eni has ensco 104, page-19

Hi Iam

I trust you are well.

You are correct re ENSCO 104 - the initial chart I was directed to is inaccurate. That is, ENSCO 104 is currently anchored circa 50km north of Onslow. It would appear Rigzone got ahead of itself (as did I)... apologies, from my perspective, for any confusion caused. It will be interesting to see what type of testing is undertaken by Apache/TAP as obviously this will impact on ENSCO 104 handover date to ENI.

With regards to ENSCO's monthly rig status report - ENI have ENSCO 104 booked from June 2013 (not 13 June 2013).

With regards to Penguin Deep I had the same thoughts as you so I emailed NOPSEMA last month to determine if ENI had to lodge a new environmental plan since it had been circa 4 years since the original environmental plan had been approved for Penguin Deep. In a word the NOPSEMA advice appears to be 'no' as these types of plans have a shelf life of generally 5 years - see last paragraph of NOPSEMA's email response below.

So, as it stands, there is no reason why ENI could not SPUD either ES, Blackwood or Penguin Deep later this month... From a geographical perspective, Penguin Deep is the closest of these three drill targets to Onslow (i.e. closest to ENSCO 104's current location). My preference is ES first (to secure a high CO2 resource for TS) then Blackwood but I will not be surprised if this is not the case.

IAM - I have re,re,re-read your posts and those of Dr Daz regarding Blackwood from last year. Can I ask for your thoughts re Blackwood's resource estimate? The last official word is 1.7tcf (which is pre both MEOs and ENIs 3d). Noting no GWC, Dr Daz alluded to the chance of NT/P68 being an up to a 10tcf resource (which alludes to a Blackwood resource of up to 5tcf i.e. the same size as Heron). Your thoughts re Blackwood's potential resource estimate would be greatly appreciated.

Good night.

ADL
++++++++

From: ADL
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013
To: Information - Shared Mailbox
Subject: Penguin Deep (WA-313-P) Summary Environment Plan January 2009

Dear Sir/Madam

My understanding is the ENI Australia has contracted the ENSCO 104 rig to drill the Penguin Deep (WA 313-P) in 2013.

Noting that ENI Australia lodged the attached Environmental Plan to the WA Government way back in January 2009 (i.e. more than 4 years ago), does this mean that ENI must re-lodge an updated environmental plan to NOPSEMA for consideration prior to drilling WA 313-P later this year?

Yours Sincerely

ADL

++++++++++

Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Subject: RE: Penguin Deep (WA-313-P) Summary Environment Plan January 2009 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED
Dear XXXX

Thank you for your email.

The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 require that an operator must submit an Environment Plan (EP) for a petroleum activity prior to commencing the activity. A number of aspects of your question are addressed by the Regulations and so I have included a link below to the Australian Governments Comlaw website, to provide further detail.

The in-force EPs accepted by the State designated authorities were transitioned to NOPSEMA on 1 January 2012 and operators were not required to re-submit plans in response to the commencement of NOPSEMA as the National Regulator (see Transitional Arrangements in Regulation 40).

An Environment Plan is usually in force for five years prior to requiring a revision (see Regulation 19). However, at any time during that five year period, operators may be required to submit a proposed revision of the EP (see Regulations 17 and 18). Regulation 18 provides for NOPSEMA to request a proposed revision be submitted by the operator. Regulation 17 provides for the operator to resubmit in response to their own re-evaluation of the in-force EP associated with any new activity or any significant modification, change or new stage of an existing activity, not provided for in the environment plan in force. A proposed revision may also be required in response to any significant new environmental impact or risks, any significant increase in an existing environmental impact or risks, or a series of increases in existing environmental impacts or risks, that are not provided for in the environment plan in force for the activity.

Regards,

Environmental Specialist – Implementation & Regulatory Guidance
NOPSEMA