issue 34 september 2007 - submarine cable news and analysis 34.pdfarnos discusses design challenges...

�

Issue 34

September 2007

Offshore Oil &

Gas

Telecoms Issue

2

Submarine Telecoms Forum is published bi-monthly by WFN Strategies, L.L.C. The publication may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publishers.

Submarine Telecoms Forum is an independent com-mercial publication, serving as a freely accessible forum for professionals in industries connected with submarine optical fibre technologies and techniques.

Liability: while every care is taken in preparation of this publication, the publishers cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or any errors which may occur in advertising or editorial content, or any consequence arising from any errors or omissions.

The publisher cannot be held responsible for any views expressed by contributors, and the editor reserves the right to edit any advertising or editorial material submitted for publication.

© WFN Strategies L.L.C., 2007

Contributions are welcomed. Please forward to the

Managing Editor: Wayne F. Nielsen, WFN Strategies,

19471 Youngs Cliff Road, Suite 100, Potomac Falls,

Virginia 20165, USA.

Tel: +[1] 703 444-2527, Fax:+[1] 703 349 5562.

Email: [email protected]

General Advertising


Designed and produced by Unity Marketing

Welcome to the 34th issue of Submarine Telecoms Forum magazine, our Offshore Oil & Gas Telecoms edition.

Hurricane season is well upon us here in the Americas and the vital offshore and near shore hydrocarbon industry has already dodged one monster storm. Katrina memories are still fresh, and its ensuing collapse of infrastructure and hope lingers two years later. Lessons learned and re-learned will no doubt be considered in the weeks ahead, and the resiliency of telecoms may again be tested anew.

But like all trend setters, our industry is not simply resting on its laurels, and as the following articles show, we continue to move in a positive, effective, life enhancing direction.

In this issue, Ross Burley describes BT’s support of the oil & gas sector, while John Horne answers questions about the impact of the recent SubOptic. Greg Otto and yours truly highlight oil and gas drivers and technologies for next generation digital connectivity, while Gunnar Berthelsen envisions highly reliable, low cost cable installation. Guy Arnos discusses design challenges for undersea systems serving offshore platforms, as Charles Foreman analyzes mitigation interference strategies in the ISM Band. Brett O’Riley purports the drive demand for the development of new M2M infrastructure, and we reprise an excellent oil & gas market overview by Paul Polishuk. Jean Devos returns with his ever insightful observations, and of course, our ever popular, “where in the world are all those pesky cableships” is included as well.

Good reading,

3

Issue No 34

September 2007

Newsnow 5-8

BTANewServiceOfferingForOilAndGas

(Reprinted From Digital Energy Journal) 9-11

DriversAndTechnologiesForNextGenerationDigital

ConnectivityInOffshoreOilAndGasProduction

FacilitiesGreg Otto And Wayne Nielsen 12-17

HighReliability–LowCostSubmarineCable

DeploymentGunnar Berthelsen 18-20

DesignChallengesForUnderseaSystemsServingOffshore

ProductionPlatformsGuy W. Arnos 22-24

InterferenceInTheIsmBand:MitigationStrategiesCharles Foreman 26-27

TheRiseAndRiseOfTheMachineBrett O’Riley 30-31

UnrepeateredSubmarineCableTechnologyAndItsImpact

OnTheOilAndGasIndustryPaul Polishuk 33-35

Suboptic–InfluencesOnConferenceStructure

AndContentJohn Horne 38-39

TrackingTheCableships 42-46

LetterToAFriendJean Devos 47

UpcomingConferences 48

CTC 28

DigitalOilfields 25

GlobalMarineSystems 40

GreatEastern 32

Nexans 21

OFS 5-8

PTC2008 37

STFAdvertising 36

STF2008Calendar 29

SubmarineNetworksWorld2007 41

Xtera 11

WFNSeDTS 17

WFNS 4

Engineering of submarine and terrestrial optical cable, microwave/WiMax,

mobile, satellite and RF systems for telecom, oil & gas and government clients

�947� Youngs Cliff Road, Suite �00Potomac Falls, Virginia 20�65 USA

Tel: +[�] 703 444 2527Fax:+[�] 703 349 5562

www.wfnstrategies.com

A synopsis of current news items from NewsNow, the weekly news feed available on the Submarine Telecoms Forum website.

Antilles Crossing License to Be Transferred to Global CaribbeanLeucadia National Corporation and Global Caribbean Fiber, S.A.S. (GCF) have applied to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to transfer control of the cable landing license for the Antilles Crossing submarine cable system, held by Antilles Crossing-St. Croix, Inc. (ACSC), from Leucadia to GCF.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/5_august_2007.htm

Australia Formally Announces Submarine Cable Protection ZonesThe Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has declared protection zones around two sub-marine telecommunications cables of national signifi-cance off the coast of Sydney, New South Wales.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/5_august_2007.htm

Big Upgrade for Southern Cross Cable NetworkThe Southern Cross undersea cable network that sup-ports most broadband users in Australia and New Zea-land is about to double installed capacity, enhance net-work resilience and increase service flexibility.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/26_august_2007.htm

BSNL to Increase Capacity Prices on Cable to Sri LankaIndia’s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) is set to in-crease charges for carrying international voice and data traffic through its submarine cable between India and Sri Lanka.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/26_august_2007.htm

Cable System Proposed for South PacificThe lack of telecommunications infrastructure in the Pa-cific region is seen as a serious impediment to develop-ment in the region, according to speakers at a recent workshop promoting a South Pacific submarine cable system.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/19_august_2007.htm

CEO SUITE Selects Asia Netcom to Support Presence in ManilaAsia Netcom has announced that it has signed a Memo-randum of Agreement (MoA) with CEO SUITE. Under the MoA, Asia Netcom will provide CEO SUITE with dedicated Internet access to support its first serviced of-fice at the heart of the Central Business District in the Philippines.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

Convergence of the Global Submarine Networks GiantsMore than 30 CXO level speakers from around the world will gather for the annual Submarine Networks World 2007 conference from 3 – 5 September 2007 at the Ori-ental Hotel in Singapore Running for the 10th success-ful year with a total combined expertise of more than 250 speakers since its inception, Submarine Networks World has established itself as Asia’s leading global in-frastructure event.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/26_august_2007.htm

CTC Marine Projects announces the ultimate Rock TrencherCTC Marine Projects (a subsidiary of DeepOcean ASA) today announced that it is building the world’s largest and most powerful rock trenching vehicle. The RT-1 ‘Rock Trencher’ will set a new standard in subsea trenching.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/5_august_2007.htm

DeepOcean announces new build vessel for 2009 launchDeepOcean ASA announces that it has entered into an agreement with Volstad Maritime for a new build 120 metre construction vessel of type ST-256L, to be launched in March 2009.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

