The Norwegian Ocean Industry Authority (Havtil) has tasked SINTEF with preparing a report to investigate developments in ROV inspections and operations, with a focus on onshore control rooms, and the potential consequences for integrity assessments of Norwegian subsea facilities. ROV stands for Remotely Operated Vehicle.
The backdrop to the task is the ongoing trend in the use of onshore remote operations centres (ROCs) for ROV inspections and operations at subsea facilities.
The study was conducted with a view to understanding these changes and highlighting the potential benefits and drawbacks for the inspection results and thus the integrity assessments of subsea facilities on the Norwegian shelf.
The objective is to gain an overview of the ROV concepts that exist for implementing ROV inspections and operations, and compare them with traditional IMR (Inspection, Maintenance and Repair) operations.
The report provides a status of the prevalence of the use of onshore ROCs. Potential benefits and drawbacks of this development are also considered – not with the aim of managing, qualifying or approving it, but in order to obtain the correct risk picture. This will allow the focus of follow-up to be directed at areas with an altered risk profile.
The report does not detect any fundamental changes in integrity assessments through the use of ROCs, but all concepts have their strengths and weaknesses.
ROCs are currently in use to some extent, often in combination with traditional IMR operations involving several ROVs, with some ROVs controllable from onshore. A number of other non-conventional IMR concepts are in the planning or qualification phases.
The increased use of non-conventional IMR solutions offers a lower carbon footprint, a better working environment and greater flexibility. Challenges relate to access to tools and the need for robust procedures and training in the new concepts.
Among other things, the report notes the organisational and communication complexities around the processing of inspection data and information vis-à-vis the integrity assessments. This is not directly related to the use of ROCs, but is typical of current practice and therefore requires continual follow-up.
The report recommends ensuring that the choice of ROV-IMR concepts is adapted to the operations’ criticality level, strengthening training and procedures in line with Human Factors and Human Engineering principles, and following up on communication quality as a critical factor. Further work should highlight knowledge acquisition from ROV pilots, new technology and assessment of IMR inspection methods.