News, Views and Reviews from the International Dynamic Positioning Operators Association

News, Views and Reviews from theInternational Dynamic Positioning Operators Association

6degrees°

Issue24: Summer 2015

In RemembranceLOOKING BACK

Looking EastTRAINING IN ASIA

Human ElementKEEPING DPOs

New SchemeKONGSBERG AND DNV

All ChangeNI SHAKE UP

Rules and Regs MAJOR NEW STUDY

WELCOMETO 6degrees, THE E-JOURNAL FROM IDPOA

IN THIS ISSUEINSIDEInside this issue: Captain Bragg looks at the issue of human resource management, and of how companies which fail to keep their people happy - lose their people.

We also have one of the most indepth analyses of the world of DP regulation. Chad Fuhrmann looks at the past developments and of the impact of new ones. It is a long read, but well worth it.

Inside we also remember one of our own who recently passed away, Bill Milne was a DP lecturer who taught many, many of today’s DPOs. He sadly passed away after a struggle with illness.

Ian Giddings looks at the life and work of one of the leading lights of the golden generation of DP training.

The Nautical Institute is going through some period of change at the moment - there is movement within the organisation, as Regina Bindao departs - and their new Alexis Platform has now bedded in.

We ask members to share their views on the new system which promises so much, and which we all hope can deliver.

Kongsberg Maritime has also been busy of late - and we look at the new approach to training they are rolling out which follows the DNV GL approach. We are also extremely pleased and proud to welcome Kongsberg Maritime as the latest corporate supporter. We appreciate this support, and the vote of confidence it delivers.

Safe trip and please do share your thoughts and feedback – that way we can ensure that DPOs present a united front and are able to make themselves heard on an international, cross sector basis. Email dpo@dpoperators.org to have your say.

Welcome to 6degrees from IDPOA - your magazing addressing issues relating to the world of Dynamic Positioning.

We are in a period of incredible and wide reaching change at the moment - the drop in oil prices has had a

monumental effect on the DP industry - as projects are shelved, costs are cut and vessels are laid up.

While the largescale macro economic hits are obvious and can easily be seen and measured, the smaller scale, micro level issues are harder to appreciate. The consequences of the new “low oil” environment mean that DPOs are having to fight like never before for work.

The “golden ticket” of DP certification is seemingly losing its lustre, and it seems that new entrants may well be put off trying their hand in this sector.

It had always been notoriously difficult to get seatime for a new, non-sponsored, entrant. Now, not only is it hard to get time - but there isn’t the work when DPOs qualify.

This means that down the line we could find ourselves with a shortage of experience - as the older hands reture, when projects come back on stream and when the industry revs up once again, we could find an empty seat where that new DPO should be sat.

It is incumbent upon the industry to try and better manage the flow of people, and that means attraction, recruitment and even more importantly retention.

We are pleased to annouce that www.dpoperators.org has had a long needed make -over, and we hope you like the look of the new site. Please take a look and let us know.

Help us to help you, and we can ensure that the voice of DPOs is heard and that you have a role in shaping the system in the years ahead.

www.dpoperators.org

INTRODUCING PLATINUM DP:THE NEXT STEP IN TRULY

INTEGRATED VESSEL CONTROL

L-3com.comDynamic Positioning & Control Systems

L-3 Dynamic Positioning & Control Systems’ (DP&CS) new Platinum DP offers seamless user interaction for safer and more efficient DP operations.

L-3 DP&CS has more than 25 years of experience providing the most versatile and easy-to-operate vessel control solutions in the industry.

For more information, please visit us at L-3com.com/DPCS or email us at Sales.DPCS@L-3com.com.

ECO-DPavailable

in 2014

MANAGING PEOPLEEFFECTIVELY

Lately with the down turn in the offshore Oil and Gas industry it brings us back to notice the regular rhythm we have all come to notice. Normally the trend fluctuates within a period of 5-7 years, this time is no different and it is times like this, companies must be efficient in their personnel management.

Many times the slowing effect has a many fold effect on the industry, one major effect is the enticement of personnel to train into the industry. It has been noticed from these past low periods that we basically go through a 5 year lull where the industry is desperately low of qualified offshore officers. When prospective candidates are trying to decide what industry that they will endeavour into at this time the Offshore does not seem to be the most attractive at this time therefore we experience a dearth of trainees, Officers and crew.

It is at times like these that offshore companies should be preparing the Workforce for tomorrow. This is the basic planning to ensure proper both senior and junior officers required in their operations. This approach would enable the company to team build and enhance their operations.

The goal for offshore companies is to grow into an entity that is both efficient and profitable. Along with the growth comes the requirement for onboard vessel management as well as the basic vessel management team ashore. This model can only be achieved when the foundation has been laid with employees who have invested their time and expertise into the efforts needed to maintain the team after a certain time frame. It is this time frame that companies must invest in, in order for them to sail past these lulls in the industry and still continue to operate at status quo with no down turn in “their” operational standards and management.

To say that these measures will nurture growth is an understatement and most certainly benefit the organizational team. Maintaining the offshore personnel even through these periods is far better than to adjust quality and wages which has the knock on effect of an unsatisfied workforce and the deterioration of the Offshore Team spirit and effort.

Studies have shown that the main reason for an employee to leave a position is revenue/salary. Also studies show that the average cost to an offshore company to lose an employee is $10,000USD in

monetary terms and astronomical in terms of safety, retraining and team participation and have been called along the lines of short term implementation, “A Temp” service. The final effect is that it is the main indicator to the Officer or crew member that it may just not be the place that I wish to work since my future is so uncertain and not dependent upon how hard they work or the quality of job done.

In closing I believe we all know the industry well enough and companies all have reputations which are based on their “Personnel Management Practices”, making it difficult to place crew with them. When freelancing awhile back I received a phone call for a specific company/ DP Masters Position, I refused, the agent exclaimed, “What is wrong with this company? No one wants to take this job!!

I was once asked by a senior manager at one company, “Why are we losing so many crew? We can’t we keep people”. I explained to him, “Why don’t we try and make this company a place where Crew WANT to come to work instead of coming and going?”

This manager advised me that the above measures were not possible at this time, but he would look into it at a later date. Unfortunately that later date did not come, and the company folded 1 year later. I spoke to him a few months after that and he said that he understands the Team approach and now at his new company, it seems to be working and the results are there even in the down period.

It is these experiences that bring the results to the forefront and prove that basic and “EFFECTIVE” personnel Management is a benefit to the Offshore Company and crew as a Team. Recruitment is only one side of the coin, of good staff cannot be retained then there are real problems ahead.

Captain Marc Bragg shares his latest thinking on the issue affecting DPOs.

Fanbeam® 5

Renishaw plc Silverburn Crescent, Bridge of Don Industrial Estate, Aberdeen, Scotland, UKUK +44 (0) 1224 246700 US +1 281 646 0050 AUS +61 3 9318 9666 E spatialmeasurement@renishaw.com

www.renishaw.com

• Excellent control and responsiveness for accurate and reliable data

• Simple, customisable software with automation, alerts and confidence indicators

• Robust construction for high performance in challenging conditions

• Access to expert service and support anywhere in the world

• Global access to spare parts and product-on-shelf backup

• Training and support for all staff available

Visit www.renishaw.com/fanbeam to find out why you should be using the world’s most widely used DP laser reference system

What DPOs demand from their DP laser reference system

2013

Evolution of a Self-Regulated Industry

Through the issuance of its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the US Coast Guard (USCG) is set to become the first regulatory body in the world to develop regulations directly affecting the dynamic positioning sector. As the USCG and Class societies gain more experience in DP and further gain confidence in regulating it, the offshore industry can expect increased cooperation between regulatory bodies. This will foreshadow significant changes in the US offshore sector that carry global ramifications.

