MARINE MAMMAL OBSERVERS’ AND

ACOUSTIC MONITORING REPORT

DURING
PHASE 2 OF 3D SEISMIC SURVEY
IN
BLOCK 2, MAURITANIA
FOR
TULLOW MAURITANIA LTD
VESSELS: M/V WESTERN REGENT

22nd September to 13th October 2012

Report No. : EOM1430 RPS Energy,

Nelson House,
Author(s) : Juliet Vines, Kate Mars, Coombe Lane, Axminster,
Mick Baines, Maren Reichelt Devon. EX13 5AX, UK.
T +44 (0)1297 34656
F +44 (0)1297 33277
Date : 7th January 2013 E rpsenergy@rpsgroup.com
W www.rpsgroup.com

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df
 CONTENTS
Title
Contents Page Number

1. SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2
2.1. SURVEY AND LOCATION 2
2.2. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 4
3. EQUIPMENT AND METHODS 5
3.1. VESSEL DETAILS 5
3.2. SEISMIC EQUIPMENT AND SOUND EMISSIONS 6
3.3. TURTLE GUARDS 7
3.4. MARINE MAMMAL SURVEY METHODS 7
3.5. PASSIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING 8
3.5.1. Equipment 8
3.5.2. Deployment 9
3.5.3. Software 9
3.5.4. Monitoring 9
4. RESULTS 10
4.1. EFFORT 10
4.1.1. Visual Observations and Sighting Conditions 10
4.1.2. Acoustic Monitoring Effort 11
4.2. DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE 12
4.2.1. Sightings of Marine Mammals and Turtles 12
4.2.2. Acoustic Detections 14
4.2.3. Other Wildlife 15
4.3. MONITORING SEISMIC SOURCE OPERATIONS 15
4.4. MITIGATION ACTION 16
5. COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES 17

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18

6.1. CONCLUSIONS 18
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS 18
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 19

8. REFERENCES 20

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 MMO/PAM Guidelines for Tullow Mauritania

APPENDIX 2 JNCC Forms
APPENDIX 3 Marine Mammal and Turtle Sighting Distribution Map
APPENDIX 4 Photographs of Sightings
APPENDIX 5 PAM Screengrabs
APPENDIX 6 PAM Deployment Work Instruction

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Survey Area Overview

FIGURE 2 M/V Western Regent
FIGURE 3 M/V Alida Natascha
FIGURE 4 M/V Martin Michiel
FIGURE 5 M/V Dina Alliance
FIGURE 6 Tailbuoy with Turtle Guard
FIGURE 7 Seiche Towed Array Hydrophone Spacing
FIGURE 8 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by
JNCC Classifications for Sea State
FIGURE 9 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by
JNCC Classifications for Swell Height
FIGURE 10 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by
JNCC Classifications for Visibility
FIGURE 11 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by
JNCC Classifications for Wind Force

TABLES

TABLE 1 Summary of Mitigation Measures

TABLE 2 Basic Array Specifications
TABLE 3 Marine Mammal Sightings
TABLE 4 Turtle Sightings
TABLE 5 Source Activity during Detections
TABLE 6 Summary of Seabird Sightings

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df
1. SUMMARY
This report covers Phase 2 of a 3D seismic survey of Block 2, Mauritania, by WesternGeco on
behalf of Tullow Mauritania Ltd in which a remaining 32 out of 70 lines were acquired. The
visual monitoring was conducted by experienced MMOs and acoustic detections by
experienced PAM operators aboard the seismic vessel Western Regent.

The total number of seismic source operations throughout the survey was 48. All were
preceded by soft-starts. Twenty-four of these operations were conducted during daylight hours
and one at dusk, and all of these were preceded by a 30 or 60 min (according to water depth)
pre-shooting visual watch for marine mammals, within the 500 m safety zone. Night time soft-
starts (of which there were 24) were preceded by pre-shooting acoustic monitoring.

In addition to pre-shooting watches, visual monitoring for marine mammals was carried out
during all daylight hours. In total, 280 hrs 14 mins of visual observations were carried out, of
which 175 hrs 42 mins (63%) were during periods of seismic source activity. The total number
of visual sightings recorded was 150 and 12 species were positively identified.

