oiling beaches, mangroves, or wetlands.
routine, planned operations and activities. The Project
could potentially impact beaches, mangroves, and
wetland habitats in the Project AOI as a result of non-
routine, unplanned events.
Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds The Project is not expected to impact coastal wildlife  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) Oil spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill and assess
or shorebirds during routine, planned operations and the risk of impacting coastal wildlife and shorebirds.
activities in the Project AOI. The Project could
potentially impact coastal wildlife and shorebirds in
the Project AOI as a result of non-routine, unplanned
events.
Seabirds The Project could potentially impact seabirds in a  Drill ship, FPSO, and support vessel operations The scientific literature was reviewed for information on the impacts of
localized manner in the PDA as a result of light (i.e.,  Lighting on offshore facilities (e.g., FPSO, drill ships) lighting from planned offshore activities on seabirds. Oil spill modeling was
disorientation). The Project could potentially impact  Non-routine, temporary flaring used to assess potential spill-related impacts on seabirds.
seabirds in the Project AOI as a result of non-routine,  Waste incineration
unplanned events.  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release)
Marine Mammals The Project could potentially impact some marine  Underwater sound generated by marine component operations The scientific literature was reviewed for information on the impacts of
mammals in a localized manner in the Project AOI as a and activities planned offshore activities on marine mammals, turtles and fish. Analyses
result of underwater sound and ship strikes. The  Ship strikes were performed based on expected marine mammal and turtle presence and
Project could potentially impact marine mammals in  Changes in forage availability Project vessel transits to assess likelihood of vessel strikes. Oil spill modeling
the Project AOI as a result of non-routine, unplanned  Lighting on offshore facilities (e.g., FPSO, drill ships) was used to assess potential spill-related impacts. Underwater sound was
events.  Seawater intake by FPSO modeled to assess potential auditory impacts associated with marine activities.
 Wastewater discharges USEPA’s CORMIX model was used to simulate the mixing zone around the
Marine Turtles The Project could potentially impact some marine  Drilling of development wells (cuttings and fluid discharge) drill ships and FPSO, and to support an analysis of impacts on marine water
turtles in a localized manner in the Project AOI as a  Cooling water discharges quality from routine operational discharges and one-time hydrotesting
result of underwater sound, ship strikes, and light. The  Produced water discharges discharges. A fate and transport model (GIFT) was used to evaluate total
Project could potentially impact marine turtles in the  Hydrotesting discharges suspended solids (TSS) concentrations resulting from discharge of drilling
Project AOI as a result of non-routine, unplanned fluid and cuttings based on global ocean currents. Oil spill modeling will be
events.  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) used to assess potential spill-related impacts on marine mammals, turtles,
Marine Fish The Project could potentially impact some marine fish and fish.
as a result of underwater sound, light, seawater
withdrawal, and changes in marine water quality in
the PDA. The Project could potentially impact marine
fish in the Project AOI as a result of non-routine,
unplanned events.
Marine Benthos The Project could potentially disturb some benthic  Drilling of development wells (cuttings discharge and Fate and transport model (GIFT) was used to predict the extent and thickness
habitat and organisms in a localized manner in the deposition) of cuttings discharged on the seafloor surrounding the development wells. The
PDA.  Installation of FPSO (mooring structures) and SURF physical differences between the native seafloor and the accumulated drill
components cuttings, as well as the distribution of NABF containing cuttings and potential
 Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) for toxicity impacts, were described based on the results of the modeling
analysis.
Impacts from planned activities were evaluated in terms of the percentage of
benthic habitat impacted by disturbance.

May 2017 110

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Resource or Receptor Potential Impacts Primary Sources of Potential Impacts Analytical Approach
Ecological Balance and The Project could have indirect impacts on ecological  Underwater sound generated by marine component operations The scientific literature was reviewed to determine the ecological relationships
Ecosystems functions in the Project AOI, particularly if special and activities between major marine taxonomic groups. Oil spill modeling was used to
status species or trophic relationships are disturbed.  Lighting on offshore facilities (e.g., FPSO, drill ships) assess potential spill-related impacts on marine organisms.
 Seawater intake by FPSO
 Installation of FPSO and SURF components
 Installation-related disturbances to seafloor
 Wastewater discharges
 Ballast water discharges
 Waste incineration
 Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release)
Socioeconomic Resources
Economic Conditions The Project is generally anticipated to have a positive  Government revenue sharing from Project Government reports were reviewed and key informant interviews were
impact on the economy of Guyana as a result of  Local Project purchases of select materials, goods, and services conducted to identify key economic drivers in the national, regional, and local
government revenue sharing from the Project, as well  Limited local Project employment (direct and indirect) economies and determine the likely Project-related impacts on these economic
as employment and local procurement opportunities.  Increased spending on select materials, goods, and services factors. A particular emphasis was placed on industrial sectors that are
Potential adverse impacts may include potential (indirect multiplier impacts for local/regional population) important to coastal communities.
shorter term increases in the cost of living as a result of
increased demand for specific goods and services.
Potential adverse impacts to income from agriculture
and fisheries could also occur as a result of non-
routine, unplanned events.
Employment and Livelihoods The Project is expected to build capacity in the local  Local employment for: Project workforce projections and types of labor requirements were assessed
labor force, increase demand for skilled labor, and o Drill ships against data obtained through key informant interviews on the existing service
increase demand for service industries (beneficial o Installation vessels industry within Guyana. The potential for adverse impacts to fishing activities
impact). There is also the potential for limited adverse o FPSO topside equipment and operations was assessed by taking into consideration the distance from shore at which
impacts to fishing activities as a result of marine safety o Marine support and supply vessels different fishery types typically operate, in comparison to the locations and
exclusion zones or marine traffic, and non-routine, o Tankers durations of Project-related marine activity and marine safety exclusion zones.
unplanned events. o Tugs and support vessels Potential occupational hazards to Project workforce working onshore and
o Aviation operations offshore were assessed.
 Marine safety exclusion zones
 Project-related marine traffic
 Drilling; FPSO/SURF installation, hookup and commissioning;
and FPSO and support vessel operations (aspects relating to
occupational health and safety for Project workforce)
 Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release)
Community Health and Most Project activities will be located offshore in the  Increased traffic as a result of Project activities at the Guyana Potential risks to safety and health of local communities posed by shorebase
Wellbeing PDA and would have no direct impacts on shorebase locations operations were assessed. Key informant interviews were conducted to
communities in Guyana. Introduction of limited levels  Social interaction between Project workers and residents characterize existing road, marine, and air traffic safety conditions, as well as
of foreign labor could potentially have health and  Pressure on wages from introduction of foreign workers and coastal agriculture, aquaculture, and offshore/coastal fishing activities. Oil
socioeconomic impacts. The Project could potentially increased competition for skilled labor spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill and to assess
impact community health and wellbeing in the Project  Noise and light near shore by Project marine and aviation potential spill-related impacts on community health and wellbeing.
AOI due to onshore traffic, social interaction, or as a operations
result of non-routine, unplanned events.  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release)
Marine Use and Transportation The Project may result in increased marine shipping  Marine vessel operations Key informant interviews were conducted to characterize communities
and general marine-related traffic, which could dependent on marine transportation for livelihoods (e.g., speedboat operators
potentially contribute to marine vessel congestion in and fisherpersons), and to characterize existing marine vessel and safety
port areas. conditions in the Project’s AOI.

May 2017 111

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Resource or Receptor Potential Impacts Primary Sources of Potential Impacts Analytical Approach
Social Infrastructure and The Project will use public infrastructure and services  Project demand requirements for selected infrastructure and Key informant interviews and review of government reports were conducted
Services and thus could potentially compete with other existing services which could overburden existing capacity and supply to assess existing demand on public infrastructure, transportation networks,
businesses and consumers across a range of services  Shorebase operations vehicular traffic, and public services and to determine the impact (access and
(e.g., roads, medical and emergency response,  Ground transportation operations safety) that any additional demand on these resources would have on
accommodation, and utilities). The Project may result impacted communities.
in increased vehicular traffic in Georgetown, which
could potentially contribute to vehicular congestion in
certain areas.
Cultural Heritage The Project has the potential to adversely impact  Drilling of development wells AUV and other geophysical surveys were conducted to map seabed objects in
cultural heritage through localized disturbance of  Installation of FPSO and SURF components the PDA.
archaeological or historical sites related to Project  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) Oil spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill and to
development. These resources have conservation, assess the potential for a release from an unplanned event to contact terrestrial
cultural, and other values to stakeholders. The Project archaeological sites.
could potentially impact cultural heritage in the
Project AOI as a result of non-routine, unplanned
events.
Land Use No new Project-dedicated land disturbance is planned.  Shorebase operations Land use in the area surrounding onshore facilities planned for Project use was
There is the potential that third-party onshore facilities  Pipe yards reviewed and assessed with respect to the potential for significance of land use
may elect to expand or impact adjacent land as a result  Warehouses changes as a result of the Project.
of supporting Project-related needs; however, these  Bulk fuel storage and transfer facilities
impacts are outside the scope of this EIA.  Onshore waste recycling, treatment and disposal facilities
Ecosystem Services Project-related impacts on natural resources could lead  Direct or indirect impacts derived from one or more of the The use of natural resources by local communities, including indigenous
to shorter term direct or indirect impacts on the impacts on physical, biological, or socioeconomic resources communities, was examined to identify specific dependencies on resources
services and/or values derived from natural resources described above that could be impacted by the Project. Where dependencies on natural
and ecosystems in the AOI. resources that would be impacted were identified, the direct and indirect
impacts of Project activities on local communities’ access to and use of
impacted resources was assessed.
Indigenous Peoples The Project is not expected to directly cause any  Non-routine, unplanned event (e.g., spill or release) Coastal communities, including indigenous communities, in the Project AOI
changes to population and demographics in were mapped. Key informant interviews were conducted to characterize
indigenous communities. The Project could potentially socioeconomic conditions in communities, and their reliance on natural
impact indigenous peoples in the Project AOI as a resources. Oil spill modeling was used to simulate the trajectory of an oil spill
result of non-routine, unplanned events. and to assess the potential for oil to contact lands and natural resources of
coastal communities.

May 2017 112

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 5-2 Resources and Receptors Excluded from Further Consideration in the EIA
Resource/Receptor Rationale for Excluding
Coastal (Onshore) Resources
Onshore geology/soils The Project will not result in any onshore disturbance to geology
and soils.
Topography/Landscape The Project will not require any excavation, fill, or other land-based
activities that could change topography or landscapes.
Groundwater quality The Project will not require any changes in land use that could
impact ground water quantity or quality.
Terrestrial vegetation The Project will not require any clearing or disturbance of terrestrial
vegetation. Even in the case of an unplanned event such as a spill,
only estuarine vegetation (e.g., mangroves) would be expected to
be potentially impacted. Terrestrial vegetation should be unaffected
by a spill event.
Freshwater habitats The Project is offshore with no new onshore disturbance, so will not
have any impact on freshwater habitats.
Marine Resources
Aquatic plants The marine aspects of the Project will occur in an area that is too
deep to support vascular marine plants.
Physical Resources
Natural hazards The Project is not located within an area that is known to have a
high level of seismic activity or susceptibility to other natural
hazard with the potential to affect Project facilities.
Vibration and radiation The Project will not generate any vibration or radiation that would
be expected to impact resources/receptors. See Section 2.10

May 2017 113

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 5
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017 114

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Physical Resources

6.1.1 Air Quality and Climate

This section describes the existing air quality conditions and climate in the Project AOI. Air
quality in a geographic area is determined by the presence of background concentrations due to
natural and distant sources, the type and amount of pollutants emitted locally into the
atmosphere, the topography of the area, and the weather and climate conditions. The levels of
pollutants and pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere are typically expressed in units of
ppm, parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), averaged over various
periods of time.

6.1.1.1 Methodology

Climate: Information on meteorological conditions in coastal Guyana was obtained from

publicly available sources and technical literature. Parameters discussed include rainfall,
offshore wind direction, air temperature, and relative humidity.
To develop more specific information regarding the conditions in the PDA, EEPGL and ERM
have deployed oceanographic moorings in the PDA to collect information on existing
oceanographic and meteorological conditions in the area to support design development. The
meteorological moorings are equipped with a Datawell Direction Wavescan Buoy, which
measures wave and atmospheric conditions. With respect to atmospheric conditions, the
instrument measures and logs:
 wind direction/speed (two anemometers record 10-minute average wind speeds and gusts),
 air temperature,
 atmospheric pressure,
 solar radiation,
 precipitation, and
 relative humidity.

Air Quality: Since the PDA is located approximately 190 km (~120 miles) offshore in the Atlantic
Ocean and far removed from any anthropogenic sources of emissions other than intermittent
marine traffic, ambient air quality is determined primarily by regional influences rather than by
local emission sources or topographic influences. ERM has conducted offshore air monitoring,
including the collection of air samples, to analyze existing ambient concentrations of relevant
air quality pollutants in the PDA; the samples were collected from onboard a research vessel
within the Stabroek Block and PDA. The pollutants collected include inhalable particulate
matter (i.e., that fraction with aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers,“PM10”),
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

May 2017 115

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.1.1.1 Regional or National Setting/Context

Climate: Guyana has a wet tropical climate characterized by two pronounced wet seasons and
year-round warm temperatures.
The bimodal wet/dry regime is caused by the annual migration of the Inter-Tropical
Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which changes latitude based on the Earth’s position and angle in
relation to the sun. Northward movement of the ITCZ occurs as energy from the sun is
strongest in the Northern Hemisphere during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, thereby
increasing solar heating in that hemisphere. The relative changes in solar heating slightly shift
the atmosphere primary circulation cells, which cause the area of trade wind convergence
closest to the Equator to migrate seasonally. In the areas closest to the ITCZ, one can expect
increased thunderstorm activity and heavy rainfall between mid-April and the end of July, with
peak rainfall in June. This period is known in Guyana as the primary wet season. The secondary
wet season occurs during the southward migration of the ITCZ from mid-November to the end
of January, with peak rainfall in December. The intervening periods (January to April and mid-
August to mid-November) are relatively dry, but rain can occur at any time of the year.
Average annual rainfall totals range between 70 inches and 110 inches (~180 cm to ~280 cm,
Hydromet, 2014). During El Niño years, Guyana’s long dry season is often drier and warmer
than normal, and La Niña years bring wetter and cooler conditions than normal during the long
wet season (McSweeney et al., 2010).
Although the ITCZ moves seasonally, it is generally located between 5 degrees (°) North and 5°
South latitude. North and south of the ITCZ, atmospheric circulation and the Coriolis effect
create global wind patterns including the Northern Hemisphere’s trade winds and westerlies
(NOAA, 2008). Guyana’s coastal zone is located approximately between 6° and 8° latitude, and
the Stabroek Block is located between 7° and 8° latitude, both within the southern portion of the
area impacted by the trade winds. The influence of the trade winds produces a strongly
dominant northeast wind offshore of Guyana, which gives rise to the afternoon “sea breeze”
that usually blows inland across coastal Guyana from the ocean.
Annual average temperatures in coastal Guyana are relatively constant, with an annual average
daytime maximum temperature of 29.6 degrees Celsius (°C) (85.3 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) and
an annual average night time minimum temperature of 24.0 °C (75.2°F). The average daily
temperature is approximately 27 °C (81°F). Relative humidity is high at 80 percent or more year
round in the coastal zone.
Air Quality: For purposes of this EIA, relevant literature was used to identify appropriate ranges
of concentrations to represent existing conditions. Based on the estimated Project emissions
profile, the principal relevant air pollutants of interest are PM2.5 and NO2. Yale University (2016)
published a report that ranked Guyana 6th (from the best) out of 180 countries in air quality. As
part of this study, Yale University (2015) published an online mapping tool, which estimates
that the average concentration of PM2.5 in onshore Guyana is 2.5 µg/m3. No values were found
in the literature for onshore air quality existing conditions for NO2.

May 2017 116

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.1.1.2 Existing Conditions in Area of Influence

Climate: In general, climate conditions within the Project AOI should be similar to those
described above for Guyana. The results of the ERM’s offshore monitoring effort to further
characterize climate conditions within the PDA have been incorporated into Appendix L of the
EIA.
Air Quality: The PDA is well offshore and far removed from any existing stationary
anthropogenic sources of airborne pollution. In addition, the prevalent wind direction is from
the northeast (open ocean); therefore, ambient air quality within the PDA is expected to be
good. This assumption was confirmed by the results of a 20-day ambient air quality
measurement program conducted aboard the Research Vessel Proteus. Those measurements
found that air pollutant levels were generally below detection levels, with the exception of
PM10. Chemical analysis of particulate matter samples found that the most of the collected mass
was composed of sodium chloride—the most likely source of which is sea salt.

6.1.2 Sound

This section includes a summary of the desktop review of existing underwater sound conditions
in the Project AOI. It also describes the different metrics commonly used to represent
underwater acoustic fields. A description of the modeling study used to predict underwater
sound levels associated with Project activities in the PDA is discussed in Section 7.2.5, Marine
Mammals.
This analysis is limited to underwater sound because the Project is located approximately 190
km (~120 mi) offshore from Georgetown, so airborne sound and ground-borne vibration from
offshore Project activities will not impact onshore community or public receptors in Guyana.
Offshore, the principal airborne sound receptors of potential concern will be the Project
workforce on the Project vessels, who will be provided with appropriate Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE), including ear protection (when engineered controls must be augmented to
manage sound exposure). The Project will not measurably impact any airborne sound or
ground-borne vibration at the onshore shorebase, pipe yards, and warehouse locations.
Therefore, airborne sound and ground-borne vibration are not discussed further in this section.

6.1.2.1 Underwater Acoustic Metrics

Underwater sound amplitude is measured in decibels (dB) relative to a fixed reference pressure
(p0 = 1 micro Pascal (μPa)) or reference energy level (1 µPa2●s). Three common descriptors are
the:
 peak Sound Pressure Level (peak SPL, measured in dB re: 1 µPa),
 Root Mean Square SPL (RMS SPL, measured in dB re: 1 µPa), and
 Sound Exposure Level (SEL, measured in dB re: 1 µPa2●s).

The peak SPL metric is the maximum instantaneous SPL in a stated frequency band attained by
an acoustic event. The peak metric is commonly quoted for impulsive sounds, but does not

May 2017 117

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

account for the duration or bandwidth of the sound. At higher intensities, the peak SPL can be a
valid criterion for assessing whether a sound is potentially injurious or may cause behavioral
implications to a marine receptor.
The RMS SPL is a measure of the average pressure or the effective pressure over the duration of
an acoustic event, such as the emission of one acoustic pulse from a seismic source (e.g., vertical
seismic profiler). This level is the root mean square pressure level of the pulse.
The SEL is a measure of the total acoustic energy contained in one or more acoustic events and
is often used as an indication of the energy dose over a specific event or time. The SEL metric
measures the sound energy to which an organism at that location would be exposed.
Sound loudness is a subjective term describing the strength of the ear's perception of a sound. It
is a complex interaction between the sound pressure level and the hearing ability of an
individual receptor for that sound (how well the sound can be detected). Because the loudness
of impulsive sound is not generally proportional to the instantaneous acoustic pressure, the
peak SPL is a poor indicator of perceived loudness. As such, several other sound level metrics
such as RMS SPL and SEL are commonly used to evaluate the loudness of impulsive sound and
its impacts on marine life.
More information on the underwater acoustic metrics described above, including the analytical
formulation of these metrics, is provided in the document Underwater Sound Associated with Liza
Phase 1 Project Activities, prepared by JASCO Applied Sciences in December 2016 (JASCO, 2016).

6.1.2.2 Methodology

Ambient underwater sound levels were based on literature values for coastal Guyana. Research
has indicated that with the exception of localized or short term events that may cause acute
exposure (e.g., passage of a single ship, intense rain events, or whale vocalizations) underwater
sound levels do not vary much in the open ocean. Human activities are minimal in the PDA
(principally related to commercial fishing and other ocean going vessels). Therefore, the use of
literature values from coastal Guyana should be a reasonable representation of underwater
sound conditions in the PDA.

6.1.2.3 Regional or National Setting/Context

Ambient underwater sound levels can serve as existing conditions from which to measure
potential disturbance impacts associated with Project activities. Sound in the ocean is the result
of both natural and anthropogenic sources. Examples of notable sound levels produced by
natural sources include snapping shrimp (peak SPL of individual snaps vary from 183 to 189 dB
re 1 μPa at 1 m, with a typical peak spectrum between 2 and 5 kHz and energy extending to 200
kHz), waves breaking at 50 Hz due to sea surface agitation (61 to 76 dB re 1 μPa/√𝐻𝑧
depending on the sea state), and waves breaking at 25 kHz due to sea surface agitation (32 to 47
dB re 1 μPa/√𝐻𝑧 depending on the sea state) (Hildebrand 2009). Examples of notable sound
levels produced by human or mechanical sources include cargo vessels at 16 knots (173 m
length; 192 dB RMS re 1 μPa at 1 m with typical spectrum between 40 and 100 Hz), small boat

May 2017 118

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

outboard engine at 20 knots (160 dB RMS re 1 μPa at 1 m with typical spectrum between 1000
and 5000 Hz), seismic array (260 dB RMS re 1 μPa at 1 m with typical spectrum between 5 and
300 Hz), and sub-bottom profiler (230 dB RMS re 1 μPa at 1 m with typical spectrum between
3000 and 7000 Hz) (Hildebrand 2009).

6.1.2.4 Existing Conditions in Project Development Area

Guyana’s entire continental shelf and slope, including the Stabroek Block, are influenced by the
Guiana Current, which transports warm, turbid water north from the mouth of the Amazon
River across the coast of northern South America. There are currently no notable sources of
mechanical or human-generated background sound in the PDA, other than sporadic instances
of commercial vessels and other ocean going vessels. Considering the natural sources such as
the Guiana Current and other features of the PDA (e.g., depth, distance from shoreline), existing
underwater sounds in the PDA are not expected to exceed 120 dBrms.

6.1.3 Marine Geology and Sediments

6.1.3.1 Coastal Geology

Guyana’s continental shelf occupies an area of 18,790 mi2. The average width of the continental
shelf is approximately 113 km (~70 mi) (NDS, 1997). The shelf is widest near the borders of
Suriname and Venezuela, and slightly narrower near the center. Guyana’s coastline is
approximately 431 km (~268 mi) long (NDS, 1997). The Guyana Coast is a sedimentary plain
that has formed from successive deposits of sediment with a series of coastal ridges crossing the
coast from east to west. These ridges are connected with submarine features that move across
the shallow continental shelf in a northward direction driven by the nearshore current.

6.1.3.2 Marine Stratigraphy

The Guyana basin has been described as a passive margin basin associated with the rifting and
opening of the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Part of the Guyana Basin is onshore, but most of it
occurs offshore. Table 6-1 summarizes the age and composition of the major geologic
formations (listed in descending order from ground surface) that comprise the Guyana Basin
(Workman, 2000; CGX, 2009).

Table 6-1 Major Geologic Formations of the Guyana Basin

Formation Age Composition
Corentyne Pleistocene-Pliocene Sandstone and shale
Pomeroon Miocene-Eocene Carbonate sandstone and shale
Georgetown Maastrichtian Sandstone, shale and carbonate
New Amsterdam Lower Tertiary to Sandstone and shale
Maastrichtian
Canje Santonian to Turonian Organic shale, non-organic shale, and sandstone
Potoco Formation Aptian Carbonates
Stabroek Formation Cretaceous–Barremian Basal shales and sandstones of continental origin

May 2017 119

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Formation Age Composition

Precambrian Basement Proterozoic-Hadean Metamorphic rock

6.1.3.3 Marine Sedimentology

Fine clay and mud sediment are transported from the mouth of the Amazon River and are
deposited approximately 21 to 60 km (13 to 37 mi) offshore to an average thickness of
approximately 20 m (~65 ft) along Guyana’s continental shelf (CGX Resources, 2009). Moving
further out to sea (i.e., toward the edge of the continental shelf), sand gradually becomes the
dominant sediment layer. The bathymetric profile of the continental shelf forms a generally
smooth, gradual slope from nearshore to shelf edge, but a series of low mud ridges or
mudbanks are located approximately 21 to 60 km (13 to 37 mi) offshore (Figure 6-1).
Figure 6-1 Typical Distribution of Mudbanks and Mangroves on Guyana’s Coast

Source: Institutional Capacity Building Activities on Guyana Sea Defenses, 2005.

Although the Essequibo and several other smaller rivers (e.g., the Demerara, Corentyne, and
Berbice Rivers) discharge large quantities of fine sediment, which are subsequently transported
seaward and westward across the continental shelf, analysis of the humic content, nutrient
composition, and ratio of surface area to mass of Guyanese marine sediments indicates that they
are nearly identical to Amazonian sediments and unlike continental Guyanese sediments
(Eisma and van der Marel, 1971). This evidence strongly indicates that from a sedimentary
perspective, the Guyanese continental shelf functions as a marine extension of the Amazonian
delta system. At greater depths, calcarenite (coral fragment) substrates become more prevalent
(Strømme and Sætersdal, 1989). The Stabroek Block occupies the transition area between the
Amazonian-influenced zone and the older, deeper calcarenite zones.
In the PDA, the foundation zone of the seabed sediments comprises a hemipelagic drape of very
soft to soft clay irregularly interbedded with interpreted coarse-grain-prone turbidites. The mud
content of the sediments averaged 60.8 percent and the sand content averaged 39.1 percent
across the 2016 survey area. The surficial layer is underlain by a regional Mass Transport

May 2017 120

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Complex (MTC) consisting of a heterogeneous clay-prone matrix material with intact blocks.
The thickness of the surficial soft clay varies across the PDA from approximately 4.5 m (~ 15 ft)
to 41 m (135 ft). These features could influence the design or siting of certain subsea
components that will rest on the seafloor, although they do not present structural or operational
hazards to the Project (Fugro 2016).

6.1.3.4 Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana as part of two
environmental baseline surveys (EBS). The surveys were conducted prior to EEPGL exploration
drilling activities in April and May of 2014 (Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks
International, Inc., 2014) and during later EEPGL exploration drilling activities in March of 2016
(FUGRO EMU Limited, 2016). Sediment samples were collected from 10 sampling stations as
part of the 2014 survey and from 25 sampling stations as part of the 2016 survey (these locations
are collective referred to as the Study Area in this section); the stations include locations within
the PDA as well as locations outside the PDA, but within the southeastern portion of the
Stabroek Block. A discussion of the results from both surveys is provided below. Summaries of
the results for metals and hydrocarbon concentrations in the sampled sediments are presented
in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3, respectively.

Table 6-2 Summary Results for Sediment Metals, Reported in µg g-1 dry weight
Effects Effects
Mean
Parameter Mean Minimum Maximum Range Range
Background1
Low2 Median3
2014 Liza EBS (n=10)
Aluminum 11,495 8,100 15,000 77,440 -- --
Arsenic 6.1 4.5 11.4 2 8.2 70
Barium 98.9 57.4 159 668 -- --
Cadmium 0.125 0.102 0.165 0.102 1.2 9.6
Chromium 14.9 8.6 21.1 35 81 370
Copper 13.1 9.9 16.5 14.3 34 270
Iron 19,130 13,500 25,300 30,890 -- --
Lead 11.6 8.3 15.6 17 46.7 218
Mercury 0.042 0.026 0.062 0.056 0.15 0.71
Nickel 21.4 14.1 32.3 18.6 20.9 51.6
Vanadium 23.5 18.1 28.3 53 -- --
Zinc 45.5 26.9 63.7 52 150 410
2016 Liza EBS (n=25)
Aluminum 43,432 13,900 66,600 77,440 -- --
Arsenic 11.6 6.1 97.1 2 8.2 70
Barium 175 44 272 668 -- --
Cadmium 0.120 0.073 0.255 0.102 1.2 9.6
Chromium 36.1 14.5 53.4 35 81 370

May 2017 121

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Effects Effects
Mean
Parameter Mean Minimum Maximum Range Range
Background1
Low2 Median3
Copper 20.2 6.9 30.5 14.3 34 270
Iron 30,364 12,100 98,100 30,890 -- --
Mercury 0.029 0.016 0.042 0.056 0.15 0.71
Selenium 0.22 0.05 0.75 0.083 -- --
Lead 15.5 9.9 27.5 17 46.7 218
Nickel 27.0 10.8 51.5 18.6 20.9 51.6
Zinc 69.7 32.5 101.0 52 150 410
N/A – Not applicable (background level not available)
Note: One half of the detection limit was used for non-detect results in all statistical calculations
1 Mean concentration in upper continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995).
2 NOAA Effects Range Low (Ecotox, 1996)
3 NOAA Effects Range Median (Ecotox, 1996)

May 2017 122

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Table 6-3 Summary Results for Sediment Hydrocarbons

Parameter Mean Minimum Maximum Background1
2014 Liza EBS (n=10)
Total Saturated Hydrocarbon (SHC) (µg g-1) 10.64 8 14 N/A
Total Unresolved SHC (µg g-1) 6.97 3 12 N/A
Total Resolved SHC (µg g-1) 3.68 2 8.9 N/A
CPI (Carbon Preference Index) 1.97 1.47 3.27 N/A
Pristane (µg g-1) 0.007 0.004 0.012 N/A
Phytane (µg g-1) 0.005 0.003 0.010 N/A
Pristane/Phytane Ratio 1.34 0.67 1.8 N/A
nC16/(nC15+nC17) 0.40 0.24 0.51 N/A
Total PAH (µg g-1) 0.03861 0.02458 0.05336 N/A
Petrogenic/Pyrogenic 3.36 2.14 4.65 N/A
2016 Liza EBS (n=25)
THC (µg g-1) 2.8 1.5 4.8 0.2-5
Unresolved Complex MixtureCM (µg g-1) 1.8 0.9 2.8 N/A
nC12-20 (µg g-1) 0.06 0.02 0.13 N/A
n-alkanes nC21-36 (µg g-1) 0.21 0.1 0.38 N/A
nC12-36 (µg g-1) 0.27 0.12 0.5 N/A
nC12-20 1.29 1.1 2.41 N/A
CPI nC21-36 2.62 2.09 2.99 N/A
nC12-36 2.22 1.83 2.7 N/A
Pristane (µg g-1) 0.002 0.001 0.013 N/A
Phytane (µg g-1) 0.003 0.001 0.012 N/A
Pristane/Phytane Ratio 1.28 0.13 2.27 N/A
Total PAH (Sum of 2-6 Rings) (µg g-1) 0.048 0.016 0.239 N/A
Sum of 2-3 Rings (NPD) (µg g-1) 0.016 0.006 0.082 N/A
Sum of 4-6 Rings (µg g-1) 0.032 0.010 0.157 N/A
NPD/4-6 Ring 0.54 0.35 0.82 N/A
PAH - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; NPD – Naphthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene, and dibenzothiophene
(2-ring and 3-ring PAHs); SHC - Saturated and aliphatic hydrocarbons; THC - Total hydrocarbons; UCM -
Unresolved complex mixture; CPI - Carbon preference index (the ratio of odd number carbon chain n-alkanes to even
numbered chain n-alkanes); Pr/Ph - Ratio of pristane to phytane
Petrogenic/Pyrogenic – Ratio of the sum of combustion-related PAHs (fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene divided by the sum of petrogenic PAHs (naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthalene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, dibenzothiophenes, chrysenes, and fluoranthenes/pyrenes.
2-6 Ring PAH - Total 2 to 6 ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
nC12-20 – Alkanes ranging from carbon numbers 12 to 20
nC21-36 – Alkanes ranging from carbon numbers 21 to 36
nC12-36 – Alkanes ranging from carbon numbers 12 to 36
N/A – Not applicable (background level not available)
1 Typical THC levels (i.e. ‘background’) in sediments remote from anthropogenic activities (North Sea Task Force,

1993).

May 2017 123

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.1.3.5 2014 EBS Results (TDI Brooks International, Inc., 2014)

During the 2014 EBS, sediment samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
 Total organic carbon (TOC)
 Metals
 Hydrocarbons

Total Organic Carbon

Concentrations of TOC were less than 1 percent at all survey stations. Higher concentrations of
TOC were found in the southwest portion of the survey area, which is closer to shore.

Metals

Twelve metals were measured to assess general patterns of distribution across the Study Area,
which was defined as the Liza Area of Interest for the purpose of the study, and what is now
considered the PDA. Of the 12 metals analyzed, 10 metals (i.e., arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc) were used as indicators of
anthropogenic sources; 2 metals (i.e., aluminum and iron) were used to provide geological
source information. All of the ten anthropogenic-indicator metals had concentrations similar to
those reported for the upper continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995), with the exception of arsenic,
which was slightly elevated (average of 4.51 µg g-1 compared to an upper continental crust
mean background concentration of 2 µg g-1). However, all average concentrations were at or
below the NOAA Effect Range Low (ERL) values.

Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons are divided into two classes of compounds: aliphatic compounds and aromatic
compounds. The hydrocarbon analysis consisted of the analysis of saturated and other aliphatic
hydrocarbons (SHC), including selected isoprenoids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs).
Aliphatic Compounds: Aliphatic compounds can be “saturated” (alkanes with carbon atoms
joined by single bonds), or “unsaturated” (alkenes with carbons joined by double bonds). The
study measured concentrations of saturated hydrocarbons that encompass light and heavy
fractions of petroleum (i.e., alkanes nC9-nC40) and selected isoprenoids (branched chain
unsaturated hydrocarbons), including pristine and phytane. Concentrations of total SHC
ranged from 8 µg g-1 to 14 µg g-1. The unresolved portion of the SHC analysis (i.e., SHCs that
cannot be identified through the use of standard analytical methods) ranged from 3 µg g-1 to 12
µg g-1, with an average of 7.0 µg g-1, which makes up approximately 66 percent of the average
SHC concentration.
Several SHC-based parameters and ratios were used to distinguish between biogenic and
petroleum-derived sources. These parameters and ratios are listed below, along with a general
discussion of their relevance in determining the source of the hydrocarbons.

May 2017 124

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

 Carbon Preference Index (CPI): The total odd-chain hydrocarbons divided by the total even-
chain hydrocarbons. A value of 2 to 4 indicates input from plants. As petroleum is added,
the value decreases, approaching 1.
 Pristane/Phytane Ratio: The source of phytane is mainly petroleum, whereas pristane is
derived from both biological matter and petroleum. In environmental samples with no
petroleum contribution, this ratio is greater than 1 and it decreases as petroleum is added.
 Hexadecane (nC16)/(Pentadecane [nC15] + Heptadecane [nC17]) ratio: At “background”
levels, hydrocarbons nC15 and nC17 can be used as indicators of plankton hydrocarbon
inputs. As plankton productivity increases, this ratio decreases. If the ratio were to increase
over time or within the data set, the rationale would be that it is related to anthropogenic
sources. Hexadecane (nC16) is rarely found in biolipids (Thompson and Eglinton 1978);
paraffins of nC15, nC17, or nC19 have been found to be predominant in benthic algae (Clark
and Blumer 1967, Youngblood et al. 1971).

The results of the sediment samples exhibited a predominance of odd-carbon-number over

even-carbon-number n-alkanes, with an average CPI value of approximately 2, indicating
primarily biogenic sources of hydrocarbons. This could be expected given the volume of land
runoff from the Essequibo and Demerara rivers.
The average pristane/phytane ratio of 1.34 reflects a predominance of pristane over phytane in
the sediments, indicating a predominantly biogenic source of hydrocarbons.
The low ratio (less than 1) of nC16 over the sum of nC15 + nC17 for all samples indicates relatively
higher concentrations of plankton-related hydrocarbons, as compared to hydrocarbons from
anthropogenic sources.
PAHs: PAHs are composed of aromatic rings. PAHs analyzed included 20 parent (i.e.,
unalkylated) compounds and 23 alkylated homologues, consisting of two- to six-ring PAH
compounds. Concentrations of total PAHs (all 43 analytes) ranged from 0.02458 µg g-1 to 0.05336
µg g-1.
The sample distribution of individual PAHs provided information for a range of hydrocarbon
sources. The Petrogenic/Pyrogenic distribution ratio listed below is useful to distinguish
between petroleum-derived hydrocarbons and those derived from combustion of fossil fuels.
The ratio increases as inputs from petroleum increase.
 Petrogenic/Pyrogenic Ratio – The ratio of the sum of petrogenic PAHs divided by the sum
of pyrogenic (i.e., combustion-related) PAHs, where:
o petrogenic PAHs include naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthalene, fluorene,
phenanthrenes, and dibenzothiophenes, as well as the daughter compounds of the
chrysenes, and fluoranthenes/pyrenes, and
o pyrogenic PAHs include the parent compounds of fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene,
as well as benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene.

May 2017 125

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

In general, sample distributions of PAHs were dominated by the low molecular weight PAHs -
naphthalenes and anthracene-phenanthrenes. The petrogenic/pyrogenic ratios of greater than 1
indicate hydrocarbons are from biogenic or natural material (potentially including petroleum-
derived) rather than combustion-related compounds. High concentrations of perylene relative
to other PAHs were also observed. Perylene is a biogenic compound linked to plant pigments
from terrestrial runoff and is not indicative of either petrogenic or pyrogenic sources (Fugro,
2016). Both total PAHs and total SHC exhibited strong positive correlations with TOC, further
supporting biogenic origins of the trace hydrocarbons.
Overall, the 2014 sediment hydrocarbon results indicate that biogenic or natural materials are
the primary source of the low-level hydrocarbons measured in the survey area. Biogenic
hydrocarbon sources most likely consist of terrestrial plant and humic material transported to
the survey area via river inputs.

6.1.3.6 2016 EBS Results (Fugro, 2016)

During the 2016 EBS, sediment samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
 TOC
 Metals
 Hydrocarbons

TOC

Similar to the 2014 results, concentrations of TOC ranged from below the reporting limit to 1.1
percent. TOC concentrations were found to be higher at sampling locations with a greater
proportion of fine sediments, indicating a negative correlation between grain size and organic
content (logical given that smaller grain sizes have a greater surface area and thus more ability
to adsorb organic matter).

Metals

Twelve metals were measured to determine general patterns of distribution across the survey
area (i.e., Stabroek Block). Of the 12 metals analyzed, 10 metals (i.e., arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc) were used as indicators of
anthropogenic sources and 2 metals (i.e., aluminum and iron) were used to provide geological
source information. The maximum concentrations of the individual metals measured during the
2016 survey were consistently higher than those from the 2014 survey; this is possibly a result of
the different acids used by the 2014 and 2016 laboratories for extraction, or of greater variability
in the data set due to the significantly larger sample area covered by the 2016 investigation
compared to the 2014 investigation. Average concentrations of anthropogenic-indicator metals
arsenic and nickel exceeded the NOAA ERL values. While this may reflect the composition of
source material, there may be some contribution from terrestrial runoff contaminated from
mining or other industries, as carried to the Guyana basin via riverine inputs from Brazil and
the Guiana Shield.

May 2017 126

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Hydrocarbons

The hydrocarbon analyses include measurements of total hydrocarbons (THC) and PAHs.
THC concentrations ranged from 1.5 µg g-1 to 4.8 µg g-1. THC showed positive correlations with
metals concentrations, with the exception of copper and arsenic, as well as with TOC
concentrations. The unresolved complex mixture (UCM, i.e., fraction of THC that cannot be
resolved/identified) concentrations ranged from 0.9 µg g-1 to 2.8 µg g-1, and the average was 1.8
µg g-1, which makes up 64 percent of the average THC concentration. Concentrations of alkanes
(nC12-36) ranged from 0.12 µg g-1 to 0.50 µg g-1. Levels of short chain alkanes (nC12-20) were
consistently lower than those of the long chain alkanes (nC21-36).
Several THC-based parameters and ratios were used to distinguish between biogenic and
petroleum-derived sources. The values of CPI for the total range of alkanes (nC12-36) ranged
from 1.83 µg g-1 to 2.27 µg g-1. These results display a predominance of odd-carbon-number over
even-carbon-number n-alkanes, with an average CPI value greater than 2, indicating primarily
biogenic sources of hydrocarbons. The average pristane/phytane ratio was 1.28, meaning a
predominance of pristane over phytane exists in the sediments, indicating the primary source of
the hydrocarbons is likely biological.
PAHs, a subset of total hydrocarbons, were analyzed. Concentrations of total PAHs ranged
from 0.016 µg g-1 to 0.239 µg g-1. The sample distribution of individual PAHs provided
information for a range of hydrocarbon sources. A distribution ratio is listed below as well as a
general discussion of its relevance in determining the source of the hydrocarbons.
 Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Anthracene, and Dibenzothiophene (NPD)/4 to 6 Ring Ratio –
The ratio of the sum of naphthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene, and dibenzothiophene
(petrogenic indicators) divided by the sum of 4 to 6-ring PAHs (pyrogenic indicators). This
ratio is useful to determine the relative contributions of pyrogenic and petrogenic
hydrocarbons in differentiating sources. The ratio increases as inputs from petroleum
increase.

In general, samples showed a predominance of 4 to 6 ring PAHs (i.e., NPD/4 to 6 ring ratios of
less than 1), indicating predominantly pyrogenic sources of hydrocarbons, as opposed to
petrogenic sources. However, high concentrations of perylene (a biogenic compound linked to
plant pigments from terrestrial runoff and not indicative of either petrogenic or pyrogenic
sources) relative to other PAHs were also observed.
Overall, the 2016 sediment hydrocarbon results indicate that the low levels of hydrocarbons
measured in the Study Area could have derived from biogenic or natural materials as well as
combustion-related compounds. Biogenic hydrocarbon sources most likely consist of terrestrial
plant and humic material transported to the survey area via river inputs, while combustion-
related emissions could arise from multiple natural or anthropogenic sources.

May 2017 127

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.1.4 Oceanographic Conditions/Marine Water Quality

6.1.4.1 Oceanographic Conditions

Guyana’s marine environment is bounded, and heavily influenced, by the Orinoco and Amazon
rivers in Venezuela and Brazil, respectively. During the rainy season, Guyana’s coastal marine
waters receive large volumes of freshwater discharges from these major rivers, as well as from
Guyana’s own Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice rivers (FAO, 2005).
Guyana’s surficial marine waters are crossed by the Guiana Current, which is part of the
northern limb of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC). The North
Atlantic MOC circulates water between the subtropics and polar region. The Guiana Current
derives from the North Brazil Current (NBC) flowing north along the northeastern coast of
South America from northern Brazil toward the southeastern Caribbean Sea. As it reaches
French Guiana, part of the NBC separates from the coast to join the North Equatorial Counter
Current (NECC), while the rest continues flowing northwest to form the Guiana Current. Figure
6-2 illustrates the proximity of the Guiana Current, NBC, and North Equatorial Counter Current
to the Stabroek Block.
Several times a year, the NBC turns back on itself to create closed circulation and form regions
of strong eddies (circular currents). These eddies can separate the NBC and NECC. These eddies
can travel northwest along the South American coast. The current magnitude within these
eddies can vary with depths significantly. These eddies may range from approximately 145 km
to 400 km (~90 to 250 mi) in diameter.
During springtime, the Guiana Current can extend as far as 300 nautical miles offshore to cover
Guyana’s entire continental shelf. Its highest velocities tend to occur along the edge of the
continental shelf (i.e., in Guyana just shoreward of the Stabroek Block). Fluctuations in the ITCZ
and the trade winds lead to significant variation in the strength of the Guiana Current and the
extent of its influence offshore, but maximum speeds generally occur in April to May, while
minimum speeds commonly occur in September (Gyory et al., 2013).
The Guiana Current primarily travels near the water surface while the deeper portion of the
water column in the Stabroek Block is strongly influenced by the North Atlantic Deep Western
Boundary Current, which is the southward limb of the North Atlantic MOC which returns
colder, denser water from polar regions to the subtropics at intermediate and deep levels.
In May 2014, EEPGL commissioned a Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (LADCP)
survey of four stations along a transect located in the central portion of the Stabroek Block to
support design development. The profilers were placed at depths ranging from approximately
970 m to 1100 m. The survey indicated the presence of both the Guiana Current and the Deep
Western Boundary Current. Figure 6-3 shows vector stick plots from the four stations along the
LADCP transect. Figure 6-4 shows the locations of these LADCPs relative to the planned FPSO
location and the southern boundary of the Stabroek Block. The three deepest stations (1, 2, and
3) showed similar vertical current structure (i.e., a north-westward surface flow influenced by
the Guiana Current and a south-eastward deep flow due to the Deep Western Boundary

May 2017 128

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Current). The shallowest station (Station 4) showed a similar layered structure, but the speed of
the north-westward surface current, however, was significantly greater at this station than at
the others (TDI-Brooks International, Inc., 2014).

May 2017 129

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-2 Marine Currents in the Vicinity of the Project Development Area

February 2017 130

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-3 Vector Stick Plot for Stations on the Stabroek LADCP Transect

Each “stick” (also called a vector) describes the direction, speed, and depth of a discrete
measurement. The length of the vector is directly proportional to its speed (a scale is provided
at the bottom of the plot). The depth of each measurement is provided on the y-axis. The
direction of the vector points in the compass direction of the current flow (north
corresponding to “up” on the plot). The horizontal distance between stations on the x-axis is to
scale.
Source: TDI-Brooks, 2014

May 2017 131

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-4 LADCP Locations

May 2017 132

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.1.4.2 Marine Water Quality

The hydrographic and isohaline conditions in Guyana’s coastal marine waters are greatly
impacted by the outflow of the coastal rivers in the region, as described in Section 6.1.4.1. The
large amount of freshwater discharge impacts ocean salinity and temperature. Oceanic water is
relatively heavy, cold, and saline compared to the lighter, warm, and fresher water of the
Amazon and Orinoco plumes, which converge offshore of Guyana. These convergences form
oceanic fronts offshore of Guyana. Freshwater lenses generated by the Amazon and Orinoco
rivers are transported across Guyana’s continental shelf to points north and west. These lenses
persist for months and have been detected as far away as Barbados and Trinidad (Sherman and
Hempel, 2009).
Of the several coastal rivers that impact the marine environment offshore Guyana, the Amazon
River, with its average discharge of 180,000 m3/sec (Nittrouer and De Master, 1987), is the most
prominent factor in marine water quality in the region. Analysis of the Amazonian plume has
shown there is little seasonal variation in the plume’s nutrient content (e.g., silicates of 144
µmol.kg-1, phosphates of 0.7 µmol.kg-1, and nitrates of 16 µmol.kg-1) (De Master and Pope, 1996).
It has been estimated that 40 to 50 percent of the annual Amazon run-off transits along the coast
of the Guyanas.
The entire region offshore of Guyana is considered part of the North Brazil Shelf Large Marine
Ecosystem (LME). The ocean temperature in the North Brazil Shelf LME has alternately
warmed and cooled over the last few decades. A period of cooling lasted from the mid-1970s
through the mid-1990s, but since the mid-1990s the LME has consistently warmed (Sherman
and Hempel, 2009). Although the ocean temperature has alternately warmed and cooled in
recent decades, the net change in LME water temperature since 1957 equates to an average
increase of +0.22 ˚C over 50 years (Sherman and Hempel, 2009).
Water quality samples were collected from the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana as part of two
environmental survey efforts in 2014 and 2016. The 2014 samples were collected in April and
May of 2014 prior to exploration drilling activities (Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks
International, Inc., 2014).
The 2016 survey provided an additional detailed integrated site investigation covering 247 mi²
(~64,000 ha) of the offshore PDA (FUGRO EMU, 2016). This study enables ERM to have a multi-
year database of water quality in the Stabroek Block, as well as the ability to analyze a greater
number of locations to further characterize the block. Sampling locations were chosen based on
current and future exploration and potential development activities.
In the 2016 study, water quality samples were collected at top, middle, and bottom depths and
analyses of the collected samples covered a range of physicochemical parameters. In addition,
conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles (including dissolved oxygen, pH, and
turbidity measurements) were acquired and assessed through in situ monitoring of water
column profiles at 15 locations.

May 2017 133

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Results from the 2016 vertical profiles show a stratified water column in terms of temperature,
salinity, and dissolved oxygen. The depths of the thermocline, halocline, and oxygen boundary
layer were observed to increase with the total depth of water. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
reach near saturation levels near the surface, but decrease with depth. The mean sea surface
temperature was 27.8 ºC, while bottom temperatures ranged between 2.7 ºC (deepest station)
and 11.2 ºC (shallowest station). Salinity ranged between 37.05 parts per thousand (ppt) to 36.60
ppt near the surface. In depths below the halocline, the salinity ranged between 33.63 ppt and
35.50 ppt. Mean pH values ranged between 8.18 and 8.47, increasing slightly with depth. Low
turbidity was measured throughout the water column, with values less than or equal to 2.9
formazine turbidity units (FTU).
The presence of organic carbon content in the water column was analyzed by measuring TOC in
discrete water samples. TOC decreased slightly with depth. TOC ranged between 0.9 mg/l and
3.9 mg/l at the surface and between 0.9 mg/l and 2.4 mg/l in the bottom depths.
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations were generally higher near the surface than at
depth. In the 2016 survey, values ranged from 2.4 mg/l to 18.3 mg/l near the surface and from
below the detection limit to 7.7 mg/l at the bottom depths.
In the 2014 survey, measured hydrocarbon concentrations were mostly below detection limits
(total SHC less than 13 µg/l to less than 13.5 µg/l). In the 2016 survey, whose protocols allowed
for lower detection limits, THC were detected at concentrations ranging from 8.3 µg/l to 35.9
µg/l in the bottom depths and 10.0 µg/l to 33.1 µg/l near the surface. Individual n-aliphatics
were also measured, from 12 carbons (n-dodecane) to 36 carbons (n-hexatriacontane). The sum
of all measured aliphatics in the 2016 survey ranged from 0.55 µg/l to 4.22 µg/l at the surface
and from 0.37 µg/l to 16.3 µg/l in the bottom depths.
In the 2014 survey, PAHs were reported to be below detection limits with the exception of
naphthalene as well as the C1 and C2 alkylated homologues of naphthalene, fluorene, and
phenanthrene, all of which are ubiquitous trace-level laboratory contaminants. In the 2016
survey, the sum of the PAHs with two to six benzene rings ranged from 0.051 µg/l to 0.109 µg/l
at the surface and 0.059 µg/l to 0.133 µg/l at the bottom depths. The sum of the 16 PAHs from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) priority pollutant list ranged from 0.006
µg/l to 0.021 µg/l.
Pristane to phytane ratios, indicative of the possible origin of hydrocarbons present, were close
to 1.0, suggesting an oxidizing depositional environment with the compounds likely derived
from chlorophyll (Moustafa and Morsi, 2012). Ratios below 1.0 would suggest the presence of
petroleum-based hydrocarbons.
In both the 2014 and 2016 surveys, measured metal concentrations in the collected water
samples were below USEPA Saltwater Quality Standards (USEPA, 2015). Table 6-4 provides the
minimum, mean, and maximum values for metals measured in 2014 and 2016, along with
USEPA’s criterion maximum concentrations (CMCs) and criterion continuous concentrations
(CCCs) for comparison. The CMCs and CCCs are the USEPA’s recommended highest
concentrations in saltwater that are not expected to pose a significant risk for acute and chronic

May 2017 134

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

impacts, respectively, to the majority of species in a given environment (USEPA, 2016). All
samples had concentrations within the natural range of the ocean water (Morel et al., 2006), well
below the CMCs and CCCs.

Table 6-4 EBS Water Column Heavy Metals Concentrations

Heavy Metals Concentrations (µg/l)
Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Zinc
Min 1.02 6.4 0.03 0.523 0.211 0.041 <0.0002 <4
Mean 1.43 7.5 0.043 0.656 0.385 - 0.144 0.000104 2.44 -
1.68 6.42
Max 1.77 9.2 0.064 0.778 3.68 0.625 0.000254 26.4
USEPA 40 40 4.8 210 90 1.8 1.8 69
CMC
USEPA 8.8 8.8 3.1 8.1 81 0.94 0.94 36
CCC
Source: Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks International, Inc., 2014; Fugro, 2016
Note: One half of the detection limit was used for non-detect results in all statistical calculations.

6.2 Biological Resources

6.2.1 Protected Areas and Special Status Species

Formerly, the EPA was Guyana’s focal point for the Convention of Biological Diversity, and the
agency coordinated the National Protected Areas System (EPA, Undated), which included five
protected areas.
In 2011, Guyana enacted Protected Areas legislation that established a Protected Areas
Commission to oversee and manage protected areas. This legislation established a list of
prohibited activities, including unlawfully entering or remaining within a protected area;
disturbing or destroying the vegetation (common or endangered); removing or exterminating
wildlife species (common or endangered); damaging archeological finds or sites; and mining. If
any prohibited activities occur, fines range from $50,000 to $500,000 (Guyanese dollars [GYD])
(Protected Areas Act, 2011). Guyana’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015)
states the overall importance of biodiversity’s role within the country:
Guyana’s biodiversity provides an important basis for climate regulation, poverty
reduction, provisioning of fresh water and hydropower, economic growth and
development in areas such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries, payment for forest
climate services, community based economies, particularly in hinterland communities
and biodiversity-related education, scientific research and recreation. Loss of biodiversity
and any disruption in the provision of ecosystem services would impact negatively on the
economy and more particularly on the quality of life in the hinterland and indigenous
communities. (GNBSAAP, 2015)

May 2017 135

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

The 2011 legislation also established Shell Beach and the Kanuku Mountains as Guyana’s
newest nationally Protected Areas. This increased the total number of Protected Areas in
Guyana to seven and increased the total land area protected to approximately 1.8 million
hectares or about nine percent of Guyana’s land area, as summarized in Table 6-5. Figure 6-5
illustrates the locations of Guyana’s Protected Areas. There are currently no designated marine
Protected Areas in Guyana.

Table 6-5 Protected Areas in Guyana

Protected Area Km2
Kaieteur National Park 630
Iwokrama Forest 3,710
Kanashen (Community Owned Conservation Area) 6,250
Kanuku Mountains 6,110
Shell Beach Nature Reserve 2,000
Moraballi Forest Reserve 110
Mabura Hill Forest Reserve 20
Source: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016)

Of the seven Protected Areas, Shell Beach Protected Area (SBPA) is the only one located on
Guyana’s coast, and so it is most pertinent to the impacts analysis of the Project. The SBPA
includes Guyana’s coastline but does not extend into the Atlantic Ocean; however, the ecology
of the coastal zone and Shell Beach are inextricably connected to the coastal marine ecosystem.
Figure 6-6 provides a detailed map of SBPA, the beaches it incorporates, and the surrounding
area. It is located in northwestern Guyana and extends for almost 140 km (~87 mi) between the
Waini, Baramani, and Moruka rivers, and the Atlantic Ocean. The PDA is located
approximately 300 km (187 mi) northeast of the southernmost (closest) point of Shell Beach.
Shell Beach, which derived its name from the fact that its entire stretch of coastline is comprised
mainly of mainly pulverized shells from crustaceans (RBAPSBPA, 2004), is a dynamic area. Its
landscape constantly changes due to the competing impacts of erosion and accretion along the
shoreline. The area is 70 percent forested; the rest is made up of mostly swamp (<30 percent)
and sandy beaches (<1 percent) (Kandaswamy, 2014). Shell Beach supports numerous plant
species, including coconut, papaya, and palm trees (GMTCS, 2011; Bovell, 2011).
The vegetative community has changed little in recent history apart from limited clearing to
accommodate a few dispersed encampments and farmsteads. The rivers bordering the
Protected Area discharge nutrients through the Protected Area’s mudflats and mangroves.
These high nutrient levels contribute to the productivity of the marine ecosystem. Fish, prawns,
and crabs from the nearshore marine area use the mangrove covered coastlines as nursery
habitat.

May 2017 136

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-5 Protected Areas of Guyana

May 2017 137

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-6 Shell Beach Protected Area

May 2017 138

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Shell Beach is best known as a sea turtle nesting site. The composition of the substrate at Shell
Beach, its geographical location, and the low anthropogenic activity makes it an ideal nesting
site for sea turtles. Most nesting beaches in Guyana are used by only one or two species of sea
turtles, but four species of sea turtles (Leatherback, Hawksbill, Olive Ridley, and Green Turtle)
nest at Shell Beach (Pritchard, 2001). In addition to sea turtles, there are also at least four other
species of turtles present within the Protected Area, including yellow-foot tortoise (Geochelone
denticulate), scorpion mud turtle (Kinosternon scorpioides), giant river turtle (Podocnemis expansa),
and mata mata (Chelus fimbriata).
The SPBA also supports rich bird, herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians), and mammal
communities. The 2004 Rapid Biodiversity Assessment documented 170 species of birds, 20
species of mammals, and 31 species of herpetofauna. The 170 species of birds represent one of
the richest populations in Guyana and include well known species such as scarlet ibis
(Eudocimus ruber), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), and Caribbean Flamingo (Phoenicopterus
ruber), orange-winged Amazon parrots (Amazona amazonica) and several species of macaws.
Sixteen herpetofauna species (other than turtles) are known to inhabit the Shell Beach area.
These include the Ameiva lizard (Ameiva ameiva), whiptail lizard (Cnemidorphous lemniscatus),
water labaria (Helicops angulatus), cane toad (Bufo Marinus), paradoxical frog (Pseudis paradoxa),
and numerous tree frogs (Hyla spp.) (RBAPSBPA, 2004).
Twenty species of mammals, including howler monkeys (Alouatta spp.), jaguars (Panthera spp.),
and manatees (Trichechus sp.), are known to inhabit the Shell Beach area and surrounding
coastal region (Prince et al., 2004; Kalamandeen et al., 2005). Appendix G – Flora and Fauna
Diversity of Shell Beach, provides an extensive list of species within the area.
Resources within Protected Areas are a key factor in supporting local communities (see Chapter
7 for additional information). Areas within and near Shell Beach have been inhabited for 10,000
years by Amerindian groups from the Warao, Carib, and Arawak tribes (Charles et al., 2004).
Most of the current indigenous residents of the Shell Beach area are concentrated in a
community known as Almond Beach, near the northern end of the Protected Area. Other
communities included within the boundary of the Protected Area, as delineated in 2011, include
Father’s Beach and Assakata. The remainder of the Protected Area is sparsely populated, if at
all.
Indigenous communities have historically used the Shell Beach area for subsistence fishing,
crabbing, trapping, farming, logging, and palm harvesting. The important crab species that are
utilized by the locals include blue sheriga (Callinectes bocourti), sheriga (Portunas spinimamus),
bunderi (Cardiosoma guanhumi), and buck-crab (Ucides cordatus) (RBAPSBPA, 2004). They have
also historically engaged in sea turtle trapping and harvesting of sea turtle eggs. While these
activities have declined in recent years as emphasis on conservation and sustainability has
increased, illegal catching of turtles may still occur (Charles et al., 2004).
Increasing human activity in proximity to Shell Beach has led to increasing exploitation of
natural resources and has the potential to lead to additional ecological harm. In 1997, a fire
caused by human activity extensively damaged an area of mangroves (Pritchard, 2001).

May 2017 139

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Throughout the past few decades, there have also been various industrial proposals for Shell
Beach. These include proposals to extract shell material from the beaches as feedstock for
fertilizer production and to develop a luxury tourist outpost (Charles et al., 2004). Amerindian
communities in the area have also expressed interest in developing ecotourism in the area
(Charles et al., 2004).

6.2.1.1 Special Status Species

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains a Red List, which
provides taxonomic, conservation status, and distribution information on plants and animals
that have been globally evaluated to determine their relative risk of extinction (IUCN, 2014).
The IUCN categorizes species according to their risk at six status levels ranging from “Extinct”
to “Least Concern,” as defined in Table 6-7.

Table 6-7 Definitions of IUCN Red List Threatened Categories

IUCN Red List Status Definition
Extinct (EX) A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last
individual has died. A taxon is presumed Extinct when exhaustive
surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal,
seasonal, annual), and throughout its historical range have failed to
record an individual.
Critically Endangered (CR) A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence (severe
population decline, very small population, very small geographic area
occupied, or a probability of extinction in the next 10 years of >50%)
indicates that it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endangered (EN) A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence (large
population decline, small population, small geographic area occupied, or
a probability of extinction in the next 20 years of >20%) indicates that it is
facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
Vulnerable (VU) A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence (substantial
population decline, small population, fairly small geographic area
occupied, or a probability of extinction in the next 100 years is >10%)
indicates that it is considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the
wild.
Near Threatened (NT) A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the
criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, or
Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a
threatened category in the near future.
Least Concern (LC) A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria
and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable
or Near Threatened. Taxa that are widespread and abundant are included
in this category.
Data Deficient A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a
direct or indirect assessment of its risk of extinction based on its
distribution and/or population status.
Source: IUCN 2001

May 2017 140

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Species categorized as CR, EN, and VU are collectively considered to be internationally

“threatened,” while NT species are close to qualifying as “threatened“ and LC species are
considered internationally widespread and abundant. There are 296 species known to occur in
the coastal and marine habitats in Guyana on the IUCN Red List. Sixty-two of these marine and
coastal species have been ranked NT or higher. These species are listed in Appendix H.
According to the IUCN’s classification scheme, these species currently face a credible threat of
extinction.
Most of the threatened (CR, EN or VU) or NT species that could be impacted by the Project are
fish. They include highly migratory species such as species of tunas and sharks, bentho-pelagic
species including certain groupers, and demersal species including species of skates and rays.
As noted in Section 6.3.3.2, many of these fish species are also targeted by the Guyanese
commercial fishing industry. The remaining threatened or NT marine and coastal species in
Appendix H include sea turtles, marine mammals, and crustaceans.

6.2.2 Coastal Habitats

There are four ecoregions in Guyana (Figure 6-7): coastal plain, interior savannas, hilly sand
and clay, and forested highlands (GNBSAAP, 2015). The Project will have no impact on the
interior savannas, hilly sand and clay, and forested highlands, so this section focuses on habitats
of the coastal plain (note that the only potential impacts on the coastal plain are those associated
with unplanned events [i.e., oil spill]).
Guyana’s coastal plain occupies approximately 7 percent of the country’s total area and extends
along the entire approximately 400 km (~250 mi) of the Atlantic coast, varying in width from
approximately 16 km to 64 km (10 mi to 40 mi) (Kalamandeen and Da Silva, 2002) and in
elevation from sea level to approximately 3 m (~10 ft) (GNBSAAP, 2015). The coastal plain is a
narrow belt of sediments with riverine and marine clays and silts stretching along Guyana’s
coastline. The coastal zone is a highly productive and sensitive environment that is subjected to
marine and terrestrial influences. Guyana’s coastal ecoregion is a network of plains and low
hills, including mangroves, salt to brackish lagoons, brackish herbaceous swamps, swamp
woods, and swamp forests. The coastal zone contains some of the world’s most productive
ecosystems, with rich biological diversity (Kalamandeen and Da Silva, 2002). The swamps are
an important source of freshwater to mangroves and other flora and fauna (WWF, 2016).
Along the Guyana shoreline, the portion of the coastal plain with the most potential to be
impacted by an unplanned event associated with the Project, the principal habitats are
mangroves, beaches, and mudbanks, which are described below.

May 2017 141

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-7 Guyana’s Ecoregions

May 2017 142

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.2.1 Mangroves

Mangroves are regarded as one of the most important ecosystems for the security of the
biodiversity of the entire Guyana coast, as they protect coastlines from wave action and
shoreline erosion (see Section 6.1.3). Figure 6-8 shows the general distribution of mangrove
resources along coastal Guyana; Figure 6-9 provides photographs of mangroves in Guyana. It is
difficult to ascertain the exact location and extent of mangrove forests in the country because
the mangroves are subject to erosion and other factors that can lead to rapid and dramatic
changes in distribution.
A 2008 Smithsonian report stated that mangroves occupied over 81,000 hectares of Guyana’s
coast in six of Guyana’s 10 geopolitical regions (Smithsonian, 2008). The Guyana Mangrove
Restoration Project estimates 75 percent of the country’s mangroves are concentrated in Regions
1 and 2 (GMRP Fact Sheet, 2010), which are located along the northwestern coast and include
SBPA.
Coastal mangroves have been identified by numerous national and international stakeholders
as vital to Guyana’s biodiversity, physical security, and economy (WWF, 2016; GMRP, 2010;
Ilieva, undated). In 2014, ERM conducted a coastal zone sensitivity analysis as part of the Oil
Spill Response (OSR) planning for the Liza-1 drilling program. The analysis included detailed
mapping of mangroves along Guyana’s coast from Georgetown west to the Venezuelan border.
Figure 6-8 is a composite of 10 individual map tiles showing the identified distribution of
mangroves (red-shading) across this portion of Guyana’s coastline as of 2013.
There are currently three species of mangrove in Guyana: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle),
black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Mangroves
in Guyana have a unique distribution pattern that is different from the norm in most other
countries. RGME (2014) noted that in Guyana black mangroves typically colonize the coastal
shorelines, and red mangroves establish themselves further inland along the rivers. There is
some overlap in the typical distribution of these species elsewhere, but in general the pattern in
other countries is for red mangroves to establish along the shoreline, black mangroves to
establish farther inland, and white mangroves to establish the farthest inland. Mangrove
ecosystems are known to be among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Mann, 1982),
serving major habitats while providing shelter and feeding sites for many faunal species
(Mestre, Krul and Moraes, 2007). Many invertebrate inhabitants of mangrove ecosystems in
Guyana live either on or in close proximity to mangrove roots and substrates and include snails,
barnacles, tunicates, mollusks, polychaete worms, oligochaete worms, shrimp, crabs, sponges,
jellyfish, amphipods, and isopods. These small organisms provide forage for birds, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Herons, egrets, and ibises are the most conspicuous group of bird
species found in mangroves due to the abundant food sources in a relatively safe habitat (Da
Silva, 2014).

May 2017 143

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-8 Guyana’s Mangrove Distribution (Georgetown west to Venezuelan Border)

Figure 6-9 Mangrove Photographs

Coastal Mangroves Red Mangrove Forest

Source: ERM, 2016; Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of Shell Beach, 2004

May 2017 144

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.2.2 Beaches

Guyana has relatively few beaches, but the beaches that do occur are critically important
nesting habitats for sea turtles and providing habitat used by a variety of avian, herpetofauna,
and mammalian species (see Figure 6-6, for the locations of beaches in the SBPA).

6.2.2.3 Mudbanks

See Section 6.1.3 for the description of the physical attributes and location of Guyana’s
mudbanks, which generally refer to the submerged mud features below the low tide line (as
distinct from the intertidal mud “flats”. There has been no targeted biological surveys of
Guyana’ mud banks conducted to date, but coastal mud habitats typically support burrowing
invertebrates such as marine worms, mollusks, crustaceans, amphipods, and copepods. This
invertebrate community provides important forage for bottom-feeding fishes such as grunts,
catfishes, and snappers (particularly during their early life stages).

6.2.3 Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds

Guyana occupies the west-central portion of the Guianan mangrove ecoregion, which extends
from southeastern Venezuela southeast to French Guiana between the Orinoco River Deltas and
the Oyapok River Delta in French Guiana. The ecoregion is a bio-geographical rather than
geopolitical region, and was designated as a distinct ecoregion by the World Wildlife Fund as
part of their Terrestrial Ecosystems of the World project (Olsen et al. 2001). Despite supporting
over 90% of the country’s human population, Guyana’s coastal region supports a diverse fauna.
This section briefly describes bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species that are
representative of Guyana’s coastal region.

6.2.3.1 Coastal Wildlife

Numerous mammal, reptile, and amphibian species occur in Guyana’s mangroves, agricultural
areas, and coastal forests. There are over 50 species of mammals present including opossums;
bats; primates such as capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), squirrel monkeys (Saimira sciureus),
howler monkey (Alouatta seniculus) and Guianan saki (Pithecia pithecia); giant ant-eater
(Myrmecophaga triactyla); several species of cats including pumas (Panthera onca), puma (Puma
concolor), and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis); ungulates and rodents including the capybara
(Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris), paca (Agouti paca) red rumped agouti (Dasyprocta leporina); red and
grey brocket deer (Mazama sp.); and the giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), which is a
freshwater species, and the neotropical otter (Lontra longicaudis), which is found in both
freshwater and estuarine habitats (WWF, undated). Other reptiles that frequent this ecoregion
are the green iguana (Iguana iguana), spectacled caiman (Caiman crocodilus) and anaconda
(Eunectes murinus). Amphibians are generally less common along the coast than in the interior
especially due to saline influence in the mangroves, but two species that are found along the
coast are the paradoxal frog (Pseudis paradoxa) and the pipa frog (Pipa pipa).

May 2017 145

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.3.2 Shorebirds

Guyana has a high species richness and diversity of flora and fauna. The coastal bird
community is rich in Guyana, with over 200 species of coastal birds recorded, including a
variety of parrots and macaws, numerous waterbirds and shorebirds, and raptors including the
rare Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) (GNBSAAP, 2015). A coastal bird survey conducted along the
coast in the Georgetown region by Bayney and Da Silva (2005) documented 32 coastal bird
species, 20 of which are migrants. The most abundant species documented in the survey were
shorebirds including Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis malcularia),
Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), and Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus).
Waterbird species including Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) and Cattle Egret (Bulbulcis ibis) were
also abundant. In 2007, Braun et al. developed a comprehensive checklist of the 814 bird species
within 11 habitats documented in Guyana (Braun et al., 2007). The coastal habitats surveyed
include mangrove forests and mudflats and the checklist includes 47 species within 18 families
for the mangroves and 38 species within 8 families for the mudflat habitats (Braun et al., 2007)
(Appendix I). A more recent bird survey within coastal mangrove habitats in southeast Guyana
identified 37 species within 14 families (Da Silva 2014). In this 2014 survey, the most abundant
species recorded were the Rufous Crab-hawk (Buteogallus aequinoctialis), Great Egret (Ardea
alba), Greater Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), Scarlet Ibis (Eudocimus ruber) and the Pied Water
Tyrant (Fluvicola pica) (Appendix I).
As discussed in Section 6.2.2, Shell Beach is the only coastal Protected Area in Guyana. Two
biodiversity surveys have been undertaken within and around Shell Beach over roughly the
past decade (Mendonca et al. 2006; GEPA et al.; 2004). Each of these surveys documented over
200 bird species in the Shell Beach area, including many forest interior species that occur in the
inland habitats of Shell Beach. Many of the over 200 species documented are migrants, traveling
from United States and Canada to spend the winter season in Guyana, primarily following the
Atlantic and Central Flyways to South America. The most abundant coastal species recorded at
and around Shell Beach during the two surveys included Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla), Scarlet
Ibis (Eudocimus ruber), Yellow-billed Tern (Sterna superciliaris), Least Tern (Sterna antillarum),
Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia), Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), and Blackbellied
Whistling-duck (Dendrocyna autumnalis) (Mendonca et al. 2006; GEPA et al.: 2004).
BirdLife International (2016a) has designated several Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the
neighboring countries of Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. These IBAs provide
foraging, breeding, and nesting habitats similar to those found along Guyana’s coastline.
However, no IBAs have been designated in Guyana.

6.2.4 Seabirds
Seabirds are birds that spend their time in nearshore and/or offshore marine environments
away from land, except when they are nesting. Types or groups of seabirds more prevalent in
this region include albatrosses, petrels, shearwaters, storm-petrels, skuas, jaegers, tropicbirds,
and terns. Twenty-two species of seabirds breed in the Caribbean and dozens more occur as
migrants through the region. Seabird data that is specific to Guyana is almost non-existent and

May 2017 146

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

no comprehensive survey of seabirds has ever been conducted in Guyana (BirdLife

International, 2016).
Birdlife International lists 21 species of seabirds for Guyana (BirdLife International, 2016). Other
current data sources, such as eBird, and seabird observations recorded in the Stabroek Block
during the EEPGL seismic surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016, increase the total number of
documented seabird species in Guyana to 30 (eBird, 2016; RPS, 2016). This number is consistent
with that of other countries in the region. For example, 32 and 29 species of seabirds are
documented in Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, respectively (BirdLife International, 2016).
Table 6-8 lists the seabird species documented in Guyana based on the BirdLife data, eBird
records, and EEPGL observations. Any of these species could occur in the PDA at some time
during the year (specific timing of occurrence is dependent on the species and environmental
conditions). All of the 30 species of seabirds known to occur in Guyana are currently listed on
the IUCN Red List as LC, which means that the population status of the species does not meet
the IUCN criteria for a threatened or NT designation (IUCN, 2016).
Of the species observed in the Stabroek Block during the EEPGL seismic surveys, the most
commonly observed species (in descending order of number of sightings (i.e.; frequency of
occurrence) were the Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra), Magnificent Frigatebird (Fregata
magnificens), and Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster) (RPS, 2016).

Seabirds feed on fish and other marine organisms that concentrate on or near the surface of the
water, either by surface feeding (from flight or swimming) or by diving. As such, the presence
and availability of seabird prey in a given area, which is strongly influenced by the ocean’s
currents, are a major determinant in the occurrence of seabirds. Further, water clarity can
impact a seabird’s foraging success and some studies have suggested that seabirds in the
Caribbean prefer areas with clear water where they can more easily see their prey (Schreiber,
2001).
Seabirds in the PDA area are likely to be transients, moving opportunistically with schools of
fish and other prey. The marine environment within the PDA is heavily influenced by the
Guiana Current, which is a strong surface current that directs surface flows northwestward. No
slower moving or circular currents or areas of upwelling that could concentrate marine biota are
known to occur in the PDA. Further, no islands or near-surface submarine ridges that would be
an attractant to foraging seabirds occur in the PDA. While a variety of fish occur in the PDA,
including schooling fish such as tuna and mahi-mahi, no evidence suggests that large
concentrations of fish consistently occur in the PDA to the extent that they would promote
regular use by foraging seabirds. The turbid conditions in the Stabroek Block further reduce the
likelihood that the area has significant importance for foraging seabirds.
Since 2010, BirdLife International has focused its efforts on identifying Marine IBAs with
specific significance to seabirds. The types of sites that qualify as Marine IBAs include seabird
breeding colonies, foraging areas around breeding colonies, non-breeding (usually coastal)
concentrations, migratory bottlenecks, and feeding areas for pelagic species (Birdlife
International, 2016b). No Marine IBAs have been identified in Guyana, but three Marine IBAs of

May 2017 147

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

global or regional importance to seabirds have been designated in neighboring countries: St.
Giles Islands and Little Tobago, both located off the northeastern tip of Tobago, and Isla de
Aves in Venezuela (Lentino and Esclasans, 2009; Birdlife International 2016b; Devenish et al.,
2009). Figure 6-10 depicts the location of these IBAs relative to the Stabroek Block.

Table 6-8 Seabird Species Known to Occur in Guyana

Common Name a, b, c Scientific Name
Magnificent Frigatebird a, b, c Fregata magnificens
Brown Booby a, b, c Sula leucogaster
Masked Booby a, b Sula dactylatra
Red-footed Booby b Sula sula
White-tailed Tropicbird a, b Phaethon lepturus
Leach's Storm-petrel a, c Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Audubon's Shearwater a, b, c Puffinus lherminieri
Wilson’s Storm-petrel b, c Oceanites oceanicus
Cory's Shearwater a, b Calonectris diomedea
Barolo Shearwater b Puffinus baroli
Great Shearwater a, c Ardenna gravis
Arctic Jaeger c Stercorarius parasiticus
Pomarine Jaeger a, b, c Stercorarius pomarinus
Parasitic Jaeger b Stercorarius parasiticus
South Polar Skua b Stercorarius maccormicki
Great Skua c Catharacta skua
Least Tern b, c Sternula antillarum
Royal Tern b, c Sterna maxima
Black Tern b, c Chlidonias niger
Common Tern a, b, c Sterna hirundo
Bridled Tern b, c Onychoprion anaethetus
Sooty Tern c Onychoprion fuscatus
Sandwich Tern b, c Thalasseus sandvicensis
Roseate Tern b Sterna dougalli
Brown Noddy b, c Anous stolidus
Gull Billed-tern b, c Gelochelidon nilotica
Northern Gannet b Morus bassanus
Laughing Gull b, c Larus atricilla
Brown Pelican b, c Pelecanus occidentalis
Neotropic Cormorant b, c Phalacrocorax brasilianus
a Species observed in in the Stabroek Block during the EEPGL seismic surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 (RPS,
2016)
b eBird record (eBird Caribbean, 2016)
c BirdLife International record (BirdLife International, 2016)

May 2017 148

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

St. Giles Islands IBA includes one main island and several surrounding rock outcrops that
support globally important numbers of breeding Red-billed Tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus) and
regionally important numbers of breeding Audubon’s Shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri),
Magnificent Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra), and Red-footed
Booby (S. sula). Other seabirds such as Brown Booby (S. leucogaster) and Brown Noddy (Anous
stolidus) also breed there (White, 2008; Devenish et al., 2009).
Little Tobago IBA supports globally important breeding populations of Red-billed Tropicbird
and Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla), and regionally important breeding populations of
Audubon’s Shearwater, Brown Booby, Red-footed Booby, and Bridled Tern (White, 2008;
Devenish et al., 2009).
Field surveys conducted as part of the coastal mapping of Trinidad and Tobago documented
large colonies of seabirds at both St. Giles Island and Little Tobago, as well as along the
northeastern cliffs of Tobago, from Corvo Point to Pedro Point (ERM, 2016).
The Isla de Aves IBA in Venezuela supports the largest breeding colony of Brown Noddy
known from the Caribbean (5,509 pairs), as well as the principal breeding colony of Sooty Tern
(Sterna fuscata) in Venezuela (12,182 pairs) (Lentino and Esclasans, 2009).

