The Future of Diving

Operations in the Offshore

Energy Industry

Doc. Ref.
ENM215/Coursework

Issue A
Date 25th April 2013
Page 1 of
Author C R Evans

Title: The Future of Diving Operations in the Offshore Energy Industry

Revision details:

A First Issue for Comment

DISCLAIMER
The following work has been prepared and developed fully by the candidate, without external
input advice or assistance, save for that directly referenced and credited herein. The work
contained is wholly that of the candidate, and where applicable any sources of information
used in the production of this report have been properly cited and referenced. The word
length of the report (Executive Summary to Conclusions) <= 2000 words.
The following submission has been requested by Naomi Turner, in support of the
coursework element of module ENM215 The Oceans, Operability and Humans in the
Ocean. This module is in turn part of the MSc in Subsea Engineering (distance learning)
degree programme at the Robert Gordon University (RGU).
The following report fulfils the requirements of 2013 Coursework Assignment, as issued 25th
February 2013, due for submission on 25th April 2013.
Christopher Evans
Matriculation No. 1212031

Author(s):
C R Evans

Date: 25th April 2013

Checked:
C R Evans

Date: 25th April 2013

Document Status:

First issue For review

Date:

25/04/2013

Signature:

Signed on original

The Future of Diving Operations in the

Offshore Energy Industry

Doc. Ref.
ENM215/Coursework

Issue A
Page 2 of 10

CONTENTS
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES

ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

LIST OF TABLES

ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOLS & UNITS

INTRODUCTION

LIMITATIONS OF DIVERS

HEALTH & SAFETY REVIEW

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION

10

REFERENCES

10

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10

4
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

9

Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EDCL were commissioned by RGU (Client) to advise on the advantages / disadvantages of

continuing to employ divers for subsea inspection and repairs of wells and pipelines, versus
their replacement by AUVs and / or ROVs in their expanding North Sea operations.
Increasingly the Client is expanding their offshore operations into increasingly deeper and
hostile waters, in ever more remote locations. The progress into these fields is primarily
limited by the ability to operate safely, effectively and efficiently. Currently the Client operates
in depths up to 180m utilising divers to carry out underwater inspections and repairs. The
Client now proposes to exploit new fields in depths up to 1000m.
The use of commercial divers at depths in excess of 300m poses significant H&S risks and
increased costs to the Client, which EDCL suggest can only be safely undertaken through
use of AUVs and ROVs, or as appropriate HOVs. The use of atmospheric diving suits is
currently limited to around 600m and therefore precludes the use of divers in this situation.

Page3

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations & abbreviations have been used in this report;
TERM

EXPLANATION

ADS

Atmospheric Diving Suit

Atm

Atmosphere (unit of pressure)

AUV

Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

Bar

Barometric (pressure)

CAPEX
DSV

Capital Expenditure
Diving Support Vessel

EDCL

Evans Design Consultancy Limited

FPSO

Floating Production Storage & Offloading (vessel)

HASWA

Health & Safety at Work Act

H&S

Health & Safety

HOV

Human Operated Vehicle (manned submersible)

HSE

Health & Safety Executive

RGU

Robert Gordon University

ROV

Remotely Operated (Underwater) Vehicle

SCUBA
SI

Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

Statutory Instrument

Page4

INTRODUCTION

EDCL were commissioned by RGU (Client) to advise on the advantages / disadvantages of