The PAM system ran continuously throughout the survey and was monitored for a total of 204
hrs 6 mins, of which 144 hrs 5 mins (71%) were while the source was active. The total number
of acoustic detections was 42. Of these, 33 were at night and 9 were concurrent with visual
observations during daylight.

Mitigation actions were implemented twice. On one occasion the source was shutdown for a
humpback whale that appeared to be in distress. The second occasion resulted from an
acoustic detection at night, when the soft-start was delayed without loss of production.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 1
2. INTRODUCTION
Marine Mammal Observations and Passive Acoustic Monitoring were carried out during Phase 2
of a 3D seismic survey in Block 2, offshore Mauritania, which is 11 nm from the coast at its
closest point. The seismic survey was conducted by WesternGeco on behalf of Tullow
Mauritania Ltd. Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
operators joined the seismic survey vessel, the Western Regent, in the port of Dakar, Senegal,
prior to the vessel departing for the waters of Mauritania on 21st September, 2012. The vessel
immediately commenced gear deployment and arrived on site and began production on 25th
September 2012.

The guidelines used for this survey (APPENDIX 1) were based on the JNCC 2010 “JNCC
Guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys” (REF.
2), with additional protection for marine turtles and large whales if they approached the seismic
source whilst it was active. The role of the MMOs was to conduct pre-start-up visual
observations for the presence of cetaceans or turtles before the seismic source was initiated;
perform visual monitoring throughout daylight hours and implement start-up delays and turtle
stops if necessary. The PAM operators carried out continuous acoustic monitoring for
cetaceans during the hours of darkness, implementing mitigation actions as appropriate.

The priority species group for this survey was turtles which are protected by national legislation.
Mauritania's large national park, Banc d'Arguin, is one of the green turtles' principal nesting
areas in West Africa. The park's extensive marine zone includes an exceptional reserve of sea
grasses, making it the most important West African feeding ground for this species. As well as
the green turtle, the beaches of Mauritania are important nesting sites to 4 other marine turtle
species: hawksbill, loggerhead, leatherback and olive Ridley. All 5 species are categorised as
endangered or critically endangered.

A total of 28 species of cetacean are considered likely to occur in the waters of Mauritania
(Shirihai and Jarrett, 2009); of these, the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszil) is classified
as vulnerable (VU) according to the IUCN Red List (REF. 1) and the fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) are
classified as endangered (EN). However 2 species, the Mediterranean monk seal and the West
African manatee, are unlikely to be seen in the survey area as they are found either north of the
prospect (Mediterranean monk seal) or in coastal waters.

2.1. SURVEY AND LOCATION

The survey was conducted approximately 11 nm off the coast of Mauritania at the closest point
(FIGURE 1). The survey area completed in Phase 2 comprised 32 lines with vessel headings of
110° and 290° followed during acquisition. Average water depths ranged between 50 m and
2400 m.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 2
 FIGURE 1 Survey Area Overview

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 3
2.2. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

The guidelines adopted for this survey were the JNCC 2010 guidelines (REF. 2), with additional
provisions for turtles and large whales. Compliance with the guidelines required a pre-shooting
watch or acoustic monitoring of at least 30 or 60 mins (depending on water depth) for the
detection of marine mammals and turtles in the 500 m safety zone around the seismic source.
If a marine mammal was detected within the safety zone, the soft-start was to be delayed until
at least 20 mins after the animal was detected within that zone. If a turtle was seen within 500
m of the source during pre-watch, the soft-start would not commence until the turtle had left the
mitigation zone. Soft-starts were to be employed on all occasions that the seismic source was
used on full power, ramping-up the power gradually over a period of at least 20 mins. Testing
single guns did not require a 20 min soft-start.

If a marine turtle was seen close to the path of the seismic source whilst it was active, the MMO
could call for a pause in the firing for up to 2 mins. If a whale entered the 500 m mitigation zone
whilst the seismic source was active, the MMO was able to call for a shutdown if the whale
appeared to be in distress.

All tailbuoys were installed with appropriate gear to avoid accidental capture of marine turtles.