May 2017 149

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-10 Location of IBAs with Importance to Seabirds Relative to Stabroek Block

May 2017 150

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.5 Marine Mammals

Although there have been no comprehensive studies in the PDA, a basic understanding of the
existing composition and distribution of the marine mammal community in the vicinity of the
PDA is provided by regional compilations (Ward, 2001; Ward and Moscrop, 1999), marine
mammal observation (MMO) data collected during EEPGL exploration activities from 2014 to
2016 (RPS PSO database), studies on cetaceans in offshore waters of neighboring countries such
as Suriname and Venezuela (de Boer, 2015; IWC/SC 2006), and incidental reports associated
with strandings and bycatch (Project GLOBAL, 2007). Information from these reports and other
studies provides the foundation for this discussion of existing conditions, which is focused on
cetaceans. One sirenian, the West Indian manatee, and two pinniped groups (seals and sea
lions), have been documented in the region, but are either now considered to be locally extinct
or extremely rare and would not be expected to be encountered in coastal waters adjacent to the
PDA (Ward, 2001). However, the manatee may be encountered in nearshore and riverine
settings.

6.2.5.1 Regional Setting

The equatorial waters of Guyana are located within sub-region VI of the Wider Caribbean
Region (WCR). This sub-region includes the countries of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana
(Ward and Moscrop, 1999). Many cetacean species are known to occur either seasonally or year-
round in the waters of the WCR, but there are minimal data concerning the life history and
behavior of the majority of these species. The cetacean community is also under-recorded in
waters off of French Guiana and Guyana (de Boer, 2015; Mannocci et al., 2013). In contrast, more
detailed records exist for Venezuela in the southern Caribbean region. The scarcity of cetacean
records for sub-region VI can be attributed to a lack of survey effort rather than an absence of
marine mammals (de Boer, 2015).

6.2.5.2 Marine Mammal Data from the Project Development Area

The 2007 Global Bycatch Assessment of Long-lived Species (Project GloBAL) Country Profile of
Guyana provides a list of marine mammals whose distributions overlap with Guyana’s
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The cetacean species documented in this report are listed in
Table 6-9.

Table 6-9 Marine Mammals with Ranges that include Waters Offshore Guyana
Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Notes
Sei whale Balaenoptera EN The sei whale is a baleen whale and is the third-
borealis largest after the blue whale and the fin whale. It
inhabits most oceans and adjoining seas, and
prefers deep offshore waters.
Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera Data Bryde’s whales are moderately sized and closely
brydei Deficient resemble their relative, the sei whale.

May 2017 151

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Notes

Blue whale Balaenoptera EN Blue whales are the largest mammals on earth.
musculus Their diet consists almost entirely of krill. Blue
whales were hunted nearly to extinction.
Fin whale Balaenoptera EN Fin whales are the second largest mammal after
physalus blue whales; they are found worldwide and
their food consists of small fish, squid, copepods
and krill.
Short beaked Delphinus delphis LC These dolphins occur throughout warm
common temperate and tropical oceans. Short-beaked
dolphin common dolphins can occur in aggregations of
hundreds or even thousands of dolphins. They
sometimes associate with other dolphin species,
such as pilot whales.
Long beaked Delphinus Data The range of this dolphin is more restricted than
common capensis Deficient that of the short beaked common dolphin. It has
dolphin a varied diet. One of the main threats to this
dolphin is fisheries.
Minke whale Balaenoptera LC Minke whales are the second smallest baleen
acutorostrata whale.
North Atlantic Eubalaena EN This is a baleen whale that was once a preferred
right whale glacialis target for whalers. They feed mostly on
copepods and krill.
Pygmy killer Feresa attenuate Data This is a poorly known and rarely seen dolphin
whale Deficient that avoids human contact. They are often
caught in drift gill nets.
Short-finned Globicephala Data Short-finned pilot whales are very sociable and
pilot whale macrorhynchus Deficient are rarely seen alone. They are found in groups
of 10 to 30, though some pods are as large as 50.
The species primarily feeds on squid, but will
also feed on certain species of fish and octopus.
They feed nearly 300 m deep or more, and
spend great lengths of time at depth. A pod may
spread out up to 800 m (~2,640 ft) to cover more
area to find food.
Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus LC These are found worldwide in temperate and
tropical waters, just off the continental shelf on
steep banks. Risso’s dolphins feed almost
exclusively on neritic and oceanic squid, mostly
nocturnally.
Pygmy sperm Kogia breviceps Data The pygmy sperm whale is not much larger
whale Deficient than many dolphins. Pygmy sperm whales are
normally either solitary, or found in pairs. They
feed mainly on cephalopods.
Dwarf sperm Kogia simus Data The dwarf sperm whale is the smallest species
whale Deficient commonly known as a whale. Dwarf sperm
whales feed mainly on squid and crab. Its
preferred habitat appears to be just off the
continental shelf.

May 2017 152

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Notes

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis LC This dolphin is normally sighted in deep
hosei tropical waters. Fraser's dolphins swim quickly
in large tightly packed groups of about 100 to
1000 in number.
Humpback Megaptera LC Found in oceans and seas around the world,
whale novaeangliae humpback whales typically migrate up to
25,000 km each year. Humpbacks feed only in
summer, in polar waters, and migrate to tropical
or subtropical waters to breed and give birth in
the winter. Once hunted to the brink of
extinction, its population fell by an estimated
90% before a 1966 moratorium. Since this time,
stocks have partially recovered.
Blainville’s Mesoplodon Data This species of beaked whale is found in tropical
beaked whale densirostris Deficient and warm waters in all oceans, and has been
known to range into very high latitudes. The
whales are seen in groups of three to seven
individuals. Dives have been measured as long
as 22 minutes.
Gervais’ beaked Mesoplodon Data These whales occur in small groups. They most
whale europaeus Deficient likely feed on squid. Although this species
frequently strands, until 1998, no one had made
a confirmed sighting of the species at sea.
True’s beaked Mesoplodon Data These have been seen in small groups, and are
whale mirus Deficient believed to be squid eaters. Little else is known.
Melon-headed Peponocephala LC Closely related to the pygmy killer whale and
whale electra pilot whale, collectively this dolphin species is
known by the common name blackfish. It is also
related to the false killer whale. The melon-
headed whale is widespread throughout the
world's tropical waters, although not often seen
by humans because it prefers deep water.
Sperm whale Physeter VU The largest of the toothed whales that can be
macrocephalus found anywhere in the open ocean, females and
young males live together in groups while
mature males live solitary lives outside of the
mating season. Females give birth every four to
twenty years, and care for the calves for more
than a decade. A mature sperm whale has few
natural predators. They feed on squid and fish
and usually dive between 300 to 800 m (984 to
2,625 ft) to forage.
False killer Pseudorca Data This species lives in temperate and tropical
whale crassidens Deficient waters throughout the world. As its name
implies, the false killer whale shares
characteristics, such as appearance, with the
more widely known killer whale. Like the killer
whale, the false killer whale attacks and kills
other cetaceans.

May 2017 153

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Notes

Pantropical Stenella attenuata LC Found in all the world's temperate and tropical
spotted dolphin oceans, this species was threatened due to the
killing of millions of individuals in tuna purse
seines. In the 1980s, the rise of "dolphin-
friendly" tuna capture methods benefitted the
species and it is now one of the most abundant
dolphin species in the world.
Clymene Stenella clymene Data Clymene dolphins spend most of their lives in
dolphin Deficient waters over 100 m (330 ft) in depth, but
occasionally move into shallower, coastal
regions. They feed on squid and small schooling
fish, hunting either at night, or in mesopelagic
waters where there is only limited light.
Striped dolphin Stenella LC The striped dolphin inhabits temperate or
coeruleoalba tropical, offshore waters. It moves in large
groups — usually up to thousands of
individuals in number. The adult striped
dolphin eats fish, squid, octopus, krill, and other
crustaceans.
Spinner dolphin Stenella Data The spinner dolphin is a small dolphin found in
longerostris Deficient offshore tropical waters around the world. The
species primarily inhabits coastal waters,
islands, or banks.
Rough-toothed Steno bredanensis LC These dolphins can be found in deep warm and
dolphin tropical waters around the world and are
typically social animals. An average group has
between 10 and 20 members. They have also
been reported to school together with other
species of dolphin, and with pilot whales, false
killer whales, and humpback whales.
Source: Global, 2007; De Boer, 2015; IUCN 3.1; Minasian et al., 1984

A recent peer-reviewed study was conducted in Suriname and adjacent waters in 2012 (De Boer
2015). The data from this study were collected at similar depths and distances offshore as the
PDA. De Boer (2015) documented the presence of 10 identifiable species in dedicated, effort-
related surveys. These are shown in bold in Table 5-A of de Boer (2015). In addition, during
transit to the survey area (Trinidad to Suriname), De Boer also documented incidental sightings
of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off of Trinidad, other dolphins (Stenella sp.)
off of Guyana, and Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) at the entrance of the Suriname River.
These species may be encountered closer to shore where Project-related marine support vessel
transits will be occurring.
The survey data from De Boer (2015) show that the cetacean community in the Suriname area is
primarily composed of odontocetes (toothed whales, including sperm whales, beaked whales,
killer whales, and dolphins). These are more common offshore of Suriname than the baleen
whales (including Bryde’s and sei whales). The occurrence of baleen whales is likely seasonal,
with Bryde’s/sei whales recorded only during June and July. Additional opportunistic records

May 2017 154

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

cited in De Boer (2015) show that large baleen whales have been observed in early October. Both
shelf waters and offshore waters are important for the dolphin community.
De Boer (2015) notes that the most abundant species documented offshore Suriname were the
sperm whale and melon-headed whale. Spinner and pantropical spotted dolphins were also
frequently encountered in large groups. The relative abundance index for all cetaceans was
relatively low, as expected for the offshore survey location (approximately 1,190 m to 3,350 m
[3,900 ft to 11,000 ft] water depths). Based on these data when viewed together with other
systematic surveys in tropical regions in the eastern Atlantic and western Africa, estimated
densities were found to be much higher in areas that spanned both deep and shallow waters
versus the deep water-only area surveyed offshore Suriname. (De Boer, 2010). For example,
tropical shallow shelf waters off of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean generally hold a much
more diverse and abundant cetacean community (Clark et al., 2012).
Other older reports provide additional information for context. For example, the International
Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee’s (SC’s) Draft Report on Small Cetaceans of
the Wider Caribbean (IWC/SC, 2006) cites information from French Guiana and Venezuela and
provides secondary information on Guyana’s marine mammals. Bottlenose dolphins are
incidentally captured in both gillnet and trawl fisheries in these countries. Tucuxi or grey
dolphin (Sotalia fluviatilis) are known to suffer incidental capture in gillnets and seines
throughout their range, which includes the Guianas (French Guiana, Suriname and Guyana).
Marine mammal observations during recent seismic surveys conducted between December
2015 and March 2016 (RPS, 2016) noted that dolphins were detected (either visually or
acoustically) on 20 occasions and included four species: pantropical and bottlenose dolphins,
short-finned pilot whales, and melon headed whales. Two sperm whale detections and two
Bryde’s whale detections were also recorded, along with one unidentified baleen whale. Visual
monitoring was conducted over a period of about 85 days for a total of 1007.5 hours. Data from
this winter study were combined with other observations in the Stabroek and Canje Blocks to
develop the list of confirmed species sighted depicted in Table 6-10.

Table 6-10 Marine Mammal Species Visually Observed during EEPGL Activities Since 2014
Common Name Scientific Name
Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera brydei
Fraser's dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei
Melon headed whale Peponocephala electra
Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuate
Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus
Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus
Sperm whale Physeter microcephalus
Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris
Source: RPS, 2016

May 2017 155

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Table 6-11 summarizes the data for acoustic and visual observations of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the PDA, month-by-month, over the period June 1, 2014 to September 1, 2016. The
locations of whales sighted or identified from acoustic observations during this period are
depicted on Figure 6-11.

Table 6-11 Data Compiled from PSO Observations June 2014 to September 2016
Number of Observations
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sperm Whale 3 2 2 1 0 1 4 6 2 4 0 0
Dolphin 56 28 3 8 6 7 14 34 52 42 52 42
Baleen Whale 7 3 6 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 3
Beaked Whale 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Source: RPS PSOMAP database search from June 1, 2014, to Sept 1, 2016. Includes visual and acoustic detections. Data
indicates number of detections rather than abundance.

These observations off of Guyana correspond with those documented by De Boer (2015) off of
Suriname. Based on these recent sightings and data compilations, toothed whales (including
dolphins) are detected most frequently in the PDA, but baleen whales may also be encountered.
A survey of nearshore waters conducted by Charles et al. (2004) of 125 Guyanese captains of
trawl, drift seine, and red snapper fishing vessels found that these vessels usually encountered
boto (Inia geoffrensis), spotted dolphin (Stenella spp.), longmouth or common dolphin (Delphinus
delphi), tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostrus), and bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). Individuals of these species may be encountered by marine support vessel
operations and tankers in these waters.
Nearshore Project activities in or near the Demerara River could encounter West Indian
manatees. A subspecies of the West Indian manatee is sometimes referred to as the Antillean
manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus). Antillean manatees are sparsely distributed throughout
the Caribbean and the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, from Mexico, east to the Greater Antilles,
and south to Brazil. They are found in French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad (though
there has been a lack of recent sightings there), and Venezuela. Historically, Antillean manatees
were hunted by local natives and sold to European explorers for food. Today, they are
threatened by loss of habitat, poaching, entanglement with fishing gear, and increased boating
activity.

May 2017 156

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-11 Locations of Marine Mammal Sightings Relative to the Stabroek Block

May 2017 157

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.6 Marine Turtles

According to the Regional Sea Turtle Conservation Program and Action Plan for the Guianas (2003),
sea turtles are an important natural resource shared by the countries of the “Guiana Shield
region”, which encompasses the nations of Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and
Brazil. Data from this action plan along with more recent compilations from Project Global
(2007), The Center for Rural Empowerment and the Environment ([CREE], 2014), and
observations collected during exploration activities from 2014 to 2016 represent the main
sources of data for turtles in the Project Area. In addition, information on the interaction
between sea turtles and trawl fisheries on the Guianas shelf since the 1970s was reviewed
(Pritchard 1973, 1991).

6.2.6.1 Regional Setting and Species Descriptions

Five sea turtle species are found in the region, all of which occur in Guyanese waters. Four of
these species: green turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill
turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nest on Guyana’s
beaches. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) also occur offshore Guyana, but rarely come ashore.
In addition to sandy beaches for egg-laying, as a group sea turtles require healthy coral reef,
seagrass, and hard-bottom habitats for food and refuge, although the relative importance of
these habitats varies by species. Based on each species’ known habitat requirements some green
sea turtles likely remain in Guyana waters as juveniles to feed in the sargassum mats while the
other species largely move to clearer waters and coral reefs to the north after hatching (Piniak
and Eckert, 2011).
Green turtles are generally found in tropical and subtropical waters along coastlines and
continental islands between the latitudes of 30° North and 30° South. They are distributed
worldwide, nesting in more than 80 countries and inhabiting the coastal waters of more than
140 countries (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). Green
turtles are listed as endangered by the IUCN and are protected from exploitation in most
countries. Adult green turtles are benthic herbivores (Bjorndal et al., 1997); they play an
important role in seagrass ecosystems by pruning them, increasing the nutrient cycle and
preventing the creation of sediment (Bjorndal and Jackson, 2003; Jackson et al., 2001). Their
migrations have two phases: they travel rapidly to the open ocean in a straight line and then
move more slowly toward the migration coasts (Troëng et al., 2005b).
Leatherback turtles are the largest of all sea turtle species and do not have a hard shell like other
sea turtles; instead, their shell is made of leathery tissue. Leatherbacks are found in pelagic
tropical and temperate marine waters, where they spend most of the time feeding on jellyfish,
salps, and siphonophores (DOE, 2014); however, they are also known to forage along coastlines.
Leatherbacks make extensive seasonal migrations between different feeding areas and nest at
the same location every year (NWF, 2014b). Leatherback turtles nest from March to mid-July
along the Caribbean coast (Troëng et al., 2004). Young leatherback turtles can remain in tropical
latitudes until the length of their shell reaches approximately 40 inches (Eckert 1999). The
largest nesting colony in the Caribbean region is located in Yalimapo, French Guiana (Eckert

May 2017 158

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

and Grobois 2001). A moderate number of nests can also be found in Guyana, Venezuela,
Trinidad, and Colombia. This species is listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable.
The hawksbill turtle is a small- to medium-sized sea turtle that has an elongated head that
tapers to a point with a beaklike mouth, giving its name (NOAA, 2014e). These turtles are
circumtropical and can be found in waters from latitudes of 30° North to 30° South in the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and use a wide range of broadly separated localities and
habitats during their lifetimes (Mortimer and Donnelly, 2008). However, individuals located
within the Atlantic Ocean primarily feed on sponges and are found within lagoons, ledges, and
caves associated with coral reef environments (NOAA, 2014e). These types of habitats are
generally found northwest of the PDA in the Caribbean Sea. This species is listed as Critically
Endangered by the IUCN.
The loggerhead turtle is an oceanic turtle distributed throughout the world. The loggerhead
turtle is found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. It
spends most of its life in saltwater and estuarine habitats, with females briefly coming ashore to
lay eggs. The loggerhead sea turtle has a low reproductive rate; females lay an average of four
egg clutches and then become quiescent, producing no eggs for two to three years. The
loggerhead turtle is omnivorous, feeding mainly on bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Its large
and powerful jaws serve as an effective tool for dismantling its prey. Young loggerheads are
exploited by numerous predators; the eggs are especially vulnerable to terrestrial organisms.
This species is classified by the IUCN as Endangered with high risk of extinction.
The olive ridley turtle is a small circumtropical sea turtle that is classified as vulnerable by the
IUCN. While olive ridley turtle populations have declined in prior decades, their populations
have remained stable in more recent years. Olive ridley turtles are best known for their
behavior of synchronized nesting in mass numbers, termed arribadas. Females return to the
same beach at which they first hatched to lay their eggs. The olive ridley is predominantly
carnivorous, especially in immature stages of the life cycle. Animal prey consists of
protochordates or invertebrates, which can be caught in shallow marine waters or estuarine
habitats. Common prey items include jellyfish, tunicates, sea urchins, bryozoans, bivalves,
snails, shrimp, crabs, rock lobsters, and sipunculid worms.
Large nesting aggregations of green and leatherback turtles are located in the Guianas
(Suriname and French Guiana), while smaller nesting areas are located from northwestern
Guyana (Shell Beach) to Venezuela and some Caribbean islands (which includes the Leeward,
Lesser, and Greater Antilles); the Gulf of Mexico (Central America); and Atlantic Ocean (the
Bahamas; and the southern coast of the United States) (Piniak, 2011). The hawksbill turtle’s
range is primarily in the Caribbean Sea, with small nesting areas in the Guianas and in eastern
Brazil. The olive ridley turtle primarily nests along the French Guiana coast with small nesting
areas along the northeastern coast of Venezuela to Suriname and in eastern Brazil (Piniak, 2011).
The primary nesting site for all these species in Guyana is Shell Beach, located on the
northwestern coast of Guyana. The exact locations of secondary nesting sites change due to
coastal erosion, which creates and destroys nesting areas continuously, but they are generally
distributed along the northwest coast between the Pomeroon River and the Waini River

May 2017 159

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

estuaries. Leatherback turtles are the most common species on Guyana’s nesting beaches, while
nesting green and hawksbill turtles are less common. According to CREE, the primary nesting
season for the leatherback, green, hawksbill, and olive ridley turtles in Guyana (Shell Beach)
occurs at night from March to August (CREE, 2014).
The primary threats to sea turtles are poaching of eggs and adults, intentional and accidental
fishing, and habitat disturbance and degradation due to marine pollution, coastal zone
development, shore erosion, lighting, and debris. Population monitoring and conservation
activities are limited, primarily due to the logistical challenges associated with the remoteness
of primary nesting sites.
Although leatherback and olive ridley turtles occur at higher densities and thus show a
corresponding higher frequency in shrimp trawls, juvenile greens and loggerheads are also
taken as bycatch (see Project Global, 2007). Tambiah (1994) estimated that trawl nets in the
Guianas caught 1,300 turtles annually, with mortality rates of 60 percent. Tambiah (1994) also
reported that gillnet fisheries in Guyana and Suriname are an even bigger threat than trawl
fisheries, incidentally capturing 21,600 sea turtles per year. However, the report documents the
highest incidences of olive ridley bycatch occurring during the period prior to the nesting
arribadas in Suriname (January to March), coinciding with the peak period for shrimp fisheries
(February to May).

6.2.6.2 Marine Turtle Data for the Project Development Area

MMO observations conducting during seismic surveys between July 2015 and August 2016
detected six sea turtles: one green turtle, two loggerhead turtles and three unidentified turtles.
The locations of the sightings are indicated on Figure 6-11.
Based on these recent sightings and data compilations, it is possible that any of the five above-
referenced sea turtle species could be encountered in the PDA.
The Sea Turtle Conservation Society actively maps sea turtle movements, by placing satellite
transmitter tags on individual turtles after they finish nesting (see www.conserveturtles.org).
Starting on May 21, 2012, the Society mapped movements of three leatherback turtles from their
nesting place at Shell Beach (Figure 6.-12). Each remained offshore of Shell Beach and in
Guyana’s equatorial waters for several weeks. By the second to third week of June, two had
moved farther offshore in transit to waters off the coast of Nova Scotia, while one remained in
Guyanese waters until the third week of July and eventually transited to Honduran waters. One
passed through the Stabroek Block before moving northward. These movements are consistent
with Piniak and Eckert’s (2011) assertion that most species of marine turtles likely move out of
Guyanese waters as juveniles.

May 2017 160

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-12 Location of Sea Turtle Sightings and Satellite Tracks Relative to the Stabroek
Block

May 2017 161

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.2.7 Marine Fish

Scientific data on marine fish in the PDA are sparse. Much of what is known about marine
fishes offshore Guyana is known from study of commercial landings. The inshore fish
community is dominated by drums, croakers, and marine catfishes, and includes other species
such as snooks and tarpon. Further offshore near the interface of the turbid North Brazil
Current with oceanic water, the fish community is more complex, consisting of pelagic, highly
migratory species such as tunas, jacks, and mackerels in the upper water column and snappers
and groupers in the demersal zone (lowest section of the water column, near the seafloor)
(MOA, 2013). Sharks are found inshore and offshore.
Guyana’s marine fish community exemplifies the ecological connectivity among the mangroves,
estuaries, and offshore zones, because many fish species are dependent on different habitats at
specific life stages or occur in more than one habitat type. Several species that occur in the
inshore and offshore zones as adults are dependent on coastal mangroves as juveniles,
particularly drums, croakers, and snappers. Catfishes occur in the mangroves, estuaries, and
oceanic waters as adults. Some other species, including snooks and tarpon, may occur
occasionally in the ocean, but are specifically adapted to completing their entire life cycles in
mangrove-lined estuaries (MOA, 2013).

6.2.7.1 Historical Data on Demersal Coastal Species

The most complete data on marine fish in Guyana’s territorial waters come from a two-year
trawl survey conducted in 1958 and 1959. The survey consisted of 35 cruises lasting 4 to 11 days
each, and included data from 1,070 stations comprising 2,246 fishing hours (McConnell, 1962).
Although the study report does not contain a map of the individual stations, the map of the
study area indicates that they extended seaward to the edge of the continental shelf. Although
the study did capture some pelagic species, it was designed as a trawl survey and was therefore
more oriented toward demersal species. The study documented the presence of 213 species of
fish, comprised primarily of drums, croakers, catfishes, jacks, grunts, and snappers. McConnell
noted a spatial pattern in the distribution of fishes across the shelf, and separated the shelf into
four biogeographic zones:
 Zone 1: described as the “brown fish” zone, water depths from 0 to 10 fathoms (0-18 m). The
fish community in this zone was dominated by drums, catfishes, rays, and various
toadfishes (Batrachoididae).
 Zone 2: described as the “golden fish” zone, water depths from 10 up to 30 fathoms (18-55
m). The fish community in this zone was dominated by catfishes, jacks, and grunts.
 Zone 3: described as the “silver fish” zone. This zone was associated with less turbid oceanic
waters and the location of this zone was more dependent on water quality than depth, but
the fish typical of this zone were particularly abundant in water 20 to 40 fathoms (37-75 m).
 Zone 4: described as the “red fish” zone, ranging from water depths of about 20 fathoms
near Suriname and 30 to 40 fathoms (55-75m) closer to Georgetown seaward to the edge of
the continental shelf. Snappers and various demersal species comprised the bulk of the catch
in this zone.

May 2017 162

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Approximately 80 species of fish occurred in Zone 4 in the McConnell study. These species are
listed in Appendix K. Although the PDA is located slightly north of the seaward limit of
McConnell’s study area (and in deeper water), the catches from Zone 4 contain species that are
also found at much deeper depths, and are therefore considered indicative of the types of fish
that are likely to occur in the PDA, especially near the seafloor.
The data from Zone 4 in the McConnell study include several species that are commonly
associated with coral reefs, including butterflyfishes, angelfishes, wrasses, and parrotfishes
(MConnell, 1962). McConnell notes that coral fragments appeared in the trawl, but that the coral
retrieved in the net was dead. It seems likely that the coral-associated fishes in the McConnell
study were likely present on scattered fragments of dead coral or possibly small dead patches of
coral rather than on living reefs.
Based on comparisons with species lists from nearby countries, McConnell determined that
about 50 percent of Guyana’s marine fish species were widely distributed coastal species, about
10 percent were clear-water associated species more typical of the Caribbean Islands, about 5
percent were more southerly species typical of the Brazilian coast, and the balance were habitat
generalists with no defined regional habitat associations. McConnell also noted that the North
Atlantic Continental Shelf is continuous from the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil and that there were
no major barriers to migration through this area, so Guyana’s marine fish community would be
expected to have many species in common with other countries in the region. This likely
explains the presence of so many widespread species in the dataset.
The Guyana Fisheries Department (a division of the Guyana Ministry of Agriculture) does not
monitor non-commercial marine fisheries, but bycatch data from the nearshore shrimp trawl
fishery provided by the Guyana Fisheries Department (summarized in Table 6-12) are
consistent with the McConnell study with respect to marketable species in McConnell’s
“brown” fish zones. Recent bycatch data collected since 2012 from shrimp trawlers identify
seven species of fish. Four of these species (Bangamary, Bashaw, Croaker, Sea Trout) are in the
family Scianidae, which McConnell identified as characteristic of Zone 1 (McConnell et al.,
1962); Bangamary, Bashaw, and Sea Trout represent 65-75 percent of the total bycatch by weight
each year from 2012 to 2015.

May 2017 163

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Table 6-12 Fish Bycatch from the Nearshore Shrimp Trawling Fishery 2012-2015 (mt)
Species 2012 2013 2014 2015
Bangamary 757 921 1,380 1,151
Butterfish 559 665 6622 485
Bashaw 111 189 1799 168
Croaker 0 0 0 0
Sea Trout 303 292 4711 303
Grey Snapper 3 2 22 0.1
Snook 0 0 0 42
Total 1,733 2,069 2,692 2,148

Source: ERM Personal Communication 16

6.2.7.2 Observations from EEPGL’s Offshore Activities

Project-specific information on fish species from the PDA is available from observations made
during EEPGL’s various activities in the southeastern half of the Stabroek Block since 2014
(Figure 6-13). Fish observed in this area (Figure 6-13) include 17 species, as listed in Table 6-13.
None of these species were documented in the McConnell study, but the data from EEPGL’s
activities were acquired from surface observations and are comprised of species that are
characteristic of the upper water column, so would not be expected in McConnell’s trawl
survey.

Table 6-13 Fish Species Observed in the Stabroek Block during EEPGL Activities Since 2014
Common Name Scientific Name
Mahi-mahi Coryphaena hippurus
Jack Seriola sp.
Atlantic tripletail Lobotes surinamensis
Atlantic flying fish Chellopogon melanurus
Little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus
Manta ray Manta sp.
Ocean sunfish Mola mola
Planehead filefish Stephanolepis hispidus
Sailfish Istiophrous albicans
Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis
Blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus
Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares
Clearwing flying fish Cypselurus comatus
Blue marlin Makaira nigricans
Bar jack Caranx ruber
Crevalle jack Caranx hippos
Rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata

May 2017 164

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-13 Approximate Locations of Biological Observations Made Since 2014

February 2017 165

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

In the summer of 2011, several islands in the eastern Caribbean (e.g., Anguilla, Antigua &
Barbuda, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Lucia, St. Maarten / St.
Martin) experienced large amounts of sargassum washing ashore. In 2012 and 2014, Barbados,
Guadeloupe, Dominica, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Croix, and Puerto Rico reported moderate
episodes of the phenomenon. The sargassum consisted of two species: Common Gulfweed
(Sargassum natans) and Broad-toothed Gulfweed (Sargassum fluitans) (CRFM, undated). A large
amount of sargassum was also documented in the Stabroek Block in 2015. Quantities were
sufficiently large in the block to clog intake hoses for vessel propulsion systems and foul
acquisition equipment being used to collect seismic data in the block at the time. Subsequent
analysis of satellite imagery revealed that although sargassum densities were unusually high
offshore Guyana in 2015, sargassum concentrations fluctuate annually and have a seasonal peak
between April and September (Palandro, 2016).
The presence of such large amounts of sargassum is significant from a fish biodiversity
perspective because sargassum has several important ecological roles related to marine fishes,
including:
 concentrating forage fish that are preyed upon by large pelagic fishes (including juvenile
swordfish, dolphinfish, filefishes, jacks, flying fishes, triggerfishes, and various tunas);
 spawning habitat for flying fish (Exocoetidae); and
 habitat for unique fishes and other organisms that spend most or all of their lives in floating
mats of sargassum, including the sargassum fish (Histrio histrio).

6.2.7.3 Special Status Fish Species

Thirty marine and coastal fishes in Guyana have been ranked by the IUCN as threatened (CR,
EN, or VU) with another 21 ranked as NT. According to the IUCN’s classification scheme, these
species currently face a credible threat of extinction, and are expected to face such risks soon.
An additional 17 are considered Data Deficient and cannot be objectively assessed with the
currently available data. Most of the threatened or NT species that could be impacted by the
Project are fish. These species are listed in Appendix H. They include highly migratory species
(e.g., some tunas and sharks), bentho-pelagic species (e.g., some groupers), and demersal
species (e.g., some skates and rays). As noted in Section 6.3.3.2, many of these fish species are
also targeted by the Guyanese commercial fishing industry.
All of the CR species are coastal species and would not be expected to occur in the vicinity of
the PDA. Several of the EN species, including Atlantic bluefin tuna, whale shark, squat-headed
hammerhead shark, and scalloped hammerhead shark, are open water pelagic species and
could occur in the PDA intermittently, but would not be expected to be residents in the area.
The two remaining EN species (golden tilefish and Nassau grouper) are bottom-dwelling
species and do not move large distances as adults, but they are most often associated with
uneven bottoms containing rocky outcrops, shipwrecks, or other structural habitats. The
continental slope in the vicinity of the PDA lacks any known structure that would be expected
to attract or aggregate these species.

May 2017 166

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

The VU, NT, and Data Deficient categories all contain a mix of pelagic species (e.g., sharks and
tunas) and demersal marine species (such as grouper, skate, and ray species), and in some cases
species that are important targets of fishery activities (e.g., gillbacker).

6.2.8 Marine Benthos

The benthic communities inhabiting the Guyana Basin are influenced by the dominant
environmental conditions that characterize the area, including sediment composition, water
turbidity, and nutrient loads. This section describes the marine benthic habitat within the
Project AOI.

6.2.8.1 Methodology

This section draws on information provided in the scientific literature, maps, Automated
Underwater Vehicle (AUV) photographs, as well as field data collected by box coring and
sediment profile imaging during the 2014 and 2016 environmental surveys.

6.2.8.2 Regional Setting

Marine benthic biological resources offshore of Guyana are poorly studied, but do not include
the matrix of shallow coral reefs and seagrass meadows that are characteristic of coastal tropical
Atlantic environments elsewhere. This is due to the highly turbid conditions offshore of
Guyana, which do not permit the growth of warm water corals, since they rely on symbiotic
photosynthetic algae for nourishment.
Two cold-water coral species (Madrepora oculata and Solenosmilia variabilis) are known to occur
offshore of Guyana. Both species occur in a wide range of depths, M. oculata from 55 to 1,950 m
and S. variabilis from approximately 219 m to 2,165 m. The locations and the extent of deepwater
corals offshore of Guyana have not been published (Freiwald et al., 2004). Many cold water
corals construct reefs that support highly diverse invertebrate and fish fauna (NOAA, 2014).
Both M. oculata and S. variabilis are technically considered reef-building corals, but M. oculata is
particularly fragile and does not often form deepwater reefs. It more frequently occurs as a
commensal species living within or on reefs that were originally constructed by more robust
species such as S. variabilis.
Several species of bentho-pelagic shrimp occur in Guyanese waters, including shallow water
species such as the Atlantic Seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), the Southern Brown Shrimp (Penaeus
subtilis), and the Southern White Shrimp (Penaeus schmitti). The Red-spotted Shrimp (Penaeus
brasiliensis) and the Southern Pink Shrimp (P. notialis) are found in deeper waters (USEPA,
2010). While these species are free swimming, they are often found at or near the bottom.
In addition to shrimp, there are other species of crustaceans found in the deepwater areas of the
Caribbean Sea. These include several species of isopods (such as Leptanthura guianae and
Malacanthura truncata) (Poore and Schotte, 2009 and 2015) and amphipods (including Ampelisca
mississippiana, and Thaumastasoma species). There are also numerous species of annelids,

May 2017 167

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

including the polychaetes Tharyx marioni, Aricidea suecia, Levinsenia uncinata, and Paraonella
monilaris, as well as bivalves, such as Vesicomya vesical and Heterodonta sp. (Wei et al., 2010).

6.2.8.3 Existing Conditions in the Project Development Area

Results of the 2014 environmental survey revealed that the total abundance of benthic infauna
in the PDA was low, averaging 116 organisms per m2. This organism density is below the range
of typical abundances reported from other continental slopes (Rowe et al., 1982; Flach et al.,
1999). The most abundant major taxonomic groups were polychaete worms, crustaceans, and
mollusks. The overall prevalence of these three groups is typical for marine sediments.
Polychaetes were the numerically dominant group identified (avg. density 47 per m2,
representing 41 percent of the total groups). Polychaetes typically comprise about half of all
species and a third of macrofaunal species from deep-water marine habitats worldwide. Aside
from polychaetes, no other individual major taxa were abundant, with each of the other taxa
groups individually representing less than 14 percent of total abundance. The observed paucity
of macrofauna is likely ascribed to limited organic food sources, indicated by the low organic
carbon content in the sediment. No deepwater coral growth was detected in either the 2014 or
2016 environmental surveys or the AUV surveys of the seafloor in the vicinity of the Liza-1 well
(Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks International, Inc., 2014; FUGRO EMU Limited, 2016).
A total of 50 distinct families were identified during the 2014 environmental survey, with
approximately half represented by either one or two individuals. This is a relatively high level
of diversity considering the low abundance of macrofauna. Dominant families were typical
cosmopolitan inhabitants of shelf and slope sediments worldwide. These included spionid,
cirratulid, paraonid polychaetes, phoxocephalid amphipods, and thyasirid and nuculanid
(bivalve) mollusks.
Similar to the 2014 data, the 2016 environmental study showed an overall prevalence of
annelids (including polychaetes), crustaceans, and mollusks typical for marine sediments as
well as low macrofaunal densities. The 2016 samples averaged 20 organisms per 0.1 m2, which
can be extrapolated to 200 organisms per 1 m2 for the purposes of comparison to the 2014 data.
While the 2014 survey did not categorize the macrofauna organisms beyond the family level,
the 2016 survey further classified the macrofauna to the order and species level and covered a
larger sampling area. Results from the 2016 sampling showed macrofaunal communities within
the survey area to be diverse. In 2016, a total of 165 taxa were identified in 7 phyla and 27
families, with 36 identified to species level (including 15 species of polychaetes, 10 crustaceans,
8 mollusks, and 3 sipunculid worms). Annelida were the numerically dominant group
(phylum), in terms of species composition (40 percent) and abundance (42.7 percent).
Crustaceans accounted for the second highest species composition (38.2 percent) and
abundance (39.1 percent), followed by mollusks (12.7 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively) and
other taxa (collectively 9.1 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively) (Figure 6-14).

May 2017 168

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-14 Abundance of Major Taxonomic Groups Identified in 2016 EBS

Source: FUGRO EMU Limited, 2016

Table 6-14 identifies the common macrofauna families identified in the 2014 and 2016 studies.
As the 2014 survey did not categorize the macrofauna organisms beyond the family level, the
commonalities between the 2014 and 2016 surveys were identified based on equivalent families.
Both surveys characterized the surveyed area to have a diverse macrofauna community, with
polychaete worms as the most abundant major taxonomic group. The 2014 survey additionally
recognized that overall macrofaunal abundance within the surveyed area is at the lower end of
the macrofaunal densities reported for continental slope sediments around the world (Rowe et
al. 1982; Flach et al., 1999). The 2016 survey similarly reported that numbers identified in all
taxonomic groups were low.

Table 6-14 List of Common Macrofauna Families between the 2014 and 2016 Environmental
Survey Reports
Phylum Class Order Family
Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Oweniidae
Annelida Polychaeta Spionida Spionidae
Annelida Polychaeta Spionida Magelonidae
Annelida Polychaeta Terebellida Cirratulidae
Annelida Polychaeta Terebellida Ampharetidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Orbiniidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Paraonidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Capitellidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Maldanidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Opheliidae
Annelida Polychaeta Phyllodocida Phyllodocidae
Annelida Polychaeta Not assigned Orbiniidae

May 2017 169

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Phylum Class Order Family

Annelida Polychaeta Eunicida Lumbrineridae
Annelida Polychaeta Eunicida Onuphidae
Arthropoda Malacostraca Cumacea Unidentified
Arthropoda Malacostraca Tanaidacea Apseudidae
Mollusca Scaphopoda Dentaliida Dentaliidae
Nematoda Unidentified Unidentified Unidentified
Sipuncula Sipunculidea Golfingiiformes Unidentified
Sipuncula Sipunculidea Golfingiiformes Golfingiidae
Sipuncula Sipunculidea Golfingiiformes Phascolionidae
Notes: The term “not assigned” references that the scientific community has not specifically classified the organism to
a given categorization. The term “unidentified” refers to the surveyor’s inability to further identity the categorization
of an organism.

Figure 6-15 depicts some of the benthic fauna detected during the 2014 environmental survey.

Figure 6-15 Benthos Photographed in the Vicinity of the Liza-1 Well

Source: Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks International, Inc., 2014

May 2017 170

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Both surveys reported that there was not a strong correlation between macrofaunal
communities or number of species and any single parameter such as sediment characteristics or
water depth.
The results of the seabed photography sediment and faunal data review showed the survey area
primarily consists of one broad benthic habitat type: sublittoral sediment (EUNIS15 code A5).
This marine benthic habitat can encompass a wide range of sediments from boulders and
cobbles, through pebbles and shingles, coarse sands, sands, fine sands, muds, and mixed
sediments (Davies et al., 2004). Each sediment type hosts characteristic biological communities,
which together define biotopes. Within the sublittoral sediment habitat, one biotope was
identified: circa-littoral sandy mud (A5.35) with aspects of deep sea mud. Benthic epifauna
were scarcely observed in the photographs taken. Figure 6-16 provides representative
photographs of the circa-littoral sandy mud biotope taken from five of the 2016 sample stations.
Epifauna were sparse in the photographs taken, but evidence of habitation by tube building
polychaetes (possibly Sabellidae and Terebellidae), burrowing shrimp, and foraminifera can be
observed in all of the images of the seafloor. Mud shrimp burrows were evident in most
photographs, and some photographs showed other taxa including tusk shells, gastropods, and
hydroids.

15The European Nature Information System (EUNIS) is a habitat classification system developed by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) in collaboration with international experts. The EUNIS includes all types of natural and
artificial habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial.

May 2017 171

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-16 Representative Photographs of the Circa-Littoral Sandy Mud Biotope

Photographed in the Vicinity of the Liza-1 Well

Source: FUGRO EMU Limited, 2016

Photo A: Station NC21_BCE002; Mud, tube building polychaetes and amphipods, mud shrimp burrows, Scaphopoda
(tusk shells), gastropods, foraminiferans
Photo B: Station NC21_BCE004; Sandy Mud, tube building polychaetes and amphipods, mud shrimp burrows,
foraminiferans. Unidentified hydroid
Photo C: Station NC21_BCE005 Sandy Mud, tube building polychaetes and amphipods, foraminiferans, Scaphopoda
Photo D: Station NC21_BCE024 Sandy Mud, tube building polychaetes and amphipods, foraminiferans
Photo E: Station NC21_BCE025; Muddy Sand, Sabellids and other tube building polychaetes, mud shrimp burrows,
foraminiferans

May 2017 172

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.3 Socioeconomic Resources

This section describes the existing socioeconomic characteristics of the Project AOI. It was
developed based on secondary information contained in Project-related materials; socio-
economic reports and data obtained through government entities and other stakeholders; and
other relevant data received from public sources. It is also based on information obtained
directly from key informant interviews with members of national, regional, and local
governments; civil societies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); local community
members; and other Project stakeholders. Specific stakeholder engagement information can be
found in Section 4.5.

6.3.1 Administrative Divisions in Guyana

Guyana is divided administratively into 10 regions, pictured on Figure 6-17. These regions are
further subdivided into Neighborhood Democratic Councils (NDCs), of which there are 65 in
total. Within the NDCs are villages, the smallest administrative unit. In addition, there is one
city that serves as the capital (Georgetown) and nine townships. Four of these townships were
designated as new townships by the Ministry of Communities in 2015 as part of an
administrative decentralization effort. Each of the nine townships has its own mayor and
council, and is intended to serve as an administrative hub for government services, such as
passports and driver’s licenses, as well as providing utilities and public services, such as water
and sanitation, as well as other services such as banking.

May 2017 173

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-17 Guyana’s Administrative Regions and Townships

May 2017 174

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

6.3.2 Population Distribution

Most of Guyana’s population is located in the six coastal regions, and, according to the 2012
national census, nearly half of the country’s population lives in Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica),
which includes the capital city of Georgetown. Table 6-15 summarizes the distribution of
population within the 10 regions in 2012, the last year for which complete census data are
available.

Table 6-15 Regional Population Distribution in Guyana

Region Population Population Population Percent of
2002 2012 change since Guyana’s Total
2002 Population
1 Barima-Waini 24,275 27,643 +13.9% 3.7%
2 Pomeroon – Supenaam 49,253 46,810 -5.0% 6.3%
3 Essequibo Islands - West 103,061 107,785 +4.6% 14.4%
Demerara
4 Demerara-Mahaica 310,320 311,563 +0.4% 41.7%
5 Mahaica – Berbice 52,428 49,820 -5.0% 6.7%
6 East Berbice – Corentyne 123,695 109,652 -11.4% 14.7%
7 Cuyuni-Mazaruni 17,597 18,375 +4.4% 2.5%
8 Potaro – Siparuni 10,095 11,077 +9.7% 1.5%
9 Upper Takutu - Upper 19,387 24,238 +25.0% 3.2%
Essequibo
10 Upper Demerara – Berbice 41,112 39,992 -2.7% 5.3%
Guyana 748,084 746,955 -0.6% 100.0%
Source: Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 2012; Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 2002.
Note: Each region’s change in population should be weighted based on that region’s percent of the total population, so the sum of
population changes in each region do not add up to the total national population change.

6.3.2.1 Ethnic Composition

Data from the 2012 census indicate that the majority of the country’s population are
representatives of two ethnic groups, those of East Indian descent (39.8 percent) and those of
African descent (29.3 percent). These are followed by populations of mixed ethnicity (19.9
percent) and indigenous peoples who, in Guyana, are referred to as Amerindians (10.5 percent).
Other ethnicities, including Chinese, White, and Portuguese, collectively make up less than one
percent of the population.
Figure 6-18 shows the ethnic composition of each region and indicates notable differences
between interior and coastal regions and between regions that are highly rural versus more
urban. The more populated and urban Regions 3, 4, 5, and 6 are dominated by populations of
East Indian and African descent, followed by populations of mixed ethnicity. Amerindian
population numbers in these regions are low. However, the majority of population residing in
the more remote and rural Regions 1, 8, and 9 is of Amerindian ethnicity.

May 2017 175

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-18 Regional Distribution of Ethnicity, 2012

African/Black Amerindian Chinese East Indian Mixed Portuguese White Other

Total
Region 10
Region 9
Region 8
Region 7
Region 6
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
Region 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 2012

6.3.2.2 Indigenous Peoples

Amerindians in Guyana numbered 78,492 as of the 2012 census, and their population is on the
rise, with growth of 12.8 percent seen in the period 2002-2012.
According to Minority Rights Group International (2008), there are nine main Amerindian
groups in Guyana, of which three are coastal: the Carib, Warao, and Arawak tribes. Other
groups tend to inhabit the country’s hinterland regions. Many of the Amerindians in Guyana,
particularly in the coastal area, have undergone cultural integration with the general population
and share much of the same culture as the Afro- and Indo-Guyanese population. However, as a
whole, the standard of living for the Amerindian population in Guyana is lower than for the
general population, particularly for those in remote areas where provision of infrastructure and
services is a challenge. The distribution of Amerindian population among the regions is shown
on Figure 6-19.

May 2017 176

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-19 Amerindian Population by Region, 2012

Region 1,
Region 9,
17,846
20,808
Region 2, 8,834
Region 8,
8,009

Region 3, 2,820
Region 7, 6,833 Region 4, 7,066

Region 6, 1,801 Region 5, 1,270

Source: Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 2012

The coastal plain of Region 1 and part of Region 2 are not accessible by road and therefore
Amerindian communities in these areas are remote and are generally underserved by public
infrastructure and services. These populations make use of a range of coastal resources for
subsistence and livelihoods. Communities that are directly adjacent to the coast are the titled
community of Three Brothers along the Waini River, directly inland from Shell Beach, and the
non-titled communities within the SBPA (Almond Beach, Father’s Beach and Unity Grant).
Titled indigenous communities located 5-10 km inland from the coast in Regions 1 and 2 are
Santa Rosa, Waramuri, Manawurin, Assakata and Wakapau. In the SBPA, fishing and crabbing
activity is particularly active at the westernmost end of Shell Beach, at the mouth of the Waini
River. At the eastern end of Shell Beach in the community of Father’s Beach, there are coconut
plantations used for manufacturing oil, and just northwest of this is a forested area where
hunting, trapping, fishing, crabbing, crabwood seed harvesting, and lumbering occurs
(Protected Areas Commission, 2015).
In Regions 3 and 4, titled indigenous communities are located inland and not within the coastal
plain.

6.3.3 Education

The education system in Guyana is similar to that of other Caribbean countries, with school
being compulsory from ages of 5 to 16 through pre-primary, primary, and secondary schools.
The federal Ministry of Education controls education budgets, policies, and standards and
administers these by region. In 2012, the government spent 3.2 percent of GDP on the education
sector (CIA World Factbook, 2016). Between the years of 2008 and 2012, the youth (15-24 years)
literacy rate was 93.7 percent and 92.4 percent for females and males, respectively. Pre-primary
and primary school gross enrollment averaged from 83.7 percent to 88.7 percent depending

May 2017 177

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

upon grade and gender, with male youth averaging a few percentage points lower than female
youth. Secondary school net enrollment was 80.6 percent and 71.2 percent for female and male
youth, respectively (UNICEF, 2016).
At the time of writing, the 2012 census compendium on social indicators had yet to be released.
Therefore, the only reliable data on educational attainment at the regional level are from the
2002 census compendium, which shows that Region 1 had the highest percentages of male
youth (10.9 percent) and female youth (15.3 percent) with either no schooling or Kindergarten
level only, with Regions 8 and 9 only a few percentage points higher. In Regions 2 and 3, the
percentage of all youth with either no schooling or Kindergarten level only ranged between 2
percent and 4 percent. Region 4 and Region 10 had the highest level of enrollment across all
levels (Guyana Bureau of Statistics, 2002).
The levels of primary education for the indigenous population are typically lower than non-
indigenous groups of the population. In the Amerindian communities, the attendance rate at
primary schools has been reported to be 50 percent lower than average. This is partly
attributable to a shortage of teachers, and standardized teaching methods and curriculum
which limits appreciation for indigenous culture and values. While access to education in
Amerindian communities continues to be limited, the stated government policy is to provide
indigenous children with the same educational opportunities available to the rest of the
population (Minority Rights International, 2008).

6.3.4 Land Use

Guyana is divided into the following three main geographic zones:

 The low-lying coastal plain occupying about 5 percent of the country’s land area, which
ranges from approximately 5 km to 6.5 km (~3 to 4 mi) wide along the coast;
 The “white sand belt”, a largely vegetated zone dominated by white sandy soils lying
inland from the coastal zone, ranging from approximately 150 km to 250 km (~93 mi to 155
mi) wide and containing most of the country’s mineral deposits; and
 The interior highlands that extend from the white sand belt to the country’s southern
borders and makes up the largest land area in the country.

As described above, Guyana is a sparsely populated country, with the majority of the
population concentrated in the coastal plain region. In 2012, the cultivated area in Guyana was
estimated at 1,107,000 acres. Cultivated land is also concentrated in the coastal plain, where the
majority of the population resides (FAO, 2015). Figure 6-20 shows land cover in the coastal and
white sand belt areas. In the coastal plain areas, cultivated areas are evident in Regions 2, 3, and
4 (southeast of SBPA) and occur to a lesser extent in Region 1 (including SBPA). The landscape
in these areas is dominated by sugar, rice, and coconut plantations, interspersed with smaller
scale establishments of non-traditional crops and livestock.

May 2017 178

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Existing Environment

Figure 6-20 Land Cover in Coastal Guyana

Source: ERM, 2014 and CCI, 2012

May 2017 179

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

The SBPA is a notable feature in the coastal area. It was designated a Protected Area with the
passage of the Protected Areas Act of 2011, and is the only Protected Area on Guyana’s coast.
More information on the SBPA is provided in Section 6.2.2.

6.3.4.1 Land Ownership

The pattern of land ownership in Guyana today is approximately 85% government-owned,
approximately 14 percent Amerindian-owned, and one to two percent privately owned. There
are two land markets: one consisting of freehold properties and one consisting of the lease of
state-owned land. Amerindian lands are owned collectively and are not subject to transfer or
sale. Approximately half of the farms in the coastal area are freehold properties and these tend
to be small properties of 5-15 acres each (Government of Guyana, 1997). Leases of government-
owned lands are issued by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC).
According to a study of the land registration system in Guyana conducted by the Inter-
American Development Bank (IDB), the country’s dual property registration system (title
registration and deed registration) has regulations that overlap and conflict, and is considered
complex and bureaucratic. The systems are also considered ineffective in managing and
enforcing rights. As a result, a large number of land owners do not register their properties or
do not keep their ownership rights up to date (IDB, 2010).
6.3.5 Economy
Guyana’s nominal GDP in 2015 was $653.8 billion GYD, or approximately $3.2 billion U.S.
dollars (USD). The per capita GDP in 2015 was $761,000 GYD, or approximately $3,700 USD
(BSG, 2016), and it was reclassified by the World Bank from a lower middle income to an upper
middle income country in 2016 (World Bank, 2016). Guyana’s main sectors by contribution to
GDP are summarized in Table 6-16.
Table 6-16 Economic Sectors and Contribution to GDP, 2015
Sector Percent of GDP
Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 19.2%
Wholesale and Retail Trade 12.3%
Transportation and Storage 11.2%
Mining and Quarrying 10.9%
Construction 9.8%
Manufacturing 7.4%
Public Administration 7.2%
Information and Communication 7.0%
Financial and Insurance Activities 5.0%
Education 4.5%
Other Services 3.9%
Health and Social Services 2.0%
Real Estate 1.2%
Source: PSC, 2015
Note: Percentages add to more than 100 due to rounding.

May 2017 180

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Guyana relies heavily on trade, with exports totaling $238.3 billion GYD ($1.15 billion USD) in
2015, up from $183.3 billion GYD ($884.9 million USD) in 2010 (Guyana Bureau of Statistics,
2015). The main export products for the country are sugar, rice, bauxite, gold, forest products,
and fish (FAO, 2015). Sectors that are uniquely tied to the coastal environment in Guyana, as
well as the mining sector, are described in further detail below.

6.3.5.1 Agriculture

According to the Private Sector Commission, Guyana has a relatively strong agricultural sector
and is the only net exporter of food in the Caribbean. In 2015, agriculture, fishing and forestry
accounted for 19.2 percent of the country’s GDP, or $73.9 billion GYD (approximately $356.7
million USD).

Rice

Rice farming is the predominant agricultural activity in the coastal areas of Regions 2 and 3,
accounting for an estimated 85 percent of the overall economy in Region 2, and 55 to 60 percent
of the economy in Region 3 (ERM Personal Communication 1). Rice fields dominate the
landscape in many coastal areas in these regions (Figure 6-21).
Figure 6-21 Rice Field in Region 2 Pomeroon-Supenaam

The rice sector yield grew by 8.3 percent in 2015 (see Figure 6-22). However, the first half of
2016 has seen a decline in yields attributed to El Niño-related dry weather, as well as an early
arrival of the rainy season (Ministry of Finance, 2016).

May 2017 181

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-22 Annual Rice Production, 2011-2015

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000
Tonnes

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Private Sector Commission 2015

According to the president of the Guyana Rice Producers’ Association, industrial rice
production requires the ability to precisely control water levels in the rice fields. The rice
growers in coastal Guyana achieve this by operating two separate systems of canals, one
dedicated to irrigation and another dedicated to drainage. The irrigation canals convey fresh
water from water conservancies via gravity to the rice fields. The rice fields are contained
within a dike system that has separate gates for irrigation and drainage systems. The fields
drain to a separate network of canals that were constructed to provide general drainage to the
surrounding coastal landscape (ERM Personal Communication 1). These canals drain to the
Atlantic Ocean via manually-operated mechanical sluice gates (locally called kokers; see Figure
6-23). The drainage canals are generally constructed at or very near sea level to achieve the
gradient necessary for drainage of the surrounding landscape and can therefore be tidally
influenced, but the kokers control inflow from the sea. This system ensures that the rice fields
remain upgradient of tidally influenced water in the drainage canals and prevents salt water
from intruding into the fields (ERM Personal Communication 1).

May 2017 182

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-23 Sluice Gate (Koker) in Charity (Region 2) at High Tide

Note: Seawater seeping into drainage canal from ocean through closed gate.

Sugar

Figure 6-24 shows an aerial view of sugar plantations in Region 2. Sugar production increased
in 2014 and 2015 after being in decline in previous years (Figure 6-25). According to Guyana
Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo), the national sugar company, sugar production employs 18,000
people in Guyana and accounts for 40 percent of the country’s agricultural production.
GuySuCo’s Demerara sugar is exported to markets in the European Union, the U.S., and
CARICOM countries.

May 2017 183

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-24 Aerial View of Sugar Plantations in Region 2

Figure 6-25 Annual Sugar Production, 2011-2015

250,000

200,000

150,000
Tonnes

100,000

50,000

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Private Sector Commission 2015

May 2017 184

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Coconut

The coconut industry in Guyana has grown in recent years (Figure 6-26) and shows potential for
continued growth due to high international demand for products such as coconut oil and
coconut water. It ranks third after rice and sugar in terms of acreage cultivated and is grown
primarily in the coastal regions, including along the Pomeroon River and the Essequibo Coast
in Region 2. According to recent news media articles, the amount of land in the Pomeroon area
being converted to coconut cultivation is increasing (Guyana Chronicle, 2016; Stabroek News,
2016).
Figure 6-26 Annual Coconut Production, 2011-2015

100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
Metric tonnes

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2016a

Other Cash Crops

Non-traditional crops (crops other than sugar cane and rice) grown in Guyana include: tubers
such as cassava, sweet potato, and eddo; vegetables such as eggplant, pumpkin, and okra;
spices such as hot peppers, sweet peppers, and ginger; and fruits including banana, papaya,
mango, and pineapple. Data from the Ministry of Agriculture (2016a) show that production for
most tuber and vegetable crops has increased in recent years, while yields for fruits have been
more variable, with some fruit crops showing declines from 2014 to 2015.

Value-added Agricultural Products

According to various interviewed stakeholders, establishment of manufacturing operations to

develop value-added products such as pepper sauce, beverages, and canned fruit are priorities
at both community and strategic policy levels (ERM Personal Communications 5, 10, 14, and
15). A number of agricultural co-ops in Regions 2 and 3 have achieved varying levels of success
in producing and marketing such products. National-level agencies such as the Ministry of

May 2017 185

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Agriculture and the Private Sector Commission emphasize the importance of developing
markets for such products to provide better stability and security to farmers. However, there
are a number of challenges associated with this, including high energy costs, difficulty locating
or establishing markets for products, and obtaining financing for start-up costs.

6.3.5.2 Fisheries and Aquaculture

Marine Fisheries

There are four main types of marine fisheries in Guyana (MOA, 2013) that can be defined by the
species targeted, gear types used, and the depth of water where the fishery takes place. Table 6-
17 summarizes the characteristics of these fisheries.

Table 6-17 Primary Characteristics of Marine Fisheries in Guyana

Type of Fishery Species Gear Depth
Industrial Seabob, shrimps, and prawns Trawls Primarily between 13-16 m,
but can occur from 0-75 m
Semi-industrial Red snapper and vermillion Fish traps and lines Edge of continental shelf
snapper
Artisanal Mixed fish and shrimp Gillnets, seines, and 0–18 m
others
Shark Various Trawls, gillnets, Throughout the continental
and hook and line shelf waters
Note: “Whitebelly” identified in Figure 6-27 is a species of shrimp and is included in the artisanal shrimp fishery.

According to data from the Private Sector Commission (PSC) and the Ministry of Agriculture,
fishery yields declined between 2014 and 2015. The PSC attributes this to El Niño-related
weather phenomena, while the Ministry of Finance characterizes this as part of a longer-term
decline caused by unsustainable overfishing, including illegal fishing by foreign vessels
(Ministry of Finance, 2015). Fishing interests and the Fisheries Department personnel also
acknowledged the prevalence of illegal fishing by both foreign and domestic vessels, but did
not specifically implicate illegal fishing in the recent declines (ERM Personal Communications
2, 14, 15, and 16).
Fishing catches for 2007 to 2015 are shown on Figure 6-27. The data indicate a declining trend
for fish and seabob shrimp catches in recent years, although the recent decline follows an
increasing trend for 2010 through 2014. The prawn industry has been voluntarily scaled back in
response to limited catches resulting from overfishing in previous years, with approximately 15
Guyanese-registered boats in operation in 2016. Prawn fishing boats operate from the coast out
to about 40 fathoms (ERM Personal Communication 2).

May 2017 186

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-27 Commercial Fisheries Catch Volumes, 2007-2015

Total Finfish (Artisanal) Finfish (Industrial)

Prawns Red Snapper Seabob
Whitebelly
30000 60000
Species in Metric Tonnes

Total in Metric Tonnes

25000 50000

20000 40000

15000 30000

10000 20000

5000 10000

0 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2016a

The industrial seabob shrimp sector continues to be an important commercial fishery for
Guyana, and industry leaders are currently in the process of applying for Marine Sustainability
Council (MSC) certification (an internationally recognized voluntary process used to assess and
certify the sustainability of wild capture marine and freshwater species). The seabob fleet
currently operates under a voluntary management plan (the only fishery-specific management
plan for fisheries operating in Guyana’s territorial waters) that calls for a seven-week-long
closed season each year. Seabob sector representatives expect the management plan to be
adopted by the government and made compulsory in the near future (ERM Personal
Communication 2).

Aquaculture

According to data from the Ministry of Agriculture, the main species produced in aquaculture
establishments are the fish bashaw, hassar, mullet, querriman, tambaqui, tilapia, and black
shrimp. Data show that tilapia once dominated aquacultural yields, but have declined in
production, while yields of tambaqui and black shrimp have increased considerably in recent
years. The total yield of aquaculture product has been variable in the period from 2009-2015 for
which data are available (Figure 6-28).

May 2017 187

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-28 Fish Yields from Aquaculture, 2009-2015

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2016a

According to the president of the National Aquaculture Association, aquaculture is still a small
industry in Guyana. Establishments are typically set up in abandoned rice fields. By using the
same water supply and drainage configuration used for rice production, the aquaculture
operations avoid dependency on brackish water and can raise freshwater species despite their
coastal locations. Freshwater species currently being raised in rehabilitated rice fields include
hassa, arapaima, tilapia, and tobaki (pacu) (ERM Personal Communication 18).

6.3.5.3 Mining and Quarrying

The mining sector is an important sector for Guyana and contributed to over half of exports in
2015 (Guyana Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Most notably, raw gold, bauxite and diamonds
equated to 43.5 percent, 9.1 percent, and 1.5 percent, respectively, of export totals in 2015. The
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission estimated that in 2010, mining and quarrying
accounted for 9 percent of GDP, and employed over 11,000 persons directly and almost 14,000
indirectly (GGMC, 2010). Due in large part to the mining sector, Guyana’s economy in recent
years has reflected the path of global commodity prices. Real GDP growth decelerated to 3.8
percent in 2014 and to 3.0 percent in 2015, as global commodity prices collapsed for Guyana’s
major mining exports (World Bank, 2016).

May 2017 188

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.5.4 Manufacturing

Manufacturing contributed 7.4 percent of GDP in 2015 and grew by 5.3 percent from 2014 to
2015. The most important products in terms of volume include laundry soap, detergent, paints,
putty, whitewash, oxygen, and acetylene, as well as edible goods including rice, sugar, and rum
(PSC, 2015). Many of the country’s manufacturing facilities are located in coastal areas (UNDP,
2005).

6.3.5.5 Tourism

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, tourism contributed 3.3 percent to the
country’s GDP in 2015. Although most tourism infrastructure (e.g., hotels) is located in the most
populated townships such as Georgetown, Linden, and Berbice, many of Guyana’s tourist
attractions are located in the country’s hinterland. These attractions offer nature, culture, and
adventure-based experiences such as trips to waterfalls and Amerindian villages, which range
from same-day to multiple night excursions.
Guyana is not a popular destination for cruise ships and receives only a few small ships each
year. The country does not have the berthing capacity for large cruise ships (ERM Personal
Communication 3).
Deposition of sediment from the mouth of the Amazon River along Guyana’s coast means that
there are few beach offerings for tourists. The highly turbid water along the coast also likely
contributes to the relatively small numbers of tourists that visit Guyana relative to other
locations with clearer water in the region. Some tourism occurs at the SBPA during the sea
turtle nesting season, but because infrastructure and systems have not yet been established to
facilitate travel or provide convenient accommodations, this number is limited. In general,
however, Guyana is thought to have considerable ecotourism potential, and development of
tourism infrastructure at the country’s Protected Areas is considered a key part of the Protected
Areas Commission’s current strategic plan (PAC, 2016).
Data from the Department of Tourism indicate that the number of international visitors to
Guyana has doubled since the early 2000s (see Figure 6-29), with the largest number of visitors
originating from the United States, followed by the Caribbean, Canada, and Central and South
America. Because the majority of visitors consist of Guyanese expatriates returning to visit
family, visitor numbers peak during the summer vacation (July and August) and key holidays
(e.g., Christmas in December). According to representatives of the Department of Tourism,
increases in tourism in recent years are also attributable to increased hosting of regional
sporting tournaments, particularly cricket events, in the Georgetown area. This has brought
many international visitors, particularly those from the Caribbean. During major events such as
the Cricket World Cup, traffic congestion beyond the norm was observed in the Georgetown
area (ERM Personal Communication 3).

May 2017 189

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-29 Annual International Visitors to Guyana, 2000-2015

250,000

200,000
Number of visitors

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Department of Tourism, 2016

Most of the major tourist attractions in Guyana, such as museums, the zoo, parks, public
gardens, and the Stabroek Market, are located in Georgetown. Georgetown and surrounding
areas are known for their many historic buildings, which date from the late eighteenth century
through the mid-nineteenth century, when Guyana was first a Dutch colony and then an
English colony (National Trust of Guyana, 2009). Guided tours of Georgetown’s historic
buildings and sites are available, as are guided tours of attractions such as the Essequibo River,
the El Dorado Rum Factory, and the Georgetown City Centre.

6.3.6 Employment and Livelihoods

Results of the most recent national census indicate that 87.5 percent of the labor force was
employed and 12.5 percent was unemployed at this time (2012). Data from the previous census
in 2002 indicate that the unemployment rate did not change in this 10-year period (BSG 2012;
BSG 2002).
In 2012, the unemployment rate in Region 1 was the highest in the country at 19.3 percent of the
labor force. Region 2 had the lowest rate of unemployment in the country at this time, at 10.6
percent. Regions 3 and 4 had rates of 11.8 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.
Statistics from the 2012 census indicate that 23.0 percent of the employed population 15 years of
age and over in Region 1, 27.9 percent in Region 2, and 18.8 percent in Region 3 had occupations
in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing industry group in 2012 (BSG, 2016). This was the
industry group employing the largest number of workers in Regions 2 and 3, while, in Region 1,
this group was second to Mining and Quarrying. After the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
category, Mining and Quarrying employed the second largest group of people in Region 2 (14.9
percent), while in Region 3, Construction employed the second largest number of workers (12.1
percent). It should be noted that the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing industry group, and the

May 2017 190

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

primary sector16 in general, is dominated by male workers, with female workers making up less
than ten percent of the workers employed in this industry group in these regions.
Census data show that tertiary (service) sector jobs such as wholesale and retail trade, public
administration, and accommodation and food services are dominant in Region 4 (including
Georgetown), making up 67.0 percent of jobs there . Female representation in this sector is high,
with women making up 48.2 percent of workers in the sector (BSG, 2016). Secondary and
primary sector jobs make up 21.0 percent and 12.0 percent of employment in Region 4.
The issues facing indigenous groups of Guyana are typically related to lack of empowerment
and inclusion into the mainstream economy. The standard of living for the indigenous minority
of Guyana continues to be lower than that of the majority of the country's citizens. A larger
proportion of the Amerindian population is classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged
(Minority Rights Group International, 2008), with the lack of formal employment opportunities
as a significant contributing factor. Income generation opportunities in the indigenous coastal
communities of Regions 1 and 2 are scarce and include heart of palm harvesting and the
wildlife trade, including sale of aquarium fish (IDB, 2007). In the past, the Region 2 village of
Mainstay operated an organic pineapple farm and processing facility; however, the plant was
shut down several years ago (ERM Personal Communication 4). Some residents of Region 1 and
2 indigenous communities also work in mining and logging camps in the hinterland (IDB,
2007).

6.3.6.1 Fishing

Fishing along the Guyanese coast varies in scale and type. At the easternmost end of Region 2,
fishing occurs at a relatively small scale, and catch is typically sold locally at roadside stands or
out of vehicles (See Figure 6-30). Boats venture only a few kilometers out from the coastline, and
fisherfolk typically only go out for the day. Species caught include catfish, bangamary, and
bashaw (ERM Personal Communication 19). Farther west in Region 2 at Lima, larger scale
fishing is practiced about 8 km (~5 mi) offshore. Small artisanal boats are still used because the
coastal mudflats in this area do not allow for the use of larger boats. Fisherfolk go out for 10-12
days at a time and fish for snapper, snook, trout, wrasse, patwa, catfish, bangamary, and
butterfish. Some fish are sold locally, while others are sold wholesale for resale in Georgetown
(ERM Personal Communications 16, 20, and 21) (see Figure 6-31). There are no landing areas for
commercial fishing vessels in Region 1; small scale fishing activity occurs along the Region 1
coast and is primarily for subsistence. Fishing yields vary by season, with interviewed fisherfolk
reporting the highest yields in June through August. From September to January, catches are at
their lowest due to high winds.

16According to the BSG, the primary sector industries (e.g., agriculture, fishing, forestry, and mining) make direct use
of natural resources and include the production of raw materials and basic foods. The secondary sector is engaged in
manufacturing using raw products from the primary sector and includes processing, construction, textile production,
brewing and bottling, etc. The tertiary sector provides services to the general population and businesses, including
retail and wholesale trade, transportation and distribution, entertainment, tourism, healthcare, etc.

May 2017 191

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-30 Salted Fish Drying Outside a Fisherperson’s Home in Region 2

Source: ERM, 2016

Figure 6-31 Fresh Fish Being Sold at Stabroek Market in Georgetown

Source: ERM, 2016

May 2017 192

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Challenges for the Fishing Industry

When asked about changes in fishing yields over the years, responses from artisanal Region 2
fisherfolk varied, with most reporting no noticeable change in catch volume. However, a
fisherman with a relatively large-scale operation of three boats operating out of Charity stated
that catches are declining and attributed this to an over-allocation of fishing licenses by the
government (ERM Personal Communication 17). As indicated in Section 6.3.3, annual yields in
the fishery sector have declined in the last four years for fish, and three of the last four years for
seabob, although seabob yields recovered slightly between 2014 and 2015. Although there are
no data available to quantify the impact of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU)17 fishing
in Guyana, its role in threatening sustainability of the country’s fishery is considered to be
significant (Ministry of Finance, 2015; Ministry of Agriculture, 2016b).
Another challenge faced by fisherfolk is piracy. Most of the fisherfolk interviewed by ERM in
Region 2 have been victimized by pirates at some time. This typically consists of the theft of
boats and/or engines, and fisherfolk are sometimes assaulted in these confrontations. Most
respondents perceived that piracy had gone down in the last 5 or 10 years. Some implicated the
recent establishment of a Coast Guard Station at the mouth of the Pomeroon River as having
influenced the decrease in piracy. Of those who have encountered pirates, they were typically
unsure of their assailants’ nationality, but speculated that they could be Venezuelan, Guyanese,
Surinamese, or a mixed group from different countries.
The dynamic accretion and erosion of the Guyanese coastline as a result of natural forces can
also pose challenges for fisherfolk. During the August/September 2016 field visit, ERM
personnel observed considerable mudflat and beach accretion at most coastal access points
along the Region 2 coast, which prevents fisherfolk from landing their boats in some areas
(Figure 6-32).

17IUU fishing takes place where vessels operate in violation of the laws of a fishery. This can apply to fisheries that
are under the jurisdiction of a coastal state or to high seas fisheries regulated by regional organizations.

May 2017 193

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-32 Fishing Boat Landed on a Coastal Mudflat in Region 2, September 2016

Source: ERM, 2016

6.3.6.2 Farming and Agricultural Processing

As discussed above, agriculture is a major livelihood activity in Region 2. Rice farming

dominates agricultural production in Region 2, but other crops, such as red beans, plantains,
bananas, eggplants, and other vegetables, are grown on a smaller scale in Region 2 as well. Most
households also raise livestock, such as cattle, hogs, poultry, and small ruminants. The
Amerindian community of Mainstay, located approximately 6 km (~3.5 mi) from the coast in
Region 2, is known for its organic pineapples, which for a number of years were processed into
canned chunks for export to European markets (ERM Personal Communication 4). As discussed
above, coconut cultivation is becoming increasingly popular in the Pomeroon area as demand
for coconut water and other value-added coconut products continues to grow. A number of
farms produce coconut water for export to Trinidad and Tobago, while others produce coconut
oil. A group established in 2001, the Pomeroon Women’s Agro-Processors Association, also
produces a number of value-added products, including virgin coconut oil, pepper sauce,
cooking sauce, wine, and carambola cake mix (ERM Personal Communication 5).
In the Amerindian communities of Region 1, agricultural activities occur on a small scale and
include cultivation of tubers, corn, cucumber, eggplant, ginger, peppers, plantains, bananas,
watermelon, beans, okra, pumpkin, and coconut. At least one community engages in cassava
processing, including cassava bread, starch, and cassareep (Protected Areas Commission, 2014).

May 2017 194

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Challenges for Farmers and Agricultural Processors

Climate change is perceived as a challenge for some agricultural producers. For example,
changes in sunshine and rain patterns are thought to have contributed to decreased pineapple
yields in recent years (ERM Personal Communication 4). Sea level rise potentially associated
with climate change is also considered a threat for coastal farmers, given that the coastal plains,
where the majority of the country’s agricultural activity occurs, lies below sea level (ECLAC,
2011). Outside of flood events, saltwater sometimes enters into the irrigation canals through
sluice gates at high tide or up the Pomeroon River during the dry season. This can adversely
impact some crops, such as most vegetables, but may be beneficial to others, such as fruit trees
(ERM Personal Communication 5). As noted above, however, the irrigation canal system for rice
fields and fish farms are separated from the drainage system and draw from the water
conservancies.

6.3.6.3 Speedboat Operation

Guyana’s unique geography means that boating is an important mode of transport for travel
between the coastal regions. Other than air travel, the most rapid and direct means of accessing
Region 2 from the east coast of the Essequibo River is by speedboat, though a ferry service is
also available. Speedboat operators servicing the route between Parika in Region 3 and
Supenaam in Region 2 belong to the Supenaam-Parika Speedboat Owners’ Association, which
currently numbers 91 boats (See Figure 6-33). According to a member of the association, the
majority of customers for this route are business owners, such as shopkeepers who travel to
Georgetown for supplies (ERM Personal Communication 6). Speedboats are also used for
transportation to communities upriver in the Essequibo and Pomeroon Rivers, and to areas of
Regions 1 and 2 that are not accessible by road (i.e., areas west of Charity). More information on
speedboat use in the coastal areas is provided in Section 6.3.8
Figure 6-33 Speedboats Docked in Parika, Region 3

Source: ERM, 2016

May 2017 195

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Challenges for Speedboat Operators

Although natural forces (e.g., wind, waves, sea currents, and sediments transported from the
mouth of the Amazon River) create a dynamic and ever-changing coastline, speedboats are
typically able to maneuver through mud and sandbanks where ferries would be unable to
traverse (ERM Personal Communication 6). As a result, there are no notable seasonal factors
that impact business or safety for speedboat operators. However, some stakeholders noted that
along the Pomeroon River where there are many coconut plantations and processing plants, the
practice of discarding coconut shells in the river poses a danger to speedboat operators and
passengers (ERM Personal Communication 5 and ERM Personal Communication 6).

6.3.7 Community Health and Wellbeing

According to the Ministry of Health, health outcomes in Guyana continue to improve steadily,
with life expectancy at birth increasing from 63 years in 1998 to 67 years in 2010 (Ministry of
Health, 2013).