The NPRM however is an example of the sort of precedent that has been consistently set by the industry itself over the last several decades. The DP sector had its origins in ground-breaking technology and continued to evolve in an environment of internally developed operating guidelines without strict regulatory oversight. In doing so, the industry became efficiently self-regulated and maintained an admirable safety record at the same time.

The first dynamically positioned vessels, Cuss 1 and Eureka were introduced in 1961 to meet the increasing demands of deep water exploration and drilling. The DP technology these vessels pioneered was revolutionary, exploiting the opportunities created by the limitations of existing assets. Deep water operations, outside the reach of anchored assets and jack-ups, represented a new frontier for the offshore industry. This new territory also tested the capacity of existing regulations and practices. Having no real precedent, this burgeoning sector of the offshore industry had no guidance to rely on.

The following quarter century witnessed the slow but undeniable growth of DP technology and its utilization in offshore operations. Along with its increased application in the offshore industry multiple aspects of dynamic positioning came under scrutiny. Realizing the importance of the technology and the need for standardization, the DP Vessel Owner’s Association (DPVOA) was formed in 1990 to provide a common platform to discuss concerns and further industry interests via cooperative efforts. DPVOA merged with the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors (AODC) in 1995 to form the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA).

Through international and cross industry cooperation, IMCA grew to become the definitive source of DP operating guidance. IMCA continues providing up to date guidelines for the industry, with efforts by organizations such as the Marine Technology Society (MTS) complementing IMCA guidance with augmented operational procedures and decision support tools.

It was an ongoing collaborative effort within the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Safety Committee, however, that provided the first authoritative guidance for dynamic positioning vessels and operations. With its acceptance and publication in 1994, IMO MSC Circ. 645, “Guidelines for Vessels with Dynamic Positioning Systems” became what many still consider to be the sacred text of the DP sector. MSC Circ. 645 is in the early stages of update, the new revision has a tentative release scheduled for some time in 2016.

For Want of a Rule? The Evolution of a New Regulatory EnvironmentWhat follows is one of the most detailed, well researched and informative papers on the dynamic positioning industry and the rules which govern it. Chad N. Fuhrmann of Maritime Assurance & Consulting Ltd. looks deep into the world of DP and assesses what is being done, why, how and what the future holds.

Class societies, such as American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det Norske Veritas (DNV) addressed the design of DP vessels, beginning in the 1980s. ABS’ “Guide for the Certification of Thrusters” (1984) was followed by the more specific “Guide for Thrusters and Dynamic Positioning Systems” ten years later. In 1990, DNV followed suit in its Steel Vessel Rules, “Dynamic Positioning Systems.” Germanischer Lloyd, Lloyd’s Register, the Royal Institute of Naval Architects (RINA), and others issued specific Class rules in the years that followed.

As dynamic positioning technology and its applications progressed, so too did the expertise and competence demands on operational personnel. The first certification scheme for DP operators was created in the mid-1980s by the Nautical Institute (NI). NI continued to be the only training body with a recognized scheme until the release of the DNV (now DNV GL) training and certification system in 2012. The Offshore Vessel Dynamic Positioning Authority (OSVDPA), originating in the Gulf of Mexico in 2013, is fast becoming a third provider of personnel certification. All three programs offer similar training and certification programs but there is currently no common acceptance criteria between them.

For regulatory agencies such as the USCG however, dynamic positioning was relatively slow to register. After initially ruling against the use of dynamic positioning alongside offshore structures the USCG District 8 in 2003 issued its first Policy Letter of the year with the subject line, “Use of Dynamic Positioning (DP) by Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs) for Oil and Hazmat Transfers.” This Policy Letter permitted the use of DP on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) but did not clearly define any specific parameters or standards of operation.

While sanctioning the use of DP, the Coast Guard’s Policy Letter inadvertently reinforced a loophole created by vague Nautical Institute guidance surrounding qualifications and manning. The NI had few prerequisites for personnel seeking DP Operator certification. Anyone with a desire and opportunity to earn a certificate could do so including engineers, ordinary seamen, and others – personnel lacking a nautical science background and navigational experience. In an oversight that would not be corrected for almost a decade, the USCG’s policy on dynamic positioning equated its use with moored vessels, allowing for DP systems on certain assets to be operated by personnel

of dubious nautical qualifications, although appropriately certified by the Nautical Institute.

With all of this varied guidance in place and no officially recognized and overarching standard, the operational requirements that developed in the DP sector of the offshore industry were negotiated and agreed upon commercially and were maintained on a regional level. Varied and fluid criteria were determined primarily by the commercial interests of the stakeholders involved in a given project or operation. These criteria extended at times into other operating areas but were still based on principal agreements from the region of origin.The adopted operating standards were generally based on IMCA and later MTS guidance. These guidelines were increasingly being recognized as the standard practices for the industry and would eventually form the basis for the NPRM.

Recommended practices and operating criteria that were developed and improved upon through years of experience became the standard for charterer agreements. These criteria worked their way into company and asset specific operating guidelines, demonstrating the natural evolution of operational standards – recommended practice becomes operating guidelines and those guidelines then become the contractual obligations a vessel or asset must meet.

For Want of a Rule?

The final step in the process is the adoption of standards as rules and regulations. While the process followed (and continues to follow) its expected course, the pace of its progress was significantly accelerated as a result of extenuating circumstance. It would be an additional seven years after the release of the District 8 Policy Letter, and with renewed fervour, that the USCG would again specifically address dynamic positioning.

In 2009 a task statement requesting DP guidance was presented to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC), a voluntary organization consisting of representatives from various sectors of the offshore industry. NOSAC presented its recommendations to the USCG in July of 2010 citing the need for the establishment of minimum DP reliability standards. It also provided, as reference, an early draft of MTS DP guidance, which was undergoing concurrent development.

For Want of a Rule?

The explosion and sinking of the Transocean drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon in April of 2010 became the “event horizon” that motivated the USCG to take an accelerated approach in its regulatory efforts. Although the Deepwater Horizon’s DP capability had nothing to do with the incident, the ensuing 2011 Deepwater Horizon Report on Investigation revealed gaps in the USCG’s approach to the DP sector.

Appendix I of the report (entitled, “Potential legal issues associated with vessels employing dynamic positioning systems”) highlighted several issues, including the lapse within its earlier District 8 Policy Letter noted above. This loophole was then closed with specific definitions of “On Station,” “Underway,” and “Self-Propelled” that in effect restricted the use of DP Operators that lacked nautical or engineering licenses.

Two years after the initial task statement to NOSAC, the USCG published dual notices of recommended interim voluntary guidance, the first in May 2012 addressing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) and the second in October 2012 focusing on logistics and construction vessels on the OCS. Finally, in November 2014, the USCG issued its NPRM subject to public review and comment. As with the voluntary guidance issued two years earlier, the NPRM followed the recommendations of NOSAC by directly referencing MTS guidance on design, operations, and personnel.

Proposed Rules – Concepts & Deficiencies

Industry Origins

The proposed rules outlined in the NPRM are based directly on guidance generated by various industry groups. Along with references to applicable STCW requirements and publications from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the primary sources of guidance are IMO MSC/Circ. 645 Guidelines for Vessels with Dynamic Positioning Systems (1994) and MTS DP Operations Guidance for MODUs (March 2012), Project Construction Vessels (July 2012), and Logistics Vessels (July 2012).