continuing to employ divers for subsea inspection and repairs of wells and pipelines, versus
their replacement by AUVs and / or ROVs in their expanding North Sea operations.
Increasingly the Client is expanding their offshore operations into increasingly deeper and
hostile waters, in ever more remote locations. The progress into these fields is primarily
limited by the ability to operate safely, effectively and efficiently. Currently the Client operates
in depths up to 180m utilising divers to carry out underwater inspections and repairs. The
Client now proposes to exploit new fields in depths up to 1000m.
This report briefly considers the practicalities and limitations of using divers at these depths
and makes recommendations of suitable alternatives. Within the UK diving operations are
generally controlled by 2 main pieces of H&S legislation; HASWA 1974 [1], and the Diving at
Work Regulations 1997 [2]. These both place a duty of care on Employers to not place
Employees at risk in carrying out their normal employment. In commercial diving there is a
conflict in that diving is inherently a risky operation. Where such risks do occur, and cannot
be easily removed or avoided, it is the duty of the Employer to minimise such risks as much
as far as reasonably practicable.
The use of commercial divers up to depths of 300m is widely adopted in the offshore
industry, and robust procedures are in place to ensure the risks are managed and mitigated
against. However, the only real way to remove risk is to take divers out of the water. For
depths up to 300m the risks are considered to manageable, as the use of divers provides the
Client with flexibility at a reasonable cost.
Diving at depths over 300m poses significant H&S risks and increased costs, which are best
managed through the use of AUVs and ROVs, or as HOVs as dictated by the specific
working environment and task being undertaken. The safe use of atmospheric diving suits is
currently limited to around 600m and therefore essentially precludes the use of divers below
this depth at the current time. As the offshore industry moves into ever deeper and
potentially more hostile water, the industry is rapidly coming to a tipping point where the safe
use of divers is no longer justified. This will require the development of more sophisticated
ROVs, with a more array of specialised manipulators and work tools to fully replace the
flexibility currently afforded by divers.
Page5

APPLICATION & LIMITATIONS OF DIVERS

The limitations of commercial divers are well understood within the offshore industry, and are
generally governed by the ability to operate safely underwater. As shown in Table 1 overleaf,
for shallow depths up to 40m regular SCUBA equipment can be used, albeit with the need
for decompression stops during ascent. Deeper dives of 40 70m can be achieved with
more specialist SCUBA equipment (e.g. Nitrox, Heliox and Trimix), but due increased safety
risks / technical demands and the need for decompression after the dive these are more
suited to inshore or coastal diving situations.
An alternative method, and widely used until relatively recently is the use of ambient diving
suits, which utilise surface fed diving helmets. These were used to facilitate longer bottom
times, as a potentially limitless supply of air can be supplied to the diver. In this situation the
maximum bottom time is essentially driven by the comfort and physical needs of the diver,
e.g. rest, sustenance, risk of hypothermia, dehydration etc. However in the UK, the Diving at
Work Regulations ACoP [1] essentially restricts SCUBA, and surface fed diving techniques
to 50m. The ACoP states that beyond this depth closed diving bells should be adopted.
The use of diving bells is best suited to bounce diving, or saturation diving. Both
techniques have inherent H&S risks, and are substantially more expensive in terms of
CAPEX and operational costs. Both methods generally require the use of a DSV to launch
the diving bells, and to serve as a floating base for the associated decompression chambers
and dive control station. Bounce diving lends itself to relatively simple tasks and therefore
short dives in terms of a few hours. The method relies on minimising bottom time, and so the
time required to decompress post dive. Saturation diving on the other hand lends itself to
more complicated and therefore much longer dives, typically completing multiple dives over
a 28 day cycle.
As the depth increases the working environment becomes increasingly hostile, with natural
light restricted at depths over 100m, and essentially removed completely at depths over
200m. At these depths, divers would need to rely on artificial task lighting provided either
through helmet mounted or dive bell mounted task lighting, or by assistance of work class
ROVs. Additionally at depths subsea currents can lead to difficulties in undertaking
operations and can induce accelerated fatigue in divers. Divers at these depths can suffer
physical and emotional distress which again can lead to accelerated fatigue, as can the

Page6

potential for hypothermia. The latter can to some extent be overcome by the use of heated
suits, but relies on umbilicals connected to the DSV.
As the depth of the dive increases the health effects associated with decompression
sickness, nitrogen narcosis and oxygen poisoning rapidly increase leading to the need for
long periods of surface decompression. As deep dives are generally undertaken from a DSV
these operations are very much weather dependent. In increasingly deep and hostile waters
this could lead to reduced operational windows, especially in zones such as the North West
Shelf of Australia where the cyclone season from November to May is an ever present
danger to the surface ships and so the divers working below.
Diving system

Working Depth (m)

Endurance

Scuba (air)

0 40

Very short; interrupted ascent

Scuba (air)

40 70

Very short; decompression

required

Helmet (air)