6.3.7.1 Health Status

Causes of Death

The leading causes of mortality in 2010 were chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, and hypertension (Ministry of Health, 2013b).
According to the World Health Organization, Guyana had the highest rate of suicide of any
country in the world in 2015, at 44.2 deaths per 100,000 people, versus the global average of 16
(WHO, 2014). According to Guyana’s Chief Medical Officer, rates are particularly high in
Regions 2, 3, and 6, with the most common method being ingestion of poisons such as
pesticides. No single reason is pinpointed for this phenomenon, but the shortage of mental
health workers and the stigma associated with mental illness leading to untreated depression
are thought to be contributing factors, as well as the ease of access to pesticides and other toxic
agricultural substances (ERM Personal Communication 7).

Burden of Disease

As with many other developing countries, Guyana is undergoing an epidemiological transition

by which non-communicable diseases are beginning to replace communicable diseases as the
leading causes of illness and mortality. This shift is largely due to trends toward more
sedentary occupations and lifestyles, as well as unhealthy diets and habits such as tobacco and
alcohol use. Obesity is on the rise in the country, along with other forms of malnutrition.
Although Guyana is considered self-sufficient for food, accessibility and utilization of the right
types of food to maintain health are of concern, leading the Ministry of Agriculture to develop
the Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy 2011-2020 Plan. This plan aims, among other
things, to integrate agricultural practices with improved food security and nutrition (Ministry of
Health, 2013a).

May 2017 196

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Communicable diseases also continue to impact productivity, quality of life, and wellbeing in
Guyana, particularly in the hinterland regions. This is due to a number of interrelated factors
including poverty, nutritional deficiency, and inadequate access to health services.
Malaria is found in much of Guyana and is most prevalent in Regions 1, 7, 8, and 9. Malaria
control efforts, such as distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and indoor residual
spraying18, have been ongoing in these regions for decades. After an initial reduction in malaria
prevalence in the early 2000s, the number of cases increased from 2007 to 2012. Data indicate a
correlation with mining activities in the hinterland areas, and the country’s Central Vector
Control Service now sends mobile teams to work directly with populations residing in mining
camps (Ministry of Public Health, 2014).
Figure 6-34 shows the number of reported new malaria cases for each region in 2010, the most
recent year for which data are available.
Figure 6-34 Malaria Incidence by Region, 2010

9000
8000
7000
Number of new cases

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Region Region Region Regions Region Region Region Region Region
1 2 3 4&5 6 7 8 9 10

Source: Ministry of Public Health, 2013b

Dengue fever, chikungunya, lymphatic filariasis, and Zika are also locally transmitted in
Guyana. Unlike malaria, transmission of these diseases tends to be common in populated and
urbanized areas.
Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a priority health concern in Guyana. It was nearly eradicated
in the 1980s, but saw a resurgence in the 1990s due to its association with the HIV/AIDS
epidemic. In 2010, the national average for TB incidence was nine cases per 10,000 people.
Regional distribution of cases in 2010 is shown on Figure 6-35.

18Indoor Residual Spraying involves coating the walls and other surfaces of a house with an insecticide that has
residual activity (i.e., continues to work over several months, killing mosquitos on contact with the sprayed surfaces).
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012.

May 2017 197

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-35 TB Incidence Rate by Region, 2010

16
14

Cases per 10,000 population 12

10
8
6
4
2
0

Source: Ministry of Public Health, 2013b

In 2015, the number of people living with HIV in Guyana was estimated at 7,800, and the
prevalence rate in the population aged 15 to 49 was 1.5 percent. According to the Joint United
Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), progress has been made in addressing the HIV
epidemic in the country, with a reduction in the number of HIV cases reported since 2009, as
well as a reduction in the number of AIDS cases (Figure 6-36) and AIDS-related deaths.
Figure 6-36 Annual Number of HIV and AIDS Cases, 2001-2014

Source: UNAIDS, 2015

The Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) lymphatic filariasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis
continue to be problematic in Guyana, leading to deformity, malnutrition, and social stigma in

May 2017 198

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

impacted populations. Efforts to combat these diseases in the country include mass drug
administration campaigns and improvements in sanitation in endemic areas.

Maternal and Child Health

Guyana has made improvements in maternal and child health in recent years, but has not
achieved its Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets of reducing child mortality rates by
two thirds, and maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015. Furthermore,
marked disparities exist in rural and hinterland areas, with the rate of under age 5 mortality at
48 per 1,000 live births in rural areas and 11 per 1,000 live births in urban areas (UNICEF, 2014).

6.3.7.2 Health Care System

Government health spending compares favorably with other Latin American and Caribbean
countries, and has averaged about 3 percent of GDP in recent years, equivalent to $11.5 billion
GYD annually ($57.5 million USD) (Ministry of Public Health, 2013b). The healthcare system in
the country is highly decentralized, with Regional Democratic Councils and Regional Health
Authorities managing, financing, and providing health services. The system experiences a
number of challenges related to human resources capacity and infrastructure capacity.

Health Facilities

Health facilities in the coastal regions are summarized in Table 6-18 below. In addition to these
facilities, there is one National Ophthalmology Center and one National Psychiatric Hospital in
the country, both located in Region 6.

Table 6-18 Health Facilities in the Coastal Regions

Region Regional District Diagnostic Health Center Health
Hospital Hospital Center Post
Region 1 1 4 - 4 44
Region 2 - 2 1 11 17
Region 3 1 2 1 17 22
Region 4 1 1 1 39 7
Region 5 - 1 1 14 1
Region 6 1 3 - 21 2
Source: Ministry of Public Health, 2016

According to Guyana’s Chief Medical Officer, some of the biggest health system shortfalls are
unreliable emergency care services. This includes the lack of a functioning air ambulance
system, which is needed to adequately respond to mining injuries in the country’s interior and
to the large number of vehicle crash injuries. There are also shortages of blood at times, and
capacity in hospitals is inadequate. The public hospital in Georgetown once had 900 beds, but
due to fires and dilapidation over the years, this has been reduced to 450 (ERM Personal
Communication 7).

May 2017 199

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Health Human Resources

Retention of health care professionals in Guyana is a challenge, as in many other developing

countries that see emigration of skilled workers to developed countries. The most recent
available statistics from the Ministry of Public Health indicate that there were 6.8 physicians
and 13.3 nurses per 10,000 people in the country in 2010 (Ministry of Public Health, 2013a).
Guyana currently has a Health Human Resource Action Plan for Guyana 2011-2016 that is
aimed at addressing this issue.

6.3.7.3 Quality of Life

Water and Sanitation

According to the most recent Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)19, 94 percent of
Guyana’s population had sustainable access to improved drinking water sources 20 as of 2014,
and 95.4 percent used an improved sanitation facility21 (UNICEF, 2014). Figure 6-37 shows the
percentage of the population with access to improved sources of drinking water, by region.
Figure 6-37 Percent of Population with Access to Improved Water Sources by Region, 2014

100
% of population using improved water

90
80
70
60
sources

50
40
30
20
10
0
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Source: UNICEF, 2014

19 The MICS program was developed by UNICEF and serves as an international household survey program to collect
internationally comparable data on a wide range of indicators on the situation of children and women.
20 Improved water sources refer to any of the following types of supply: piped water into dwelling, compound, yard,

to neighbor, or to public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected well; protected spring; and rainwater
collection. Bottled water is considered as an improved water source only if the household is using an improved water
source for handwashing and cooking.
21An improved sanitation facility is defined as a facility that flushes or pour-flushes to a piped sewer system, a septic
tank, a pit latrine, a ventilated improved pit latrine, or a pit latrine with slab.

May 2017 200

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Electricity

Results of the MICS indicate that an estimated 91.2 percent of the coastal population and 56.2
percent of the interior population have access to electricity. Figure 6-38 shows the percent of the
population with electricity in each of the coastal regions.
Figure 6-38 Percent of Population with Electricity by Region, 2014

100
90
% of population with electricity

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Source: UNICEF, 2014

Telecommunications

In terms of telecommunications, mobile telephone coverage is quite comparable among coastal

regions, and an average of 88.6 percent of households in the country has at least one member
with a mobile phone. There is more disparity in other forms of telecommunications, with
Region 1 in particular showing lower levels of access to computers, television, and radio relative
to other regions (Figure 6-39).

May 2017 201

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-39 Household Access to Telecommunications, 2014

Mobile Phone Computer Television Radio

Region 6

Region 5

Region 4

Region 3

Region 2

Region 1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: UNICEF, 2014

6.3.7.4 Natural Hazards

Guyana is not threatened by many natural hazards, but due to its low-lying coastal plain it faces
severe risk of flooding. Both changes in rainfall patterns and predicted sea level rise associated
with climate change pose threats to the Guyanese population and its livelihoods. As such, the
country invests continuously in the construction and maintenance of sea and river defense
infrastructure, as well as a system of reclaimed lands, drainage and irrigation canals, and
conservancy dams to protect agriculture in the vulnerable coastal areas.
In 2005, torrential rains caused many rivers and water conservancies in the coastal plain to
overflow, causing flooding in Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. The floods resulted in the direct or
indirect deaths of 19 people, either from drowning, acute dehydration, or succumbing to an
outbreak of leptospirosis that occurred in the aftermath of the flooding (PAHO, 2005). Direct
economic losses of agricultural crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, and roads in the coastal area
were estimated to total over $10 billion GYD (~$50 million USD) (UNDP, 2005).

6.3.8 Marine Use and Transportation

6.3.8.1 Introduction and Methodology

This section describes Guyana’s existing marine and coastal transportation infrastructure, with
particular focus on the Project AOI. Data and information in this section were primarily
obtained from Project-specific documents, including the Project’s Final Multi-well
Environmental Management Plan (February 2016) and Strategic Environmental Assessment
(March 2014). Other sources of information include key informant interviews, reports, studies,
and other publicly available information.

May 2017 202

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.8.2 Regional Setting

The EP Act requires EIAs to assess impacts on material assets. Nearly all the Project-related
activities will occur at designated shorebases on the coast, coastal marine waters, or offshore.
Therefore, for the purposes of this EIA “material assets” were determined to include the marine
infrastructure within the AOI which consists of waterways, coastal shipping channels, ports,
and offshore shipping lanes. Guyana has approximately 1000 km (~620 mi) of navigable rivers,
which provide water access to most population and economic centers. Subsea
telecommunications cables are also present in or near the PDA.

6.3.8.3 Existing Conditions in the Project Development Area

The Minister of Public Infrastructure’s MARAD is responsible for ensuring the safe and efficient
operation of shipping activities in Guyana territorial waters. MARAD operates in accordance
with the IMO and is a party to a number of IMO Conventions, including conventions on: Safety
of Life at Sea (SOLAS); Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW); and
Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Jamaican and Trinidadian shipping lanes may cross the
Stabroek Block (Figure 6-40).
As described in Section 6.3.2, fisheries are of significant importance to Guyana’s economy,
particularly in coastal areas. Marine fisheries and subsistence fishing occur throughout Guyana
coastal waters, from the shore to the edge of the continental shelf, approximately 150 km (~93
mi) from shore although most fishing activity occurs well inshore from the shelf edge. Figure 6-
41 depicts the primary fishing zones offshore Guyana by fishery type and the primary fishing
ports or landing sites in Regions 2 and 3. There are no formal landing sites in Region 1.
The Port of Georgetown contains more than 40 separate wharves, including six primary cargo
wharves ranging from approximately 130 m to 247 m (~427 ft to 810 ft) in length, as well as four
tanker berths (NGIA, 2014). Other privately owned docks and portside facilities near
Georgetown and the mouth of the Demerara River have staging areas or storage yards,
although these facilities are congested and space is limited. Vessel call data for the Port of
Georgetown are not available.
A shipping channel is maintained on the lower Demerara River for the use of private,
commercial, and military vessels. Pilotage is required to access the channel, and is provided by
the Stabroek Harbour Master. As of 2014, the Superintendent of Surveys of the Harbour Master
Department indicated that ship draft in the channel was approximately 4.5 m (~15 ft) at low
water, but that dredging work was ongoing to reach a target depth of approximately 5.5 m
(~18 ft).
The Transport and Harbours Department is responsible for the management of the national
ferry service. The department has four ferry vessels, three of which operate in the Essequibo
River and one in the Berbice River. The ferries on the Essequibo River serve several ports (also
known as “Stellings”) on either side of the Essequibo River and on Leguan and Wakenaam
Islands, as shown on Figure 6-42.

May 2017 203

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

In addition to the national ferry service, many smaller vessels provide transportation between
Regions 2 and 3 across the Essequibo River. These smaller vessels are collectively and
informally known as “speedboats” because they typically travel faster than the ferries (Figure 6-
33). These speedboats vary in size, power, and capacity, but can typically carry from 5 to 15
passengers. They operate at the same ports as the national ferry service, and may also call at
smaller informal landings as client demand and conditions warrant.

Telecommunications

A publically mapped Guyana Telephone & Telegraph (GT&T) subsea telecommunications cable
which is part of the Suriname Guyana Submarine Cable System (SGSCS) runs through the
Stabroek Block, but is outside the PDA.. Since the SGSCS is outside the area of direct impact,
and the Project would not have any indirect impacts on it, the SGSCS is not discussed further in
this EIA.

May 2017 204

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-40 Offshore Shipping Lanes

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 205

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-41 Fishing Zones and Ports

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 206

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-42 Maritime Transportation Facilities

May 2017 207

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.9 Social Infrastructure and Services

6.3.9.1 Housing

Figure 6-43 shows the breakdown of housing types in the coastal regions as of the 2002 census
(housing data from the 2012 census are not yet available) and indicates that detached houses are
the most common type of housing in all regions.
Figure 6-43 Proportion of Housing Types by Region

Undivided private house Part of a private house

Flat/apartment/condo Townhouse
Duplex Combined business and dwelling
Barracks Other
Unknown

Region 6
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
Region 1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Bureau of Statistics, 2002

Figure 6-44 shows the breakdown of home ownership types by region and shows that the
majority of homes in the coastal area are owned by their occupants. However, Regions 3 and 4
have a higher proportion of rented and squatted homes. Informal housing settlements increased
in the 1980s and 1990s due to housing supply constraints, causing many people to squat on
vacant parcels (IDB, 2016). The Ministry of Communities has worked in recent years to
regularize informal settlements, particularly in the Georgetown area, by providing services such
as paved streets, drainage, septic tanks, and water supply. If settlement sites are not suitable for
permanent neighborhoods, they are moved to other locations (ERM Personal Communication 8;
IDB, 2008, 2016). There are currently 216 squatting areas in the country, of which 154 have been
brought under the regularization program.

May 2017 208

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-44 Proportion of Home Ownership Types by Coastal Region

Owned Squatted
Rented - Private Rented - Government
Leased Rent-free
Don't know Other

Region 6

Region 5

Region 4

Region 3

Region 2

Region 1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Bureau of Statistics, 2002

Data from the 2014 MICS indicate that the majority of homes in Guyana have a finished floor
(81.2 percent), roof (97.0 percent), and walls (93.2 percent). However, housing stock in some
regions is aging and in need of upgrade (IDB, 2016). According to the 2002 census, more than 30
percent of the housing stock in Regions 3, 4, 5, and 6 was built before 1970.

6.3.9.2 Ground Transportation Infrastructure

Guyana has an approximately 3990 km (~2,480 mi) road network that is used by the
approximately 80,000 vehicles in the country. There are six main national paved roads that each
have two lanes, except for four-lane segments along the East Bank and East Coast Demerara.
The road network is dependent on a system of bridges and culverts that provide crossings over
a dense system of canals, drains, and sluices throughout the coastal lowlands.
Georgetown has a compact, grid-based street network. Road conditions vary widely and can be
poor in some locations. Most streets are no more than two lanes wide, with approximately 7 m
to 8m (~23 ft to 26 ft) of paved width (Google Earth, 2016). The port area is linked to central
Georgetown via East Bank Demerara Road. Most intersections are not signal controlled; where
signals do exist, they are frequently out of service.
Traffic congestion is a chronic problem in and around Georgetown. Many different types of
vehicles including cars, large commercial vehicles, mini-buses, horse drawn carts, bicycles,
mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles all share the same travel lanes. Traffic congestion occurs
frequently, including just before and just after school hours.
East Bank Demerara Road is particularly susceptible to congestion, due to backups at the
Demerara Harbour Bridge, the only road crossing of the Demerara River (Figure 6-45). Daily
retraction of the bridge for a period of about one hour causes severe traffic congestion at both
ends of the bridge. The limited number of bridge openings causes delays and inconvenience to

May 2017 209

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

ocean going vessels. The Government of Guyana has investigated replacing the existing bridge
with a new bridge (with an elevated central span that would reduce or eliminate the need for
drawbridge openings) further downstream (Kaieteur News 2015).
Figure 6-45 Demerara Harbour Bridge

Driving behavior also contributes to poor and dangerous land transportation conditions.
Speeding, aggressive driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol contribute to traffic
accidents in Georgetown. Driving at night poses additional concerns due to poor street lighting
and road conditions, as well as livestock and pedestrians congregating near the roadside (OSAC
2016).
At the time of writing, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure was working with the IDB to
develop a Sustainable Urban Transport Plan for Georgetown. This will focus more on
management of current traffic than addition of significant new infrastructure; for example,
separation of slower-moving traffic from vehicular traffic in designated lanes (ERM Personal
Communication 9).

6.3.9.3 Water and Sanitation

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 95 percent of water usage in
Guyana in 2010 was for irrigation and livestock, with four (4) percent used by municipalities
and one (1) percent by industry (FAO, 2015).

Potable Water

Most potable water is obtained from the deeper aquifers that underlie Georgetown and the
coastal plain. Water is distributed by Guyana Water Inc. (GWI), a commercial public enterprise

May 2017 210

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

that has five service areas along the coast, and a separate program to serve communities in the
hinterland. There are three major water treatment plants in the country, located in Georgetown,
New Amsterdam, and Guymine (FAO, 2015).
In rural areas not served by GWI, domestic water is obtained from a mix of ground, surface,
and rainwater sources. Rainwater is often used for potable household use, while river water is
typically used for cleaning and other non-potable uses.
Businesses that use large quantities of water, such as beverage bottling and food processing
plants, generally have their own wells to meet their needs (FAO, 2015).

Agricultural Water

Areas with fully developed drainage and irrigation systems are called Declared Drainage and
Irrigation Areas (DDIAs) and are found in Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In these regions, irrigation is
by gravity from surface water resources trapped by shallow earthen dams known as
“conservancies.” These are located in the upper stream catchment areas and store water at
higher elevations than the surrounding fields. The Tapakuma conservancy is a large human-
made conservancy. It serves Region 2 and has been designed to provide irrigation to about 120
square kilometers (29,650 acres). During times of water shortage, this conservancy is
supplemented by pumping from the Pomeroon River (FAO, 2015).
The National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) has responsibility for the maintenance
and delivery of the irrigation water supply throughout the country.

6.3.9.4 Power

Most of the electricity in the coastal plain of Guyana is generated, transmitted and distributed
by the state-owned utility Guyana Power & Light Inc (GPL). However, due to poor reliability of
the electrical supply, many users also have their own diesel generators. Coastal areas that are
not serviced by GPL are the Region 2 area west of Charity, and Region 1. Most areas of the
hinterland do not have electricity service, and the government has implemented a number of
hinterland energy development projects in recent years which have included installation of
solar systems, and feasibility studies for hydropower and wind projects (GPL, 2016).
The PSC has noted that the high cost of electricity in Guyana is a major challenge for business.
This was also raised as an issue by representatives of agricultural processing associations (ERM
Personal Communications 1, 5, and 10).
According to the PSC, development of hydroelectricity should be a major priority for the
country. The plan for the 165 megawatt (MW) Amaila Falls hydroelectric plant was cancelled in
2015 due to delays and the potential for cost overruns (ERM Personal Communication 10).
Total electricity generation output in Guyana in thousands of MW-hours for the period 2009
through 2015 is presented on Figure 6-46.

May 2017 211

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-46 Electricity Generation in Guyana, 2009-2015

800

MWH (000s) 600

400

200

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Ministry of Finance, 2015

Although Guyana has significant potential for hydroelectric and biomass-fueled electricity
generation, at this time, 83 percent of its installed generation capacity is thermal, relying on
expensive imported liquid fuels and making average electricity prices among the highest in
Latin America and the Caribbean. The remaining 17 percent of installed capacity is biomass-
based, using bagasse (sugarcane fibers remaining after cane juice is extracted) as fuel to self-
generate power at GuySuco’s sugarcane factories. There are plans to enhance the generation
capacity of the GuySuco factories such that excess power is available and can be exported to the
National electrical grid, and the government continues to explore options for a hydroelectric
power project (GEA, 2015; ClimateScope, 2015).

6.3.9.5 Telecommunications Infrastructure

As described in Section 6.3.7, the majority of households in the coastal regions have access to
mobile phone service. However, the lack of 4G network access has been a major barrier to
increased business investment in Guyana, and an issue that the PSC has prioritized. In 2016, the
first 4G network in the country was installed. Fiber optic cable is also a pressing need to
improve reliability and accessibility (PSC, 2015) of mobile phone services.

6.3.9.6 Educational Facilities

Table 6-19 shows the number of nursery, primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools in
each of the coastal regions. The majority of post-secondary institutions (technical schools,
colleges and universities) are found in Georgetown.

May 2017 212

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Table 6-19 Number of Educational Facilities in Guyana’s Coastal Regions

Nursery Primary Secondary Technical/ College/
Vocational University
Region 1 17 42 3 0 0
Region 2 49 37 8 1 0
Region 3 59 59 13 0 0
Region 4 65 54 15 4 7
Region 5 34 32 7 0 0
Region 6 67 54 17 1 2
Source: Guyana Ministry of Education 2013

Table 6-19 includes the full list of schools in the coastal regions as reported by the Guyana
Ministry of Education, but Figure 6-47 only shows schools occurring near the coast. In general,
this distribution reflects population trends along the coast. Schools are found all along the coast
of Regions 3, 4 and 6, which are also the most populated regions. In Region 2, schools are found
along the coast until the coastal road ends, and are much fewer in the Region 2 areas west of
Charity and in Region 1.

May 2017 213

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-47 Locations of Schools that Occur in Near-coastal Portions of Regions 1-6

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 214

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.9.7 Security Facilities

The Guyana Defense Force (GDF) is the military service of Guyana and has land, sea (Coast
Guard) and air (Air Corps) units responsible for defending the territorial integrity of Guyana. In
terms of internal security, the Guyana Police Force (GPF) operates as a semiautonomous agency
under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The GPF has seven geographic policing divisions each with
their own headquarters, stations and outposts as summarized in Table 6-20.

Table 6-20 Policing Divisions in Guyana

Division Geographic Area Headquarters Number of Number of
Location Stations Outposts
A City of Georgetown and the East Bank Brickdam, 9 7
of the Demerara River including the Georgetown
Cheddi Jagan International Airport,
Timehri, 25 miles from Georgetown.
B County of Berbice but excluding Coburg Street, 12 5
Kwakani. New Amsterdam
C County of Demerara, East of the Cove & John, 8 4
Demerara River but excluding A East Coast
Division. Demerara
D County of Demerara, West of the Leonora, West 6 1
Demerara River and a portion of the Coast Demerara
East Bank of the Essequibo.
E&F Upper Demerara including the area Rabbit Walk, Eve 30 6
surrounding the bauxite holdings of Leary,
Linden, Ituni and Kwakani and the Georgetown
Interior.
G Essequibo Coast including the islands Anna Regina, 6 0
of the Essequibo and Pomeroon Rivers. Essequibo Coast

Figure 6-48 shows the locations of 35 (approximately 50 percent) of the total reported police
stations in Guyana enumerated in the table above (locational data were not available for the
interior outpost locations).

May 2017 215

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-48 Locations of Security Facilities in Immediate Vicinity of Guyana’s Coast

* NOTE: Map does not represent a depiction of the maritime boundary lines of Guyana.

May 2017 216

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.10 Cultural Heritage

6.3.10.1 Underwater Cultural Heritage

Prior to EEPGL’s interest in the Stabroek Block, no previous cultural surveys had been
undertaken within the vicinity of the PDA. EEPGL retained Fugro Marine Geoservices, Inc.
(Fugro) to conduct a geophysical and remote sensing survey of the seafloor within the PDA to
identify the occurrence of any potential cultural resources that may impact, or be impacted by,
the design and placement of planned subsea equipment for the Project. Remote sensing surveys
employ various instruments that use high and/or low frequency sound waves to collect
information from the seafloor. This survey used several of these including:
 Multi-beam echo sounders (MBES), which collect bathymetric data via a wide band of high-
frequency sound waves and can detect abnormal shapes (which could potentially include
objects of cultural interest) against the surrounding landscape (both AUV and hull mounted
used);
 Side scan sonars (SSS), which employ high frequency sound waves to collect textural data
from the seafloor and provide high resolution images of objects on the seafloor surface
(AUV mounted); and
 Sub-bottom profilers (SBP), which collect data on subsurface sediments and objects located
beneath the seafloor via low frequency sound waves and are capable of locating buried
shipwrecks beneath the seafloor surface (both AUV and hull mounted used).

Submerged archaeological sites are not expected in waters deeper than approximately 125 m
(~410 ft), which was the approximate sea level during the Last Glacial Maximum (20,000 years
before present). Since all Project components with the potential to disturb the seafloor would be
deeper than approximately 125 m (~410 ft), the only potential cultural resources in the Project
area are man-made objects that have sunk, most notably shipwrecks.
Fugro’s Offshore survey operations employed AUV mounted, high-resolution, multi-beam echo
sounder (MBES), side-scan sonar (SSS), chirp sub-bottom profiler (SBP), and digital camera, as
well as hull mounted MBES and SBP units. The remote sensing instruments utilized and the
settings employed for each instrument are provided in Table 6-21. The survey was divided into
three areas: the Liza Field Development (Main AUV Survey) Area; the Upper Slope and Outer
Shelf Reconnaissance (USOS Survey) Area; and the Skipjack Survey Area.

May 2017 217

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Table 6-21 Remote Sensing Instruments and Survey Settings

Type of Model Survey Settings Hull or AUV Survey Areas in
Instrument Mounted which Equipment
was Used
MBES Kongsberg EM2040 Frequency of AUV Main AUV Survey
bathymetric system 200kHz swath Mounted Area/Where
coverage of 150 Possible in USOS
degrees Survey Area/
Skipjack Area
Kongsberg EM302 Frequency of Hull USOS Survey
bathymetric system 30kHz Mounted Area
SSS EdgeTech model 2200 Dual Frequencies AUV Main AUV Survey
full-spectrum system of 105kHz and Mounted Area/Where
410kHz Possible in USOS
Survey
Area/Skipjack
Area
SBP EdgeTech model DW- Frequency Range of AUV Main AUV Survey
106 full spectrum 1kHz to 10kHz Mounted Area/Where
system Possible in USOS
Survey Area/
Skipjack Area
EdgeTech 3300 full Frequency Range of Hull USOS Survey
spectrum system 1kHz to 10kHz Mounted Area
Underwater Prosilica Allied Vision 35 millimeter AUV As Needed for
Digital Camera GE4000 digital imagery, Mounted Ground Truthing
~8 m (~26 ft) above in all Survey
seafloor Areas

ERM assessed Fugro’s remote sensing survey methodology, including the remote sensing
equipment and instrument settings employed and the results produced, according to
internationally recognized standards. ERM found that the methods used by Fugro and the
results yielded by their survey are sufficient to provide existing cultural heritage data for the
area of anticipated impact, as the methodology and quality of data produced met the guidelines
and requirements for near and offshore remote sensing cultural surveys as defined by the U.S.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the English Heritage, whose, guidelines
together help frame “internationally recognized practices” for remote sensing surveys designed
to locate and assess cultural heritage.
The survey was divided into three areas: the Liza Field Development (Main AUV Survey) Area;
the Upper Slope and Outer Shelf Reconnaissance (USOS Survey) Area; and the Skipjack Survey
Area. The main AUV Survey identified 73 Side Scan Sonar Targets (UD01- UD073), which were
assessed for their potential as marine hazards and/or cultural resources. The targets ranged
from approximately 0.5 m to 10.5 m wide, and from approximately 2 m to 27 m long. Only three
targets, UD03, UD06, and UD070 possessed recordable height, measuring approximately 0.75
m, 1 m, and 0.5 m tall, respectively. However, none of these three targets possess shapes or
other characteristics that might suggest they are culturally sensitive objects (e.g., shipwrecks),

May 2017 218

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

and upon closer inspection all three targets are thought to be either pieces of debris or
geological formations. Based on an analysis of the geophysical and remote sensing data, Fugro
concluded that:
 One of the targets (SC17) was initially considered to be a possible vessel and thus was
subjected to follow up surveys using high frequency SSS and digital photography. During
this second inspection, however, target SC17 could not be relocated, though the seafloor at
its previously recorded location showed signs of the object having moved downslope (drag
scars). This indicates that the object is not culturally sensitive because, even if it were a
cultural resource, it no longer maintains its original context (greatly diminishing its
potential research value) (Figure 6-50);
 Another of the targets (SC110) was initially thought to be a potential vessel, but upon
second inspection was identified as likely being a fishing net (Figure 6-51); and
 The remaining 71 targets in the main AUV Survey area were judged to be modern debris
(e.g., debris associated with previous well development projects, cable laying efforts) or
geological features (e.g., rock clusters or formations) of no significant cultural value. As
examples of modern debris, three of the targets, UD08, UD011, and UD021 (Figure 6-49),
were interpreted as discarded chain or cable coils.

In summary, upon review of the SSS imagery and data collected, ERM concluded that these 73
SSS targets are likely modern debris, fishing nets, chain or cable coils, or geological features of
no significant cultural value.
Figure 6-49 SSS Targets UD08, UD011, and UD021 Found within the Main AUV Survey Area

May 2017 219

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

Figure 6-50 SSS Target SC17 in the Main AUV Survey Area

Figure 6-51 SSS Target SC110 in the Main AUV Survey Area

Remote sensing efforts in the USOS Survey Area revealed no discernable objects, either
geological or man-made in origin, and thus it was concluded that there are no cultural concerns
for the USOS Survey Area.
Ten SSS targets were identified in the SkipJack Survey Area, each of which appeared linear in
shape, with lengths ranging from approximately 4 m to 78 m (~13 ft to 256 ft), widths ranging
from approximately 1 m to 5.5 m (~3 ft to 18 ft), and no measureable heights (Figure 6-52). None
of these targets were concluded to represent culturally significant objects, and are likely to be
either geological formations or modern debris. In addition, a series of subtle reflections in the
SSS data located in the southeast portion of the Skipjack Survey Area are understood to
represent the Suriname-Guyana Submarine Cable System (SGSCS) Trinidad-Guyana cable.

May 2017 220

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

These reflections run approximately 950 m (~3,116 ft) to the southeast and parallel to the
reported as-built position of the SGSCS Trinidad-Guyana cable. The presence of this cable
accounts for the presence of discarded cable or chain remains located within the main AUV
survey area.
Figure 6-52 SSS Mosaic Showing SSS Targets, Including the Potential SGSCS Trinidad-
Guyana Cable, in the Skipjack Survey Area

6.3.10.2 Coastal Cultural Heritage

Maps obtained from the Guyana National Trust also show the presence of several shell mounds,
seashell deposits, quarries, and ceramic/pottery sites (i.e., scatters) along the Atlantic coast of
Guyana, including archaeological sites found near Moruka, Uitvlugt, Stewartville, and Leonora.
These sites are of significant cultural value to both the people of Guyana as well as researchers
from other parts of the world, as they offer insight into the material culture of native peoples
inhabiting the land before, during, and after contact with Europeans. However, only two of the
ceramic/pottery sites on the maps are shown to be located near the shoreline.

May 2017 221

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.11 Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are typically defined as the benefits that people obtain from the natural
environment, including natural resources that underpin basic human health and survival needs,
support economic activities, and provide cultural fulfilment.
Ecosystem services are divided into provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services.
Each of these is defined below (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA], 2005).
 Provisioning services: Goods or products obtained from ecosystems such as food,
freshwater, timber, fiber, and other goods.
 Regulating services: Benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes such
as climate, water flow, disease regulation, pollination, and protection from natural hazards.
 Cultural services: Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems such as recreation,
spiritual values, and aesthetic enjoyment.
 Supporting services: Natural processes such as erosion control, soil formation, nutrient
cycling, and primary productivity that maintain other services.

Review of information indicates that the marine and coastal environments in Guyana provide
all four categories of ecosystem services, some of which are critical for the wellbeing and
livelihoods of coastal communities. These are described by category below.

6.3.11.1 Provisioning Services

As described above, marine fishing for various species of fish and shellfish is a vital source of
protein and income to coastal communities. In addition to cultivated agriculture, communities
in the coastal area (particularly Amerindian communities in Region 1) harvest a range of
naturally occurring resources for household use and sale. This includes coconuts, manicole
(heart of palm), mangrove bark, timber, tuli palm used for roof thatch, and crabwood seeds that
are processed to make crabwood oil. Fishing, crabbing, and shrimping also occur on a small
scale in the mangroves. There is also potential for apiculture in the mangroves. There are
currently five apiaries with a total of 100 beehives in Region 1, and seven apiaries with a total of
120 beehives in Region 2. However, it is not clear whether any of these are located in mangrove
forests. In Regions 4, 5, and 6, apiculture does occur in mangroves (Ministry of Agriculture,
2016). Despite their protected status, sea turtles and their eggs are sometimes poached in the
coastal area (ERM Personal Communication 11).

6.3.11.2 Regulating Services

One of the most important regulating services provided by coastal ecosystems is shoreline and
flood protection. Guyana’s coastal plain is vulnerable to coastal flooding due to its low
elevation, and mangrove forests with their dense root systems are an important component of
the country’s natural and manmade sea defense system. Mangroves also filter sediments,
protecting sensitive seagrass beds from being smothered.

May 2017 222

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

6.3.11.3 Cultural Services

Throughout Guyana’s populated coastal regions, the seashore is often utilized in religious
Hindu funeral and cleansing ceremonies. The Hindu community in Guyana has a number of
crematoriums along the coast, and ashes are disposed in the ocean as part of funeral
ceremonies. In addition, prayer and bathing ceremonies are performed informally by members
of the Hindu community year round, but especially during the holy festival of Kartik Snan,
which occurs in October or November each year (ERM Personal Communication 12).
Some members of African ethnic organizations also make use of the seashore to commemorate
African Holocaust day at the Kingston Seawall in Georgetown, as well as other spiritual and
religious events (ERM Personal Communication 13).
Although infrastructure in the area is not well developed and tourism activity is limited, the
SBPA has high aesthetic and educational value and potential for ecotourism due to its
importance as a sea turtle nesting area.

6.3.11.4 Supporting Services

Mangrove forests along the coast play an active role in nutrient cycling and act as nurseries for
ecologically and commercially important fish and shellfish species. Mangrove and other coastal
ecosystems such as brackish lagoons, brackish herbaceous swamps, and swamp forests also
provide habitat for a diversity of flora and fauna, including those with tourism value and
potential, such as migratory shorebirds (WWF, 2016).

May 2017 223

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 6
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Description of the Existing Environment

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017 224

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This chapter of the EIA discusses direct, indirect, and induced impacts that could occur as a
result of the Project. Sections 7.1 through 7.3 discuss impacts that are expected to occur due to
planned Project activities. Section 7.4 discusses impacts that are not expected to occur, but could
potentially occur due to unplanned events.
As described in Chapter 4, this impact assessment was performed using the methodology of the
ERM Impact Assessment Standard. This methodology takes into consideration both the
magnitude of an impact and the sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the impacted
resource/receptor to determine the significance of the impact (see Figure 7-1); the methodology
is described in more detail in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 7, the potential impacts to resources/receptors are described. For each potential
impact, the impact magnitude and resource/receptor sensitivity/vulnerability/importance are
characterized and assigned ratings as noted in Figure 7-1. Once these ratings are assigned, the
matrix is used to determine the impact significance.
Figure 7-1 is annotated to show an example of a potential impact (considering embedded
controls that are part of the Project design, but not yet considering any proposed mitigation
measures) that is assigned a magnitude of Small and for which the resource has been
characterized as having a Medium sensitivity. The resulting impact significance (which is
termed the “pre-mitigation significance” is therefore determined to be Minor (as shown by the
dashed circle). If a mitigation measure were to be proposed such that it reduced the impact
magnitude to Negligible, for example, the impact significance would be reduced to Negligible
(as shown by the solid circle). As described in Chapter 4, positive impacts (i.e., benefits) are not
assigned magnitude ratings and the impact significance is simply expressed as Positive.
Figure 7-1 Evaluation of Impact Significance

The impact assessment covers the Project stages described in Chapter 2 (i.e., drilling and
installation, hook-up and commissioning, production operations, and decommissioning). The
nature of activities comprising the hook-up and commissioning stage are such that all potential
impacts associated with this stage are also associated with at least one other Project stage.
Accordingly, this impact assessment focuses on potential impacts associated with the other
three stages (drilling and installation, production operations, and decommissioning), and this
effectively also addresses impacts associated with the hook-up and commissioning stage.

May 2017 225

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

It is also noted that not all resources/receptors have potential impacts associated with every one
of these three Project stages. Accordingly, there are instances where a particular Project stage is
not discussed with respect to a resource/receptor.

7.1 Physical Resources

For the purposes of this EIA, “physical resources” are intended to include non-biological
natural resources.

7.1.1 Air Quality and Climate

7.1.1.1 Introduction

This section addresses potential impacts on air quality due to emissions resulting from Project
activities. Additionally, while potential climate impacts are more of a global concern from
cumulative worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the section addresses potential
impacts on climate from Project GHG emissions. The key potential impacts assessed include
increases in ambient concentrations of pollutants as a result of stationary and mobile
combustion sources associated with the Project, and GHG emissions from these same sources.

7.1.1.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Emissions generated by the Project generally emanate from two source categories: a) specific
point sources such as the power generating units and diesel engines on drill ships and on the
FPSO, flares used (non-routinely) to combust produced gas when not consumed as fuel gas on
the FPSO or injected back into the Liza reservoir, vents and onboard incineration of wastes; and
b) general area sources such as support vessels, installation vessels, tug boats, and helicopters.
Such emissions contribute to increases in the ambient air concentrations of certain pollutants.
Depending on the magnitude and extent of the increases relative to the location of potential
receptors onshore in Guyana, the increases may have the potential to contribute to health
impacts. Because air quality for Project workers will be addressed through standard
occupational exposure guidelines, the air quality impact assessment was limited in
consideration to these potential onshore receptors. With respect to climate, the combustion of
hydrocarbons in support of Project activities will generate GHG emissions. While the GHG
emissions from the Project have been estimated with an acceptable level of confidence, the
potential influence of those GHG emissions on global climate change is not measurable with an
acceptable level of confidence and, therefore, is not addressed in this EIA.
Table 7-1 summarizes potential Project impacts on air quality and climate.

May 2017 226

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-1 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Air Quality and Climate
Stage Project Activity Resource Key Potential Impacts
 Increased concentrations of
Ambient air quality
pollutants in ambient air,
Operation of drill ships (onshore population
potentially contributing to health
(power generation and as receptors)
Drilling and impacts in onshore receptors.
engines), marine support
Installation  Increased emissions of GHGs,
and installation vessels,
potentially contributing to
and support aircraft. Climate
climate impacts* (more of a
global concern).
 Increased concentrations of
Operation of FPSO Ambient air quality
pollutants in ambient air,
(power generation and (onshore population
potentially contributing to health
engines), marine support as receptors)
Production impacts in onshore receptors.
vessels, and support
Operations  Increased emissions of GHGs,
aircraft; temporary, non-
potentially contributing to
routine flaring of gas Climate
climate impacts* (more of a
when not re-injected.
global concern).

*Please see discussion in Section 7.1.1.2

7.1.1.3 Characterization of Impacts – Air Quality

Magnitude of Impact – Air Quality
Project Emissions

Emissions to air from the Project have been estimated based on a number of factors including
activity levels, fuel type, equipment capacities, and standard emission factors that are published
by the USEPA in the publication AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). As
described in AP-42, an emission factor is a representative value that relates the quantity of a
pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that
pollutant. These factors are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit
weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant (e.g., milligrams of
NOx emitted per cubic meter of natural gas combusted). The use of these factors allows
estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution. In most cases, these factors are
averages of available data of an acceptable quality, and are generally assumed to be
representative of long-term averages for a particular type of source.
Table 7-2 provides a summary of expected annual emissions from various Project activities for
three time periods: 2018-2019 (development drilling, SURF installation and commissioning, and
operation of related support vessels); 2020-2021 (drilling, FPSO startup and associated
temporary, non-routine flaring, beginning of production operations, tanker loading); and 2022-
2040 (production operations following cessation of drilling, including temporary, non-routine
flaring, operation of support vessels, and tanker loading). For each of the time periods following
2019, the annual emissions summarized in Table 7-2 represent the maximum anticipated for any
one year during that time period. While there are some differences in emissions for different

May 2017 227

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

years within the time periods, they are relatively minor and the use of maximum emissions for
the impact assessment provides a degree of conservatism in the results.

Table 7-2 Annual Air Emissions Summary

Pollutant Source Category Annual Emissions
(Tonnes unless otherwise specified)
2018-2019 2020-2021 2022-2040
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
FPSO 0 1,635 1,545
FPSO Flaring (temporary, non-routine) 0 375 175
Tanker Loading 0 135 140
Area Sources 2,385 1,125 1,125
Drill ship 1,255 1,670 0
Total 3,640 4,945 2,975
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
FPSO 0 45 50
FPSO Flaring (temporary, non-routine) 0 0 5
Tanker Loading 0 110 115
Area Sources 85 40 40
Drill Ship 45 60 0
Total 130 250 205
Particulate matter (PM)
FPSO 0 45 35
FPSO Flaring (temporary, non-routine) 0 15 5
Tanker Loading 0 10 10
Area Sources 170 80 80
Drill Ship 90 120 0
Total 260 210 130
Carbon monoxide (CO)
FPSO 0 425 405
FPSO Flaring (temporary, non-routine) 0 2,030 940

Tanker Loading 0 30 30
Area Sources 500 235 235
Drill ship 265 350 0
Total 765 3,070 1,610

May 2017 228

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Pollutant Source Category Annual Emissions

(Tonnes unless otherwise specified)
2018-2019 2020-2021 2022-2040
Other Pollutants
Hydrogen Sulfide FPSO Flaring (temporary, non-routine) n/a <1 <1
(H2S)

Volatile Organic All Sources 95 10,250 10,720

Compounds (VOCs)
Greenhouse Gases All Sources 195 1,510 980
(GHGs [kilotonnes
CO2-equivalents])
Notes:
1. The annual estimated totals generally reflect the current preliminary Project schedule (see Section 2.14), which
could change.
2. VOC emissions are shown in this table but were not included in the impact assessment modeling, as no ambient
air quality criteria have been established for these substances.
3. PM emissions represent total PM; for the purpose of the impact assessment, the total PM values were used for
modeling of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions (producing conservatively high modeling results).
4. The emission rates in this table reflect annual totals. In some cases, the activities generating the emission are not
continuous during the year, or do not operate at full capacity throughout the year. For these sources, the annual
emissions estimates reflect this non-continuous operation over the year. However, for the purpose of modeling
conducted to compare with short-term (up to 24-hour) guidelines, activities were assumed to be operating at full
capacity for the simulated period, to reflect maximum short-term emission rates.

Ambient Air Quality Guidelines and Concentrations

Ambient air quality guidelines are concentration levels in air that are established by governing
authorities to protect human health in locations where exposure can occur. These generally
include a margin of safety to ensure that vulnerable individuals are also protected. Guyana has
not established specific ambient air quality standards (AQSs); therefore, the guidelines used for
reference in this assessment were those established by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The WHO guidelines are summarized in Table 7-3. These guidelines were published in WHO
Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide - Global
Update 2005 (WHO, 2005) except for CO and H2S, which were published in WHO Air Quality
Guidelines for Europe, 2nd edition, 2000 (WHO, 2000).
Existing air quality is discussed in Section 6.1.1. A concentration value of 2.5 µg/m3 for PM2.5
(from a Yale University 2015 study) was identified for air quality onshore Guyana. No values
were found in the literature for existing onshore air quality for the other substances modeled.
However, Yale University (2016) published a report that ranked Guyana 6th (from the best) out
of 180 countries in air quality. Accordingly, it was concluded that onshore Guyana is an
undegraded airshed for the purpose of impact assessment process (see below).

May 2017 229

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-3 WHO Ambient Air Quality Guidelines

Pollutant Averaging Period Guideline Concentration
(μg/m3)
1-hour 200
NO2
Annual 40
10-minute 500
SO2
24-hour 20
24-hour 50
PM10
Annual 20
24-hour 25
PM2.5
Annual 10
1-hour 30,000
CO
8-hour 10,000
H2S 30-minute 7

Air Quality Dispersion Modeling

Air dispersion modeling was carried out to assess air quality impacts for onshore human
receptors. The key elements of the modeling are discussed below, including receptors, source
inputs, model selection, and meteorological data.
Receptors: A grid of potential receptor points was established for onshore areas in the Project
AOI. The intent of this grid was to identify maximum predicted pollutant concentrations
generated by the Project across the onshore portion of the Project AOI. The methodology
utilized was to predict maximum concentrations at all of the onshore grid points using the
dispersion model, and then to compare these maximum values to concentrations that may
potentially result in significant impacts; if the maximum predicted concentrations are
determined to be not significant, it follows that air quality impacts on any specific receptors
throughout the onshore Project AOI also would be not significant. For this reason specific
locations of sensitive receptors were not identified at the onset of modeling.
Sources: With regard to source characteristics, point sources were modeled with fixed stack
parameters including physical dimensions and exhaust characteristics. Flares were also modeled
as stacks, with additional calculations applied to adjust the release height and stack parameter to
account for increased thermal buoyancy associated with the high temperature of the flare. All of
the emissions sources on the FPSO were conservatively modeled at a single location
(representing the highest predicted ambient air concentration scenario). Area sources (without
fixed locations) were modeled in a fashion to represent their transit across planned travel areas.
For example, support vessels and helicopters were assumed to operate and generate emissions
within the PDA and also to transit between the shore at Georgetown and the PDA. There is a
potential that additional support vessels for some stages of the Project may transit between
Trinidad and Tobago and the PDA; however, based on the low level of emissions contributed
by support vessel/helicopter traffic, relative to emissions from sources in the PDA, and the
expectation that most support vessel/helicopter traffic will originate from Guyana shorebase

May 2017 230

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

facilities, modeling of support vessel area sources was limited to vessels transiting between
Guyana and the PDA.
Figure 7-2 displays the modeling domain used in this analysis, showing the locations of the
main Project point sources (the FPSO and the drill centers), and of the area sources (including
support vessels, helicopters, installation vessels, and other sources without a fixed location), as
configured for the modeling. Terrain elevations used in the modeling are also depicted on this
figure.
Model Selection: The CALPUFF model (a non-steady-state model used in the U.S. and around the
globe for long-range transport and complex wind modeling) was selected for use in the
assessment. CALPUFF is a Lagrangian “puff” model that treats a plume as a series of puffs that
it tracks as the wind carries the plume towards potential receptor locations. CALPUFF is also
capable of modeling near-field impacts.
The selection of CALPUFF was based on the long distance between the principal Project-related
sources and the receptors. As shown on Figure 7-2, the distance from the PDA to the closest
shoreline is greater than 190 kilometers. At this distance, emission plumes released from Project
point sources would travel for 10 hours, assuming an average wind speed of 5 meters/second
(typical for the area). During this transport time winds can change direction and speed.
Accordingly, prediction of plume dispersion is most appropriately accomplished with a non-
steady state model.

May 2017 231

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-2 Air Quality Modeling Domain

Meteorological Data: The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model was used to develop
hourly meteorology inputs for CALPUFF for one year – calendar year 2014. WRF is a prognostic
meteorological model that creates profiles of winds and temperature at grid points across a
domain. The grid spacing chosen for this analysis was 12 km, so that a two-dimensional profile
of hourly winds and temperature was developed every 12 km within the domain shown on
Figure 7-2. The profiles were used by CALPUFF to simulate the transport and dispersion of
emission plumes from Project sources, allowing the model to calculate ambient constituent
concentrations at potential receptor locations.

Predicted Ambient Air Concentrations

Using the methodology described above, modeling was conducted with CALPUFF to estimate
maximum ambient concentrations of Project-generated constituents of interest at potential
onshore receptor locations. Model results were developed for each modeled constituent, for
each averaging period with an associated WHO guideline concentration (Table 7-3). Results are
summarized in Table 7-4.

May 2017 232

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-4 Modeling Results Summary at Potential Onshore Receptor Locations

Pollutant Averaging Guideline Maximum Predicted Percent of WHO Guideline
Period Concentration Concentration (μg/m3)
(μg/m3) 2018- 2020- 2022- 2018-2019 2020-2021 2022-2040
2019 2021 2040

1-hour 200 1.3 2.1 1.5 0.6% 1.0% 0.7%

NO2
Annual 40 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3% 0.4% 0.2%
10-minute 500 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
SO2
24-hour 20 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1% 0.9% 0.9%
24-hour 50 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
PM10
Annual 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
24-hour 25 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
PM2.5
Annual 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1-hour 30,000 0.3 2.6 2.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
CO
8-hour 10,000 0.3 1.5 1.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
H2S 30-minute 7 n/a n/a 0.00002 n/a n/a 0.0002%

The magnitude rating for air quality is determined on the basis of two factors:
 The increase in pollutant concentrations in air as a result of the Project (Project Contribution
– “PC”); and
 The total air pollutant concentrations arising as a result of the PC added to the existing
conditions (the Predicted Environmental Concentration – “PEC”).

The PC and PEC are considered in the context of the relevant WHO air quality guidelines. Once
the PC and PEC have been estimated, there are a number of approaches that may be used to
determine the magnitude of impact. In jurisdictions such as Guyana that do not have specified
approaches, the most commonly used is based upon guidance from the International Finance
Corporation (IFC). This approach is set out below on Figure 7-3.

As shown in Table 7-4, for all the modeled constituents, the maximum onshore concentrations
predicted to result from Project activities are negligible relative to WHO guidelines (all less than
or equal to 1 percent of the AQS). Accordingly, a magnitude rating of Negligible was assigned
for impacts on air quality.

May 2017 233

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-3 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts on Air Quality

Undegraded airshed = environmental conditions where no existing concentrations exceed a specific air quality
guideline (coastal Guyana is considered an undegraded airshed based on the existing concentrations presented above).

Sensitivity of Resource – Air Quality

The standard approach taken assumes that the sensitivity for human health within the general
population is ‘Medium’. This is on the basis that, as air quality standards are set to protect the
most vulnerable individuals in society, there is inherently a margin of safety within air quality
standards. There are a small number of specific cases where the sensitivity may be defined as
‘High’; these cases include where there are particularly vulnerable individuals (e.g., a hospital
where there are intensive care wards and high-dependency wards where patients will be
particularly sensitive to air pollution).
As such, the airshed at all potential onshore receptor locations would be either a Medium or a
High sensitivity rating.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of impacts
on air quality for all receptors is Negligible. Based on this rating, no mitigation is
recommended.

May 2017 234

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.1.1.4 Characterization of Impacts – Climate

Table 7-5 summarizes the estimated annual GHG emissions for the Project throughout the
projected Project lifecycle.

Table 7-5 Estimated Annual Project GHG Emissions

Estimated Annual GHG Emissions
in kilotonnes CO2-equivalents
2018-2019 2020-2021 2022-2040
All Project Activities 195 1,510 980
Notes:
1. The annual estimated totals generally reflect the current preliminary Project schedule (see Section 2.14), which
could change.

As potential climate impacts are more of a global concern from cumulative worldwide GHG
emissions, as opposed to concern for a local airshed, modeling of GHG emissions is typically
not performed as part of an EIA for a proposed project. Additionally, as there are no applicable
regulatory criteria to which GHG emissions can be compared, this impact was not assigned
magnitude and sensitivity ratings. However, EEPGL environmental performance monitoring
and reporting management systems are in line with international good practice methods with
respect to GHG management. EEPGL will quantify direct Project GHG emissions from the
Project facilities and equipment utilized within the Project AOI. Quantification of GHG
emissions will be conducted annually in accordance with internationally recognized
methodologies and good practice.

7.1.1.5 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

Table 7-6 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on air quality and climate, and the impact significance rating resulting
therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment
methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

May 2017 235

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-6 Air Quality and Climate - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings
Stage Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-mitigation Proposed Residual
Receptor – Significance Mitigation Significance
Impact Rating Measures Rating
All Project Ambient air Negligible Medium or Negligible None Negligible
stages quality – High
increased (assumed)
concentrations
of pollutants in
ambient air,
potentially
contributing to
health impacts
in onshore
human
receptors
All Project Climate – NR NR NR (a) NR
stages increased GHG
concentrations,
potentially
contributing to
climate impacts
NR = not rated
(a) EEPGL will quantify and report GHG emissions to the EPA consistent with international guidelines.

7.1.2 Sound
As indicated in Section 6.1.2, the Project would not be expected to result in significant airborne
sound impacts or ground-borne vibration impacts due to the distance between Project sound
sources and onshore communities and receptors (the Stabroek Block is approximately 190 km
offshore). The only airborne sound receptors will be workers onboard the FPSO, drill ships, and
other Project-associated vessels. With respect to worker protection, EEPGL will utilize industry
standard engineering and administrative controls for sound mitigation, and will monitor sound
levels and provide appropriate hearing protection PPE for workers as needed. Therefore, the
Project’s potential impacts from airborne sound and ground-borne vibration were not assessed.
Potential impacts from Project-related underwater sound are discussed with respect to potential
marine life receptors (in Sections 7.2.5 and 7.2.7).

7.1.3 Marine Geology and Sediments

7.1.3.1 Introduction

This section describes the assessment of potential impacts on marine geology and sediments.
The potential impacts assessed include changes to seafloor morphology from accumulation of
discharged drill cuttings on the seafloor and changes to sediment quality from the residual
hydrocarbon contained on the discharged drill cuttings.

May 2017 236

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

During installation of the FPSO and SURF components, there would be some localized
disturbance of sediments in a limited area; however, this impact would be negligible with
respect to the seafloor morphology. Additional discussion regarding potential impacts on
marine benthos from these activities is provided in Section 7.2.8, Marine Benthos. No impacts
on marine geology and sediments would be expected as a result of activities associated with
production operations or decommissioning.

7.1.3.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The process of drilling the wells will produce drill cuttings that are discharged either directly to
the seafloor (in open hole sections drilled riserless and with seawater) or from the drill ship into
the ocean (in hole sections drilled with a riser) after treatment (i.e., solids control and centrifugal
cuttings dryer system). The planned development drilling program and its cuttings
management approach is consistent with industry practices and protective of the environment.
For each well, approximately 2,600 bbl of cuttings for the open hole sections will be discharged
to the sea without treatment per standard industry practice, as these sections are drilled using
WBDF instead of NADF. For sections drilled with a riser, approximately 3,300 bbl of cuttings
(per well) discharged from the drill ship into the ocean would first be treated to remove
associated drilling fluids to acceptable discharge thresholds. EEPGL will utilize a cuttings dryer
that incorporates a high-speed centrifuge to achieve high liquids/solids separation, reducing
waste volumes. Planned discharges of drill cuttings and fluids will locally impact the marine
sediment layer as a result of accumulation of cuttings on the seafloor. Cuttings will accumulate
on the seafloor around the well locations, with the distribution of deposition determined by
oceanographic conditions.
Table 7-7 summarizes potential Project impacts on marine geology and sediments.

Table 7-7 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Geology and Sediments
Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
 Changes to seafloor morphology from
Discharge of drill cuttings
accumulated drill cuttings
during drilling of wells, and
Drilling and Installation  Impacts on sediment quality from
resulting deposition of
residual hydrocarbon on discharged
cuttings on the seafloor
cuttings
No planned Project activities
associated with Production
Production Operations Operations or
Decommissioning are  None anticipated
Decommissioning expected to result in impacts
to Marine Geology and
Sediments

May 2017 237

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.1.3.3 Characterization of Impacts

Drill Cuttings Deposition Modeling

Modeling of the deposition of cuttings and fluids was performed using the Generalized
Integrated Fate and Transport (GEMSS-GIFT) model. This three-dimensional, particle-based
model uses Lagrangian algorithms in conjunction with currents, specified mass load rates,
release times and locations, particle size distributions, settling velocities, and shear stress values
to calculate the fate and transport of discharged drill cuttings. Model outputs provide estimates
of the thickness of deposits on the seafloor, and the mass distribution of base hydrocarbon
(adhered to the cuttings) across the seafloor.
Four scenarios were modeled, considering the drill centers with the shallowest and deepest
water depths (DC1-I and DC2-I, respectively), each under two current conditions: the minimum
and the maximum of the monthly-averaged and depth-averaged current speeds. These current
speeds were derived from the SAT-OCEAN ocean circulation models. To provide a
conservatively high estimate of the potential accumulation rate, modeling was conducted
assuming cuttings from the open hole sections (containing WBDF) will be discharged at the
seafloor (as noted above, these cuttings may alternatively be discharged from the drill ship prior
to treatment).
Table 7-8 summarizes the results of the modeling for the four drill cuttings discharge scenarios.
Releases deeper in the water column at DC2-I traveled less distance and therefore resulted in a
smaller depositional footprint since the currents near the seafloor were slower than currents
near the seafloor at DC1-I. Higher current velocities near the surface at DC1-I also contributed
to a larger overall footprint size.

Table 7-8 Summary of Modeling Results for Drill Cuttings Discharge Scenarios
Scenario Total Area (m2) with Total Area (m²) with
Thickness >1 cm Thickness > 5 cm
1a
DC1-I (shallowest water depth); Min Currents 23,928 4,575

1b
14,725 5,815
DC1-I; Max Currents
2a
3,801 1,442
DC2-I (deepest water depth); Min Currents
2b
4,056 1,590
DC2-I; Max Currents

May 2017 238

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Magnitude of Impact – Sediment Morphology

Modeling of cuttings discharge and deposition indicates the maximum depositional thickness of
cuttings on the seafloor is predicted to be between 19 cm and 75 cm, depending on currents and
well location. The cuttings for the initial open hole sections settle relatively close to the well, as
they are discharged at the seafloor. In contrast the cuttings for the lower well sections are
subjected to greater dispersion as they are distributed by the currents during their settling from
near the sea surface. A literature-based deposition threshold of 5 cm per month (Ellis and Heim
1985; MarLIN 2011) was used to assess the extent of the area with the potential to impact
benthic organisms via smothering (an indirect impact resulting from impacts on marine
sediment morphology, further discussed in Section 7.2.8). This threshold represents the
accumulation rate above which benthic organisms would be expected to be unable to overcome
the rate of deposition and become smothered, thereby limiting their mobility and access to
oxygen. Modeling predicts the extent of cuttings deposition above this threshold is confined to
within a relatively short distance from the well location, with the largest modeled area
predicted to be approximately 43 m in diameter. Deposition thicknesses decrease rapidly with
increasing distance from the well. Although the 1 cm thickness does not represent an impact
threshold, Table 7-8, also shows the predicted areal coverage of deposition above this level for
each scenario.
While the above results are expressed in terms of total depositional thickness at completion of
drilling of the well, it is appropriate to compare these total thicknesses to the deposition
threshold (rate) of 5 cm per month. This is based on the fact that the modeling was conducted
assuming a constant well completion rate that simulates even the deepest of the modeled wells
being completed in approximately 21 days. In reality, it is likely there will be some pauses and
delays during the drilling of a well, meaning the actual drilling duration likely will be greater
than 21 days. Under the assumption that a subsequent well at a given drill center would not be
started any sooner than 30 days after the start of the previous well at that drill center, the total
depositional thicknesses therefore represent a conservatively high estimate of the average
depositional rate across a full month.
In terms of a magnitude rating, the impact on sediment morphology was viewed in the context
of the resources’ overall functionality with respect to providing a habitat for benthic organisms.
In this sense, the magnitude rating is expressed based on the fraction of the overall resource
being impacted at any one time by the Project. Assuming no more than two drill ships could be
drilling at any one time, the conservative approach is therefore to double the highest total area
results from Table 7-8, to reflect the largest area predicted to be subjected to a cuttings
deposition rate greater than 5 cm per month at any one time. This results in a predicted area of
approximately 11,600 m2 (~124,860 ft2), which represents approximately 0.00004 percent of the
area of the Stabroek Block. Further, as described above, the currents are expected to redistribute
the cuttings away from their initial deposition sites over time, gradually reducing their
thickness on the seafloor at these locations. Considering the extremely limited scale of impact
relative to the overall sediment resource of the Stabroek Block, the magnitude of impact on
sediment morphology from drill cutting deposition was rated as Negligible.

May 2017 239

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Sensitivity of Resource – Sediment Morphology

The sensitivity of the overall marine sediment resource to morphology impacts from drill
cuttings deposition is considered Low, as unlike the mud banks offshore Guyana that are of
critical ecological importance as feeding zones for birds, nursery areas for fish, and habitat for a
variety of invertebrates, the deepwater sediments impacted by the drill cuttings discharge do
not support high densities of marine species and are not unique.
A separate consideration was made for the mud banks offshore Guyana; they are of critical
ecological importance as feeding zones for birds, nursery areas for fish, and habitat for a variety
of invertebrates. Thus, they were assigned a sensitivity rating of High.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Sediment Morphology

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of impacts
on sediment morphology is Negligible. Based on this rating, no mitigation is recommended.
With respect to the mud banks, as discussed in Section 6.1.3, these features exist within 40 km
(approximately 25 mi) from the shore (i.e., on the order of approximately 160 km (~100 mi) from
the drilling locations). Based on the results of modeling, the cuttings would not reach the mud
banks; hence, the impact magnitude rating (specifically for the mud banks) is Negligible. Thus,
despite the High sensitivity rating for the mud banks, the Negligible impact magnitude leads
to a significance rating of Negligible for potential morphological impacts on the mud banks.
Based on this rating, no mitigation is recommended.

Magnitude of Impact – Sediment Quality

The embedded controls in the Project design to reduce the impact of drilling discharges on
sediment quality include: use of WBDF to the extent reasonably practicable (for drilling of
initial open hole well sections), and use of IOGP Group III NABF in all other cases. WBDF
contains no hydrocarbons and is less harmful to marine organisms; accordingly, no treatment of
WBDF-based cuttings is required. When NADF is used, the discharge of treated cuttings will be
controlled such that residual base fluid content on discharged cuttings will average 6.9 percent
(wet weight).
The NABF to be used in the NADF by EEPGL will be IOGP Group III with low to negligible
aromatic content, reducing the potential that changes in sediment quality as a result of
discharge of the treated cuttings will lead to toxicological impacts on benthic fauna. While the
magnitude rating assigned for sediment quality was not based on a quantitative calculation, as
was the case for sediment morphology, the calculation presented for sediment morphology
illustrates the extremely low proportion of the Stabroek Block impacted by drill cuttings
deposition. For this reason, and considering the low-toxicity nature of the NADF, the
magnitude of impact is considered Negligible.

May 2017 240

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Sensitivity of Resource – Sediment Quality

As in the case of impacts on sediment morphology from drill cuttings deposition, the sensitivity
of the marine sediment resource to sediment quality impacts from drill cuttings deposition is
considered Low, as unlike the mud banks offshore Guyana that are of critical ecological
importance as feeding zones for birds, nursery areas for fish, and habitat for a variety of
invertebrates, the deepwater sediments impacted by the drill cuttings discharge do not support
high densities of marine species and are not unique.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Sediment Quality

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for sediment
quality impacts. Based on this rating, no mitigation is recommended.

Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

Table 7-9 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on marine geology and sediments, and the impact significance ratings resulting
therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment
methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-9 Marine Geology and Sediments - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings
Stage Resource Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating

Sediment Low
morphology - (drill centers)
from Negligible Negligible None Negligible
accumulated High
drill cuttings (mud banks)

Drilling and
Installation
Sediment Low
quality - from (drill centers)
residual NABF Negligible Negligible None Negligible
on deposited High
drill cuttings (mud banks)

May 2017 241

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Stage Resource Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual

Impact Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating

Production
Operations None
--- --- --- None ---
anticipated
Decommissioning

7.1.4 Marine Water Quality

7.1.4.1 Introduction

This section describes the assessment of potential impacts on marine water quality. The
potential impacts assessed include changes to marine water quality physico-chemical conditions
as a result of the various effluent discharges associated with the Project. The following sub-
sections describe the various discharges for which marine water quality impacts were assessed,
the application of computational models for impact magnitude quantification, and a discussion
of the impact assessment.

7.1.4.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Planned discharges of drill cuttings and fluids may have a localized impact on marine water
quality as a result of increased TSS concentrations in the water column. Cuttings and fluids
released during jetting and drilling of the initial sections of the well will increase TSS
concentrations around the well near the seafloor. Cuttings discharged from the drill ship will
increase TSS concentrations in the photic zone (the more shallow level of the water column).
These increases in TSS may clog fish gills or, in the photic zone, cause light inhibition for
photosynthetic organisms.
During installation and commissioning of SURF equipment, hydrotesting fluids containing
biocides, oxygen scavengers, and corrosion inhibitors, as well as hydrate inhibiting fluid (such
as methanol or ethylene glycol) will be discharged to the sea, resulting in localized changes to
water quality.
The FPSO will have several discharges related to its operation and maintenance during
production operations. The impacts from these discharges include localized changes to water
quality from effluent discharges during production operations, and localized changes to water
temperature from discharge of cooling water effluent.
Table 7-10 summarizes potential Project impacts on marine water quality.

May 2017 242

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-10 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Water Quality
Resource/Receptor Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
Discharge of drill cuttings,  Increased TSS
resulting in increased TSS concentrations in water
concentrations in water column, potentially
column contributing to health
impacts on marine fauna
Liquid effluent discharges  Increased chemical
Drilling and
from drill ships and concentrations in water
Installation
marine installation and column, potentially
support vessels (chemical contributing to health
substances) impacts on marine fauna
Marine water
quality (marine Discharge of hydrotesting
fauna as receptors) fluids
 Increased chemical
concentrations in water
Liquid effluent discharges
column, potentially
from FPSO and marine
contributing to health
support vessels (chemical
Production impacts on marine fauna
substances, and elevated
Operations  Increased temperature in
temperature streams)
water column, potentially
leading to avoidance of
the area by marine fauna

 Increased chemical
Liquid effluent discharges concentrations in water
from marine support column, potentially
Decommissioning
vessels (chemical contributing to health
substances) impacts on marine fauna

7.1.4.3 Characterization of Impacts – Increased TSS from Drill Cuttings Discharge

Magnitude of Impact – Increased TSS from Drill Cuttings Discharge

Modeling of the deposition of cuttings and fluids was performed using the Generalized
Integrated Fate and Transport (GEMSS-GIFT) model. This three-dimensional particle-based
model uses Lagrangian algorithms in conjunction with currents, specified mass load rates,
release times and locations, particle sizes, settling velocities, and shear stress values to calculate
the fate and transport of discharged drill cuttings. Model outputs provide estimates of the TSS
concentrations resulting from the planned discharges.
Four scenarios were modeled, considering the shallowest and deepest water depths of the four
drill centers (DC1-I and DC2-I, respectively), each under two current conditions: the minimum
and the maximum of the monthly-averaged and depth-averaged current speeds. These current
speeds were provided by the SAT-OCEAN ocean circulation model. As was assumed with drill
cutting deposition modeling (Section 7.1.3), modeling of increases in TSS concentrations was

May 2017 243

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

conducted assuming cuttings from the open hole sections (containing WBDF) will be
discharged at the seafloor (as noted above, these cuttings may alternatively be discharged from
the drill ship prior to treatment, per standard industry practice). This was confirmed to be a
conservative assumption, as modeling indicated the highest predicted TSS concentration
increases are associated with seafloor discharge (see results discussion below).
Modeling of cuttings discharge and deposition predicts the maximum TSS concentrations at the
seafloor occurring during drilling of the initial sections of the well would be between
approximately 4,323 micrograms per liter (mg/L) and 9,737 mg/L, depending on currents and
well location. These concentrations correspond to only the initial sections of the well, where
WBDF and cuttings are discharged directly from the casing. In contrast, modeling indicates the
maximum TSS concentrations in the water column for subsequent sections of the well would be
between approximately 1.6 mg/L and 5.3 mg/L, depending on currents and well location.
These concentrations are much lower because drill cuttings and fluids from the subsequent well
sections are treated on the drill ship to remove a substantial amount of the drilling fluid prior to
discharge at the surface. Additionally, the discharges near the surface are also subjected to
greater mixing from the higher current speeds at the shallower depths.
A TSS threshold of 35 mg/L, recommended by MARPOL (IMO, 2006), was used to assess the
extent of the area with the potential to impact photosynthesis via a reduction in light
penetration (an indirect impact resulting from increased TSS concentrations in the water
column). Table 7-11 summarizes the results of the modeling for the four drill cuttings discharge
scenarios.

Table 7-11 Summary of TSS Modeling Results for Drill Cuttings Discharge Scenarios
Scenario Maximum TSS (mg/L) Area (km²) with TSS
Surface/Seafloor > 35 mg/L Threshold
Surface/Seafloor

1a DC1-I (shallowest water depth), Min Currents 2.1 / 4,323 0 / 0.094

1b DC1-I, Max Currents 2.9 / 5,517 0 / 0.168
2a DC2-I (deepest water depth), Min Currents 1.6 / 5,260 0 / 0.091
2b DC2-I, Max Currents 5.3 / 9,737 0 / 0.088

Modeling predicts that TSS concentrations above the 35 mg/L threshold would occur during
drilling of the initial well sections only, and these instances are confined to within a relatively
small area around the well locations, near the seafloor where water depths are too great to
allow photosynthesis. In the case of subsequent well sections, none of the maximum predicted
TSS concentrations in the photic zone exceed the 35 mg/L threshold.
Even at the seafloor, the modeling indicates TSS concentrations would be reduced to below the
threshold through settling and dispersion within approximately 1 hour of cessation of the half-
day of jetting and drilling for the initial well section. Based on the limited area impacted and the
short time period during which concentrations above the threshold are expected to persist, the

May 2017 244

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

magnitude of impacts on marine water quality from TSS increases resulting from drill cuttings
discharge was rated as Negligible.

Sensitivity of Resource – Increased TSS Concentrations from Drill Cuttings Discharge

The sensitivity of the marine environment to increased TSS concentrations is considered Low, as
densities of receptors (e.g., fish and photosynthetic organisms) are expected to be low in zones
affected by short-lived higher TSS concentrations. Furthermore, photosynthetic impacts are less
relevant to the area near the seafloor, which is well below the photic zone.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Increased TSS from Drill Cuttings Discharge

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for marine
water quality impacts from increased TSS concentrations during drilling. Based on this rating,
no mitigation is recommended.

7.1.4.4 Characterization of Impacts – Changes to Water Quality and Temperature

Project-Related Discharges Impacting Water Quality and Temperature

The Project will include several discharges with the potential to impact water quality and
temperature. These discharges, based on the preliminary design information, are listed in Table
7-12.

Table 7-12 Summary of Project-related Discharges

Type of Discharge and Effluent Expected Discharge Discharge Criteria Treatment
Characteristics Volume/Rate Required to
Meet Criteria?
SURF & FPSO Installation / Commissioning Discharges
≤ 500,000 bbl total 1) Perform in No
accordance with IMO
requirements
Ballast Water (FPSO initial deballasting)
2) No visible oil
sheen on receiving
water
25,000 bbl (total volume No visible oil sheen No
Hydrostatic Test Water
for all flowlines and on receiving water
 Biocide: ≤ 500 ppm
risers, occurring
 Oxygen scavenger ≤ 100 ppm
throughout SURF
 Corrosion inhibitor ≤ 100 ppm
commissioning phase)
Gas Injection Line Commissioning Fluids 400 bbl total None N/A
 Hydrate inhibitor (e.g.
methanol or ethylene glycol)

May 2017 245

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Production Discharges
≤ 100,000 bpd Oil in water content: Yes
29 mg/L (monthly
Produced Water
average); 42 mg/L
 Oil & Grease
(daily maximum)
 Residual production and water
Temperature rise
treatment chemicals
<3°C at 100 m from
discharge
≤ 700,000 bpd No visible oil sheen No
on receiving water
Cooling Water
Temperature rise
 Hypochlorite: ≤ 5 ppm
<3°C at 100 m from
discharge
Sulfate Removal & Potable Water ≤ 100,000 bpd None N/A
Processing Brines
 Hypochlorite: ≤ 1 ppm
 Electrolyte: ≤ 1 ppm
 Biocide: ≤ 5 ppm
 Oxygen Scavenger: ≤ 10 ppm
 Scale Inhibitor: ≤ 5 ppm

Subsea Hydraulic Fluid Discharge ≤ 5 bpd None N/A

 Water soluble, low-toxicity
1,800 bpd Oil in water content: Yes
FPSO Bilge Water
<15 mg/L
Inert Gas Generator Cooling Water Negligible None N/A
Negligible Oil in water content: Yes
29 mg/L (monthly
FPSO Slop Tank Water
average); 42 mg/L
(daily maximum)
Miscellaneous Discharges including Boiler <10 bpd None N/A
Blowdown, Desalinization Blowdown, Lab
Sink Drainage
1,100,000 bbl total (at 1) Perform in No
each tanker crude accordance with IMO
loading) requirements
Tanker Ballast Water 2) No visible oil
sheen on receiving
water

BOP System Testing Water-Soluble Low 30 bbl every two weeks None N/A
Toxicity Hydraulic Fluid
Rain Water/Deck Drainage/Wash Down Rainfall dependent No visible oil sheen N/A
Water on receiving water

May 2017 246

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Gray Water 5,000 bpd None N/A

4,000 bpd Total residual Yes
chlorine as low as
Black Water (sewage)
practical but not less
than 1 ppm
<30 bpd Macerated to <25 Yes
Food Preparation Wastes
mm diameter
Notes:
bbl = barrels
bpd = barrels per day

Based on the above estimated discharge rates, cooling water, produced water, and brines from
the Sulfate Removal Unit (SRU) and freshwater Reverse Osmosis (RO) system (all associated
with the production operations stage) are the operational discharges that were the focus of
modeling to assess the nature and extent of associated marine water quality impacts.
Additionally, although the discharge of hydrotest water and commissioning fluids will occur
over only a short time period during the installation and SURF commissioning stage, they were
also included in the offshore discharge modeling as a conservative measure. Potential impacts
from the other effluent discharges listed above were considered to be of Negligible significance.
There may be localized toxic effects on fish, crustacean, plankton, and benthos from chemicals
in the low volume of subsea hydraulic fluid discharge, but the chemicals used will be of low
toxicity and will dilute and disperse rapidly. The constituents modeled for each of these
discharges are listed in Table 7-13. The constituents are associated with potential indirect
impacts on marine aquatic life, as indicated in the table.

The cooling water discharge is the return flow associated with a routine operational process
used to cool selected machinery onboard the FPSO. The cooling water discharge will have an
elevated temperature (relative to the marine environment water temperature) and will contain a
limited amount of hypochlorite (generated from seawater and added as an anti-biofouling
agent). Aquatic species may be indirectly impacted by the elevated temperature and residual
chlorine in the discharge. Elevated temperatures may result in avoidance of the discharge area
by aquatic species. Residual chlorine may interact with naturally occurring organic matter,
resulting in chlorinated by-products with the potential to result in indirect toxicity impacts on
aquatic species. There are no regulatory limits for residual chlorine in marine discharges in
Guyana. Residual chlorine toxicity depends not only on doseage (concentration and exposure
time), but also on individual species’ sensitivity. This makes defining a single impact threshold
for residual chlorine exposure difficult.

May 2017 247

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-13 Summary of Discharges and Modeled Constituents for Installation and
Production Operations
Discharge Modeled Constituents Potential Indirect Impacts on Marine
Aquatic Life
Temperature increase and associated impacts
on marine species.
 Temperature
Cooling Water  Residual Chlorine
Increased residual chlorine concentrations
and associated toxicity impacts on marine
species.
 Oil & Grease (O&G)
 Temperature
 Residual production and Increased concentrations of O&G, production
Produced Water water treatment chemicals chemicals, and associated toxicity impacts on
(e.g., scale and corrosion marine species.
inhibitors)

 Hypochlorite
 Electrolyte
Sulfate Removal and
 Biocide Increased chemical concentrations and
Potable Water
 Oxygen Scavenger associated toxicity impacts on marine species.
Processing Brines
 Scale Inhibitor

 Biocides
Hydrotest Water
 Oxygen Scavenger Increased chemical concentrations and
 Corrosion Inhibitor associated toxicity impacts on marine species.