DeepOcean New Build Vessel Name AnnouncedDeepOcean ASA’s subsidiary CTC Marine Projects Ltd., has announced the name of its new build DP2 class vessel, due to be launched in 2007.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/15_july_2007.htm

FCC Grants License for Hawaiian Cable NetworkThe US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that following Paniolo Cable Company, LLC’s applica-tion filing, no opposition or other comments were filed, coordination with the Department of State and other Ex-ecutive Branch agencies has been accomplished and procedures established with the State Department.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

Final Phase of TransTeleCom Installed by Global Marine and SBSSGlobal Marine Systems Limited and its Chinese joint venture partner, SB Submarine Systems (SBSS), have completed the cable installation project for TransTele-Com, a leading backbone telecommunications operator in Russia.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

Five Suppliers Qualified for TEAMSThe Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) has announced that five companies have qualified to bid for the construction of a submarine cable linking Mombasa, Kenya, to Fujairah, United Arab Emirates.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

Global Crossing Receives FCC Approval for ST Telemedia to Increase StakeGlobal Crossing has announced that the Federal Com-munications Commission (FCC) has approved its pe-tition for STT Crossing Ltd, a subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Telemedia Pte Ltd (ST Telemedia), to in-crease its equity and voting interests in Global Crossing to as much as 66.25 percent.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

Google Advertises for “Submarine Cable Negotiator”Google has released a notice for job openings for Sub-marine Cable Strategic Negotiators.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/12_august_2007.htm

Hibernia Atlantic Will Construct Submarine Cable Connecting IcelandHibernia Atlantic has announced its plan to construct a new undersea fiber optic cable system connecting Ice-land to its northern Atlantic submarine cable system. Hibernia Atlantic will deploy a branching unit off its ex-isting northern cable, giving Iceland direct connectivity to North America, Ireland, London, Amsterdam and the rest of continental Europe.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/19_august_2007.htm

Hull launch of CTC’s VolantisCTC Marine Projects (a subsidiary of DeepOcean ASA) has announced the successful hull launch of the Volan-tis – the multi-role subsea support vessel due for com-pletion in December 2007.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/19_august_2007.htm

IFC Invests in EASSyInternational Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, will invest in the East African Submarine Cable System, a landmark fiber-optic cable project that will connect 21 African countries to each other and the rest of the world with high-quality Internet and international communications services.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/12_august_2007.htm

Italy-Tunisia Cable AnnouncedTelecom Italia Sparkle and Tunisie Telecom have an-nounced the start of operation of KELTRA-2, the new 10 Gbps system connecting Kelibia, Tunisia, and Trapani, Italy.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/12_august_2007.htm

PacRimEast to Be Reused for American SamoaAmerican Samoa, which has been looking for a way to build a submarine cable to connect to the global net-work, is about to reach an agreement to use a decom-missioned cable for the link.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/8_july_2007.htm

Permanent Deepwater Seismic Installation in Gulf of MexicoPetroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) is scheduled to de-ploy its first 4C Fiber-Optic seismic monitoring system for a permanent seabed installation in deepwater Gulf of Mexico in the fourth quarter this year for Chevron En-ergy Technology Company, a Chevron Corporation sub-sidiary.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/15_july_2007.htm

PIPE Networks Picks Tyco Telecom for Project RunwayAustralia’s PIPE Networks has selected Tyco Telecom-munications to supply its Australia-Guam submarine cable system, called Project Runway.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/19_august_2007.htm

Proactive Cable Reburial for GlobeNetBrasil Telecom GlobeNet and IT International Telecom have announced the completion of a cable reburial proj-ect securing GlobeNet’s New Jersey-to-Bermuda sec-tion of its dual-ring fiber optic network.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/8_july_2007.htm

Project Runway “Progressing Well”PIPE Networks Limited has announced that its Project Runway, a planned submarine cable linking Australia and Guam, has been progressing well with vendor and network design running to schedule.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/15_july_2007.htm

PT Moratel Indonesia Selects Global Marine for Batam-Singapore SystemGlobal Marine Systems Limited has been awarded a contract by PT Moratel Indonesia, the domestic and in-ternational backbone operator from Indonesia.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/15_july_2007.htm

SEACOM announces award of sea cable system supply contract to Tyco TelecomSEACOM, Ltd. announced the award of the SEA Cable System supply contract to Tyco Telecommunications, a business unit of Tyco Electronics and an industry pio-neer in undersea communications technology and ma-rine services.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

SEA-ME-WE-4 Landing in Bangladesh Threatened by ErosionThe landing point of SEA-ME-WE-4 in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, the only submarine cable landing in that country, is under threat near Kalatali beach just one year after its inauguration as coastal erosion took a seri-ous turn near the site.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/15_july_2007.htm

TVH Repairs Completed Ahead of ScheduleVietnam Posts and Telecommunications (VNPT) has an-nounced that the Thailand-Vietnam-Hong Kong (TVH) submarine cable has been repaired and is again carry-ing traffic.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/8_july_2007.htm

Tyco Electronics Separates from Tyco InternationalOn Friday, June 29, Tyco Electronics Ltd. officially be-came an independent, publicly traded company, com-pleting its split from Tyco International. Tyco Electronics, which has been trading under the ticker symbol TEL on a when-issued basis since June 14, 2007, began trad-ing the regular way on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Monday, July 2.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/8_july_2007.htm

Tyco Telecom Awarded SEACOM Supply ContractSEACOM has announced the award of the SEA Cable System supply contract to Tyco Telecommunications, a business unit of Tyco Electronics.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/5_august_2007.htm

Upgrade Completed on PTI CablePacific Telecom Inc. (PTI) has announced that the up-grade work on its submarine cable between Guam and Saipan has been completed and all traffic is being re-routed back to the cable.www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/29_july_2007.htm

9

We all understand what a traditional telecoms company does - but BT is seeking to redefine it. The company has quadrupled its US oil and gas business since 2004. We spoke to head of US oil and gas sales Ross Burley UK telecoms company BT has quadrupled its US oil and gas business since 2004, and is making an aggressive sales push in the industry, setting up connections to its network in areas of oil and gas activity, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and the Middle East. Ross Burley, head of US oil and gas sales, BT, reckons the company can provide telecoms services in these places “probably better than anyone else in the oil and gas industry.”