A summary of the above is provided in TABLE 1. The guidelines were discussed with the
Project Manager from Tullow Oil to clarify procedures at the start-up meeting for Phase 1 in May
2012, after which the MMOs created a document entitled ‘MMO/PAM Guidelines’ which
provided relevant details of the above guidelines as a reference for Seismic Observers
(APPENDIX 1).
 

Source Mitigation Zone 500 m

Pre-watch Period 30/60 mins
Soft-start Length 20 mins (total of 20 to 40 mins from start of soft-
start to start of line)
Soft-start Delays Yes
Species Covered All cetacean species and turtles
Shutdown Shutdown if whale within 500 m of source and
risks potential harm
Turtle Pause Turtle pause of up to 2 mins if turtle observed
close to path of source
Special Requirements Turtle guards fitted to tailbuoys
TABLE 1 Summary of Mitigation Measures

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 4
3. EQUIPMENT AND METHODS
3.1. VESSEL DETAILS

Data acquisition was undertaken from the seismic survey vessel the M/V Western Regent
(FIGURE 2). The vessel was owned and operated by WesternGeco. The Western Regent was
assisted throughout the survey by 2 guard vessels, the M/V Alida Natascha (FIGURE 3) and the
M/V Martin Michiel (FIGURE 4), and one supply vessel, the M/V Dina Alliance, (FIGURE 5).

FIGURE 2 M/V Western Regent

FIGURE 3 M/V Alida Natascha

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 5
 FIGURE 4 M/V Martin Michiel

FIGURE 5 M/V Dina Alliance

3.2. SEISMIC EQUIPMENT AND SOUND EMISSIONS

The seismic source array specification is shown in TABLE 2. The source consisted of 2 arrays
towed at acquisition depths of 8 m and at a distance of 523 m from the vessel’s mast. The
streamer configuration was 12 x 6500 m, towed at a depth of 9 m with a 75 m separation
between streamers. The total width of the towed equipment was 825 m.

No. of Source Arrays 2

No. of Sub-arrays 3
No. of Sources 48
Shotpoint Interval 18.75 m
Operating Pressure 2000 psi
Maximum Operating Volume 3149 in³
TABLE 2 Basic Array Specifications

The soft-start procedure used during this survey was carried out manually.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 6
3.3. TURTLE GUARDS

The tailbuoys fitted on the streamers were of a type least likely to cause turtle mortality and in
addition had an exclusion turtle guard added along the sides to prevent turtles entering the
undercarriage of the buoy (Ketos Ecology, 2009) (REF. 3).

FIGURE 6 Tailbuoy with Turtle Guard

3.4. MARINE MAMMAL SURVEY METHODS

A team of Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) carried out continuous daytime observations
throughout the survey.

The PAM system ran throughout the survey, and continuous acoustic monitoring was
maintained during the hours of darkness. Night vision equipment was available to supplement
acoustic monitoring, but was only used occasionally when conditions were favourable and a
detection had already been made.

Whilst on prospect, observations were undertaken from approximately 06:45 UTC to 19:00
UTC, and acoustic monitoring from 19:00 UTC to 06:45 UTC. Two MMOs were on duty at any
one time during daylight hours, and a split watch rotation was adopted with a watch period for
each observer of 2 hours followed by a 1 hour break; this served to maintain high attention
levels as well as to lessen the effects of heat on MMOs. One PAM Operator covered the hours
of darkness. Kate Mars and Juliet Vines worked as dedicated MMOs. The position of the third
dedicated MMO and that of the PAM operator was shared between Mick Baines and Maren
Reichelt, working on a 12 hr to 12 hr shift cycle, such that each person spent half their shift
monitoring PAM and the other half observing as an MMO.

Continual searching for the presence of marine mammals (and other marine fauna such as
turtles, birds and fish) was carried out from the bridge (eye height 14.5 m) and in front of the
bridge (eye height 13.5 m). Visual observations were made with the naked eye to ensure a
wide field of view and were augmented with high quality binoculars. DSLR cameras with
telephoto lenses (300 mm, 70-200 mm and 80-400 mm) were used to take photographs to aid
species identification and for reference.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 7
JNCC recording forms (APPENDIX 2) were used during this job and were completed throughout
the survey. These forms were:

1. Effort form – location and environmental data

2. Operations form – airgun usage
3. Sightings form – marine mammals and turtles

Where definitive cetacean species identification could not be made (due to significant distance
from the vessel, fleeting views and/or similarity of species), the identification was recorded to
the narrowest practicable taxonomic level.