 Hydrate inhibitor (e.g.,

Increased concentrations of hydrate inhibitor
Gas Injection Line methanol or monoethylene
and associated toxicity impacts on marine
Commissioning Fluid glycol)
species.

Discharge of produced water containing O&G and residual quantities of certain production and
water treatment chemicals can result in locally increased concentrations of chemical
constituents in the marine environment. Depending on the specific constituent concentrations
in these discharges, some aquatic species may experience indirect toxicity impacts from these
constituents.
Hydrotest water discharges may contain biocides, oxygen scavengers, and corrosion inhibitors,
which can result in locally increased concentrations of chemical constituents and associated
potential for indirect toxicity impacts on aquatic species. The hydrotest discharge, hydrate
inhibitor discharge, and initial FPSO ballast discharge will occur only during a limited time
period during SURF installation and commissioning activities, unlike the discharge of cooling
water, produced water, and wastewater, all of which will occur continuously during production
operations.

May 2017 248

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Magnitude of Impacts – Changes to Water Quality and Temperature

The model used to predict the nature and extent of discharge plumes from the various
discharges was USEPA’s CORMIX dilution model. CORMIX is a design tool routinely used by
regulatory agencies to estimate mixing zones resulting from water discharges. Understanding
the mixing characteristics of the various discharges and assessing impacts requires
understanding the properties of the discharged effluent (e.g., temperature), the properties of the
receiving (ambient) water, and the method by which the discharge stream enters the ambient
water (e.g., pipe, diffusers). Collectively, these factors control the near-field mixing and dilution
of the discharge.
Discharge velocity, an important determinant of the mixing characteristics of a discharge, is
directly related to the discharge pipe diameter. At a given discharge flow rate, smaller pipe
diameters result in higher exit velocities, which facilitate increased mixing. However,
engineering constraints may limit the degree to which the pipe diameter can be reduced. As the
design for the Project has not been finalized, conservative assumptions were used for the
modeled pipe diameter. Pipe diameters that are smaller than those considered in the modeling
will result in increased mixing (and reduced concentrations at the edge of mixing zone).
For the receiving environment, the ambient currents selected for modeling consisted of bounding
cases (5th and 95th percentile for the range of current velocities identified) as well as a typical case
(50th percentile for the range of current velocities identified). Ambient temperatures selected for
modeling also consisted of bounding cases (1st and 99th percentiles) and a typical case (50th
percentile).
The modeling of potential impacts from these discharges found that even under the most
conservative bounding case for each discharge modeling scenario, the discharges were subject
to rapid mixing and consequently experienced substantial reductions in constituent
concentrations within a relatively small distance from the point of discharge.
Guyana has not established a specific thermal discharge limit; therefore, 3°C maximum
temperature rise at a distance of 100 m from the discharge point was used as a reference point
for cooling water and produced water discharges, consistent with recognized international
benchmarks and a level appropriately protective of the marine environment. Table 7-14
summarizes the results of the modeling study of discharges for the most conservative bounding
cases, including percent reduction in constituent concentrations at the 100 m reference distance.
International standards and guidelines and established regulatory requirements provide
appropriate benchmarks for O&G content in produced water, and MARPOL specifies limits on
O&G in bilge water. There are no prescribed limits for the constituents contained in the other
discharge streams.

May 2017 249

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-14 Summary of Modeling Results for Most Conservative Bounding Case
(predictions at 100 m reference distance)
Discharge Scenario Most Conservative Bounding Modeled Parameters/ Modeled Results
Case Conditions Constituents at 100 m
Minimum ambient Ambient
Cooling Water (Thermal) temperature, maximum Temperature Rise22 temperature rise
ambient current <3°C
Minimum ambient
Cooling Water (Residual
temperature, maximum Residual Chlorine 89% reduction
Chlorine)
ambient current
O&G23
Temperature Rise
Produced Water Maximum ambient current 92% reduction
Residual production
chemicals
Hypochlorite
Electrolytes
Sulfate Removal & Potable
Maximum ambient current Biocide 98% reduction
Water Processing Brines
Oxygen Scavenger
Scale Inhibitor
Biocide
99% reduction
Hydrotest Water Minimum ambient current Oxygen Scavenger
Corrosion Inhibitor
Concentration
reduces to <32% of
published No
Hydrate Inhibitor (Gas Minimum ambient current Hydrate inhibitor Observed Effect
Injection Line (ethylene glycol); high ambient (either methanol or Concentrations
Commissioning Fluid) current (methanol) ethylene glycol) (NOECs) under
worst-case
discharge
conditions

In terms of impacts on marine water quality from hydrotesting and production operations,
Table 7-15 summarizes the assigned magnitude ratings based on consideration of the extent of
impact and concentrations relative to the marine aquatic life thresholds identified.

22 Design specification for the cooling water discharge port were not finalized at the time of the EIA; modeling was
conducted to determine the combinations of discharge port diameters and discharge depths that would result in a
temperature rise less than 3°C at the edge of the 100m mixing zone.
23 Discharges will adhere to a limit of 42 mg/L oil & grease (daily maximum) and 29 mg/L (monthly average) at the

point of discharge (consistent with recognized international benchmarks and appropriately protective of the PDA
marine environment).

May 2017 250

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-15 Magnitude Ratings for Modeled Hydrotesting and Production Operations
Discharges
Discharge Impact Magnitude Rationale for Magnitude Rating
Rating
Modeling indicates the temperature differential in the water
column will reduce to no greater than the reference
Cooling Water Small temperature within the recommended 100 meter mixing
zone. At this same distance, chlorine concentrations are
predicted to decrease by 89 percent.
At the 100 meter reference distance, O&G, and residual
production and water treatment chemicals are predicted to
Produced Water Negligible
decrease by 92 percent, and temperature rise is predicted to
be less than 3°C
Sulfate Removal At the 100 meter reference distance, hypochlorite,
& Potable Water Negligible electrolyte, biocide, oxygen scavenger and scale inhibitor
Processing Brines concentrations are predicted to decrease by 98 percent.
At the 100 meter reference distance, biocide, oxygen
scavenger and corrosion inhibitor concentrations are
Hydrotest Water Negligible predicted to decrease by 99 to 99.5 percent, depending on
pipe diameter. In addition to the minimal size of the plume,
the release is temporary (approximately 60 minutes or less).
Hydrate At the 100 meter reference distance, hydrate control fluid
Inhibitor (Gas (methanol or monoethylene glycol) is predicted to decrease
Injection Line Negligible by 99.6 to 99.9 percent, depending on the fluid selected. In
Commissioning addition to the minimal size of the plume, the release is
Fluid) temporary (matter of hours).

Considering the information presented above, the magnitude of quality and temperature
impacts on marine water quality was rated as Negligible.

Sensitivity of Resource – Changes to Water Quality and Temperature

The sensitivity of the marine environment to elevated constituent concentrations and increased
temperature is considered Low, as the marine fauna (used as representative receptors) would
not be sensitive to chemical constituent concentrations or temperatures at the modeled levels;
furthermore, species would only be expected to be present in the area of discharge for a limited
time.

Impact Significance/Mitigation Measures – Changes to Water Quality and Temperature

These individual magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible
for marine water quality impacts from the individual discharges.

7.1.4.5 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

Table 7-16 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on marine water quality, and the impact significance ratings resulting
therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment

May 2017 251

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Although the modeling results for the individual discharges predict that the impacts associated
with each discharge would be individually insignificant, the potential synergistic effects of
these discharges on sensitive marine biota supports a higher rating than what would otherwise
be supported by the impact ratings for each individual discharge. Therefore, the overall
magnitude of the water quality impacts has been elevated to Small for all Project stages.

Table 7-16 Marine Water Quality - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings
Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Resource
Stage Magnitude Sensitivity Significance Mitigation Significance
Impact
Rating Measures Rating
Drilling and Increased TSS Small Low Minor None Minor
Installation concentrations
Drilling and Small Low Minor None Minor
Water quality
Installation
and
temperature
Production
changes
Operations
Small Low Minor None Minor
Water quality
Decommissioning
changes

7.2 Biological Resources

For the purposes of this EIA, “biological resources” is intended to include flora, fauna, and the
habitats on which they depend.

7.2.1 Protected Areas and Special Status Species

This section describes the assessment of potential impacts on protected areas and special status
species.

7.2.1.1 Protected Areas

Planned activities of the Project and associated air emissions, effluent discharges, and sound
generation, which will occur approximately 190 km (~120 mi) offshore, will not impact Shell
Beach Protected Area (SBPA), which is Guyana’s only designated protected area within the
Project AOI. The Project’s only potential impacts on SBPA would be as a result of an unplanned
event, which is discussed in Section 7.4.

May 2017 252

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.2.1.2 Special Status Species

Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Project-related impacts on special status species can be considered a subset of the biological
resource impacts; however, potential impacts on special status species require special
consideration because these species are assumed to have a diminished capacity to recover due
to their conservation status. A list of species occurring in Guyana and their conservation status
is provided in Appendix H.
As all of the marine turtles occurring in Guyana’s waters carry a ranking of Critically
Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable, the assessment of potential impacts to marine turtles
(Section 7.2.6) effectively covers the assessment of potential impacts to special status marine
turtles. One of the marine mammals species observed in the PDA carries a Vulnerable status.
Accordingly, the assessment of potential impacts to marine mammals (section 7.2.5) effectively
covers the assessment of potential impacts to marine mammals. For these reasons, marine
turtles and marine mammals are not discussed in this section on special status species.
With respect to fishes, four Critically Endangered species (Atlantic goliath grouper, daggernose
shark, Caribbean electric ray, and largetooth sawfish) and six Endangered species (Nassau
grouper, golden tilefish, whale shark, squat-headed hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and
Atlantic bluefin tuna) have the potential to occur in the nearshore and offshore areas of Guyana.
All have been listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered due to a combination of fishing
mortality (both as target species or bycatch), habitat loss, slow maturation rates, and low
fecundity. For the Critically Endangered fish species (all estuarine and nearshore fish species),
habitat loss is an important driver, whereas for the Endangered fish species (fish distributed
farther offshore), habitat loss is a much less important driver than fishing-related mortality.
As the Critically Endangered fish species are estuarine and nearshore species, the planned
activities of the Project will not directly impact habitat for these species. As the Endangered
fishes are distributed farther offshore, they will have the potential to encounter the Project
marine vessels; however, the Project will not permanently alter habitat conditions for these
species. The Project will not impact fishing-related mortality rates for any fish species.
Furthermore, the Project will not impact any of the underlying causes for these species’ declines
across their ranges as cited by the IUCN.
Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) is also listed as Endangered. Giant otters are Endangered due
to a combination of the legacy impacts of historically widespread hunting and present-day
destruction of riparian tropical forests, especially along large interior rivers (IUCN, 2014). The
Project will not impact giant otter habitat, nor will it impact the species’ capacity to recover or
rate of recovery from legacy impacts.
Vulnerable species (other than whales and turtles) include a mix of elasmobranchs (sharks and
their relatives), marine mammals (West Indian manatee), fish (groupers and snappers), and the
Agami heron (Agamia agami). Deforestation, hunting, and use of pesticides are the primary
factors for the Agami heron’s Vulnerable status (BirdLife International, 2012b). Numerous

May 2017 253

 EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

factors including habitat loss have been implicated in the declines of fish, and the manatee. The
Near Threatened category comprises fishes (almost entirely of elasmobranchs), the neotropical
otter (Lontra longicaudis), and the semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla). The elasmobranchs
and bony fishes in both categories are listed primarily due to overfishing, slow maturation
rates, and low fecundity. The neotropical otter is Near Threatened due to a combination of
habitat destruction and local conflicts with fishermen, and is also sensitive to chemical and
organic pollution (Rheingantz, 2015). Deforestation, hunting, and use of pesticides are the
primary factors for the semipalmated sandpiper’s Near Threatened status (BirdLife
International, 2012c). Overfishing is the primary factor implicated in the status of the Near
Threatened bony fish (groupers, snappers, and tunas).
The Project will be located within offshore habitat for several of these Vulnerable and Near
Threatened species and near inshore habitats, but will not alter the value of the habitats or the
capacity of these habitats to support these species. The Project will not affect rates of coastal
habitat loss/recovery, hunting, or residual pesticide concentrations in the Agami heron’s or
neotropical otter’s habitat, so it will not affect these species’ capacity to recover from these
impacts. The combination of overfishing, slow maturation rates, and low fecundity contribute
to long recovery times for listed fishes, but the Project will have no effect on these species
capacity to recover.

Characterization of Impacts

Tables 7-17 and 7-18 provide the definitions used to assign impact magnitude and receptor
sensitivity ratings for special status species (the same rating definitions are employed for
marine turtles and marine mammals in their respective sections).

Table 7-17 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Special Status Species
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Impact is within the normal range of variation for the population of the species.
Small: Impact does not cause a substantial change in the population of the species, or other
species dependent on it.
Medium: Impact causes a substantial change in abundance and/or reduction in distribution
of a population over one or more generations, but does not threaten the long term
Magnitude
viability/function of that population, or any population dependent on it.
Large: Impacts entire population, or a significant part of it causing a substantial decline in
abundance and/or change in and recovery of the population (or another dependent on it) is
not possible either at all, or within several generations due to natural recruitment
(reproduction, immigration from unaffected areas).

Table 7-18 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Special Status Species
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Species with no specific value or importance attached to them.
Low: Species and sub-species of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List (or not meeting criteria for
Sensitivity
medium or high value), or without specific anatomical, behavioral, or ecological susceptibilities
to Project-related impacts.

May 2017 254

 EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Criterion Definition
Medium: Species listed as Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient on the IUCN Red List,
species protected under national legislation, nationally restricted range species, nationally
important numbers of migratory or congregatory species, species not meeting criteria for high
value, and species vital to the survival of a medium value species.
High: Species on IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered or Endangered. Species having a
globally restricted range (i.e., endemic species to a site, or found globally at fewer than 10 sites,
fauna having a distribution range less than 50,000 km2, internationally important numbers of
migratory or congregatory species, key evolutionary species, and species vital to the survival of
high value species.

For the marine fish species addressed in this section, the starting assumption was that the same
impact magnitude ratings used for potential impacts to marine fish in general (section 7.2.7) are
applicable for special status marine fish. However, additional considerations were applied to
the specific special status species to assess whether these magnitude ratings are appropriate.
Based on these additional considerations, magnitudes for the various special status marine fish
categories were assigned as follows:

 Critically Endangered:

o These species are all nearshore species, and thus will not be subject to the same level of
potential interactions with planned Project activities that form the basis for the various
potential impacts to marine fish in general. Accordingly, a magnitude of Negligible was
assigned.

 Endangered:

o While Nassau grouper is listed as occurring in Guyana waters, this species is primarily a
coral reef species. The PDA does not include coral reefs and this species is thus not likely
to be present – resulting in a magnitude rating of Negligible.
o With the exception of golden tilefish, the other species are pelagic species that are not
prone to congregating around offshore structures; accordingly, potential impacts that
are predicated on marine fish occupying areas around Project vessels (i.e, those impacts
related to marine discharges, vessel sound, attraction by light, and entrainment by
seawater intake) are less of a concern than for other marine fish in general. Further,
related to bottom habitat disturbance and VSP or pile driving sound, impacts are not a
concern for pelagic species. Golden tilefish are known to prefer clay substrates and
would not be expected to congregate over the mud substrate that dominates the PDA.
For this reason, the potential impacts listed in Section 7.2.7 are all assigned a magnitude
rating of Negligible for Endangered fish species.
o As described above, the Project will not impact giant otter habitat, nor will it impact the
species’ capacity to recover from legacy impacts, resulting in a magnitude rating of
Negligible.

 Vulnerable:

May 2017 255

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

o While the same logic applies for some of the Vulnerable fish species as for the
Endangered species described above, some other Vulnerable species are likely to have
similar behavioral characteristics as the marine fish in general; accordingly, as a
conservative measure, the magnitude ratings from Section 7.2.7 were applied (Small for
several potential impacts).
o The Agami heron is a coastal species unlikely to be subject to significant interaction with
Project activities, resulting in a Negligible impact magnitude.

 Near Threatened:

o The same approach was used for Near Threatened fish species as for Vulnerable fish
species (i.e., a magnitude of Small was assumed, consistent with marine fish in general).
o The neotropical otter and semi-palmated sandpiper, are coastal species unlikely to be
subject to significant interaction with Project activities, resulting in a Negligible impact
magnitude.

Considering the information above, Table 7-19 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource
sensitivity ratings for potential Project impacts on special status species, and the impact
significance ratings resulting therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the
impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of
this chapter.

Table 7-19 Special Status Species - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance
Ratings
Group Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
Atlantic goliath grouper, Negligible High Negligible None Negligible
daggernose shark,
Caribbean electric ray,
and largetooth sawfish
(Critically Endangered)
Nassau grouper, golden Negligible High Negligible None Negligible
tilefish, whale shark,
squat-headed
hammerhead, scalloped
hammerhead, and
Atlantic bluefin tuna
(Endangered)
Giant otter Negligible High Negligible None Negligible
(Endangered)

May 2017 256

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Group Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual

Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
Several elasmobranchs Small Medium Minor None Minor
(sharks and their
relatives), fish
(Vulnerable).
Agami heron Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
(Vulnerable)
Several fishes (almost Small Medium Minor None Minor
entirely elasmobranchs),
(Near Threatened)
Neotropical otter, Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
semipalmated
sandpiper
(Near Threatened)

7.2.2 Coastal Habitats

The planned Project activities and associated air emissions, effluent discharges, and sound
generation, which will occur approximately 190 km (~120 mi) offshore, will not impact any
coastal habitats. Operation of the Guyana shorebase(s) will have little to no impact on coastal
habitat. The shorebase(s) are expected to be located in existing developed areas. The Project’s
only potential impact on coastal habitats would be as a result of an unplanned event, which is
discussed in Section 7.4.

May 2017 257

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.2.3 Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds

The planned Project activities will not impact any coastal wildlife or shorebirds. The Project will
not involve any direct disturbance of these species and their habitats, and the Project’s air
emissions, water discharges, and sound generation, which will occur approximately 190 km
(~120 mi) offshore, will not impact these species. The use of the Guyana shorebase(s) will have
little to no impact on coastal species, other than common generalist species that are adapted to
living in developed areas. The shorebase(s) are expected to be located in existing developed
areas. The Project’s only potential impact on coastal wildlife and shorebirds would be as a result
of an unplanned event, which is discussed in Section 7.4.

7.2.4 Seabirds

7.2.4.1 Introduction

This section discusses potential impacts on seabirds from planned Project activities. Thirty
seabird species have been documented in Guyana’s offshore waters, including the area in and
around the PDA. Several resident seabird species occur in the area throughout the year and
migratory seabirds typically occur in the area starting late summer, with many remaining
through winter. When seabirds are not breeding, they primarily live in offshore environments,
moving with prey resources and roosting and loafing on islands or artificial structures in the
ocean or simply rafting24 on the ocean surface. The presence of seabirds in a given area is
heavily resource-driven, with individuals and groups of seabirds primarily attracted to prey
concentrations. No evidence suggests that large concentrations of seabird prey (primarily fish)
consistently occur in the PDA that would promote regular use by foraging seabirds. Rather,
seabirds in the area are likely transients, moving opportunistically with schools of fish and
other prey. The turbid conditions in the PDA further reduce the likelihood that the area has
significant importance for foraging seabirds. Further, no islands or artificial structures occur in
the PDA, so the area does not contain any known roosting or loafing areas where large numbers
of seabirds might congregate. As such, it is expected that seabirds occur in the PDA throughout
the year, but at a low density and for short (transient) periods depending on prey availability.

7.2.4.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Table 7-20 summarizes the potential impacts of planned Project activities on seabirds.

24Rafting is a common seabird behavior involving a tight aggregation of seabirds floating on the ocean surface to
form a “raft.”

May 2017 258

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-20 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Seabirds

Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impact
 Physical presence of drill ships and
installation vessels (with lighting),
potentially acting as an attractant to
seabirds, exposing them to collision risks,
Presence of drill ships and additional energy expenditure, and
installation vessels compromised navigation for night-
migrating birds.
 Vessels may be of benefit to some species
Drilling and
that use the vessel for rest or shelter
Installation during long flights or adverse weather.
 Strike-related injury or mortality,
particularly with rafting seabirds.
Operation of supply and support
 Light and sound disturbance leading to
vessels
attraction to or avoidance of the exposed
area.
Discharge of drill cuttings  Exposures to permitted discharges,
potentially leading to toxicological or
Discharge of wastewater effluents
metabolic impacts.
Marine aviation  Bird strike by helicopters.
 Physical presence of FPSO (with lighting),
potentially acting as an attractant to
seabirds, exposing them to collision risks,
additional energy expenditure, and
compromised navigation for night-
Presence of FPSO
migrating birds.
Production  Structures may be of benefit to some
Operations species that use the structure for rest or
shelter during long flights or adverse
weather.
Discharge of cooling water and  Exposures to permitted discharges,
produced water potentially leading to toxicological or
Discharge of wastewater effluents metabolic impacts.
Operation of supply and support  Strike-related injury and mortality,
vessels lighting, disturbance.
 Mortality or injury from bird exposure to
Non-routine flaring
radiant heat from the flare.
Marine aviation  Bird strike by helicopters.
 Ship and helicopter strike-related injury
or mortality.
 Light and sound disturbance from
decommissioning activities leading to
Decommissioning activities PDA
Decommissioning attraction to or avoidance of the exposed
and related vessel traffic
area.
 Removal of a reliable food source if the
FPSO acts as an attractant for seabird
prey.

May 2017 259

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Potential impacts from seabird exposure to discharge of drill cuttings, produced water, and
other wastewater effluents are expected to be negligible because the effluents are not highly
toxic, the discharges would rapidly mix with ambient water, and the numbers of seabirds
potentially exposed to the effluents is expected to be low. Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.4 provide
further analysis of the impacts of these discharges on marine sediment and water quality,
respectively. While individual seabirds could be significantly impacted through contact with
the flare structure, its flame, or its radiant heat plume, the likelihood of a seabird being present
in the heat zone when temporary, non-routine flaring is occurring is extremely low.
Accordingly, the assessment of potential impacts on seabirds is focused on: a) direct mortality
and injury of seabirds related to attraction to offshore Project facilities; and b) direct mortality
and injury related to vessel (ship or air) strikes.
Potential benefits from the Project to seabirds are use of the FPSO, drill ship, and installation
vessels for rest or shelter during adverse weather conditions and, if such vessels acts as
consistent attractants for seabird prey, providing a reliable food resource for seabirds. However,
this is not expected to be a significant benefit to seabirds at the population level, and is not
discussed further herein.

7.2.4.3 Characterization of Impacts – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Attraction to

Offshore Project Facilities

Magnitude of Impact – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Attraction to Offshore Project
Facilities

Seabirds are known to aggregate around large offshore installations such as drill ships and can
be present in above-average numbers due to artificially increased food concentrations, lighting,
and attraction to the structure itself for roosting (Weise et al., 2001). The impacts of attraction
and aggregation by seabirds around an offshore facility can be both positive and negative and
can vary considerably by species and, more specifically, a species’ typical behavior and the type
and length of use of the impacted area. The structure may be beneficial to seabirds by providing
a resting place or shelter during feeding, migration, or adverse weather in areas where these
places would otherwise not be found.
The negative impacts of seabird attraction to offshore facilities primarily relate to lighting. The
drill ships, installation vessels, and FPSO will operate 24 hours a day, so at night time there will
be a considerable source of artificial light in an otherwise dark environment. Lights on offshore
oil platforms and other installations are known to act as an attractant to seabirds and typical
offshore installation lighting extends roughly 3 to 5 km (2 to 3 mi) around the source (Weise et
al., 2001). Poor weather, such as fog, precipitation, and low cloud cover can exacerbate the
impact of nocturnal attraction to lights, especially when coincidental with bird migrations
(Ronconi et al., 2015).

May 2017 260

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Lighting on offshore facilities can be disorienting to night migrating birds, particularly

waterfowl, which migrate using stellar cues that can be obscured by lights (Gaston et al., 2013).
Birds lose their stellar cues for nocturnal navigation under low cloud ceiling or other adverse
weather conditions, and in these circumstances artificial lights become the strongest cues that
birds have for navigation. As a result, they are attracted to the lights and will fly around them
for extended periods, a phenomenon which is referred to in the scientific literature as the
“trapping effect” or “light circling.” The time individual birds spend circling ranges from a few
minutes to several hours to days, with an average of around 15 minutes (Marquenie, 2007). The
consequences of this may be: 1) energy wasted circling the installation, which can be
problematic for individual birds undergoing long migrations; 2) collision with the structure or
other birds resulting in mortality or injury, which can cause individual birds to remain on the
structure for long periods where there is no drinking water; 3) increased exposure to Project
facilities and activities from the attraction to the area and potential exposure to radiant heat
from flaring events, which can cause injury or death; and 4) increased risk of predation due to
weakness, disorientation, or injury following long periods of circling or collision with a Project
structure (Baird, 1990; Ronconi et al.., 2015; Platteeuw and Henkens, 1997; Deda et al., 2007).
As an embedded control to manage lighting-related impacts from the Project, lighting on the
FPSO and major vessels will be directed, where practicable, to required operational areas rather
than at the sea surface or skyward. This will reduce the intensity and locations of lighting that
seabirds may be exposed to by the Project. Further, the Project area is not located within a major
seabird migratory flyway, nor is it known to support large numbers of seabirds; accordingly,
the number of individuals that could be impacted by the potential impacts described above is
expected to be small, meaning the Project would not impact any seabird species at the
population level. As such, the overall magnitude of the impacts from seabirds being attracted to
Project facilities is considered to be Small.

Sensitivity of Receptor – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Attraction to Offshore

Project Facilities

Seabirds are expected to occur in the PDA throughout the year but at low densities and
primarily as transients moving with prey resources. All of the 30 species of seabirds known to
occur in the area are listed on the IUCN Red List as Least Concern. Several impact exposure
events are likely to occur for seabirds; however, taking into account their conservation status
and that only a few individuals are likely to be impacted rather than whole populations, the
sensitivity of the seabird receptor is considered Low.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to
Attraction to Offshore Project Facilities

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for direct
mortality and injury impacts on seabirds related to attraction to offshore Project facilities.

May 2017 261

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.2.4.4 Characterization of Impact – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Vessel or

Helicopter Strikes

Magnitude of Impact – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Vessel or Helicopter Strikes

Rafting seabirds may suffer injury or mortality from collision with vessels transiting to and
from the FPSO. However, rafters are not likely to be present in large aggregations in the PDA
because of the metocean conditions offshore Guyana – namely a strong surface current, which is
likely to make the surface waters unsuitable for the large aggregations of species that favor
more calm and sheltered conditions. The EEPGL seismic surveys conducted in the Stabroek
Block in 2015 and 2016 did not document any concentrations of rafting seabirds in the area
during their survey period (RPS, 2016). On the rare occasions that suitable conditions for rafting
occur in the PDA and seabirds are present in high enough concentrations to form rafts,
individual seabirds could be susceptible to vessel strike and related injury or mortality.
However, large seabird rafts are easily detectible by oncoming vessels, and these vessels could
maneuver to avoid them if the birds do not move out of the vessels’ path.
Helicopters will be used as a form of transit to / from the Guyana shorebase(s) and offshore
vessels, and could adversely impact seabirds through helicopter strike of individuals flying near
helicopters transiting around or in route to/from the drill ships, FPSO, and installation vessels.
Helicopter trips to and from the PDA are not expected to exceed more than a few each day, so
the duration and number of helicopter-bird interactions is expected to be low.
Given the low likelihood of vessels encountering rafting seabirds and EEGPL’s embedded
control of providing standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to avoid any
identified rafting seabirds when transiting to and from PDA, where safe and feasible, if the
birds do not move out of the vessel’s path, as well as the limited number of helicopter flights
per day to the Project facilities and vessels, the magnitude of this potential impact is Small.

Sensitivity of Receptor – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Vessel or Helicopter Strikes

On the same basis as described in Section 7.2.4.3, the sensitivity of the seabird receptor to this
impact is considered Low.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Direct Mortality and Injury Related to Vessel
or Helicopter Strikes

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for direct
mortality and injury impacts on seabirds related to vessel or helicopter strikes.

7.2.4.5 Impacts Related to Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities for the FPSO and related vessel traffic may impact seabirds in
similar ways to that described for the installation and production operations stages, including
potential for ship and helicopter strike-related injury or mortality, and light and sound
disturbance from decommissioning activities leading to avoidance of the exposed areas. As

May 2017 262

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

stated previously in this section, these impacts are expected to impact individual seabirds but
have negligible impacts on seabirds at the population level. Once decommissioning activities
are completed, the absence of the FPSO and the activities of the related support vessels (ships
and helicopters) will remove the attraction - and strike-related risks and impacts to seabirds,
providing a benefit due to the elimination of ongoing risks and impacts. However, should the
FPSO become an attractant for seabird prey or a regular resting place for migrating seabirds
during the production operations stage, removal of the facility could have a temporary adverse
impact due to the removal of a reliable food source and/or rest area. This impact would be
temporary since the birds should quickly adjust to the changed condition.

7.2.4.6 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

Table 7-21 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on seabirds, and the impact significance ratings resulting therefrom. The
significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology described in
Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-21 Seabirds - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings

Stage Receptor – Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Drilling and Seabirds – direct Small Low Negligible None Negligible
Installation mortality and
injury from
Production attraction to
Operations offshore Project
facilities.
Seabirds – direct Small Low Negligible None Negligible
mortality and
All Project injury from
stages vessel or
helicopter
strikes.

7.2.5 Marine Mammals

7.2.5.1 Introduction

As described in Section 6.2.6, toothed whales (sperm, melon headed, and pilot whales) and
dolphins (pantropical and bottlenose) are the most likely marine mammal species that could be
encountered in the PDA. Bryde’s whales and other unidentified baleen whales have also been
observed in offshore waters in the PDA. Nearshore, other dolphins such as common, spotted,
and spinner dolphins may be encountered. The West Indian manatee is sparsely distributed in
coastal and riverine waters of the region and may be encountered in the Demerara River area.

May 2017 263

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.2.5.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

As shown in Table 7-22, certain planned Project activities could impact marine mammals either
through direct mortality (vessel strikes), or through disturbance leading to changes in behavior
and reduced vigor (i.e., as a result of light, sound and/or actions from Project activities).

Table 7-22 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Mammals

Stage Activity Key Potential Impact
Vessel operations  Injury and mortality from vessel strikes
 Sound exposure leading to permanent
threshold shift (PTS) injury
 Sound disturbance leading to deviation
from area
Power generation
 Sound exposure leading to PTS injury
VSP
 Sound disturbance leading to deviation
ROV operations
Drilling and from area
Pile driving
Installation
Lighting on Drill Ship and  Offshore lighting is not considered to have
Installation vessels a negative impact on marine mammals; it
is considered to be an attractant for fishes,
and therefore as a secondary attractant for
some marine mammals.
Permitted drill cuttings and  Exposures to permitted discharges,
fluids discharge potentially leading to toxicological or
Permitted liquid waste discharge metabolic impacts.
Well stream production,
 Sound exposure leading to PTS injury
processing, and storage
 Sound disturbance leading to deviation
operations
from area
Power generation
Permitted cooling and produced  Exposures to permitted discharges,
water discharge potentially leading to toxicological or
Permitted other liquid waste metabolic impacts.
discharge
Production Operations Lighting on FPSO  Offshore lighting is not considered to have
a negative impact on marine mammals; it
is considered to be an attractant for fishes,
and therefore as a secondary attractant for
some marine mammals.
Operation of tankers, tugs, and  Injury and mortality from vessel strikes
supply and support vessels  Sound exposure leading to PTS injury
 Sound disturbance leading to deviation
from area
Decommissioning Vessel operations  Injury and mortality from vessel strikes
 Exposures to permitted discharges,
potentially leading to toxicological or
metabolic impacts.
 Sound disturbance leading to deviation
from area

May 2017 264

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.2.5.3 Characterization of Impacts

Injury and Mortality from Vessel Strikes

Collisions with vessels can injure or kill marine mammals. Marine mammals possess acute
senses of hearing that they can use to detect approaching vessels, and they have the necessary
swimming speed capability to avoid collisions. Nevertheless, marine mammals are inherently
vulnerable to ship strikes when they surface to breathe or to feed. This vulnerability increases in
shallow nearshore areas where opportunities to maneuver are reduced. Most Project activities
will take place in deep ocean waters, and vessel speeds within the PDA will be low, reducing
the potential for collisions. The only planned nearshore activities will be supply vessels
entering/exiting shorebases, but even at the peak of drilling and installation the incremental
increase in traffic near shorebases will represent a small increase in overall risk to marine
mammals. There is very little potential for collisions to occur within the PDA, but the potential
remains for individual dolphins or whales to collide with vessels transiting between the PDA
and shorebases. The greatest potential for collisions to occur will be during drilling and
installation, when vessel traffic is at its peak; accordingly, the risk of injury or mortality from
vessel collisions will be higher during drilling and installation than during other stages of the
Project.
With respect to the potential for injury and mortality from vessels strikes, EEPGL will utilize the
following embedded controls measure for the Project (see Section 2.11):
 Provision of awareness training to Project dedicated marine personnel to recognize signs of
marine mammals at the sea surface; and
 Standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to avoid marine mammals while
underway and reduce speed or deviate from course, as needed, to reduce probability of
collisions.

Injury from Underwater Sound

The main sources of underwater sound associated with drilling activities are from the vertical
seismic profiler (VSP)25 activities (generating impulsive sound) and marine vessels (generating
non-impulsive sound). The primary sources of sound from installation activities is from
impulsive sources (impact pile drivers for the FPSO mooring system and for selected SURF
equipment such as manifolds) as well as non-impulsive sources (marine vessels). Sound from
production operations and decommissioning activities is primarily limited to non-impulsive
sources (marine vessels).
Underwater sound can cause impacts on marine mammals due to behavioral changes impacting
life functions (e.g., feeding, breeding, migration route deviations), direct physical impacts

25The VSP has a small source that produces seismic impulses over a period of time (for the purposes of this
assessment, is was assumed that the source will produce 20 to 40 seismic pulses, less than 1 second in length, over a 6
to 12 hour period). The wavefield generated by this source is recorded by instruments in the borehole.

May 2017 265

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

affecting auditory systems, or in extreme cases other physical damage or behavioral reactions
leading to death.

7.2.5.4 Marine Mammal Auditory Functions

The potential for anthropogenic sound to impact marine animals depends on how well the
animals can hear the sound. Sounds are less likely to disturb if they are at frequencies that the
animals cannot hear well. However, when the sound pressure is high enough it can cause
physical injury through non-auditory mechanisms (i.e., barotrauma). For sound levels below
such extremes, frequency weighting may be applied to scale the importance of sound
components at particular frequencies in a manner reflective of an animal’s sensitivity to those
frequencies.
Auditory weighting functions for marine mammals, called M-weighting functions, were
proposed by Southall et al. (2007) and modified by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA, 2013) and Finneran (2015). For this study, results are presented for
both the Southall et al. (2007) M-weighting functions and the weighting functions suggested by
Finneran (2015).
Southall et al. (2007) proposed M-weighting functions for five functional hearing groups of
marine mammals:
 Low-frequency cetaceans (LFCs)—mysticetes (baleen whales);
 Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFCs)—some odontocetes (toothed whales);
 High-frequency cetaceans (HFCs)—odontocetes specialized for using high-frequencies;
 Pinnipeds in water26—seals, sea lions, and walrus; and
 Pinnipeds in air (not addressed here).

NOAA (2013) suggested further modifications to the LFC function, as well as two variations (for
phocid and otariid pinnipeds) to the Southall et al. (2007) M-weighting curve for pinnipeds in
water. In 2015, a U.S. Navy Technical Report by Finneran (2015) recommended new auditory
weighting functions. The overall shape of the auditory weighting functions is similar to human
A-weighting functions, which follows the sensitivity of the human ear at low sound levels.
Although the inclusion of some species changed (e.g., the addition of hourglass [Lagenorhynchus
cruciger] and Peale’s [Lagenorhynchus australis] dolphins to the high-frequency functional
hearing group), the five recommended functional hearing groups remain those presented in the
NOAA (2013). More information on the marine mammal auditory weighting functions
described above, including the analytical formulation of these metrics, is provided in the
document Underwater Sound Associated with Liza Phase 1 Project Activities (JASCO, 2016). The
auditory weighting functions recommended by Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran (2015) are
shown on Figure 7-4 and 7-5, respectively.

26Pinnipeds were included in Southall, et al 2007, but are not relevant to the analysis of auditory impacts because
pinnipeds are either very rare or likely extinct offshore Guyana.

May 2017 266

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-4 Auditory Weighting Functions for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as
Recommended by Southall el al. (2007)

Source: JASCO 2016

Figure 7-5 Auditory Weighting Functions for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as
Recommended by Finneran (2015)

Source: JASCO 2016

LFCs (including baleen whales) and MFCs (including dolphins and small whales) have been
observed within or near the PDA, so this section focuses on these marine mammal hearing
groups only. JASCO Applied Sciences conducted underwater sound modeling for the proposed
Project activities (JASCO, 2016). The modeling was performed for two types of sources:
impulsive and non-impulsive.
Impulsive sources such as VSP and impact pile driver activities are typically brief and
intermittent, with a rapid rise time and decay. Piles can be driven to the seabed using different
types of impact hammer types such as diesel hammer, air or steam hammer, and hydraulic
hammer. Diesel hammers produce underwater sound waveforms with each pile strike that are
similar to those of air hammers; hydraulic hammers produce a somewhat different waveform
signature with a much more rapid rise time. Driven piles may be used in lieu of or in
combination with suction piles. A suction pile or (suction caisson) can be conceptually
described as an upturned bucket that is embedded in the marine sediment through pushing or

May 2017 267

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

by creating a negative pressure inside the caisson skirt. The suction caisson technology
functions very well in a seabed with soft clays or other low strength sediments and is in many
ways easier and quieter to install than driven piles, which must be hammered into the seabed.
For the purpose of this assessment, it was conservatively assumed that only impact pile drivers
would be used (i.e., no suction piles).
In contrast, non-impulsive sources such as marine vessels’ main propulsion systems and
internal machinery (e.g., generators, cranes) can be brief or prolonged, and continuous or
intermittent. However, non-impulsive sources do not have the high peak pressure and rapid
rise time that impulsive sounds do.
Three complementary acoustic models (AASM27, MONM28, and FWRAM29) were used to
predict underwater acoustic fields for the Project’s potential sound sources. The model results
were used to estimate distances to marine mammal injury (permanent threshold shift [PTS]30)
thresholds, based on best available science. Source levels for the VSP were predicted using
JASCO’s AASM.
The VSP source considered here is a six-element source array with a total volume of 1,200 cubic
inches. AASM produces a set of “notional” signatures for each array element based on:
 Source array layout
 Volume, tow depth, and firing pressure of each element in the source array
 Interactions between different elements in the array

For the modeling, source level spectra from measurements of surrogate vessels, including
FPSO, drill ship, pipelaying vessel, tugs, and support vessels, were adjusted to the
specifications of the proposed Project vessels. Surrogate vessels were chosen based on the
similarity in vessel specifications and types of operation.
Underwater sound propagation (i.e., transmission loss) was modeled with JASCO’s MONM
and FWRAM4. The 3D acoustic fields were computed by modeling transmission loss within
multiple 2D vertical planes extending from the source. The underwater sound fields were
modeled for water column sound speed profiles representative of the month of April. This time
corresponds with historically lowest surface temperatures, which lead to upward sound
refraction and longer-distance sound propagation. Predicted sound fields were assessed across
three dimensions, and the received sound level reported at each point in the horizontal plane is
the maximum predicted sound level over all modeled depths for that point.

27 Airgun Array Source Model

28
Marine Operations Noise Model
29 Full Waveform Range-dependent Acoustic Model
30PTS is a sound-induced impact that results in a permanent loss in hearing sensitivity due to destruction of sensory
cells in the inner ear. This damage can be caused by long-term exposure to sound or acoustic trauma
(https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/effects.html).

May 2017 268

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Based on these reported sound levels in the horizontal plane, two distance parameters were
reported for each threshold:
 Rmax, maximum horizontal distance from the source where the predicted sound level reaches
the threshold; and
 R95%, maximum horizontal distance from the source where the predicted sound level
reaches the threshold after the 5% of the predicted threshold-exceeding area farthest from
the source is excluded. Regardless of the geometric shape of the “maximum-over-depth”
footprint, R95% is the predicted range encompassing at least 95% of the area (in the
horizontal plane) that would be exposed to sound at or above the threshold.

Six scenarios were considered in this modeling study, which include:

1. The operation of an FPSO vessel,
2. The installation of the FPSO vessel, which includes mooring the FPSO and using several
installation and service vessels, and
3. The installation and operation of a drill center, which includes the operation of a drill ship
and a pipelaying vessel for the installation of subsea flowlines and risers, at Drill Center 2-P,
approximately 13 km (~8 mi) north of the FPSO,
4. The operation of a VSP in the vicinity of Drill Centers 2-P and 2-I,
5. The installation of manifold foundation piles for SURF equipment at Drill Center 2-P
through underwater impact pile driving, and
6. The installation of anchor mooring piles at the FPSO location through underwater impact
pile driving.
The sound footprint for each scenario was modeled to estimate the above-referenced distance
parameters assuming thresholds are equal to the injury criteria prescribed by Southall et al.
(2007) and Finneran (2015). The sound footprints were calculated as frequency-weighted (M-
weighted) sound exposure levels (SELs) assuming 24 hours of operation. The sound footprints
account for source-specific sound emission characteristics and site-specific environmental
parameters.
Additional information on the underwater sound modeling methodology, including a detailed
description of all model input parameters and approximate locations of modeled sources for all
scenarios, is provided in the document Underwater Sound Associated with Liza Phase 1 Project
Activities (JASCO, 2016).

Underwater Sound Criteria

No regulations regarding underwater sound exist for Guyana. Accordingly, in the absence of
any such limits, auditory impacts of the Project on marine mammals were evaluated using
Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran (2015) acoustic threshold levels for onset of PTS in LFCs and
MFCs (Table 7-23).

May 2017 269

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-23 Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS) in
Low-Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs)
Marine Mammal Estimated PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds (Injury Criteria)
Hearing Group Auditory Impulsive Non-impulsive
Bandwidth Peak Sound Sound Peak Sound Sound
Pressure Exposure Pressure Exposure
Level Level (SEL) Level Level (SEL)
(unweighted) (M-weighted) (unweighted) (M-weighted)
(dB peak) (SEL24h; dB re (dB peak) (SEL24h; dB re
1 µPa2.s) 1 µPa2.s)
Southall et al. 2007
LFCs (baleen whales) 7 Hz to 22 230 198 230 215
kHz
MFCs (dolphins, toothed 150 Hz to 160 230 198 230 215
whales, beaked whales, kHz
bottlenose whales)
Finneran 2015
LFCs (baleen whales) 7 Hz to 25 230 192 Not 207
kHz available
MFC (dolphins, toothed 150 Hz to 160 230 187 Not 199
whales, beaked whales, kHz available
bottlenose whales)
Hz = hertz, kHz = kilohertz, dB = decibel; SEL = sound exposure level, 24h = 24 hour exposure, µPa = micro Pascal,
s = second, m = meters

Modeling Results

Tables 7-24 to 7-29 present the above-referenced distance parameters describing modeled
horizontal distances to PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs, according to Southall
et al. (2007) and Finneran (2015) criteria, for the Scenarios 1 to 6, respectively. Decommissioning
activities are currently not included in the scope for underwater sound modeling. Activities
during the decommissioning stage would be similar to those of installation activities in terms of
types of sound sources (i.e., marine vessels only). However, decommissioning activities would
be shorter in duration and involve a smaller fleet of marine vessels; therefore, the potential
underwater sound impacts on marine fauna for decommissioning are expected to be less than
or similar to those of the installation scenario (Scenario 3).
The results presented in the tables below account for embedded underwater control measures.
Specifically, EEPGL will utilize the following embedded underwater sound control measures
for the Project (see Section 2.11):
 Gradually increasing intensity of seismic impulses to allow sensitive species to vacate the
area before injury occurs (i.e., soft starts), use of Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) during
VSP, and implementation of other measures recommended by the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2010), as applicable; and
 Maintaining equipment, marine vessels, and helicopters in good working order and
operating them in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications so as to limit sound levels
to the extent reasonably practicable.

May 2017 270

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-24 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 1 –
FPSO Operations
Marine Mammal Hearing Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Group Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Threshold Rmax (m) R95% (m) Threshold Rmax (m) R95% (m)
(M-weighted) (M-weighted)
(SEL24h; dB re 1 (SEL24h; dB re 1
µPa2.s) µPa2.s)

Non-impulsive sources (marine vessels)

Low-frequency cetaceans 215 6 6 207 <5 <5
Mid-frequency cetaceans 215 <5 <5 199 <5 <5
Source: JASCO, 2016
SEL = sound exposure level, 24h = 24 hour exposure, dB = decibel, µPa = micro Pascal, s = second, m = meters, Rmax
= the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is predicted in the modeled maximum-over-
depth sound field over all azimuths; R95% = the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is
predicted in the modeled maximum-over-depth sound field over all azimuths, after the 5% of the threshold-
exceeding area farthest from the source is excluded.

Table 7-25 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 2 –
Installation of the FPSO Vessel, Including Mooring the FPSO and Using Several
Construction and Service Vessels
Marine Mammal Hearing Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Group Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Threshold Rmax (m) R95% (m) Threshold Rmax (m) R95% (m)
(M-weighted) (M-weighted)
(SEL24h; dB re 1 (SEL24h; dB re 1
µPa2.s) µPa2.s)
Low-frequency cetaceans 215 <5 <5 207 <5 <5
Mid-frequency cetaceans 215 No value No value 199 -- --
Source: JASCO, 2016
SEL = sound exposure level, 24h = 24 hour exposure, dB = decibel, µPa = micro Pascal, s = second, m = meters, R max =
the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is predicted in the modeled maximum-over-
depth sound field over all azimuths; R95% = the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is
predicted in the modeled maximum-over-depth sound field over all azimuths, after the 5% of the threshold-
exceeding area farthest from the source is excluded
“---“ = predicted sound levels at all locations are below injury criteria in the mid-frequency range

May 2017 271

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-26 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 3 –
Installation of a Drill Center, Including Operation of a Drill Ship and a
Pipelaying Vessel
Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Marine Mammal Hearing Threshold Threshold
Group (M-weighted) (M-weighted)
Rmax (m) R95% (m) Rmax (m) R95% (m)
(SEL24h; dB re (SEL24h; dB re
1 µPa2.s) 1 µPa2.s)
Non-impulsive sources (marine vessels)
Low-frequency cetaceans 215 9 9 207 6 6
Mid-frequency cetaceans 215 <5 <5 199 -- --
Source: JASCO, 2016
SEL = sound exposure level, 24h = 24 hour exposure, dB = decibel, µPa = micro Pascal, s = second, m = meters, R max =
the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is predicted in the modeled maximum-over-
depth sound field over all azimuths; R95% = the maximum distance from the source at which the given threshold is
predicted in the modeled maximum-over-depth sound field over all azimuths, after the 5% of the threshold-
exceeding area farthest from the source is excluded
“---“ = predicted sound levels at all locations are below injury criteria in the mid-frequency range.

Table 7-27 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 4 – Operation of a
Vertical Seismic Profiler
Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Marine Mammal Hearing Threshold Threshold
Group (M-weighted) (M-weighted)
Rmax (m) R95% (m) Rmax (m) R95% (m)
(SEL24h; dB re (SEL24h; dB re
1 µPa .s)
2 1 µPa .s)
2

Low-frequency cetaceans 198 73 68 192 39 36

Mid-frequency cetaceans 198 35 32 187 -- --

Table 7-28 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 5 –
Installation of Manifold Foundation Piles
Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Marine Mammal Hearing Threshold Threshold
Group (M-weighted) (M-weighted)
Rmax (m) R95% (m) Rmax (m) R95% (m)
(SEL24h; dB re (SEL24h; dB re
1 µPa .s)
2 1 µPa .s)
2

Low-frequency cetaceans 198 1,300 NV 192 1,025 NV

Mid-frequency cetaceans 198 762 NV 187 136 NV

May 2017 272

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-29 Modeled Horizontal Distances to PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds for Low-
Frequency Cetaceans (LFCs) and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (MFCs): Scenario 6 –
Installation of Mooring Piles for the FPSO
Marine Mammal Hearing Injury Criteria and Distances to Criteria Levels
Group Southall et al (2007) Finneran (2015)
Threshold Rmax (m) R95% (m) Threshold Rmax (m) R95%
(M-weighted) (M-weighted) (m)
(SEL24h; dB re (SEL24h; dB re
1 µPa2.s) 1 µPa2.s)
Low-frequency cetaceans 198 1,375 NV 192 1,075 NV
Mid-frequency cetaceans 198 725 NV 187 100 NV

NV – No value

Modeling results for the six scenarios are presented below. It is important to note these results
assume that the sources are stationary for 24 hours, and that the marine mammal is present
within the stated distance for the entire accumulation period (24 hours). This adds an element of
conservatism to the assessment because no marine mammal would be expected to stay within
the modeled injury zone for the entire 24 hour duration on which the threshold is based.

Scenario 1 – Marine Vessels during FPSO Operations

Modeling predicted that non-impulsive underwater sound for Scenario 1 would attenuate to
PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs at maximum horizontal distances of 6 and <5
meters, respectively (based on the more conservative injury criteria for the marine mammal
hearing groups).

Scenario 2 - Marine Vessels during FPSO Installation

Modeling predicted that non-impulsive underwater sound for Scenario 2 would attenuate to
PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs at a maximum horizontal distance of <5 meters (based
on the more conservative injury criteria for the marine mammal hearing group). Modeling
predicted that MFCs would not be impacted at any distance under this scenario because the
predicted underwater sound in the mid-frequency range would be below PTS onset acoustic
thresholds at all locations.

Scenario 3 – Marine Vessels (Drill Ship, SURF installation vessels)

Modeling predicted that non-impulsive underwater sound for Scenario 3 would attenuate to
PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs at maximum horizontal distances of 9 and <5
meters, respectively (based on the more conservative injury criteria for the marine mammal
hearing groups).

Scenario 4 – Vertical Seismic Profiler during Drilling and SURF Installation

Modeling predicted that impulsive underwater sound from the VSP for Scenario 4 would
attenuate to PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs at maximum horizontal distances
of 73 and 35 meters (~240 and ~115 ft), respectively (based on the more conservative injury
criteria for the marine mammal hearing groups).

May 2017 273

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Scenario 5 – Pile Driving during Drilling and SURF Installation

Modeling predicted that impulsive underwater sound from pile driving for Scenario 5 would
attenuate to PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs at maximum horizontal distances
of 1,300 and 762 meters (~4,270 and ~2,500 ft), respectively (based on the more conservative
injury criteria for the marine mammal hearing groups). These maxima occur at depths of greater
than 1000 meters.

Scenario 6 – Pile Driving during FPSO Installation

Modeling predicted that impulsive underwater sound for Scenario 6 would attenuate to PTS
onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs and MFCs at maximum horizontal distances of 1,375 and 725
meters (~4,510 and ~2,380 ft), respectively (based on the more conservative injury criteria for
the marine mammal hearing groups). These maxima occur at depths of greater than 1000
meters.

Summary of Potential for Injury Due to Underwater Sound

Modeling results indicate sound levels from vessels and the VSP are insignificant compared to
the predicted sound levels from impact pile driving. The distances to injury thresholds for both
LFCs and MFCs would be determined by sound from pile driving both at the FPSO and the
drill center(s), although the area within which injury could potentially occur would be over 40%
smaller for MFCs than for LFCs. Regardless of which type of pile installation methodology
(impact driven or suction) is used, neither group of marine mammals would be expected to
result in a population-level impact. Based on the premise that marine mammals would actively
avoid physical discomfort associated with Project-related sound, if impact-driven piles are used
MFCs would be expected to generally avoid the area within at least ~700 m from the location
where pile driving is taking place and LFCs would be expected to generally avoid the area
within at least ~ 1,400 m of the activity. Both categories of cetaceans would avoid these areas
for the duration of the pile driving activity. Some species, including many of the larger baleen
whales and dolphins would naturally avoid the area of potential effect (especially around Drill
Center 2) because it would be deeper than their typical maximum dive depths. Others, such as
sperm whales, dive deep enough that they could potentially be exposed to injurious sound
levels throughout the PDA; however they would not be expected to dive to sufficient depths for
a sufficient duration to be exposed to potential injury. PTS (were it to occur) would be
irreversible by definition, but given the depth of the water in the PDA and the physiological
limitations that would prevent marine mammals from diving deep enough and for a long
enough period of time to experience PTS, piling driving is not expected to cause permanent
injury to marine mammals or irreversible effects on their hearing abilities.

Disturbance from Underwater Sound

Anthropogenic sounds below injury thresholds have the potential to mask relevant sounds in
the animals’ environment. This masking can occur due to both natural and anthropogenic
sounds (Hildebrand, 2005). The behavioral changes that can occur due to masking can have
major ecological consequences for marine mammals. These may include changes in biologically

May 2017 274

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

important behaviors (e.g., breeding, calving, feeding, or resting); changes in diving behavior
(e.g., reduced or prolonged dive times, increased time at the surface, or changes in swimming
speed); and changes in historical migration routes (NMFS undated).
Although the above changes could occur in the PDA as a result of Project-generated sound,
findings from US territorial waters suggest that the population-level significance of disturbance
from impulsive sound over a small area such as the PDA would likely be minor. NMFS
reported that “…available data do not indicate that sound and disturbance from oil and gas
exploration and development activities since the mid-1970s had lasting population level
adverse impacts on bowhead whales. Data indicate that bowhead whales are robust, increasing
in abundance, and have been approaching (or have reached) the lower limit of their historic
population size at the same time that oil and gas exploration activities have been occurring in
the Beaufort Sea and, to a lesser extent, the Chukchi Sea.” (NMFS, 2006). BOEM found that
despite over 50 years of oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico, there
are no data to suggest that these activities are significantly impacting marine mammal
populations (BOEM, 2014). Furthermore, the PDA is not known to be an important feeding,
breeding, or calving area. Therefore, individual animals may divert around an operating pile
driver or VSP to avoid Project-generated sound, but no significant impacts to life functions or
potential population-level implications from underwater sound are expected.

Exposure to Permitted Discharges

The Project will involve routine, permitted discharges of waste streams to the sea. These
discharges would begin during the drilling and installation stages and continue into the
decommissioning stage. As described in Section 7.1.4, these discharges will be treated (as
needed) in accordance with industry guidelines. Furthermore, marine mammals would be
transient in the PDA and their exposure to any discharges would be very limited. Any impacts
would be expected to be acute and recovery would be expected to occur quickly after the
affected individual(s) exit the mixing zone.

Impacts from Artificial Lighting

Artificial lighting is not known to directly attract or disturb marine mammals, so any impacts of
artificial light on marine mammals are likely to be indirectly caused by a potential change in
local forage availability through changes in prey distribution. Fish are known to be attracted to
artificial light, and even plankton are sometimes capable of weak volitional movement through
the water column in response to changing ambient light levels. Small fish and/or plankton
make up a substantial part of most marine mammals’ diets, so to the extent that Project vessels
could facilitate the concentration of plankton and/or small fish at the surface or around the
vessels, food density would increase and marine mammals may also be attracted to the vessels
to feed more efficiently. This impact is expected to be limited to only the immediate vicinity of
the vessels.

May 2017 275

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

As discussed in Section 7.2.1, because one of the marine mammals observed in the PDA is listed
as Vulnerable by IUCN, the impact assessment was conducted with the conservative
assumption that this Vulnerable species (i.e., sperm whale) would be the receptor for the
potential impact. Accordingly, the sensitivity rating definitions used for special status species
(Table 7-30) was used for all potential impacts.

Table 7-30 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Special Status
Species
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Species with no specific value or importance attached to them.
Low: Species and sub-species of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List (or not
meeting criteria for medium or high value), or without specific anatomical,
behavioral, or ecological susceptibilities to Project-related impacts.
Medium: Species listed as Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient on the
IUCN Red List, species protected under national legislation, nationally restricted
range species, nationally important numbers of migratory or congregatory
Sensitivity
species, species not meeting criteria for high value, and species vital to the
survival of a medium value species.
High: Species on IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered or Endangered. Species
having a globally restricted range (i.e., endemic species to a site, or found globally
at fewer than 10 sites, fauna having a distribution range less than 50,000 km 2,
internationally important numbers of migratory or congregatory species, key
evolutionary species, and species vital to the survival of high value species.

Considering the description of potential impacts above, Table 7-31 summarizes the impact
magnitude and receptor sensitivity ratings for each potential impact, together with the rationale
for the ratings.

Table 7-31 Impact Magnitude and Receptor Sensitivity Ratings - Marine Mammals
Key Potential Sensitivity Magnitude
Impact Rating Rating Rationale for Magnitude Ratings
Injury and mortality Medium Negligible Although vessel traffic will be substantial
from vessel strikes during installation, the likelihood of a collision
event with an Project vessel would be mitigated
due to embedded controls such as standing
instructions to vessel operators, low vessel
operating speeds and typical marine navigation
good practices. Accordingly, the magnitude of
impact considering embedded controls is
considered to be Negligible.
Injury (PTS) from Medium Negligible With no control measures in place, magnitude
underwater sound ratings for VSP and pile driving would be
Medium based on the predicted extent of
impact zones; however the Negligible
magnitude rating is based on several factors,
including:

May 2017 276

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Key Potential Sensitivity Magnitude

Impact Rating Rating Rationale for Magnitude Ratings
 The activity that presents the greatest risk of
injury to marine mammals (pile driving)
would only occur during the initial stages of
the installation phase and at great depth
and therefore represents a short term risk to
mammals.
 EEPGL has committed to using MMOs and
soft start procedures for VSPs in accordance
with JNCC guidelines, and soft starts for
pile driving to further reduce the potential
for impacts on marine mammals.
 Many marine mammals do not dive to the
depths that would be required or remain
submerged for sufficient time to be exposed
to impacts above injury thresholds,
especially near Drill Center 2.
 If an individual mammal were to approach
an operating VSP or pile driver, they would
experience disturbance prior to being
exposed to sound levels above injury
thresholds, and would be expected to divert
away from the source.
Disturbance from Medium Medium The potential impact zone for disturbance
underwater sound effects is expected to be larger than the extent
for potential injury effects; accordingly, the
magnitude of potential impact is considered
Medium.
Impacts from Medium Negligible Permitted discharges will be treated as needed
permitted discharges prior to discharge and will reduce in
concentration rapidly with increasing distance
from the discharge point. The magnitude is
therefore considered Negligible.
Impacts from Positive Positive Impacts to marine mammals from Project
artificial lighting lighting are considered to be Positive, due to
the potential for attraction of food sources and
no documented adverse effects on marine
mammals from lighting.

May 2017 277

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-32 Marine Mammals - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
Stage Potential Impact Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Residual
Rating Rating Significance Measures Significance
Rating Rating
Injury from vessel strikes Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
Exposures to permitted Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
discharges (liquid effluent
discharges containing various
chemical substances, plus
All Project Stages
elevated temperature during
production operations)
Offshore lighting as an Positive Positive Positive Not applicable Positive
attractant of food sources for
marine mammals
Injury from sound exposure Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible

Drilling and
Installation

Disturbance from sound Medium Medium Moderate None, but robust Moderate
exposure implementation of
embedded controls
(e.g., soft start
procedures for VSP
and pile driving)

May 2017 278

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Based on consideration of all of the potential impacts on marine mammals assessed, the overall
residual significance rating for potential impacts on marine mammals from planned Project
activities is considered to be Negligible to Moderate.

7.2.6 Marine Turtles

7.2.6.1 Introduction

As described in Section 6.2.6, five sea turtle species are found in the Guyanese waters and could
be encountered in the PDA. Four of these species–green turtle, leatherback, hawksbill, and
Olive Ridley turtle–nest on Guyana’s beaches, particularly in the SBPA located near Guyana’s
border with Venezuela. Loggerhead turtles also occur in offshore Guyanese waters but rarely
come ashore.

7.2.6.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

As shown in Table 7-33, planned Project activities could potentially impact marine turtles
through direct mortality (from vessel strikes), disturbance leading to changes in behavior (from
underwater sound, lighting and/or actions from Project activities), and exposures to permitted
discharges. Key potential sources of impact include impulsive sound from acoustic sources
(VSP activity, driven piles) and non-impulsive sound from marine vessels (FPSO, drill ship,
supply vessels, work vessels, barges, light installation vessels, pipelay vessels, multi service
vessels, field intervention vessels, large crane vessels, and tug boats).

Table 7-33 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Turtles

Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impact
Vessel operations  Injury and mortality from vessel
strikes.
 Displacement from habitat to avoid
disturbance from vessel activity.
Power generation
 Displacement from habitat to avoid
Drilling and VSP and pile driving
disturbance from vessel activity.
Installation ROV operations
Lighting on drill ship and installation vessels  Disturbance leading to reduced
fecundity.
Permitted drill cuttings and fluids discharge  Exposures to permitted discharges,
Permitted liquid waste discharge potentially leading to toxicological
or metabolic impacts.
Vessel operations (e.g., FPSO supply barges,
support vessels, drill ship, platform supply
vessels, fast supply vessels, large crane  Displacement from habitat to avoid
Production vessel, fast supply vessel, field intervention disturbance from vessel activity.
Operations vessel, light installation vessel, and multi-
purpose support vessels)
Permitted cooling and produced water
 Exposures to permitted discharges,
discharge

May 2017 279

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impact

Other permitted liquid waste discharge potentially leading to toxicological
or metabolic impacts.
Lighting on FPSO  Disturbance leading to reduced
fecundity.
Decommissioning vessels, ROVs  Injury and mortality from vessel
strikes.
 Exposures to permitted discharges,
Decommissioning potentially leading to toxicological
or metabolic impacts.
 Displacement from habitat to avoid
disturbance from vessel activity.

7.2.6.3 Characterization of Impacts

Injury and Mortality from Vessel Strikes

Collisions with vessels can injure or kill marine turtles. Sea turtles tend to spend most of their
time at sea at or near the sea surface, and do not possess the acute sense of hearing or the
swimming speed that cetaceans use to avoid collisions. Sea turtles are inherently more
vulnerable to ship strikes in the shallow nearshore areas (where they congregate prior to
coming ashore to nest) than they are in the open ocean. This increased vulnerability is caused by
the higher concentrations of turtles and reduced opportunity to maneuver in shallow water.
Most Project activities will take place in deep ocean waters, and vessel speeds within the PDA
will be low, further reducing the potential for collisions. The only planned nearshore activities
will be supply vessel entering/exiting shorebases; the anticipated options for shorebases are all
located over 100 km away from the nearest portion of the SBPA, where most sea turtle nesting
in Guyana occurs. There is very little potential for collisions to occur within the PDA, but the
potential remains for individual turtles to collide with vessels transiting between the PDA and
shorebases. The potential for the greatest number of collisions to occur will be during drilling
and installation when vessel traffic is at its peak, so the risk of injury or mortality from vessel
collisions will be slightly higher during drilling and installation than during other stages of the
Project.
With respect to the potential for injury and mortality from vessels strikes, EEPGL will utilize the
following embedded control measure for the Project (see Section 2.11):
 Standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to avoid marine turtles while
underway and reduce speed or deviate from course, as needed, to reduce probability of
collisions.

May 2017 280

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Injury from Underwater Sound

Hearing capabilities have been studied in only a few individual marine turtles, but the available
data suggest that turtles have limited hearing capacity compared to other marine taxa (e.g.,
cetaceans). Turtles have been shown to respond to low frequency sound, with indications that
they have the highest hearing sensitivity in the frequency range 100 to 700 Hz (Bartol and
Musick, 2003). Startle responses to sudden sounds have also been observed in sea turtles. For
example, McCauley et al. (2000) found that turtles showed behavioral responses to approaching
seismic survey sound at approximately 166 dB re 1 uPa, and more significant disturbance at 175
dB re 1 uPa. Startle responses and other behavioral changes are more likely from high level
pulsed sound sources such as those produced during VSP activities and pile driving, rather
than from non-pulse sources such as those from vessels.
Since turtles have been shown to respond to low frequency sounds, modeling results pertinent
to low-frequency cetaceans (LFCs) (see Section 7.2.5) were used as a proxy for injury predictions
for marine turtles. Modeling predicted that impulsive underwater sound from VSP and pile
driving activities would attenuate to PTS onset acoustic thresholds for LFCs at maximum
horizontal distances of 73 and 1,300 meters (~240 and ~4,270 ft), based on the more conservative
injury criteria for the LFC marine mammal hearing group.
Dive-profile data from tagged Kemp’s ridleys showed that they spent an average of 97 percent
(day) or 87 percent (night) of their time within 1 m of the surface, and observational records
suggest that most sea turtles show a similar pattern. The VSP source for the Project will be
located within 5 m of the ocean surface, so marine turtles may be present at the same general
depth as the source. However, since the sound pressure field is zero at the surface, the sound
levels in excess of the proxy injury threshold will be limited to depths well below the zone
where marine turtles will typically be present. While the horizontal extent of the modeled
potential impact zone is significantly larger for pile driving than for VSP, turtles are not known
to dive a sufficient depth (>1000 m) to enter the zone within which PTS would occur as a result
of pile driving. The only low frequency sound that marine turtles could potentially be exposed
to, other than VSP and pile driving, would derive mainly from vessels operating in the Project
area, and vessel sounds will decrease below the threshold for injury to LFCs at 5 to 6 meters
from the source. At that range, injury from a collision with the vessel poses a more likely risk to
a marine turtle than injury from sound.
Anthropogenic sounds below injury thresholds have the potential to mask relevant sounds in
the animals’ environment (Hildebrand, 2005); however, there are no quantitative data
demonstrating masking impacts for sea turtles and turtles do not vocalize or use sound for
communications, so the potential risk of impacts from masking is considered insignificant.
The highest potential for auditory impacts on marine turtles will occur during VSPs, and the
use of marine observers to detect sea turtles and soft start techniques will further reduce the
risks to sea turtles when VSPs are occurring.

May 2017 281

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

With respect to the potential for injury from underwater sound, EEPGL will utilize the
following embedded underwater sound control measures for the Project (see Section 2.11):
 Gradually increasing intensity of seismic impulses to allow sensitive species to vacate the
area before injury occurs (i.e., soft starts),
 Use of MMOs during VSP (although use of MMOs is more effective for identification of
marine mammals, these individuals can also detect marine turtles depending on weather
conditions, and they will be tasked with observing for marine turtles as well) and
implementation of other measures recommended by the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee (JNCC, 2010), as applicable; and
 Maintaining equipment, marine vessels, and helicopters in good working order and
operating them in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications so as to limit sound levels
to the extent reasonably practicable

Displacement from Habitat as a Result of Disturbance

During the Project life cycle, levels of human activity (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment and
materials in the water) will be higher than the very low levels that currently exist in the PDA.
Marine turtles are not known to be sensitive to human activity while at sea, so this increase in
human activity is expected to have little or no impact on them within the PDA. Project activity
related to potential disturbance would decrease during the production operations phase, so
impacts on sea turtles would decrease as well. There would be a small increase in human
activity during decommissioning, but that increase would be of relatively short duration and
would not rise to the same level of activity associated with drilling and installation. In
summary, disturbance from human activity would be expected to have little to no impact on
marine turtles throughout the duration of the Project.

Exposure to Permitted Discharges

The Project will involve routine, permitted discharges of waste streams to the sea. These
discharges would begin during the drilling and installation stage and continue into the
decommissioning stage. As described in Section 7.1.4, these discharges will be treated (as
needed) in accordance with industry guidelines. Furthermore, sea turtles would be transient in
the PDA and their exposure to any discharges would be very limited. Any impacts would be
expected to be acute and recovery would be expected to occur quickly after the affected
individual(s) exit the mixing zone.

Disturbance to Nesting from Artificial Lighting

Sea turtles are known to be sensitive to artificial light in close proximity to nesting beaches,
because artificial light can cause a variety of impacts on the behavior of nesting turtles and
hatchlings including reduced nesting rates, premature abandonment of nests/interruption of
the egg laying process, and disorientation of hatchlings (Witherington and Martin 2003; NOAA
2014). There will be artificial lights in the PDA from various vessel types and the amount of
light in the PDA will vary between stages of the Project; however, at no point is offshore light

May 2017 282

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

expected to have significant impacts on marine turtles because sea turtles are not known to be
sensitive to artificial light in the open ocean and the PDA is located so far offshore that light
from the PDA will not be visible from the shore.

Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

As discussed in Section 7.2.1, because the marine turtles occurring in the PDA carry listings of
Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable by IUCN, the impact assessment was
conducted with the conservative assumption that the Critically Endangered or Endangered
species (i.e., Hawksbill, green, loggerhead) would be the receptor for the potential impact.
Accordingly, the sensitivity rating definitions used for special status species (Table 7-34) was
used for all potential impacts.

Table 7-34 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Special Status
Species
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Species with no specific value or importance attached to them.
Low: Species and sub-species of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List (or not meeting
criteria for medium or high value), or without specific anatomical, behavioral, or
ecological susceptibilities to Project-related impacts.
Medium: Species listed as Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient on the IUCN
Red List, species protected under national legislation, nationally restricted range species,
Sensitivity nationally important numbers of migratory or congregatory species, species not meeting
criteria for high value, and species vital to the survival of a medium value species.
High: Species on IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered or Endangered. Species having
a globally restricted range (i.e., endemic species to a site, or found globally at fewer than
10 sites, fauna having a distribution range less than 50,000 km2, internationally important
numbers of migratory or congregatory species, key evolutionary species, and species vital
to the survival of high value species.

Table 7-35 summarizes the impact magnitude and receptor sensitivity ratings for marine turtles.
Table 7-36 summarizes the potential impact significance ratings for marine turtles, based on the
discussion presented above. The impact significance ratings were assigned based on the impact
assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this
chapter.
Based on consideration of all of the potential impacts on marine turtles assessed, the overall
residual significance rating for potential impacts on marine turtles from planned Project
activities is considered to be Negligible to Minor.

May 2017 283

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-35 Impact Magnitude and Receptor Sensitivity Ratings - Marine Turtles
Key Potential Sensitivity Magnitude Rationale for Ratings
Impact Rating Rating
Injury and mortality High Small Although vessel traffic will be substantial during installation, the likelihood of a
from vessel strikes (drilling and collision event with a Project vessel would be mitigated due to embedded controls
installation) such as standing instructions to vessel operators, low vessel operating speeds, and
typical marine navigation good practices. The magnitude of impact considering
Negligible embedded controls is considered to be Small during drilling and installation (when
(other Project stages) higher vessel traffic level will occur) and Negligible during other stages.
Injury (PTS) from High Negligible Sea turtles spend most of their time within a few meters of the sea surface where the
underwater sound intensity of sound from VSP will be highest, but sound from pile driving will be
lowest. Considering the relatively small size of the PTS radius surrounding the VSP
and the embedded controls described above, the likelihood of marine turtle
exposure to sound levels above injury thresholds is low, resulting in an overall
magnitude rating of Negligible.
Displacement from Low Small Increased activity in the PDA and between the PDA and shorebases, could cause
habitat to avoid turtles approaching nesting beaches from the northeast to deviate from their normal
disturbance from migration route, but marine turtles are not known to be sensitive to human activity
vessel activity while at sea. Accordingly, sensitivity is considered Low; this is used in lieu of the
special status rating based on the lack of an anticipated sensitivity. The increase in
vessel traffic between the shorebases and PDA could cause general avoidance in the
nearshore area, but would represent an incrementally insignificant increase in total
vessel traffic in the area.
Impacts from High Negligible Permitted discharges will be treated as needed prior to discharge and will reduce in
permitted concentration rapidly with increasing distance from the discharge point. The
discharges magnitude is therefore considered Negligible.
Disturbance to Low Small Adults and newly hatched turtles are highly sensitive to artificial light in the
nesting from (open ocean) (open ocean) immediate proximity to nesting beaches, but much less sensitive while offshore.
artificial lighting Accordingly, an overall sensitivity rating of Low for the open ocean and Medium for
High Negligible the nearshore environment was assigned; the open ocean rating is used in lieu of the
(on or near (on or near shore) special status rating based on the lack of an anticipated sensitivity for this impact.
shore) Project vessels will constitute a source of light that is distinct from the surrounding
environment, yielding a magnitude rating of Small for the offshore environment.
The PDA is located so far offshore that light from the PDA will not be visible from
the shore, yielding a magnitude rating of Negligible for the nearshore environment.

May 2017 284

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-36 Summary of Impacts Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation Measures - Marine Turtles
Stage Key Potential Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Rating Rating Significance Rating Mitigation Significance
Measures Rating
All Project Stages Disturbance from offshore Low to Small to Negligible None Negligible
lighting Medium Negligible
Drilling and Injury from vessel strikes Medium Small Minor None Minor
Installation Injury from sound exposure Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible

Displacement from habitat to Low Small Negligible None Negligible

avoid disturbance from vessel
activity
Exposures to permitted Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible
discharges (elevated TSS
concentrations, liquid
effluent discharges
containing various chemical
substances, discharge of
hydrotesting fluids)
Production Injury from vessel strikes Medium Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Operations; Injury from sound exposure Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Decommissioning
Displacement from habitat to Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible
avoid disturbance from
vessel activity
Exposures to permitted Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible
discharges (liquid effluent
discharges containing various
chemical substances, and
elevated temperature
streams)

May 2017 285

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.2.7 Marine Fish

7.2.7.1 Introduction

This section describes the potential impacts of the Project on marine fish. Key potential impacts
on marine fish assessed include localized changes in the distribution of pelagic species as a
result of altered water quality; localized changes in distribution and habitat usage due to altered
bottom habitats and the presence of Project infrastructure; entrainment in water intakes;
auditory impacts from vessel traffic and installation activities; and the attractive potential of
artificial lights on the FPSO, drill ship, and major installation vessels.
Marine Fish receptors will include pelagic and demersal marine fishes. These groups include a
combination of migratory and resident species. Some receptors will receive a larger proportion
of certain impacts than others. For example, surface dwelling pelagic fish will potentially
experience greater water quality impacts related to planned discharges than will bottom-
dwelling species, and bottom dwelling species will be more impacted by changes in physical
habitat structures than pelagic species.

7.2.7.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Table 7-37 summarizes the Project stages and activities associated with each potential impact
assessed. The highest number of impacts would be expected to occur during the initial stages of
the Project, when most habitat-disturbing activities take place and human/vessel activity in the
PDA will be highest. At this stage, impacts will occur throughout the water column and at the
seafloor. Once drilling and installation and hook-up/commissioning are complete and
production operations are the only activities occurring offshore, biological conditions at the
seafloor will return to equilibrium and most of the ongoing impacts will be isolated to the upper
portions of the water column and to the pelagic segment of the fish community.

Table 7-37 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Fish

Stage Project Activities Key Potential Impact
Drilling operations and VSP  Gill fouling and reduced visibility caused by
TSS.
Artificial lighting on drill  Auditory impacts from vessel sound.
ship and major installation  Auditory impacts from sound from VSP and
vessels pile driving.
Drilling and Installation of FPSO  Attraction of structure-oriented species.
Installation moorings and SURF  Localized improved access to forage for
equipment, including pile predatory fish due to prey species’ attraction
driving to artificial light.
Permitted liquid waste  Exposures to permitted discharges,
discharge potentially leading to toxicological or
metabolic impacts.

