ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BARDOLINO DEVELOPMENT

Bardolino Development Environmental Statement
Table 1.1: Summary of consultations undertaken
Date Consultees Issues Discussed
25 th Feb 2008 Meeting: JNCC & BERR JNCC indicated that survey data for the pipeline should
ideally be presented within the ES. As the project
involves only a 2 km long line, 1 km of which will be
within the 500 m zones of Bardolino and Howe, JNCC
suggested that if the data is not available the survey
work that has/will be undertaken be described within
the ES with further details, including results, provided in
the subsequent PON 15s.
13 th Mar 2008 Scottish Fisherman’s
Federation (SFF)
13 th Mar 2008 Fisheries Research
Service (FRS)
13 th Mar 2008 Marine Conservation
Society
13 th Mar 2008 Royal Society for the
protection of Bird
(RSPB)
JNCC do not believe that modelling of drill cuttings
would add to the ES application and would not expect
this work to be undertaken.
JNCC advised that within the ES, Shell should consider
whether any of their activities are likely to cause
'deliberate disturbances’ to a European Protected
Species. Whilst Shell need to carry out the assessment,
JNCC believe that the use of an MMO, daylight piling,
and other measures, are likely to provide sufficient
mitigation.
Consultation letter sent to both JNCC and BERR on 13 th
March 2008.
Consultation letter sent. No response prior to
submission of the ES.
Consultation letter sent. Responded asking to be kept
informed on the progress of the project.
Consultation letter sent. No response prior to
submission of the ES.
Consultation letter sent. Responded asking to be kept
informed on the progress of the project.
13 th Mar 2008 Defence Estates Consultation letter sent. Responded indicating an
interest in an opportunity to discuss the development.
13 th Mar 2008 Aberdeen Coastguard
Offshore Oil & Gas
Team
13 th Mar 2008 Coastguard Agency
MPCU
13 th Mar 2008 Scottish Government
Marine Directorate
1.7 AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
Consultation letter sent. No response prior to
submission of the ES.
Consultation letter sent. Responded asking to be kept
informed on the progress of the project.
Consultation letter sent. No response prior to
submission of the ES.
Several aspects of the proposed development plan described in this ES are subject to a
degree of uncertainty, as a result of the level of technical definition appropriate for the current
stage of the project. These are discussed at appropriate points in the text of the ES, together
with any significant implications with respect to environmental impact. The most important of
these uncertainties are:
� Unforeseen problems during drilling (such as geological obstruction or mechanical
failure) may require the well to be side-tracked, or a spare well slot to be used.
April 2008 Page 1-5