3.5. PASSIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) was deployed with the aim of detecting the presence of
marine mammals during the hours of darkness, or when viewing conditions were so poor that
visual observation was impractical. The PAM system used was a towed array supplied by
Seiche Measurements Ltd (www.sml.eu.com) and acoustic data were processed using
PAMGuard (www.pamguard.org) software.

3.5.1. Equipment

The PAM hydrophone array comprised 2 inline pairs of spherical (omni-directional)

hydrophones. One pair, designated for high frequency (HF) signal reception, had a separation
of 25 cm; the other pair, used for low frequency (LF) signal reception, had a separation of 1.2 m
(FIGURE 7).

FIGURE 7 Seiche Towed Array Hydrophone Spacing

The 220 m hydrophone cable was connected to a deck cable routed through the streamer deck
to the main signal processing unit set up in the client office at the after end of the instrument
room.

Signals from the hydrophones were processed in real time on 2 laptops. One laptop was
designated as the LF system, receiving signals from an RME Fireface 800 FireWire audio
interface unit (www.rme-audio.de) set to a sampling rate of 48 kHz. The LF system included a
low-cut filter, so the frequency band covered by this sub-system was effectively 2–24 kHz. A
second laptop was assigned to monitoring HF signals and was fed data from a National
Instruments ADC card set to sample at a rate of 333 kHz, and was therefore capable of
detecting signals of up to 160 kHz.

A virtual private network was set up through an Ethernet cable, such that the 2 PAM laptops
could be monitored and controlled from a single laptop on the bridge using the TightVNC
remote control software package (www.tightvnc.com).

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 8
3.5.2. Deployment

The PAM tow cable was deployed by attaching it to the Streamer 10 lead-in, such that only the
final 15 m of cable swam free. This lead-in was selected because it had no sliding collar, and
being one of the outer streamers it provided a suitable lateral offset from the vessel in order to
reduce noise from the thrusters. This type of deployment has the advantages of minimising the
risk of entanglement and avoiding any requirement to recover the PAM cable when source
arrays are recovered. A Work Instruction document detailing the deployment procedure was
created (APPENDIX 6) and submitted to Western Geco for future reference.

3.5.3. Software

PAMGuard version 1.10.00 Beta running on Windows XP was used on both PAM laptops
throughout the survey.

The initial data model used on the LF laptop included a click detector, a spectrogram and
whistle detector, a sound recorder, GPS logger and map. However, this was found to be
unstable and repeatedly crashed, so a simpler model was constructed, based on FFT analysed
data displayed on spectrograms, a whistle detector and a sound recorder.

On the HF laptop the data model comprised a click detector and a sound recorder. Two click
detection configurations were set up using digital filters, each in its own tabbed window. One
labelled “Beaked Whale / Delphinid” was set to trigger click events when these were in the 24–
48 kHz band; this was the window routinely displayed throughout the survey. The second
window labelled “Porpoise / Kogia” was set to detect clicks in the frequency band 110–150 kHz.

3.5.4. Monitoring

The PAM system ran continuously throughout the survey. Monitoring effort was maintained
throughout the hours of darkness, from approximately 19:00 to 06:45 UTC. A log of PAM effort
was maintained on a JNCC effort spreadsheet. Raw sound from the LF hydrophones was
listened to on headphones and screens displaying an LF spectrogram and HF click detector
were observed. When a detection was made the appropriate sound recorder was switched on
(these have a 7 s buffer to enable recording of the initially observed event), screengrabs taken
whenever possible, and a record completed on a JNCC recording form.

On occasions during some visual encounters during the day, the PAM system was checked to
see if any vocalisations were being detected.

During some prolonged detections at night, the PAM operator went out on deck to see if the
animals could be sighted using image-intensifying night vision equipment.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 9
4. RESULTS
4.1. EFFORT

4.1.1. Visual Observations and Sighting Conditions

Marine mammal observations in and around Block 2 Mauritania commenced on the morning of
22nd September 2012. Visual effort finished on 13th October, 2012. A total of 280 hrs 14 mins
watch for marine mammals and other marine fauna was carried out. Of the total time on watch,
175 hrs and 42 mins of visual observations were carried out during periods of seismic source
activity. Completed JNCC survey forms in electronic format are provided (APPENDIX 2).