May 2017 286

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Stage Project Activities Key Potential Impact

Permitted drill cuttings and
fluids discharge

Permitted liquid waste  Exposures to permitted discharges,

discharge (primarily cooling potentially leading to toxicological or
water and chlorinated metabolic impacts.
Production effluent)
Operations Tanker and tug operations  Auditory impacts from vessel sound.
 Attraction of structure-oriented species.
Intake of seawater for cooling  Loss of fish eggs and larvae due to
water, injection water, and entrainment of immature life stages.
ballast water
Abandonment and removal  Temporary disturbance of deepwater fish
activities communities and possible gill fouling during
decommissioning (TSS).
 Permanent loss of structural habitat (FPSO
Decommissioning only) and artificial light due to
decommissioning.
Permitted liquid waste  Exposures to permitted discharges,
discharge potentially leading to toxicological or
metabolic impacts.

7.2.7.3 Discussion of Potential Impacts

Changes in the Distribution of Fish Due to Altered Water Quality

The Project will routinely discharge several waste streams to the sea. These discharges would
begin during the drilling and installation stages and continue into the decommissioning stage.
Two discharges unique to the drilling and installation phases will be discharges of drilling
fluids and cuttings. For the initial well sections which will use WBDF, the cuttings and fluids
will be discharged either at the seafloor, causing turbidity around the immediate vicinity of
each well, or from the drill ship. For subsequent well sections, cuttings and residual drilling
fluids will be discharged from the drill ship. For discharges from the drill ship, turbidity plumes
will impact a larger area as the cuttings fall through the water column, but the turbidity plume
will be diluted across a larger area, thereby reducing impacts in any single location. Fish will be
expected to generally avoid these turbidity plumes while drilling is occurring, reducing
respiratory impacts associated with gill fouling, but would be expected to return after drilling is
complete. WBDF and the residual quantities of low-toxicity NABF adhered to discharged
cuttings are expected to have no measureable impacts on fish.

May 2017 287

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

As described in Section 7.1.4, most of the planned discharges that would occur during
production operations are not known to have negative impacts on marine life or would occur at
negligible volumes, but the increased temperature and chlorine concentrations in the cooling
water discharges were identified as having the potential to negatively impact marine life.
Elevated temperature is known to have several physiological lethal and sub-lethal impacts on
fish including reduced reproductive success, reduced early life stage survivorship, and
increased metabolic stress. Thermal thresholds for such impacts vary widely by species, but
thresholds from the scientific literature range from about +1.5 ˚C to +6 ˚C (Donelson et al., 2014;
Pankhurst and Munday, 2011). Under the conservative assumptions described in Section 7.1.4,
localized sea surface temperatures are expected to increase as a result of the Project, but these
increases are predicted to diminish to 3 ˚C above ambient temperatures within 100 m (~330 ft)
horizontal distance from the discharge outlet. This finding indicates that within 100 m (~330 ft)
of the FPSO, the thermal impact of routine discharges would diminish to near the lower end of
the range within which thermal impacts on fish are expected to occur. Most of the research on
thermal thresholds for these types of impacts has focused on reef or structure-oriented species
that spend their entire adult lives in a small area rather than the open-ocean pelagic species that
would occur near the surface in the PDA. Pelagic species would be much more likely to move
away from a thermal mixing zone that exceeds their optimum range than would structure-
oriented species, so not only would thermal impacts affect a very small area of the ocean surface
but the species that occur within the PDA would also be resilient to these thermal impacts based
on their propensity to actively avoid suboptimal water temperatures.
Similar to temperature increases, chlorine can also induce a range of negative impacts in fish
including disruption of cardiac function, respiration, and growth. There are no regulatory limits
for residual chlorine in marine discharges in Guyana. Chlorine toxicity depends not only on
dosage (concentration and exposure time) but also on individual species’ sensitivity to chlorine.
This makes defining a single impact threshold for chlorine exposure difficult. While chlorine
concentrations within the immediate vicinity of the FPSO could exceed levels that may result in
toxicity impacts to fish (assuming the fish remained in the area long enough to experience the
impact), concentrations are expected to decrease by approximately 89 percent within 100 m of
the discharge point.
The combined impact of increased temperature and chlorine concentrations would make the
localized mixing zone inhospitable to some species. However, unless they are physically
confined or otherwise prevented from escaping lethal water quality conditions, or water quality
conditions decline so quickly that escape is impossible, fish are usually capable of detecting and
avoiding harmful water quality conditions. This is especially true of water quality conditions
that cause discomfort or are otherwise physically apparent at sub-lethal levels like chlorine, and
is also especially true of the pelagic species that move throughout their lives and would be in
the most direct contact with elevated temperatures and chlorine concentrations.
Decommissioning will cause small turbidity plumes near the seafloor if selected components of
the SURF are removed and as mooring lines from the FPSO are placed on the seafloor. Impacts
from these turbidity plumes will be similar to those associated with drilling and installation,
although they will be smaller and have a shorter duration.

May 2017 288

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

For these reasons, declines in water quality would be expected to negatively impact fish
abundance in the immediate vicinity of the well heads, SURF, and drill ship during drilling and
installation, the FPSO and tanker(s) during production operations, and the SURF during
decommissioning, but would not be expected to cause significant fish mortality. Limited,
localized impairments in water quality will not be significant enough to cause substantial
changes in fish populations, nor will they significantly impact sensitive or important species
(see Section 7.2.1), but they will likely cause limited changes in the distribution and composition
of the fish community within parts of the PDA. As discussed below, the physical attraction that
offshore facilities can exert on fish, could actually result in net increases in the abundance of
certain fish species, even under slightly impaired water quality conditions. The net impact in
this case is often a shift away from sensitive species (including some pelagic and sedentary
species) toward sedentary or structure-oriented species that are more tolerant of minor water
quality impairments. Any impacts on transient fish swimming through the mixing zone would
be expected to be acute, and affected individuals would be expected to recover quickly after
exiting the mixing zone.

Auditory Impacts to Fish from Vessel Activity, Vertical Seismic Profiling, and Pile Driving

The same sound sources associated with the Project that could impact marine mammals
(Section 7.2.5) could also impact fish. These can be broadly separated into non-impulsive
sources (e.g., vessel sound) and impulsive sources (pile driving and VSP). Hearing abilities and
sensitivities differ significantly among fish species. Certain species can be classified as hearing
generalists or specialists31 based on differences in hearing ability conveyed by specific
anatomical traits. Although hearing specialists are thought to be more susceptible to auditory
impacts within certain audio frequencies than other species, there are no generally accepted
thresholds for auditory impacts in either specialist or generalist species and many species’
hearing abilities have yet to be quantified.

Non-impulsive Sound

A recent EIS conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior as part of a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for proposed geological and geophysical investigations in the
Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf off the south eastern U.S. in 2014 (BOEM, 2014) contained a
comprehensive review of auditory impacts on fish from non-impulsive and impulsive sources
(including seismic surveys). This study found that fish may experience a range of impacts from
non-impulsive sound including increased stress and threshold shift, and fish may employ
behavioral strategies to avoid the sound source (BOEM, 2014). However, the extent to which
these impacts would actually occur is highly dependent on the hearing abilities and sensitivities

31Hearing specialists are species that have developed heightened sensitivities to sounds in a specific frequency range.
This adaptation occurs in some species to facilitate feeding or social behavior. Hearing specialists are distinguished
from hearing generalists, which hear equally well across a wider range of frequencies, but do not possess the acuity
of the specialists within their specific frequency range.

May 2017 289

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

of the species of fish that occur within the PDA, and these abilities and sensitivities are currently
unknown.

Impulsive Sound

The impact of impulsive sounds on hearing specialists is the most important factor to consider
when rating Project-related auditory impacts on fish because of the following:
 Impulsive sound is usually considered more important than non-impulsive sound in terms
of impacts on fish because impulsive sound is the category most often associated with
hearing loss, injury, or death of fish;
 Impulsive sources also tend to have more severe impacts on hearing specialist species and
those species with well-developed swim bladders32 than others because they tend to be
more sensitive to auditory impacts especially within the range of frequencies that they are
specially adapted to detect;
 High peak pressures and rapid onset and decay tend to be associated with the most severe
auditory impacts on fish, and are characteristic of impulsive sources; and
 As described in Section 7.1.2, impulsive sound from driven piles and VSP would impact a
larger area of the ocean than the non-impulsive sources modeled by JASCO (especially to
the north of the source) and therefore could impact a larger number of species and
individual fish than would the non-impulsive sources.

Larson (1985) concluded that lethal impacts in the most sensitive taxa can occur at peak
pressures exceeding 229 Db re 1µPa with onset/decay times less than 1 ms. Turnpenny and
Nedwell (1994) reviewed historical studies of seismic impacts on fish and determined that for
exposures at close range (<10 m) transient behavioral impacts began appearing at 192 dB re
1µPa, a variety of injuries appeared at about 220 dB re 1µPa, and mortality began appearing at
exposures above 230 dB re 1µPa, although these impacts did not always occur and some
exposures up to 240 dB re 1µPa resulted in no observable adverse impacts.
There have been no published reports to date documenting a lasting impact on fishing or fish
stock as a result of seismic surveys. BOEM (2014) concluded that although hearing specialists
are more susceptible than hearing generalists to hearing loss from impulsive sound, such
impacts do not always occur and are generally not permanent. Impacts would be expected to be
most severe in resident fish that are oriented to structural bottom habitats and would therefore
be exposed to repeated impulses at a given location over time. One such genus (Sebastes spp).,
showed startle and alarm responses to 10-min exposures of seismic impulses at 180 dB re 1 μPa
at ranges from 11m to several kilometers, but the impacts appeared to be transitory (Pearson et
al. 1992). Another study of the reef-oriented pollack (Pollachius pollachius) documented only
minor changes in behavior when exposed to seismic impulses with peak sound pressures

32Caged exposure tests have determined that species with large swim bladders or other highly vascularized, low
density organs or structures tend to be more susceptible to acute acoustic injury than species that lack these features
when exposed to such sources within a few meters.

May 2017 290

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

between 195-218 dB re 1µPa at ranges of 5.3-109 m (Wardle et al, 2001). Documented recovery
times vary, but generally range from a few hours to a few days.
The available literature described above suggests that behavioral impacts from impulsive sound
sources may begin to occur at peak sound pressures between 180-195 dB re 1 μPa, and that
injury could occur at peak sound pressures around 220 dB re 1 μPa.
Given the most sensitive receptors do not always experience impacts from impulsive sound,
they usually recover from such impacts, and impulsive sound would only occur during the
initial phases of the Project, population level impacts on marine fish from auditory impacts are
highly unlikely. Auditory impacts will not significantly impact any rare, sensitive, or important
species (see discussion in Section 7.2.1).

Changes in Distribution and Habitat Usage Due to Altered Bottom Habitats and the Presence
of Project Infrastructure

Installation of moorings for the FPSO, installation of SURF equipment, and drilling wells will
disturb the seafloor temporarily within the PDA. These disturbances will create turbidity
plumes and alter localized bottom contours within the area. The main potential impacts of
turbidity plumes on fish are gill fouling and reduced visibility. Visibility is a minor factor at the
depths that occur in the PDA, but fouled gills can lead to respiratory distress over long
exposures. The turbidity plumes are expected to dissipate rapidly downcurrent, and fish will be
expected to temporarily vacate the immediate vicinity of activities at the seafloor until turbidity
reaches acceptable levels. This behavioral response will limit fishes’ exposure to turbidity, and
fish would be expected to return to the vicinity of the Project subsea infrastructure once seafloor
disturbance activities are complete.
Some of the deepwater species from the “red fish” zone and all of the reef-associated species
identified in the McConnell study (Section 6.2.7) are structure-oriented species. Physical
structures provide many benefits to these species including refuge from currents and predators
as well as foraging opportunities. These species would be expected to congregate around the
well heads and manifolds once the disturbance associated with installation has abated and the
Project enters the production operations stage. The isolated marine communities that develop
around the SURF components could contain some species that are rare or absent elsewhere in
the Project AOI due to the apparent lack of hard substrate outcrops in the area. These
communities could be disturbed temporarily during decommissioning if the flowlines are
disconnected from the manifolds and retrieved. However, the manifolds and well heads may
remain in place in perpetuity (subject to the decommissioning plan), so these facilities will
continue to provide habitats for the fish community over the long term. Minor, localized
impairments in water quality will not be significant enough to cause substantial changes in fish
populations, nor will they significantly impact sensitive or important species (see discussion in
Section 7.2.1), but they will cause small changes in the distribution and composition of the fish
community within the PDA.

May 2017 291

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Attraction to Artificial Light

Artificial light has been known for many years to attract fish in a variety of settings, and this
phenomenon has been documented around floodlights on offshore petroleum infrastructure
(Hastings et al. 1976, Stanley & Wilson 1997, Lindquist et al. 2005). Results from studies of
platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico suggest that platforms benefit all life stages by
attracting and concentrating prey and providing sufficient light to locate and capture them
(Keenan et al., 2007). While this may benefit predatory species in the short term, artificially lit
structures have the potential to alter predator–prey interactions by creating conditions that
favor predatory species at night and disadvantaging the prey while simultaneously attracting
the prey species. This could ultimately have long-term negative impacts on predatory species if
localized depletion of prey resources occurs (Becker et al., 2012; Nightingale et al., 2103). The
artificial light produced from vessels will not be substantial enough to alter fish populations,
nor will it significantly impact sensitive or important species (see discussion in Section 7.2.1),
but may cause small changes in the distribution and/or behavior of fish in the immediate
vicinity of the FPSO and possibly the drill ships and installation vessels. .

Entrainment in Water Intakes

Seawater will be withdrawn from the ocean to provide water to inject into the reservoir, to cool
the FPSO’s processing equipment during the production operations stage, and for ballast of
vessels. Larval and juvenile fish have the potential to be entrained in the intake or impinged on
the screens that will be installed to remove particulates from the water before it is pumped into
the treatment unit on the FPSO. Most research on entrainment and impingement involves site-
specific studies at onshore power plants and has been conducted in North American and
European estuaries or nearshore coastal areas where immature fish are concentrated
(Barnthouse, 2013). Nearshore intakes generally pose a higher risk of entrainment and
impingement than offshore intakes (WaterReUse, 2011). Information on the entrainment and/or
impingement rates at offshore intakes is sparse, but there is some recent evidence that losses
from entrainment and impingement are insignificant at the population level even at power
plants in coastal and estuarine settings (Barnthouse, 2013) and the U.S. Minerals Management
Service noted that coastal power plants require much higher volumes of water than individual
offshore oil and gas facilities (approximately 10 million gallons per minute for a nuclear power
plant; Martinez-Andrade and Baltz, 2003), meaning that the entrainment losses at oil and gas
facilities would likely be much lower than at power plants. In most cases, extrapolation of the
losses of larval fish and eggs at power plant intakes to an equivalent number of adults indicates
that entrainment losses are insignificant compared to natural and fishing-related mortality
(Barnthouse, 2013; WaterReUse, 2011). Cooling and ballast water intakes on the FPSO and drill
ships will be equipped with screens to prevent fish entrainment. Entrainment will not
significantly impact sensitive or important species (see discussion in Section 7.2.1).

May 2017 292

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.2.7.4 Characterization of Impacts

Magnitude of Impact

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on marine fish from the potential impacts
described above is determined based on the size of the impact relative to natural variations in
the impacted population (where known), the temporal scale of the impact, and the population
level at which the impact is anticipated to occur. The magnitude of potential impacts on marine
fish is defined according to the definitions provided in Table 7-38.

Table 7-38 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts to Marine Fish
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Impact is within the normal range of variation for the population of the
species.
Small: Impact does not cause a substantial change in the population of the species, or other
species dependent on it.
Medium: Impact causes a substantial change in abundance and/or reduction in
Magnitude distribution of a population over one or more generations, but does not threaten the long
term viability/function of that population, or any population dependent on it.
Large: Impacts entire population, or a significant part of it causing a substantial decline in
abundance and/or change in and recovery of the population (or another dependent on it)
is not possible either at all, or within several generations due to natural recruitment
(reproduction, immigration from unaffected areas).

The Project includes several embedded controls that will reduce the magnitude of impacts on
marine fish, including:
 FPSO onboard treatment of produced water, bilge water, and sanitary wastewater prior to
discharge;
 Use of oil/water separators, to ensure compliance with an oil in water content of <15 ppm
(per MARPOL) for bilge water;
 Use of Water-Based Drilling Fluids (WBDF) and low-toxicity IOGP Group III NABF;
 Utilization of solids control and drill cuttings dryer systems to treat cuttings prior to
discharge;
 Gradually increase intensity of seismic pulses during VSP and hammer energy (during pile
driving) to allow sensitive species to vacate the area before injury occurs; and
 Provide screening on vessels for cooling water and ballast water intakes for FPSO and drill
ship to minimize the entrainment of fish

Sensitivity of Receptor

The assessment of marine fish as a receptor of impacts from the Project is based on the
conservation status of the marine fish expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project. The
sensitivity of marine fish is defined according to the definitions provided in Table 7-39.

May 2017 293

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-39 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Marine Fish
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Species with no specific value or importance attached to them.
Low: Species and sub-species without specific anatomical, behavioral, or ecological
susceptibilities to Project-related impacts.
Medium: Species with one of the following characteristics: specific anatomical, behavioral, or
ecological susceptibilities to Project-related impacts; importance to local or regional fisheries;
Sensitivity
or vital importance to the survival of another medium-sensitivity species, but not meeting
criteria for high value sensitivity.
High: Species with two of more of the following characteristics: specific anatomical,
behavioral, or ecological susceptibilities to Project-related impacts; importance to local or
regional fisheries; or vital importance to the survival of another medium-sensitivity species.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures

Table 7-40 summarizes the magnitude, sensitivity, and impact significance ratings for the
potential impacts on marine fish discussed above. The significance of impacts was assessed
based on the impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the
beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-40 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation

Measures - Marine Fish
Stage Key Potential Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Impact Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
All Project Auditory impacts Small Low Negligible None Negligible
stages on fish from
vessel activity
(pelagic species)
All Project Disturbance from Small Low Negligible None Negligible
stages or attraction to
offshore lighting
(pelagic species)
Drilling Distribution and Small Medium Minor None Minor
and habitat changes
Installation from altered
bottom habitats
and presence of
Project
infrastructure
(demersal species)
Auditory impacts Small Medium Minor None Minor
from pile driving
and VSP
(demersal species)
Exposure to Negligible Low Negligible None Negligible
permitted
discharges
(elevated TSS

May 2017 294

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Stage Key Potential Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual

Impact Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
concentrations,
liquid effluent
discharges
containing various
chemical
substances,
discharge of
hydrotesting
fluids)
Production Distribution Small Low Negligible None Negligible
Operations changes due to
altered water
quality (liquid
effluent
discharges
containing various
chemical
substances, and
elevated
temperature
streams - pelagic
species only)
Entrainment via Small Low Negligible None Negligible
water
withdrawals
(pelagic species)
Attraction to Small Low Negligible None Negligible
artificial light
(pelagic species)

7.2.8 Marine Benthos

7.2.8.1 Introduction

This section describes the potential impacts of the Project on marine benthic biological
resources. The key potential impacts assessed include injury to benthos as a result of deposition
of drill cuttings (via smothering and/or toxicity impacts from residual oil contained in the
cuttings) and as a result of disturbance of the seafloor during installation of Project components.

7.2.8.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The PDA is located in the eastern portion of the Stabroek Block in water depths ranging from
approximately 1500-1900 m. This area’s macrofauna community is dominated by polychaete
worms as the most abundant major taxonomic group, followed by crustaceans, mollusks, and
other taxa. Benthic epifauna appear scarce on the basis of the EBS survey results; however, tube

May 2017 295

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

building polychaetes (possibly Sabellidae and Terebellidae) and burrowing shrimp were
observed.
The Project has the potential to impact these organisms through smothering (from deposition of
drill cuttings), toxicological impacts (from NABF adhered to deposited cuttings) and crushing
or displacement (from placement of subsea infrastructure). These impacts will be balanced
somewhat by the creation of artificial substrate in the form of manifolds, wellheads, and other
infrastructure permanently installed on the seafloor, which will provide small amounts of hard
substrate available for colonization.
Table 7-41 summarizes potential Project impacts on marine benthos.

Table 7-41 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Benthos

Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
Drilling and Installation Discharge of drill cuttings and  Smothering of benthos as a result of
accumulation on seafloor accumulation of drill cuttings.
 Toxicological impacts on benthos
Installation of FPSO anchor structures from NABF adhered to deposited
and SURF infrastructure on the drill cuttings.
seafloor  Crushing of benthos where subsea
infrastructure is placed.
Production Operations Presence of (non-moving)  Creation of artificial substrate for use
infrastructure on seafloor by benthos, temporary for duration
of production operations (positive).
Decommissioning Presence (abandonment) of subsea  Creation of artificial substrate for use
infrastructure on the seafloor by benthos (positive).

7.2.8.3 Characterization of Impacts – Drill Cuttings Deposition

Magnitude of Impact – Drill Cuttings Deposition

Planned discharges of drill cuttings and fluids will impact marine benthos as a result of
accumulation of cuttings on the seafloor around the well locations. Potential routes of impact
include physical and toxicological pathways.
With regard to potential physical impacts, discharged drill cuttings will accumulate on the
seafloor close to the individual wells, and some benthic fauna will likely be impacted through
burial and smothering. Smothering is a biological impact on benthos induced by the physical
impact of burial. The severity of burial impacts depends on the sensitivity of the benthic
organism, the thickness of deposition, the amount of oxygen depleting material (and the
resulting anoxic conditions beneath the depositional layer), and the duration of the burial.
Thickness thresholds vary by species and sediment permeability. A threshold deposition rate of
5 cm per month for smothering impacts to benthic communities is recommended based on
publications by Ellis and Heim (1985) and MarLIN (2011). Smaller threshold values as low as 1
mm have been reported (e.g., Smit et al., 2006); however, they are associated with instantaneous
burials on benthic species, not gradual smothering impacts.

May 2017 296

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

As described in Section 7.1.3, modeling of drill cuttings discharges for four well/current
combination scenarios indicated the maximum depositional thickness of cuttings on the seafloor
is predicted to be between 19 cm and 75 cm, depending on currents and well locations. The
model predicted extent of cuttings deposition above the 5 cm per month threshold will be
confined to within a relatively short distance from the well locations, with the largest area
predicted to be approximately 43 m (~141 ft) in diameter. Figure 7.6 depicts the maximum total
accumulated cuttings as predicted by modelling in the vicinity of both drill centers.

May 2017 297

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Figure 7-6 Sediment Sample Locations and Deposition Areas

deposited cuttings over time, and additional (non-cutting) sediments will gradually mix with
and overlay the cuttings, gradually returning the surficial sediment layer to a chemical state
similar to existing conditions. Additionally, the NABF used by EEPGL will be a low-toxicity
substance, reducing the potential that changes in sediment quality will lead to toxicological
impacts on benthic fauna. Based on consideration of the above, the overall magnitude of drill
cuttings deposition impacts on marine benthos was rated as Negligible.

Sensitivity of Receptor - Drill Cuttings Deposition

A study of benthic megafauna in a similar environment offshore Venezuela found that

abundances in the vicinity of offshore development sites were significantly reduced after
drilling. Highly mobile organisms returned to the area soon after drilling was completed.
However, the species composition of sessile taxa was altered, with analyses suggesting that
their density increased further away from areas that had been disturbed. The recovery potential
of deep-sea marine benthic biological resources, particularly sessile taxa, following cessation of
drilling activities is unknown (Jones et al., 2012).
Sessile individuals will likely experience injury or mortality in areas where drill cuttings
deposition exceeds the above-referenced threshold; however, long-term impacts on the benthos
population are not expected as a result of smothering of these individuals.

May 2017 298

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

With respect to toxicity impacts, contaminants deposited on the seafloor can pose risks to those
deep-sea benthos living within or in close association with bottom substrates that are unable to
avoid exposure due to their relatively sedentary existence. These benthos perform functional
roles in the deep-sea ecosystem, including sediment bioturbation and stabilization, organic
matter decomposition and nutrient regeneration, and serve as food sources to higher trophic
levels; accordingly, toxicity could impact the population size as well as move up the food chain
via bioaccumulation.
Based on consideration of the above, the overall sensitivity of marine benthos to drill cuttings
deposition impacts was rated as Low.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Drill Cuttings Deposition

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for impacts
on marine benthos from drill cuttings deposition. Based on this rating, no mitigation is
recommended.

7.2.8.1 Characterization of Impacts – FPSO and SURF Installation

Magnitude of Impact – FPSO and SURF Installation

The shallow sediment layer would be disturbed during installation of subsea infrastructure
(SURF and FPSO mooring structures) on the seabed. In addition to disturbance of the habitat,
individual benthic organisms are likely to be crushed, dislocated from the substrate (sessile
organisms), or dismembered as a result of these occurrences. With respect to installation
impacts, as indicated in Table 7-42, which summarizes the area that will be disturbed by
installation of various infrastructure components, approximately 390,000 m2 (30 ha, ~74 acres)
(incorporating a 50 percent contingency factor) will be subject to essentially one-time
disturbance by the installation activity. The use of anchors by vessels other than the FPSO is not
expected; other vessels will utilize dynamic positioning to maintain station offshore.

Table 7-42 Area of Benthic Habitat Disturbed by FPSO and SURF Subsea Infrastructure
Installation
Equipment Quantity Unit Area / Width Subtotal (m2)
Trees 17 21m2 357
Flying Leads 2,474 m 1 m width 2,474
Production Manifolds 2 12.5 m2 25
Flowline Structures 5 70 m2 350
Flowlines 29,809 m 3 m width 89,427
Water Injection (WI) Manifolds 2 12.5 m2 25
WI Pipeline Structures 2 70 m2 140
WI Pipeline 16,491 m 3 m width 49,473
Gas Injection (GI) Manifolds 1 12.5 m2 13
GI Pipeline Structures 1 70 m2 70
GI Pipeline 4,352 m 3 m width 13,056
Production Umbilical 13,168 m 3 m width 39,504

May 2017 299

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Equipment Quantity Unit Area / Width Subtotal (m2)

Injection Umbilical 4,259 m 3 m width 12,777
Subsea Distribution Units (SDUs) 4 40 m2 160
FPSO Anchor Piles and Chains 16 250 m2 4,000
FPSO Mooring Leg Prelay 16 3000 m2 48,000
Subtotal 259,851
Total w/~50%
390,000
Contingency

The mortality of benthos, particularly sessile taxa, which are directly contacted during
installation of subsea infrastructure within this area is anticipated to be high. Although some
organisms will survive, they may be left with injuries that may impair their survival by making
them prone to infection or vulnerable to predators. In addition, the population structure in the
specific disturbance areas may temporarily change as more motile benthos taxa enter the
disturbed area to scavenge organisms that did not survive. However, this impact will only
occur within a small percentage of the Stabroek Block (approximately 0.001 percent by area).
From a benthic population standpoint, this leads to an impact magnitude rating of Negligible.

Sensitivity of Receptor - FPSO and SURF Installation

The sensitivity of the marine benthos population to FPSO and SURF installation impacts is
considered Low. While the mortality rate of sessile taxa individuals from physical disturbance
resulting from installation of the subsea infrastructure will be high, the population is not
anticipated to be sensitive to the reduction in individuals.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – FPSO and SURF Installation

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for impacts
on marine benthos from FPSO and SURF installation. Based on this rating, no mitigation is
recommended.

7.2.8.2 Characterization of Impacts – Presence (and Abandonment) of Subsea Infrastructure

Magnitude of Impact – Presence (and Abandonment) of Subsea Infrastructure

As described in Section 2.12, at the end of operations some subsea infrastructure, including the
SURF equipment that is connected to the FPSO (e.g., risers, umbilical), SURF equipment sited
on the seafloor, and FPSO mooring system, may be disconnected and abandoned in place on the
seafloor in accordance with standard industry practice, consistent with the decommissioning
plan. This would constitute an irreversible loss of natural soft bottom habitat within the
collective footprint of these structures, but some species of benthos may colonize this hard
substrate or be attracted to it as an artificial reef, as found in shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico
(Kilgour and Shirley, 2008). This will only occur within the immediate footprint of the
abandoned infrastructure and is expected to affect a relatively small number of organisms. The
addition of small amounts of hard substrate will likely increase the diversity of the local benthic

May 2017 300

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

community as species that require hard substrate colonize the area where none existed before,
but this must be balanced with the loss of soft substrate that will continue to be unavailable
within the footprint of the subsea infrastructure. These effects will occur over a small area of
the direct AOI. The magnitude of the net effect on marine benthos will be Small.
This positive impact is also relevant for the production operations stage, as benthic organisms
will have the opportunity to colonize elements of subsea infrastructure which remain stationary
through the production operations stage. These positive impacts will be temporary for any
infrastructure that is removed at the time of decommissioning.

Sensitivity of Receptor – Presence (and Abandonment) of Subsea Infrastructure

The sensitivity of the marine benthos to this impact is considered Low, as only a small number
of organisms would be impacted and those are species that are accustomed to colonizing hard
substrate, in an area where this type of surface is not common.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Presence (and Abandonment) of Subsea

Infrastructure

These magnitude and sensitivity ratings lead to a significance rating of Negligible for impacts
on marine benthos from the presence and subsequent abandonment of subsea infrastructure.
Based on this rating, no mitigation is recommended.

7.2.8.3 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings

Table 7-43 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on marine benthos, and the impact significance ratings resulting therefrom. The
significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology described in
Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-43 Marine Benthos - Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
Stage Key Potential Sensitivity Magnitude Pre- Proposed Residual
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Drilling and Smothering Low Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Installation and/or toxicity
impacts

Injury or
disturbance
Production Marine benthos Low Positive Negligible None Negligible
Operations – from creation
of artificial
Decommissioning substrate

May 2017 301

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.2.9 Ecological Balance and Ecosystems

7.2.9.1 Introduction

This section describes the potential impacts of the Project on the key components and functions
of the marine ecosystem. For over 30 years, the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has used the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept as a model to
assess and manage ecological functions at the regional scale. LMEs are defined as relatively
large areas of ocean space of approximately 200,000 km² (20,000,000 ha or ~80,000 mi2) or
greater, adjacent to the continents in coastal waters where primary productivity is generally
higher than in open ocean areas. The PDA is located in the northwestern portion of the North
Brazil Shelf LME, which comprises the coastal waters adjacent to northeastern South America
from the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea to the Parnaiba River in Brazil. Its width varies, but
it extends roughly 500 km (~300 mi) off the coast of Guyana (NOAA, 2016).

7.2.9.2 Discussion of Potential Impacts

All of the Project activities are broadly relevant to an assessment of impacts on ecological
balance and ecosystems because the potential impacts will occur within the ecosystem and
could impact one or more of its components. Therefore, rather than focusing on individual
Project activities and their separate impacts on specific ecosystem components, this section
identifies key ecosystem components and functions, and assesses the ecosystem level
implications of the impacts identified in Sections 7.2.1 through 7.2.8 that could impact those key
components and functions. Although there is no universally accepted definition of key
ecological functions (in generic terms or with respect to the North Brazil Shelf LME), they
generally include such basic processes as nutrient cycling, gene flow, and maintenance of
biodiversity.

Changes in the Marine Nutrient Cycle

The three most important nutrients in the marine nutrient cycle are nitrogen, phosphorous, and
silicon (Nihoul and Chen, 2008). The primary source of all of these nutrients in the marine food
web is phytoplankton, which assimilate the nutrients from the surrounding seawater. Nitrogen
and phosphorous are essential nutrients to all plant life and silicates enter the marine nutrient
cycle largely through diatoms, a specific class of phytoplankton that construct hard silicate
exoskeletons. The Project could potentially indirectly impact the marine nutrient cycle through
its impacts on marine water quality, which could in turn impact phytoplankton growth. As
discussed in Section 7.1.4, the Project is predicted to have negligible impacts on water quality,
and these impacts are predicted to be limited to a relatively small, localized mixing zone around
the FPSO. These impacts are likely to reduce nutrient uptake by phytoplankton within the
mixing zone, but based on the significance of water quality impacts as assessed in Section 7.1.4
and the very small portion of the North Brazil Shelf LME that would be exposed to these
impacts, the Project is predicted to have little if any ecosystem-level impacts on nutrient cycling.

May 2017 302

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Impacts on Gene Flow

Maintaining gene flow is critical to supporting the genetic diversity in marine biological
populations, which in turn is an important factor in the general resilience and vigor of marine
flora and fauna. Obstacles to efficient gene flow occur whenever physiochemical barriers to
migration, breeding, or dispersal/colonization occur. Oceanic currents are a key driver of
biological dispersal because many marine species spend all or part of their lives drifting as part
of the plankton. A project could potentially have significant impacts on gene flow if it impacted
large scale current patterns or prevented site specific reproductive events (such as spawning
aggregations) from occurring. The Project is not predicted to have any appreciable impact on
regional current patterns that define the North Brazil Shelf LME, nor is it predicted to impact
any site-specific reproductive activities that could be considered significant at a regional or
ecosystem scale.

Impacts on Biodiversity

The Project is predicted to have numerous impacts on marine species, but is not expected to
impact large-scale distribution of species or cause the loss of any species from within the North
Brazil Shelf LME. Some benthic species may be locally displaced from the footprint of the SURF
components and some pelagic species may be locally displaced from the surface mixing zone
that will form around the wastewater outfall, but these impacts would be insignificant at the
ecosystem scale. Additionally, there is a negligible risk of the Project causing the extinction or
extirpation of any species from the North Brazil Shelf LME, or exacerbate any of the risk factors
that have contributed to the listing of the special status species assessed in Section 7.2.1.
Ballast Water and Invasive Species
Ballast water is water carried in ships' ballast tanks to improve vessel stability, balance and
trim; it is essential for the safe operations of oceangoing ships. It is taken onboard or discharged
when cargo is unloaded or loaded, or when a ship needs extra stability in foul weather. When
ships take on ballast water, aquatic plants and animals may also be entrained into the ballast
tanks. These organisms are transported in the ballast tanks of the ships, and, upon being
discharged, some of these organisms may survive and establish themselves in the new
environment if the habitat conditions are suitable. The global movement of ballast water is
considered to be the largest transfer mechanism for marine non-indigenous species (Ruiz et al.,
2005 ). If the non-indigenous species become invasive, they may cause serious ecological,
economic, and public health impacts (MCA, 2008). If the invasive species become dominant in
the new environment, they can displace native species, change local/regional biodiversity, and
affect local economies based on fisheries. In addition, these invasive species may also affect
industries that withdraw coastal water and affect public health (ESMA, 2017 ).
The Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Working Group, of which Guyana is a member, has
identified one species, the green mussel (Perna virdis), as having been introduced to the
Caribbean and South American coastal waters via ballast water (CIASNET, 2010 ).

May 2017 303

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

The Project has the potential to contribute to the spread of marine invasive species as the
discharges of ballast water will be required for initial FPSO installation and recurring tanker
offloading during production operations. As discussed in Section 2.5.8.4, ballast water will be
required for FPSO transit from the shipyard to the site. Once on site, the unneeded ballast water
from the FPSO may be discharged overboard. The initial FPSO ballast discharge will occur only
during a limited time period during SURF installation and commissioning activities. It is
estimated that no more than 500,000 barrels of ballast water would be discharged into Guyanese
waters (Table 2-5) during this time. In order to mitigate the risk of invasive species, the ballast
water taken on will be exchanged with water from deep international waters. This practice is
generally thought to reduce the likelihood of introducing invasive species to new coastal
habitats because oceanic organisms are considered unlikely to colonize coastal habitats (Ruiz et
al., 2005). The environmental conditions at the point where the water is withdrawn will likely
be similar to the conditions in the PDA, which means that at least some organisms discharged
into the PDA would be likely to survive the event, but it also means that these organisms would
likely include many of the same open-ocean species that occur naturally in the PDA.
During production operations, offloading tankers will routinely discharge ballast water in
Guyanese waters as oil from the FPSO is loaded. It is estimated that a maximum of 1,100,000
barrels of ballast water (Table 2-5) will be discharged during each loading. These ballast water
discharges would be conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards and in
compliance with IMO requirements. The ecological effect would be similar to the effect of the
ballast discharge from the FPSO in the sense that organisms from the open ocean could be
discharged at the FPSO. However, ballast discharges from tankers will occur routinely during
the production phase as opposed to the one-time FPSO ballast discharge during the installation
phase.

7.2.9.3 Characterization of Impacts

Magnitude of Impact

The Project’s predicted ecosystem-level impacts are indirect impacts that would potentially
occur as a result of direct impacts on specific abiotic and abiotic components of the larger
ecosystem. The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on the North Brazil LME from
the potential impacts described above is determined based on the geographic extent of the
impact compared to the size of the North Brazil LME, and the initial rating of the direct impact
that would drive the indirect ecosystem-level impact. The magnitude of potential ecosystem-
level impacts is defined according to the definitions provided in Table 7-44.

Table 7-44 Definitions for Magnitude Ratings for Potential Impacts to Ecological Balance
and Ecosystems
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Impact is within the normal range of variation for the ecosystem as a whole.
Magnitude Small: Impact is predicted to be outside the range of natural variation, but does not cause
a substantial change in any of the key ecosystem functions identified in Section 7.2.9.1.

May 2017 304

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Medium: Impact is predicted to be outside the range of natural variation, and causes a
substantial change in one or more of the key ecosystem functions identified in Section
7.2.9.1.
Large: Impact is predicted to be outside the range of natural variation, and causes a
substantial change in two or more of the key ecosystem functions identified in Section
7.2.9.1.

All of the embedded controls identified in Section 2.11 will minimize impacts on one or more
physical, biological, or chemical attributes of the ecosystem, and will therefore play a role in
reducing the initial magnitude of impacts on the ecosystem.

Sensitivity of Receptor

The assessment of the ecosystem as a broad receptor of indirect impacts from the Project is
based on the sensitivity of the receptor to the initial direct impact that will drive the ecosystem-
level impacts. Ecosystem level sensitivity is defined according to the definitions provided in
Table 7-45.

May 2017 305

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-45 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Impacts to Ecological Balance
and Ecosystems
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Biological impacts affect receptors with no specific value or importance attached
to them.
Low: Biological impacts affect species and sub-species of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List
(or not meeting criteria for medium or high value), or without specific anatomical, behavioral,
or ecological susceptibilities to Project-related impacts.
Medium: Biological impacts affect species listed as Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data
Deficient on the IUCN Red List, species protected under national legislation, nationally
Sensitivity restricted range species, nationally important numbers of migratory or congregatory species,
species not meeting criteria for high value, and species vital to the survival of a medium value
species.
High: Biological impacts affect species on IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered or
Endangered. Species having a globally restricted range (e.g., fauna having a distribution
range less than 50,000 km2 (20,000 mi2), internationally important numbers of migratory, or
congregatory species, key evolutionary species, and species vital to the survival of high value
species.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures

Table 7-46 summarizes the magnitude, sensitivity, and impact significance ratings for the
potential ecosystem level impacts discussed above. The significance of impacts was assessed
based on the impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the
beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-46 Summary of Impact Significance Ratings and Recommended Mitigation

Measures – Ecological Balance and Ecosystems
Stage Resource / Sensitivity Magnitude Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Receptor Impact Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
Nutrient uptake by Low Small Negligible None Negligible
phytoplankton;
All Project localized and
stages temporary changes
in species
distribution
Marine biota that Low Medium Minor None Minor
could be affected
Production
by invasive species
Operations
introduced by
ballast water

May 2017 306

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3 Socioeconomic Environment

For the purposes of this EIA, “socioeconomic environment” is intended to encompass the
human aspects of the affected environment, with specific emphasis on the social and economic
characteristics of society that could be affected by the Project. This section identifies and
assesses the potential impacts on the existing socioeconomic environment in the Project AOI,
including community health and cultural heritage, as a result of Project-related activities. The
methodologies specific to the assessment of socioeconomic impacts build upon the general
assessment methodology outlined in Chapter 4. This general approach and methodology has
been adapted for use in evaluating impacts to socioeconomic receptors. The evaluation criteria
used to determine impact magnitude and sensitivity for specific socioeconomic receptors are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Stakeholder engagement is critical to a robust impact assessment process. A range of
stakeholders were interviewed to deepen ERM’s understanding of the existing socioeconomic
conditions (presented in Chapter 6). The information gathered was also used to inform the
sensitivity and magnitude designations used in this assessment. The following socioeconomic
resources with the potential to be impacted by the Project within the Project AOI are assessed in
this section:
 Economic conditions
 Employment and livelihoods
 Community health and wellbeing
 Marine use and transportation
 Social infrastructure and services
 Land use
 Ecosystem services
 Indigenous Peoples
 Cultural Heritage

7.3.1 Project Activities and Receptors

As the Project’s primary activities are located more than 190 kilometers (~120 miles) offshore,
impacts on socioeconomic resources as a result of planned Project activities are expected to be
limited. The main Project activities33 with potential to result in socioeconomic impacts are:
 Installation and operation of the FPSO and SURF
 Drilling of wells
 Government revenue generation from Project
 Project employment and procurement
 Worker presence in the Georgetown area

33 OtherProject activities considered in this assessment include discharges of process and waste waters; utilization of
an FPSO marine exclusion zone; changes in land use; and aviation activities. However, impacts on socioeconomic
conditions from these activities were considered negligible.

May 2017 307

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

 Project use of emergency and health services in the Georgetown area

 Project use of roads and transportation services in the Georgetown area
 Marine vessel transit between the PDA and shorebase facilities in Guyana and Trinidad

Potential receptors for socioeconomic impacts during planned Project activities are outlined in
Table 7-47, along with the rationale for their inclusion and the associated potential impacts:

Table 7-47 Socioeconomic Receptors and Potential Impacts as a Result of Project Activities
Receptor Rationale for Inclusion Potential Impacts
General Guyanese The Project could have far-reaching economic  Increased government revenues
population impacts throughout the country, which could potentially leading to increased
impact all segments of the population. social spending and investment
throughout the country.
 Increased business activity and
related employment.
General The limited amount of time that offshore-based  Changes to community
population of Project workers (those who are foreign) will be dynamics, identity, and sense of
Georgetown onshore will likely be spent in transit in safety/security.
Georgetown, where they will interact with and  Increased cost of living.
make use of the same resources and  Increased risk of communicable
infrastructure as the local population. disease transmission.
Project procurement and increased worker  Decreased accessibility or quality
spending level may result in higher demand for of medical and health service.
goods and services.
The Project may result in induced influx of job-
seekers from other areas of Guyana to the
Georgetown area.
The Project may rely, in a very limited manner,
on some medical and health facilities in the
Georgetown area to address worker illness and
injury.
Road users in The Project will use existing roads for  Increased traffic congestion.
Georgetown (both transporting materials and equipment from  Increased risk of property
motorized and warehouses or storage facilities to the damage and injury due to
non-motorized Georgetown area shorebases. vehicle accidents.
[e.g., cyclists,
pedestrians]
modes)
Marine vessel The Project will involve transit of various marine  Increased marine traffic
operators in the vessels such as support vessels and tugs from congestion in Georgetown
Georgetown the Georgetown area shorebase facilities to the Harbour and coastal waters
Harbour and PDA. between Georgetown and the
along the coast PDA.
 Increased risk of marine
accidents.
Marine vessel The Project will establish marine safety exclusion  Reduced availability of ocean
operators in the zones around the FPSO, drill ship, and major areas for non-Project livelihood
vicinity of the installation vessels, precluding use of this area activities such as fishing.
PDA for other activities such as fishing.

May 2017 308

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Receptor Rationale for Inclusion Potential Impacts

Archaeology and The Project will disturb the seafloor in the  Damage to underwater
heritage resources process of drilling development wells, installing archaeological or historical sites.
FPSO components, and installing SURF
components

7.3.2 Economic Conditions

7.3.2.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential Project impacts on economic conditions in the Project AOI. The
key impacts considered for planned Project activities include: Project-related revenue
generation and increased tax revenues for the government, potentially resulting in increased
government spending (typically on social services and infrastructure); potential increased local
business activity and related employment as a result of Project procurement and employment;
potential increased Project worker spending levels; and potential increased cost of living to
citizens due to higher demand for goods and services.
The extent and type of Guyanese employment and procurement opportunities are outside the
scope of the EIA. Such considerations will be addressed as part of EEPGL’s preparation of a
local content plan consistent with the requirements of the petroleum agreement.

7.3.2.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The Project would contribute directly and positively to increased national revenues through a
petroleum agreement between EEPGL and the government. The Project would also benefit the
economy through local procurement of select goods and services, limited direct local
employment, and spending in local communities by Project workers.
In addition to direct expenditures and employment, the Project would also likely generate
induced economic benefits as other non-Project related businesses benefiting from direct Project
purchases or worker spending will re-invest locally or expand spending in the area, thereby
also generating more local value-added tax. These beneficial “multiplier” impacts will occur
throughout the Project life.
Potential adverse impacts of the Project on economic conditions associated with planned Project
activities could include the potential for cost of living to increase due to a higher demand for
some goods and services, either through direct Project procurement or through Project worker
purchases.
Potential impacts on economic conditions from the Project are summarized in Table 7-48.

May 2017 309

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-48 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Economic Conditions

Stage Receptor(s) Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
 Potential government
investment in social
services and economic
Project revenue
development/
generation
diversification.
 Potential government
infrastructure projects.
Project procurement of  Increased sales tax
selected goods and revenues.
services  Increased local
business activity and
All Project stages Guyanese population growth.
Project worker spending  Increased demand for
services and
infrastructure, leading
to increased cost of
living.
Limited local
employment
(direct and indirect)

7.3.2.3 Magnitude of Impact - Economic Conditions

The Project has the potential to impact economic conditions both positively and negatively.
Project revenues to the government through its revenue sharing agreement with EEPGL can
allow for increased government spending on social infrastructure, services, and programs, as
well as investment in infrastructure programs and different economic sectors. Economic
conditions can also be impacted positively by select local Project procurement and through
Project worker spending.
An adverse impact could occur from increases in the cost of living due to higher demand for
some goods and services. Given the Project’s small workforce and predominantly offshore
footprint, such increases are expected to be limited.
Economic benefits of the Project are expected to outweigh potential negative impacts such that
overall impacts on the economy are expected to be Positive. As described in Chapter 4, this
assessment does not develop ratings for positive impacts.

May 2017 310

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.2.4 Sensitivity of Receptors - Economic Conditions

The receptors most likely to be most impacted by impacts to economic conditions are residents
in the Georgetown area. As discussed below, vulnerable (lower-income) populations are
considered to be more sensitive to this impact and are therefore considered separately.
Sensitivity of the receptors is determined based on the definitions in Table 7-49.

Table 7-49 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity for Impacts to Economic Conditions
Criterion Definition
Low: The local and regional economies are highly diversified and not highly dependent on
any one sector. The workforce is highly skilled, would not experience major challenges in
shifting to different occupations, and is well positioned to benefit from the Project.
Medium: The local and regional economies are somewhat diverse and dependent on a few
key industrial sectors that are not all natural resources-based. Alternate economic
Sensitivity opportunities, including from the Project, are possible but the workforce may require
additional training to be able to pursue such opportunities.
High: The local and regional economies are highly dependent on one or a few industrial
sectors that are largely natural resource sectors. There are few alternate economic
opportunities in the area and/or the workforce does not have the skills to shift to pursue
alternate economic opportunities.

Receptors in the Georgetown area (Region 4) are considered to have a Medium level of
sensitivity to economic impacts since the economy in this region is relatively diverse and less
dependent on natural resources than in other areas of the country, with 12 percent of jobs in the
primary sector, 21 percent in the secondary sector and 67 percent in the tertiary sector34.
Individuals and households of lower socioeconomic status are considered to have a High level
of sensitivity to economic impacts due to their lower capacity to benefit from the Project and the
business opportunities it may bring, and to their higher level of vulnerability to an increased
cost of living. However, this vulnerable population would benefit from increased government
revenues along with the general population, should such government revenues be invested in
social infrastructure, services, and programs, as well as investment in infrastructure programs
and different economic sectors.

7.3.2.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures - Economic Conditions

As discussed above, this impact is considered to be Positive, for both the general population
and the low-income subpopulation in the Georgetown area. As described in Chapter 4, this
assessment does not develop significance ratings for positive impacts.

34According to the BSG, the primary industrial sectors (e.g., agriculture, fishing, forestry, and mining) make direct
use of natural resources and include the production of raw materials and basic foods. The secondary sector is
engaged in manufacturing using raw products from the primary sector and includes processing, construction, textile
production, brewing and bottling, etc. The tertiary sector provides services to the general population and businesses,
including retail and wholesale trade, transportation and distribution, entertainment, tourism, healthcare, etc.

May 2017 311

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

As this is a positive impact, no mitigation measures are required. To enhance the benefits from
this positive impact, the Project intends to procure select Project goods and services locally to
the extent reasonably practicable. While it is expected that the number of Guyanese workers
will be small, the Project also intends to utilize Guyanese nationals where reasonably
practicable.
Table 7-50 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on economic conditions, and the impact significance ratings resulting therefrom.
The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology
described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-50 Economic Conditions – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance

Ratings
Phase Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Receptor Significance Mitigation Significance
Impact Rating Measures Rating
All Project Guyanese Not assessed Medium Positive None Positive
stages population
including lower High
income (lower socio-
subpopulation - economic
increased groups)
government
revenues,
increased
employment,
increased local
business
activity,
potential for
increased cost
of living.

7.3.3 Employment and Livelihoods

7.3.3.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential Project impacts on employment and livelihoods in the Project
AOI. The key impacts considered for planned Project activities are: potential increased local
business activity and employment due to select Project employment and select Project
procurement and due to Project worker spending; potential occupational health and safety
impacts to Project workers; and potential for restricted access to fishing locations, and damage
to fishing vessels and equipment from Project vessel movements.
The extent and type of Guyanese employment and procurement opportunities are outside the
scope of the EIA. Such considerations will be addressed as part of EEPGL’s preparation of a
local content plan consistent with the requirements of the petroleum agreement.

May 2017 312

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.3.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The primary Project activities will occur approximately 190 kilometers (~120 miles) offshore and
are not expected to significantly impact non-Project activities occurring on the Guyana coast.
Project workers onboard the FPSO and other Project vessels may be exposed to occupational
hazards which will be managed through training and the use of protective equipment as
appropriate. The only direct planned Project activities that will be perceptible from the shore
will be support vessel trips originating from and returning to shorebase facilities in
Georgetown. In addition, the Project will engage select local companies for the provision of
various goods and services (e.g., catering, transportation, logistics) to support Project activities.
Table 7-51 summarizes potential Project impacts on employment and livelihoods.

Table 7-51 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Employment and Livelihoods
Stage Receptor(s) Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
Project procurement of  Increased local
select goods and services business activity and
growth
 Increased employment
Population of Worker spending
Georgetown and vicinity

Limited local
employment
All Project stages (direct and indirect)
Fishing vessel operators Transit of Project vessels  Damage to fishing
in the coastal area between the PDA and vessels and equipment
shorebase(s) in impacting fishing
Georgetown and in livelihoods
Guyanese waters
between PDA and
shorebase(s) in Trinidad
and Tobago

7.3.3.3 Magnitude of Impact - Employment and Livelihoods

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on employment and livelihoods is

determined based on consideration of geographic extent, frequency, duration, and scale. The
scale of potential impacts on employment and livelihoods is defined according to the definitions
provided in Table 7-52.

May 2017 313

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-52 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Employment and
Livelihoods
Criterion Definition
Negligible: Changes do not bring about any loss of livelihood or employment.
Small: The changes impact some individual receptors’ ability to engage in their current
livelihood(s) at the same level of productivity.
Medium: The changes impact the receptors’ ability to engage in their current livelihood(s)
Scale at the same level of productivity, and/or cause a loss of working days. An entire sector
within a community may be impacted in this way.
Large: The changes cause the receptors to cease their current livelihood activities for an
extended period of time, or indefinitely. An entire sector within a community or region
may be impacted in this way.

Few adverse impacts on employment or livelihoods are expected as a result of planned Project
activities. Current fishing activities (both industrial and artisanal) rarely occur as far offshore as
the PDA, and therefore the FPSO marine safety exclusion zone will have little or no impact on
existing current fishing activity. There is an emerging deepwater tuna fishery that may
approach the southern boundary of the PDA, and abandoned fishing gear has been found
entangled in the mooring lines for the metocean instruments described in Section 6.1.1.1. If this
fishery continues to develop in the vicinity of the PDA, then the number of industrial fishing
vessels affected by Project-related activities offshore may increase modestly in the future.
Considering the small number of operators that are currently participating in this fishery, the
uncertainty concerning the ultimate size of the fishery, and the relatively small area of ocean
that would be affected, the magnitude of the Project-related impacts on industrial fishing
operations is considered Small. As a mitigation measure, the Project intends to issue notices to
mariners via MARAD, the Trawler’s Association, and fishing co-ops for major marine vessel
movements, including movements of the FPSO, drill ship, and major installation vessels. The
Project will also communicate major vessel movements to commercial cargo, commercial
fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel operators who might not ordinarily receive Notices to
Mariners, and where possible communicate Project activities to those individuals to aid them in
avoiding Project vessels through the stakeholder engagement process. This will allow fishing
boat operators to adjust their fishing locations if needed to avoid these offshore locations with
higher densities of Project vessels.
The highest probability for Project interactions with fisherfolk would likely remain limited to
encounters with support vessels transiting between the PDA and the shorebases in Georgetown
and Trinidad and Tobago. This could result in some limited and temporary disruption to
fishing activity. Unlike the deepwater industrial fisheries, the artisanal fisheries would not lose
access to any fishing areas or be affected by expansion of oil and gas industry-related traffic into
areas where it does not currently exist, however the increase in shipping traffic near the coast
and within the Demerara Harbour carries a small increase in the potential for support vessels to
cause damage to fishing vessels or equipment such as nets during transiting. Many of the
artisanal craft engaged in subsistence fishing activities do not carry radios, may use remote
ports, and/or may not receive notices of increased vessel activity issued by the Project through

May 2017 314

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

the channels described above. Considering the occasional and temporary nature of impacts on
subsistence fishing activity from the Project-related marine traffic balanced with the above-
mentioned limitations on the effectiveness of the measures proposed to manage these impacts,
the magnitude of the impacts is considered to be Small.
In addition to direct employment, the Project will result in the indirect employment of workers
through procurement of select local goods and services such as food, transportation, and
logistical support. Local and foreign workers that are off shift also will spend a portion of their
salaries in the Georgetown area on local accommodations, food, transportation, and
entertainment. This increase in business for these local service providers could potentially lead
to increased incomes, additional hiring, and continued investment in these local businesses,
allowing for further growth. This impact is considered to be Positive and as such, a magnitude
rating is not assigned.

7.3.3.4 Sensitivity of Receptors - Employment and Livelihoods

Potential receptors for employment and livelihood impacts are the general population in
Georgetown and its vicinity; subsistence and commercial fisherfolk as well as farmers operating
on the Guyanese coast; and Project workers based offshore. The receptor sensitivity ratings for
employment and livelihoods are defined according to the definitions provided in Table 7-53.

Table 7-53 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Employment and Livelihood
Impacts
Criterion Definition
Low: The receptor can easily adapt to the change without assistance or can shift to alternate
livelihood opportunities without impacting ability to subsist and/or earn income.
Medium: The receptor may adapt to the change or shift to alternate livelihood activities with
Sensitivity assistance and with some disruption to ability to subsist and/or earn income.
High: The receptor cannot adapt to the change without difficulty and cannot easily transition
to alternate livelihood activities. Impacts on current livelihood activities will pose a threat to
the receptor’s ability to subsist, earn income, and maintain current quality of life.

The Guyanese population continues to rely heavily on primary sector livelihoods such as
agriculture and fisheries; however, the share of primary sector jobs has been decreasing steadily
in favor of more secondary and tertiary (service) sector jobs. Based on the definitions above, the
general Guyanese population is considered to have a Medium level of sensitivity to potential
employment and livelihood impacts from planned Project activities. Fisherfolk engaging in
fishing on the Guyanese coast are also considered to have a Medium level of sensitivity to such
impacts.

7.3.3.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures - Employment and Livelihoods

Based on the magnitude of impact and the receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of
livelihood and employment impacts on fisherfolk operating in the coastal area is Minor. The

May 2017 315

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

significance of livelihood and employment impacts for Project workers based offshore is also
Minor.
As discussed above, the positive impacts on employment and livelihoods that will result from
Project employment, procurement, and worker spending will outweigh potential adverse
impacts for an overall Positive impact. As discussed above, the Project will (as a mitigation
measure) seek to enhance positive benefits by procuring select goods and services locally
(potentially leading to enhanced local employment and livelihood benefits) to the extent
reasonably practicable, and this has been considered as part of the Positive rating.
Beyond these mitigation measures, no additional mitigation measures for potential adverse
impacts are necessary.
Table 7-54 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on employment and livelihoods, and the impact significance ratings resulting
therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment
methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-54 Employment and Livelihoods – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact

Significance Ratings
Stage Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Receptor Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Impact Significance Measures Rating
Rating
All Project Population of Not assessed Medium Positive None Positive
stages Georgetown
and vicinity -
increased
employment,
local business
activity, and
household
incomes.
Fisherfolk - Small Medium Minor None Minor
Impacts on
fishing
livelihoods
(exclusion from
PDA for
commercial
fishing
operations;
nearshore
navigation and
safety for
subsistence
fishing
operations)

May 2017 316

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.4 Community Health and Wellbeing

7.3.4.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential impacts from the Project on community health and wellbeing in
the Project AOI. The key potential impacts considered as a result of planned Project activities
are increased risk of communicable disease transmission, decreased public safety from
interactions with Project activities, and decreased availability of emergency medical and health
services. Increased risks of marine and road accidents to the public are assessed in Section 7.3.5
and Section 7.3.6, respectively.

7.3.4.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The Project will involve a range of activities that could potentially impact public health. Shifts in
demographic patterns, including the influx of foreign workers or the spatial concentration of
working-age populations, has the potential to cause changes in disease transmission patterns,
and to impact public safety. Project onshore and nearshore transportation activities could
increase the risk for vehicular and marine accidents. The potential for these impacts are limited
due to the Project’s limited onshore footprint.

May 2017 317

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-55 Project Activities and Potential Impacts - Community Health and Wellbeing
Stage Receptor(s) Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
All Project Stages General population of Project worker presence  Increased risk of
Georgetown and vicinity communicable disease
Project use of medical transmission.
and health resources in  Impacts on public
the Georgetown area safety.
 Overburdening of
medical and health
services.

Road users in Project transportation  Increased risk of

Georgetown and vicinity (marine and road) vessel collisions and
vehicle accidents
Marine users in vicinity (refer to assessments
of Georgetown in section 7.3.5 and
shorebase(s) 7.3.6).

7.3.4.3 Magnitude of Impact - Community Health and Wellbeing

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on community health and wellbeing is
determined based on consideration of geographic extent, frequency, duration, and scale. The
scale of potential impacts on community health and wellbeing is defined according to the
definitions provided in Table 7-56.

Table 7-56 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Community Health and
Wellbeing
Criterion Definition
Negligible: No discernible change in health status of the population.
Small: Changes to health status occur in some individuals and households, but changes are
minor, temporary and reversible without medical or public health intervention.
Medium: Changes to health status occur at the population level and are reversible over time
Scale
or with medical or public health intervention.
Large: Profound and measurable changes to health status are evident at the population
level. Some health impacts may be severe or permanently debilitating, requiring medical or
public health intervention or other forms of assistance for treatment and recovery.

Population shifts caused by the influx of workers from other parts of the country or from
foreign countries has the potential to cause changes in transmission patterns of some
communicable diseases, particularly if workers originate from countries with higher rates of
diseases that are transmitted person-to-person, such as TB and sexually transmitted infections.
At this time, the countries of origin of the Project workers are not known. Guyana has a lower
rate of TB incidence than the global average (90 cases per 100,000 population, versus the global
average of 133) but has a higher rate than most developed countries. Guyana’s rate of HIV
prevalence is comparable to the global average. Potential communicable disease transmission
risks will vary according to the workforce’s primary countries of origin; however, regardless of
worker origin, the Project will establish a worker health screening program and take

May 2017 318

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

precautions to avoid both internal and external communicable disease risks. Given the small
size of the Project workforce in comparison with the receiving community (less than one
percent of the population of Georgetown), the Project workers’ limited onshore presence, and
the embedded health controls in place to further reduce risk, the magnitude of impact is
expected to be Negligible.
Increases in population, and the presence of transient populations has the potential to
contribute to increased rates of crime. Georgetown has a high rate of crime, with reported cases
on the rise in recent years. This is attributed largely to high rates of poverty and unemployment.
It is not expected that the influx of Project workers to/through the Georgetown area would
contribute significantly to local crime rates. Furthermore, the Project workforce will represent
less than one percent of the population of Georgetown, and workers’ onshore presence will be
limited and occasional. As such, the magnitude of impact is expected to be Negligible.
The Project will have a medical facility onboard the FPSO to treat minor medical issues.
Installation vessels will also have their own medical facility and a medical professional. In the
event that an offshore worker requires medical evacuation/referral onshore, a medical
professional will be available onshore to support the response/referral. In the event of more
serious illness or injury that cannot be handled by the offshore medical professionals, patients
would be medically evacuated to a healthcare facility in Georgetown and potentially outside of
Guyana, depending on the type of medical issue. Reliance on Guyanese healthcare facilities
could potentially compromise availability and access for the Guyanese local population. The
Project currently plans to make use of a designated local Guyanese physician, as well as
hospitals in Georgetown in the event of both work related and non-work related medical and
health emergencies. However, for the most part, these hospitals will be relied upon only for
initial evaluations or, in the case of life-threatening emergencies, stabilization before evacuation
of foreign workers out of country to another facility.
Given that reliance on local Guyanese facilities will be limited, the magnitude of impact is
therefore considered to be Small.

7.3.4.4 Community Health and Wellbeing - Sensitivity of Receptors

The receptors that could potentially experience health and wellbeing impacts as a result of
planned Project activities are residents of Georgetown and its vicinity.
The receptor sensitivity ratings for community health and wellbeing are defined according to
the definitions provided in Table 7-57 below.

May 2017 319

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-57 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Community Health and
Wellbeing Impacts
Criterion Definition
Low: The population does not have many areas of health vulnerability. Individuals and
households have the personal resources and capacity to protect and promote health. The
community is well equipped with resources and infrastructure to provide routine medical
and health care and address medical and health emergencies.
Medium: The population has multiple areas of health vulnerability, due either to
environmental or social factors. Portions of the population face socioeconomic challenges
Sensitivity that act as barriers to health protection and promotion. There are shortfalls in local medical
and health resources and infrastructure that compromise ability to provide timely and
appropriate medical and health care in some situations.
High: The population has many areas of health vulnerability due to environmental and
social factors. A large proportion of the population is disadvantaged, which acts as a barrier
to protecting and promoting health. Adequate medical health resources and infrastructure
are lacking, often not allowing for timely and appropriate medical and health care.

The Guyanese population is in a transitional phase whereby both communicable and non-
communicable diseases contribute considerably to the burden of illness and mortality.
However, urban populations have measurably higher health status than rural populations, and
are less likely to suffer from some communicable diseases such as malaria, lymphatic filariasis,
and soil-transmitted helminths. Georgetown has a high concentration of medical and health
facilities relative to other parts of Guyana, although emergency care capacity and health related
human resources are considered lacking throughout the country. Guyana’s emergency medical
system is in transition at this time; until recently, the country did not have an ambulance system
to respond to emergencies. As of 2014, an ambulance pilot program through the Georgetown
Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) and with assistance from Vanderbilt University had been
established, with seven ambulances and 21 trained emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
According to Guyana’s Chief Medical Officer, the country’s emergency medical services are still
insufficient to respond to the needs of the population. The country does not have an air
ambulance to transfer injured patients from mining areas in the hinterland and to respond to
serious vehicle collisions that occur on Guyana’s roads. Hospital capacity is also lacking; at this
time the GPHC has 450 beds but requires about 600 to adequately serve the population (ERM
Personal Communication 7).
Based on the definitions above, the population in Georgetown has a Medium level of sensitivity
to community health and wellbeing impacts.

7.3.4.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures - Community Health and Wellbeing

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of increased
communicable disease risk is Negligible, while the significance of impacts on public safety is
Negligible and impacts on emergency health services access are Moderate. Assessment of
transportation safety risks are presented in Sections 7.3.5 and 7.3.6.

May 2017 320

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Given the Negligible significance of communicable disease and public safety impacts from the
Project, mitigation measures are not required, but the Project will nonetheless work closely with
police and other public safety authorities to address any related concerns. In addition, the
Project workers will be required to adhere to a worker code of conduct.
Table 7-58 summarizes the impact magnitude and resource sensitivity ratings for potential
Project impacts on community health and wellbeing, and the impact significance ratings
resulting therefrom. The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment
methodology described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-58 Community Health and Wellbeing – Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact
Significance Ratings
Stage Resource/ Sensitivity Magnitude Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Receptor Impact Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
All General Medium Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Project population of
stages Georgetown and
vicinity -
increased risk of
communicable
disease
transmission

General
population of
Georgetown and
Medium Negligible Negligible None Negligible
vicinity - impacts
on public safety

General Medium Small Minor None Minor

population of
Georgetown and
vicinity – reduced
access to
emergency and
health services

7.3.5 Marine Use and Transportation

7.3.5.1 Introduction

The Project involves the drilling of development wells, the installation and long-term operations
of an FPSO and SURF, and transit of Project support vessels between the PDA and the Guyana
shorebases, as well as between the PDA and shorebases in Trinidad and Tobago.
The specific shorebase(s) and onshore support facilities (e.g., warehouses, laydown yards) to be
utilized in Guyana have not yet been identified by EEPGL. Accordingly, ERM has performed

May 2017 321

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

the impact assessment on the basis that the Project will utilize existing shorebase(s) located in
Georgetown. Should any new or expanded shorebase(s) or onshore support facilities be
utilized, the construction/expansion and any required dredging, as well as the associated
permitting, of such facilities would be the responsibility of the owner/operator and such work
scope would not be included in the scope of the EIA.
The assessment of potential impacts on marine use and transportation from these Project
activities was based on the following assumptions:
 Most support vessel trips would originate from (and return to) shorebase facilities in
Georgetown, while larger-draft vessels, such as drill ships, could transit between the PDA
and shorebases in Trinidad and Tobago.
 The drilling stage could potentially utilize up to two drill ships on station simultaneously.
 The marine safety infrastructure available in Guyana (e.g., navigation aids) is adequate.

7.3.5.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Table 7-59 summarizes the relevant Project activities and their potential impacts on marine use
and transportation.
The FPSO will be anchored to the seafloor for the duration of the production operations stage,
which is intended to last approximately 20 years. During the production operations stage, the
FPSO will have a 2 nautical mile (nm) radius marine safety exclusion zone (covering
approximately 4,300 ha), in which no unauthorized vessels will be allowed to enter. In addition,
the drill ship and drill centers will have 500-meter radius marine safety exclusion zones during
drilling operations and well workovers; a 500-meter radius marine safety exclusion zone will
also be maintained around major installation vessels during the installation stage. Notices to
mariners would be issued via MARAD to the Trawler’s Association and fishing co-ops for
planned Project marine vessel movements, including the FPSO, drill ship, and major installation
vessels to be utilized during the installation stage. EEPGL will also communicate major Project
vessel movements to commercial cargo, commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel
operators who might not ordinarily receive Notices to Mariners, and where possible
communicate Project activities to those individuals to aid them in avoiding Project vessels
through the stakeholder engagement process.
The Project would generate a variety of marine support vessel trips throughout the Project life.
Support vessel activities would consist of:
 Approximately five vessels conducting re-supply trips to the FPSO and drill ships;
 Tanker movements and tugs supporting tanker loading activities;
 Subsea installation and maintenance activities; and
 Other vessels supporting installation activities.

Based on similar developments, the Project would generate an average of 12 vessel round-trips
(between the PDA and shorebase) per week during development drilling and FPSO/SURF
installation, and 7 vessel round-trips per week during FPSO/SURF production operations.

May 2017 322

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

These vessel round-trips would originate from and return to shorebase facilities in Guyana
and/or Trinidad and Tobago.
As described in Section 2.9, End of Operations, EEPGL has not prepared detailed plans for the
decommissioning phase. As such, the number of vessel trips associated with decommissioning
is not known. For the purposes of the impact analysis, vessel traffic associated with Project
decommissioning is assumed to be similar to that for the drilling and installation stage: 12
vessel round trips per week.
For the purposes of the impact assessment, marine safety exclusion zones are an embedded
control, considered part of the Project design. Accordingly, the “pre-mitigation” impact
assessment considered the inclusion of this measure.

Table 7-59 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Marine Use and Transportation
Stages Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
Maritime transport of  Increased vessel traffic in Georgetown Harbour,
Project materials, coastal waters between Georgetown and the PDA,
supplies, and personnel along transit routes leading to Georgetown.
 Increased risk of marine casualty event (e.g., collision,
grounding) involving third parties and Project vessels
in Georgetown Harbour or in coastal waters.
Drilling and Presence of FPSO, drill  Reduced availability of ocean surface areas for non-
Installation ship, and installation Project activities due to marine safety exclusion zones
vessels around the FPSO, drill ship, and major installation
vessels.
 Increased risk of marine casualty events (e.g., collision,
grounding) involving third parties and the FPSO in
transit and while anchored, as well as drill ship
installation vessels in transit and on station.
Maritime transport of  Increased vessel traffic in Georgetown Harbour,
Project materials, coastal waters between ports and the PDA, and along
supplies, and personnel transit routes leading to Georgetown.
 Increased risk of marine casualty event (e.g., collision,
grounding) involving third parties and Project vessels
in Georgetown Harbour or in coastal waters.
Production
Presence of FPSO, tanker,  Reduced availability of ocean surface areas for non-
Operations
drill ship, and workover Project activities due to marine safety exclusion zones
vessel around the FPSO, tanker, drill ship, and workover
vessel.
 Increased risk of marine casualty event (e.g., collision,
grounding) involving third parties FPSO, tanker, drill
ship, and tankers on station.
Maritime transport of  Increased vessel traffic in Georgetown Harbour,
Project materials, coastal waters between ports and the PDA, and along
supplies, and personnel transit routes leading to Georgetown.
Decommissioning
FPSO removal and  Increased risk of marine casualty events (e.g., collision,
decommissioning vessel grounding) involving third parties and the FPSO in
support transit, as well as decommissioning support vessels.

May 2017 323

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.5.3 Magnitude of Impact - Marine Use and Transportation

Table 7-60 summarizes the definitions used to rate impact scale of the Project’s potential
impacts on marine use and transportation. Considering these definitions, Table 7-61
summarizes the assigned impact magnitude ratings for the various impacts. The Project’s
marine activities would impact cargo vessel traffic into and out of the Port of Georgetown,
open-ocean shipping in the vicinity of the Stabroek Block in Guyanese waters, and commercial
and subsistence fishing activity throughout impacted portions of Guyana’s coastal waters. As
described in Section 7.3.5.1, support vessel traffic would be higher during the development
drilling stage relative to the production operations stage. Because the FPSO and support vessels
would be present throughout the duration of the Project, the nature of impacts on marine use
and transportation would generally be similar across various stages of the Project.
Vessels transiting the PDA would need to avoid the marine safety exclusion zones around the
drill ships, major installation vessels, and the FPSO. The FPSO marine safety exclusion zone
would require non-Project vessels to avoid approximately 4,300 ha (~10,600 acres)
(approximately 0.2 percent) of the Stabroek Block’s approximately 2.7 million ha (~6,671,845
acres) for approximately 20 years. Because the FPSO will be anchored to the seafloor, its marine
safety exclusion zone would essentially be a permanent navigation feature until the
decommissioning stage. The marine safety exclusion zones around the drill ships/drill centers
would be small (~79 ha), and would be in force only during development drilling activity,
which is anticipated to last approximately 3 years, and on occasion during well workover
activity in later years. Similar sized marine safety exclusion zones around major installation
vessels would occur only during the installation stage, or in the event repairs or maintenance.
The Stabroek Harbour Master has advised EEPGL that Jamaican and Trinidadian vessel
shipping lanes intersect the Stabroek Block. As such, shipping traffic could potentially intersect
the PDA, as well. Shipping lane maps indicate the FPSO would likely be more than 30 nautical
miles from the nearest generalized shipping lane. More importantly, the shipping lanes in
question are traditional, and are not precisely demarcated. Accordingly, even if Project vessels
are in close proximity of mapped lanes, shipping lane users would have ample warning and
space to navigate, and there is no reason to believe that the Project would meaningfully impede
non-Project shipping traffic. No interference with shipping traffic was experienced during
previous seismic surveys or the Liza exploration drilling activities.
Fishing vessels would lose use of the defined marine safety exclusion zones for fishing
activities, and as described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, most subsistence fishing occurs in
nearshore areas. Most commercial fishing occurs between the coast and the edge of the
continental shelf (i.e., shoreward of the PDA), but as described in Section 7.3.3.3, the recovery of
derelict fishing gear from the PDA indicates that some fishing acitivity does take place within or
near the PDA and the emerging deepwater tuna fishery may potentially increase this activity in
the future. The highest potential for interactions between fishing vessels and Project vessels in
Guyana waters is near the Port of Georgetown and the Demerara River mouth, where
commercial vessel traffic is already present. As a result, the Project’s impacts on marine use for
subsistence activity are likely to be limited, but challenges in communicating with the

May 2017 324

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

subsistence fishing fleet may limit the effectiveness of efforts to advise the fleet of Project
operations. The social and economic impacts of the Project’s exclusion zones on commercial and
subsistence fishing are described in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3.
With respect to commercial fishing, the majority of the PDA is in deeper waters that are less
often used for commercial fishing, and the size of the FPSO marine safety exclusion zone is
negligible relative to the water available for fishing. As a result, the Project’s impacts on marine
use for current commercial fishing activities also are likely to be limited.
During development drilling and again during decommissioning, the Project could generate
one or two daily vessel departures and arrivals from the Port of Georgetown. Although call
data for the Port are not available, this frequency of activity is unlikely to exceed the Port’s
vessel throughput capacity. Support vessels would typically be smaller and more maneuverable
than the cargo or tanker vessels that call on the Ports of Georgetown or ports in Trinidad and
Tobago, and thus would not present significant incremental navigation hazards within or near
these ports.
The scale of potential impacts on maritime use and transportation are defined according to the
definitions provided in Table 7-60 below.

Table 7-60 Definitions for Scale Ratings - Potential Impacts on Maritime Use and
Transportation
Criterion Definition
Negligible: No discernible change in transportation activity or demands on other
infrastructure.
Small: Increased transportation activity or marine infrastructure demand is perceptible, but
does not measurably impact the capacity of transportation or other infrastructure, and does
not measurably increase safety risks on waterways.
Medium: Increased transportation activity or marine infrastructure demand is perceptible,
Scale
reduces transportation system or infrastructure capacity, and/or measurably increase safety
risks on waterways. These impacts do not require a change in typical travel behavior.
Large: Increased transportation activity or marine infrastructure demand causes substantial
delay, congestion, and/or increased safety risks on waterways, to the point where vessel
operators or other users of infrastructure must consistently and frequently change their
typical daily behavior.

May 2017 325

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-61 Magnitude Ratings – Potential Impacts on Marine Use and Transportation
Stage Potential Impact Magnitude Rationale for Rating
Drilling and Maritime safety in Small The drilling and installation stages would
Installation Georgetown Harbour involve regular supply vessel trips in and
and shipping channel out of Georgetown Harbour.
Decommissioning Offshore maritime Small While the marine safety exclusion zones
travel and safety around the FPSO and drill ships would be
medium- to long-term, the FPSO will
remain moored in one location, and the
drill ships would only move between the
two established drill centers.
Production Maritime safety in Small Operations stage marine transport
Operations Georgetown Harbour activity would be similar to, but less
and shipping channel frequent than, for the drilling and
installation stages.
Offshore maritime Small The FPSO will be stationary for the life of
travel and safety the Project, and its associated marine
safety exclusion zones would become a
known, mapped navigation feature for
other vessel operators.

7.3.5.4 Sensitivity of Receptors – Marine Use and Transportation

Potential receptors for the Project’s marine use and transportation impacts include current users
of Georgetown Harbour and Guyanese coastal waters. Table 7-62 defines the receptor
sensitivity ratings used in the assessment.