By referencing industry-generated guidance, the USCG recognizes the great strides made by the offshore industry in the development of those guidelines and acknowledges the standard that has been successfully set in their application.

To reduce the likelihood of a DP incident causing loss of position and the resulting consequences,

many large offshore lease-holding corporations require MODUs and other vessels using DP systems while performing Critical OCS Activities on their leases to meet a minimum DP system design standard. Additionally, they require these vessels to implement operating guidelines and employ procedures and decision support tools to ensure the DP system is operated within its design limits. They also require Dynamic Positioning Operators (DPOs) and other essential personnel to be well trained.

Despite the achievements of the largely self-regulated DP sector, incidents still occur, serving as a constant reminder that risk is still present and the consequences of an incident could be catastrophic. Further, despite its wide use in the industry, dynamic positioning is still an unknown to many stakeholders. These stakeholders take on a sometimes unreasonable level of risk without understanding the potential consequences.

In proposing DP-specific regulation based on existing industry-generated guidance, the USCG aims to capitalize on the undeniable success of the industry to date. At the same time, the goal of any regulation will be to establish a clear, auditable standard by which all stakeholders may gauge their policies, procedures, and overall operational strategies. In keeping with their own mission, the stated goal of the USCG in proposing DP regulation is to “improve the safety of people and property involved in such operations, and the protection of the environment in which they operate.” More specifically, the purpose of the NPRM is to decrease “the risk of a loss of position by a dynamically-positioned MODU or other vessel that could result in a fire, explosion, or subsea spill.”

We are proposing DP standards for MODUs and other vessels that use DP to engage in OCS activities because of the risks described above; the ongoing trend of more operators moving further offshore for mineral exploration and production; the expanded use of DP, which is driven in part by the trend of moving operations further offshore and resultant mooring challenges; the difficulty of responding to incidents further offshore, as illustrated by the 2010 DEEPWATER HORIZON incident; the need to update outdated or outmoded Coast Guard regulations to align with changes in the technology and operations that have transpired since these regulations were last updated; and the need to establish appropriate measures that consistently assess DP system capabilities and improve DP system reliability for each OCS activity.

For Want of a Rule?

These DP standards include operation, design, training, manning, and watchkeeping components.

The Coast Guard took great pains in referencing industry guidance throughout the NPRM. The guidance selected is comprehensive, particularly in the preamble pages of the document, which take up the bulk of the text (pp. 70944 – 70985). Some of the critical guidance, however, is missing from the “Incorporation by reference” section of the proposed rules section of the document (pp. 70985 – 70994).

By specific example, IMCA M117 is referenced multiple times in the lengthy preamble to the rules but then is not referenced in the proposed rules themselves.

Risk Based Approach

Five overarching categories comprise the general theme of the proposed rules. Similar in scope to the guidance provided by MTS (addressing Design, Operations, and People), the proposed DP standards include operation, design, training, manning, and watchkeeping components. These components are then applied (overlapping as necessary) across five stages of progressive requirements that must be satisfied for an asset to perform specific DP-related activities on the OCS. These five stages consist of No Requirements, Minimum, Intermediate, Standard, and Enhanced. The requirement level to be met is dependent on the level of risk associated with the activity.

This risk-based approach underpins the whole structure of the proposed rulemaking. The five levels of requirements outlined in the NPRM are based firstly upon whether dynamic positioning is required for the task. The level is further ascertained by scrutinizing the proposed activity, the type of asset to be used, its size, and the age of the DP system.

The basic premise behind this risk-based process is that for any defined “critical activity” the higher level assets (DP Class 2 or 3) provide greater reliability. As a result, the NPRM requires that DP 2 or DP 3 assets are used for critical OCS activities exclusively. A list of included activities is provided in the NPRM along with a general definition of critical OCS activities as being “OCS Activities where maintaining station is critical because a loss of position could cause a personal injury, environmental pollution, or catastrophic damage.”

While defined, the written explanation of critical activities is purposefully vague and the list noted

as “non-exhaustive,” thereby allowing for further definition as operations require.

The risk based approach as defined within the NPRM may prove to be advantageous when considering the application of stated requirements gradually across the industry and the wide array of new and old assets. However, the general definition of “risk” is questionable and there are potentially dangerous assumptions throughout the proposed rules that the Class and size of an asset directly indicates its level of risk.

A significant misunderstanding of DP class is signified by the NPRM’s use of the word “reliability” when comparing DP Class 1, 2, and 3. The DP class of an asset is intended to be a direct reference to its level of redundancy and has little to do with reliability unless considered in conjunction with an asset’s Worst Case Failure Design Intent (WCFDI). Reliability is, first and foremost, derived from the diligence in operating and maintaining an asset using recommended practices and with rigorous consideration of the vessel’s design.

An example might be an unclassed, DP-capable vessel operating next to an offshore structure. If the operation is well planned and the vessel is set up with due consideration of both the environmental conditions and operated within its capabilities, most of the projects within the vessel’s intended service function can be carried out safely – perhaps more safely and reliably than a larger DP 2 vessel that is set up on position with an assumed level of redundancy that may have been defeated by complacency.

Recommended practices, while varying between DP classes, operations, etc. are generally developed to be applicable at any time a vessel is operating in DP mode regardless of other factors. If these practices are adhered to, the level of risk can be reasonably mitigated across an array of assets, operations, and capabilities.

Documentation, Analyses, & Decision Support Tools

The influence of risk mitigation practices on operational reliability receives due consideration, as well. Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and subsequent FMEA Proving Trials are required, as are annual DP trials. Conducted every five years, FMEA verification testing (noted as a “Periodic Survey”) is also compulsory, though the requirements are not specifically laid out. These requirements incorporate by reference the guidance provided in IMO MSC/Circ. 645.

For Want of a Rule?

Additionally, various decision support tools are required as part of the asset-specific DP Operations Manual. As evidenced by the now global application of the Critical Activity Mode of Operation (CAMO) and Activity Specific Operating Guidelines (ASOG), the decision support tools generated by MTS have been adopted by stakeholders across the globe. The USCG has likewise determined that these specific tools should be developed in conjunction with the FMEA and Proving Trials and provided as part of an asset’s specific DP Operations Manual.

Personnel Qualifications & Manning Levels

Competent personnel continue to be the single most critical factor in safe and successful DP operations. Qualifications and competence of DP operational personnel are issues that have been the focus of much attention in the industry over the last few years. The USCG again addresses these topics on a platform of existing industry training structures and organizations. It is again noted that IMCA M117, though referenced in the preamble to the document, is omitted from this portion of the actual NPRM.

The Nautical Institute is an organization that has long championed the cause of dynamic positioning training and qualifications and is the only training provider that is directly referenced in the NPRM. The training regimen that is outlined within the proposed rule is general and intended to mirror the overall structure of the NI program. While mimicking the long established Nautical Institute scheme, there are additional intimations of parallel training programs such as that enacted by DNV GL and OSVDPA.

In these schemes, all DP operating personnel are required to have some level of experience in the type of operation being undertaken, the type of vessel being used, the type of DP system employed, and they must also maintain all documentation as necessary in an auditable format. All recorded experience, training, certifications, and qualifications are subject to regulatory review in the event of an investigation.