The prevailing sighting conditions are summarised in Figures 8 to 11 below.

FIGURE 8 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by JNCC

Classifications for Sea State

FIGURE 9 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by JNCC

Classifications for Swell Height

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 10
 FIGURE 10 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by JNCC
Classifications for Visibility

FIGURE 11 Sightings Conditions: Percentage of Observation Hours by JNCC

Classifications for Wind Force

4.1.2. Acoustic Monitoring Effort

The PAM equipment was set up and the tow cable deployed on 25th September 2012. The
PAM system ran continuously until it was recovered at the end of the survey on 13th October
2012.

The PAM system was monitored for a total of 204 hrs 6 mins, of which the source was active for
144 hrs 5 mins (71%).

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 11
4.2. DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

4.2.1. Sightings of Marine Mammals and Turtles

Summaries of marine mammal and turtle sightings made during the survey, on the prospect, are
provided in TABLE 3 and TABLE 4. Full details of sightings are provided in APPENDIX 2. Over
5,000 photographs were taken and the 2 best examples for each sighting in which photographs
were taken are provided in APPENDIX 4.

Species No. of No. of

Sightings Animals
Humpback whale 1 1
Blue whale 1 2
Bryde’s whale 1 1
Bryde’s/Sei whale 2 2
Unidentified baleen whale 8 9
Killer whale 1 4
Short-finned pilot whale 49 1043
Risso's dolphin 8 69
Unidentified beaked whale 1 1
Unidentified small whale 1 1
Bottlenose dolphin 17 185
Common dolphin 6 1170
Spinner dolphin 7 840
Clymene dolphin 3 105
Pantropical spotted dolphin 2 12
Atlantic spotted dolphin 5 380
Unidentified dolphin 37 1000
TOTAL 150 4825
TABLE 3 Marine Mammal Sightings

Species No. of No. of

Sightings Animals
Loggerhead turtle 1 1
Hard-shelled turtle 5 5
TOTAL 6 6
TABLE 4 Turtle Sightings

One hundred and fifty sightings of marine mammals and 6 turtle sightings took place during
Phase 2 of the survey; comprising a total of approximately an estimated 4831 individuals. A
total of 12 marine mammal species were positively identified: bottlenose dolphin, common
dolphin, spinner dolphin, Clymene dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin,
humpback whale, blue whale, Bryde’s whale, killer whale, short-finned pilot whale and Risso’s
dolphin.

Baleen whales were seen on 12 separate occasions, all of which occurred in October. Blue
whales (Sighting 140), a Bryde’s whale (Sighting 125) and a humpback whale (Sighting 117)
were positively identified. Baleen whales not identified to species level were described as
unidentified baleen whales, small whales and rorqual whale species, although some were

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 12
narrowed down to a pair of similar species, Bryde’s or sei whale. These were not identified due
to distance or brevity of sightings. The blue whale sighting comprised 2 individuals in a water
depth of 1360 m. They were seen to surface together and displayed some interaction during
which a fluke was seen at the surface, indicating that one of the animals had rolled onto its side.
Apart from the first 2 baleen whales sighted (at water depths of 56 m and 63 m) all the baleen
whales were observed in water depths ranging from 1099 m to 2200 m. The humpback whale
(Sighting 117) was sighted on 8th October 2012 at a depth of 1000 m. The whale repeatedly tail
slapped the water at least 20 times, and breached at least once before the source was shut
down as it was considered that the whale was displaying symptoms of distress. (Please see
Section 4.4). The whale ceased tail slapping after the source was shut down.

Short-finned pilot whales were the most frequently observed species, seen on 49 occasions.
Groups were often of mixed age and mixed sex, with mean group size being 21 individuals.
General behaviour of groups was often limited to logging, lying low in the water and slow travel,
however, fast travel/porpoising and surfing were also observed. They were frequently seen in
tight groups, in some instances touching each other. Fifteen out of the 49 sightings of short-
finned pilot whales were seen in association with bottlenose dolphins. With the exception of 5
of the sightings, all the short-finned pilot whales were observed in depths of more than 1000 m,
ranging from 1032 m to 2317 (mean depth 1595 m).