Table 7-62 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings – Potential Impacts to Maritime
Use and Transportation
Criterion Definition
Low: The receptor is accustomed to or specifically anticipates the type of activity
proposed by the Project; existing transportation activities can easily adapt to additional
transportation activity with no outside assistance or mitigation.
Medium: The receptor is not specifically accustomed to the type of activity proposed by
Sensitivity the Project. The receptor can adapt to additional transportation activity and maritime
safety risks with outside assistance or mitigation.
High: The receptor is poorly suited to the type of activity proposed by the Project, and
cannot fully adapt to increased transportation activity and maritime safety risks, even
with outside assistance or mitigation.

Table 7-63 identifies and characterizes the sensitivity of receptors that could potentially
experience marine use and transportation impacts from the Project.

May 2017 326

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-63 Sensitivity Ratings for Marine Use and Transportation Receptors
Receptor Definition and Rationale for Sensitivity/ Rationale for Rating
Inclusion Vulnerability
Rating
Commercial Includes all international and Low Georgetown Harbour is an
cargo vessels regional commercial cargo active commercial port, where
vessel activity making calls at vessel traffic—such as Project-
Georgetown Harbour, as well as related traffic—is expected.
traversing the northern coast of Commercial vessels in
South America. Project activities international waters are
would occur in areas potentially expected to be able to safely
used by commercial shipping navigate around other vessels
organizations, and would (whether in transit or
require use of Georgetown stationary).
Harbour.
Commercial Includes commercial fishing Medium Commercial fishing vessel
fishing vessels vessels (i.e., those who sell their would lose access to fishing
product to local or international areas that are currently available
markets) that operate in Guyana to them, and would have to
coastal waters. These vessels avoid Project-related vessel
may interact with Project traffic where none currently
vessels, or may currently exists; however industrial
conduct fishing operations in or operators are likely to be aware
near defined marine safety of Project activities, or at least of
exclusion zones in the PDA. commercial shipping activity in
the vicinity of Georgetown, and
can alter their fishing grounds
to avoid defined marine safety
exclusion zones in the PDA.
Subsistence Includes individuals whose Medium Subsistence fishing vessels are
fishing vessels fishing activity is primarily or usually small, with limited
solely to feed themselves, their ability to identify or avoid
family, or their community, and Project vessels. They will not
not for commercial sales. These lose access to existing fishing
individuals generally operate areas or encounter Project-
near shore. related vessel traffic outside of
existing areas of high vessel
traffic, but may not receive
notice of Project related
activities.

7.3.5.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Marine Use and Transportation

To further reduce the possibility and severity of marine use and transportation impacts, EEPGL
will augment its ongoing stakeholder engagement process (and will work with government
authorities through their existing notification/control processes) to identify commercial cargo,
commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel operators who might not ordinarily receive
Notices to Mariners, and communicate Project activities to those individuals/entities to aid

May 2017 327

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

them in avoiding major Project vessels where possible, as further mitigation. No additional
mitigation measures have been proposed related to vessel activity or maritime navigation.
Considering these mitigations, Table 7-64 summarizes the pre-mitigation and residual
significance of the Project’s potential maritime use and transportation impacts. Residual
impacts related to maritime capacity, navigation, and safety are Negligible to Minor. As
discussed above, impacts during decommissioning are assumed to be similar to those
experienced during drilling and installation.
The Project may induce shorebase operators to make improvements to existing facilities to make
the shorebase(s) fit for purpose. These improvements would enhance the valuable of the
shorebase(s) as material assets. Assuming that these improvements were small in scale and did
not require physical expansion of the existing facilities, they would be considered a Positive
impact on Guyana’s marine infrastructure. Larger scale improvements would be outside the
scope of the EIA.
The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology
described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter. Considering all of the
individual impacts listed in Table 7-64, the Project would have overall Negligible residual
impact significance for marine use and transportation.

May 2017 328

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-64 Marine Use and Transportation Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
Stage Resource/ Receptor Embedded Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Impact Controls Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Drilling and Commercial cargo Marine safety Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
Installation vessels—port and channel exclusion zones and notification
operations and maritime around FPSO, drill
Decommissioning safety ship, and major
Commercial fishing installation Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
vessels—exclusion from vessels. and notification
PDA
Commercial cargo Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
vessels—offshore and notification
navigation and maritime
safety
Commercial fishing Small Medium Minor Communication Minor
vessels—offshore and notification
navigation and maritime
safety
Subsistence fishing Small Medium Minor Communication Minor
vessels—nearshore and notification
navigation and maritime
safety
Production Commercial cargo Marine safety Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
Operations vessels—port and channel exclusion zones and notification
operations and maritime around FPSO and
safety major installation
Commercial fishing vessels. Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
vessels— exclusion from and notification
PDA
Commercial cargo Small Low Negligible Communication Negligible
vessels—offshore and notification

May 2017 329

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Stage Resource/ Receptor Embedded Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual

Impact Controls Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Significance Measures Rating
Rating
navigation and maritime
safety
Commercial fishing Small Medium Minor Communication Minor
vessels—offshore and notification
navigation and maritime
safety
Subsistence fishing Small Medium Minor Communication Minor
vessels—nearshore and notification
navigation and maritime
safety

May 2017 330

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.6 Social Infrastructure and Services

7.3.6.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential Project impacts on social infrastructure and services in the Project
AOI. The planned Project activities that have the potential to impact social infrastructure and
services are Project worker presence (with the potential to impact availability or cost of housing
and utilities) and ground and air transportation (with the potential to increase traffic congestion
and impact public safety). The impacts associated with these two Project activities are assessed
separately in this section. Impacts on health service access are assessed in Section 7.3.4.

7.3.6.2 Housing and Utilities

Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The Project’s limited onshore activity during drilling, installation, production operations, and
decommissioning has the potential to impact housing and utilities in the Georgetown area.
Table 7-65 summarizes the potential impacts on housing and utilities.

Table 7-65 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Social Infrastructure and Services
(Housing and Utilities)
Stage Receptor(s) Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
General population in Project worker  Increased demand or
Georgetown and presence in use of housing and
vicinity Georgetown area utilities service and
All Project Stages infrastructure,
(Induced) influx of job-
leading to reduced
seekers to Georgetown
availability and/or
area
increased cost

Magnitude of Impact - Housing and Utilities

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on housing and utilities is determined
based on consideration of geographic extent, frequency, duration, and scale. The scale of
potential impacts on housing and utilities is defined according to the definitions provided in
Table 7-66.

May 2017 331

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-66 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Housing and Utilities
Criterion Definition
Negligible: No discernible change in demand for housing or utilities.
Small: Limited increases in demand for housing and utilities are perceptible, causing
slight changes in the availability, quality and/or cost of these resources and services.
Medium: Increases in demand for housing and utilities are evident and lead to frequent
Scale
and widespread shortfalls in availability or quality of housing and utilities, or measurable
increases in costs.
Large: Increases in demand for housing and utilities are sufficient to cause conditions of
chronic shortage and inflated costs.

The Project will require up to approximately 1,200 workers during the peak of drilling and
installation stages, and up to approximately 140 workers during the production operations
stage. Since the majority of the workforce for these stages will be based offshore, the limited
time spent onshore would be in temporary accommodations such as hotels. As such, the Project
workforce is not expected to impact for-sale or rental housing stock, and thus would not be
expected to require any new utilities connections. It is not anticipated that the Project’s worker
presence onshore at any given time would be enough to drive development of new temporary
housing (hotel) establishments. Some induced population influx from other regions of Guyana
may occur as job-seekers move to the Georgetown area seeking direct or indirect employment
from the Project; this incoming population could access for-sale or rental housing stock. This
influx is expected to be limited and short term in nature, given EEPGL’s efforts to communicate
the Project’s limited workforce requirements to stakeholders.
Based on the definitions presented in Table 7-66, the magnitude of impact on housing and
utilities is considered to be Minor during the drilling, installation, and decommissioning stages
of the Project and Negligible during the production operations stage.

Sensitivity of Receptors - Housing and Utilities

The receptors that could be potentially impacted by changes to housing and utilities are the
current general population of Georgetown. The receptor sensitivity ratings for housing and
utilities are defined according to the definitions provided in Table 7-67.

Table 7-67 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Housing and Utilities Impacts
Criterion Definition
Low: Existing infrastructure and services have excess capacity and/or the community has
the resources and capability to expand in a timely manner.
Medium: Existing infrastructure and services have little excess capacity and the
community has limited resources or capability to expand in a timely manner and thus
Sensitivity would require assistance in upgrading or supplementing current infrastructure and
service provision in the community.
High: Existing infrastructure and services have little or no excess capacity and the
community does not have the resources or capability to respond to a potential increase in
population.

May 2017 332

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

As the capital of Guyana, Georgetown has a relatively high concentration of social services and
infrastructure; however, according to a study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),
there are currently shortfalls of housing and appropriate utilities infrastructure in Georgetown,
which the government is addressing with regularization initiatives for informal communities.
Given these shortfalls, the population has a Medium level of sensitivity to increased demand
for housing and utilities infrastructure.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures - Housing and Utilities

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of housing
and utilities impacts for the drilling, installation, and decommissioning stages is Minor. During
the production operations stage, this is reduced to a Negligible level of significance.
No mitigation measures are required to address potential impacts on housing and utilities.
However, the Project will proactively manage messaging about the Project’s limited workforce
needs to stakeholders in order to reduce the potential for induced population influx.
The significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology
described in Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter. Table 7-68 below
summarizes potential Project impacts on housing and utilities. The impact will remain
Negligible after mitigation.

Table 7-68 Housing and Utilities Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impact Significance Ratings
Stage Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Receptor Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Impact Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Drilling, General Small Medium Minor Proactive Minor
Installation population messaging
and of regarding
Decommiss Georgetown Project
ioning and vicinity employment
– Decreased opportunitie
availability/ s
increased
cost of
housing and
utilities
Production General Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
operations Georgetown
population
and vicinity
– Decreased
availability/
increased
cost of
housing and
utilities

May 2017 333

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

7.3.6.3 Onshore and Air Transportation

Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The specific shorebase(s) and onshore support facilities (e.g., warehouses, laydown yards) to be
utilized in Guyana have not yet been identified by EEPGL. Accordingly, ERM has performed
the impact assessment on the basis that the Project will utilize existing shorebase(s) located in
Georgetown. Should any new or expanded shorebase(s) or onshore support facilities be
utilized, the construction/expansion and any required dredging, as well as the associated
permitting, of such facilities would be the responsibility of the owner/operator and such work
scope would not be included in the scope of the EIA.
The travel route, frequency, and type of vehicle trips between the Georgetown shorebase(s) and
offsite facilities (i.e., not contained within the shorebases) are not known. Such offsite activity
could impact onshore transportation by adding vehicle trips (likely in the form of heavy truck
trips) between the offsite facility and the Georgetown shorebase(s). As was the case for the Liza
exploration activities, a Road Safety Management Procedure would be developed for all Project-
related land transport activities.
This assessment includes a qualitative analysis of the impacts of those land-based trips. The
impact scenario assumes vehicle movements between an offsite facility somewhere along the
East Bank Demerara Road and a shorebase within the Port of Georgetown. Table 7-69
summarizes the potential impacts to onshore transportation.
The Project would also generate up to 35 round-trip helicopter flights per week during
development drilling and installation, and up to 25 round-trips per week during production
operations. All round-trip flights would originate from and return to Correia International
Airport (hereafter referred to as “Ogle Airport”), east of Georgetown.
As described in Section 2.9, End of Operations, EEPGL has not prepared detailed plans for the
decommissioning stage. As such, the level of onshore and air transportation activity associated
with decommissioning is not known. For purposes of impact analysis, onshore and air traffic
associated with Project decommissioning is assumed to be similar to that of the drilling and
installation stage.

Table 7-69 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Onshore and Air Transportation
Stage Receptors Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
All Project stages Road users, including Onshore movement of  Increased vehicle
drivers, cyclists, and Project materials, traffic on public
pedestrians supplies, and personnel roads in and around
Georgetown.
All Project stages Other aircraft and users Helicopter flights  Increased air traffic
of Ogle Airport to/from PDA leading to potential
impacts on Ogle
Airport capacity.

May 2017 334

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Magnitude of Impact – Onshore and Air Transportation

If offsite storage/warehousing facilities are required, materials would be transported between

the offsite facilities and the shorebases by road. The Project’s land activities would impact
vehicle traffic in Georgetown, particularly in the vicinity of the shorebases and any offsite yards
or warehouses. As stated above, the assessment assumes that land transport would include
heavy truck trips along the East Bank Demerara Road. The number and frequency of these trips
is unknown. It is assumed that truck trips would occur over the course of the Project. During
this period of time, truck trips are unlikely to measurably change existing traffic congestion, due
to the relatively small number of likely truck trips.
Project-related air activity would include approximately five helicopter flights per day during
the drilling, installation, and decommissioning stages and three to four flights per day during
the production operations stage. This level of activity is unlikely to meaningfully impact Ogle
Airport’s capacity or operations.
The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on onshore and air transportation is
summarized in Table 7-70.

Table 7-70 Magnitude of Impacts – Onshore and Air Transportation

Stage Impact Magnitude Rationale for Rating
Drilling and Road capacity and Small Although the number of trips between
Installation; congestion from yards/warehouse sites is not known, these
Decommissioning transportation of trips are unlikely to contribute to traffic
materials to the congestion.
Georgetown
shorebases.
Capacity limitations Negligible Five helicopter round trip flights per day
and safety risks from (i.e., less than one movement per daylight
Project-related hour) are unlikely to meaningfully impact
helicopter flights to operations or air safety.
and from Ogle
Airport.
Production Road capacity and Negligible Similar type of impacts, but lower traffic
Operations congestion from volume than during the drilling and
transportation of installation stages.
materials to the
Georgetown
shorebases.
Capacity limitations Negligible Three to four helicopter round trip flights
and safety risks from per day (i.e., less than one movement per
Project-related daylight hour) are unlikely to meaningfully
helicopter flights to impact operations.
and from Ogle
Airport.

May 2017 335

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Sensitivity of Receptors – Onshore and Air Transportation

The receptors that could potentially experience impacts on onshore transportation include
current users of the Georgetown road network. Existing drivers would have a medium level of
sensitivity. This rating reflects relatively high traffic volumes and existing congestion in the
vicinity of the Demerara Harbour Bridge, as well as the lack of travel alternatives (i.e., other
travel routes or modes of transportation) for non-Project drivers.
Receptors for air transportation impacts include airport and airspace users and commercial,
cargo, and private pilots, crew, and passengers. The receptor sensitivity ratings for onshore and
air transportation are summarized in Table 7-71.

Table 7-71 Receptor Sensitivity Ratings – Onshore and Air Transportation

Receptor Definition and Rationale Sensitivity Rating Rationale for Rating
for Inclusion of Receptors
Drivers of Includes existing travelers in Medium Drivers already experience
motor vehicles and around Georgetown, substantial traffic congestion
who could interact with and and road safety risks in parts
be impacted by Project- of Georgetown. Additional
related traffic. traffic would likely be viewed
as incremental, but not a
fundamental shift in
conditions.
Airport and Includes existing air Low The aviation environment is
airspace users travelers who could be highly regulated. Other air
impacted by Project-related traffic—such as Project-related
aviation operations. flights—is expected. All pilots
are expected to be able to
navigate in the presence of
other aircraft.

Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Onshore and Air Transportation

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of onshore
transportation impacts for the drilling, installation, and decommissioning stages will be Minor.
During the production operations stage, this is reduced to Negligible. The significance of air
transportation impacts would be Negligible. No mitigation measures are required to address
potential impacts on onshore and air transportation.
Table 7-72 below summarizes potential Project impacts on onshore and air transportation. The
significance of impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology described in
Chapter 4 and summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

May 2017 336

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Impacts

Table 7-72 Onshore and Air Transportation – Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impacts
Stage Resource/ Embedded Magnitude Sensitivity Pre-Mitigation Proposed Residual
Receptor Impact Controls Significance Mitigation Significance
Rating Measures Rating
Non-Project
drivers—
Drilling and Project-related None identified Small Medium Minor None Minor
Installation traffic
congestion
Decommissioning
Air travelers—
None identified Negligible Low Negligible None Negligible
air operations
Non-Project
drivers—
Project-related None identified Negligible Medium Negligible None Negligible
Production traffic
Operations congestion
Air travelers—
None identified Negligible Low Negligible None Negligible
air operations

May 2017 337

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.3.7 Cultural Heritage

7.3.7.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential Project impacts on cultural heritage. The laws and conventions
governing the protection and management of Guyana’s cultural heritage include Guyana’s
National Trust Act (1972), Guyana’s Maritime Zones Act (2010), the 1972 United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on Cultural Heritage,
and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage. Guyana’s National Trust
Act, as well as the 2001 UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage, urge the
protection of submerged “monuments” within Guyana’s territorial waters, and encourage the
practice of in situ preservation of cultural heritage whenever possible.

7.3.7.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

Project drilling and installation activities that have the potential to adversely impact cultural
heritage located on or beneath the seafloor include the drilling of development wells, the
installation of FPSO anchoring structures, and the installation of SURF components.
The Project is not expected to require ground-disturbing activities in onshore areas that have
not already been disturbed by prior development. Furthermore, any construction/expansion of
onshore facilities, which would disturb new onshore areas, would be performed by the
owners/operators of such facilities, and would be out of the scope of this EIA. As a result, the
Project will not impact any terrestrial archaeological sites. Onshore logistical support would
involve use of Guyana port facilities, warehouses, pipe yards, and waste management facilities
(e.g., landfills). Use of these facilities will not impact any archaeological sites, as these lands
have already been disturbed and therefore are unlikely to contain intact archaeological sites.
Table 7-73 summarizes potential Project impacts on marine cultural heritage.

Table 7-73 Summary of Relevant Project Activities and Potential Key Impacts
Stage Project Activity Key Potential Impact
Drilling of Development Wells.
Drilling and Damage to Shipwrecks and
Installation of FPSO Anchoring Structures
Installation Submerged Archaeological Sites
Installation of SURF Components.

7.3.7.3 Magnitude of Impact – Cultural Heritage

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on cultural heritage in the Project AOI is
determined based on consideration of geographic extent, frequency, duration, and scale. The
scale of potential impacts on cultural heritage is defined according to the definitions provided
in Table 7-74.

May 2017 338

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-74 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Cultural Heritage
Impacts
Criterion Definition
Negligible: No discernible change in the physical condition, setting, or accessibility of
sites.
Small: A small part of sites are lost or damaged, resulting in a loss of scientific or cultural
value; setting undergoes temporary or permanent change that has limited impact on the
sites’ perceived value to stakeholders; stakeholder/public or scientific access to the sites is
temporarily impeded.
Medium: A significant portion of sites are lost or damaged, resulting in a loss of scientific
Scale
value; setting undergoes permanent change that permanently diminishes the sites’
perceived value to stakeholders; sites become inaccessible for the life of the Project to
stakeholders including traditional users or researchers.
Large: Entire sites are damaged or lost, resulting in a nearly complete or complete loss of
scientific or cultural value; setting is sufficiently impacted to cause sites to lose nearly all
or all cultural value or functionality; sites become permanently inaccessible to
stakeholders including traditional users or researchers.

The Project will not impact any known underwater cultural heritage based on the geophysical
survey and remote sensing studies conducted for the Project. However, there is the potential for
previously unrecorded cultural remains, or chance finds, to be encountered and impacted
during Project drilling and installation activities. Underwater chance finds could include
shipwrecks and associated artifact scatters that were not identified during the geophysical
survey and remote sensing studies. It is conservatively assumed that the scale of impact on a
previously unidentified cultural resource could be as high as Medium if seabed disturbing
activities took place in the location of a previously unidentified cultural heritage site. If this
were to occur, the Project would most likely relocate the SURF component (up to a few meters)
to the extent practicable. Given this, and considering the low likelihood that surveys failed to
identify significant cultural heritage in the planned disturbance area, the magnitude of impact
for drilling and installation stages is considered Low. For the production operations stage,
disturbance of the seafloor will not occur; accordingly, the magnitude rating for this stage is
Negligible.

7.3.7.4 Sensitivity of Resource - Cultural Heritage

The resource sensitivity ratings for cultural heritage are defined in Table 7-75.

May 2017 339

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-75 Definitions for Sensitivity Ratings for Potential Impacts on Cultural Heritage
Criterion Definition
Low: Site is not specifically protected under local, national, or international laws or
treaties; site can be moved to another location or replaced by a similar site, or is of a type
that is common in surrounding region; site has limited or no cultural value to local,
national, or international stakeholders; and/or site has limited scientific value or similar
information can be obtained at numerous sites.
Medium: Site is specifically or generally protected by local or national laws, but laws
allow for mitigated impacts; site can be moved or replaced, or data and artifacts recovered
Sensitivity in consultation with stakeholders; site has considerable cultural value for local and/or
national stakeholders; and/or site has substantial scientific value but similar information
can be obtained at a limited number of other sites.
High: Site is protected by local, national, and international laws or treaties; site cannot be
moved or replaced without major loss of cultural value; legal status specifically prohibits
direct impacts or encroachment on site and/or protection zone; site has substantial value
to local, national, and international stakeholders; and/or site has exceptional scientific
value and similar site types are rare or non-existent.

Depending on the nature of the specific resources encountered, encountered shipwrecks and/or
submerged archaeological sites could be specifically protected by national laws such as the
Guyana National Trust Act, or international conventions such as the 2001 UNESCO Convention
on Underwater Cultural Heritage and could possess research and cultural value. For the
purpose of this assessment, it was assumed that an as-of-yet unidentified cultural resource
could have a sensitivity rating of Medium.

7.3.7.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Heritage

Based on the magnitude of impact and the receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of
potential cultural resource impacts during drilling and installation is Minor. Since production
operations are not anticipated to involve any seabed-disturbing activities, the significance of
potential cultural resource impacts during production operations is Negligible.
As discussed in Chapter 6, ERM has conducted a survey of the planned seabed disturbance area
to assess the presence of any marine cultural heritage. This has significantly increased the level
of certainty that planned Project activities will not disturb significant cultural heritage.
In any case, ERM has developed a Chance Finds Procedure, which requires temporary cessation
of Project activities in the event of a chance find, assessment of the chance find by a cultural
heritage specialist, and the development of a treatment plan for significant chance finds in
consultation with the Guyana National Trust and other cultural heritage stakeholders, as
appropriate. The Chance Finds Procedure also addresses monitoring and training requirements
to support the Procedure.
Considering the implementation of the measures outlined in the Chance Finds Procedure, the
scale of impact would be expected to be reduced, as activities would be adjusted/curtailed
upon discovery of a previously unidentified cultural resource. This would reduce the impact
significance rating to Negligible.

May 2017 340

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-76 summarizes potential Project impacts on cultural heritage. The significance of
impacts was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and
summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-76 Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impacts – Cultural Heritage

Stage Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Receptor Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Impact Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Marine
cultural
heritage – Implement
Drilling destruction Chance
and from Low Medium Minor Finds Negligible
Installation Project Procedure as
activities needed
disturbing
the seabed
Marine
cultural
heritage –
destruction
Production
from Negligible Medium Negligible N/A Negligible
Operations
Project
activities
disturbing
the seabed

7.3.8 Land Use

7.3.8.1 Introduction

This section assesses potential impact on land use and ownership by the Project. The key
potential impacts considered are conversion of land from one use to another,
physical/economic displacement, and change of land ownership type.

7.3.8.2 Relevant Project Activities and Potential Impacts

The majority of the Project’s activities will occur offshore. Some limited onshore activities will
occur, particularly at the beginning of the drilling and installation stage while wells are being
drilled and SURF infrastructure is being installed. These facilities would not be owned or
operated by EEPGL. If the owners/operators of such facilities find it necessary to expand the
existing sites onto adjacent land or in separate new areas, potential land use impacts associated
with these expansions would be addressed by the owners/operators of such facilities, and
would be out of the scope of this EIA.

May 2017 341

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-77 summarizes the potential impacts on land use from Project activities.

Table 7-77 Project Activities and Potential Impacts – Land Use

Stage Receptor(s) Project Activity Key Potential Impacts
Current owner(s) Use of land for Project Conversion of land
All Project stages and/or user(s) of land materials storage from other use(s)
in Georgetown

7.3.8.3 Magnitude of Impact – Land Use

The assessment of the Project’s magnitude of impacts on land use is based on consideration of
geographic extent, frequency, duration, and scale. The scale of potential impacts on land use is
defined in Table 7-78.

Table 7-78 Definitions for Scale Ratings for Potential Impacts on Land Use
Criterion Definition
Negligible: No change in land use type or ownership type.
Small: Land use change occurs for one or multiple parcels, but consists of change to a land
use type similar to the current use (e.g., change from one type of agricultural activity to
another, or from industrial to commercial). No changes occur in ownership type
(government-owned, Amerindian-owned or privately owned).
Medium: Land use changes occur for multiple land parcels or tracts and may consist of
Scale
profound changes (e.g., clearing of forest or other vegetation, loss of residential units).
Changes to ownership type (government-owned, Amerindian-owned or privately owned)
do not occur.
Large: Land use changes occur for large areas of land and may consist of profound
changes (e.g., clearing of forest or other vegetation, loss of residential units). Changes may
occur to ownership type.

The Project may require the use of offsite onshore storage facilities for Project materials (e.g.,
pipe joints). At this time, potential storage facility locations are not known, but it is expected
that any such facility will be located as near to the shorebase(s) as possible to minimize hauling
time.
Given that the storage facilities will likely be located in an industrial area, rather than natural or
agricultural in character, it is not expected that major changes in land use types, or any change
in land ownership type, would occur. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered to be
Small.

May 2017 342

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.3.8.4 Sensitivity of Receptors - Land Use

Receptors for this impact would be the current owner(s) of the land to be used for the storage
facility, as well as the user(s) or beneficiaries of that land, if any. The receptor sensitivity ratings
for land use are defined in Table 7-79.

Table 7-79 Definitions for Receptor Sensitivity Ratings for Land Use Impacts
Criterion Definition
Low: Receptor(s) do not currently reside on the land or make use of it for subsistence or
primary livelihood activities, or recreation.
Medium: Receptor(s) do not currently reside on the land or make use of it for subsistence
Sensitivity
but may rely on it for income generation or recreation.
High: Receptor(s) currently reside on the land and/or use it for subsistence, or for their
primary/sole means of livelihood.

At this time, it is not known whether the onshore storage facilities will be required, or where
such a facility would be located if it is required. However, assuming that the property used for
the storage facility will be on land currently used for industrial purposes, it is not expected that
this property would be relied upon for residential, agricultural, commercial, or recreational use.
As such, receptors are expected to have a Low level of sensitivity.

7.3.8.5 Impact Significance and Mitigation Measures – Land Use

Based on the magnitude of impact and receptor sensitivity ratings, the significance of land use
impacts for the drilling and installation stage is Negligible.
No mitigations are required or planned since it is not yet known whether the offsite storage
facilities will be required. If it is decided a storage facility is required, the owners/operators of
the facilities will select the site in a manner that will avoid or minimize land use impacts.
Table 7-80 below summarizes potential Project impacts on land use. The significance of impacts
was assessed based on the impact assessment methodology described in Chapter 4 and
summarized at the beginning of this chapter.

Table 7-80 Summary of Pre-Mitigation and Residual Impacts – Land Use

Stage Resource/ Magnitude Sensitivity Pre- Proposed Residual
Receptor Mitigation Mitigation Significance
Impact Significance Measures Rating
Rating
Current
owner(s) or
Drilling user(s) of
and land at site Small Low Negligible None Negligible
Installation of future
storage
facility

May 2017 343

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.3.9 Ecosystem Services

Planned Project activities will not impact ecosystem services35. Although the Project will have
minor impacts on water quality, benthic communities, and marine wildlife in the immediate
vicinity of the SURF components and in the mixing zones surrounding the FPSO and the tanker,
these impacts are not expected to have significant impacts on ecosystem services. They are not
expected to impact the processes that regulate the physio-chemical attributes of the North Brazil
Shelf LME as a whole (e.g., water quality, currents, oceanographic conditions, bathymetry), nor
are they expected to cause significant impacts on fishery production offshore Guyana. There are
no human communities located offshore of Guyana so the offshore environment does not
provide any cultural services that could be impacted.
The only Project-related impacts in nearshore marine waters would be an incremental increase
in ship traffic in and out of Georgetown Harbour as ships transit between the shorebase(s) and
the PDA. As discussed previously, an increase in ship traffic could have minor effects on marine
life, but none that would be significant at the ecosystem level. Therefore the Project would have
no impacts on ecosystem services provided by the nearshore marine ecosystem.
The Project will not involve any direct disturbance of any coastal habitats and the Project’s air
emissions, water discharges, and sound generation, all of which will occur approximately 190
km (~120 mi) offshore, will not impact these habitats. Project use of the Guyana shorebase(s)
and onshore support facilities will have no impact on ecosystem services. The Project’s only
potential impact on ecosystem services would be as a result of an unplanned event, which is
discussed in Section 7.4.

7.3.10 Indigenous Peoples

Planned Project activities will not impact indigenous peoples (typically referred to as
Amerindians in Guyana). The Project will not involve any direct disturbance of any indigenous
communities, or coastal habitats upon which they rely, and the Project’s air emissions, water
discharges, and sound generation, all of which will occur approximately 190 km (~120 mi)
offshore, will not impact their communities or associated habitats. Project use of the Guyana
shorebases and onshore support facilities will have no impact on indigenous peoples. These
facilities are well removed from any traditional indigenous communities. The Project’s only
potential impact on indigenous peoples would be as a result of an unplanned event, which is
discussed in Section 7.4.

35Ecosystem services are typically defined as the benefits that people obtain from the natural environment, including
natural resources that underpin basic human health and survival needs, support economic activities, and provide
cultural fulfilment.

May 2017 344

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4 Unplanned Events

7.4.1 Introduction
An unplanned event is defined as an event that is not planned to occur as part of the Project
(e.g., accidents), but that has the potential to occur. Since such events are not planned, they are
evaluated in a different manner from planned events, specifically by evaluating the
consequence of a realistic scenario for an unplanned event and taking into consideration the
likelihood that the event will occur. Three levels of likelihood are used: unlikely, possible, and
likely, as defined in Table 7-81.

Table 7-81 Levels of Likelihood for Unplanned Event Impact Assessment

Likelihood Definition
Considered a rare event, and there is a small likelihood that an event could
Unlikely
occur;
The event has a reasonable chance to occur at some time during normal
Possible
operating conditions; and
Likely The event is expected to occur during the life of the facility.

As described in Chapter 4, a risk matrix using the likelihood and consequence/severity of the
event is used to evaluate the potential significance of unplanned events. The
consequence/severity of the unplanned event is measured in terms of the importance/
vulnerability/sensitivity of the resource/receptor and the magnitude of the impact.
Figure 7-7 Unplanned Events Risk Matrix

For the purposes of the Project, the following unplanned events are considered as having the
potential to occur during the Project life, should a combination of standard and Project-specific
safety controls fail concurrently:
 Hydrocarbon spill
 Marine vessel collision
 Onshore vehicular accident

These potential unplanned events are described in more detail below. There are other minor
unplanned events (e.g., dropped objects, small spills on deck that do not enter the ocean) that
have a realistic probability of occurrence, but which would not significantly impact any
resources/receptors considered in this EIA. These other unplanned events would occur on the
drill ship, installation vessels, supply vessels, or the FPSO and their impacts would tend to be
limited to Project employees and contractors (e.g., a variety of accidents that could result in
worker injury, but no measurable impact on natural resources or the public). These events are

May 2017 345

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

addressed primarily through EEPGL and its contractors’ health and safety policies and
procedures, which are beyond the scope of this EIA.
The specific shorebase(s) and onshore support facilities (e.g., warehouses, laydown yards) to be
utilized in Guyana have not yet been identified by EEPGL. Accordingly, ERM has performed
the impact assessment for unplanned events on the basis that the Project will utilize existing
shorebase(s) located in Georgetown. Should any new or expanded shorebase(s) or onshore
support facilities be utilized, the construction/expansion and any required dredging, as well as
the associated permitting, of such facilities would be the responsibility of the owner/operator
and such work scope would not be included in the scope of this EIA.

7.4.1.1 Hydrocarbon Spill

Producing, processing, storing, and offloading oil are core Project activities. There are multiple
layers of control in place with respect to these activities; however, if multiple controls fail there
is the potential for an oil spill to occur. EEPGL categorizes oil spills into three tiers:
 Tier I – Spill is small, the source of spill is under control, and response would be managed
by EEPGL and its contractors using local resources;
 Tier II – Spill is moderate, the source can be quickly brought under control, local response
equipment immediately available, and broader response would be managed in a
coordinator manner using regional resources as needed; and
 Tier III – Spill is large, the source of the spill is not under control, and response would be
managed in a coordinated manner with regional and internationally sourced resources.

Hydrocarbons that could potentially be released include crude oil, marine diesel, fuel oil,
lubricating oil, and non-aqueous drilling fluid (NADF). EEPGL and ERM have identified nine
possible spill scenarios, categorized below in Table 7-82 by tier. These scenarios consider spills
at the Guyana shorebases (Georgetown area basis), into the Demerara River or other estuarine
waters (e.g., from supply vessels), and into the Atlantic Ocean (e.g., from drill ship, supply
vessels, tankers, and the FPSO).

May 2017 346

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-82 Possible Hydrocarbon Spill Scenarios by Tier

Potential Impact Potential Response
# Tier Location Possible Scenario
Strategies
1 I Shorebase Onshore spill of less than 10 bbl Contained onshore; no  Onshore/Near Shore
(e.g., partial loss of diesel shoreline impact. Response
storage tank contents)  Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
2 I Drill ship or Offshore spill of less than 50 Contained on deck of  Surveillance and
FPSO bbl (e.g., leak or release due to vessel or enters offshore Monitoring
offshore human error or failure of Atlantic Ocean; no  Assisted Natural
equipment) shoreline impact likely. Dispersion
 Offshore Containment
and Recovery
 Wildlife Response
 Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
3 I Supply vessel Offshore spill of less than 50 Hydrocarbons enter water,  Surveillance and
offshore bbl (e.g., accidental discharge creating sheen on the Monitoring
of untreated bilge water) water surface; no shoreline  Assisted Natural
impact likely. Dispersion
 Offshore Containment
and Recovery
 Wildlife Response
 Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
4 II Shorebase On water spill of less than 100 Diesel enters Demerara  Onshore/Near Shore
bbl (e.g., shore to vessel River estuary; possible Response
bunkering spill) minor shoreline impact.  Surveillance and
Monitoring
 Assisted Natural
Dispersion
 Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
5 II Drill ship / Offshore release of 2,200 bbl of NADF enters water near  Surveillance and
well offshore NADF due to loss of riser the seafloor; no shoreline Monitoring
contents after emergency impact likely.  Assisted Natural
disconnect due to Dynamic Dispersion
Positioning (DP) station
keeping failure
6 II Supply vessel On water release of 500 bbl of Diesel enters Demerara  Onshore/Near Shore
at shorebase diesel (e.g., shore to vessel River estuary; possible Response
bunkering) shoreline impact.  Surveillance and
Monitoring
 Assisted Natural
Dispersion

May 2017 347

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Potential Impact Potential Response

# Tier Location Possible Scenario
Strategies
 Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
7 II Drill Well control release of less than Hydrocarbons enter  Surveillance and
ship/well 250 bbl (e.g., well becomes Atlantic Ocean; no Monitoring
offshore unbalanced during the drilling shoreline impact likely.  Assisted Natural
process and begins flowing at a Dispersion
low release rate prior to  Offshore Containment
containment and Recovery
 Dispersant
Application
 Wildlife Response
 Waste Management
 Decontamination
 Demobilization
8 II FPSO, Offshore release of 2,500 bbl of Oil enters Atlantic Ocean; See above
offloading oil (e.g., failure of offloading no shoreline impact likely.
tanker hose during offloading from
offshore FPSO to tanker)
9 III Drill ship / Offshore release of oil from Oil enters Atlantic Ocean; See above
well offshore well control event (30 day possible shoreline impact.
duration at 20,000 bpd)

Hydrocarbon releases under Scenarios 1 through 4 would all be small and under control
quickly, and would be managed with locally available spill control equipment. A temporary
visible sheen on the water surface may occur, water quality would be temporarily impaired in a
small area, a very sensitive receptor (e.g., plankton and possibly some shorebirds) may be
locally affected, but there is not considered to be potential for any long-term or ecosystem level
impacts on ecologically important or protected species. These spills are, therefore, not
considered further in this EIA.
A hydrocarbon release under Scenario 5 would involve a spill of approximately 2,200 bbl of
NADF into the ocean near the seafloor. Under this scenario, the spill would be somewhat
controlled because the volume is limited to the capacity of the drilling riser. There is the
potential for temporary impacts on several resources/receptors, such as water quality and
marine fish and wildlife, but these impacts would be generally short term and limited in area,
with rapid resource/receptor recovery expected.
A hydrocarbon release under Scenario 6 would involve a spill of approximately 500 bbl of diesel
into the Demerara River. Under this scenario, the spill would be quickly controlled and
contained because of the relatively small volumes and the ready access to spill control
equipment. There is the potential for impacts on several resources/receptors, such as water
quality and coastal fish and wildlife, but these impacts would occur in a more developed urban
harbor setting, be generally short term, limited in area, and readily mitigated, with rapid
resource/receptor recovery expected.

May 2017 348

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Hydrocarbon releases under Scenarios 7 (minor well control release during drilling), 8 (release
during offloading from FPSO to tanker), and 9 (major well control incident) would all involve
an oil spill in the PDA either at a well or at the FPSO. Although the potential spill volumes vary
(i.e., from 250 bbl total to 20,000 BOPD for a duration of 30 days) and the location of the spill
differ (i.e., at seafloor or ocean surface), the resources/receptors at risk are similar, although the
magnitude of the risk increases from Scenario 7 to Scenario 9. Oil spill modeling and coastal
sensitivity mapping have been conducted to identify and characterize the resources/receptors
with the potential to be exposed to oil. An overview of this modeling and mapping for
Scenarios 8 and 9 is provided in Sections 7.4.1.4 and 7.4.1.5. The potential risks associated with
the smaller volume offshore oil spills are encompassed within the modeling.
It should be noted, however, that an oil spill and release of NADF are considered highly
unlikely primarily because of controls EEPGL and its contractors put in place to prevent a spill
from occurring. Section 2.11 (Embedded Controls) provides a description of the embedded
controls related to spill prevention.
Despite the unlikely probability of an oil spill, the impacts assessment addresses potential
impacts associated with Scenario 6, which are referred to as “Coastal Oil Spill,” as well as
Scenarios 7, 8, and 9, which are collectively referred to as “Marine Oil Spills.” Scenario 5 is
referred to as a “NADF Release” and impacts on relevant receptors are assessed as a separate
category of release.

7.4.1.2 Factors Impacting Severity of Hydrocarbon Spills

Several factors impact the severity of hydrocarbon spills and the options for, and effectiveness
of, a range of spill response measures. These factors include the hydrocarbon properties,
volume and location of the spill, metocean conditions, and seasonal factors impacting the
presence of wildlife (Dicks, 1998).
Hydrocarbon products vary widely in their physical and chemical properties, as well as their
potential impacts on marine organisms (Figure 7-8). Heavy oils have the potential to cause more
significant and longer term impacts as they may persist along shorelines and cause smothering
of intertidal plants and coral reef habitats. In contrast, light oils tend to be more toxic, but
dissipate much more quickly through evaporation and dispersion, so they are generally less
impactful overall and their potential toxic impacts are likely to be localized and short lived
(ITOPF, Undated; ITOPF No. 2, Undated; Dicks, 1998). The oil produced from the Liza field is a
“light crude” oil with a specific gravity less than water. If spilled, this oil would rise quickly to
the water surface, other than small fragmented droplets that become entrained in the water
column due to mixing energy. As a result, the potential for persistent slicks, shoreline impacts,
and smothering is reduced relative to heavy hydrocarbon products. The Project will use low-
toxicity NADF, which is denser than the light crude in the Liza field and contains specific
weighting materials used during the drilling process. As such, the NADF would tend to remain
near the seafloor if released from the bottom of the riser during an emergency disconnect
scenario.

May 2017 349

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-8 Typical Impacts on Marine Organisms across a Range of Oil Classes

Source: ITOPF, Technical Information Paper 13, undated

The well control event considered for the purpose of this EIA would occur in the ocean
approximately 190 km (approximately 120 miles) offshore from Guyana. The open waters of the
ocean, and associated pelagic and seabed communities, are typically more resilient to spills than
are shoreline environments (Dicks, 1998).
Climate and weather can also impact the behavior of an oil spill. For example, oils become more
viscous (i.e., flow less readily) at lower sea surface and air temperatures. In this case, the surface
waters in the AOI are warm, typically ranging from 24 to 30°C, which results in the oil
remaining fluid and increasing spill response options.

7.4.1.3 Weathering Processes

As soon as hydrocarbons are introduced to the ocean, advection and spreading begin
immediately and result in a rapid increase in the exposure area of the product to subsequent
“weathering” processes (Figure 7-9). These processes include evaporation, dissolution, vertical
dispersion, emulsification, and sedimentation. All of these processes are influenced by the
specific composition of the introduced hydrocarbon. In addition, some components are
degraded by photochemical oxidation induced by sunlight.
Figure 7-9 Weathering Processes Acting on Spilled Oil

Source: ITOPF, 2013

The products of these processes may include hydrocarbon fractions and reaction products
introduced to the atmosphere, slicks and tar lumps on the surface of the ocean, dissolved and
particulate hydrocarbon materials in the water column, and similar components in the

May 2017 350

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

sediments. While physical and chemical processes are occurring, biological processes, including
degradation of oil by microorganisms to carbon dioxide or organic components in intermediate
oxidation stages, uptake by larger organisms and subsequent metabolism, storage, or discharge
also act on the different fractions of the original oil.

Although not all of the same processes (e.g., photochemical oxidation, evaporation) occur at the
depths that a NADF Release could occur, the NADF would be exposed to biological
degradation. Biological degradation proceeds slower under anoxic conditions than under well-
oxygenated conditions, so biological degradation tends to occur most rapidly when the NADF
is thinly distributed over a wide area of seafloor rather than in thicker clumps over a small area.

7.4.1.4 Oil Spill Modeling Overview

Oil spill models have been in use for over 30 years to support the development of Oil Spill
Response Plans (OSRP). Trajectory and fate models simulate oil transport and predict the
changes the oil undergoes as it interacts with water, air, and land (oil fate). The models simulate
spill events using the best available characterization of the wind and hydrodynamic (marine
currents) forces that drive oil transport. The models quantify the potential consequences from a
spill, which can then be used to guide response planning and prioritize response asset
deployment. There are typically two modes under which the models can be used: 1) the
stochastic (statistical) mode that examines many potential releases from the same point utilizing
the full range of historical data for wind and currents; and, 2) the deterministic mode that
examines a single potential release utilizing specific historic wind and hydrodynamic datum from
the range of potential data, or utilizing forecast data for an ongoing or future event.
Extreme weather events are considered qualitatively in the oil spill modeling. The PDA is not
in a seismically active area. The Project is designed to withstand other potential extreme events
(e.g., hurricanes, unusual temperatures, high winds, strong currents). In fact, these extreme
events have little to no effect on the wells, which are located approximately 1500 to 1900 m
below the ocean surface. Weather forecasts provide advance notice of these events and would
enable EEPGL to take appropriate precautions with the FPSO.
A typical approach to using oil spill models in OSRP is to first apply the stochastic model to
determine the most likely trajectory for the spill scenarios of interest. The stochastic approach
captures variability in the trajectory by simulating hundreds of individual spills and generating
a map that is a composite of all of the trajectories and provides a probability footprint showing the
most likely path for a given spill scenario. Spill scenarios are typically modeled in stochastic
mode to provide composite footprints to estimate probability and timing for each season or
wind regimes in the region.
Each stochastic scenario results in a probability map of the extent and mass of sea surface oiling,
the extent of shoreline oiling, and the minimum time of oil arrival in each location contaminated
by the oil. Examples of stochastic maps are shown in Section 7.4.1.5 (Oil Spill Modeling Results).
Calculation of the probabilities is based on oil present in excess of a specified thickness
threshold. The thresholds are specific to the purpose of the modeling or the type of impact

May 2017 351

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

being considered, including ecological and socioeconomic. They are used in the determination
of oiling probability to determine if oil is present in a quantity exceeding the threshold. For
example, a surface slick thickness threshold can be based on the minimum thickness that can be
mechanically recovered or on the minimum thickness that is thought to cause ecological or
socioeconomic impacts. When applied in this way, a trajectory and fate model can quantify the
likelihood of specific spill consequences, which is supportive of OSRP planning and
environmental impact analysis.
When considering oil contamination thresholds, surface oil thickness is typically expressed in
units of mass per unit area (e.g., grams per square meter [g/m2]). Table 7-83 lists approximate
thickness and mass per unit area ranges for surface oil of varying appearance.

Table 7-83 Oil Thickness (g/m2) and Appearance on Water (NRC, 1985)

Minimum Maximum Appearance

0.05 0.2 Colorless and silver sheen
0.2 0.8 Rainbow sheen
1 4 Dull brown sheen
10 100 Dark brown sheen
1,000 10,000 Black oil

Oil spill deterministic models predict where spilled oil from a single release will go and, how
quickly it travels and arrives at given locations. The trajectory of the spill is determined by the
specific modeled wind and current and the properties of the discharged oil. The model
determines the spill pathway by calculating the movement of the oil for individual short
increments of time over the spill’s duration, which cumulatively results in the spill trajectory.
Knowing the distance traveled by the oil over a period of time also provides a prediction of the
time of travel for the spill. Consequences from the spill are determined by running the model
within a geospatial framework so that interactions between the oil and elements of the
environment (habitats and species) can be considered. Given an adequate definition of currents,
winds and the environment, a deterministic model can provide comprehensive predictions of
the trajectory, fate, and effects of the oil.
Oil spill trajectory and fate models provide a quantifiable and consistent means to quantify spill
consequences. A trajectory and fate model can also simulate spill response activities such as
mechanical recovery, dispersant application, and in-situ burning. Model simulations run with
and without spill mitigation measures calculate the effectiveness of different response strategies
and equipment which can be used to help validate and improve spill response plans and
contribute to a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) process. The NEBA process
examines the benefit of using various spill response technologies against the effect of the oil
spill itself prior to deploying the preferred technologies in a spill event.
Once individual spill events have been identified based on the desired criterion, a deterministic
map showing the trajectory and fate of the spill is generated along with a graphical

May 2017 352

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

representation of the oil quantities predicted to reach the different parts of the environment.
This breakdown of the oil quantities by environmental compartment, referred to as an oil mass
balance, provides a time history of the entire spilled oil mass over the period of the model
simulation. The trajectory maps and oil mass balance graphs can be generated for a range of
spill scenarios and included in an OSRP. Examples of these and other deterministic maps and
oil mass balance graphs are shown in Section 7.4.1.5 (Oil Spill Modeling Results).
When applied to OSRP activities, an oil spill model is used to simulate scenarios selected to be
representative of anticipated spill events. These typically include operational spills, smaller
volume releases to the water surface, and larger volume spills related to production or drilling
operations originating either at the sea surface or from the seabed. In both cases the oil spill
model is applied to determine the most likely pathway for a spill from each scenario and to
quantify the oil fate.
The trajectory and fate model provides input to the OSRP process by determining spill
pathways and quantifying potential spill consequences. Determining the consequences from a
spill typically has two components: determining the likelihood that a spill will contaminate a
given part of the environment, and; what will be its ecological and socioeconomic
consequences.

7.4.1.5 Oil Spill Modeling Results

Oil spill modeling results for oil spill Scenarios 8 and 9 are summarized in this section.
Additional modeling results are included in the OSRP. Scenario 8 includes the modeling of a
2,500 bbl leak associated with FPSO offloading to a conventional tanker. Scenario 9 includes the
modeling of a 20,000 BOPD well control event of a 30-day spill duration, which included an
extension of an additional 15 days after oil discharge ceased.
The model was run two ways: the initial model runs showed potential impacts in the absence
of spill response measures, which represent a “worst-case” for each scenario. Then the
deterministic model was run again factoring in response measures, which would be expected to
significantly reduce the severity and extent of a spill and its impacts. Subsequent sections of this
document describe how EEPGL and its contractors will respond to mitigate environmental
impacts in the unlikely event of an incident similar to or less severe than the modeled scenario.
Spills originating at the seafloor were simulated using the OILMAP DEEP model to predict the
discharge plume geometry, droplet size distribution discharged into the water column, and the
fate of the oil plume. The SIMAP model system was used to predict the probability of the extent
of oil contamination on the sea surface and the shoreline, taking into account the weathering
profile of the oil that would result in a proportion of the product evaporation or dispersing into
the water column. Spills were simulated taking into consideration the quantity of product
released, the type of product and its characteristics (e.g., density), historical seasonal wind and
current patterns, and water depth, among other factors.

May 2017 353

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Modeling has been performed for the summer season (June through November), as well as the
winter season (December through May). The results of modeling for the winter season are
presented in the figures below, as they provide more conservative results for the purposes of
the EIA based on higher current speeds and more northerly winds.
Figure 7-10 Stochastic Map for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of Crude Oil
(December through May)

May 2017 354

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

The top panel of Figure 7-10 is a stochastic map which, based on hundreds of simulations,
shows the probability of surface oiling above a minimum thickness of 1.0 g/m2 in the winter
season from a 2,500 barrel spill that originates at the FPSO location. This stochastic map
indicates there is a zero percent probability that oil at that thickness would make contact with
the Guyanese coast.
The bottom panel of Figure 7-10 is a stochastic map, based on hundreds of simulations, which
shows the minimum amount of time for surface oiling above a minimum thickness of 1.0 g/m2
to occur from a 2,500 barrel spill that originates at the FPSO location in the winter season.
Figure 7-11 is a deterministic map that predicts where a simulation of a 2,500 bbl spill from the
FPSO location would go under a set of wind and current conditions typical of the winter season.
This deterministic map indicates that oil would not make contact with the Guyanese coast. The
gray area shows the “swept area” which is the path the oil spill is projected to follow. The black
area shows the fate of the surface oil. The red area shows the fate of the oil that makes shoreline
contact. Figure 7-12 shows the same deterministic model run as Figure 7-11, but with
mitigation measures applied. No coastline would be impacted and the potential area of impact
by such a release to the marine environment has been dramatically reduced.
Figure 7-11 Deterministic Map for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of Crude
Oil (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate

May 2017 355

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-12 Deterministic Map for Scenario 8 – Mitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of Crude Oil
(December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate

Figure 7-13 is an oil mass balance graph that is associated with the deterministic map in Figure
7-11 (which shows where a simulation of a 2,500 bbl spill from the FPSO location would go in
the winter season). Figure 7-13 provides a graphical representation of the oil quantities
predicted to reach different parts of the environment over time.

May 2017 356

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

The green line represents the volume of spilled oil which would be on the ocean surface over
time. The red line represents the volume of spilled oil which would make coastal contact (in this
case, outside of Guyana) over time. The blue line represents the volume of spilled oil which
would remain in the water column over time. The dotted orange line represents the volume of
spilled oil which would decay over time. The dotted gray line represents the volume of spilled
oil which would be released to the atmosphere over time, which represents the vast majority of
the spill volume (approximately 50 percent). For perspective, a Scenario 8 oil spill has the
potential to occur during the production operations stage (at least 20 years).
Figure 7-13 Oil Mass Balance Graph for Scenario 8 – Unmitigated 2,500-Barrel Release of
Crude Oil (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate

The top panel of Figure 7-14 is a stochastic map which, based on hundreds of simulations,
shows the probability of surface oiling above a minimum thickness of 1.0 g/m2 in the winter
season from a 20,000 bpd spill that originates at a well location in the PDA and lasts for 30-days.
This stochastic map indicates there would be a 5 to 10 percent probability that oil at that
thickness would make contact with the northwest-most area of the Guyanese coast. The value of
1.0 g/m2 is commonly used as a threshold in oil spill modeling as it represents the mass of oil
where biological impacts can occur, based on research and experience (McCay, 2016).
The bottom panel of Figure 7-14 is a stochastic map which, based on hundreds of simulations,
shows the minimum amount of time for surface oiling above a minimum thickness of 1.0 g/m2
to occur from a 20,000 bpd spill that originates at a well location in the PDA and lasts for 30-
days in the winter season. Minimum time for reaching the northwest-most area of the Guyanese
coast would be approximately 5 to 10 days, although some of the oil may arrive in the 10 to 15
day time period.

May 2017 357

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-14 Stochastic Map for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day Release of

Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May)

May 2017 358

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-15 is a deterministic map which predicts the fate of a simulation of a 20,000 bpd spill
that originates at a well location in the PDA and lasts for 30-days in the winter season. This
deterministic map indicates that oil would not make contact with the Guyanese coast. The gray
area shows the “swept area” which is the path the oil spill is projected to follow. The black area
shows the fate of the surface oil. The red area shows the fate of the oil that makes shoreline
contact. Figure 7-16 shows the same deterministic model run as Figure 7-15 when mitigation
measures have been applied, the release has been stopped, containment has been restored in 21
days, and a capping stack is in place. No coastlines would be impacted and the potential area of
impact by such a release to the marine environment has been significantly reduced.

Figure 7-15 Deterministic Map for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day Release

of Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May) Depicting Weathering and
Fate

May 2017 359

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-16 Deterministic Map for Scenario 9 – Mitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day Release of

Crude Oil for 21 days (December through May) Depicting Weathering and Fate

Figure 7-17 is an oil mass balance graph that is associated with the deterministic map in Figure
7-15 (which shows where a simulation of a 20,000 bpd spill that originates at a well location in
the PDA and lasts for 30 days in the winter season).
This panel provides a graphical representation of the oil quantities predicted to reach different
parts of the environment over time. The green line represents the volume of spilled oil which
would be on the ocean surface over time. The red line represents the volume of spilled oil which
would make coastal contact (in this case, outside of Guyana) over time. The blue line represents
the volume of spilled oil which would remain in the water column over time. The dotted orange
line represents the volume of spilled oil which has decayed over time. The dotted gray line
represents the volume of spilled oil which would be released to the atmosphere over time,
which represents the vast majority of the spill volume (approximately 50 percent). For
perspective, the Scenario 9 oil spill has the potential to occur during the drilling stage
(approximately up to four years).

May 2017 360

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Figure 7-17 Oil Mass Balance Graph for Scenario 9 – Unmitigated 20,000-Barrel-per-Day
Release of Crude Oil for 30 days (December through May) Depicting Weathering
and Fate

7.4.1.6 Coastal Sensitivity Mapping

Coastal sensitivity mapping was conducted for the entire coastal area identified in the oil spill
modeling as being potentially exposed to hydrocarbons as a result of a Tier III Marine Oil Spill
(Scenario 9). The mapping included the following resources and receptors:
 Environmental – protected areas, wetlands, mangroves, beach types, seagrass beds, coral
reefs, and other sensitive habitats; and
 Socioeconomic – coastal and/or indigenous peoples communities (e.g., location and
socioeconomic characteristics), coast-dependent commercial and artisanal activities
(e.g., fishing, foraging), other industrial activities, and infrastructure (e.g., water intake
facilities).

This information enables EEPGL to prioritize the mobilization of emergency response resources
(manpower and equipment) to those areas most sensitive to a spill. These maps are included in
the OSRP.

7.4.1.7 Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Emergency Response Measures

Regarding spill prevention controls associated with Scenario 9 (well control release), EEPGL’s
well control philosophy is focused on spill prevention using safety and risk management
systems, management of change procedures, global standards, and trained experienced
personnel. EEPGL has a mature OIMS that emphasizes attention to safety, well control, and
environmental protection. Measures to avoid any loss of well control include proper

May 2017 361

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

preparation for wells (well design, well control equipment inspection and testing), automatic
detecting of any excess pressure entering the well during drilling, the use of physical barriers
including automatic BOPs, personnel training and proficiency drills for well control, and the
use of drilling fluids to control pressures within the well. See Chapter 2 for additional
information. A summary list of the spill prevention, mitigation measures and embedded
controls found in the EIA and supporting plans can also be found in Appendix F of the OSRP.
Regarding spill prevention controls associated with Scenario 8 (FPSO offloading spill), the
major spill prevention controls associated with FPSO offloading include: FPSO and tanker
collision avoidance controls described in Section 7.1.4.8; use of a certified engineered floating
hose system; floating hose damage protection controls; use of emergency disconnect controls on
the floating hose system; use of load monitoring systems in FPSO control room; and use of leak
detection controls including infrared leak detection, flood lighting for night operations, and
volumetric checks during offloading. See Section 2.11 Embedded Controls for additional
information. Spill controls associated with other Scenarios are also included in Section 2.11.
In addition to the established spill prevention controls, EEPGL also has developed a detailed Oil
Spill Response Plan (OSRP), which is included in the Project’s ESMP, to ensure an effective
response to an oil spill, if one were to occur. The OSRP builds on the coastal sensitivity mapping
and oil spill modeling described herein. The OSRP describes the response measures which are
dependent on the magnitude and complexity of the spill.
The OSRP clearly delineates the responsibilities of each entity that would take part in a
response and describes how EEPGL and its contractors would mobilize local oil spill response
resources, which would be complemented by the regional and international resources provided
by its oil spill response contractors. The OSRP describes the EEPGL process for notifying the
government of Guyana with respect to mobilizing its resources. The lead agency for oil spill
response in Guyana is MARAD, which falls under the Ministry of Public Works and
Communication. Maritime responsibilities are handled by several departments and ministries,
though the Coast Guard, under the auspices of MARAD, which enforces all maritime
regulations and is the primary response organization in any marine pollution incident in
navigable waters. In addition, the Guyana Defense Force and the Fire Service also assume an
operational role for pollution response.
Due to the precautionary measures utilized by EEPGL to prevent and control an oil spill, as
described above and in Chapter 2, the likelihood of a Tier II or III oil spill occurring is expected
to be Unlikely.

7.4.1.8 Vessel Collision

Two scenarios for vessel collisions, which can be enabling incidents for oil spills, have been
considered based on the nature of Project operations:
 Collision between the FPSO and an offloading tanker – during offloading of crude oil for
export, the offloading tanker must approach at a controlled, safe speed within about 120 m
(~390 ft) of the FPSO. To minimize the risk of collision during the approach to the FPSO and

May 2017 362

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

during offloading, EEPGL will utilize a Mooring Master onboard the offloading tanker. The
Mooring Master will guide the offloading tanker to the FPSO for offloading, remain on
board during offloading, and then guide the offloading tanker away from the FPSO upon
completion of offloading. Up to three assistance tugs will assist in positioning the offloading
tanker during the approach to the FPSO to maintain a safe separation from the FPSO.
During offloading, these tugs along with a hawser (taunt line connecting the FPSO and
tanker) will help ensure the offloading tanker maintains a safe distance from the FPSO at all
times (see Figure 2-18). Offloading will only occur when weather and sea conditions allow
for safe operations. If the environmental conditions prior to the commencement of
offloading are not suitable, the tanker will standby at a safe distance away until conditions
are within acceptable limits. If unexpected adverse weather (e.g., a squall) occurs during
offloading operations, the offloading operation will be stopped, and the tanker disconnected
and moved away from the FPSO until conditions are again within approved safe limits.
Considering these precautions, the potential for a collision between the FPSO and the
offloading tanker is considered Unlikely. In the unlikely event that a collision would occur
during the tanker approach to or departure from the FPSO, the risk of a hull breach is
greatly reduced by the design of the vessels (i.e., double hull) and the fact that the FPSO
would be stationary and the offloading tanker would be travelling at a very slow
maneuvering speed (assisted by tugs), therefore, there is not expected to be sufficient
collision energy to breach the hulls.

 Collision near shore between a Project supply vessel and another (non-Project) vessel or
structure – there are a variety of vessels that will supply and support drilling, installation,
and production operations activities. These vessels will operate from Guyana and Trinidad
shorebases. There is the potential for collisions between these vessels and other
vessels/structures in the Georgetown Harbour/Demerara River or the grounding of a
vessel. Such an incident may result from navigation error or a temporary loss of power that
affected the ability of a vessel to steer. The potential environmental impacts from such a
collision might result from a spill of fuel oil or lubricating oils from the vessels involved in
the incident. Damage to structures may result in the requirement for repairs, and in extreme
cases, temporary closure of the structure, which have occurred before in Guyana (e.g.,
damage to and temporary closure of the Demerara Harbour Bridge). Note the Georgetown
shorebase(s) are downstream of the Demerara Harbour Bridge, which reduces the
probability of collision with this structure.

A number of controls will be implemented to prevent these types of vessel incidents from
occurring. EEPGL has comprehensive contractor selection guidelines to ensure contractors are
qualified and have robust safety, health, and environmental management systems. EEPGL will
provide active oversight over its contractors to verify they are complying with its requirements.
Contractors are required to perform regular inspections of their vessels which address marine
safety and maintenance considerations, which should reduce the risk of loss of power incident
scenario. In addition, vessels operating within the Georgetown Harbour or other coastal areas
will be adhering to speed restrictions and navigation aids. Therefore, the risk of vessel accidents

May 2017 363

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

causing any significant damage to vessels or structures, or significant injury is considered

unlikely.
Other vessel collisions (e.g., collisions between drill ship, installation vessels, or the FPSO and
other vessels) are not considered reasonably foreseeable scenarios given the following safety
measures that will be put in place:
 MARAD will issue notices to mariners concerning safety at sea and the location of the drill
ship, installation vessels, and FPSO. EEPGL will also communicate major Project vessel
movements to commercial cargo, commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel
operators who might not ordinarily receive Notices to Mariners, and where possible
communicate Project activities to those individuals to aid them in avoiding Project vessels
through the stakeholder engagement process. Marine safety exclusion zones with a 500 m
(~1,640 ft) radius will be established around the drill ship during drilling operations and
around drill centers during well workovers, in accordance with industry standards and
practices. No unauthorized vessels will be allowed to enter these marine safety exclusion
zones. Similar marine safety exclusion zones will be established for the major installation
vessels.
 A marine safety exclusion zone of 2 nautical miles will be established around the FPSO. No
unauthorized vessels will be allowed to enter this marine safety exclusion zone.
 EEPGL will utilize a Simultaneous Operations procedure to safely manage Project marine
vessels which are performing work in the same vicinity of each other, which will include
considerations to avoid vessel collisions.
 Marine vessels will have industry proven station-keeping systems (e.g., FPSO mooring
system, dynamic position systems on drill ship, support vessels) to maintain station in the
offshore environment.

7.4.1.9 Onshore Vehicular Accident

The Project will result in an increase in onshore vehicular traffic generated primarily by
additional activity around the Georgetown base(s) that support the Project. As a result of this
increased traffic, there will be an increased risk of vehicular accidents that could cause property
damage and/or injury to third parties.
The likelihood of a vehicular accident causing a major injury or fatality is considered possible
given the relatively low Project-related traffic volumes and the generally low vehicular speeds
in Georgetown. EEPGL will implement a Road Safety Management Procedure –as described in
Section 7.4.4.2 to minimize this risk.

7.4.1.10 Summary of Unplanned Events Interactions with Resources/Receptors

Table 7-84 indicates which resources/receptors would potentially be impacted by a NADF

Release (Scenario 5), oil spills (i.e., Coastal Oil Spill [Scenario 6] and Marine Oil Spill [Scenarios
7, 8, and 9], and by vehicular or vessel accidents. The remainder of Section 7.4 evaluates the
significance of these unplanned events on each of these resources/receptors. For simplicity,

May 2017 364

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

although NADF is technically a “hydrocarbon” and not an “oil,” releases of both NADF and oil
are generically referred to as “oil spills” in the remainder of this section.

Table 7-84 Resources/Receptors Potentially Impacted by Unplanned Events

Vehicular
Resource/Receptor Oil Spill or Vessel
Accident
Marine Coastal NADF
Physical Resources
Air Quality and Climate X
Sound (airborne)
Marine Geology and Sediments X X
Marine Water Quality X X
Biological Resources
Protected Areas and Special Status Species X X
Coastal Habitats X X
Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds X X
Seabirds X
Marine Mammals X
Marine Turtles X
Marine Fish X X
Marine Benthos X X
Ecological Balance and Ecosystems X X
Socioeconomic Resources
Economics Conditions/ Employment and X X
Livelihoods
Community Health and Wellbeing X X X
Marine Use and Transportation X X X
Social Infrastructure and Services X X X
Cultural Heritage X X X
Land Use
Ecosystem Services X X
Indigenous Peoples X

7.4.2 Physical Resources

As shown in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential to significantly impact
physical resources is a Marine Oil Spill event in the Project AOI. Accordingly, discussions of
potential impacts in this section relate to that unplanned event only.

May 2017 365

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.2.1 Air Quality and Climate

Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons, made up of light, medium, and heavy constituents. In
the event of an oil spill, the lighter hydrocarbons (including benzene, xylene, and toluene) tend
to quickly evaporate into the air. Accordingly, concentrations of these constituents typically
drop rapidly during the first 24 hours of a spill. Elevated hydrocarbon concentrations in air are
primarily found in the immediate vicinity of a spill and some distance downwind, depending
on wind speeds. These constituents would primarily impact oil spill response workers, so air
monitoring equipment would be deployed to monitor levels of air pollutants and appropriate
PPE would be provided as necessary to those oil spill response workers who are exposed.
For an offshore spill, the potential for any harmful concentrations of air contaminants to reach
the Guyana coastline is considered very low even for a large Marine Oil Spill considering
prevailing winds away from the mainland and the distance to shore (approximately 190 km
[~120 miles]). Further, any air quality impacts would be temporary. Similarly, in the event of a
spill reaching shorelines, air contamination would be generally localized to the area where the
oil came ashore. Therefore, the consequence to air quality of an oil spill is considered Low. In
combination with a likelihood rating of Unlikely for a large Marine Oil Spill, the overall risk to
air quality from an oil spill is Minor.
With respect to climate impacts, there would be an indirect impact associated with additional
fossil fuel combustion by response vessels and equipment and with some potential for release of
methane to the atmosphere, resulting in increased GHG emissions as compared to planned
activities. However, the scale and duration of these additional GHG emissions would be
limited, leading to a consequence rating of Low. In combination with a likelihood rating of
Unlikely for an oil spill, the overall risk to climate from an oil spill is Minor.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure for the drill ship, lighter oil fractions would likely rise into the mid water
column and dissipate laterally as they rise, while the NADF would remain at or near the
seafloor and would not reach the atmosphere. Therefore, a NADF Release would have no
impact on air quality or climate.

Table 7-85 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts to Air Quality
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk
Measure Rating
Marine Oil Air Quality Unlikely Low Minor Implement Minor
Spill OSRP, air
quality
monitoring
during response,
provision of PPE
to response
workers
Climate Unlikely Low Minor None Minor

May 2017 366

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.2.2 Marine Geology and Sediments

An oil spill would not impact marine geology, but in the event of sedimentation (where
hydrocarbons adhere to other material and settle) or shoreline stranding of the spill,
hydrocarbons may be mixed within marine or intertidal sediments. This would primarily be
expected in the vicinity of the well release offshore and in the nearshore wave zone. One study
determined that less than 1 percent of the oil from a major loss of well control event in the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico was found in sediments, and this was principally within an 8 km (5-mile) radius
of the release point (U.S. National Research Council, 1985). The heavier oil fractions that may
sink to the seafloor would continue to be subjected to weathering processes. Research has
indicated that the overall impact of a Marine Oil Spill on the seafloor is Low, especially when
lighter oils are involved (ITOPF, Undated). Therefore, the consequence of an oil spill on the
seabed and marine sediments is considered Low. In combination with a likelihood rating of
Unlikely for a large Marine Oil Spill, the overall risk to marine geology and sediments from an
oil spill is Minor.
In the event of an emergency disconnect of the drilling riser and release of NADF near the
seafloor, cuttings would also be released. Neither the NADF nor the cuttings would have any
effect on the underlying marine geology of the PDA. The NADF would remain suspended in
the water column and have no effect on sediments, but the cuttings would accumulate on the
seafloor. Cuttings deposits would tend to be deeper and coarser in the immediate vicinity of
the wellhead, and decrease in thickness and grain size with increasing distance from the well.
The strength of the bottom currents in the PDA would likely erode any significant deposits near
the wellhead over time, dispersing all but the coarsest cuttings down current. The only lasting
effect of such an event would likely be a change in the grain size distribution of marine
sediment within the deposition field; although this effect would diminish over time as benthic
infauna and natural sediment deposition would bury the deposited cuttings. The NADF to be
used by EEPGL contains IOGP Group III NABF with low to negligible aromatic content,
reducing the potential that changes in marine sediments as a result of discharge of the NADF
will lead to toxicological impacts on benthic infauna. Given the short-term nature of such an
event, the low-toxicity NADF, and that the total volume of material that would be discharged
would be limited to the volume of the riser, the consequence of a release of NADF on the seabed
and marine sediments is considered Low. In combination with a likelihood rating of Unlikely
for such an event, the overall risk to marine sediments from a release of NADF is Minor.

Table 7-86 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Geology and Sediments
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Marine Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Spill Sediments
NADF Marine Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Release Sediments

May 2017 367

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.2.3 Marine Water Quality

As described in Section 7.4.1, marine oil spills are subject to a range of weathering processes
that will result in the hydrocarbon partitioning in different parts of the marine environment,
and include the loss of some of the spill by way of evaporation and photo-oxidation. Microbial
and photochemical degradation processes will gradually remove remaining contamination from
the marine environment. The proportion of the spill that becomes entrained in the water
column through wave energy will be subject to rapid, high levels of three-dimensional dilution
along with biodegradation. Some oil constituents, especially aromatics, are also soluble in
water. Together the entrained and dissolved fractions will increase hydrocarbon concentrations
in the water column and result in localized reductions in water quality. Monitoring of oil spills
has shown that concentrations of oil and its constituents in the water column rapidly decline
after a spill, and are usually confined to an area near the source (ITOPF, Undated). The oil that
would be released from a spill in the PDA would be what is known as a light crude. Lighter
crude oils generally have higher biological availability and are generally associated with higher
toxicity impacts versus heavier crudes. This impact, however, is offset by the relatively rapid
dissipation of light oils through evaporation and dispersion, which means light oils may be less
impacting to the environment overall, relative to heavier oils, as long as sensitive resources are
sufficiently distant from the immediate source of the spill.
The mixing energy resulting from a loss of well control event may result in higher levels of
entrained and dissolved hydrocarbons than a surface spill, as the slick will be fragmented into
smaller droplets by reservoir pressure.
Accordingly, a Marine Oil Spill is considered to have a High severity rating with respect to
impacts on water quality, taking into consideration the higher toxicity of the light oil fractions
and the magnitude and extent of the spill scenario, balanced against the limited geographic
extent and duration of the toxicity impacts as a result of relatively rapid loss of lighter fractions.
In combination with a likelihood rating of Unlikely for a large Marine Oil Spill, the overall risk
to marine water quality from an oil spill is Moderate. Even with implementation of the OSRP,
the residual risk rating remains Moderate.
As discussed in Section 7.4.2.3, NADF would be exposed to biological degradation after being
released from the drilling riser. This process can result in localized decreases in dissolved
oxygen concentrations, although this is more likely to be observed in the pore water between
the cuttings grains deposited on the seafloor than in the water column due to the dissolution of
NADF in the water column caused by the strong marine currents in the region. Organic
enrichment of sediments speeds the biodegradation process, which tends to accelerate oxygen
depletion and NADF cuttings tend to contain higher concentrations of biodegradable matter
than WBDF. Conditions favoring eutrophication and hypoxia in the near-surface pore water
within the deposition zone may exist temporarily following a release of NADF, but the high
current velocities in the area would tend to prevent formation of large piles of cuttings where
these conditions would persist. Eutrophication and resulting hypoxia at the seafloor or within
the pore water could be sufficient to cause localized changes in the marine biota, but these
changes would likely be short term. Although the NADF used by EEPGL will contain IOGP

May 2017 368

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Group III NABF, it will have low to negligible aromatic content, reducing the potential that
changes in marine water quality as a result of discharge of the NADF will lead to toxicological
impacts. Therefore, a NADF Release is considered to have a Medium severity rating with
respect to impacts on water quality. In combination with a likelihood rating of Unlikely, the
overall risk to marine water quality from a NADF Release is Minor.

Table 7-87 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Water Quality
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Water Unlikely High Moderate Implement Moderate
Spill Quality OSRP
NADF Water Unlikely Medium Minor None Minor
Release Quality

7.4.3 Biological Resources

The only unplanned events with the potential to impact biological resources would be a Marine
Oil Spill, a Coastal Oil Spill, or a NADF spill (collectively referred to as oil spills). Oil spills can
impact marine biological resources both as a result of physical smothering and toxic impacts.
The severity of the impact typically depends on the location of the spill, the quantity and type of
hydrocarbon spilled, the environmental conditions (e.g., wind, currents), and the sensitivity of
the impacted receptors and their habitats ultimately exposed to the oil (ITOPF, undated).
Due to rapid dilution of hydrocarbons in the water column, the most significant impacts on
biological resources are generally impacts on seabirds and other species that encounter surface
slicks. Impacts may also occur in shallow subtidal or intertidal areas that are exposed to higher
concentrations where hydrocarbons are entrained by breaking waves or where species are
foraging on sand, mudflats, or wetlands.

7.4.3.1 Protected Areas and Special Status Species

Potential impacts from a Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill on protected areas and special
status species are discussed in this sub-section.

Protected Areas

The Shell Beach Protected Area (SBPA) provides habitat for numerous coastal wildlife and
shorebird species, including several species of critically endangered/endangered marine turtles.
The SBPA would be highly sensitive to a large Marine Oil Spill if it were to reach the shoreline.
However, as discussed in Section 6.1.4.1, Guyana’s oceanic waters are influenced by the Guiana
Current and the North Brazil Current, and oil spill modeling indicates that oil spilled from the
modeled loss of well control event would have a 5 to 10 percent probability would reach the
Guyana shoreline, without considering the effects of emergency spill response. Nevertheless,

May 2017 369

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

SBPA has been included in the coastal sensitivity mapping, and in the event of an oil spill,
resources and equipment would be mobilized to protect Shell Beach as necessary.
Based on the sensitivity of the SBPA, the consequence of an oil spill reaching the SBPA would
be High. The low probability (5 to 10 percent) of oil from a large Marine Oil Spill actually
reaching the Guyana shoreline supports a likelihood rating of Unlikely. Therefore, the overall
risk to the SBPA from a large Marine Oil Spill is considered Moderate. With the effective
implementation of the OSRP, the residual (post-mitigation) risk is considered Minor.
A Coastal Oil Spill (e.g., Scenario 6 from Table 7-82) would not be expected to impact SBPA
because it would be limited to near Project shorebases and onshore support facilities, which
would be distant from SBPA.
A NADF spill would not be expected to impact the SBPA because of the limited volume spilled,
and the depth and distance to shore at which the spill would occur.