0 70

Limited by divers physical

endurance

Helmet (helium / oxygen)

50 100

Limited by divers physical

endurance

Bounce (2 divers)

70 100

Few days

Bounce (4 divers)

70 100

Over 10 days

Saturation (4 divers)

70 300+

Unlimited

Manned submersible (without

600 1500

Moderate

70 -200

Unlimited

600

Limited by divers physical

diver lock-out)
Manned submersible (with
diver lock-out)
1-atmosphere gear

endurance
1-atmosphere diving bell

1000

Unlimited

Table 1 Manned Diving Systems Employed in Offshore Construction (Table 6.2 after
Gerwick pp195) [2]

Page7

APPLICATION & LIMITATIONS OF AUV / ROV

The use of AUVs and ROVs in the offshore industry is not new, with underwater vehicles
having been developed by the United States military as early as the 1950s. Recent
advances in offshore / subsea engineering, combined with the move into ever deeper and
more challenging environments has led to a greater number of vehicles being developed and
greater scope of application.
Automated Underwater Vehicles are best suited for relatively simple, repetitive operations,
such as seabed mapping / hydrographic surveys, bathymetric surveys, photographic &
videographic surveying, the use of AUVs provides a low cost, safe alternative to the use of
divers. A combination of surface towed, or self propelled systems are available depending on
the specific task and environment.
Remote Operated (Underwater) Vehicles are best suited to more complicated and / or
intricate operations with an increasingly sophisticated fleet of ROVs available with
attachments and manipulators able to do many of the tasks currently carried out by divers. A
growing variety and duty of ROVs are available; the micro or mini class are suitable for
remote inspection and close order survey work, the light and general workclass are available
with a variety of manipulators to allow hook up, installation and general repair & maintenance
operations, through to the heavy workclass which may be employed for remote lifting,
trenching and burial and general workhorses on the sea bed.
The application of specific types of AUVs and ROVs is beyond the scope of this report and is
better served in a more detailed and document assessment to be discussed and developed
with the Client under further instruction.

Page8

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION

If the Client intends to move into deeper, more remote and more inhospitable waters, i.e. in
excess of 300m, it is the recommendation of EDCL that the use commercial divers be
discontinued. At depths of 1000m the health and safety risks, and to a lesser extent the
financial costs, in using divers justify the use of AUVs and ROVs only. In line with HASWA
1974, and the Diving at Work Regulations 1997, there is an overarching duty of care on the
Client to minimise, and ideally remove risks to personnel wherever possible.
For simple, repetitive operations the use of AUVs provides a low cost, safe alternative to the
use of divers. For more complicated and / or intricate operations an increasing array of ROVs
are available in place of divers. The design of the subsea packages should be designed to
accommodate simple, self-guiding / self-mating connections and fitments to facilitate
installation, repair, maintenance and ultimately decommissioning using remote methods, either
through the use of ROVs or HOVs.
For intermediate field depths (300 600m) it is credible that atmospheric diving suits could be
employed. However, these have limited mobility and effectiveness which is better served
through the use of work duty ROVs. For depths in excess of 600m, current diving technology
effectively precludes the use of divers, other than in HOVs, or closed diving bells.

Page9

REFERENCES
The following sources have been cited and directly referenced in this report;
1) HMSO (1974). Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Chapter 37.
2) DETR (1997). The Diving at Work Regulations 1997 SI 1997 No 2776.
3) HSE (2012). Commercial Diving Projects Offshore, Diving at Work Regulations 1997
Approved Code of Practice. HSE, London. ISBN 0 7176 1494 3.
4) Gerwick, B C (2007). Construction of Marine and Offshore Structures. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida. ISBN 0 8493 3052 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following sources have been consulted but not directly referenced in this report;
1) Chakrabati S (2008). Handbook of Offshore Engineering Volume 1. Elsevier,
Oxford. ISBN 0-08-044569-4.
2) Chakrabati S (2008). Handbook of Offshore Engineering Volume 1. Elsevier,
Oxford. ISBN 0-08-044568-7.
3) RGU (2013). The Oceans, Operability and Humans in the Ocean ENM 215
module notes. RGU, Aberdeen.

Page10