BT now has 150 employees dedicated to oil and gas, 130 of which are based in Houston. The company believes it has made great strides to get beyond ‘British Telecom’ - it was originally the UK government owned telecom company. Now, of its 100,000 employees, 30,000 of them are working in global services, with offices in over 50 countries. The oil and gas service offering hinges mainly around MPLS (multiprotocol label switching) network, which is essentially a global data network (like the internet), but faster, more secure and under the control of one company (BT). This means that you can do many things with MPLS which you

would like to do with internet but can’t - such as having guarantees of reliability, security and data speed. The internet is fairly reliable, fairly secure, and fairly fast. Most of our e-mails arrive, and it works most of the time for voice communication (VOIP). You can get good data speeds on it most of the time. But if you want something better, then MPLS is the next grade of service. MPLS is true convergence between voice and data; both travel down the same cables in internet packets. BT has invested $20bn in its MPLS service, including acquisitions of 17 smaller telecom networks around the

world, to put it together; the cables are either owned or leased by BT. It spans 170 countries. One of these 17 acquisitions was Schlumberger’s MPLS network. Schlumberger agreed last year that BT could incorporate Schlumberger’s international MPLS data network into BT’s one. BT continually tweaks its MPLS network, to make sure that there are no bottlenecks everywhere, all the data can get from its source to its destination very quickly. Data packets can be labelled as to their urgency and take priority through the pipe. For example, it is much more important that data packets in a voice communication or video-conference arrive immediately (otherwise the conversation is broken), then data packets in large file transfers. Interestingly, there does not need to be any barrier between your internal corporate networks and external ones. BT can manage it all. To illustrate its potential to manage large, complex, secure internal corporate networks, BT recently won a contract to manage probably the world’s most demanding computer network, that of the UK’s National Health Service. It will run the network both within the hospitals and between hospitals. The data network carries people’s confidential health data, and real time data from scanning machines, and any downtime could result in doctors not having the data they need at a crucial time. This is possibly a bigger networking challenge than anything the oil and gas industry faces. There are plenty more benefits to having a fast managed international network at your fingertips. You don’t need to manage your own company networks any more. Tuning even small (eg 20 computer) networks

BT a new service offering for oil and gas(Reprinted from Digital Energy Journal)

�0

within one office so they work as fast as the internet is not a job for amateurs, as this writer has found out. When employees are travelling in other countries, they can route their mobile phone calls over it, so no more expensive roaming charges. You can do high resolution videoconferencing at reasonable cost from anywhere in the world whenever you like. You can even connect closed circuit TV cameras to it, and monitor them wherever you like. “We look across becoming a new breed of services organisation, from just a carrier class company,” says Mr Burley. “BT is absolutely moving to a new breed of services organisation.”

Overly high network expectations One problem that probably all companies have to grapple with is overly high expectations of their computer networks from users.

It takes a while for people to grasp the idea of the internet which connects everything to everything. But having grasped that idea, people can then easily start assuming that you can get any data anywhere, so for example a person working on rig can get instant access to a reservoir model over the corporate network. There are plenty of other potential problems with making networks reliable, which people do not necessarily think about, and BT makes it its business to be aware of and good at sorting out. Many countries around the world have strong regulations about moving seismic data out of the country, or need you to apply for licenses, so they can keep a check of what is going on.

“If you do seismic testing on a piece of ground which another organisation views as their asset – you cannot necessarily get that seismic data out of the country,” says Mr Burley.

Furthermore, as the data size increases, the complexity of the telecom network also increases.

If there is latency involved (eg a delay when sending data to and from a satellite), this can cause problems elsewhere in the telecoms network.

It is increasingly frequent for people from different companies to be sharing the same computer network, for example if employees from different service companies are working on a rig, and BT can act as a trusted third party to make sure everyone can access what they need and the security is robust.

Services BT is making a big push to develop its services offering. The company believes there is a business ‘sweet spot’ of providing combined computer networks, managed IT and services, such as consulting; in effect, being an outsourced provider of a company’s computer and voice communications networks and everything that goes with it. A big recent acquisition was INS, an IT consulting and software company based in Mountain View, California with 7,000 employees (see bt.ins.com). The acquisition was made earlier this year. BT is also developing its IT security services.As well as the UK National Health Service IT network, BT runs the data communication networks for many cash (ATM) machines in the UK, which have higher needs for reliability and security than (you would imagine) the oil and gas industry could ever have.

In October last year, BT bought Counterpane, which provides network security services for retail and financial services. BT is keen to persuade oil and gas companies that they do not necessarily need to manage their data security themselves. Data security is getting increasingly complex, so there are benefits in working with a company which has the expertise to manage it.

One provider Many oil and gas companies go to BT because they like the idea of having one telecoms provider for the whole company, rather than hundreds of providers. Many oil and gas companies do business with hundreds of different telecoms suppliers and internet service providers, and the contract management gets extremely complex. Some of the telecoms providers are the original national telecoms companies, from the old days where each country had a national telecom company you had to deal with there. Others were originally setup by companies which have since been acquired. Rather than have in house staff spending time managing all of these contracts, oil and gas companies can move their entire network onto BT’s MPLS.

BT provides a ‘tiered’ approach to the managed network. On the top tier, it provides total outsourcing services for a company’s telecoms. “We take ownership of sets of people, and relational capital, and migrate those services onto BT’s platform,” says Mr Burley.

In the second tier of service, BT will take ownership of a company’s existing telecoms contracts until they expire, then move them onto its own network.

��

In the third approach, BT will act as a telecoms contracts manager, but BT will not manage the oil company’s staff.

Digital networked oilfield For the oil and gas industry, BT has developed what it calls its ‘digital networked oilfield’ solutions suite, a service to connect together wells with corporate offices, so companies can monitor and optimise production in real time. BT is not offering services in installing equipment in wells or selling modelling software of course, but envisages it could be ‘prime contractor’ in a project to install a complete digital oilfield working with other software companies, such as Schlumberger, which it already has a healthy working relationship with.

Services can include designing the solution and infrastructure, and working with respective partners to implement it. BT would like to work with oil companies for the whole life of the asset from exploration to production. For example, during the geological stage, it could provide rugged laptops with data and voice connectivity over Iridium and Inmarsat.

By the time the field moves into production, it is providing communications for 1000 people, and a whole intranet system.

At the exploration phase, says head of oil and gas marketing Matthew Owen, things are kept very secret, and the company IT department doesn’t normally get to hear anything about what might be needed until the last minute, when the company suddenly requires 50 rugged laptops with satellite communication, which work technically and legally in the middle of the desert in Africa.

“Companies are often knee-jerk with exploration,” says Mr Owen. “They say, we need 50 laptops at short notice in Bolivia. We suggest, you sit down with BT in confidentiality.”

“People don’t consider the need to get licenses for sat-phones in certain centres.” BT suggests it takes a role as a trusted third party to the oil company, and it can prepare whatever equipment and telecoms services the company needs well in advance.

BT can then help the company expand its communications system as it moves towards producing the field. Other research BT has a large research and development operation in the UK. Two areas of potential interest to the oil and gas industry are its research into fibre optics and RFID. As part of its research into fibre optic cables, BT discovered that they are so sensitive they can be used to listen; they are so sensitive that an audible sound can cause a disruption to a signal through them.