Bottlenose dolphins were observed without the association of short-finned pilot whales on only 2
occasions. These were observed travelling in groups of 10 and 12 individuals respectively.

Risso’s dolphins were observed on 8 occasions, travelling in groups of between 3 and 25.

Oceanic dolphins of the genera Delphinus and Stenella (subfamily Delphininae) observed
during Phase 2 were common dolphins, spinner dolphins, Clymene dolphins, pantropical
spotted dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins. Many were observed leaping and, in the case of
spinner and Clymene dolphins, spinning. However in some instances the dolphins were not
demonstrative. On one occasion Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen in a mixed group with
pantropical dolphins and Clymene dolphins were observed in association with common
dolphins.

Common dolphins were seen on 6 occasions; they were seen in the largest groups encountered
during the survey, of up to 500 individuals. Two species of common dolphin are found in the
region, but in none of the sightings was it possible to distinguish between long-beaked and
short-beaked common dolphins.

Killer whales (Sighting 57) were sighted on one occasion as a group of 4 individuals at a water
depth of 99 m. They were observed swimming fast, often remaining submerged for several
minutes before surfacing and one individual breached.

One sighting of a beaked whale was made, but at such long range that it could not be identified.

In total 6 turtle sightings, all of single individuals, were made during Phase 2. The general
behaviour of all the turtles sighted was very similar. The turtles were seen to be resting on the
surface (visible for usually a minute or less) and as the vessel approached, the turtles were
seen to dive. Direction of the animal’s travel was therefore difficult or impossible to ascertain.

One turtle was identified as a loggerhead (Sighting T5), all other turtles observed could not be
identified to species level due to the brevity of the sightings, but they were all hard-shelled
turtles (i.e. not leatherbacks).

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 13
4.2.2. Acoustic Detections

During the 18 nights through which the PAM system was monitored, 33 acoustic detections
were made at an overall mean detection rate of 0.16 per hour, or one detection for
approximately every 6 hours of monitoring. Of these 33 detections, 6 were also seen close to
the vessel with the aid of night-vision equipment, and 3 of these sightings were identified as
common dolphins. The unidentified detections were generally classified as unidentified
Odontocetes, although on 5 occasions the rapid movement of groups of whistling and echo-
locating animals were considered sufficient evidence to record these as unidentified dolphins.

In addition, 9 detections were made during sighting events in daylight, although the PAM
system was not checked every time there was a sighting and on some occasions when the PAM
system was checked during a sighting, nothing was heard. The species present during these
encounters were Atlantic spotted, pantropical, common and bottlenose dolphins, and short-
finned pilot whales.

Full details of all detections are provided in JNCC format in APPENDIX 2. For 33 of the 42
acoustic detections made during both day and night, screengrabs from PAMGuard have been
provided (APPENDIX 5), together with brief descriptions of interesting features.

Of the 33 detections made at night, whistles were heard during 29, HF click trains were detected
in 24, and both whistles and clicks were detected in 20 cases. The mean duration of detections
was 17 mins, ranging from a few seconds to 1 hr 48 mins.

The 2 longest detections were both of common dolphins and it was suspected that some of the
other longer detections, when dolphins closely approached the vessel at night, were also of this
species. On several occasions the behaviour of the animals, making frequent rushes towards
the vessel, suggested that they were feeding on prey attracted by the vessel or the vessel’s
lights.

The mean detection rate during periods when the source was at full power was the same as
that when the source was off (TABLE 5). However, the rate during soft-starts was nearly
double, although the sample size was too small to apply a statistical test because soft-starts
only account for a small proportion of overall survey time. In 2 cases, detections were made
within the first 2 mins of soft-starts and it was considered likely that there had been undetected
animals nearby that emitted vocalisations in response to the initiation of source activity. In both
cases, bearings to the detections showed rapid change as the animals quickly moved away.

