Science response: BP exploration drilling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Proponent, BP Canada Energy Group ULC (BP), proposes to conduct exploration drilling activities in the Grand Banks region within the area of its offshore exploration licences (ELs). The ELs 1145, 1146 and 1148 are located in the West Orphan Basin within Canada’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and EL 1149 is located in the East Orphan Basin, beyond the EEZ. The Project is a multi-well exploration drilling program and would include up to 20 wells to be drilled up to 2026. The Project requires review and approval pursuant to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012) as it has been determined that the drilling of a well constitutes a designated project under Section 10 of the Regulations Designating Physical Activities. In addition, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) requires a project-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) be completed for offshore oil and gas activities, pursuant to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act (the Accord Acts). It is intended that the EA review process for the Project will satisfy the requirements of CEAA 2012 and the C-NLOPB’s Accord Acts EA processes. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEAA 2012, the project-specific Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS Guidelines [CEA Agency 2018]) issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency), and other generic EA guidance documents issued by the Agency as referenced throughout. On November 14, 2018, the Fisheries Protection Program (FPP) of the Ecosystems Management Branch in the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) Region of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) requested that Science undertake a review of specific sections of the EIS for the proposed exploration drilling. DFO Science undertook a Science Response Process for this review. The information from this scientific review was provided to Ecosystems Management to help form part of the Department’s response to the overall adequacy of the EIS documents. The objective of this review was to evaluate: The sufficiency of baseline data and appropriateness of methodologies to predict effects; The mitigation measures proposed by the Proponent; The level of certainty in the conclusions reached by the Proponent on the effects; The manner in which significance of the environmental effects, as they pertain to DFO’s mandate, have been determined (i.e., the scientific merit of the information presented and the validity of the Proponent’s methodologies and conclusions); The follow-up program proposed by the Proponent; and • Whether additional information is required from the Proponent to complete the technical review. The information required for this review can be found in a number of sections throughout the EIS reports, and associated appendices. The EIS reports are available on the Agency’s website. This Science Response Report results from the Science Response Process of December 14, 2018 on the Review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the BP Newfoundland Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling Project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.038 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".