Special Status Species

Special Status Species include critically endangered, endangered, threatened, and vulnerable
species that are found in the Project AOI.
The Critically Endangered species in the AOI are all coastal fish species that would only
exposed to oil if it reached coastal waters. If oil were to reach the coast in sufficient quantities to
cause lethal or sublethal impacts on fish, the loss of even a few individuals in this category
could cause significant impacts at the population level. Based on this rationale, the consequence
or severity of an oil spill on Critically Endangered species is considered High. A large Marine
Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill are the only spill scenarios that could result in such quantities of
oil reaching coastal waters and these events are considered Unlikely. Therefore, the overall risk
of a large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill to Critically Endangered species is considered
Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by further
reducing the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast line.
There are a few terrestrial special status species, such as the Agami heron and Semipalmated
sandpiper that could encounter weathered oil along the coast, or ingest fish that had been
exposed to or ingested oil themselves. This would be most likely to occur under a large Marine
Oil Spill or Coastal Oil Spill in which oil could approach or reach the Guyana coast. Such an
event could cause significant impacts at the population level, depending on the size of the spill
and the proportion of available forage and habitat affected. Therefore the consequence or
severity of an oil spill on Critically Endangered species is considered High. The likelihood
rating of such an event occurring is considered Unlikely for the same reasons cited above for
Critically Endangered species. Therefore, the overall risk of a large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal
Oil Spill to terrestrial special status species is considered Moderate. Effective implementation of
the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by further reducing the probability of oil reaching
the Guyana coast line.
The Endangered and Vulnerable species are primarily open water fish that would occur in the
PDA. Fish have no need to surface and can therefore avoid floating oil, and the depths present

May 2017 370

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

offshore of Guyana would provide sufficient opportunity to do avoid slicks and sheens. Fish
would have the potential to encounter emulsified oil rising through the water column from a
loss of well control at the wellhead, but most of the Endangered and Vulnerable species are
pelagic species that would be expected to rapidly vacate areas with harmful concentrations of
oil in the water column, so exposure times would be brief. Losses of a small numbers of
individuals of Endangered or Vulnerable species could have significant population level effects,
but would have less of an impact than losses of equivalent numbers of Critically Endangered
species.
Based on this rationale the consequence or severity of a large Marine Oil Spill on Endangered or
Vulnerable species is considered Medium. The severity of a spill event’s impacts on green sea
turtles and black capped petrels would be higher than on the fishes that comprise most of the
Endangered and Vulnerable categories, and impacts of unplanned events on sea birds and sea
turtles are assessed in other sections, with the higher sensitivities of these two species to oil
spills are not sufficient to elevate the consequence rating for impacts on the remaining species in
the Endangered and Vulnerable categories. Therefore, the overall risk of a large Marine Oil Spill
to Endangered and Vulnerable species is considered Moderate. Effective implementation of the
OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by further reducing the probability of oil reaching the
Guyana coast line.
The Near Threatened category includes a mix of offshore and coastal species, but most species
are primarily found offshore. These species are considered less at-risk than Endangered or
Vulnerable species, so the consequence or severity of a large Marine Oil Spill or Coastal Oil Spill
on these species is considered Medium. Most species in the Endangered and Vulnerable
categories occur offshore, so the likelihood of an oil spill impacting these species is rated as
Unlikely based on the same rationale presented above for Endangered or Vulnerable species.
Therefore, the overall risk of a large Marine Oil Spill or Coastal Oil Spill to Endangered and
Vulnerable species is considered Minor. Effective implementation of the OSRP would further
reduce the geographic extent of a spill.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure for the drill ship, lighter oil fractions would likely rise into the mid water
column and dissipate laterally as they rise, while the NADF would remain at or near the
seafloor. A few of the deepwater-adapted special status fishes (e.g., hollownose grenadier and
frilled shark) may occur occasionally in the shallowest portion of the PDA, but the PDA is too
deep to be within the preferred habitat of any special status species. Therefore, a NADF
Release would not be expected to have a population-level impact on special status species.

May 2017 371

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-88 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Protected Areas and Special Status Species
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Protected Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Areas OSRP
(SBPA)
Marine Oil Special
Spill or Status
Coastal Oil Species
Spill Critically Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Endangered OSRP
Species
Endangered Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Fish and OSRP
Black
Capped
Petrel
Vulnerable/ Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Near OSRP
Threatened
Species

7.4.3.2 Coastal Habitats

As indicated in Table 7-84, the unplanned events with the potential for any measureable
impacts on coastal habitats would be from a large Marine Oil Spill or Coastal Oil Spill.
In Guyana, the coastal habitats most at risk from an oil spill would be mangroves and other
wetland habitats (e.g., mudflats). Other habitats that are known to be sensitive to oil spills are
coral reefs and seagrass beds, but which are not present in Guyana.
Mangroves, of which the largest remaining stands in Guyana occur in the SBPA, are important
providers of a number of ecological services upon which fish, wildlife, and humans rely.
Mangroves provide valuable habitat for crabs and important nursery areas for fish and shrimp,
and provide coastal protection from wave action. Mangroves are typically found along the
margins of shorelines at the saltwater interface Due to this physical location, mangroves are
vulnerable to exposure during oil spills. Mangroves are considered to be sensitive to heavy
contamination by oil for several reasons (ITOPF, undated):
 Mangroves rely on oxygen supplied through small pores (lenticels) on their aerial roots.
Smothering of the aerial roots by heavy hydrocarbons can block this important oxygen
pathway;
 The toxic component of oil can interfere with mangroves’ systems for maintaining salt
balance, impacting their ability to tolerate salt water;

May 2017 372

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

 Oil can become trapped in mangrove sediments, where it may remain in a relatively
unweathered state and be gradually remobilized over a long period, causing repeated
“pulses” of exposure; and
 If impacted, mangrove habitats are typically slow to recover from oil exposure, often taking
10 years or longer, especially where the shoreline protection services of the mangroves has
been compromised.

For these reasons, the consequence or severity of a large Marine Oil Spill on mangroves is
considered High. However, oil spill modeling of a loss of well control event indicates a 5 to 10
percent chance of oil reaching the Guyana shoreline, supporting a likelihood rating of Unlikely.
Therefore, the overall risk of a Marine Oil Spill on coastal habitats is considered Moderate.
Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by further reducing the
probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast line.
There is also the potential for a Coastal Oil Spill in the Demerara River or near shorebases
located elsewhere in Guyana (see Section 7.5 for discussion of shorebases in Trinidad). Scenario
6 (Table 7-82) assumes a spill of 500 bbl of diesel oil, which may occur during bunkering. Under
this scenario, the spill would be quickly controlled and contained because of the relatively small
volumes and the ready access to spill control equipment. Although mangrove forests are not
extensive near the mouth of the Demerara or the Essequibo rivers, fringe mangroves do exist
and would be susceptible to exposure to an oil spill. Other coastal habitats that are particularly
susceptible to oil spills (e.g., coral reefs, seagrass beds) are not found in these coastal areas of
Guyana. These impacts would generally be temporary, limited in area, and readily mitigated,
with rapid habitat recovery expected.
Nevertheless, considering the sensitivity of mangroves to oil spills, the consequence or severity
of a Coastal Oil Spill on mangroves is considered High and the occurrence of this event is
considered Unlikely. Therefore, the overall risk of a Coastal Oil Spill to coastal habitats is
considered Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor
by further reducing the spread of oil in coastal waters.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure on the drill ship, the NADF would not be expected to reach the coast.
Therefore, a NADF Release would have no impact on coastal habitats.

Table 7-89 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Coastal Habitats
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Coastal Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Habitats OSRP
Coastal Oil Coastal Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Habitats OSRP

May 2017 373

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.3.3 Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds

As indicated in Table 7-84, the unplanned events with the potential for any measureable
impacts on coastal wildlife and shorebirds would be a large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil
Spill.
As described in Section 6.2.3, the Guyana coastal habitats support a rich and diverse collection
of species, including shorebirds. Many of these species are dependent on mangroves and other
wetland habitats, which are particularly sensitive to oil spills. In addition, there is the potential
for some oil that reaches the Guyana shoreline to move upstream into the tidal portions of
rivers and other estuarine areas as a result of tidal action, where it could impact fur-bearing
species like the neotropical and giant river otter. Oil can impact the physical structure of
feathers and fur, causing a loss of waterproofing and thermoregulation. In addition, animals can
inhale hydrocarbons or ingest oil when they groom themselves or feed, which can damage their
lungs, cause ulcers, and result in liver and kidney damage.
For these reasons, the consequences or severity of a large Marine Oil Spill on coastal wildlife
and seabirds is considered High. However, oil spill modeling of a loss of well control event
indicates a 5 to 10 percent chance of oil reaching the Guyana shoreline, supporting a likelihood
rating of Unlikely. Therefore, the overall risk of a large oil spill on coastal wildlife and
shorebirds is considered Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this
risk to Minor by reducing the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast line.
A Coastal Oil Spill (e.g., Scenario 6 from Table 7-82) would more directly impact estuarine
wildlife than the small portion of a larger Marine Oil Spill that reaches the coastal portion of
Guyana. The giant river otter, however, is not found in estuarine waters, and emergency
response measures should be able to prevent any hydrocarbons from a spill like this from
migrating upstream into fresh water habitats where this species may be found. There could be
impacts to the neotropical otter, which can be found in estuarine areas, shorebirds, and other
wildlife from oiling, but because of the more limited magnitude of the spill and its location in a
more controllable setting (i.e., riverine vs open ocean), the impacts would be limited to those
individuals in the limited impacted area, and these impacts would be expected to be temporary,
with no impacts at the population level for any species.
Nevertheless, considering the sensitivity of some of these coastal species, the consequence or
severity of a Coastal Oil Spill on coastal wildlife and shorebirds is considered High and the
occurrence of this event is considered Unlikely. Therefore, the overall risk of a Coastal Oil Spill
on coastal habitats is considered Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would
further reduce this risk to Minor by further reducing the spread of oil in coastal waters.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure on the drill ship, the NADF would not be expected to reach the coast.
Therefore, a NADF Release would have no impact on coastal wildlife or shorebirds.

May 2017 374

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-90 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Coastal Wildlife and Shorebirds
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Coastal Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Wildlife OSRP
and
Shorebirds
Coastal Oil Coastal Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Wildlife OSRP
and
Shorebirds

7.4.3.4 Seabirds

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on seabirds would be a Marine Oil Spill.
During most oil spills, seabirds are harmed and killed in greater numbers than other kinds of
creatures (NOAA, 2016b). An oil spill could pose a risk to seabirds through direct and indirect
mechanisms, including the following:
 Loss of insulating and water repelling properties from oiling of plumage, leading to
increased mortality;
 Loss or impairment of flight and buoyancy from oiling of plumage, which can render birds
unable to feed at sea, which can quickly lead to dehydration and starvation;
 Toxic impacts from the ingestion of hydrocarbons during preening, ingestion of
contaminated prey, inhalation of fumes or absorption of hydrocarbons through skin or eggs,
leading to increased mortality;
 Habitat degradation at sea and at island or shoreline breeding sites; and
 Mortality of food resources.

Since most oils float at least initially following a release, seabird species that spend significant
time resting or foraging on the water’s surface are most at risk from direct exposure. Diving
birds and waterfowl are considered to have the highest risk of oiling.
No marine Important Bird Areas (“IBAs”, e.g., seabird breeding colonies and surrounding
foraging areas, non-breeding concentrations, feeding areas for pelagic species) have been
identified in Guyana. For colonial nesting species, if a spill occurs during the breeding period
and oil reaches a breeding colony or impacts individuals that introduce oil to the colony, the
impacts on seabirds would be more severe compared with those during the non-breeding
season. This is because colonial seabird species typically nest close together on islands or
shorelines and forage at higher density in proximity to the nesting sites, making larger numbers
of birds and their eggs susceptible to oiling. Reproducing requires a lot of energy and a bird’s
demand for food resources can double or triple during the breeding season. If an oil spill causes

May 2017 375

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

mortality or contamination of the birds’ food resources, it can inhibit the birds’ ability to
successfully mate and produce eggs (Henkel et al., 2012). Eggs and very young birds are
particularly sensitive to oil exposure, which typically causes embryonic mortality in eggs or
death from exposure in chicks (Finch et al., 2011). Some seabirds lay only one egg at a time, so
they have an already low reproductive rate, which makes these species more susceptible to
adverse impacts from spills that occur in the breeding season (because they could lose an entire
recruitment year) (NOAA, 2016).
Given their susceptibility and sensitivity, the consequence of a Marine Oil Spill on seabirds is
considered High. This is offset to some extent by the Unlikely likelihood of a Marine Oil Spill.
Therefore, the overall risk of an oil spill on seabirds is considered Moderate. Effective
implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by limiting the geographic extent
of the oil spill and the number of individual birds impacted.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure on the drill ship, the NADF would not be expected to reach the surface of the
ocean where seabirds are active. Therefore, a NADF Release would have no impact on seabirds.

Table 7-91 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Seabirds

Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Seabirds Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill OSRP

7.4.3.5 Marine Mammals

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on marine mammals would be a Marine Oil Spill.
In the unlikely event of an oil spill, marine mammals (i.e., whales, dolphins, manatees) may be
exposed when they surface to breathe or breach in the area of a fresh slick. Exposure to oil may
harm their respiratory tissue and eyes, and increase their susceptibility to infections. Baleen
whales may be more susceptible because of the potential for oil to foul their baleen plates if the
whales filter feed in the vicinity of the oil spill. Although not the most common whales in the
Project AOI, three species of baleen whales have been documented in the area: Sei, Minke, and
Bryde’s whales. Marine mammals may also be impacted by indirect impacts associated with oil
spills, including increased exposure to sound and risk of injury from ship strikes by response
vessels.
Despite these risks, serious health impacts or deaths in marine mammals due to oil spills are
rare. This is attributed to their smooth, hairless skin, to which oil does not readily adhere, and
their ability to take evasive action and avoid areas impacted by spills. Depending on time of
year, however, marine mammals could be directly exposed to oil and suffer a range of health
consequences.

May 2017 376

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

For these reasons, and especially considering the presence and susceptibility of baleen whales,
the consequence of a Marine Oil Spill on marine mammals is considered High. This is offset to
some extent by the Unlikely likelihood of an oil spill. Therefore, the overall risk of an oil spill
on marine mammals is considered Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would
reduce the geographic extent of the spill, but considering the susceptibility of baleen whales to
oil spills, their presence in the Project AOI, and their endangered/threatened status, the risk
remains Moderate.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure for the drill ship, lighter oil fractions would likely rise into the mid water
column and dissipate laterally as they rise, while the NADF would remain at or near the
seafloor. This is deeper than most marine mammals occur, and it would be too deep to affect
the preferred forage species of any marine mammal species known occur in the AOI. Therefore,
a NADF Release would have no impact on marine mammals.

Table 7-92 Risk Ratings for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Mammals
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Marine Unlikely High Moderate Implement Moderate
Spill Mammals OSRP

7.4.3.6 Marine Turtles

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on marine turtles would be a Marine Oil Spill.
In the unlikely event of an oil spill, several aspects of sea turtle biology place them at particular
risk across all of their life stages. Marine turtles nest on sandy beaches. If such beaches were to
become oiled, the laid eggs may be contaminated either because there is oil in the nest or the
adult turtles pick up oil as they cross the beach. The eggs are susceptible to oil through
absorption, which can inhibit their development. Newly hatched turtles can become oiled after
emerging from their nests and crossing an oiled beach on their way to the water. Oiling of
juvenile and adult turtles in the water can adversely impact their eyes, mucous membranes,
skin, blood, digestive and immune systems, and salt glands.
Several aspects of sea turtle behavior also compound their biological susceptibility to oil. These
behaviors include:
 Lack of avoidance behavior – marine turtles are not known to consistently take evasive
action away from oil spills;
 Indiscriminate feeding – marine turtles have a habit of ingesting floating objects, including
the ingestion of oil-fouled food and floating tar balls they mistake for food; and
 Large pre-dive inhalations – if turtles surface to breathe in a fresh slick, the oil can impact
their eyes and damage their airways and/or lungs, especially with their large pre-dive
breaths which can introduce airborne toxins deep into their respiratory system.

May 2017 377

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

There are five species of marine turtles found in Guyana waters, four of which are known to
nest at Shell Beach. The populations of all of these species are under threat and they are
classified as Vulnerable to Critically Endangered by the IUCN.
The consequence of a Marine Oil Spill on marine turtles is considered High taking into
consideration their susceptibility to oil contamination, their presence and important nesting site
in the Project AOI, and their threatened status. As explained previously, a large Marine Oil Spill
from a well control event is considered Unlikely, with oil spill modeling indicating a 5 to 10
percent chance that oil would reach the Guyana shoreline and Shell Beach. Therefore,
considering both consequence and likelihood, the overall risk to marine turtles from an oil spill
is Moderate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce the overall risk by reducing
the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast line. However, given the Critically Endangered
and Endangered IUCN classifications for several of these turtle species, the residual (post-
mitigation) risk rating remains Moderate.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure for the drill ship, lighter oil fractions would likely rise into the mid water
column and dissipate laterally as they rise, while the NADF would remain at or near the
seafloor. No marine turtles are known to dive to the depths that occur in the PDA, and it would
be too deep to affect the preferred forage species of any marine turtle species known occur in
the AOI. Therefore, a NADF Release would have no impact on marine turtles.

Table 7-93 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Turtles
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Marine Unlikely High Moderate Implement Moderate
Spill Turtles OSRP

7.4.3.7 Marine Fish

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on marine fish would be a Marine Oil Spill.
Impacts to fish are related to both water column concentrations of, and the duration of exposure
to, dissolved hydrocarbons (primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH).
Contamination in the water column changes rapidly in space and time, such that exposures are
typically brief (i.e., typically measures in hours). Exposure to microscopic oil droplets may also
impact aquatic biota either mechanically (especially filter feeders) or as a conduit for exposure
to semi-soluble hydrocarbons (which might be taken up in the gills or digestive tract via
dissolution from the micro-droplets).
Fish are generally only slightly impacted by oil spills because of their limited exposure to
surface slicks and the dispersed oil being rapidly diluted to very low concentrations in open
water environments. Fish may also actively avoid oil as they can detect hydrocarbons in the

May 2017 378

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

water. Juvenile life stages of marine fish tend to be more susceptible to impacts from oil spill
than adults for several reasons, including:
 Most marine fishes spend at least their initial larval stages in the plankton, which renders
them unable to move away from oil at the surface;
 Oil tends to concentrate at the water surface, at least initially following a release; and
 In addition to acute ingestion- and dermal contact-related impacts, early life stages are also
exposed to developmental related impacts (which may include deformities in heart, jaw,
and eye tissues) that may manifest later in life (Press, 2015).

Despite the susceptibility of juvenile stages of fish to relatively low concentrations of oil in the
upper water column, high mortality of planktonic life stages of fish would be expected to have
minor impacts on the long-term populations of most open-ocean species. Very high natural
mortality rates for larval life stages (exceeding 99 percent for most marine fishes) (MBC, 2011)
suggest that most ichthyoplankton that could be killed during an oil spill event would die
naturally from other causes in the absence of a spill. Therefore localized, high losses of these
juvenile life stages rarely equate to any measurable loss of adult life stages in the population.
Although adult fish tend to be resilient to the impacts of oil spills in the open ocean, fish at all
life stages can be substantially impacted in some circumstances, especially when oil spills into
shallow or confined waters. In exceptional circumstances, depletion of a year class for a
particular species has been recorded in industry, but mass fish mortalities as a result of an oil
spill are rare. Mortalities that have occurred have been associated with very high, localized
concentrations of dispersed oil in the water column in storm conditions, with the release of
substantial quantities of light oils into breaking surf along a shoreline, or with spills in rivers
(ITOPF, Undated). If a spill were to reach these areas and penetrate the shallow creeks and
lagoons within the mangroves, mortality of adult and subadult life stages could be much
higher. The consequence of an oil spill impacting marine fish is therefore considered Moderate.
The likelihood of oil reaching the coast, where fish would be most vulnerable to adverse
impacts, would be highest under a large Marine Oil Spill scenario. But even if such an event
occurred during the season when winds and currents were most favorable for oil to reach the
coast, the probability of oil actually reaching the Guyanese coast would remain between 5 to 10
percent, supporting a likelihood rating of Unlikely. This means that the impacts of most oil
spills on marine fish would be mostly confined to early life stages of pelagic fish and would
have limited impacts at the population or species level. Considering the consequence and
likelihood ratings, the risk to marine fish from a Marine Oil Spill is rated as Minor. Effective
implementation of the OSRP would further reduce the risk by limiting the geographic extent of
the oil spill.
In the event of a Tier II or Tier III marine oil spill, implementation of the OSRP may include use
of dispersants (Secenarios 7, 8, and 9 in Table 7-82. EEPGL is seeking pre-approval from the
EPA for the potential use of the three primary (i.e., most broadly approved and studied)
dispersants: Corexit 9500, Finasol OSR 52, and Dasic Slickgone NS. These dispersants have been
found to have low toxicity, are effective across a broad range of oil types and environmental
conditions, and are readily available globally. For reference, in a 2010 study conducted by the

May 2017 379

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

US EPA, Corexit 9500A was found to be practically non-toxic36 to Menidia spp. (which is
commonly used as a biological model representing fish in general) during standard acute
toxicity tests (USEPA, 2010). Although it is impossible to predict the exact quantity of
dispersant that would be required under every foreseeable oil spill scenario, based on previous
industry experience the three scenarios identified in the OSRP for which application of
dispersants would be recommended could require the application of an estimated total of
between 2 m3 and 159 m3 of dispersant, depending on how the dispersant is applied, the
volume of oil spilled, the relative speed with which other mitigation measures could be applied
and their effectiveness, and sea conditions at the time of the spill, as well as other factors.
The same factors that will cause rapid dilution of oil in the open ocean (e.g.; marine
currents, wind, and wave action) will also act to rapidly dilute a dispersant-oil mixture.
Since dilution in the marine environment occurs rapidly (especially in areas with strong
current activity such as the PDA), the potential for acute impacts from dispersed oil is
limited in duration and space, and chronic exposure is not expected to be a significant
factor in the overall risks posed to marine biota during a spill event. Undispersed oil
generally has similar toxicity as most dispersant-oil mixtures, so the responsible use of
dispersants generally does not represent an additional risk to marine biota.
In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP station
keeping failure for the drill ship, lighter oil fractions would likely rise into the mid water
column and dissipate laterally as they rise, while the NADF would remain at or near the
seafloor. In the event of a release of NADF caused by an emergency riser disconnect due to DP
station keeping failure on the drill ship, the NADF would remain at or near the seafloor. Such
an event would expose deepwater-adapted fishes within the PDA to NADF, but a NADF
release would be expected to only temporarily affect a small area around the release point.
Therefore, the risk to marine fish from a NADF Release is rated as Minor.

Table 7-94 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Fish
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Marine Fish Unlikely Moderate Minor Implement Minor
Spill OSRP
NADF Marine Fish Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Release

7.4.3.8 Marine Benthos

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on marine benthos would be a Marine Oil Spill.

36The US EPA classifies substances with LC50 values (concentration that will kill 50% of the test animals with a
single exposure) of >100 ppm as “practically nontoxic”.

May 2017 380

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Benthic resources would be in close proximity to spilled oil from a loss of well control event.
The impact of oil contamination on deep-sea benthic biological resources, however, is poorly
understood by academia and industry. As discussed previously, most of the spilled oil would
be expected to rapidly surface, but some oil may bind with sediments and settle to the bottom,
with the potential to expose benthic organisms to toxic constituents. Results from a study
initiated after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill found that areas within about 3 km (1.8 miles) of
the wellhead had low taxa richness and high nematode/harpacticoid-copepod ratios, indicative
of contamination (Montagna et al., 2013). It should be noted that these impacts are considered to
have resulted from attempts to kill the well by injection of drilling fluids into the open wellhead
rather than the loss of well control. Polychaete worms, the most common benthic species in the
PDA, display varied responses to oil pollution. After an initial die-off, some polychaete species
may increase in abundance and rapidly colonize damaged habitat, while other species may
experience reduced populations (Xerces Society, 2014).
In a 2010 study conducted by the US EPA, Corexit 9500A was found to be slightly toxic37 to
Mysid shrimp (which are commonly used as a biological model representing crustaceans
and other benthos in general) during standard acute toxicity tests (USEPA, 2010). As
described above, oil spill scenarios 7, 8, and 9 as identified in Table 7-82 and in the OSRP could
require the application of an estimated total of between 2 m3 and 159 m3 of dispersant, but if
subsea application of dispersant were to be used, the upper end of that range would decrease
by a factor of five to a total of approximately 32 m3. This means that although subsea
application would place the disperant closer to the seafloor where benthos are located, the
incremental increase in relative toxicity to benthos (as compared to fish) would be largely
balanced by the much smaller amount of dispersant that would be required in such an
application.
Considering the depth of water, relatively low species diversity, and likely limited geographic
extent of impact, the consequence of a Marine Oil Spill on marine benthos is considered Low.
Combined with the Unlikely event of a large Marine Oil Spill, the overall risk to marine
benthos from an oil spill is considered Minor. There is little in the way of mitigation that would
minimize the impacts of an oil spill on marine benthos in proximity to the well; rather, EEPGL’s
proposed embedded controls to prevent a spill from occurring represent the most effective
approach to minimizing this risk.
Marine benthos would be the most sensitive of all the marine biological resources/receptors to
an unplanned release of NADF from an emergency riser disconnect and loss of DP on the drill
ship, due to their close proximity to the release point, the tendency of the NADF and cuttings
plume to remain at or near the seafloor, and their limited capacity to move away from the
impacted area compared to other marine biota. A review of impacts of NADF and cutting
deposition on marine benthos documented burial, changes in sediment texture, and hypoxia in
sediments as the three primary mechanisms of impact on marine biota from a release such as

37The US EPA classifies substances with LC50 values (concentration that will kill 50% of the test animals with a
single exposure) of 10-100 ppm as “slightly nontoxic”.

May 2017 381

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Scenario 5 (IOGP, 2016). The smaller and less mobile organisms (including burrowing species,
worms, and sessile lifeforms such as sponges, bryozoans, gorgonians, and most mollusks) are
usually affected to greater degree by such events, while the larger and more mobile species
(e.g., large crustaceans, cephalopods) are affected to a lesser degree and can move away from
impacted areas. As described in Sections 7.4.2.2 and 7.4.2.3, marine currents in the AOI would
mitigate the potential for burial and formation of hypoxic zones within the sediment. When
such events occur, recovery through natural recruitment from adjacent undisturbed areas is
typically well underway within a year of the impact having occurred, but the potential does
exist for short term impacts on marine benthos in the event of a release, and such an event
would likely cause at least a temporary decrease in both the abundance and diversity of marine
benthos within the deposition zone. While the NADF to be used by EEPGL contains IOGP
Group III NABF with low to negligible aromatic content, reducing the potential that changes in
marine sediments as a result of discharge of the NADF will lead to toxicological impacts on
marine benthos, a NADF Release is considered to have a Medium severity rating with respect
to impacts on marine benthos. In combination with a likelihood rating of Unlikely, the overall
risk to marine water quality from a NADF Release is Minor.

Table 7-95 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Marine Benthos
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Marine Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Spill Benthos
NADF Marine Unlikely Medium Minor None Minor
Release Sediments

7.4.3.9 Ecological Balance and Ecosystems

As described in Section 7.2.9.2, maintaining ecological balance in the North Brazil Shelf LME is
essential to maintaining nutrient cycling, gene flow, and biodiversity. As indicated in Table 7-
84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable impacts on ecological
balance and ecosystems would be a large Marine Oil Spill.

Impacts on the Marine Nutrient Cycle

Nitrogen, phosphorous, and silicon all enter the marine food web through metabolism by
phytoplankton (Nihoul and Chen, 2008), so the impact on the food web from an oil spill would
be determined by the impact of the spill on phytoplankton. The available literature suggests
that toxicological impacts of oil on phytoplankton vary widely according to nutrient content of
the water, temperature, type of oil, and exposure. A persistent, heavy surface slick has the
potential to reduce gas exchange and light transmission at the water’s surface, which generally
reduces photosynthetic activity and primary productivity in the impacted area (Ozhan et al.,
2014). Reduced cellular activity in the phytoplankton would reduce the uptake of nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorous, and silicates) into the base of the aquatic food web. However, these

May 2017 382

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

impacts would be short lived, localized, and the proportion of the phytoplankton populations
impacted would be limited. As the oil weathers, the slick would begin to break apart and light
transmission would be restored, and plankton not impacted would be carried into the Project
AOI from unaffected areas to the east by the Guiana Current. Hydrocarbons in the water
column would be rapidly diluted to levels below those expected to cause toxicity to planktonic
species. The phytoplankton community would be expected to recover quickly due to the influx
of unaffected plankton and phytoplankton’s short generation times relative to other marine
taxa.

Impacts on Gene Flow

As described in Section 7.2.9.2, obstacles to efficient gene flow occur when physiochemical
barriers to migration, breeding, or dispersal/colonization occur. A large Marine Oil Spill would
represent a potential short term physiochemical barrier to migration through the Project AOI,
although the significance of this barrier impact would vary across species and seasons. Impacts
on gene flow in marine fish would be negligible because there are no known sensitive spawning
aggregations or habitat that would support such aggregations in the vicinity of the Project AOI
and because fish traveling through the Project AOI en route to more distant aggregation sites
would be expected to take an alternate route to avoid an area impacted by a spill. Marine
mammals would also be expected to avoid the impacted area, although in the initial stages of a
spill they could be impacted to a greater degree than the fish if they inhaled vapors or oil at the
surface prior to vacating the area. Sea turtle and birds would more sensitive to impacts on gene
flow because they do congregate to breed in portions of the Project AOI (see Sections 7.4.3.4 and
7.4.3.6).

Impacts on Biodiversity

A large Marine Oil Spill has the potential to cause a short-term decline in biodiversity. Some
species may exhibit avoidance behavior, and sensitive species that remain in the area may
experience localized population declines or a declines in vigor. Small spill events would have
little if any long-term impact on biodiversity across the North Brazil LME because these events
would impact relatively localized areas, and although there can be minor local decreases in
biodiversity associated with even a small spill, recovery would be expected to occur relatively
rapidly. The same factors would impact biodiversity in the event of a more extensive oil spill,
but declines in biodiversity within the Project AOI may occur over a larger area and impact a
larger number of ecosystem types, so recovery may occur more slowly. For taxonomic groups
that could experience significant reproductive and/or gene flow impacts depending on the
timing, duration, and extent of the spill (such as sea turtles), declines in biodiversity could be
regional and span multiple generations.

Trophic Impacts

A large Marine Oil Spill from a well control event could have ecosystem-level trophic level
impacts if hydrocarbons persisted in the food web and had toxic impacts on organisms, or if

May 2017 383

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

underlying changes in abundance or distribution of prey caused shifts in feeding behavior or

effectiveness in upper trophic levels. Although the assimilation of hydrocarbons into living
tissues is well established at multiple trophic levels (Teal and Howarth, 1984; Neff 2002;
Chanton et al., 2012; GOMRI, 2015), there has been no conclusive documentation of
biomagnification of hydrocarbons up the food chain following a major oil spill. Research on fish
following oil spills has documented residence of PAHs in fatty tissues, but also indicates that
fish and other higher vertebrates are able to dispose of the hydrocarbons rapidly through
metabolic means, such as the Cytochrome P 450 process (Neff, 2002).
Most marine taxa would be able to avoid oil spills and would be able to recover relatively
quickly from impacts should they occur. Several studies have documented post-spill shifts in
feeding behavior in birds and fish, but studies of spill-related impacts on other marine taxa are
generally lacking. Most studies cite short-term adjustments in feeding strategies by birds or fish
following a spill, but many cite the need for longer-term study to document the role of spills in
these shifts or an inability to identify hydrocarbon contamination as a driving factor due to
confounding environmental impacts, or both (GOMRI, 2015; Piatt and Anderson; 1996). Studies
that successfully control for such factors and purport to document a causal relationship between
oil spills and trophic shifts typically document a shift back to pre-spill conditions within a few
years (Moreno et al., 2013; GOMRI, 2015).
For these reasons, the consequence of impacts from a large Marine Oil Spill on ecological
balance and ecosystems is rated Medium. Combined with the Unlikely event of a large Marine
Oil Spill occurring, the overall risk to ecological balance and ecosystems from an oil spill is
considered Minor. Additionally, at the onset of an oil release, a wildlife response program
would be established to help minimize these impacts.
Release of NADF near the seafloor as described under Scenario 5 would enrich the nutrient
content of the marine sediment down current of the wellhead due to the presence of
biodegradable organic material in the fluid, and the eutrophic condition that could result would
cause temporary shifts in the food chain as the makeup of the marine benthos changed. It is
unlikely that these changes in the benthic community would cause substantial changes in upper
trophic levels, however, so a NADF Release is considered to have a Low severity rating with
respect to impacts on ecological balance and ecosystems. In combination with a likelihood
rating of Unlikely, the overall risk to ecological balance and ecosystems from a NADF Release
is Minor.

Table 7-96 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Ecological Balance and Ecosystems
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Ecological Unlikely Medium Minor Wildlife Oil Minor
Spill Balance and Response
Ecosystems Program
NADF Ecological Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Release Balance and
Ecosystems

May 2017 384

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.4 Socioeconomic Resources

The only unplanned events with the potential to impact socioeconomic resources would be a
large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill. A NADF spill would not be expected to impact
socioeconomic resources, with the possible exception of submerged cultural heritage, because of
the limited volume of the potential spill, and the water depth and distance to shore at which the
spill would occur.

7.4.4.1 Economic Conditions / Employment and Livelihoods

As indicated in Table 7-84, the unplanned events with the potential for any measureable
impacts on economic conditions or employment and livelihoods in the Project AOI would be a
large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill, which through decreased fishery and agricultural
yields could potentially impact the fishery and agriculture sectors that currently account for a
large part of the country’s GDP.
The economy in Regions 1, 2 and 3 are highly dependent on fishing and agriculture for
employment, income generation, and subsistence. Although the economy in Region 4 is
relatively diversified, populations in the rural areas also rely on agriculture and fishing, with
the largest number of fishermen in the country located in Region 4. These economies would be
sensitive to any impact on fisheries and crop production that could result from an oil spill.
These potential impacts are discussed below.
Fisheries could be impacted by a large Marine Oil Spill, especially if the oil reaches near-coastal
waters where most artisanal and commercial fishing occurs. Although considered unlikely
based on the results of modeling and the sensitivity of fish species to spills, as discussed above,
these fisheries may be impacted by any reduction in fish populations or closure of active fishing
areas to allow for clean-up or to avoid potential public health impacts or potential tainting of
commercial products. Impacts on mangrove habitats could impact fishery nursery grounds and
impact future year class populations. Adult fish, however, are relatively resilient to oil spills
because they are mobile and can quickly relocate away from an oil spill (see Section 7.4.3.7).
Further, oil spill modeling for a well control event indicates 5 to 10 percent probability of oil
reaching near-coastal waters in the unlikely event an oil spill occurs. There would be several
days advance notice before any oil would reach the Guyana coast, so fisherfolk would be able to
move their boats to unaffected areas.
Therefore, while the consequence of a large Marine Oil Spill impacting commercial fisheries
could be considered High, given that a large Marine Oil Spill reaching the Guyana coast is
considered Unlikely, the risk to commercial fishing is considered Moderate. The coastal
sensitivity mapping that supports the OSRP includes mangroves as a sensitive coastal resource
and in the unlikely event of an oil spill; EEPGL will deploy emergency response equipment to
protect these sensitive resources, as appropriate. Effective implementation of the OSRP would
reduce this risk to Minor by reducing the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast.
Additionally, a claims process would be established at the onset of a large Marine Oil Spill

May 2017 385

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

incident to compensate fisherfolk for loss of harvest due to regional fisheries closures that were
attributed to the oil spill.
In the event that a spill reaches the shore, there would be the potential to impact agriculture.
Rice farming, which makes up the majority of agricultural activity in the coastal area of Region
2, would not be impacted by potential oiling of the coastline since rice fields are irrigated from
inland water conservancies. Non-traditional crops such as fruits, vegetables, and coconuts,
particularly along the Pomeroon River, have the potential to be impacted by contaminated
seawater entering the drainage system through sluice gates, but this is considered highly
unlikely as the movement of oil upstream would be limited by tidal action, farmers would have
ample notice to close sluice gates, and spill responders would have time to install absorbent
booms or other spill control equipment to prevent oil from reaching farmer’s crops or drainage
inlets. Therefore, the consequence of an oil spill that reaches the Guyana coast on economic
conditions in coastal communities is considered Medium, and considering the Unlikely
likelihood of an oil spill that reaches the Guyana shoreline, the overall risk to agricultural
activities in coastal communities is considered Minor. Effective implementation of the OSRP
and a claims process would further reduce this risk by reducing the probability of oil reaching
the Guyana coast line and compensating for economic losses.
In the event of a smaller Coastal Oil Spill, the spill would be quickly controlled and contained
because of the smaller volumes and the ready access to spill control equipment. There is the
potential for a spill in these coastal areas, because of its proximity to fishing grounds, to impact
fisherfolk. These impacts, however, would be Minor because of the limited affected area, short
duration of the impact, and the relatively rapid expected environmental recovery. Although the
response time would be less for a small oil spill relative to a larger oil spill, response efforts
should be able to prevent oil from reaching agricultural areas because of the limited geographic
areas impacted.

Table 7-97 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Economic Conditions / Employment and
Livelihoods
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Coastal Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Communities OSRP and
- Fishing claims
process
Coastal Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Communities OSRP and
- Agriculture claims
process
Coastal Oil Coastal Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Spill Fishing and OSRP and
Agricultural claims
Communities process

May 2017 386

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.4.2 Community Health and Wellbeing

As indicated in Table 7-84, unplanned events with the potential for any measureable impacts on
community health and wellbeing include a large Marine Oil Spill, Coastal Oil Spill, and vehicle
accidents. Guyana is one of the poorest countries in South America, and this is particularly in
rural populations. Although Guyana as a nation is considered self-sufficient for food, disparities
in food supply and family incomes create challenges in maintaining food security and proper
nutrition in some communities, with the result that malnutrition and anemia are among the
leading causes of death in Guyanese children.
Rural communities on the Guyanese coast are dependent on fishing and agriculture for
subsistence and livelihoods. Fish catches and traditional crops such as vegetables and fruits are
often sold locally at markets or roadside stands. In indigenous communities in Regions 1 and 2,
crabbing, shrimping and hunting of coastal game such as caiman and shorebirds are also
practiced for subsistence. Adverse impacts on these resources as a result of an oil spill could
have direct health impacts through entry of harmful substances into the food chain, or through
malnutrition if local food supplies become unavailable. Impacts on these sectors could also have
impacts via the social determinants of health; if livelihoods are impacted, increased household
poverty can impact economic security, quality of life, access to education and other health-
promoting and health-protective resources. Increased economic hardship can also lead to or
exacerbate familial problems and mental health impacts.
Given their dependence on the coastal environment for subsistence and income, their high rate
of poverty, and the current health challenges faced by the coastal population in Guyana, the
health consequences of an oil spill impacting food availability in coastal communities is
considered High. Oil spill modeling indicates that the probability of the oil from a well control
event actually reaching the Guyana coast, with the potential for contaminating crops or coastal
game, is 5 to 10 percent, supporting a likelihood rating of Unlikely. Accordingly, the overall
risk to community health and wellbeing from a large Marine Oil Spill is considered Moderate.
Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk to Minor by reducing the
probability that oil would reach the Guyana coast.
A Coastal Oil Spill (e.g., Scenario 6 from Table 7-82) could also have similar Minor effects on
community health and wellbeing as a large Marine Oil Spill. The geographic area affected,
however, would be more limited, which would create more potential for subsistence fisherfolk
to access alternative areas for fishing.
With regard to the impact of onshore traffic accidents on community health, increased vehicular
trips would be expected to increase the risk of vehicular accidents, the severity of which may be
greater when industrial trucks are involved. However, the Project-related increase in traffic is
expected to be a minor incremental addition to the existing traffic. The relatively low traffic
speeds in Georgetown due to existing congestion may reduce the likelihood of serious injuries,
although the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians increases that risk. Overall, vehicular
accidents are considered Possible and the consequence could range from Low to High

May 2017 387

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

depending on the extent of damage or the severity of injury. This leads to a risk rating for
vehicular accidents of Minor to Major.
Consistent with international best practice, EEPGL will develop and implement a Road Safety
Management Procedure covering drivers and equipment dedicated to the Project to mitigate
these risks. The Plan will include, at a minimum, the following components:
 Definition of typical, primary travel routes;
 Definition of required driver training, including (but not limited to) defensive driving,
loading/unloading procedures, and safe transport of passengers, if applicable;
 Designation and enforcement of speed limits, through speed governors, GPS, or other
monitoring systems;
 Avoidance of deliveries during typical peak traffic hours as well as scheduled openings of
the Demerara Harbour Bridge, to the extent reasonably practicable;
 Monitoring and management of driver fatigue;
 Definition of vehicle inspection and maintenance protocols that include all applicable safety
equipment;
 Community safety program for impacted schools and neighborhoods to improve traffic
safety: and
 Community outreach to communicate information relating to major delivery events or
periods.

With the implementation of these measures, the risk rating for vehicular accidents could be
reduced to Minor to Moderate. Accidents involving Project vessels in Georgetown Harbor or
near shorebases could lead to consequences ranging from cosmetic damage to injury or loss of
life. Vessels operating in these areas, however, will be adhering to speed restrictions and
navigation aids, which should reduce the potential for significant injury or loss of life, so the
potential severity of these accidents is considered Low. Project contractors will utilize their own
safety, health, and environmental programs, and EEPGL will provide active oversight of its
contractors to minimize safety, health, and environmental risks. Therefore, the overall risk to
Community Health and Wellbeing is considered Minor.

Table 7-98 Risk Rating for Oil Spill and Vehicle/Vessel Impacts on Community Health and
Wellbeing
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Community Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Health and OSRP
Wellbeing
Coastal Oil Community Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Spill Health and OSRP
Wellbeing
Vehicular Community Possible Low to High Minor to Road Safety Minor
Accident Health and Major Management
Wellbeing Plan

May 2017 388

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual

Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Vessel Community Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Collision Health and Required
Wellbeing

7.4.4.3 Marine Use and Transportation

As indicated in Table 7-84, the unplanned events with the potential for measureable impacts on
marine use and transportation would be a large Marine Oil Spill and a Coastal Oil Spill. As an
oil spill would likely have some impact on marine use and transportation as additional marine
vessels and resources would need to be mobilized to support spill response, likely resulting in
increased congestion in Georgetown Harbour and/or near shorebases, and vessel movement
may be restricted in some areas. The severity of these impacts could be higher if the spill
occurred/drifted close to shore and impacted nearshore vessel traffic, but oil spill modeling
indicates that the probability of the oil from a well control event actually reaching the Guyana
coast is 5 to 10 percent for a large oil spill scenario. Accordingly, the severity of impacts on
marine use and transportation from a spill is considered Low.
Therefore, considering that an oil spill is considered Unlikely, the overall risk to marine use and
transportation is considered Minor. Effective implementation of the OSRP would further
reduce the risk by reducing the probability that oil would spread in coastal areas. In the event of
a loss of DP on the drill ship, the drill ship would move away from the exact drilling location as
a result of ocean currents until DP power is restored and it could be brought back on station,
but the event would be short term and would not constitute a hazard to shipping, so it would
have no impact on marine use and transportation.
Accidents involving Project vessels in Georgetown Harbor or coastal areas (e.g., groundings or
collisions) could interfere with marine use and transportation. Vessels operating in these areas,
however, will be adhering to speed restrictions and navigation aids, which should reduce the
likelihood and severity of such an event. Prompt emergency response in the event of such an
accident and removal of any grounded or damaged vessel would limit the severity of the event,
so the overall risk for marine use and transportation is considered Minor.

Table 7-99 Risk Rating for Oil Spill/Vessel Collision on Marine Use and Transportation
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk Rating
Measure
Marine Oil Marine Use and Unlikely Low Minor Implement Minor
Spill Transportation OSRP
Coastal Oil Marine Use and Unlikely Low Minor Implement Minor
Spill Transportation OSRP
Vessel Marine Use and Unlikely Low Minor Prompt Minor
Collision Transportation removal of
damaged
vessel

May 2017 389

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

7.4.4.4 Social Infrastructure and Services

As indicated in Table 7-84, both unplanned events considered herein (a Marine Oil Spill, a
Coastal Oil Spill, and a vehicular accident) have the potential to result in measureable impacts
on social infrastructure and services.
A large Marine Oil Spill could impact social infrastructure and services primarily as a result of
supporting spill response and clean-up teams. These teams could overburden housing, medical,
and other infrastructure and services in Guyana. These infrastructure and service demands
would only be temporary (for the duration of required clean-up, likely on the order of a few
weeks to months, depending on the extent of the spill and whether any oil reaches the Guyana
coast). If the spill remains offshore, then most of these infrastructure and service demands
would likely be concentrated in Georgetown, where most response vessels would likely be
based, but also where infrastructure and services are concentrated. If oil were to reach the
Guyana shoreline, then land-based clean-up would be required, potentially in Regions 1, 2,
and/or 3, where little infrastructure or service capacity exists. Oil spill modeling, however,
indicates the probability of oil reaching the Guyana shoreline in the unlikely event of a large oil
spill associated with a well control event is only 5 to 10 percent. The consequence of an oil spill
on social infrastructure and services is therefore considered Medium, given the anticipated
temporary impact on services. Given that a large Marine Oil Spill is considered Unlikely, the
overall risk to social infrastructure and services is considered Minor. Effective implementation
of the OSRP would further reduce this risk by reducing the probability that oil would reach the
Guyana coast. A smaller Coastal Oil Spill would not require spill response measures and teams
that would cause any meaningful impact to social infrastructure and services. Response to a
release of NADF under Scenario 5 would involve a fraction of the crew and vessels that would
be required to respond to a large Marine Oil Spill, so it would not be expected to cause any
impact on social infrastructure and services.
With regard to impacts of vehicular accidents on social infrastructure and services, accident
rates from ground transportation associated with the Project (e.g., workers commuting, truck
transport of materials) are expected to be low and would represent a negligible fraction of the
accidents occurring in Georgetown. As a result, the potential consequence level for isolated,
temporary impacts on road congestion and healthcare utilization resulting from vehicle
accidents would be Low. The risk of vehicle accidents associated with the Project causing
measurable impact on congestion or healthcare utilization is considered Minor. Consistent with
international best practice, EEPGL will develop and implement a Road Safety Management
Procedure, as summarized in Section 7.4.4.2, to further reduce this risk.

Table 7-100 Risk Rating for Oil Spill and Vehicular Accident Risks to Social Infrastructure
and Services
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk
Measures Rating
Marine Oil Social Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Spill Infrastructure OSRP

May 2017 390

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Proposed Residual

Event Receptor Consequence Rating Mitigation Risk
Measures Rating
and Services
Coastal Oil Social Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Spill Infrastructure OSRP
and Services
Vehicular Social Possible Low Minor Road Safety Minor
Accident Infrastructure Management
and Services Procedure

7.4.4.5 Cultural Heritage

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on cultural heritage would be a large Marine Oil Spill or a Coastal Oil Spill.
Desktop research identified two known ceramic/pottery sites near the coastline. Based on the
ubiquity of past human occupations (and thus archaeological sites), especially along coastlines,
it is likely that there are many more unidentified archaeological resources along Guyana’s
coastline. It should be noted, however, that Marine Oil Spills from well control events that reach
the coast (5-10 percent probably of contacting the coast) generally only impact the intertidal
zone, unless the spill coincides with a significant storm surge. While archaeological sites are
common along coastlines, sites in the intertidal zone tend to lack stratigraphic integrity due to
the dynamic interface between the ocean and the land, especially along beaches.
Some oil would be expected to settle to the seafloor and could damage submerged cultural
heritage (e.g., shipwrecks), but this would be expected to be in proximity to the spill source. No
shipwrecks or associated artifact scatters were identified within the PDA, and therefore the risk
to underwater cultural heritage is considered Low. The same factors would apply to a release of
NADF, so the risk to underwater cultural heritage posed by Scenario 5 is also considered Low.
As a result, the consequence of a large Marine Oil Spill or release of NADF on coastal
archaeological sites and submerged cultural heritage is considered to be Low. NADF is not
expected to reach the coast under any conditions and considering the Unlikely likelihood of an
oil spill that reaches the Guyana shoreline, the overall risk to coastal cultural heritage from an
oil spill or NADF Release is considered Minor. The consequence of a Coastal Oil Spill on
archaeological sites would be similar to that for a large Marine Oil Spill. Effective
implementation of the OSRP would further reduce the risk of a large oil spill by reducing the
probability and limiting the geographic extent of oil reaching the Guyana coast.

Table 7-101 Summary of Oil Spill Risk to Cultural Heritage

Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Cultural Unlikely Low Minor Implement Minor
Spill Heritage OSRP
Coastal Oil Cultural Unlikely Low Minor Implement Minor

May 2017 391

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Spill Heritage OSRP

NADF Cultural Unlikely Low Minor None Minor
Release Heritage

7.4.4.6 Land Use

As indicated in Table 7-84, none of the identified unplanned events are expected to have any
impact on land use.

7.4.4.7 Ecosystem Services

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on ecosystem services would be a large Marine Oil Spill.
Guyana is a country that is rich in natural resources, and these are still relied upon by a large
proportion of the population for livelihoods and subsistence. Fisheries and agriculture are still
among the top contributors to the country’s GDP, and these activities occur primarily in the
coastal areas. The Region 2 and 3 economies derive a large share of their income from farming,
with rice being predominant in Region 2 and sugarcane in Region 3. Populations in these
regions also grow many non-traditional crops for local sale and consumption. In Region 1,
agriculture occurs at a relatively small scale but a number of other natural resource-based
activities take place, particularly by indigenous communities. Along the coast and at the river
mouths, these include fishing, crabbing, hunting, and trapping. Some communities also hunt
shorebirds and sea turtles, as well as collect sea turtle eggs from the Shell Beach area. While the
Region 4 economy is more diversified relative to the other coastal regions, there is still a large
fishing sector and considerable agricultural activity in the rural parts of the region.
In addition to provisioning services, the marine and coastal ecosystems in Guyana render a
range of other important services that offer protection and are necessary for the functioning and
support of ecosystems and both human and non-human life. This includes the coastal flood
protection offered by mangrove forests and wildlife habitat provided by mangrove forests, mud
banks, and coastal swamps. In the unlikely event of an oil spill from a well control event
reaching the coast, important habitats such as mangrove forests, mud flats, swamps, and
beaches could be impacted. These provide a range of ecosystem services to coastal populations
in Regions 1 and 2. If oiling is severe enough to cause the loss of some mangrove forests, this
would weaken a critical component of the country’s sea defense system and expose the coastal
population to increased coastal flooding hazard, especially in Region 1, where agricultural areas
are not protected from flooding by the same system of irrigation and drainage canals as in
Regions 2 to 6.
In terms of cultural services, the coast is important for religious and traditional ceremonies for
ethnic groups in Guyana. Many members of the Hindu community conduct funeral ceremonies
on the seashore, with disposal of ashes in the ocean. Throughout the year and during holy
festivals, Hindus also perform cleansing ceremonies on the seashore. African cultural
organizations perform traditional emancipation ceremonies at a specific seawall location in the
Georgetown area.

May 2017 392

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Table 7-102 provides a summary of the potential ecosystem services impacts that could be
experienced by various receptor groups as a result of a large Marine Oil Spill from a well
control event. A Coastal Oil Spill would affect a limited geographic area and would not be
considered to pose any significant risk to ecosystem services other than in the localized area of
the spill.

Table 7-102 Potential Ecosystem Services Receptors and Impacts from a Large Marine Oil
Spill
Receptor(s) Key Potential Impacts
Coastal population in Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4  Impacts on agriculture (non-traditional crops
e.g.; coconut, palm hearts) and fisheries
 Impacts on shoreline protection provided by
mangroves
Hindu population in Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4  Disruption of religious ceremonies (funeral and
cleansing ceremonies)
Afro-Guyanese population in Region 4  Disruption of traditional ceremonies
(emancipation ceremonies)
Coastal indigenous communities in Regions 1 and 2  Impacts on agriculture, fishing, crabbing,
hunting, trapping, non-timber forest product
harvesting
 Impacts on shoreline protection provided by
mangroves

Considering the reliance of much of the population of Regions 1, 2, 3, and to a lesser extent
Region 4, on ecosystem services (e.g., for food, housing materials, medicinal plants, income
producing products), the extent these services would be impacted by an oil spill if it were to
reach shore, and the lack of alternatives to replace the lost sources of sustenance and income,
the consequence of a large Marine Oil Spill from a well control event reaching the coast is rated
as High. As explained previously, such an oil spill is considered unlikely, and even if one were
to occur, the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coastline is only 5 to 10 percent according to
the oil spill modeling, supporting a likelihood rating of Unlikely. Therefore, the overall risk of
an oil spill to ecosystem services is considered Moderate.
The Project will establish an OSRP that will be followed in the event of a spill of any size.
Additionally, a claims process would be established at the onset of a large Marine Oil Spill
incident to compensate for loss of sustenance and income. Effective implementation of the
OSRP and a claims process would further reduce this risk to Minor by reducing the probability
of oil reaching the Guyana coast line and compensating for economic losses.

Table 7-103 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Ecosystem Services
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Rating Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Rating
Measures
Marine Oil Ecosystem Unlikely High Moderate Implement Minor
Spill Services OSRP and

May 2017 393

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

claims
process
Coastal Oil Ecosystem Unlikely Medium Minor Implement Minor
Spill Services OSRP and
claims
process

7.4.4.8 Indigenous Peoples

As indicated in Table 7-84, the only unplanned event with the potential for any measureable
impacts on indigenous peoples would be a large Marine Oil Spill.
Indigenous peoples are often among the most marginalized segments of the population in their
respective societies. The majority of Guyana’s indigenous people live in remote portions of the
country and many continue to operate outside of the formal economy, depending on a
subsistence way of life. Those living on the coast, including along the coastal road of Regions 2,
3, and 4, tend to be culturally integrated with the Afro- and Indo-Guyanese population, but
indigenous groups typically have a lower overall standard of living than the general
population.
As discussed in Section 7.3.9, indigenous populations in the more remote coastal areas of
Regions 1 and 2 make use of a range of coastal resources for subsistence and livelihoods.
Communities that are directly adjacent to the coast include Three Brothers, Almond Beach,
Father’s Beach, and Unity Grant. Indigenous villages located 5 to 10 km (~3 to 6 mi) inland from
the coast in Regions 1 and 2 are Santa Rosa, Waramuri, Manawurin, Assakata, and Wakapau.
These communities engage in a number of natural resource-based activities including
agriculture, fishing, crabbing, shrimping, hunting, palm harvesting, and natural medicine
harvesting on the coast. In the SBPA, fishing and crabbing activity is particularly active at the
westernmost end of Shell Beach, at the mouth of the Waini River, although these activities also
occur to a lesser extent at the eastern end of Shell Beach by the community of Father’s Beach.
The percent of indigenous people in Regions 3 and 4 is less than the national average.
Indigenous communities in remote areas of Regions 1 and 2 rely on the coastal habitats for
subsistence and livelihoods and have less availability of alternative food, particularly in Region
1. In the event of an oil spill reaching the coast, provisioning resources could be adversely
impacted. In the event that mangrove forests and swamps along the coast are oiled, species such
as fish, crabs and caiman, which are depended upon for protein, are likely to be impacted.
For these reasons, the consequence of a Marine Oil Spill on coastal Indigenous Peoples
communities could be High. As explained previously, a large Marine Oil Spill from a well
control event is considered unlikely, and even if one was to occur, oil spill modeling indicates a
5 to 10 percent chance oil would reach the Guyana shoreline, supporting a likelihood rating of
Unlikely. Therefore, considering both consequence and likelihood, the overall risk to
Indigenous Peoples of a large Marine Oil Spill is Moderate.
The area potentially impacted by a Coastal Oil Spill would be limited to areas near Project
shorebases, which are not expected to occur in the more remote areas supporting larger

May 2017 394

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

indigenous populations. The Project will establish an OSRP that will be followed in the event of
a spill of any size. Additionally, a claims process would be established at the onset of a large
Marine Oil Spill incident to compensate for loss of sustenance and income. Effective
implementation of the OSRP and a claims process would reduce this overall risk to Minor by
reducing the probability of oil reaching the Guyana coast line and compensating for economic
losses.

Table 7-104 Risk Rating for Oil Spill Impacts on Indigenous Peoples
Unplanned Resource/ Likelihood Severity/ Risk Level Proposed Residual
Event Receptor Consequence Mitigation Risk Level
Measures
Marine Oil Indigenous Unlikely High Moderate Oil Spill Minor
Spill Peoples Response
Plan

7.4.5 Transboundary Impacts

The planned Project is not predicted to have any measureable “transboundary impacts” (i.e.,
impacts outside the Guyana Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]). All impacts from planned
activities will occur within the Guyana EEZ. However, there is the potential for transboundary
impacts to result from unplanned events, such as oil spills, that may occur. As the oil spill
modeling indicates, transboundary impacts may occur under Scenarios 8 (2,500 bbl offloading
spill) and 9 (20,000 bpd release from a well control event over 30 days) as defined in Table 7-82.
The unmitigated model results indicate that there is the potential for oil to reach at least
portions of Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and St.
Lucia (see Figure 7-14) although this would be much less likely in a real-world scenario in
which mitigation measures would be applied.
The unmitigated models predict that surface oil would travel towards the northwest in all
scenarios during both the summer (June to November) and winter (December to May) seasons.
Differences in seasonal wind speed and direction result in a range of shoreline length oiled.
Stronger easterly winds would result in the potential for more significant shoreline oiling,
particularly in Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, while lower wind speeds allow the surface
plume to be transported to the north of Trinidad and Tobago and into a portion the Caribbean
Sea.
Impacts on resources and receptors in these other countries would be similar to those discussed
in Sections 7.4.2 to 7.4.4 for Guyana. Although the likelihood of a spill remains unlikely, there
would be the potential to impact water quality; sediments; protected areas; marine fish, turtles,
mammals, and seabirds; coastal fish and wildlife; coastal communities and indigenous peoples
who rely on coastal resources for their livelihoods or sustenance. There are, however, some
resources (e.g., coral reefs) found in these other potentially affected countries that are not found
in Guyana. The coastal mapping that was conducted, as described in Section 7.4.1, included the
coastal regions of the countries that could be impacted by a large Marine Oil Spill event, and

May 2017 395

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

include these other potentially affected resources; therefore, this information is available to
support the OSRP. A general overview of potential effects on these countries is provided below.

Potential Effects on Trinidad and Tobago

The probability of shoreline oiling tends to be highest on the coast of Trinidad and Tobago
because of the predominant current flow through the Stabroek Block and into the Caribbean
Sea. The unmitigated oil spill modeling indicates that the probability of oil from a large Marine
Oil Spill (i.e., Scenario 9 from Table 7-82) reaching the Trinidad and Tobago coastline ranges up
to approximately 90 percent, with the time of first arrival ranging from 5 to 15 days for a spill
occurring during both the winter and summer seasons, respectively. The mitigated scenarios
show oil travelling in generally the same direction. However, effective application of multiple
response strategies prevents oil from reaching any coastline including Trinidad and Tobago as
indicated in Figure 7-16.
The coastal sensitivity mapping indicates that Trinidad and Tobago have several marine
resources that could be impacted by an oil spill. While Trinidad lacks coral reefs, Tobago has
several reefs. Most are on the west side of the island and would therefore be sheltered from oil
carried west toward the island, but a few are located on the northern and southern ends of the
island (including the island’s largest reef, Buccoo Reef located at Tobago’s southern end) that
could be exposed to oiling in the unlikely event that oil reached the island. Trinidad’s seagrass
communities are mostly located along the northwest coast near Chaguaramas and should be
sheltered from an oil spill. Tobago’s seagrass communities are mostly clustered near the
southern end of the island and would be more exposed to oiling if a spill reached Tobago’s
shoreline.
Four species of sea turtles (hawksbill, leatherback, green, and olive ridley) nest on Trinidad, and
all of these except olive ridley nest on Tobago. Significant numbers of both island’s nesting
beaches would be exposed to oiling by a slick approaching from the east, however slightly more
than half of Tobago’s nesting beaches would be protected along the west coast. Nearly all of
Trinidad’s nesting beaches are located along the northern and eastern coasts and would be at
risk of oiling if a spill reached Trinidad. The most sensitive coastal species to an oil spill
reaching Trinidad and Tobago is probably the West Indian manatee. Its known habitat in the
country is exclusively located on east coast of Trinidad in an area that would have up to a 90
percent probability of being oiled in the event of an unmitigated large Marine Oil Spill from a
well control event.
Several marine Important Bird Areas (“IBAs”, e.g., seabird breeding colonies and surrounding
foraging areas, non-breeding concentrations, feeding areas for pelagic species) of global or
regional importance to seabirds have been designated in Trinidad and Tobago.
Numerous fishing areas are located east of Trinidad and could be impacted by a large
unmitigated Marine Oil Spill. The largest and most concentrated coastal/nearshore fishing
activities in this part of Trinidad’s EEZ are located along the southeastern coast from Cocos Bay
in the north to Guayaguayare Bay in the south. These areas extend from the coast to

May 2017 396

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

approximately 20 km (12 mi) offshore. Further north in the vicinity of Salybia, Sena, and Saline
Bays fishing is concentrated slightly further offshore, approximately 15 to 30 km (9 to 18 mi)
from the coast. All of these areas would have a high probability of being impacted by a large
unmitigated Marine Oil Spill from a well control event.

Potential Effects on Venezuela

The probability of shoreline oiling is high for the coast of Venezuela because of the predominant
westerly current flow through the Stabroek block. The Gulf of Paria in Venezuela is located
west of Trinidad and would be mostly protected from the impacts of a spill approaching from
the east, however, southern portions of the gulf could be impacted by a large unmitigated
Marine Oil Spill if it penetrated west of Trinidad. In such a scenario the probability of oiling
would vary widely. The southern and eastern portions of the gulf would have a high
probability of being oiled (up to 70 percent depending on location and season) while areas
slightly north and west would have a much lower probability of being oiled. The Orinoco River
Delta would have a 5 to 10 percent probability of being oiled during the summer season, but
that probability would increase to approximately 40 percent if a large unmitigated Marine Oil
Spill were to occur in the winter. The unmitigated oil spill modeling indicates that the time of
first arrival would be about 15 to 25 days for a spill occurring during the summer season and
approximately 5 to 10 days during the winter season.
The most important areas in Venezuela that could be impacted by a large unmitigated Marine
Oil Spill would be the Gulf of Paria and the Orinoco River Delta. The Orinoco River Delta is
located south of Trinidad in eastern Venezuela. The Orinoco River Delta and the Gulf of Paria
support numerous biological resources of regional and global significance including extensive
mangroves, diverse shorebird and estuarine fish communities, threatened and endangered sea
turtles and marine mammals, and artisanal and commercial fisheries (Miloslavich et al., 2011).
Several marine IBAs of global or regional importance to seabirds have been designated in
Venezuela.

Potential Effects on Other Islands

The probability of shoreline oiling from an unmitigated spill is less for the other potentially
affected countries (i.e., Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and St. Lucia) and would be
less than for Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, ranging from 5 to 40 percent with the time of
first arrival ranging from 10 to 15 days, depending on the island and the time of year. The
benefit of the longer time for first arrival of oil is that more time is available to implement the
OSRP and provide measures to protect sensitive habitats. These islands are important tourist
destinations and support valuable coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other habitats and species
sensitive to oil.

May 2017 397

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

Summary

It should be noted that the oil spill modeling did not take into consideration any emergency
response actions. Implementation of the OSRP would help minimize transboundary impacts
just as it would minimize impacts within the Guyana EEZ. EEPGL will work with
representatives for the respective countries to be prepared for the unlikely event of a spill by:
 Establishing operations and communication protocols between different command posts.
 Creating a transboundary workgroup to manage waste from a product release – including
identifying waste-handling locations in the impacted region and managing commercial and
legal issues.
 Identifying places of refuge in the impacted region where vessels experiencing mechanical
issues could go for repairs and assistance.
 Determining how EEPGL and the impacted regional stakeholders can work together to
allow equipment and personnel to move to assist in a spill response outside the Guyana
EEZ.
 Assigning or accepting financial liability and establishing a claims process during a
response to a transboundary event.
 Informing local communities regarding response planning.

May 2017 398

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 7
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Assessment of Potential Impacts

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

May 2017 399

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Cumulative impacts arise as a result of Project-related impacts on a resource/receptor

interacting with impacts on that same resource/receptor from other (non-Project) activities.
Cumulative impacts can potentially result from individually insubstantial, but collectively
substantial, actions undertaken over time or from the collective effect of modest impacts
stemming from different sources acting on a receptor at the same time. Cumulative impact
assessment considers interaction between potential impacts from the Project and impacts of
other (non-Project) activities, relevant existing activities, or sufficiently approved/planned
activities that are considered reasonably foreseeable.
The cumulative impact assessment for this EIA included the following two major tasks:
 Determining the scope of the cumulative impact analysis, including identification of:
o Potentially eligible resources/receptors;
o Other relevant existing/planned activities that are part of (or caused by) the Project;
o Relevant resources/receptors (i.e., those that might be affected by the non-Project
activities); and
o Appropriate geographic extent and time frame of analysis

 Conducting the cumulative impacts analysis on relevant resources/receptors.

The specific shorebase(s) and onshore support facilities (e.g., warehouses, laydown yards) to be
utilized in Guyana have not yet been identified by EEPGL. Accordingly, ERM has performed
the impact assessment on the basis that the Project will utilize existing shorebase(s) located in
Georgetown. Should any new or expanded shorebase(s) or onshore support facilities be
utilized, the construction/expansion and any required dredging, as well as the associated
permitting, of such facilities would be the responsibility of the owner/operator and such work
scope is not included in the scope of this EIA.

8.1 Scope of the Cumulative Impact Analysis

8.1.1 Potentially Eligible Resources

Resources/receptors considered initially in the cumulative impacts analysis are those that
would be impacted by the Project. If the residual impacts on a resource/receptor of at least one
phase of the Project was rated Minor or higher, the resource/receptor was identified as
potentially eligible for the cumulative impact analysis. Unplanned events (i.e., oil spills) were not
considered in this analysis, as their likelihood is considered to be Unlikely. Positive impacts are
also excluded from the analysis. Table 8-1 lists the resources/receptors identified as potentially
eligible for the cumulative impacts assessment based on the Project’s residual impact
significance ratings presented in Chapter 7.

May 2017 400

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

Table 8-1 Eligibility of Resources/Receptors for Cumulative Impact Analysis

Resource Highest Residual Potentially Eligible for
Impact Significance Cumulative Impact
Rating Analysis
Special Status Species Minor Yes
Marine Mammals Moderate Yes
Marine Turtles Minor Yes
Marine Fish Minor Yes
Community Health and Wellbeing Minor Yes
Marine Use/Transportation Minor Yes
Social Infrastructure/Services Minor Yes
Air Quality and Climate Negligible --
Sound Nonea --
Marine Geology/Sediments Negligible --
Marine Water Quality Minor Yes
Protected Areas Nonea --
Coastal Habitats Nonea --
Coastal Wildlife/Shorebirds Nonea --
Seabirds Negligible --
Marine Benthos Negligible --
Ecological Balance & Ecosystems Minor Yes
Economic Conditions Positive --
Employment/Livelihoods Minor Yes
Cultural Heritage Minor
Land Use Negligible --
Ecosystem Services Nonea --
Indigenous Peoples Nonea --
a None = the planned Project activities are not expected to have any impact on the resource/receptor.

8.1.2 Other (non-Project) Relevant Activities

Two other (non-Project) activities have been identified as relevant with respect to the potential
for their impacts to interact with Project impacts on a given resource/receptor.
First, although no confirmed plans are in place, there is a reasonable likelihood that oil and gas
companies will conduct oil and gas exploration and/or development offshore of Guyana
outside of the scope of the proposed Project. As an example, depending on the experience
gained from the proposed Project, EEPGL may identify opportunities to expand the
development of the Liza Field. Further, EEPGL or other operators may pursue activities
targeting resources outside of the Stabroek block. Future activities by EEPGL or other operators
could include seismic surveys, drilling of wells, installation of subsea or surface production
infrastructure, and/or production operations.
Although other operators may conduct their activities concurrently with the Project, their
activities would occur outside the Stabroek Block (with exception of periodic transit). The
closest that another operator’s activities could be expected to approach the Project would be
approximately 20 km (12 mi), which is well beyond the geographical range of the Project’s
impacts. There would therefore be no opportunity for cumulative effects between the Project

May 2017 401

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

and activities in other blocks, so interactions between the Project and other operator’s activities,
as well as potential EEPGL activities in other blocks, are not considered further in this analysis.
Second, the Government of Guyana is currently considering replacement of the heavily used
Demerara Harbour Bridge as a means of relieving congestion of both vehicular road and river-
based vessel traffic induced by opening or closing, respectively, of the retractor spans that allow
large vessels to pass. In November 2015, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure sought
Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to complete a feasibility study and design for a new bridge across
the Demerara River. The EOIs were due by December 1, 2015 (Kaieteur News Online, 2015), but
it is currently unclear when or if the replacement project will proceed. The bridge is located
several kilometers upriver from the shorebases that EEPGL currently may use to support the
Project. If construction of a new bridge moves forward, there is a chance it might occur
contemporaneously with some stages of the proposed Project.

8.1.3 Relevant Resources

Table 8-2 presents the results of the analysis to determine whether or not there is a reasonable
potential for Project impacts and the impacts of at least one of the identified other relevant
activities identified in Section 8.1.2 to be experienced by the potentially eligible
resources/receptors listed above. If a reasonable potential for non-Project related impacts was
identified, the resource/receptor was considered to be a relevant resource/receptor and was
therefore included in the cumulative impact analysis. Therefore, the cumulative impact
assessment effort focuses on impacts on resources that ate potentially eligible because they will be
affected by the Project, and relevant because they would also be exposed to impacts of one or
more non-Project activities. In this case, eight eligible resources/receptors were determined to be
relevant resources/receptors with respect to at least one of the cumulative impact sources. In
the cases of Marine Water Quality and Ecological Balance and Ecosystems, the effects of the
Project would have to persist beyond the boundaries of the Stabroek Block in order for the
Project to contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources, which is unlikely given the
relatively small footprints of the Project and its predicted impacts on water quality. Therefore
these receptors were not considered relevant to the cumulative impact assessment because they
would not be exposed to impacts from the Project and one or more non-Project activities.

Table 8-2 Identification of Relevant Resources/Receptors for the Cumulative Impact

Analysis
Resource/Receptor Highest Potential Interaction between Included in
Residual impacts of Project and … Cumulative
Impact Impact
Significance Demerara Analysis as
Future Offshore
Rating Harbour Bridge Relevant
O&G Activity?
Replacement? Resource/
Receptor?
Special Status Species Minor Yes No Yes
Marine Mammals Minor Yes No Yes
Marine Turtles Minor Yes No Yes

May 2017 402

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

Resource/Receptor Highest Potential Interaction between Included in

Residual impacts of Project and … Cumulative
Marine Fish Impact
Minor Yes No Impact
Yes
Community Health/Wellbeing Significance
Minor Yes Yes Analysis
Yes as
Marine Use/Transportation Rating
Minor Yes Yes Relevant
Yes
Social Infrastructure/ Services Minor Yes Yes Resource/
Yes
Employment and Livelihoods Minor Yes Yes Receptor?
Yes
Marine Water Quality Minor No No No
Ecological Balance and
Minor No No No
Ecosystems

8.1.4 Geographical Extent of Analysis

The geographic extent of the cumulative impacts analysis was defined as the direct and indirect
AOI for the Project (see Chapter 4), excluding the area associated with a potential unplanned
event (i.e., oil spill).

8.1.5 Time Frame for Analysis

Potential impacts of the Project will have the possibility of interacting with other non-Project
impacts throughout the Project life cycle (i.e., extending approximately 20 years from the start
of production operations). However, there is naturally a limit to the knowledge of what other
relevant activities may occur during this period. Considering the other relevant activities
described above, it was assumed that the Demerara Harbour Bridge replacement project would
occur within the Project lifecycle and that other oil and gas exploration and development would
extend through the end of anticipated Project production operations. Accordingly, the time
frame for the cumulative impact analysis was defined as the Project life cycle.

8.2 Resource/Receptor-Specific Cumulative Impact Assessment

This section contains a summary of the cumulative impacts that would potentially result from
the impacts of the Project interacting with impacts of the other relevant activities on the relevant
resources/receptors listed in Table 8-2.

8.2.1 Special Status Species

The Project was rated as having a Negligible significance for residual impacts on several
species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, and Near Threatened. The
Project was rated as having a Minor significance for residual impacts on several fish species.
Similar to Chapter 7, the assessment of potential impacts on marine mammals (Section 8.2.2)
effectively covers the assessment of potential impacts to marine mammals and the assessment
of potential impacts to marine turtles (Section 8.2.3) effectively covers the assessment of
potential impacts to special status marine turtles. This section is limited cumulative impacts on
special status fish species.

May 2017 403

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

8.2.1.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

While additional production activities within the Stabroek Block may occur in the future,
currently such activities are undefined (e.g., timing, location, and development concept).
Cumulative impacts of future production activities have therefore not been considered in this
assessment, but would be included as appropriate in future assessments. However, future
exploration activities within the Stabroek block and in close proximity to the Liza field would
likely include many of the same impacts on fish associated with the Project (e.g., auditory
impacts, entrainment in water withdrawals, permitted discharges). The Critically Endangered
species are coastal and would not be affected by the Project. The Endangered species are mostly
wide ranging marine pelagic species that could be exposed to effects of the Project as well as
other EEPGL activities across the Stabroek Block, but these activities would be focused on other
areas of the Stabroek Block and the species would be expected to recover from temporary
exposures to Project-related impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Project before encountering
similar impacts elsewhere. The Vulnerable and Near Threatened categories contain a mix of
pelagic fish that would also be expected to recover from short-term exposures at individual
projects, and resident species which would not move between projects and therefore would not
be exposed to impacts from multiple projects. Provided that impacts from other EEPG activities
would not occur in the same place and time as Project related impacts, there would be no
significant cumulative effects on pelagic or resident fish, and the significance of cumulative
impacts on special status fish would not increase above Minor.

8.2.1.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

The Critically Endangered fishes in the Project Area are generally estuarine species, and most of
the remaining Endangered and Vulnerable species are exclusively marine. None of the special
status fishes potentially affected by the Project would also be expected to be present in the
vicinity of the Demerara Harbour Bridge project, so no cumulative impacts on special status
fishes would be expected as a result of the bridge replacement project. Based on the factors
discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts on special status
species was set equal to the individual Project significance rating (Minor).

8.2.2 Marine Mammals

The Project was rated as having a Minor significance for residual impacts on marine mammals,
resulting primarily from behavioral disturbance.

8.2.2.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

In terms of potential cumulative impacts between other EEPGL activities within the Stabroek
Block and the Project, there is potential for spatial overlap between the impacts of individual
activities but the extent of this potential overlap is currently unknown. While additional
production activities within the Stabroek Block may occur in the future, currently such activities
are undefined (e.g., timing, location, and development concept). Cumulative impacts of future
production activities have therefore not been considered in this assessment, but would be

May 2017 404

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

included as appropriate in future assessments. However, many of EEPGL’s future activities

within the Stabroek block and in close proximity to the Liza field would likely include many of
the same impacts associated with the Project (e.g., additional vessel traffic, permitted
discharges). The potential for oil and gas related impacts on marine mammals would logically
rise in proportion to an increase in exploration activity, but EEPGL’s future exploration
activities would likely be focused on areas outside of the Project’s Direct AOI. EEPL’s future
development activities could occur within the Project’s Indirect AOI and could therefore have
potential cumulative auditory impacts on marine mammals, but only if they occurred
simultaneously with the installation phase of the Project when auditory impacts will be most
severe, which is extremely unlikely.
The greatest additional risk of ship strike would occur in near shore areas where vessels would
congregate to enter and after exiting Georgetown Harbour; however, this increased risk would
represent a minimal increment to the existing risk posed by fishing and commercial vessels
transiting to and from the port at Georgetown, and other fishing vessels operating in coastal
waters west of Georgetown. Provided that the areas within which marine mammals could be
affected by future exploration activities (e.g.; mixing zones surrounding future exploration
vessels, auditory disturbance/injury thresholds) do not co-occur at the same place and time as
Project related impacts, there would be no increase in the significance of cumulative impacts on
marine mammals. The significance of cumulative impacts on marine mammals would not
increase above Minor.

8.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

A few marine mammals could be present in the vicinity of the Demerara Harbour Bridge
project including boto, Guyana dolphin, tuxuci, and West Indian manatee. All of these species
are known to enter estuarine settings so they could encounter activities at the Georgetown
shorebase(s) that the Project will be utilizing, as well as the Demerara Harbour Bridge. Pile
driving and other sources of impulsive noise from bridge construction activity are likely to have
a much greater effect on the underwater soundscape and hence the potential for auditory injury
than the occasional (a few times a day) transit of Project vessels, which would represent a minor
increment to existing river traffic. Considering the typical patterns of bridge construction
activity and the low speeds at which Project vessels would be travelling within the harbor, there
is no expectation of an interaction between the activities leading to increased probability of
vessel strikes.
Based on the factors discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts
on marine mammals was set equal to the individual Project significance rating (Minor).