So they could be used to monitor leaks in a pipe, and tell with fairly good resolution where the leak is by listening to a hiss, rather than the conventional method with is trying to detect a leak using flowmeters and comparing input and output. BT has been researching how radio tags (RFID) can be incorporated into computer networks, and sees plenty of oil and gas applications, for example putting RFID chips into riser pipe to make it easier to track which pipe is where and how many times it has been used.

�2

IntroductionWith a desire to operate oil and gas fields more efficiently and increase operational safety, it is becoming a necessity to implement an increasing number of digital systems. These digital systems, including, real-time monitoring, collaboration, video surveillance, work management systems and other applications are requiring connectivity with more and more capacity, reliability and security. Looking at these requirements from the productivity, it is easy to understand why current solutions, particularly offshore, are struggling to meet the emerging requirements.

The technical solution is not always as obvious as one might first assume. Limits on size, capacity, reliability, distances and cost often need a custom solution for individual hydrocarbon basins. For example, microwave has distance limitations, satellite has cost and performance limitations and submarine cables may be subject to external aggression from fishing and anchoring activities.

The capacity, reliability, low latency and security provided by offshore fiber optic systems are identified as key by the industry for improving production operations. Based on the multi-decade lifecycle and production rates, hydrocarbon basins are now able to justify the implementation of and ongoing operations of fiber systems. Once fiber is selected, there are an infinite number of factors driving decisions on how to design, procure, construct and support an offshore fiber network.

The implementation of digital connectivity for offshore production facilities using fiber optics is increasingly becoming a strategic initiative within the oil industry. A successful implementation is defined by extended reliability and sustained access to the high capacity digital infrastructure. To achieve this success an oil company’s offshore fiber strategy address several challenges:

1. What technical model should be used in terms of redundancy, optical repeaters, and hybrid technology?

2. What is the possibility of buying the offshore connectivity as a service versus having to buy, build, and operate independently or with other operators?

Drivers and Technologiesfor Next GenerationDigital Connectivity

in Offshore oil and Gas Production Facilities

By Greg Ottoand Wayne Nielsen

3. How will the wet plant be maintained given the congested subsea environment and high capital value of floating assets?

4. Who within the organization is best suited to deliver a project of this scope and what types of resources are required?

5. What future considerations need to be included such as expansion or technology evolution?

While there is no single right answer, this paper will attempt to elaborate on potential answers to these challenges and how subsea fiber solutions play a vital role. We will include consideration with the desire for high bandwidth submarine fiber solutions against the imposing realities of economics, permitting and the legacy of “traditional” microwave and tropo-scatter, radio, satellite or cellular technologies. We will draw upon extensive oil and gas telecoms development and engineering experience in explaining how the submarine cable industry could better serve this growing market in its infancy and beyond.

Case for High Bandwidth, Low Latency and Reliable Connectivity

To safely and efficiently operate assets, the oil and gas industry is implementing a growing number of digital systems on hydrocarbon producing assets, including, real-time monitoring, collaboration, video surveillance and work management systems. Focusing on the productivity angle of this case, current connectivity solutions are struggling to meet the emerging requirements.

1Figure 1- Distributed assets collaborating with cross discipline teams

�3

The demand for high bandwidth, low latency and highly reliable digital connectivity is growing as more and more digital systems are further deployed and new ways of using them evolve. Accordingly, the “digital oilfield” is being driven as follows:

1. Back-office applications, such as email, file sharing, etc., benefit in cost of operating and time to repair with centralized servers and data storage being located onshore. Yet performance to large facilities can only be achieved with high end connectivity.

2. Operations applications, such as work management systems, document storage/management, personnel logistics, scheduling and others, need to be accessed from distributed workforces and require highly responsive performance to meet the heavily iterative workflows. This responsiveness is driven by both high bandwidth to allow multiple sessions, as well as low latency to minimize the protocol/latency sensitivity. Furthermore, through the introduction of handheld devices and wireless LAN on the facilities, digital systems are used more continuously instead of a single downloading at the end of a shift.

3. Real-time data is used to support both field optimization, as well as monitor the health of the facility in order to initiate necessary interventions. Data is shared real-time with suppliers as well as used internally. Data collection has evolved over the past

ten years to not only collect 10-20 times the data points on facilities, but also collect some data points multiple times a second; whereas previously this was done on a per minute basis. For example, a facility 10 years ago might have monitored 2,500 tags across 5-10% of the topsides; today they are monitoring 50,000 tags across topsides, rotating equipment, vessel management and risers at a frequency of up to 25 Hz. While each tag is small (2 bytes), the quantity and the need to synchronize the data within seconds of acquisition requires high bandwidth.

4. Collaboration between distributed and inter-discipline subject matter experts is becoming a normal way of working. The use of 24x7 high resolution video conference systems to “extend the control room” as well as the use of smaller systems for workgroups is becoming a normal operating condition. In doing this, the demand for video bandwidth is moving from sub-megabit per second to 10’s of megabits to deliver the quality and quantity required.

5. Video surveillance, whether using fixed cameras or wearable computers, is beginning to grow as the capacity and the work force is distributed between onshore and offshore. This provides the ability to bring the work area closer to a limited set of subject matter experts, such as when working a procedure on a piece of rotating equipment in the field.

As a result of the increased usage and the critical demand for high performance, large production assets are no longer capable of extending their digital capability with high latency (>200ms) or low bandwidth links (<10Mbps). Instead, it is now understood, large facilities will use in excess of 45 Mbps and as high as 1 Gbps in the near future as the digital systems continue to evolve naturally and through step change programs. Table 1 demonstrates the difference in capabilities and acceptable performance level a typical operating manager might see between high and low bandwidth.

Table 1 – Impact of Bandwidth on Performance and User Capability

Figure 2 - Onshore & offshore teams using video conferencing

Figure 3 - Relative growth of voice, video and data technologies in an asset, the largest of which is video based

Activity

Maximum Capability at Low Speed

Minimum Capability with High Speed

Data Rate 2 Mbps 155 Mbps

Daily Throughput 20 Gigabytes/day1.5 Terabytes/day

Telephone Calls20-30 medium quality

200 high quality

Video Conferences1 or 2 medium quality

25 high quality

Personal Webcams Not Possible50 active sessions

Video Surveillance1-2 low quality feeds

50 medium-high quality

Work Management System 5-10 users 100 users

Document Management System - 5 Mbyte drawing in 1-2 min

1-2 users 50 users

Internet/Intranet Users - 100 Kbyte in 3-4 seconds

1-2 users 100 users

Real-time data collection 200,000 tag/30 seconds

600,000 tags/1 second

Life of Field SeismicTapes used to transport

Same day transfer

Petrotechnical Workstation Local DataShared Data 1-2 users

�4

Basis for Fiber

The primary telecom technologies available for evaluation are satellite, microwave (including “broadband WiMAX”) and fiber. As shown in Figure 4, fiber is clearly the lead technology as a result of its ability to reach nearly unlimited distances using subsea repeaters; near unlimited bandwidth using 10 Gbps dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM); and tolerance to poor weather conditions including rain fade and wind damage. While microwave is capable of delivering bandwidth, the primary drawback is its limitation of 40 km’s between hops. Many new assets are hundreds of kilometers from the beach. In deep water, they are floating and their movement makes the RF alignment difficult to maintain. In addition finding and maintaining suitable repeater stations for the life of the asset is nearly impossible.