The NPRM does utilize a previously unused designation – DP Operator, Qualified (DPOQ) to signify a DP operator in training who has not yet completed the full training cycle to receive certification. In accordance with the proposed rule, the DPOQ can operate the DP system if vetted by the Master and DPO and endorsed by them in writing.

The issue of training, certification, and competence also relates to manning levels and watchstanding. As noted earlier, ambiguity led to liberal interpretation

of manning requirements following the 2003 District 8 Policy Letter. That ambiguity was clarified in 2011 with distinct definitions of “underway,” “on station,” and “self-propelled” provided by the USCG. The NPRM further clarifies, stating that a vessel using DP is defined as “underway” and therefore subject to all appropriate requirements including, but not limited to manning, training, and certification as outlined within STCW.

At the same time, however, it is stated that a DPO/DPOQ must be an adequately trained STCW credentialed mariner, navigational officer, or “a rating forming part of the engineering watch, able seafarer-engine, operational-level engineer officer, second engineer, or chief engineer” (p. 70953). This is once again in keeping with NOSAC recommendations as well as stated Nautical Institute requirements (as of 2012) but seems counter to the STCW-defined requirements for navigational watches to which dynamically positioned vessels must now adhere. While these non-navigational ratings can attain DPO certifications, the opportunities for them to see regulatory-approved utilization in such capacities are difficult to determine. As such, their experience might be limited to strictly supervised operations with minimal risk unless subject to loose interpretation of the proposed rules.

Auditing System & Application

Any endeavour toward the development of regulation for the dynamic positioning sector should be approached with regard for its unique operating environment and with due respect for the level of safety it has already achieved. Dismissing the collective experience of the wide array of industry stakeholders could set a precedent of ineffectual regulation. An effect that is far worse than what has been attained through self-regulation.

The same is true for the enforcement of regulatory standards, for which the NPRM proposes an innovative but still precarious approach. Administration of the industry’s mutable operating criteria has traditionally been provided by consolidated industry groups and independent DP assurance providers. The market demand for these services has grown alongside the industry and the slowly maturing realization of the risks and consequences involved in offshore operations.

Class societies, while playing a critical role in DP engineering review, design, and classification, have largely eschewed dynamic positioning operations in favor of their more traditional roles in the maritime industry.

For Want of a Rule?

The USCG recognizes that the resources contained within its ranks are ill equipped both in expertise as well as sheer numbers to effectively address the needs of the DP sector on its own. To complement their own efforts and provide additional expertise and support, the USCG proposes to enlist the assistance of outside agencies and companies by designating them as Dynamic Positioning System Assurance Organizations (DPSAOs). By delegation of authority, responsibility for the implementation of the regulation is returned to the industry organizations that previously provided expertise in the guidelines on which that regulation is founded.

These third party industry organizations, including consulting companies, already carry the necessary experience and sufficient numbers and are likewise familiar with existing industry guidance on which the proposed regulation is based. While it is clearly stated that this designation may be earned by any assurance organization that meets the listed criteria, the proposed rules appear to heavily favor the existing providers.

Classification Societies.

The qualification requirements for DPSAOs provided in the NPRM are based closely on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) minimum requirements for a recognized Classification society. So similar are these requirements, that a Class society can be designated as a DP System Assurance Organization by default. Class societies most certainly should continue to play a role in DP assurance; however, like the USCG, most of these organizations currently lack the resources, and more importantly the expertise required to fill this need.

The qualifications laid out in the NPRM are applied at an organizational level and do not address individual qualifications deferring (apparently) to the internal qualification standards of the designated DPSAO. The integrity of DP assurance services is greatly affected by the presence or lack of vetting standards for individual DP surveyors, regardless of an organization’s status. Presenting any organization as a designated DPSAO without a means of gauging the qualifications of the personnel that provide its services makes unfounded assumptions about its capabilities.

The NPRM provides no guidance on individual qualifications. The minimum requirements for DPSAOs are provided on an organizational level.

Administration & Incident Reporting Responsibilities

This guidance regarding DPSAOs provided in the NPRM could diminish the impact of both the independent organizations and Class societies. These organizations typically provide related but distinct expertise but are tasked with a multitude of administrative responsibilities in fulfilling their duties as DPSAOs. These responsibilities are at times a departure from customary roles and potentially dilute the expertise of both Class and independent groups. As noted, Class societies have traditionally fulfilled the role of design review and approval using Class generated design requirements as the basis for judgment. DP assurance expertise, while potentially present at an individual surveyor level, may not exist at a level necessary to provide the comprehensive expertise required of DPSAOs. Third party consulting groups, meanwhile, are arguably less capable of design approval and more adept at providing expert DP assurance services.

In effect, third party consulting companies designated as DPSAOs could be given authority over design and plan approvals, duties that normally fall under the custody of Class Societies. Liability related to such responsibilities is not discussed in the text of the NPRM, leading to a designated DPSAO potentially assuming a higher level of legal responsibility than they may be accustomed to and, as noted above, outside the capabilities of the organization’s resources.

Similarly, Class societies’ potential lack of both DP operational experience and qualified resources could impact the reliability of an asset and increase the level of operational risk. Tasking Class surveyors with the duties of a DP assurance provider as an integrated package dilutes the efficacy of both services and impacts the ability of qualified Class surveyors to apply their expertise.

Such is also the case with incident reporting. There is a heavy reliance on DPSAOs for DP incident investigation and reporting. DPSAOs are required to submit annual reports to the Coast Guard outlining the number, type, and details of all DP incidents experienced by their clients. As a result, it is perceived that these third parties become part of a de facto enforcement arm of the USCG. This is a difficult mechanism to accept for assurance organizations but also for other stakeholders.

For Want of a Rule?

Independent DP assurance providers offer services free of conflicts of interest such as having physical assets, equipment, or operational software in the field. Likewise, independent organizations make efforts to have no direct ties to Class or regulatory agencies in order to provide increased objectivity based on recommended practices and guidelines – normally over and above Class or regulatory requirements. This independence serves as a clear distinction between Class, regulatory, and independent third party service providers and establishes an effective barrier against conflicts of interest.

This notwithstanding, there are responsibilities for the investigation and reporting of incidents and faults shared between owner/operators, charterers, and DP System Assurance Organizations. With increased scrutiny of human and machinery failures manufacturers and vendors are increasingly held liable for the equipment and services that they provide their clients and industry. Requiring each stakeholder to play a part in incident investigations and reporting provides additional transparency and assurances that potential failures of any variety can be prevented or that critical lessons are learned when issues do occur.

Computer software faults pose a particular dilemma that is not thoroughly addressed in the NPRM. DPSAOs (regardless of definition) are not capable of vetting and approving software packages, updates, etc. due to lack of specific knowledge of protected commercial information. Nor is this information currently released to the industry at large by software providers, even (on many occasions) in the aftermath of DP incidents.

System manufacturers and software providers are the only entities with access to their own proprietary data that accurately demonstrates the robustness and fault tolerance of their system software and the due diligence in its development and analysis.

Once the vessel is fully vetted by a DPSAO, a Dynamic Positioning Verification and Acceptance Document (DPVAD) will be issued to the vessel by the DPSAO which must be renewed every five years. Previously, a classed DP vessel was surveyed and issued a Flag State Verification and Acceptance Document (FSVAD) as outlined in the IMO MSC Circ. 645 guidance. The two documents do not appear to be different in purpose although any unique function of the DPVAD in comparison to the FSVAD is not

stated. Ostensibly, the two documents are the same with the change in name indicating that it can be issued by a non-flag state entity, such as a DPSAO.