8.2.3 Marine Turtles

Many of the same factors that determine cumulative potential impacts on marine mammals are
relevant to marine turtles. The Project would have Minor significance for residual impacts on
marine turtles primarily as a result of potential injury from vessel strikes.

May 2017 405

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

8.2.3.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

Just as there is potential for spatial overlap between the impacts of individual future EEPGL
activities on marine mammals, the impacts of future EEPGL activities on marine turtles could
also overlap with impacts from the Project but their sensitivity to some Project impacts differs
from that of mammals. Like marine mammals, turtles would not be expected to congregate
around Project vessels. Marine turtles are less susceptible to auditory impacts than marine
mammals, but spend much of their time at the sea surface and are generally slower than marine
mammals, so the most likely potential for cumulative impacts between the Project and future
offshore oil and gas exploration would likely be vessel strikes. Although vessel strikes are
generally rare, the potential for oil and gas related vessel strikes of turtles would logically rise in
proportion to the amount of oil and gas exploration activity offshore. However, collective oil
and gas-related shipping would be expected to represent a small incremental increase in risk
compared to the existing risk posed by fishing and commercial vessels transiting to and from
the port at Georgetown, and other fishing vessels operating in coastal waters west of
Georgetown. The significance of cumulative impacts on marine turtles would not be expected to
increase above Minor.

8.2.3.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

The marine turtle species considered in this EIA are not found within the Demerara River. As a
result, the Demerara Harbour Bridge project would not be expected to contribute to potential
cumulative impacts on marine turtles.
Based on the factors discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts
on marine mammals was set equal to the individual Project significance rating (Minor).

8.2.4 Marine Fish

The Project was rated as having a Minor significance for potential residual impacts on bottom-
oriented fish species as a result of altered bottom habitats (e.g., from cuttings discharge during
drilling, and from disturbance/coverage by installation of SURF infrastructure) and on pelagic
fish species as a result of altered water quality and potential for entrainment in water intakes
during production operations, as well as of potential auditory impacts from VSP during drilling
and from pile driving during installation. These impacts would be most significant during
drilling and installation, when most of the habitat-disturbing activities and vessel traffic would
occur.

8.2.4.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

With respect to bottom-oriented and resident species, impacts related to disturbance of bottom
habitats will be temporary in nature, and fish would be expected to return to the vicinity of
subsea infrastructure once seafloor disturbance activities are complete. Further, these effects
would be limited to the immediate locality of Project drilling operations, and SURF
infrastructure and would not overlap with impacts of additional exploration activities, which

May 2017 406

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

would be focused on other areas of the Stabroek Block. Impacts on pelagic species from future
operations within the Stabroek Block would also be expected to be limited to the immediate
vicinity of the vessels engaged in those activities and those activities would be focused on other
areas of the block, so interaction between the impacts of Project and those of other activities is
not expected. Provided that impacts on fish associated with future exploration activities (e.g.;
mixing zones surrounding future exploration vessels, auditory disturbance/injury thresholds)
do not overlap spatially and temporally with Project related impacts, there would be no
interaction between them, and therefore no increase in the significance of cumulative impacts
on marine fish. The significance of cumulative impacts on fish would not increase above Minor.

8.2.4.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

The marine fish species that would be present offshore in the PDA are generally not found
within the Demerara River, and to the extent that they may enter the Demerara River as
vagrants or use the mangroves in the harbor as nursery habitat, the harbor bridge would have
insignificant impacts on adults and would not be expected to affect existing mangroves to a
significant degree. As a result, the Demerara Harbour Bridge project would not be expected to
contribute to potential cumulative impacts on marine fish.
Based on the factors discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts
on marine mammals was set equal to the individual Project significance rating (Minor).

8.2.5 Community Health and Wellbeing

The Project was rated as having a Minor significance on community health and wellbeing due
to potential residual impacts on medical and health service accessibility during all Project
stages.

8.2.5.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

In the event of a serious medical emergency for either offshore or onshore personnel, the Project
may rely on some local Guyanese health resources. However, such events are expected to be
rare. Further, the Project will have the capability to provide medical services offshore and
onshore, and has protocols to acquire medical support outside of Guyana when required.
Therefore it is expected that the Project impacts on emergency medical services would be rare
and of very limited duration. EEPGL would scale its own onshore medical capacity and on its
vessels to the size of its workforce, so additional EEPGL projects would exert very little to no
additional demand on local Guyanese health resources. Therefore the significance of cumulative
impacts from other EEPGL activities on medical and health services would not increase above
Minor.

8.2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

While the Demerara Harbour Bridge project will be short-term in duration relative to the
Project, its location near Georgetown means that most medical emergencies would likely be

May 2017 407

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

handled at medical facilities in Georgetown. As such, cumulative impacts on medical and

health services from the bridge replacement project and the Project, as well as any potential
future offshore oil and gas activity, are possible. However, cumulative impacts on health service
accessibility are still considered to be Minor due to the short-term construction period for the
bridge project, the likely availability of project site-based medical facilities for minor medical
issues in the case of potential future offshore oil and gas projects, the low frequency of
occurrence of severe injuries, the limited numbers of personnel involved, and the limited
duration of patient stays. As a result, the Demerara Harbour Bridge project would not be
expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts on the accessibility of health services.
Based on the factors discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts
on community health and wellbeing was set equal to the individual Project significance rating
(Minor).

8.2.6 Marine Use and Transportation

The Project was rated as having a Minor significance for potential residual impacts on
commercial fishing vessels due to loss of access to fishing areas, and subsistence fishing vessels
due to potential difficulties notifying these vessels of increased vessel traffic during drilling,
installation, and production operations.

8.2.6.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

EEPGL has exclusive rights to oil and gas-related activity in the Stabroek Block and will manage
its own future operations to avoid conflicts with other vessels and ensure maritime safety, in
cooperation with MARAD. Therefore cumulative impacts on marine use and transportation as a
result of future EEPGL activities are considered to be Minor.

8.2.6.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

The Demerara Harbour Bridge project would involve construction vessels, which would add to
the vessel traffic on the Demerara River. Bridge construction activities and thus most of the
bridge construction vessel traffic, however, would be focused near the bridge site. The site for
the new bridge is not yet determined, nor has the shorebase(s) to be used by the Project been
selected. However, the shorebases being considered are seaward of the existing bridge location,
which would limit Project vessel interaction with the new bridge construction area. Project-
related vessel traffic along the river is expected to be modest, limited to a few vessels per day,
and are not expected to appreciably affect the volume of vessel traffic on the river. Thus,
cumulative impacts on marine use and transportation from the bridge replacement project are
considered to be Minor.
Based on the factors discussed above, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts
on marine use and transportation was set equal to the individual Project significance rating
(Minor).

May 2017 408

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

8.2.7 Social Infrastructure and Services

Residual impacts on housing and utilities during the drilling and installation stage of the Project
were rated as Minor in significance, as this stage will require the largest number of Project
workers (up to approximately 1,500 at peak, of which approximately 150 would be based
onshore) and would likely have the most potential for induced population influx to the
Georgetown area by job seekers. Operations stage impacts were rated as Negligible and are
therefore out of scope for the cumulative impact assessment.

8.2.7.1 Cumulative Impacts from Future EEPGL Activities

At this time, the number, nature, and timing of additional offshore activities that EEPGL may
undertake during the Project life cycle, and thus the number of workers at any given time,
cannot be predicted. However, increases in the offshore workforce would likely occur gradually
or at different stages over a relatively long timeframe, during which time housing markets and
utility providers would be able to respond to increases in demand. Given the uncertainty
regarding the extent of additional EEPGL activities during the life of the Project, the significance
of cumulative impacts on housing and utilities combined with other offshore oil and gas
activity is considered to range from Minor to Moderate in significance, depending on the scale
of worker and job-seeker influx associated with potential future offshore projects.

8.2.7.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Demerara Harbour Bridge Replacement

Construction of the Demerara Harbour Bridge may potentially attract workers and job-seekers
from other areas of the country. The bridge replacement project would likely coincide with the
Project’s production operations stage, when the Project’s offshore workforce is estimated at
about 100 to 140 workers, and most of these workers would be based on the FPSO except when
off rotation. Onshore workers for the Project during this period are estimated at about 100. The
bridge replacement project is also expected to be of short duration relative to the Project.
Given the short duration of the Demerara Harbour Bridge replacement project relative to the
Project, and the likelihood that it would overlap primarily with the operations and productions
phases of the Project when traffic is expected to be relatively low, the cumulative impact on
onshore transport generated from the bridge replacement project and the Liza Phase 1 Project is
considered to be Minor.

8.2.8 Employment and Livelihoods

The Project was rated as having a Minor significance for potential residual impacts on
commercial fishing vessels due to loss of access to fishing areas, and subsistence fishing vessels
due to potential difficulties notifying these vessels of increased vessel traffic during drilling,
installation, and production operations.
These potential for the Project and other potential future activities to interact and create
cumulative impacts on fishing operations is assessed under Marine Use and Transportation in
Section 8.2.6. The minor impacts on fishing livelihoods will be driven entirely by the

May 2017 409

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 8
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Cumulative Impact Assessment

interactions discussed in Section 8.2.6, which set the significance rating for potential cumulative
impacts on marine use and transportation as Minor. Based on this impact rating and the fact
that impacts on fishing livelihoods will be driven by the same factors that affect Marine Use and
Transportation, the significance rating for potential cumulative impacts on employment and
livelihoods was also set at Minor, which is equal to the individual Project significance rating on
this receptor.

May 2017 410

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental and Socioeconomic Ma

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

PLAN FRAMEWORK

9.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a framework for the Project Environmental and Socioeconomic
Management Plan (ESMP). The ESMP is the document that describes the measures EEPGL will
implement to manage the Project’s potential environmental and socioeconomic risks and reduce
impacts to the environment and communities.

The scope of this chapter includes the following:

 Provide an overview of the policy framework underpinning the ESMP;

 Describe the ESMP structure;
 Describe general ESMP guiding principles;
 Describe the general content of the Management Plans; and
 Describe how changes to the ESMP will be managed.

The individual Management Plans that comprise the ESMP have been prepared consistent with
this framework. Management Plans are required to be completed prior to Environmental
Authorisation of the Project, and will be updated to include final conditions from the
Environmental Authorisation.

9.2 Regulatory and Policy Framework

The Project is subject to various regulatory requirements as further described in Chapter 3 of the
EIA, as well as the conditions established by the Guyana EPA upon issuance of the
environmental authorization for the Project, and the conditions of the Petroleum Production
Licence and approval of the Project Development Plan by the GGMC. Other Guyana
government agencies including, but not limited to, the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of
Agriculture (MoA), Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Civil Defense Commission (CDC), and
Maritime Administration (MARAD) have regulatory authority over aspects of the Project.

EEPGL is committed to ensuring compliance with the laws and regulations of Guyana, while
conducting business in a manner that is compatible with the environmental and socioeconomic
needs of the communities in which it operates, and in a manner that protects the safety,
security, and health of its employees, those involved with its operations, its customers, and the
public. These commitments are documented in its Safety, Security, Health, Environmental, and
Product Safety policies. These policies are put into practice through a disciplined management
framework called the Operations Integrity Management System (OIMS), which is described in
Section 3.4.

May 2017 411

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental and Socioeconomic Ma

9.3 ESMP Structure

The overall structure of the Project ESMP is depicted in Figure 9-1. The specific Project
Management Plans are organized into five categories:
 Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
 Socioeconomic Management Plan (SMP)
 Environmental and Socioeconomic (E&S) Monitoring Plan
 Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP)
 Preliminary End of Operations Decommissioning Plan38

Each of these categories includes one or more specific management plans, which are included in
this document unless otherwise noted, as shown in Figure 9-1.

38 In alignment with the EPA’s Initial Closure and Reclamation Plan

May 2017 412

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 9
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan Framework

Figure 9-1 ESMP Structure

ESMP Framework

Environmental and Preliminary End of

Environmental Socioeconomic Operations
Socioeconomic OSRP*
Management Plan Management Plan Decommissioning
Monitoring Plan Plan*

Stakeholder
Air Quality Oil Spill Modeling
Engagement Plan*

Grievance Coastal Sensitivity

Water Quality
Management Maps

Waste Management Transportation and

Response Procedures
Plan* Road Safety

Cultural Heritage and

Marine Ecosystems Wildlife Response Plan
Chance Finds

* Due to the size and/or complexity of these documents, these are standalone plans, and are provided either as an Appendix to this ESMP or as a
separate volume to the regulatory submittal for the Liza Phase 1 Project (i.e., OSRP).

May 2017 413

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

9.4 General ESMP Guiding Principles

The overall ESMP, and each of the specific Management Plans it contains, have been developed
consistent with these guiding principles. Each
 Covers all Project stages (i.e., there are not separate Management Plans for each Project
stage), although there is a Preliminary End of Operations Decommissioning Plan ;
 Contains a level of detail for each individual Management Plan that is fit for purpose and
varies among the individual Management Plans;
 Represents a “living document” which may be revised or amended as the Project progresses
in response to changing circumstances, lessons learned, or other appropriate reasons; and
 Reflects all regulatory commitments and obligations including those from the EIA,
supporting plans, and environmental authorizations.

9.5 Management Plan Contents

The Management Plan Framework contains an introduction and scope as well as a summary of
the applicable regulations, standards, and guidelines.
As indicated above, each Management Plan is fit for purpose, and therefore varies to some
extent in content, but contains specific Management Measures for each component that are
based on the Embedded Controls provided in this EIA. The plans also include the following
information for each control/measure:
 The specific Project stage or component that will be responsible for implementing the
Management Measure (e.g., FPSO, Support Vessels, Shorebase, etc.)
 The specific stage or stages of the Project during which each measure will be implemented
(e.g., Drilling, Installation, Production Operations)
 Operational requirements; and
 Monitoring requirements

9.6 Management of Change

During Project implementation, changes may be required to address unanticipated conditions
or situations. Managing change is an integral part of OIMS. Risk assessments, audits,
inspections, and/or observations may identify the need for amendments to the ESMP. In these
cases, the ESMP will be updated to reflect change. In addition, the ESMP will be updated when
applicable environmental laws, regulations, standards, and/ or company processes, systems,
and/or technologies change. The EPA will be notified of any significant planned changes to the
ESMP and will be provided with an updated version of the document for their records and use.
The ESMP is also envisioned to be a "living and adaptive document" that will be updated to
reflect continuous learning and improvements and shared with the Government of Guyana.

May 2017 414

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

This section summarizes the predicted environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Project
resulting from planned activities and potential unplanned events (specifically an oil spill), as
well the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on important resources and receptors.

10.1 Planned Events

The planned Project is predicted to have minor impacts on physical resources (i.e., air quality,
marine sediments, water quality), no impacts on coastal biological resources, minor impacts on
marine biological resources, little, if any, noticeable negative impact on communities, and
largely positive impacts on socioeconomics. These predictions are based on the fact that the
bulk of the Project will occur approximately 190 km (~120 miles) offshore, and the Project will
capture and re-inject recovered natural gas (which is not used as fuel on the FPSO) back into the
Liza reservoir, treat all significant wastewater streams prior to discharge to the sea, have a very
small physical footprint (e.g., installation of infrastructure will only physically disturb about 0.3
km2 of benthic habitat), and use MMOs during VSP operations to minimize the potential for
auditory damage and injury from ships strikes to marine mammals. The Project will generate
benefits for the citizens of Guyana through revenue sharing with the Government of Guyana, a
minor increase in employment, and select Project purchasing from Guyanese businesses.

10.2 Unplanned Events

Unplanned events, such as a potential oil spill, are considered unlikely to occur because of the
extensive preventative measures employed by EEPGL; but, nevertheless, an oil spill is
considered possible. The number of resources that would be impacted and the extent of the
impact on those resources would depend on the volume and duration of the release as well as
the time of year the release were to occur, but impacts would tend to be most significant for a
well control event during the drilling stage. EEPGL has conducted oil spill modeling to evaluate
the range of likely spill trajectories and rates of travel. The location of the Project 190 km (~120
miles) offshore, prevailing northwest currents, the light nature of the Liza field crude oil, and
the region’s warm waters would all help minimize the severity of a spill. Accounting for these
factors, the unmitigated modeling indicates only a 5 to 10 percent probability of oil reaching the
Guyana coast, without taking into consideration the effectiveness of any oil spill response, and in the
unlikely event that a spill were even to occur.
Although the probability of an oil spill reaching the Guyana coast is very small, a well control
spill at a Liza well would likely impact marine resources found near the well, such as sea turtles
and certain marine mammals (especially baleen whales) that may transit or inhabit the area
impacted by a spill. Air quality, water quality, seabirds, and marine fish could also be impacted,
although likely to a lesser extent because the duration of acute impacts would not be long and
the impacts are reversible. A spill could potentially impact Guyanese fishermen if commercial
fish and shrimp were impacted. The magnitude of this impact would depend on the volume
and duration of the release as well as the time of year the release were to occur (e.g., whether a
spill would coincide with the time of year [May to September] when these species are more

May 2017 415

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

common in the PDA). Effective implementation of the OSRP would reduce this risk by further
reducing the ocean surface area impacted by a spill and thereby reducing the exposure of these
species to oil.

10.3 Cumulative Impacts

The Project’s expected contribution to cumulative impacts would be limited by its distance
offshore and by the small number of projects or activities either operating or currently planned
to be operating offshore Guyana. There is the potential for other future offshore Guyana oil and
gas exploration and possibly development. If such non-Project activities were to occur, the
Project and non-Project activities together could cumulatively impact some resources such as
Marine Mammals (via vessel strikes or sound), Marine Turtles (vessel strikes), Marine Fish
(degraded water quality and cooling and ballast water entrainment), Community Health and
Wellbeing (increased demand for limited medical treatment capacity), Marine Use and
Transportation (marine congestion especially near Georgetown harbor), and Social
Infrastructure and Services (increased demand for limited housing, utilities, and services).
Many of the above potential impacts that require offshore interaction between the Project and
others have a limited chance of occurring, given the size of the Stabroek block. All of these
potential cumulative impacts were considered to be of Negligible to Minor significance.

10.4 Degree of Irreversible Damage

The planned Project would not cause irreversible damage to any onshore areas of Guyana.
There would be a very minor (approximately 0.3 km2) permanent loss of benthic habitat as a
result of the installation of wells, flowlines, and other subsea equipment, which may be
proposed to be left in place upon decommissioning. However, this equipment can ultimately
provide the substrate for recolonization of the impacted areas. Even in the unlikely event of an
oil spill, little irreversible damage would be expected, although it could take a decade or more
for all resources to fully recover, depending on the on the volume and duration of the release as
well as the time of year the release were to occur.

10.5 Project Benefits

The Project will generate benefits for the citizens of Guyana in several ways:
 Through revenue sharing with the Government of Guyana, although the details of this
revenue sharing is confidential. The type and extent of benefits associated with revenue
sharing will depend on how decision makers in government decide to prioritize and
allocate funding for future programs, which is unknown and outside the scope of the
EIA;
 By procuring select Project goods and services from Guyanese businesses to the extent
reasonably practicable; and
 By hiring Guyanese nationals where reasonably practicable, although the potential
magnitude of hiring will be limited.

May 2017 416

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

In addition to direct revenue sharing, expenditures, and employment, the Project would also
likely generate induced economic benefits as other non-Project related businesses benefiting
from direct Project purchases or worker spending will re-invest locally or expand spending in
the area, thereby also generating more local value-added tax. These beneficial “multiplier”
impacts will occur throughout the Project life.

10.6 Summary
Table 10-1 provides a summary of the predicted residual (taking into consideration proposed
mitigation measures) impact significance ratings for impacts to each of the resources/ receptors
that may result from each of the Project stages (i.e., well drilling/SURF/FPSO installation,
Production Operations, and Decommissioning), unplanned event (i.e., oil spill), and cumulative
impacts.

May 2017 417

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Table 10-1 Summary of Residual Impact Ratings

Resource Drilling and Production Decommissioning Oil Spill* Cumulative
Installation Operations Impacts
Air Quality and Climate Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Sound39 None None None Minor None
Marine Geology/Sediments Negligible None None Minor Negligible
Marine Water Quality Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor
Protected Areas None None None Minor None

Special Status Species:**

 Critically Endangered and
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Terrestrial Species
 Vulnerable/Near Threatened
Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Species (sharks & bony fish)
 Endangered Fish and Black
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Capped Petrel
Coastal Habitats None None None Minor None
Coastal Wildlife/Shorebirds None None None Minor None
Seabirds Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Marine Mammals Moderate Negligible Negligible Moderate Minor
Marine Turtles Minor Negligible Negligible Moderate Minor
Marine Fish Minor Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
Marine Benthos Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Ecological Balance &
Negligible Minor Negligible Minor Negligible
Ecosystems
Economic Conditions Positive Positive Positive Minor Negligible
Employment/Livelihoods Positive Positive Positive Minor Negligible
Community Health &
Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Wellbeing:
Marine Use/Transportation
 Commercial cargo Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
 Commercial fishing Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
 Subsistence fishing Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor
Social Infrastructure
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor
/Services
Cultural Heritage Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible
Land Use Negligible Negligible Negligible None Negligible
Ecosystem Services None None None Minor None
Indigenous Peoples None None None Minor None
*Based on oil spill modeling of an unmitigated well control event in the PDA that indicates oil reaching Guyana
shoreline is highly unlikely (5-to 10 percent probability).
** Excludes listed sea turtles, which are covered in the Marine Turtles resource category.

39 Sound-related impacts on Marine Mammals are factored into the Marine Mammal impact assessment.

May 2017 418

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

ERM recommends the following measures be considered by EPA, GGMC, and the EAB as
conditions of any approval of the Project:
 Embedded Controls – incorporate all of the proposed embedded controls (see Table 11-1).
 Mitigation Measures – adopt the recommended mitigation measures (see Table 11-2).
 Management Plans – implement the proposed Environmental and Socioeconomic
Management Plan to manage and mitigate the impacts identified in the EIA. The ESMP
includes the following Management Plans:
o Environmental and Socioeconomic Management Plan Framework
o Environmental Management Plan, including:
 Air Quality Management
 Water Quality Management
 Waste Management Plan
 Marine Ecosystems Management
o Socioeconomic Management Plan, including:
 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
 Grievance Management
 Transportation and Road Safety Management
 Cultural Heritage Management and Chance Finds
o Environmental and Socioeconomic Monitoring Plan
o Preliminary End of Operations Decommissioning Plan
o Oil Spill Response Plan, including Oil Spill Modeling, Coastal Sensitivity Mapping,
results of the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Procedures, and the Wildlife Response Plan
 Oil Spill Preparedness – EEPGL has proactively embedded many controls into the Project
design to prevent a spill from occurring, and we agree that a spill is unlikely. But given the
sensitivity of many of the resources that could be impacted by a spill (e.g., Shell Beach
Protected Area, marine mammals, critically endangered and endangered sea turtles,
Amerindian communities reliant on ecosystem services for sustenance and their livelihood),
we believe it is critical that EEPGL commit to regular oil spill response drills, simulations,
and exercises, document the availability of appropriate response equipment on board the
FPSO, and demonstrate that offsite equipment could be mobilized for a timely response.

With the adoption of such controls, mitigation measures, and management plans, and
requirements for emergency response preparedness, the Liza Phase 1 Development Project is
expected to pose only minor risks to the environmental and socioeconomic resources of
Guyana, while potentially offering significant economic benefits to the residents of Guyana.

May 2017 419

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Table 11-1 List of Proposed Embedded Controls

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted

Drilling and SURF/FPSO Installation and Commissioning

 Utilize WBDF to the extent reasonably practicable and in other Marine sediments, water
cases use low-toxicity IOGP Group III NABF. quality, mammals, turtles,
fish, and benthos
 When NADF is used, utilize a solids control and cuttings dryer Marine sediments, water
system to treat drill cuttings prior to discharge such that end of well quality, mammals, turtles,
maximum weighted mass ratio averaged over all well sections fish, and benthos
drilled using non-aqueous fluids shall not exceed 6.9 percent wet
weight base fluid retained on cuttings.
 For VSP activities, commence such operations during daylight Marine mammals, marine
hours after a suitable pre-watch by Marine Mammal Observers turtles
(MMOs) is performed and begin with soft start procedures in
accordance with JNCC guidelines, which incrementally increase
source sound levels in order to allow marine mammals and turtles
time to move away from the activity before full sound source
energy is utilized.
 With respect to prevention of spills of hydrocarbons and chemicals Air quality, marine
during the drilling stage: sediments, marine water
o Change liquid hydrocarbon transfer hoses periodically quality, protected areas,
o Utilize dry-break connections on liquid hydrocarbon bulk sensitive species, coastal
transfer hoses habitats, coastal wildlife and
o Utilize a liquid hydrocarbon checklist before every bulk transfer shorebirds, marine mammals,
o Perform required inspections and testing of all equipment prior turtles, fish, benthos, ecology
to deployment/installation; and ecosystems
o Utilize certified Blowout Prevention (BOP) equipment;
o Regularly test certified BOP equipment and other spill
prevention equipment;
o Utilize overbalanced drilling fluids to control wells while
drilling;
o Perform operational training certification (including well control
training) for drill ship supervisors and engineers;
o Regularly audit field operations on the drill ships, FPSO, and
shorebase(s) to ensure application of designed safeguards; and
o Controls for mitigating a failure of the DP (dynamic positioning)
system on the drill ships and maintain station keeping, which
include:
 Use of a Class 3 DP system, which includes numerous
redundancies;
 Rigorous personnel qualifications and training;
 Seatrials and acceptance criteria;
 Continuous DP proving trials;
 System Failure Mode and Effects Analysis;
 Continuous DP failure consequence analysis; and
 Establishment of well-specific operations guidelines.

May 2017 420

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
 During pile driving activities, gradually increase the intensity of Marine mammals
hammer energy to allow sensitive species to vacate the area before
injury occurs (i.e., soft starts).
 Maintain marine safety exclusion zones with a 500 m (~1,640 ft) Marine use and
radius around drill ships and major installation vessels to prevent transportation safety
unauthorized vessels from entering potentially hazardous areas.

Production Operations
 Re-inject produced gas which is not utilized as fuel gas on the FPSO Air quality
to avoid routine flaring. With respect to non-routine flaring, the
following measures will be implemented:
o Monitor flare performance to maximize efficiency of flaring
operation;
o Ensure flare equipment is appropriately inspected and function
tested prior to production operations; and
o Ensure flare equipment is appropriately maintained and
monitored during production operations.
 Treat produced water on the FPSO to limit oil and grease (O&G) Marine water quality,
content to 29 mg/L monthly average and 42 mg/L daily maximum. mammals, turtles, fish, and
benthos, seabirds, ecology
and ecosystems
 Design produced water and cooling water processes to avoid Marine water quality,
increases in ambient water temperature of more than 3˚C at 100m mammals, turtles, fish, and
(~328 ft) from the FPSO when discharging. benthos, seabirds, ecology
and ecosystems
 Perform onboard waste incineration for certain categories of waste. Land use
 Utilize a Mooring Master from the FPSO located onboard the Marine use and
offloading tanker to support safe tanker approach/departure and transportation safety
offloading operations.
 Utilize support tugs to aid tankers in maintaining station during Marine use and
approach/departure from FPSO and during offloading operations. transportation safety
 Utilize a hawser with a quick release mechanism to moor the FPSO Marine use and
to the tanker at a safe separation distance during offloading transportation safety
operations.
 FPSO offloading to tankers will occur within an environmental Marine sediments, water
operating limit that is established to ensure safe operations. In the quality, mammals, turtles,
event that adverse weather occurs during offloading operations fish, benthos, and seabirds
that is beyond the environmental operating limit the tanker will
cease the offloading operations, and may disconnect and safely
maneuver away from the FPSO as appropriate.
 Utilize a marine bonded, double-carcass floating hose system Marine sediments, water
certified by Class or other certifying agency that complies with the quality, mammals, turtles,
recommendations of OCIMF Guide to Manufacturing and fish, benthos, and seabirds
Purchasing Hoses for Offshore Moorings (GMPHOM) 2009 Edition
or later.
 Utilize breakaway couplers on offloading hose that would stop the Marine sediments, water
flow of oil from FPSO during an emergency disconnect scenario. quality, mammals, turtles,
fish, benthos, and seabirds

May 2017 421

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
 Utilize a load monitoring system in the FPSO control room to Marine sediments, water
support FPSO offloading. quality, mammals, turtles,
fish, benthos, and seabirds
 Utilize leak detection controls during FPSO offloading which Marine sediments, water
include: quality, mammals, turtles,
o Leak detection for breach of the floating hose that complies with fish, benthos, and seabirds
the recommendations of OCIMF GMPHOM 2009 Edition or
later;
o Utilization of instrumentation/procedures to perform
volumetric checks during offloading.
 Provide trained medical personnel on board the FPSO and major Community health and
installation vessels to minimize reliance on medical infrastructure wellbeing
and facilities in Guyana.
 Utilize marine safety exclusion zone of 2 nautical miles around the Marine use and
FPSO to prevent unauthorized vessels from entering potentially transportation safety
hazardous areas.
 Project vessels will conduct ballasting operations in accordance Ecological Balance and
with IMO regulations. Ecosystems

General Measures
 Maintain equipment, marine vessels, and helicopters in good Air quality, water quality,
working order and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s marine mammals, marine
specifications in order to reduce atmospheric emissions and sound turtles
levels to the extent reasonably practicable.
 Regularly inspect and service shorebase cranes and construction Air quality
equipment in order to mitigate the potential for spills and to
maintain air emissions at optimal levels.
 Shut down (or throttle down) sources of combustion equipment in Air quality
intermittent use where reasonably practicable in order to reduce air
emissions.
 Utilize secondary containment for bulk fuel storage, drilling fluids, Water quality
and hazardous materials, where practical.
 Regularly check pipes, storage tanks, and other equipment Water quality
associated with storage or transfer of hydrocarbons/chemicals for
leaks.
 Perform regular audits of field operations on the drill ship, FPSO, Air quality, water quality
and shorebase to ensure application of designed safeguards.
 Treat sewage to applicable standards under MARPOL 73/78. Marine sediments, water
quality, mammals, turtles,
fish, benthos, and seabirds
 For those wastes that cannot be reused, treated, or Land use
discharged/disposed on the drill ship or FPSO they will be
manifested and safely transferred to appropriate onshore facilities
for management. Waste management contractors will be vetted
prior to utilization. If deficiencies in contractors’ operations are
noted, an action plan to address the identified deficiencies will be
established.

May 2017 422

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Embedded Control Measures Resources/Receptors

Benefitted
 Utilize oil/water separators to limit oil in water content in bilge Marine sediments, water
water to <15 parts per million (ppm; per MARPOL). quality, mammals, turtles,
fish, benthos, and seabirds
 Provide standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to Marine mammals, marine
avoid marine mammals and turtles while underway and reduce turtles
speed or deviate from course, as needed, to reduce probability of
collisions.
 Provide standing instruction to Project dedicated vessel masters to Seabirds
avoid any identified rafting seabirds when transiting to and from
PDA.
 Observe standard international and local navigation procedures in Marine use and
and around the Georgetown Harbour and Demerara River, as well transportation safety
as best ship-keeping and navigation practices while at sea.
 Project workers will be subject to health screening procedures to Community health and
minimize risks of communicable diseases. wellbeing
 Utilize an established SSHE program to which all Project workers Occupational and community
and contractors will be required to mitigate against risk of health, safety, and wellbeing
injury/illness to workers.
 All workers and contractors will receive training on
implementation and will be required to adhere to its principles.
 Maintain an OSRP to ensure an effective response to an oil spill, All resources and receptors
including maintaining the equipment and other resources specified
in the OSRP and conducting periodic training and drills.
 Where practicable, direct lighting on FPSO and major vessels to Seabirds and marine turtles
required operational areas rather than at the sea surface or
skyward.
 Provide screening on FPSO and drill ships for seawater intakes to Marine fish
minimize the entrainment of aquatic life, where practical.

Table 11-2 List of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Resources/Receptors
Proposed Mitigation Measure
Benefitted
 Report direct GHG emissions from the facilities owned or controlled by the Climate
Project to the EPA on an annual basis in accordance with internationally
recognized methodologies and good practice.
 Procure select goods and services locally to the extent reasonably practicable Economic Conditions,
(enhancement measure). Employment and
Livelihoods
 Utilize Guyanese nationals where reasonably practicable (enhancement Economic Conditions,
measure). Employment and
Livelihoods
 The Project will issue Notices to Mariners via MARAD, the Trawler’s Marine Use and
Association, and fishing co-ops for movements of major marine vessels Transportation
(including the FPSO, drill ship, and installation vessels) to aid them in
avoiding areas with concentrations of Project vessels and/or where marine
safety exclusion zones are active.

May 2017 423

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 10
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Conclusions and Summary of Impacts

Resources/Receptors
Proposed Mitigation Measure
Benefitted
 Augment ongoing stakeholder engagement process to identify commercial Marine Use and
cargo, commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing vessel operators who Transportation
might not ordinarily receive Notices to Mariners, and where possible
communicate Project activities to those individuals to aid them in avoiding
Project vessels.
 Promptly remove damaged vessels (associated with any vessel incidents) to Marine Use and
minimize impacts on marine use, transportation, and safety. Transportation
 Proactively communicate the Project’s limited staffing requirements as a Social Infrastructure
measure to reduce the magnitude of potential population influx to and Services
Georgetown from job-seekers.
 Adopt and implement as needed a Chance Find Procedure that describes Cultural Heritage
the requirements in the event of a potential chance find of heritage or
cultural resources.
 Project workers will be required to adhere to a Worker Code of Conduct, Community Health
which will address shore-leave considerations. and Wellbeing
 Develop and implement a Road Safety Management Procedure to mitigate Community Health
increased risk of vehicular accidents associated with Project-related land and Wellbeing
transport activities. The procedure will include, at a minimum, the
following components:
o Definition of travel routes;
o Definition of required driver training, including defensive driving,
loading/unloading procedures, and safe transport of passengers, if
applicable;
o Designation and enforcement of speed limits, through speed governors,
GPS, or other monitoring systems;
o Avoidance of deliveries during typical peak traffic hours as well as
scheduled openings of the Demerara Harbour Bridge, to the extent
reasonably practicable;
o Monitoring and management of driver fatigue;
o Definition of vehicle inspection and maintenance protocols that include
all applicable safety equipment; and
o Community outreach to communicate information relating to major
delivery events or periods.
 Implement the OSRP in the unlikely event of an oil spill, including: All resources
o Conduct air quality monitoring during emergency response;
o Require use of appropriate PPE by response workers;
o Implement a Wildlife Oil Response Program, as needed; and
o Implement a claims process for damage caused by an oil spill, as needed.

May 2017 424

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 12
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Team

12.0 PROJECT TEAM

Table 12-1 identifies the primary members of ERM’s team and their roles in preparing this EIA.
It also lists their educational qualifications (highest degree) and years of professional
experience. Signatures and curriculum Vitae (CVs) for each of these team members listed in
Table 12-1 are included in Appendix A and B, respectively.

Table 12-1 Project Team

Name Role Education Years of
(Highest Degree) Experience
David Blaha Project Director MS Environmental 35
Management
Jason Willey Project Manager and Marine MS Environmental Science and 15
Fish, Mammals, and Turtles Policy

Greg Lockard EIA Coordinator and PhD Anthropology 21

Cumulative Effects
Kamal Govender ESMPs MS Environmental and 13
Geographical Science
Karin Nunan Social Lead MS International Relations and 20
Conflict Resolution
Peyun Kok Social Specialist MES Urban and Regional 7
Planning
Kristina Mitchell Stakeholder Specialist MA International Relations 15

Benjamin Siegel Maritime Archaeology MA Historical & Maritime 10

Archaeology
Mark Garrison Air Quality and dispersion MS Environmental Science 2
modeling
Adeyinka Afon Noise and Air Quality MSE Environmental Process 12
Engineering
Michael Fichera Water Quality MS Environmental Engineering 23

Shwet Prakash Water Quality MS Civil Engineering 13

Matt Erbe Geologist MS Hydrogeology 18

Dusty Insley Geologist BS Geology 10

Jonathan Connelly Environmental Specialist BA Environmental Studies 10

May 2017 425

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 12
Liza Phase 1 Development Project Project Team

Name Role Education Years of

(Highest Degree) Experience
Melinda Todorov Environmental Specialist MS Aquatic Ecology 9

Julia Tims Biodiversity MS Natural Resources 22

Management/Ecology
Benjamin Sussman Transportation MCRP (City and Regional 17
Planning)
Noam Raffel GIS Analyst MS Geographic Information 3
Sciences
Erin Rykken Technical Editor MA English 15
MLS Library Science
Subcontractors

Hance Thompson Guyana Environmental and BS, Biology; MS, 13

Regulatory Support, Ground Environmental and Earth
Structures Engineering Resources Management
Consultants, Inc (GSEC),
Guyana
Noella Arispe Coastal Sensitivity Mapping BS, Architecture; MS, Planning 41
(Venezuela), Independent and Development
Consultant
Hema David Coastal Sensitivity Mapping AS, Environmental 7
(Trinidad and Tobago), Management; BS,
Ecoengineering Consultants Environmental and Natural
Limited, Trinidad Resources Management

May 2017 426

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

13.0 REFERENCES

Introduction
EPA (Guyana Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Volume 1 Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines: Rules and Procedures for Conducting and Reviewing EIAs.
Version 5. 34 pgs.

Administrative Framework
OAS (Organization of American States). 2013. National Constitution of Guyana. Retrieved from:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/guy/en_guy-int-text-const.pdf
Kaiteur News. 2016. Policy finally completed to Guide Guyana's developing Oil and Gas
Industry. June 9, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2016/06/09/policy-finally-completed-to-guide-
guyanas-developing-oil-and-gas-industry/

Description of the Existing Environment

Physical Resources

Air Quality and Climate Change

Hydromet. 2014. Climate Fact Sheet. Retrieved from:

http://www.hydromet.gov.gy/climate.html
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Currents.
Retrieved from:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/05currents1.html
Yale University. 2016. Global Metrics for the Environment. Environmental Performance Index
2016 Report. Retrieved from: http://epi.yale.edu/country/guyana

Noise and Vibration

Finneran, J. J. 2015. Auditory weighting functions and TTS/PTS exposure functions for
cetaceans and marine carnivores. San Diego: SSC Pacific.
Hildebrand, J. A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395: 5–20.
JASCO (JASCO Applied Sciences). 2016. Underwater Sound Associated with Liza Phase 1
Project Activities.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Draft Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals. December 23, 2013.

February 2017 427

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. Greene, Jr., D.

Kastak, D. R. Ketten, J. H. Miller. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial
scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4): 411–521.

Marine Geology and Sediments

CGX (CGX Resources Inc.). 2009. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Offshore Exploration
Drilling Corentyne License Area, Guyana. June 2009.
Clark, R. C. and M. Blumer. 1967. Distribution of n-paraffins in marine organisms and
sediments. Limnol Oceanography, 12: 79–87.
Macdonald, D. D., R. S. Carr, and F. D. Calder. 1996. Development and evaluation of sediment
quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology, 5(1996): 253.
Eisma, D. and H. van der Marel. 1971. Marine muds along the Guyana coast and their origin
from the Amazon Basin. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 31: 321–334.
FUGRO EMU Limited. 2016. Environmental Baseline Survey Report. Liza Development,
Offshore Guyana. Prepared for Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. March
2016.
NDS (National Development Strategy). 1997. Guyana’s National Development Strategy.
Retrieved from: http://www.guyana.org/NDS/NDS.htm
North Sea Task Force. 1993. North Sea Subregion 8 Assessment Report. State Pollution Control
Authority, (SFT): 1–79.
Strømme, T. and G. Sætersdal. 1989. Final Report - Surveys of the Fish Resources in the Shelf
Areas between Suriname and Colombia 1988. Bergen: Institute of Marine Research.
Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/fns/x6078e.pdf
TDI-Brooks (TDI-Brooks International, Inc.). 2014. Geotechnical Report Guyana Liza-Sorubim
EBS & Geotechnical Investigation Offshore Guyana, South America.
Thompson, S. and G. Eglinton. 1978. The fractionation of a recent sediment for organic
geochemical analysis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 42: 199–207.
Wedepohl, K. H. 1995. The Composition of the Continental Crust. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, 59: 1,217–1,239.
Workman, W. G. 2000. Special Report: Geophysics and Geology. Guyana Basin: A new
exploration focus. WorldOil Online, 221(5). Retrieved from:
http://www.worldoil.com/May-2000-Guyana-basin-A-new-exploration-focus.html
Youngblood, W. W., M. Blumer, R. Guilard, R. Fiore. 1971. Saturated and unsaturated
hydrocarbons in marine benthic algae. Mar. Biol., 8 (3): 130–201.

February 2017 428

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Oceanographic Conditions/Marine Water Quality

De Master, D. J. and R. H. Pope. 1996. Nutrient dynamics in Amazon shelf waters: results from
AMASSEDS. Cont. Shelf Res, 16(3): 263–289.
FAO. 2005. Fishery Country Profile: The Republic of Guyana. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/GUY/profile.htm.
FUGRO EMU Limited. 2016. Environmental Baseline Survey Report. Liza Development,
Offshore Guyana. Prepared for Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. March
2016.
Gyory, J., A. J. Mariano, E. H. Ryan. 2013. The Guiana Current. Ocean Surface Currents.
Retrieved from: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/guiana.html.
Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks International, Inc. 2014. Environmental Baseline Study,
Guyana Stabroek Block.
Morel, F. M. M., A. J. Milligan, M. A. Saito. 2006. Marine bioinorganic chemistry: the role of
trace metals in the oceanic cycles of major nutrients. In: H.D. Holland and K.K. Turekian
(eds). The Oceans and Marine Geochemistry. Vol 6. Oxford: Elsevier‒Pergamon.
Moustafa, Y. M. and R. E. Morsi. 2012. Biomarkers, Chromatography and Its Applications.
Retrieved from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/chromatography-and-its-
applications/biomarkers
Nittrouer, C. A. and D. J. De Master. 1987. Sedimentary processes on the Amazon continental
shelf. New York: Pergamon Press.
Sherman, K. and G. Hempel. 2009. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective
on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s regional seas. UNEP Regional Seas
Report and Studies No. 182. 2nd printing. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment
Programme.
TDI-Brooks International, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Report Guyana Liza-Sorubim EBS &
Geotechnical Investigation Offshore Guyana, South America.
TDI-Brooks International, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Report Guyana Liza-Sorubim EBS &
Geotechnical Investigation Offshore Guyana, South America.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria – Aquatic Life Criteria Table. Accessed: August 8, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-
criteria-table

February 2017 429

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Biological Resources

Beaches, Mangroves, Vegetation, and Wetland Habitats

Bovell, Owen. 2011. Guyana Mangrove Nursery Manual. Guyana Mangrove Restoration
Project. Retrieved from:
http://www.gcca.eu/sites/default/files/catherine.paul/guyana_mangrove_nursery_m
anual_2011.pdf
Charles, Reuben, Mark Bynoe, Jennifer Wishart, Martin Cheong. 2004. Shell Beach Protected
Area Situation Analysis. GMTCS publication.
EPA (Guyana Environmental Protection Agency). Undated. Guyana’s Protected Areas System.
Accessed: November 28, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.epaguyana.org/index.php/2014-02-10-20-21-
58?task=document.download&id=154
GMTCS (Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society). 2011. Proposed Shell Beach Delineation
Process, Final Report. University of Guyana. Pp.1–41.
GNBSAAP (Guyana’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan). 2015. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Ministry of National Resources and the Environment,
Guyana. Retrieved from: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy156992.pdf
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (International Union for Conservation of Nature and United Nations
Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2016. The World
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Online. September 2016. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-
WCMC. Retrieved from: www.protectedplanet.net
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: .
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2016-2. Accessed: November 29, 2016. Retrieved from:
www.iucnredlist.org
Kandaswamy, Suresh V. 2014. Shell Beach Management Plan. Volume 1 and 2. Protected Areas
Commission.
Prince, Waldyke et al. 2004. Report on the Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the proposed Shell
Beach Protected Area. GMTCS Publication.
Pritchard, P. 2001. Shell Beach as a Protected Area. Occasional Paper, Georgetown.
Prince, Waldyke, Michael Patterson, Floraia Francis, Romeo Defreitas, David Rodriques. 2014.
Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the Proposed Shell Beach Protected Area. August –
October 2014. In cooperation with the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency, Fauna
and Flora International (FFI), and the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society
(GMTCS).

February 2017 430

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Protected Areas

Da Silva, Phillip. 2014. Avifaunal Diversity in a Mangrove Reserve in Guyana, South America.
International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 3(1): 23–32.
Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project (GMRP). 2010. National Mangrove Management Action
Plan 2010. Retrieved from:
http://www.mangrovesgy.org/images/stories/Documents/Project%20reports/NATI
ONAL%20MANGROVE%20MANAGEMENT%20ACTION%20PLAN%20%202010-
2012.pdf
GNBSAAP (Guyana’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan). 2015. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Ministry of National Resources and the Environment,
Guyana. Retrieved from: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy156992.pdf
Ilieva. Undated. The socioeconomic importance of mangroves in Guyana. Ecosystem services
evaluation. Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Italy.
Mann, K. 1982. Ecology of coastal waters: a system approach. Berkeley: University of California.
Mestre, L. A. M., R. Krul, V. S. Moraes. 2007. Mangrove bird community of Paranaguá Bay -
Paraná, Brazil in Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 50(1): 75–83. Retrieved
from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?
Prince, Waldyke, Michael Patterson, Floraia Francis, Romeo Defreitas, David Rodriques. 2014.
Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the Proposed Shell Beach Protected Area. August –
October 2014. In cooperation with the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency, Fauna
and Flora International (FFI), and the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society
(GMTCS).
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2016. Eastern South America: Coastal French Guiana, Suriname,
Guyana, and southeastern Venezuela. Accessed: September 23, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt1411

Seabirds

Bayney, Annalis and Philip Da Silva. 2005. The Effect of Birding on Local and Migrant
waterfoul populations along the coast of Guyana. Centre for the Study of Biological
Diversity. University of Guyana, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Turkeyen Campus.
Georgetown, Guyana.
BirdLife International. 2016. Country profile: Guyana. Retrieved from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/countryguyana
Birdlife International. 2016b. Marine IBA e-atlas. Accessed: September 28, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://maps.birdlife.org/marineIBAs/default.html
Braun, M. J., D. W. Finch, M. B. Robbins, B. K. Schmidt. 2007. A Field Checklist of the Birds of
Guyana, 2nd Ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

February 2017 431

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Devenish, C., D. F. Diaz, R. P. Clay, I. J. Davidson, I. Y. Zabala. 2009. Important Bird Areas in
the Americas. Priority Sites for Conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International
(BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16).
Ebird Caribbean. Retrieved from: http://ebird.org/ebird/caribbean/country/GY?yr=all
GEPA (Guyana Environmental Protection Agency), Flora and Fauna International, and the
Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society. 2004. Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the
Proposed Shell Beach Protected Area. August-October 2004. 53 pp.
The citation for this should be changed to GEPA (Guyana Environmental Protection Agency).
2015. Guyana's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. May 2015. 101 pp.
Retrieved from: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy156992.pdf
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016. Version 2016:2. Retrieved from:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Lentino, M. and D. y Esclasans. 2009. Important birds Areas: Venezuela. Pages 393 – 402 in C.
Devenish, D. F. Díaz Fernández, R. P. Clay, I. Davidson & I. Yépez Zabala Eds.
Important Bird Areas Americas - Priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Quito,
Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 16).
Mendonca, Sean, Michelle Kalamandeen, Robin S. McCall. 2006. A Bird’s Eye View: Coastal
Birds of Shell Beach. Proceedings of International Conference on the Status of Biological
Sciences in Caribbean and Latin American Societies.
RPS. 2016. Marine Fauna Observer Report. Prepared by ExxonMobil.
Schreiber, E. 2001. Biology of Marine Birds. Edited by E. I. Schreiber and Johanna Burger. CRC
Press. 740 pp.
White, G. 2008. Trinidad and Tobago. Pp 351 – 356. In: Devenish, C., D. F. Díaz Fernández, R. P.
Clay, I. Davidson, I. Yépez Zabala (eds). Important Bird Areas Americas - Priority sites
for biodiversity conservation. Quito, Ecuador: BirdLife International (BirdLife
Conservation Series No. 16).

Marine Turtles

Bjorndal K. A., and J. B. C. Jackson. 2003. Roles of sea turtles in marine ecosystems:
Reconstructing the past. In: Lutz P., J. A. Musick, J. Wyneken (eds). The Biology of Sea
Turtles. Vol. 2. CRC Press; 2003. p. 259–273.
Bjorndal, K. A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: Lutz P. L. and Musick J.
A. (eds). The biology of sea turtles, 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 199−231.
CREE. 2014. Retrieved from: http://conservationforpeople.org/sea-turtles-guyana/.
Eckert, K. L. 1999. Designing a conservation program. In: Eckert, K. L. et al. (eds). Research and
management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle
Specialist Group Publication, 4: pp. 6–8.

February 2017 432

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Eckert, K. L. 1999. Designing a conservation program. In: Eckert, K. L. et al. (eds). Research and
management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle
Specialist Group Publication, 4: pp. 6–8.
Jackson, J. B. C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA 98: 5,411–5,418.
National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Proceedings of the 14th
annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation. March 1-5, 1994. Hilton
Head, South Carolina, USA. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Piniak, W. D. and K. L. Eckert. 2011. Sea turtle nesting habitat in the Wider Caribbean Region.
Endang. Species Res., 15: 129–141.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles (Cheloniidae
and Dermochelidae). Animal Behavior, 21: 18–27.
Pritchard, P. H. C. 1991. Sea Turtle Conservation and Research and in Guyana. Unpublished
report. 63pp.
Project Global. 2007. Global Bycatch Assessment of Long Lived Species. Country Profile,
Guyana. Blue Ocean Institute and WIDECAST. 17pp.
Tambiah, C. R. 1994. Saving sea turtles or killing them: the case of US regulated TEDs in
Guyana and Suriname, pp. 149–151. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual symposium on
sea turtle biology and conservation. March 1-5, 1994. Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Troeng, S., D. Chacon, B. Dick. 2004. Possible decline leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea
nesting in Caribbean Central America. Oryx, 38: 1–9.
Troeng, S., P. H. Dutton, D. Evans. 2005. Migration of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata
from Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ecography, 28: 394–402.

Marine Turtles

Charles, Reuben, Mark Bynoe, Jennifer Wishart, Martin Cheong. 2004. Shell Beach Protected
Area Situation Analysis. GMTCS publication.
Mannocci, L., R. Monestiez, J. Bolaños, G. Doremus, S. Jérémie, S. Laran, R. Rinaldi, O. Van
Canneyt, V. Ridoux. 2013. Megavertebrate communities from two contrasting
ecosystems in the western tropical Atlantic. Journal of Marine Systems, 111: 208–222.
Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.11.002
Minasian, S. M., K. C. Balcomb, L. Foster. 1984. The Worlds Whales: The Complete Illustrated
Guide. Smithsonian Books, 224 pp.

February 2017 433

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Marine Fish

CRFM. Undated. Sargassum Seaweed Invasion: What, Why, and What We Can Do? Retrieved
from: http://www.crfm.net/~uwohxjxf/images/documents/Sargassum_Pamphlet-
_Final.pdf
MOA (Guyana Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Department). 2013. Marine Fisheries
Management Plan 2013-2018.
Nihoul, J. C. J. and C. T. A. Chen. 2008. Oceanography. Volume 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. Large Marine Ecosystems of
the World. XVI-52 North Brazil Shelf: LME #17. Retrieved from:
http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:north
-brazil-shelf-lme-17&catid=16&Itemid=114
Palandro, 2016. Persistence of Sargassum in Guyana EEZ and Stabroek Lease Block.
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company.
Ross. 2010. Sargassum: A Complex 'Island' Community at Sea. National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration. United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved from:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03edge/background/sargassum/sargass
um.html

Marine Benthic Habitat

Davies, C. E., D. Moss, M. O. Hill. 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Retrieved
from: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/references/1473.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, Guyana). 2010. Fourth National Report to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gy/gy-nr-04-en.pdf.
Flach, E., J. Vanaverbeke, C. Heip. 1999. The meiofauna:macrofauna ratio across the continental
slope of the Goban Spur (north-east Atlantic). Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, 79: 233–241. Retrieved from:
https://pure.knaw.nl/portal/files/472420/Flach_ea_2380.pdf
Freiwald, A., J. H. Fosså, A. Grehan, T. Koslow, J. M. Roberts. 2004. Cold-water Coral Reefs.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from: http://www.unep-
wcmc.org/biodiversity-series-22_103.html
FUGRO EMU Limited. 2016. Environmental Baseline Survey Report. Liza Development,
Offshore Guyana. Prepared for Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd, March
2016. Fugro Job No. 2415-3066-EBS. 125 pgs.

February 2017 434

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Maxon Consulting, Inc. and TDI Brooks International, Inc. 2014. Environmental Baseline Study.
Guyana Stabroek Block. Prepared for Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. July
2014. Ref. 14024. 106 pgs.
NOAA. 2014. National Marine Fisheries Services. Marine Habitat Protection Program: Deep-Sea
Corals. Retrieved from:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/corals/deepseacorals.html
Poore, G., and M. Schotte. 2009. Malacanthura truncata (Hansen, 1916). In: Boyko, C.B, N. L.
Bruce, K. L. Merrin, Y. Ota, G. C. B. Poore, S. Taiti, M. Schotte, G. D. F. Wilson (eds). 2008
(onwards). World Marine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Isopod Crustaceans database.
Accessed: October 3, 2016. Retrieved from: World Register of Marine Species at
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=118479
Poore, G. and M. Schotte, M. 2015. Leptanthura guianae Kensley, 1982. In: Boyko, C. B., N. L.
Bruce, K. L. Merrin, Y. Ota, G. C. B. Poore, S. Taiti, M. Schotte, G. D. F. Wilson (eds). 2008
(onwards). World Marine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Isopod Crustaceans database.
Accessed: October 3, 2016. Retrieved from: World Register of Marine Species at
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=255553
Rowe, G. T., P. Polloni, R. L. Haedrich. 1982. The deep-sea macrobenthos on the continental
margin of the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research 29A: 257–278.
Wei C. L., G. T. Rowe, G. F. Hubbard, A. H. Scheltema, G. D. F. Wilson, I. Petrescu, J. M. Foster,
M. K. Wicksten, M. Chen, R. Davenport, Y. Soliman, Y. Wang. 2010. Bathymetric
zonation of deep-sea macrofauna in relation to export surface phytoplankton
production. Marine Ecology Progress Series 399:1-14. Accessed: November 2016.
Retrieved from: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m399p001.pdf

Socioeconomic Resources

Economic Activities

Bureau of Statistics Guyana. 2012. 2012 Population & Housing Census Compendium.
Minority Rights Group International. 2008. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples – Guyana: Indigenous Peoples.
Protected Areas Commission. 2014. Shell Beach Protected Area Management Plan, 2015-2019.

Employment and Livelihoods

CIA World Factbook. 2016. Education Expenditures. Retrieved from:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2206.html
Bureau of Statistics Guyana. 2012. 2012 Population & Housing Census Compendium.
Minority Rights Group International. 2008. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples - Guyana: Indigenous Peoples.

February 2017 435

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2015. Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
2014, Final Report.

Community Health and Wellbeing and Living Conditions

CCI (Climate Change Initiative). 2012. Land Cover map for 1998-2012 epoch. Retrieved from:
http://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/?q=node/158
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. AQUASTAT Regional
Report: Southern America, Central America and the Caribbean - Guyana. Retrieved
from: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/guy/index.stm
IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2010. Guyana Property Rights Study: Discussion
Paper IDB-DP-141.

Marine Use and Transportation

Guyana Tourism Authority. 2016. Annual Tourism Data: All Visitors by Main Markets and
Monthly Visitors.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations). 2015. AQUASTAT Regional
report: Guyana. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/guy/index.stm
GGMC (Guyana Geology and Mines Commission). 2010. The Mineral Industry in Guyana.
Guyana Bureau of Statistics. 2015. Trade Statistics System. Retrieved from:
http://www.statisticsguyana.gov.gy/trade.html
Guyana Chronicle. 2016. Pomeroon to become Guyana’s coconut capital. July 18, 2016.
Retrieved from: http://guyanachronicle.com/pomeroon-to-become-guyanas-coconut-
capital/
Ministry of Agriculture. 2016a. Agriculture, fisheries and apiculture annual statistics.
Ministry of Finance. 2015. Mid-Year Report 2015. Retrieved from:
http://finance.gov.gy/documents-publications/category/mid-year-reports
Ministry of Finance. 2016. Mid-Year Report 2016. Retrieved from:
http://finance.gov.gy/documents-publications/category/mid-year-reports
MOA (Guyana Ministry of Agriculture). 2013. Fisheries Department. Marine Fisheries
Management Plan 2013-2018.
PAC (Protected Areas Commission). 2014. Shell Beach Protected Area Management Plan, 2015-
2019.
Private Sector Commission of Guyana. 2015. Annual Report 2015.

February 2017 436

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Stabroek News. 2016. Pomeroon farmers cashing in on coconut water market. Retrieved from:
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2016/business/05/13/pomeroon-farmers-cashing-
coconut-water-market/
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2005. Guyana: Socio-economic Assessment
of the Damages and Losses Caused by the January-February 2005 Flooding. Retrieved
from: http://www.cepal.org/cgi-
bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/0/26950/P26950.xml&xsl=/publicaciones/f
icha-i.xsl&base=/publicaciones/top_publicaciones-i.xsl#
World Bank. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/guyana/overview

Social Infrastructure and Services

Guyana Bureau of Statistics. 2016. 2012 Census - Compendium 3: Economic Activity.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean). 2011. An Assessment
of the Economic Impact of Climate Change on the Agriculture Sector in Guyana.
Retrieved from:
http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/38586/LCCARL323_en.pdf;jsessi
onid=6A80E60D052D8EB7A38956A1033254D8?sequence=1
Ministry of Agriculture. 2016b. News: FAO Country Rep Lauds Guyana’s Efforts to Stop Illegal
Fishing. Retrieved from: http://agriculture.gov.gy/2016/04/15/fao-country-rep-lauds-
guyanas-efforts-to-stop-illegal-fishing/
Ministry of Finance. 2015. Mid-Year Report 2015. Retrieved from:
http://finance.gov.gy/documents-publications/category/mid-year-reports
Protected Areas Commission. 2014. Shell Beach Protected Area Management Plan, 2015-2019.
Minority Rights Group International. 2008. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples - Guyana: Indigenous Peoples.

Land Use

Ministry of Public Health. 2013a. Guyana Strategic Plan for the Integrated Prevention and
Control of Chronic NCDs and their Risk Factors 2013-2020. Retrieved from:
http://www.health.gov.gy/moph/strategies/NCD%20Strategic%20Plan%202013-
2020.pdf
Ministry of Public Health. 2013b. Health Vision 2020: A National Health Strategy for Guyana,
2013-2020. Retrieved from:
http://www.health.gov.gy/moph/strategies/Health%20Vision%202020.pdf
Ministry of Public Health. 2014. Communication Strategy for Malaria Control, 2014-2016.
Ministry of Public Health. 2016. Regional Health Facilities. Retrieved from:
http://www.health.gov.gy/moph/

February 2017 437

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Pan-American Health Organization. 2005. Health Situation Report: Floods in Guyana –

January/February 2005. Retrieved from:
http://www.paho.org/disasters/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71
4%3Afloods-in-guyana-january%2Ffebruary-2005&Itemid=0&lang=en
UNAIDS. 2015. Guyana AIDS Response Progress Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/country/documents/GUY_narrative_repo
rt_2015.pdf
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2005. Guyana: Socio-economic Assessment
of the Damages and Losses Caused by the January-February 2005 Flooding. Retrieved
from: http://www.cepal.org/cgi-
bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/0/26950/P26950.xml&xsl=/publicaciones/f
icha-i.xsl&base=/publicaciones/top_publicaciones-i.xsl#
UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2014. Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 5.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2014. World Suicide Report: Preventing Suicide: A Global
Imperative. Retrieved from:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/suicide-prevention-
report/en/

Cultural Heritage

EEPGL. 2016. Stabroek Block – Final Report on Survey of Suspected Subsea Cable and SGSCS
Cable. Report to Guyana Geology & Mines Commission. April 14.
NGIA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). 2014. Sailing Directions (Enroute), East Coast
of South America. Publication 124, Fourteenth Edition. Accessed: September 16, 2016.
Retrieved from:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub124/Pub124bk.p
df

Ecosystem Services

Guyana Bureau of Statistics. 2002. 2002 Population & Housing Census – Guyana National
Report.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. AQUASTAT
RegionalReport: Guyana. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/guy/index.stm
Guyana Ministry of Education. 2013. List of Schools by Region. Retrieved from:
http://education.gov.gy/web/index.php/downloads
IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2010. Guyana Property Rights Study. Discussion
Paper No. IDB-DP-141.

February 2017 438

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2016. The State of Social Housing in Six Caribbean
Countries.
Ministry of Finance. 2015. Mid-Year Report 2015. Retrieved from:
http://finance.gov.gy/documents-publications/category/mid-year-reports
OSAC (Overseas Security Advisory Council). 2016. Guyana 2016 Crime and Safety Report.
United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Retrieved from:
https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19622
PSC (Private Sector Commission of Guyana). 2015. Annual Report 2015.
Social Infrastructure and Services
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A
Framework for Assessment.
Ministry of Agriculture. 2016. Agriculture, fisheries and apiculture annual statistics.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2016. Eastern South America: Coastal French Guiana, Suriname,
Guyana, and southeastern Venezuela. Accessed: September 23, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt1411

Assessment of Potential Impacts

Physical Resources

Air Quality and Climate Change

WHO (World Health Organization). 2000. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd
edition.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter,
Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide - Global Update 2005.
World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2004.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
Yale University. 2016. Global Metrics for the Environment. Environmental Performance Index
2016 Report. Retrieved from: http://epi.yale.edu/country/guyana

Noise and Vibration

Finneran, J.J. 2015. Auditory weighting functions and TTS/PTS exposure functions for cetaceans
and marine carnivores. San Diego: SSC Pacific.
JASCO (JASCO Applied Sciences). 2016. Underwater Sound Associated with Liza Phase 1
Project Activities.

February 2017 439

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C. R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak,
D.R. Ketten, J. H. Miller. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific
recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4): 411–521.

Marine Geology and Sediments

Ellis D. V. and C. Heim. 1985. Submersible surveys of benthos near a turbidity cloud. Mar Poll
Bull, 16(5): 197–203.
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network). 2011. Benchmarks for the Assessment of
Sensitivity and Recoverability. The Marine Biological Association of the UK, Citadel
Hill, Plymouth, Devon, U.K. Retrieved from:
http://www.marlin.ac.uk/sensitivitybenchmarks.php

Biological Resources

Beaches, Mangroves, Vegetation, and Wetland Habitats

BirdLife International. 2012a. Pterodroma hasitata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2012: e.T22698092A38940168. Accessed: October 2, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22698092A38940168.en
BirdLife International. 2012b. Agamia agami. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012:
e.T22697200A40244589. Accessed: October 2, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697200A40244589.en
BirdLife International. 2012. Calidris pusilla. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012:
e.T22693373A38788283. Accessed: October 2, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22693373A38788283.en
IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. Accessed: November 29,
2016. Retrieved from: www.iucnredlist.org
Rheingantz, M .L. and C. S. Trinca. 2015. Lontra longicaudis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2015: e.T12304A21937379. Accessed: October 2, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T12304A21937379.en

Seabirds

Baird, P. H. 1990. Concentrations of seabirds at oil-drilling rigs. Condor, 92: 768–771.

Deda, P., I. Elbertzhagen, M. Klussmann. 2007. Light pollution and the impacts on biodiversity,
species and their habitats. In C. Marín and J. Jafari (eds) Starlight – A common heritage.
Starlight Initiative, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), La Palma, Canary Islands,
Spain, April 19-20, 2007.
Gaston K. J., J. Bennie, T. W. Davies, J. Hopkins. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light
pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol Rev, 88: 912–927.

February 2017 440

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Marquenie, J. 2007. Green Light to Birds: Investigation into the Effect of Bird-Friendly Lighting.
Retrieved from:
http://www.waddenzee.nl/fileadmin/content/Dossiers/Energie/pdf/green_light_to_
birdsNAM.pdf
Platteeuw, M. and R. Henkens. 1997. Possible Impacts of Disturbance to Waterbirds:
Individuals, Carrying Capacity, and Populations. Wildfowl, 48: 225–236.
Ronconi, Robert A., Karel A. Allard, Philip D. Taylor. 2015. Bird interactions with offshore oil
and gas platforms: Review of impacts and monitoring techniques. Journal of
Environmental Management, 147: 34–45.
RPS. 2016. Marine Fauna Observer Report. Prepared by ExxonMobil.
Wiese F. K., W. A. Montevecchi, G. K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A. W. Diamond. 2001. Seabirds
at Risk around Offshore Oil Platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 42: 1,285–1,290.

Marine Fish

Barnthouse, L.W. 2013. Impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations: A review
of the scientific evidence. Environmental Science & Policy, 31: 149–156. August 2013.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2014. Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas. US Department of the Interior. Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region.
Brungs, W.A. 1973. Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 45(10): 2,180–2,193. (Oct., 1973)
Donelson, J. M., M. I. McCormick, D. J. Booth, P. L. Munday. 2014. Reproductive Acclimation to
Increased Water Temperature in a Tropical Reef Fish. PLoS One, 9(5): e97223.
Hastings R. W., L. H. Ogren, M. T. Mabry. 1976. Observations on the fish fauna associated with
offshore platforms in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. US Natl Mar Fish Serv Fish Bull,
74: 387–402.
Keenan, S. F., M. C. Benfield, J. K. Blackburn. 2007. Importance of the artifical light field around
offshore petroleum platforms for the associate fish community. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 331: 219–231. 2007.
Lindquist D., R. Shaw, F. Hernandez. 2005. Distribution patterns of larval and juvenile fishes at
offshore petroleum platforms in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci,
62: 655–665.
Martinez-Andrade, F. and D. M. Baltz. 2003. Marine and Coastal Fishes Subject to Impingement
by Cooling-Water Intake Systems in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Annotated
Bibliography. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-040. 113 pp.

February 2017 441

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Pankhurst, N. W. and P. L. Munday. 2011. Effects of climate change on fish reproduction and
early life history stages. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62: 1,015–1,026.
Stanley D. R. and C. A. Wilson. 1997. Seasonal and spatial variation in the abundance and size
distribution of fishes associated with a petroleum platform in the northern Gulf of
Mexico. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 54: 1,166–1,176.
Svecevicius G, J., P. Syvokiene, L. Stasiŭnaite, L. Mickeniene. 2005. Acute and chronic toxicity of
chlorine dioxide (ClO2) and chlorite (ClO2-) to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. Sep, 12(5): 302–5.
US EPA. 2010. Comparative Toxicity of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico
Aquatic Test Species. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development. Retrieved from:
https://archive.epa.gov/bpspill/web/pdf/comparativetoxtest.final.6.30.10.pdf
WaterReUse. 2011. Desalination Plant Intakes-Impingement and Entrainment Impacts and
Solutions. Retrieved from:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/schillerstation/pdfs/AR-026.pdf

Marine Benthic Habitat

Ellis, D. and C. Heim. 1985. Submersible surveys of benthos near a turbidity cloud. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 16(5): 197–203.
IOGP. 2016. Environmental fates and effects of ocean discharge of drill cuttings and associated
drilling fluids from offshore oil and gas operations. Retrieved from:
http://www.iogp.org/pubs/543.pdf
Jones, D., J. Cruz-Motta, D. Bone, J. Kaariainen. 2012. Effects of oil drilling activity on the deep
water megabenthos of the Orinoco Fan, Venezuela. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, 92: 245–253. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259418552_Effects_of_oil_drilling_activity_
on_the_deep_water_megabenthos_of_the_Orinoco_Fan_Venezuela
Kilgour, M. J., and T. C. Shirley. 2008. Bathymetric and spatial distribution of decapod
crustaceans on deep-water shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science,
82: 333–344. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259418552_Effects_of_oil_drilling_activity_
on_the_deep_water_megabenthos_of_the_Orinoco_Fan_Venezuela
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network). 2011. Benchmarks for the Assessment of
Sensitivity and Recoverability. The Marine Biological Association of the UK, Citadel
Hill, Plymouth, Devon, U.K. Accessed" April 2011. Retrieved from:
http://www.marlin.ac.uk/sensitivitybenchmarks.php
Smit, M. G. D., J. E. Tamis, R. G. Jak, C. C. Karman, G. Kjeilen-Eilertsen, H.Trannum, J.Neff.
2006. Threshold levels and risk functions for non-toxic sediment stressors: burial, grain
size changes and hypoxia. Summary. TNO Report no. TNO 2006-DH-0046/A – Open

February 2017 442

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Special Status Species

Nihoul, J. C. J. and C. T. A. Chen. 2008. Oceanography. Volume 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support

Systems. ISBN:978-1-905839-62-9
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. Large Marine Ecosystems of
the World. XVI-52 North Brazil Shelf: LME #17. Retrieved from:
http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:north
-brazil-shelf-lme-17&catid=16&Itemid=114
Ecological Balance and Ecosystems
Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Network. 2010. Green mussel (Perna virdis). Available at:
http://www.ciasnet.org/2010/08/10/green-mussel-perna-virdis/. Accessed Fbruary,
2017.
European Maritime Safety Agency. 2017. Ballast Water. Available at:
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/implementation-tasks/environment/ballast-water.html.
Accessed February 2017.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 2008. Marine Guidance Note MGN 363 (M+F). The Control
and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/44
0722/MGN_363.pdf. Accessed February 2017.
Ruiz, G., Murphy, K.R., Verling, E, Smith, G, Chaves, S., and A.H. Hines. 2005. Ballast Water
Exchange: Efficacy of treating ships’ ballast water to reduce marine species transfers and
invasion success? Final Report Submitted to: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, American
Petroleum Institute, & Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council.
Available at:
http://www.psmfc.org/ballast/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Ballast_Wat
er_Exchange_PWS_Ak_Ruiz_2005.pdf. Accessed February 2017.

Socioeconomic Resources

Marine Water Quality

ITOPF, undated. Effects of Oil Pollution on the Marine Environment. Technical Information
Paper No. 13. Retrieved from:
http://www.itopf.com/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP13EffectsofOil
PollutionontheMarineEnvironment.pdf

Ecological Balance and Ecosystems

Chanton, J. P., J. Cherrier, R. M. Wilson, J. Sarkodee-Adoo, S. Bosman, A. Mickle, W. M.
Graham. 2012. Radiocarbon evidence that carbon from the Deepwater Horizon spill
entered the planktonic food web of the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Research Letters,
(7) 4.

February 2017 443

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

GOMRI (Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative). 2015. Studies Identify Oil Spill Effects in Deep Sea
Fish. Retrieved from: http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/studies-identify-oil-spill-effects-
in-deep-sea-fish/
ITOPF, undated. Effects of Oil Pollution on the Marine Environment. Technical Information
Paper No. 13. Retrieved from:
http://www.itopf.com/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP13EffectsofOil
PollutionontheMarineEnvironment.pdf
MBC (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences). 2011. Life History Parameters of Common
Southern California Marine Fishes. Prepared for the California Energy Commission
Public Interest Energy Research Program. Retrieved from:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-500-2011-008/CEC-500-2011-
008.pdf
Montagna, P. A., J. G. Baguley, C. Cooksey, J. L. Hyland. 2013. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:
Assessment of Potential Impacts on the Deep Soft-Bottom Benthos. Interim Data
Summary Report. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 166. NOAA, National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Charleston, SC. 32 p.
Moreno, R., L. Jover, C. Diez, F. Sarda, C. Sanpera. 2013. Ten Years After the Prestige Oil Spill:
Seabird Trophic Ecology as Indicator of Long-Term Effects on the Coastal Marine
Ecosystem. PLoS One, 8(10): e77360.
Neff, J. 2002. Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms: Effect of Contamination from Oil Well
Produced Water. Elsevier Inc. 468 pp.
Nihoul, J. C. J. and C. T. A. Chen. 2008. Oceanography. Volume 1. Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems. ISBN:978-1-905839-62-9
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. How Oil Harms Animals
and Plants in Marine Environments. Retrieved from:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/how-oil-harms-
animals-and-plants-marine-environments.html
Ozhan, K., M. L. Parsons, S. Bargu. 2014. How Were Phytoplankton Affected By the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill. Bioscience, 64(9).
Piatt, J. F. and P. Anderson. 1996. Response of Common Murres to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
and Long-Term Changes in the Gulf of Alaska Marine Ecosystem. American Fisheries
Society Symposium, 18: 720–737.
Press, 2015. How Oil Damages Fish Hearts: Five Years of Research Since the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill. Retrieved from:
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2015/04/dwh_5yrs.html
Teal, J. M. and R. W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: A review of ecological effects.
Environmental Management, 8: 27. doi:10.1007/BF01867871.

February 2017 444

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

Graham W. M., R. H. Condon, R. H. Carmichael, I. D'Ambra, H. K. Patterson, L. J. Linn, F. J.

Hernandez. 2010. Oil carbon entered the coastal planktonic food web during the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environmental Research Letters, 5(4):045301.

Marine Fish
ITOPF. Undated. Effects of Oil Pollution on the Marine Environment. Technical Information
Paper No. 13. Retrieved from:
http://www.itopf.com/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP13EffectsofOil
PollutionontheMarineEnvironment.pdf
Press, 2015. How Oil Damages Fish Hearts: Five Years of Research Since the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill. Retrieved from:
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2015/04/dwh_5yrs.html

Transboundary Impacts
Miloslavich, P., A. Martín, E. Klein, Y. Díaz, C. A. Lasso, J. J. Cárdenas, O .M. Lasso-Alcalá. 2011.
Biodiversity and Conservation of the Estuarine and Marine Ecosystems of the
Venezuelan Orinoco Delta. In Ecosystems Biodiversity. O. Grillo and G. Venora (eds).
ISBN 978-953-307-417-7, 474 pages, Publisher: InTech, DOI: 10.5772/913

Personal Communications
ERM Personal Communication 1. Interview with the Guyana Rice Producers’ Association.
September 6, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 2. Interview with the Guyana Association of Trawler Owners
and Seafood Processors. September 5, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 3. Interview with the Department of Tourism. August 30, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 4. Interview with Mainstay/Whyaka Amerindian Village.
September 2, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 5. Interview with Pomeroon Women’s Agro-Processors
Association. August 31, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 6. Interview with Supenaam-Parika Speedboat Operators
Association. August 31, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 7. Interview with Ministry of Public Health. August 29, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 8. Interview with Ministry of Communities. August 29, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 9. Interview with Ministry of Public Infrastructure. September 2,
2016.
ERM Personal Communication 10. Interview with Private Sector Commission of Guyana.
September 2, 2016.

February 2017 445

EEPGL Environmental Impact Assessment Chapter 13
Liza Phase 1 Development Project References

ERM Personal communication 11. Interview with Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society.
September 5, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 12. Interview with Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha. September 2,
2016.
ERM Personal Communication 13. Interview with African Culture Development Association.
September 25, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 14. Interview with Ministry of Agriculture. September 5, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 15. Interview with West End Agricultural Development Society.
September 2, 2016.ERM Personal Communication 16. Interview with fisherman in Lima.
August 31, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 16. Email from Denzil Roberts with fish bycatch from shrimp
trawling fishery. October 4, 2016."
ERM Personal Communication 17. Interview with anonymous fisherman in Charity. August 31,
2016.
ERM Personal Communication 18. Interview with National Aquaculture Association.
September 6, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 19. Interview with Vilvordeen/Fairfield Women’s Association.
August 31, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 20. Interview with Member of Lima Fisherman’s Development
Co-operative. August 31, 2016.
ERM Personal Communication 21.Interview with Fish processor in Lima area. August 31, 2016.

February 2017 446