Microwave and other RF based technologies, however, play a role in helping to extend the high bandwidth from a primary asset to support and drilling vessels located within close proximity. Because they move often, it is cost prohibitive to build subsea fiber risers to connect them.

Satellite is not capable of meeting long term bandwidth needs nor can it achieve the necessary latency targets. Satellite requires a large footprint for medium bandwidths, which is difficult to reserve on platform topsides where space is at a premium. Satellite is appropriate, as a backup for catastrophic failure of the primary communications system.

System Development

Once fiber is deemed to be a strategic solution for a specific hydrocarbon basin, a high level implementation and system design need to be developed for the area. While the global needs of the organization need to be considered, the majority of the constraints are of a local basin nature. The issues can be broken into the five primary categories. Even though they are broken out, there are cross dependencies in these issues. For example, if an expensive technology is selected such as subsea repeatered, it may have an impact on your procurement or commercial model feasibilities.

Basin System Map

The first area to consider is the overall system map. At the highest level, this is a line drawing of the basin showing immediate and future service areas and how best to connect while avoiding as much subsea congestion (e.g. pipelines) as possible. In addition, the landing points are identified based on their survivability to weather, availability of terrestrial backhaul and ease of marine approach, including environmental and pipeline congestion. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, the landing stations were selected to be over 400 miles apart to minimize the potential impact of a single hurricane knocking out both beach landings and causing a catastrophic outage. Given the unique nature of partnership on fields and potential transfer of assets between organizations, as well as potential desire to sell “excess” bandwidth when looking at asset locations, one must be concerned with several factors such as those listed below.

• Where are the assets, including company operated, partner operated, others?

• Which assets are dependent on other assets, such as pipeline gathering stations?

• How will the basin map evolve during the coming 25 or more years?

• What is the distribution and grouping of assets across the basin?

In selecting the final system route, consideration needs to be given to using sub tended fiber and RF connectivity through “backbone” platforms. While this does not provide ideal reliability, it does offer lower cost and extended flexibility and range as backbone branching units provide 100km range; whereas subtended fiber connectivity provides 300-400km range off of a backbone connected platform. Often, these will be connected through wetmate connectors to maximize flexibility and minimize disruption to service during hook up and commissioning.

Technology Plan

Once the base route is selected, a technology plan is developed. The offshore Oil &Gas sector is moving towards the preference for IP over “LAN extensions.” To achieve the transmission distances required, the two solutions in use are subsea repeatered systems and signal re-transmission at each platform in the chain. The drivers for a subsea-based system are for platform independence when power or longevity of the “repeater stations” cannot be guaranteed, for capacity, security and future flexibility; the desire is to drop a lambda for each facility providing in excess of 10 Gbps of dedicated capacity. Ideally, if retransmission is done on each platform, platforms are within 100 km of each other, allowing additional optical pairs to be lit thereby creating mini-rings and bypasses to minimize the effect of one or two platform outages.

A significant concern is over what access layer protocol to use. One can either choose to go with a SDH/Sonet-based solution, or with a packet-based solution, such as Ethernet protocols. The drivers here are to consider how the end users, including third parties working on the facility, build and operate the network, the security requirements, space requirements and cost for network hardware gear. The move to start building internal MPLS core networks or equivalent to provide segregation of process control networks from enterprise from third parties traffic is growing. This promotes packet based solutions versus standard TDMA.

Engineering and Procurement

Engineering and Procurement of a system is also critical. Together they are the key as to how to properly front-end

Figure 4 - Relative comparison of technologies

�5

load the engineering to ensure competitive procurement and effective contracting strategy.

While a perfect model will vary by country and complexity of the environment, the goal is to balance the risk on the system builder versus the system buyer. There are many types of engineering risks for an offshore platform, each having potentially noticeable effects on the cost of the system, including

• Riser design, which is based on the movement of vessels, weather, water depth, vessel design and slot availability, and may cost $1-3M per riser depending upon the design.

• Pipeline crossings, which can be quite numerous and owners may have additional protection requirements. The system in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, has more than 60 pipeline crossings in the 1200 km main trunk.

• Preferred oil & gas engineering companies and procedures are often required due to the proprietary nature of each vessel where fit for purpose designs using previous history and information are critical to timely and trusted success. This has a time, logistics/workload and cost impact on a project.

• Final route, which is dependent upon the survey, seabed clutter including mooring patterns and field developments throughout the system. These changes can create significant (10’s of km’s in length) and multiple re-routes during the detailed engineering process, which can impact the overall project.

Given there is a need to balance the project lifecycle including engineering, construct versus the cost and risk management, it is typically not possible to do 100% of the engineering prior to construction contract issue. However, experience does indicate a significant level of information on topics, such as those identified above need to be included in the specification to make it biddable and reduce risk for both parties. A buyer then needs to decide if the builder will carry the risk or share it amongst the parties. Where possible, it is recommended to have clear and relevant unit prices and to allow proper contingency in the buyer’s project allowance to cover any unknowns.

Ownership Model

There is a need to give careful consideration to the ownership and operating model for a subsea fiber serving the oil and gas sector. Due to the nature of the oil and gas industry where there are limited hydrocarbon basins, various forms of ownership and operating partnerships including government partners need to be considered due to the significant build and maintenance costs of subsea fiber.

While there are multitude of models and variations to any option provided, there are three primary options available:First, is a dedicated system owned and operated by the dominant end user E&P company. This model would be typically employed when a user requires accessing fiber in a timely and long term manner, which is critical to their business and more ideal alternative models are not readily available.

A second option becomes useful when there are multiple company consumers desiring fiber connectivity, but there is limited time to build a multi-company agreement or consortium. This option is also useful when a basin is still developing and future assets locations are questionable, or when there is a desire for a level of guaranteed ownership and access rights. In this model, each of the dominant E&P companies a cable with a shore landing connected to their facilities. Cross company, indefeasible rights to use (IRU) would be used to complete the network to improve resiliency and flexibility. Spurs could also be negotiated at a later date. For this to be successful there must be either initial agreement on the supplier, or a high level of

interoperability to tie the systems together. Options to consolidate cable maintenance also become available but time is less critical.

The third option is to acquire a managed service. This model poses several concerns about the ability to gain the required access. Experience would indicate in order to be successful the company selling the fiber access needs to be established with previously guaranteed funding. Given the unique nature of this business, the time to acquire customers and guaranteed income can vary drastically and thus the anchor “buyers” run the risk of not achieving their desired connectivity.