The US Coast Guard’s approach to DP System Assurance Organizations and their duties creates what is arguably the most contentious portion of the proposed rulemaking and begs considerable clarification (based on the feedback reviewed on the docket’s website). Among the confusing aspects, it is unclear how a vessel or company’s designated DPSAO is determined. A vessel’s Class society could be assumed to be the default DPSAO. Alternatively, a contract to perform a DP related service (e.g., annual DP trials, suitability survey, or OVID/CMID) may be assumed to indicate the default DPSAO, leading to confusion regarding responsibilities for incident reports, etc.

Conclusions – Welcome to the New Normal

Advances in dynamic positioning and its increasingly varied applications drive the industry to constantly re-evaluate safety and reliability, productivity, and commercial viability. Regulatory agencies have likewise been forced to re-examine their approach to DP operations in a highly specialized sector that has a far more advanced grasp of the technology’s capabilities and limitations than those obliged to regulate it.

For the last five decades since the inception of dynamic positioning technology, authority over its operational requirements has been maintained on a regional level, with varied and fluid criteria determined primarily by the commercial interests of the stakeholders involved. Charterers and owner/operators in each region have enjoyed a certain level of autonomy within their own territorial waters, extending at times into other operating areas but based on agreements from the region of origin.

It is in this environment of self-regulation that recent US Coast Guard efforts foreshadow a potential sea change, promising – or by some perspectives, threatening – to transform the industry with the first set of regulatory standards applied specifically to DP. These efforts though unprecedented are certainly not unexpected. Compelled by the proliferation of DP technology and motivated by tragedy and recognized risk, regulatory agencies such as the USCG feel obligated to set a regional precedent in the dynamic positioning sector. As a result, the industry generated guidelines that have gradually developed

For Want of a Rule?

into the governing criteria for offshore operations are now employed as regulatory standards.

Like the guidance and recommended practices that preceded it, this proposed regulation will transit across oceans and regions along with vessels, companies, and charterers as the industry continues its trend toward homogeneity. The collective reaction of the US offshore industry and regional market to this seminal moment will set the precedent for the global offshore regulation that will follow.

By design of the rulemaking process, US stakeholders have already had a significant impact on the development of the proposed rules. Beginning with the task statement presented to the National Offshore and Safety Advisory Committee in 2009, industry stakeholders have been instrumental in formulating a cohesive response and in the concurrent development of the industry guidelines on which the proposed rulemaking is based. While the cumulative effect of the industry’s response on the final regulation can only be speculated, the impact and importance of the industry’s efforts leading up to the determination cannot be overstated.

Neither can the significance of the international offshore industry response be exaggerated. How the global industry prepares for similar changes to its own regulatory environment can determine the type of impact those changes will have on regional companies and their assets, operations, and operational personnel, as well as the industry at large. As the proposed rules become regulation on the US Outer Continental Shelf, the response of the international DP sector will define the next waypoints in the evolution of the greater offshore industry.

The USCG’s NPRM signifies a regional paradigm shift with international implications. By taking a proactive approach and establishing an early, open discourse across the global dynamic positioning sector, stakeholders can assist the industry in evolving and improving by affecting the development of judicious rules and regulations.

REFERENCES

United States Coast Guard. 79 FR USCG Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG) Web Site: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/.United States Coast Guard. 2013 Meeting Minutes with Industry: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/2013.01%20OCS%20Minutes.pdf.United States Coast Guard. Deepwater Horizon, Report of Investigation. www.brymar-consulting.com/wp-content/.../Misc/JIT_Report_Vol_I.pdf 22 April 2011.United States Coast Guard. DP NPRM FAQs: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/DP_FAQs.pdf.United States Coast Guard. US Coast Guard Outer Continental Shelf Center of Expertise DP Links, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/ocsncoe/DPguidance.asp.Various, Responses to NPRM. http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number USCG–2014–0063.

The author of this paper is Chad N. Fuhrmann, Business Director, AmericasMaritime Assurance & Consulting Ltd.

He first delivered it at the Riveira European DP Conference in London this year. Chad can be contacted via Maritime Assurance & Consulting Ltd. 10375 Richmond Ave, Suite 1300 Houston, Texas 77042Tel: 920 750 8844cfuhrmann@MAC-L.com

For Want of a Rule?

Complete Solution forVessel Control and Communications

Marine Technologies, LLCMarine Technologies, LLC · 1111 Decker Drive · Mandeville, LA 70471 · (985) 951-7771 · sales-us@mtllc.us

Marine Technologies, LLC · Hovlandsveien 44 · 4370 Egersund · Norway · (+47) 51 46 18 66 · sales-norway@mtllc.usMT – Marine Technologies Pte, Ltd · 17D Tuas Road · Singapore 637817 · (+65) 3106 4070 · sales-singapore@marine-technologies.sg

www.marine-technologies.com

. Dynamic Positioning (DP) Class 1, 2 and 3 systems

. Bridge Mate™ Integrated Bridge System (IBS)

. Thruster Control System compatible with most thrusters, main engines and rudders

. Fully integrated architecture

. Designed for flexibility and redundancy

. Meets DnV NAUT-OSV/AW and ABS requirements

. Basic and advanced DP certification training in Singapore, Dubai, Svendborg (Denmark), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and Louisiana (USA)

. Anatel-, Intelsat- and Eutelsat approved Ku-band BB100 MKIII, BB125 and BB150 VSAT global broadband antennas

. Remote access, monitoring and diagnostics

. Worldwide technical support

. True END-to-END communication solutions

. Network operations center (NOC) available around the clock

Meet the Challenges of Today and Tomorrow with Marine Technologies

Nor Shipping Oslo, Norway ... June 2-5, 2015 ... Booth B03-10Visit Marine Technologies OTC Houston, Texas ... May 4-7, 2015 ... Booth 8133

Ian Gidding reflects and remembers one of the best DP instructors in the business after the untimely passing of William (Bill) Milne 1942 - 2015

One of the best DP instructors I have met, and indeed had the privilege to work with, Bill or Willie Milne, passed away recently.

Bill, like many of us, came ashore after a career at sea, in his case with Ben Line, and joined the then Aberdeen Technical College as a lecturer in nautical studies. During this initial spell at college he and another lecturer also undertook some marine work such as tank cleaning out with college.

A few years later Bill left to pursue this business opportunity, as result of which the college recruited two new lecturers, one of whom was me and so I owe my start in education and training to Bill.

Sometime later, with the college's provision for the marine side of the offshore industry growing, Bill returned as a lecturer. The major areas for this provision were dynamic positioning and offshore stability and Bill grew into a significant role within dynamic positioning as well as teaching the traditional marine subjects to both merchant navy and fishing students at the college. Furthermore he was involved in the delivery of DP training out with the college such as on board a DP vessel and at a new DP training centre.

He easily formed a rapport with his students such that he made the subjects not only easier to understand but also he delivered the training in such a way that it became memorable. Indeed many remember him and his teaching many years later.

Bill was also one of the DP instructors called upon the Nautical Institute to assist in a number of accreditations of new training centres under a previous system and here he not only helped with the accreditation but was prepared to share his extensive knowledge with these centres to encourage their growth and development.

Upon reaching a retirement age with the college he was taken on board by C-Mar whose own DP training was growing and eventually Bill and his wife Carole found themselves in Singapore where he continued to use his individual style to train prospective DPOs.

