1. Shell CONFIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION STUDIES OF KOLO CREEK FIELD FACILITIES Adesuyi Adeola Alex Ph.D. Research Intern (EIA Team – Corporate Environment) Use this area for cover image (height 6.5cm, width 8cm) October 2015 1

2. Shell CONFIDENTIAL PRESENTATION OUTLINE  Introduction  Aims and Objectives  Research Methodology  Results  Discussion  Summary and Conclusion  Value Added/Accomplishment  Recommendations October 2015 2

3. Shell CONFIDENTIAL We do not borrow the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children- Native American Quote October 2015 3

4. Shell CONFIDENTIAL INTRODUCTION October 2015 4  The continued development of the oil industry in Nigeria has revealed the need to plan, protect and enhance prudently the environmental resources in the areas of oil and gas operation for a better and healthier environment for man.  Studies in the country have indicated that subtle changes, occurring in our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem correlate with petroleum activities and that cultural and historical resource are also affected. These need to be protected and preserved making it necessary to have a government programme that attempts to protect, restore and/or clean up the environment to an acceptable level.  The Environmental Evaluation Study evaluates the already ‘polluted’ or ‘Impacted’ environment to enable the government know how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (i.e. state of the environment) the recipient environment is, so as to decide and design. strategies for protection and restoration (EGASPIN, 2002).

5. Shell CONFIDENTIAL INTRODUCTION October 2015 5  It is required by regulation (EGASPIN, 2002) that every 3 years Environmental Evaluation studies be carried on operational oil and gas facilities.  It also provide information to improve the quality of decision making with reference to environmental management as well as to change and modification.  It is also a regulatory requirement before any oil and gas facilities can be decommissioned that an environmental evaluation studies be conducted.

6. Shell CONFIDENTIAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF KOLO CREEK FIELD FACILITIES  The double-bank Kolo Creek Flowstation was commissioned in 1973.  Current field production is about 8 MBPD and a gross liquid capacity of 60 MBPD.  The Flowstation has nine (9) producing strings.  The status of existing facilities in the field include:  No of wells drilled to date: 40 in Kolo Creek  Total number of completion 33  Number of Producing Wells: 8 in Kolo Creek (6 are producing to Gbaran CPF)  Oil and Gas gathering manifolds in Kolo Creek

7. Shell CONFIDENTIAL INTRODUCTION  The Kolo Creek field is located within OMLs 35 and 36 in Ogbia LGA of Bayelsa State. October 2015 Fig 1: Administrative Map of Bayelsa state showing Ogbia LGA where the facility is located 7

8. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Aims and Objectives  To determine the current status of the Biophysical environment of the Kolo Creek Field; By identifying the impacts (if any), arising from the operations of the Kolo creek Field by comparing the present data with previous and baseline studies and; Recommending suitable mitigation and ameliorative measures. October 2015 8

9. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Research Methodology  Literature Review  Environmental Evaluation Studies of Kolo creek, 2010; Environmental Evaluation Studies of Kolo creek field facilities, 2015; Environmental Impact Assessment of Eastern Gas Gathering Project Phase 2, 2006; Environmental Impact Assessment of the 20” x 37 km Kolo Creek – Rumuekpe Trunkline Replacement Project, 2004; SPDC (2010). Environmental Impact Assessment of Gbaran Ubie Phase 2 Integrated Oil and Gas Project (Cluster 1: Gbaran, Kolo Creek and Koroama Fields). The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited, Port Harcourt.  Data Gathering/Laboratory Analysis Biophysical environmental components that included air, ambient noise, meteorology, vegetation, wild life and biodiversity, soil, geology, surface and ground water, sediment, aquatic organisms and fisheries were sampled and analyzed to obtain data  Data Statistical Analysis Data were summarized using measures of central tendency to even-out potential errors in field data resulting from the instrument and those introduced by the observer. 9 October 2015

10. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Table 1: Environmental Components and Samples collection Methods October 2015 10 S/NEnvironmental AspectData Collection Method(s)/Equipment 1.Climatic/MeteorologyLiterature survey, field studies with hand held Anemometer and hand held wind vane. 2.Air Quality and NoiseInstantaneous measurement using hand-held equipment 3.Surface water/Ground water Water sampling using sampler, pH meter, DO meter, TDS meter, Turbidimeter and conductivity meter, direct observation.

11. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Quantities of Samples obtained during the Fieldwork S/NEnvironmental component Number of sampling points Description of sample point 1Surface Water32 + 3 control pointsSamples to be collected at river crossings. Samples to be collected up and down streams of rivers within the spatial boundaries defined for the studies. Control points also taken outside the defined spatial boundary. 2Groundwater 6 + 3 control pointsStudy targeted around points of effluent discharge, wells, flares and previously impacted areas. Samples to be collected within the facility area with three control points outside the spatial boundaries. Sampling points located around previous spill sites. 3Air quality 74 + 3 control pointsSystematic randomized sampling adopted to cover the communities around facilities Sampling points located around previous spill sites. Control points taken outside the defined spatial boundary.

12. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Climatic and Meteorology RESULT 12 October 2015

13. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Groundwater Studies RESULT 13 October 2015

14. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Surface water Studies RESULT 14 October 2015

15. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Impact Evaluation and Quantification  The criteria and weighting scale used in evaluating the impact are based on Rau and Wooten’s scheme (Rau and Wooten, 1980). IM = Kolo Creek EIA (2004) /Standard value – Kolo Creek EER (2015) x 100 Kolo creek (2004) /Standard value Impact Magnitude (IM)Impact EvaluationImpact Classification 0 – 20%1Negligible 21 – 40%2Low 41 – 60%3Medium 61 – 80%4High >80 %5Severe Impact Evaluation and Weighting Scheme

16. Shell CONFIDENTIAL Discussion and Recommendations 16 October 2015

17. 17