For any of the direct company ownership models, the owner(s) can consider selling extra connections and excess bandwidth to third parties, which can be accomplished by direct sell or through external third parties. Ownership models can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as it can evolve over time into joint ownership consortiums, managed services or others as economics and risk management allow.

Subsequently, any model other then 100% ownership by the E&P operating company poses long term risks. As such, choosing an alternate solution can only be done when the risks are properly mitigated, both contractually and technically.

Maintenance Options

A few years ago, an extended outage of the connectivity to a platform may have been tolerated for a week or two; this is no longer the case.

While offshore assets may or may not be remotely controlled, the telecommunications is critical to effectively and safely operate platforms. As a result, it is imperative the telecom system be built to withstand failure through construction methods and redundancy in design including the use of satellite. It is also imperative a system restoration plan, as well as other preventative maintenance be put into place. Given the offshore environment, logistics and training, maintenance and repair is best sub-divided into the wet plant and dry plant including system monitoring.

Figure 5 - Gulf of Mexico System Lazy S riser with float and ballast

�6

Through minor additions to existing skills and toolsets, many of the existing offshore telecom companies are capable of operating the dry plant. This includes activities such as licenses, satellite backup, terrestrial backhaul, system monitoring & fault isolation, hardware replacement, re-provisioning, security and testing.

The wet plant, including repair, surveying, material depot and system expansion, however, is not within their immediate scope of capability, and needs to be developed. Often these plans will be customized to provide, flexible maintenance capabilities suited to system owners’ particular needs. The system owner then needs to balance the major variables in maintenance coverage, including:

• Response time is one of the most critical variables to be determined when identifying a solution. This will drive the option set available as certain basins may be geographically isolated (e.g. Caspian Sea) or remote. The industry will most likely require a typical one week repair window

• Local content, which is developed and sustainable, is often desired as part of the owner’s allowance to operate in certain hydrocarbon basins. To achieve this, training and support are required during the early stages of the lifecycle.

• Preventative maintenance, including subsea inspections and failure mode analysis, will have to be scheduled and vessels provided in such a manner as to minimize effort and scheduling.

• Logistics including vessels permits, technicians, depot and material shipments can all have an impact on the ability to manage external resources,

• Cost of both base operations and repair operations will have to be managed against budgets as well as response time. The more responsive and dedicated the system, the higher the base or retaining cost.

As an owner evaluates these variables, they will need to consider the following primary maintenance solutions identified below in Table 2.

Table 2 – Support Options

Once a model is selected, especially if working using standard telecom solutions, a thorough review needs to be accomplished to ensure it will meet the business, safety and procedural demands of the oil & gas industry; e.g., security guidelines about cable grappling near pipelines or other subsea infrastructure.

How Can the Subsea Fiber Industry Help?

Whereas the telecommunications industry sees subsea fiber as a core business, the oil and gas industry needs to make the engineering, procurement, installation and maintenance of these systems more efficient in order to continue minimizing the cost of hydrocarbons to the end consumer. E&P Company operations and technology teams need to be more focused on identifying and deploying the digital systems and applications that will eventually use the connectivity rather than implementing and managing subsea fibre.

In turn, as the oil & gas industry desires relatively low cost and resilient solutions, the subsea fiber industry needs to become familiar with the formers operating model in order to:

• Minimize system cost – The oil industry continues to focus on cost per barrel metrics regardless of whether it is development or lifting costs. Key areas are to have interoperable solutions across vendors, low cost replacement and expansion parts, common solutions suitable to all companies and maximum knowledge of the unique construction areas having an impact.

• Maintenance opportunities - The oil and gas industry possesses fleets of available and potentially suitable vessels; the vessel of opportunity is an available maintenance scheme. Further development to support VOO maintenance, as well as system expansion could benefit future take-up of services. Further evolution and demonstration of the cable maintenance associations to accomplish this type of close-in work is also beneficial.

• Space conscious - Platform space is limited and it is often difficult to get more then two (2) racks of equipment for the transmission system and associated batteries and management systems. Realizing the simplistic needs of the user environment, “tighter” packaging of the optical line terminating equipment (OLTE) and associated components would be beneficial to quick and efficient deployments.

• Future needs - An assumption in today’s systems is that there are topsides available to place the OLTE and distributed network equipment. In the near future, topsides may not exist due to the cost and complexity of constructing floating vessels in deep or frozen waters. In such an environment, the OLTE and last meter distribution will need to reside on the seafloor and will require quick and effective connect/disconnect solutions, as well as well tested survivable packaging.

As the oil and gas industry is beginning to realize and accept the value of subsea fiber connectivity, it is difficult to estimate what tomorrow’s requirements will be. Thus, any developments that make subsea fiber solutions more

Options Description Response Costs

Cable Maintenance Agreement

Regional service geared towards large carriers

Potentially slow due to priority

Pro-rata based on bandwidth/cable length. T&M Repair

Self Maintenance using Vessel of Opportunity

Contracted vessel(s) and cable repair skills

Medium with ability to reprioritize within owner’s work demand

Low retainer costs; requires purchase of spare parts and tools

Contracted Maintenance Contracted cable vessel owner

Uncertain – depends upon local of boat High costs

Dedicated Vessel Dedicated cable vessel and standby personnel Fast – dedicated Highest possible costs

�7

cost effective, flexible and readily deployable will add to the industry’s embrace of this technology. That being said, gimmick solutions should be minimized as system reliability cannot be scarified as the subsea fiber system dependency grows.

Greg Otto manages the Field Digital Infrastructure for BP’s Exploration and Production segment worldwide. He currently has responsibility for undersea systems in operation or being developed in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Azerbaijan and Angola offshore fields. Mr. Otto holds an Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Iowa. He has worked supporting telecommunications for oil & gas for over 15 years.

Wayne Nielsen has over 25 years of telecoms experience and developed and managed international projects in the Americas, Far East/Pac Rim, Europe and Middle East, and possesses a postgraduate degree Master in International Relations. In 2001, he founded WFN Strategies, which provides project development and engineering of remote communications for telecoms, defense and oil & gas clients.

e desk Top study (edTs) wfn strategies’ proprietary e desk Top study (edTs) is a web-based, comprehensive submarine cable investigation tool, providing customers critical system analysis in an accelerated manner. edTs presents a detailed analysis of the environment in which the cable system can be placed, both on-shore and undersea, and is:

• extensive - gathers data quickly from a network of worldwide public and private data sources for cable design, routing and maintenance;

• Efficient-Focusessolelyoncablesystemcomponentsrequiring detailed study (system data costings, rPls, slds, charts, data sources, etc.), saving both time and expense;

• enhanced - Performs automated routing and associated charting, internet web mapping, 3-d cable lay analysis (seafloorslopes,hazards,etc.)usinganadvancedGISsystem;

• Essential - Analyzes cable design, routing andmaintenance in the route’s metadata and associated maps, then estimates system component budget based on current industry practices and costs;

• electronic – Houses in a secure data warehouse and project website for easy team retrieval and collaboration.

wfnstrategies.com/edTs.htm

�8

Abstract: A method is developed to utilize the topology of the seabed and a detailed discussion with the permitting parties to protect the submarine cables, so that burying has become un-necessary.