In recognition of his achievement Bill was named DP lecturer of the year by IDPOA in 2010. Eventually Bill and Carole retired to Portugal but health issues meant a move back to the North East of Scotland.

Bill had a wonderful turn of phrase and range of anecdotes, most of which are unrepeatable but which I sure many of you will remember. Bill enjoyed life such going to see Malaysian Grand Prix when based out East. Both he and Carole were excellent hosts, as I learnt on a number of occasions.

To finish I would like to tell a story about Bill which is repeatable. During the DP simulation upon phoning the engine control room the first time Bill would often answer "Disneyland" which would produce a puzzled look on the course participants face until Bill quickly followed it up with "Disneyland, this disnae work, that disnae work".

And so another of those who laid the foundations of DP training is taken from us.

RIP Bill, you will be missed.

William (Bill) Milne 1942 - 2015

In breaking news for offshore and DP Training in Asia, Lerus Training (part of Lerus Group since 2012) provides offshore training for seafarers from East and Central Europe. Main areas of training are Ship Handling, Offshore Crane Operations, Helicopter Landing Officer and Dynamic Positioning Training according to The Nautical Institute scheme.

Main location for training is Odessa, Ukraine. The second training location will be Jakarta, Indonesia. Lerus will meet high demand for offshore training in Asia and especially in Indonesia. This training branch will provide next training courses: Ship Handling, Offshore Towing, Rig Move, Offshore Crane Operator training, Dynamic Positioning training (Basic, Advanced, Maintenance).

This branch will provide cost-effective training for the whole Asia We understand that harsh conditions of Oil & Gas market affect on the level of revenues of offshore vessels operators – operators/managers/owners try to safe their money in any way. You can see increased requirements for crew members, level of unstable day rates, cutting of day rates, suspension of some new projects, etc. We confident that this is a temporary situation. You should think about long term forecasts and act now.

Our new training center will enable operators and ship owners optimize training costs while receiving high-quality training services of their crew members in accordance with their internal policy of staff development. Main supplier of technical facilities and software will be Kongsberg Maritime. The list of equipment

starts as next – NI Class B simulator, one classroom of NI Class C simulators, Offshore Crane Operator simulator. Delivery and setup of equipment is scheduled for completion by the end of August and the start of the first training courses by the end of 2015

The high levels of equipment and our experience will help us to meet requirements of The Nautical Institute for Dynamic Positioning training such as DP Basic and DP Advanced. We already feel support of local authorities, offshore companies and seafarers. General purpose of this training center is to improve the process of training for seafarers employed in offshore Oil&Gas Industry in Indonesia and APAC.

www.lerus-online.com

Offshore and DP training in Asia

What's On

Guide

Advertise with IDPOA and reach out to the world of DP.

• Readership over 30,000

• Reach thousands of DPOs• Over 200,000 hits per month

IDPOA is the place to reach DPOs - so help your recruitment or

marketing needs while supporting the world’s first and only dedicated

website and associationfor DPOs.

For the full range of advertising possibilities, sponsorship packages

on our website, in 6degrees or e-mail blasts, contact Tony Stein:

Call +44 (0)1892 514508 / email tony.r.stein@btinternet.com

The Leading Sensor Technology for DP Manufacturers

Reliable, expert positioning technologies for a variety of marine applications

Our customers recommend CyScan and RadaScan for great functionality, reliability and excellent positioning data.

RadaScan:Microwave based technology

CyScan:Laser based technology

Guidance Navigation Ltd Leicester UK LE19 1RP Tel: +44 116 229 2600 Email: sales@guidance.eu.com Web: www.guidance.eu.com

As you may have seen on various social media platforms, the Nautical Institute Director of Accreditation & Certification Services, Ms. Regina Bindao, has decided to develop her career in consultancy after seven years with The Nautical Institute.

Ms. Bindao will leave at the end of August but will continue to provide consultancy services on a project basis to the Institute and other sectors of the industry.

Commenting on the changes, Philip Wake, Chief Executive of The Nautical Institute said: ‘In shipping, as in life, nothing remains the same for long and after four years of managing the increasing global demand from industry for our accreditation and certification services, Regina Bindao has decided to develop her career in a new and more independent direction and role. Regina joined the Institute in 2008 and has grown through the departments. Her good management skills consistently produced outstanding work and achievements in often challenging circumstances and services provided by this busy department. ‘

We wish Regina well with her new career – it can be hard to exit an established industry organisation and gain traction in the tough world of consultancy. However we are sure her work in the NI will have gained notice and she will make her mark on which ever sector she moves to. We understand that recruitment for her successor is already underway.

Perhaps one of the biggest developments that came during the outgoing regime was that of the Nautical Institute (NI) online platform to handle accreditation for Dynamic Positioning Operators.

The Alexis Platform (www.nialexisplatform.org) was introduced as a single-access point for accreditation after changes were made following a comprehensive review of training needs globally in 2013 and the many changes to the training scheme and standards required by DPOs and the industry.

The platform provides a “single point of access for applications for new and revalidated Nautical Institute DPO certificates and enables the validity of certificates to be checked by employers”.

One of the outcomes of the review and drivers behind the new platform was the need to reduce fraud. The old system allowed people to apply even if their paperwork wasn’t complete. According to Regina, “Alexis has many more checks in place for applications coming through, so it avoids incorrect applications and provides more help and straight answers to the applicant when something is not in compliance with the scheme.”

Added to that concern is another of the main changes to the scheme – the introduction of restricted certificates for shuttle tankers and unclassed vessels alongside the established limited and unlimited certificates.

“The main issue with shuttle tankers is that they are not on DP a great deal, particularly the ones operating on the longer sea routes, such as those from Brazil to the U.S.,” says Philip Wake, Chief Executive of the NI. “Their amount of time on DP is very limited, and it was an issue that meant that even with the reduction of DP sea time down to 120 days their trainees wouldn’t be able to complete the training scheme within the four year time frame,” says Wake.

“The other issue is that the offshore loading process for shuttle tankers is a very specialized operation, and they wanted that to be included in the training scheme – offshore loading as well as DP.”

In the past, concerns have been raised about the competence of some DPOs to navigate a vessel when it is not in DP mode. “It’s a matter of bridge team management,” says Wake. “If you’ve got someone on the DP desk who is not qualified to navigate the ship as a normal bridge watch keeper, then you have to have very clear processes in place for the handover of control from the DP desk to the bridge officer.

“Of course, under maritime law, the officer of the watch and the master are legally responsible for the ship at all times, whether it’s in DP or not. So, there are issues in terms of procedures on board whether the DPO is a qualified watch keeper or not. You still need someone looking out the window in normal navigation mode, even if somebody is on the DP desk.”

In a second phase of development for the platform, the NI plans to introduce dedicated areas for accredited DP and oil spill response training centers and industry stakeholders.

The NI, which is a registered charity and operates the scheme on a not-for-profit basis, has invested more than £100,000 ($154,000) in the development of the Alexis Platform and has created 10 new posts at its head office in

London in response to the growing demand for DPO certification.

The number of certificated DPOs has increased from 6,000 a decade ago to more than 25,000 today with the annual number of certifications dealt with by the NI more than tripling over the same period to more than 3,000 per annum in 2014.

While it all sounds positive from the NI perspective, how have you been finding the new system? Does it deliver all it promises, or have you spotted problems and glitches? Ultimately while fighting fraud and tackling specialisation issues, it has to deliver for the DPOs using it…what do you think? Is it delivering? Share your thoughts via dpo@dpoperators.org and we will make sure the industry gets to hear what is going on. Or alternatively let us know via Facebook or LinkedIn.

