The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

3

Hold up

4

Not fully backed

2

Never analyzed

• EffectsNot fully backedA significant oil spill from this well is unlikely.

  Walter lists blowout safeguards: blowout preventer tests at least every three weeks, real-time flow and gas monitoring, two float barriers in the production casing, and pressure-while-drilling tools. It also cites BOEM's 2016 update of oil spill occurrence rates. But the only figure it actually gives is a Gulfwide volume ratio: from 2001 to 2015, one barrel spilled for every 1,624 produced, almost all of it from the Deepwater Horizon blowout. That isn't the chance of a blowout at an exploratory well, and it isn't tied to this site, where the hazards assessment assigns a moderate shallow water flow risk in two intervals. The worst case here is 62,260 barrels a day for 100 days.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “However, based on data provided in the BOEM 2016 Update of Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills, it is unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface spill of a significant volume would occur from the proposed operations.”

  Water Quality

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Between 2001 and 2015 OCS operations produced eight billion barrels of oil and spilled 0.062 percent of this oil, or one barrel for every 1,624 barrels produced.”

  Water Quality

  “Given this setting a Slight Risk of Gas and a Moderate Shallow Water Flow Risk is assigned.”

  Attachment 3-D

• EffectsNot fully backedBecause a spill is unlikely, the well is 69 miles offshore and response equipment is available, no impacts to coastal wildlife refuges and wetlands are expected.

  Walter says a spill is unlikely. It says its contracted equipment can be on site with enough capacity to recover oil and prevent land impact, to the maximum extent practicable, within an estimated 58 hours. It lists 149,223 barrels of derated offshore skimming capacity plus shoreline protection boom. Its own trajectory table, though, gives Cameron Parish a 7 percent and Plaquemines Parish a 5 percent conditional chance of being hit within 30 days. It names Cameron, which includes Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, as the most likely landfall. A response promised only to the maximum extent practicable doesn't support a flat expectation of no impacts.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Due to the distance from shore (69 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no impacts are expected.”

  Coastal Wildlife Refuges

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “The BOEM OSRAM identifies the highest probability of impact to the shoreline of Cameron Parish within 30 days.”

  Attachment 8-A

  “Cameron Parish includes the east side of Sabine Lake, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Calcasieu Lake, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge (inland) and Grand Lake.”

  Attachment 8-A

• EffectsNot fully backedShipwreck sites won't be affected because the block isn't in a high-probability shipwreck area and the rig disturbs little seafloor.

  The plan rests on more than the block designation. The rig is dynamically positioned and uses no anchors. The site-specific hazards letter says the one sonar contact, 538 feet west-northwest of the well, has no archaeological significance, and that the location is clear of man-made constraints within 2,000 feet. Walter also commits to stop work within a 1,000-foot radius and report to BOEM within 48 hours if it finds evidence of a shipwreck. One inconsistency remains. The archaeological report section uses template wording with several alternative designations, including an area where historic shipwrecks may exist. That doesn't fit the statement that the block isn't high probability for shipwrecks.

  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Additionally, Ewing Bank Block 966 is not located in or adjacent to an OCS block designated by BOEM as having a high probability for occurrence of shipwrecks.”

  Shipwreck Sites (known or potential)

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “The Echo Offshore archaeological report should be consulted regarding avoidances assigned to the various sonar contacts.”

  Attachment 3-D

  The law

  “shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 ↗

• Show 1 more claim +Show fewer

  • ScienceNot fully backedThe well's pore pressures and geology will match nearby offset wells, so their data can guide the well design and blowout prevention.

    Walter says it designed the well using offset well and seismic data, and that it'll use measurement-while-drilling and pressure-while-drilling tools to read formation pressures as it drills. Its geology sections are withheld as proprietary. Walter's own shallow hazards consultant reached a different view for one interval. For Unit F, offset wells EW966-3 and 4, about 3,000 feet south, crossed that interval at a shallower level with different acoustic character, so the consultant says they aren't a direct analog. It assigns a moderate shallow water flow risk in Units F and G. That finding covers only the shallow section it studied, down to 5,725 feet below the seafloor. So it weakens the blanket claim of similar pore pressures and geology but doesn't disprove it for the full well.

    The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “Walter has gained pore pressure and geology information in this area and this well will be similar pore pressures and geology to the offset wells.”

    Attachment 2-A

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “Because of this difference in acoustic character, the offset wells are not considered a direct analog to the conditions interpreted at the proposed well location.”

    Attachment 3-D

    “Historically in this general region, this unit has produced water flow events.”

    Attachment 3-D

    The law

    “ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussion and analysis in an environmental document; (E) make use of reliable data and resources in carrying out this chapter;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D)-(E) ↗