1 INTRODUCTIONIn most parts of the world submarine systems are protected by burial of heavy cables into the seabed to different depths, depending on the risk of external damage. Normally very heavy cables and deep burial is used in shallow waters, choosing gradually lighter cables and shallower burial as the water depth increases. This leads to very high costs in installing repeater-less submarine systems, which are normally deployed in “shallow” waters.

Norway has a coastline of more than 22.000 km with many deep fjords and dotted islands along the coast, so submarine cables is a natural way of deploying broadband networks. (Fig 1)

Page 1 of 3

HIGH RELIABILITY – LOW COST SUBMARINE CABLE DEPLOYMENT

Gunnar Berthelsen

[email protected]

Nexans Norway AS, PO.Box 6450 Etterstad, 0605 Oslo, Norway.


1 INTRODUCTION

In most parts of the world submarine systems are protected by burial of heavy cables into the seabed to different depths, depending on the risk of external damage. Normally very heavy cables and deep burial is used in shallow waters, choosing gradually lighter cables and shallower burial as the water depth increases. This leads to very high costs in installing repeater-less submarine systems, which are normally deployed in “shallow” waters.


Fig 1: Map of Norway

However, it was very early (1985) realized that “normal” methods involving heavy cables and heavy burial equipment would make the submarine solutions non-viable. This due to the fact that such solutions are expensive even for long systems, and with very short coastal cables (each in the order of some km’s up to 70 km) the cost would be phenomenal.

Thus, a concept has been developed (where cables are not buried) based on five principles:

Cable protection is achieved by detailed discussions with the permitting parties to define areas that must

be avoided due to fishing and other commercial activity

Cable protection is achieved by detailed mapping of the allowable areas in order to identify a route where the cable is protected by the seabed topology

The protection is so successful that a lighter-than-normal cable can be used

The cable is installed with a very high accuracy relative to the pre-defined route

As the route lengths are short and the cables light, very small, dedicated cable ships can be used.

2 ROUTE SELECTION

Norway has a huge fishing industry, which works from the coastline out to the oceans, and since fisheries is the most dreaded source of damage to a submarine cable it has been imperative to co-operate with them from day one. There are local and regional fisherman’s organizations all along the coast, so there have been a large number of detailed discussions with these organizations, in order to determine which areas should be avoided. However, it has always been possible to find a route avoiding fishing areas, but the cable has often had to make significant detours.

When it has been determined which areas can be used to deploy the cable the route selection is based on modern charts generated from multi-beam echo-sounder data. The national cartographic organization has recently mapped a large portion of the coast by such means, and charts are therefore available with a very high resolution (objects <1m can be identified). Where data are not yet available, new data has to be generated specifically for the project using the same technology.

Using these high resolution charts the cable route is selected, placing the cable in the “valleys” of the seabed, avoiding deployment along steep slopes, avoiding ship wrecks, etc. (Fig 2)

However, it was very early (1985) realized that “normal” methods involving heavy cables and heavy burial equipment would make the submarine solutions non-viable. This due to the fact that such solutions are expensive even for long

systems, and with very short coastal cables (each in the order of some km’s up to 70 km) the cost would be phenomenal.


• Cable protection is achieved by detailed discussions with the permitting parties to define areas that must be avoided due to fishing and other commercial activity

• Cable protection is achieved by detailed mapping of the allowable areas in order to identify a route where the cable is protected by the seabed topology

• The protection is so successful that a lighter-thannormal cable can be used

• The cable is installed with a very high accuracy relative to the pre-defined route

• As the route lengths are short and the cables light, very small, dedicated cable ships can be used.

2 ROUTE SELECTIONNorway has a huge fishing industry, which works from the coastline out to the oceans, and since fisheries is the most dreaded source of damage to a submarine cable it has been imperative to co-operate with them from day one. There are local and regional fisherman’s organizations all along the coast, so there have been a large number of detailed discussions with these organizations, in order to determine which areas should be avoided. However, it has always been possible to find a route avoiding fishing areas, but the cable has often had to make significant detours.


Page 1 of 3

HIGH RELIABILITY – LOW COST SUBMARINE CABLE DEPLOYMENT

Gunnar Berthelsen

[email protected]

Nexans Norway AS, PO.Box 6450 Etterstad, 0605 Oslo, Norway.


1 INTRODUCTION

In most parts of the world submarine systems are protected by burial of heavy cables into the seabed to different depths, depending on the risk of external damage. Normally very heavy cables and deep burial is used in shallow waters, choosing gradually lighter cables and shallower burial as the water depth increases. This leads to very high costs in installing repeater-less submarine systems, which are normally deployed in “shallow” waters.


Fig 1: Map of Norway

However, it was very early (1985) realized that “normal” methods involving heavy cables and heavy burial equipment would make the submarine solutions non-viable. This due to the fact that such solutions are expensive even for long systems, and with very short coastal cables (each in the order of some km’s up to 70 km) the cost would be phenomenal.


Cable protection is achieved by detailed discussions with the permitting parties to define areas that must

be avoided due to fishing and other commercial activity

Cable protection is achieved by detailed mapping of the allowable areas in order to identify a route where the cable is protected by the seabed topology

The protection is so successful that a lighter-than-normal cable can be used

The cable is installed with a very high accuracy relative to the pre-defined route

As the route lengths are short and the cables light, very small, dedicated cable ships can be used.

2 ROUTE SELECTION

Norway has a huge fishing industry, which works from the coastline out to the oceans, and since fisheries is the most dreaded source of damage to a submarine cable it has been imperative to co-operate with them from day one. There are local and regional fisherman’s organizations all along the coast, so there have been a large number of detailed discussions with these organizations, in order to determine which areas should be avoided. However, it has always been possible to find a route avoiding fishing areas, but the cable has often had to make significant detours.



HIGH RELIABILITY – LOW COST SUBMARINE

CABLE DEPLOYMENT

by Gunnar Berthelsen

�9


Page 2 of 3

Fig 2: High resolution chart. Green line was initial route. Red lines show alternative routes defined after charting

From these charts it is possible to define the accurate length of cable along the seabed to be installed, and an accurate route position list.

3 CABLE DESIGN

The cable used is Nexans’ well known URC-1 design, with a central steel tube containing the fibres, an inner sheath, one or two layers of steel wires and an outer polyethylene sheath. (Fig 3).

Fig 3: URC-1 cable

The URC-1 is qualified for a number of armor designs, but for the Norwegian projects two lighter versions have been used because experience has shown that a strong cable is not necessary using the protection philosophy described above.