Regina Bindao, Moving On

Changes at the NI

...COUNT ON FUGRO

WHEN RELIABILITY COUNTS...

Fugro Satellite Positioning services and products involve the development and operation of satellite-based positioning and tracking systems and the provision of related products world-wide.

Fugro maintains a world-wide infrastructure for augmentation of existing Global Navigation Systems (GNSS). This infrastructure includes more than 110 reference stations dispersed on all continents, to measure and compare navigation satellite data.

All correction services are made available on more than 10 communication satellites, thus providing fully redundant positioning coverage around the clock and around the globe.

Fugro Satellite Positioning AS

Tel: +47 21 50 14 00

Email: sales@fugroseastar.com

www.fugrosatellitepositioning.com

offshore shipping in the cross hairs

Kongsberg Maritime has become the first global maritime training provider to offer a new DNV-GL approved Dynamic Positioning Operator (DPO) training scheme at its training centres worldwide. The brand new KONGSBERG Training Scheme for DP Operators is based on a combination of new and established DNV training standards, with the learning process designed by Kongsberg Maritime.

Dynamic Positioning Operator training

Kongsberg Maritime is the first to offer a new DNV-GL approved Dynamic Positioning Operator training scheme at its training centres worldwideThe scheme is a step-change in the critical area of DPO training, with teaching and assessor competence, and the use of advanced simulators forming the platform for training high quality DPOs in a significantly reduced timeframe. The KONGSBERG Training Scheme for DP Operators focuses on competence training and competence assessment developed using the latest methods developed in the science of education. Instructors will work much closer with individual students throughout the duration of the scheme.

After completing the training program students leave with a DP certificate only by passing the mandatory theoretical and practical independent assessment. Implemented to ensure the competence of DPOs leaving the course, the exam is a significant change in approach to DPO training, which until now has not featured mandatory examinations and certification. Kongsberg Maritime is approved by DNV-GL as the global certification body for the new scheme, which is designed to produce highly qualified and competent DPOs.

The first KONGSBERG Training Scheme course for DP Operators starts in August at Kongsberg Maritime’s training facility in Kongsberg, Norway. KONGSBERG training centres in Aberdeen, Houston, Rio de Janeiro and Singapore will also operate the new scheme.

The scheme is based on a three-step program. Step-one is an intensive 10 day course, covering theory and practical elements with significant time spent on Kongsberg Maritime’s cutting-edge DP and offshore training simulators. After logging the required sea-time with their employer (step-two), course participants will return to the training centre to complete their training (step-three) and take the exam. During the whole process, simulator and theoretical exercises will be used to monitor student learning levels.

The scheme also features an option to extend to a fourth step, to gain training and certification for specific DP operations. Course participants can select from Offshore Loading, Drilling and Offshore Operations extensions, all of which require the DPO to take an application specific exam. Step-four participants will benefit from highly specialised training in theory, and on application specific simulators.

“The current standard DP training regime can take far too long. Considering the demand for quality DPOs is already high and expected to grow further, reducing time spent to certification and enhancing the quality of the training is an attractive proposition for offshore operating companies and vessel owners,” explains Øyvind Pedersen, Product Advisor, Kongsberg Maritime Global Customer Support – Training.

“With the Kongsberg Training Scheme for DP Operators, employers and participants have a clear schedule of high quality training condensed into a short period, backed up by an exam that ensures competence when the trainees get to their vessels. This enables greater forward planning based on employers knowing exactly when their potential DPOs will be ready for action,” adds Eirik Hågensen General Manager, Training, Global Customer Support, Kongsberg Maritime.

IDPOA is pleased to announce that Kongsberg Maritime has become a corporate supporter of the association. We appreciate their support, and look forward to working with them.

DNV model announced by Kongsberg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Marine Industry  Offshore Industry 

Pre Purchase/ Condition Surveys 

Cargo Hold/ Tank Inspections 

Damage Assessment 

( Hull/ Machinery/ Cargo/Infrastructure)   

Cargo Quantification 

New Build Supervision 

Lenders Independent Engineers  

ISM/ISPS/ISO/OHSAS Audits 

Marine Warranty Surveys 

Site Attendance 

Suitability Survey 

Towage Approvals 

DP FMEA ( Authoring & Trials)  

Design & Engineering 

Bollard Pull Calculations 

Mooring Analysis 

Bibby Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.  •Technical Services • Crew Management • Marine Training• Marine & Offshore Surveying • Travels 

Bibby Maritime Training Centre, Mumbai, India (A business division of Bibby Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.) 

The race for excellence has no finish line…! 

 

For more information about courses and bookings, please visit us on www.bibbytraining.com  

Kongsberg ‘Type A’ Offshore Vessel Simulator 

MCA (UK) APPROVED VIDEOTEL COURSES

1. Oil Tanker Safety Training 2. Chemical Tanker Training 3. Liquefied Gas Tanker Training 4. Tanker Familiarisation

A FEW OF OUR MAJOR COURSESOFFSHORE COURSES

DP Basic (Induction) DP Advanced Sea-Time Reduction Offshore Loading (Phase II) Offshore Loading (Phase I) DP Technical & Maintenance Anchor Handling – Basic & Advanced Manual Handling OSV

ECDIS Type Specific‐Kongsberg 

Now in India..! 

   Murray Fenton India  (A technical services division of Bibby Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.)

A renowned team of Master Mariners, Marine Engineers, Naval Architects, Structural Engineers, Cargo Surveyors, and Electrical & DP Engineers. 

Clientele such as P & I Clubs, H & M Under writers, Charterers, Ship Owners, Law firms, Banks and Cargo Interests. 

Covering the East & West coast of India, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka.

Bibby Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. First floor P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias road, opp. to Chakala church, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 

Tel.  +91 22 40868000; Email id: enquiries@india.bibbyshipmanagement.com  

For more details, please visit www.bibbyshipmanagement.com 

OTHER COURSES ECDIS (IMO Model 1.27) H.E.L.M. - Management level H.E.L.M. - Operational level High Voltage - Management level High Voltage - Operational level GMDSS (UK) ECDIS Type Specific - (12 manufacturers)

Launched..!

(NI approved) (MCA UK approved)

(MCA UK approved& MPA Singapore recognized)

The goal of the International Dynamic Positioning Operators Association (IDPOA) had always been to try and provide an outlet for the views of DPOs globally, while also feeding back news into the community.

Despite our best efforts it has always proven quite difficult to get the real levels of engagement that we wanted. For all the DPOs joining our groups on Facebook and LinkedIN – and the debate which breaks out occasionally. It was always felt like the same relatively small pool of committed enthusiasts who were leading the conversation.

We are supremely grateful to them for doing so – but it has also been a source of regret that we can’t reach further and deeper, and foster and support ever wider debate, dialogue and discussion.

So we needed to think of a new approach – we needed to drive grassroots engagement, outreach and interchange. But to do so, we didn’t think the wholly international, global approach would work. It has needed a new, refined, local flavour to really get DPOs talking and fired up.

Then once they are speaking on the home basis, and about real issues locally – then there was a sense we allow the arguments, concerns, fears and urgings to bubble up through to the IDPOA and we can open to a wider audience.

Now, as with all the best plans, it is rather dependent on people wanting to support the vision. So we are incredibly fortunate to have been contacted by

two shining examples of DP mentors, trainers and professionals. These are Nar Montilla from The Philippines and Surender Kumar from India.