Source Activity Detections Effort Hours Detection Rate

Full Power 20 130 0.15
Soft-start 4 14 0.29
None 9 60 0.15
Overall 33 204 0.16
TABLE 5 Source Activity during Detections

A rough and ready comparison was made between acoustic detection rates and sighting rates
for the time period that the PAM system was active. PAM obviously depends on animals
vocalising and the maximum detection range varies with source level, the orientation of animals,
and the signal to noise ratio. Sighting rates were affected by several variables, including
environmental variables affecting viewing conditions and observer efficiency, but these have not
been corrected for here. Only Odontocetes are amenable to detection by PAM and their overall
sighting rate in this period was 0.39 sightings per hour, however, the sighting rate of
Odontocetes coming within 500 m was 0.12 per hour and of those coming within 1000 m was

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 14
0.22 per hour. The overall acoustic detection rate of 0.16 per hour was therefore comparable to
the sighting rate of animals approaching to within 1000 m.

4.2.3. Other Wildlife

A large variety of seabirds was observed. Small terns and Cory’s shearwaters were seen on all
days, sometimes in large flocks. Pomarine skuas were also present on most days and were
often seen harassing other seabirds. A summary of seabird species sighted can be found in
TABLE 6. Many migrant birds were observed during the course of the survey. These were
mostly passerines from northern Europe and a complete bird log can be found in APPENDIX 2.

Species
Great White Pelican
Cory's Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater
Storm Petrel sp.
Brown Booby
Great Skua
Pomarine Skua
Arctic Skua
Long-tailed Skua
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Sabine's Gull
Whiskered Tern
Black Tern
Caspian Tern
Common Tern
Arctic Tern
Royal Tern
Sandwich Tern
Lesser-crested Tern
TABLE 6 Summary of Seabird Sightings

Fish were abundant in the area with large shoals frequently observed. Flying fish and small
tuna were often seen at the bow of the vessel. Manta rays, hammerhead sharks and billfish
were also present. Large remoras were seen attached to bottlenose and common dolphins.

4.3. MONITORING SEISMIC SOURCE OPERATIONS

The Seismic Observers adhered to the soft-start guidelines throughout. A total of 48 full soft-
starts took place in the prospect area.

Soft-starts had a mean duration of 22 mins (range: 20–40 mins). Time between soft-start and
start of line had a mean duration of 37 mins (range: 20–40 mins).

A total of 25 pre-shooting watches were carried out prior to soft-starts/gun tests. Of these
watches, 14 took place in conditions suitable for marine mammal and turtle detection (visibility
>1 km and Beaufort Sea State of 2 or less), with the remainder taking place in conditions where
marine mammal/turtle detection ability may have been compromised (visibility <1 km or
Beaufort Sea State of 3 or more).

Acoustic monitoring was carried out prior to all 24 soft-starts at night.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 15
4.4. MITIGATION ACTION

During Phase 2 of the project, one mitigation action was necessary during daylight hours. On
8th October at 12:25 a humpback whale was seen 1000 m ahead of the vessel and it appeared
to be in some distress, with repeated tail slapping (over 20 times) and a breach. A shutdown
was requested and immediately thereafter the whale ceased tail-slapping. The source was
shutdown for a duration of 14 mins whilst the whale moved away and the line was resumed
following a 20 min soft-start initiated at 12:41.

One further mitigation action was required at night. On 11th October 2012 a group of
unidentified Odontocetes (almost certainly dolphins) was detected acoustically in the pre-
shooting monitoring period prior to Sequence 94. Although the main group appeared to pass
the hydrophone fairly quickly, there were still occasional whistles audible and HF click trains
visible on the PAMGuard screen. The vessel was slowed down in order to allow for 20 mins to
elapse after the last detection and before the commencement of the soft-start. A full 20 min
soft-start was carried out and no production was lost.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 16
5. COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES
Between, 25th September and 13th October the seismic source was started on 48 occasions. A
soft-start was carried out prior to all of these occasions (2 were source element tests). Soft-
starts were executed properly with the source elements with the lowest volume being fired first,
followed by the addition of further elements until full power was reached. All soft-starts were at
least 20 mins in duration from ramp up to full power.

Dedicated watches or acoustic monitoring for marine mammals was carried out prior to all soft-
starts.