With these two pioneers working so hard with locally based DPOs and the maritime industry – we are looking at establishing DP Operators Philippines (DPOP) and DP Operators India (DPOI). Then we will have people on the ground who understand local issues, who can explain, support and assist – all the while with a finger on the pulse of the wider international scene and of how the local community can plug into the wider scene.

We have also had expressions of interest from other countries and regions – and talks have been ongoing on how best IDPOA can support the grassroots approach in Egypt, the Middle East and Australia.

If you want to know more about DPOP or DPOI – contact Nar on nmontilla63@gmail.com, or Surender surender@india.bibbyshipmanagement.com If you are based in elsewhere and would like to know more about ongoing developments, or if you’d like to act as DP Ambassador in your home turf drop us a line and we can see how best to help and connect you. We would especially like to get this initative rolled out in the UK, Europe, USA and Canada. What do you think?

Email dpo@dpoperators.org to find out more.

IDPOA – Going Global and Local

Given the slide in oil price over the last six months, it is not a surprise to see companies in the petroleum industry reducing costs.

The shift towards a lower oil price environment commenced in the second half of 2014 when benchmark Brent oil futures fell below the psychologically significant $100 a barrel in early September. The decline in Brent prices mirrored the earlier fall in U.S. West Texas Intermediate oil futures which broke through the $100 a barrel mark in late July.

The decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to not cut oil production last November had exacerbated the problem of abundant supplies in the markets, resulting in further downward pressure on oil prices.

Hurt by falling revenue, many oil producers, including international oil companies (IOC) and national oil companies (NOC), have reduced their capex and opex, which have in turn impacted the rest of the petroleum industry. “This is a period of uncertainty. Companies are not sure at this point what will happen going forward, projects are being pared back this year, next year and certainly until things get back into a natural equilibrium ... expensive projects such as U.S. shale, oil sands, some of the ultra deepwater, the Arctic … will be delayed until oil price gets up to the right level,” Jason Waldie, an associate director of Douglas-Westwood Pte. Ltd., told forum participants in Singapore.

The absence of any clarity on the direction of oil price adds further to the uncertainty for seeking project approvals in the near term as the low price environment is forecast to last between one and three years, speakers at the forum commented. “Our view [on oil price] is … around $60 a barrel this year … [and it] might be stabilizing there for 2016 … The most expensive oil will not be developed in the current time. Oil companies don’t want to take FID [final investment decision],” ABN AMRO’s Senior Energy Banker Jan-Hein Jesse said.

Seismic firms are among the first to be adversely affected by spending cutbacks in the oil and gas industry as they stand at the forefront of the exploration and

development cycle, making them an easier target for cost reduction than others that are further down the development process. “For the drillers, we haven’t seen the trough yet. We still believe … dayrates will go down further and we haven’t seen the worse yet. For floating production contractors, they are slightly behind but they haven’t seen the worse either,” Jesse added.

Likewise, Jesse felt that the SURF (subsea umbilicals, risers and flowlines) segment has not been affected by the current low oil price environment as they have enough backlog in orders. However, 2016 would be quite difficult for companies operating in this segment.

In fact, subsea firms with a huge backlog in their supply chain (Subsea 7 S.A., Aker Solutions, Technip S.A., etc.) may need “a couple of years to get their backlog down … so I am not surprised that they are not too unhappy about that,” Waldie said.

Similarly for installation companies like The Netherlands-based Heerema and big crane vessel companies, “they will have a fantastic year in 2015 because they are fully booked, but 2016 is already slower and for 2017 they don’t see the projects and they have difficulty in filling the backlog,” Jesse explained.

For oil and gas services companies, that has made it necessary to keep a tight leash on expenses to prop up margins.

France’s Technip added its name to a growing list of companies cutting payrolls in the sector this year, announcing on Monday it would reduce its global workforce by 6,000 people in a bid to save €830m.

The Paris-based group, which said it would take a €650m charge related to the restructuring, joins companies like Baker Hughes and Schlumberger that have turned to layoffs as the industry grapples with the 48 per cent drop in crude oil prices over the past year.

Technip will also accelerate the reduction of its fleet size, downsizing to 23 vessels from 36 at the end of 2013. While a host of companies have been forced into laying up vessels to wait out the market conditions.

Oil Lows Hit Offshore

SHIP to SURE THE FUTURE TECH YOU WON’T WANT TO SAIL WITHOUT

Microsoft Band

The Microsoft Band is a definitively ugly wearable. It’s also a theoretically very capable device under the surface. So is it enough for a fitness device and notifications system to be technically useful, if it’s also... hideous?Time will tell - but the signs are that it can do what it’s meant to do, and do it pretty well. But you aren’t going to win any style awards with it draped on your arm.

August Smart Lock

August Smart Lock is basically an aluminium circle which takes the place of your regular lock and does all sorts of connected, clever things. For instance, the lock will automatically open when you approach with your connected phone, letting you ditch keys for good. You can also give people access, removing it when they’ve outstayed their welcome.

Incipio Ghost 220 Wireless charger

Want to charge two QI-enabled devices at once and a third via USB? The Incipio Ghost 220 Wireless charger is your gadget.

It has two LED indicator bars to tell you the charging status of the two phones on the charging plate, while a simple stylish design blends in nicely.

What's On

Advertise with IDPOA and reach out to the world of DP.

• Readership over 30,000

• Reach thousands of DPOs• Over 200,000 hits per month

IDPOA is the place to reach DPOs - so help your recruitment or

marketing needs while supporting the world’s first and only dedicated

website and associationfor DPOs.

For the full range of advertising possibilities, sponsorship packages

on our website, in 6degrees or e-mail blasts, contact Tony Stein:

Call +44 (0)1892 514508 / email tony.r.stein@btinternet.com

www.dpoperators.org

7 September -11 September 2015London International Shipping WeekMaritime Event,London,United Kingdom

8 September -9 September 2015Asian Offshore Support JournalMarina Bay Sands,Expo & Convention Centre,Singapore

8 September -11 September 2015Offshore EuropeAECC,Aberdeen,United Kingdom

9 September 2015Cyber Security SeminarHQS Wellington,London,United Kingdom

10 September 2015Asian Dynamic Positioning ConferenceMarina Bay Sands,Expo & Convention Centre,Singapore

11 September 2015Subsea UK’s ROV ConferenceVillage Hotel,Aberdeen,United Kingdom

22 September -23 September 2015Americas Offshore Support JournalTBC,Houston,United States of America

5 October -7 October 2015Seatrade Offshore Marine WorkboatsADNEC,Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates

6 October -8 October 2015Annual RenewableUK ConferenceACC,Liverpool,United Kingdom

13 October -14 October 2015MTS Dynamic Positioning ConferenceWestin Hotel Memorial City,Houston,United States of America

The introduction of the K-Sim® to our Aberdeen Training Centre, greatly enhances and benefits the overall learning experience of our DP courses. In advanced offshore operations, sophisticated equipment and highly trained crew are extremely important. Practicing standard procedures and emergency situations prior to a mission is crucial to ensure safety and efficiency during often complex operations.

COURSES AVAILABLE IN ABERDEEN:

• DP Introduction Course• DP Basic Operator Course (NI approved)• DP Advanced Operator Course (NI approved)• K-Pos Maintenance Course• K-Pos DP Operator Familiarisation Course• SDP Maintenance Course • Customised Emergency Response Training

COMPETENCE EQUALS SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY

km.kongsberg.com/training