Details of all seismic source operations are given in APPENDIX 2. The seismic crew supplied
all information regarding soft-starts and seismic source operating times as requested. The
MMOs and PAM operator were given adequate notice whenever soft-starts were to be carried
out and were then called just prior to starting the soft-start to ensure that no marine mammals
had been sighted or detected.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 17
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. CONCLUSIONS

During the period of this project, the waters in and around the prospect area were found to
contain an abundance of marine life. Twelve marine mammal species were positively identified
and a total of 4825 individuals were estimated. Six turtle sightings were made. The seabirds
using the area were also diverse, with 20 species recorded. In addition, hammerhead sharks,
manta rays and several other species of fish were noted.

Co-operation from the WesternGeco personnel for the implementation of guidelines was
excellent and all soft-starts complied with the JNCC Guidelines.

The PAM tow cable deployment was highly successful; it did not come into contact with any of
the towed seismic equipment and did not require any further attention once it had been
deployed. Noise levels were satisfactory, although there was some increase in thruster noise
during turns. The use of a virtual private network, through which the system was controlled from
a single remote laptop located on the bridge, worked well, allowing the operator to readily switch
between acoustic monitoring and visual observation.

The acoustic detection rate was satisfactory and comparable with visual sighting rates of
Odontocetes within 1000 m of the source. However, detection is dependent on vocal behaviour
and the 2 cases when detections were made immediately following the initiation of soft-starts
suggests that the animals involved may have been present close to the vessel without having
been detected during the pre-shooting monitoring period.

Image intensifying night vision equipment was used on an experimental basis during some of
the longer lasting acoustic detections, when the PAM operator had completed the necessary
recording and documentation tasks. Animals could be seen only at relatively short ranges,
typically less than 100 m, and when their behaviour was particularly energetic. The limited field
of view made it difficult to search for animals. During pre-shooting monitoring periods the PAM
operator was fully committed and MMOs working a full shift through the day could not be
expected to turn out on these occasions during the night. It was concluded that night vision
equipment is not a suitable mitigation tool for monitoring a 500 m radius around the source.
The only benefit found was the ability to confirm the location of animals when they approached
close to the vessel and sometimes to make a species identification.

Due to the brief nature of the turtle sightings, and the inability to track the turtles, it was deemed
inappropriate by the MMOs to call for a short pause in source activity – as there was always a
risk of turtles being under or close to the source when it was restarted.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Until further research is undertaken, it is not advisable to implement a short turtle pause unless
the turtle remains visible at all times. The option of a longer turtle pause, equivalent to at least
500 m should be considered.

It is recommended that any incidents of turtle entrapment in the tailbuoy be reported as a matter
of protocol.

Image intensifying night vision equipment should not be relied upon as a stand-alone mitigation
measure due to its inadequate performance and the need for additional personnel. PAM should
continue to be used as a mitigation measure at night, but consideration should be given to the
use of PAM through 24 hours both to improve mitigation during daylight periods when viewing
conditions are poor, and to assist in the calibration of acoustic detection parameters under the
noise conditions prevailing in any given survey.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 18
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Western Regent was an enjoyable vessel to work on and the MMOs and PAM operators
would like to thank the seismic and marine crews for their help and co-operation throughout the
survey. The food was excellent and the catering staff and stewardesses extremely polite and
helpful.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 19
8. REFERENCES

REF. 1 IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 27th March 2012.

REF. 2 JNCC (2010). JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of disturbance and injury to
marine mammals from seismic surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough.

REF. 3 Ketos Ecology (2009). 'Turtle guards': A method to reduce the marine turtle mortality
occurring in certain seismic survey equipment. Ketos Ecology report, 14 pp.

REF. 4 Shirihai, H. & Jarrett, B. (2006). Whales, Dolphins, and Seals: A Field Guide to the
Marine Mammals of the World. A & C Black, London.

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 20
APPENDICES

Please select the links below:

APPENDIX 1 – MMO/PAM Guidelines for Tullow Mauritania

APPENDIX 2 - JNCC Forms

APPENDIX 3 - Marine Mammal and Turtle Sighting Distribution Map

APPENDIX 4 - Photographs of Sightings

APPENDIX 5 - PAM Screengrabs

APPENDIX 6 - PAM Deployment Work Instruction

Tullow/EOM1430/JV/KM/MB/MR/jg/df 21