4 CABLE INSTALLATION

With the protection philosophy employed, it is imperative to lay the cable in the allocated corridor to a high degree of accuracy and wherever possible to follow the contours of the seabed in order not to generate free spans or coils. The aim is to install the cable with close to zero bottom tension, but on the positive side (ie no slack). This is achieved through the use of two different “underwater navigation” methods.

The first method is employing an advanced computer model which combines the data from the high resolution charts with data on sub-surface currents and accurate data on the cables’ behavior in water, the latter being developed through comprehensive towing tests. The computer is then able to automatically control the position of the cable ship (sternways and sideways) and the feeding-out of cable, such that at any given point along the route the correct amount of cable is fed out at the right position in order that the cable ends up in the pre-defined corridor on the seabed.

The computer calculates the ships’ exaggerated turn in order to pay out enough cable to follow the pre-defined route on the seabed at a way-point. In principle, this laying process can be managed from an onshore office, because the system takes full control of the ship.

The second (patented) method employs a “guide weight” which is a unit riding on the cable very close to the seabed. The unit carries an underwater navigation system which gives the position of the cable touch-down on the seabed. The unit is also given sufficient weight so that the cable touch-down is kept much closer to the cable ship than with a normal catenary lay. (Fig 4).

Fig 4: Installation with “Guide Weight”

The guide weight is controlled in the horizontal direction by moving the ship by its’ DP (Dynamic Positioning) system, and in the vertical direction through a winch wire to follow the seabed contour. In this way the ship will, in most cases, be well off the cable’s seabed position in order that the cable shall end up in the correct corridor. (Fig 5)

Fig 5: Logging of cable and ship position. Solid red line shows pre-defined route. Red squares show guide-weight

position and yellow line show ship’s position. Top left shows that cable position is 1.1 m off route.

3 CABLE DESIGNThe cable used is Nexans’ well known URC-1 design, with a central steel tube containing the fibres, an inner sheath, one or two layers of steel wires and an outer polyethylene sheath. (Fig 3).

Page 2 of 3



3 CABLE DESIGN


Fig 3: URC-1 cable












4 CABLE INSTALLATIONWith the protection philosophy employed, it is imperative to lay the cable in the allocated corridor to a high degree of accuracy and wherever possible to follow the contours of the seabed in order not to generate free spans or coils. The aim is to install the cable with close to zero bottom tension, but on the positive side (ie no slack). This is achieved through the use of two different “underwater navigation” methods.

The first method is employing an advanced computer model which combines the data from the high resolution charts with data on sub-surface currents and accurate data on the cables’ behavior in water, the latter being developed through comprehensive towing tests.

The computer is then able to automatically control the position of the cable ship (sternways and sideways) and the feeding-out of cable, such that at any given point along the route the correct amount of cable is fed out at the right position in order that the cable ends up in the pre-defined corridor on the seabed.


The second (patented) method employs a “guide weight” which is a unit riding on the cable very close to the seabed. The unit carries an underwater navigation system which gives the position of the cable touchdown on the seabed. The unit is also given sufficient weight so that the cable touch-down is kept much closer to the cable ship than with a normal catenary lay. (Fig 4).

Page 2 of 3



3 CABLE DESIGN


Fig 3: URC-1 cable












Page 2 of 3



3 CABLE DESIGN


Fig 3: URC-1 cable











Because the cable is light and the routes are short (<70 km), it is possible to use very small cable ships. Fig 6 shows the cable ship which is used for both methods, and in the picture the guide-weight wire can be seen.

20

Page 3 of 3

Because the cable is light and the routes are short (<70 km), it is possible to use very small cable ships. Fig 6 shows the cable ship which is used for both methods, and in the picture the guide-weight wire can be seen.

Fig 6: Small cable ship

5 RESULTS

More than 3000 km of cable split between more than 340 individual lengths has been installed using the described concept. The installations are all along the Norwegian coast, from the Oslo Fjord in the south to the arctic waters of the Barents Sea in the north.

The cable is shown (by post-lay ROV survey) to be installed to an accuracy of down to + a few meters in relation to the pre-defined route.

During all these installations there has not been a single cable damage during installation.

It is the shore ends that normally cause problems and this experience thus includes almost 690 shore ends, and on these 690 shore ends there has been an average repair rate of 0.4 repairs per year!!

In Norway submarine installations are used as part of the total national network(s) and as such must compete with terrestrial solutions. However, the cost of submarine systems using the described concept is far less expensive than a terrestrial aerial installation and only a fraction of the cost of an underground solution. In addition the execution time is far less than that of an aerial installation and again only a fraction of the execution time of an underground solution.

6 CONCLUSION

Through comprehensive experience it has been shown that submarine cable solutions can be very reliable even if the cable is not buried, and by choosing the right tools and equipment it can be very much less costly than “normal” submarine solutions.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wants to thank Svend Hopland (Telenor), Stian Hokland (Seaworks) and Rolf Ueland (Blom Maritime) for valuable contributions to this paper.

5 RESULTSMore than 3000 km of cable split between more than 340 individual lengths has been installed using the described concept. The installations are all along the Norwegian coast, from the Oslo Fjord in the south to the arctic waters of the Barents Sea in the north.

The cable is shown (by post-lay ROV survey) to be installed to an accuracy of down to + a few meters in relation to the pre-defined route.

During all these installations there has not been a single cable damage during installation.

It is the shore ends that normally cause problems and this experience thus includes almost 690 shore ends, and on these 690 shore ends there has been an average repair rate of 0.4 repairs per year!!

In Norway submarine installations are used as part of the total national network(s) and as such must compete with terrestrial solutions. However, the cost of submarine systems using the described concept is far less expensive than a terrestrial aerial installation and only a fraction of the cost of an underground solution.

In addition the execution time is far less than that of an aerial installation and again only a fraction of the execution time of an underground solution.

6 CONCLUSIONThrough comprehensive experience it has been shown that submarine cable solutions can be very reliable even if the cable is not buried, and by choosing the right tools and equipment it can be very much less costly than “normal” submarine solutions.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe author wants to thank Svend Hopland (Telenor), Stian Hokland (Seaworks) and Rolf Ueland (Blom Maritime) for valuable contributions to this paper.

Gunnar Berthelsen received a Bsc Hon from Heriott-Watt University in 1971. Started as cable design engineer at Standard Telefon og Kabelfabrikk in 1971 and has worked in many roles in the company since then. The company has worked under the names of ITT, Alcatel Cable and now Nexans. Gunnar started work with optical fibres in 1976 and has been involved in many pioneering projects. He has been technical Manager of telecom cables in Norway and technical manager of the telecom product line on a corporate level in Alcatel . For the last 8 years he has been responsible for business development on the telecom side and worked with projects ranging from FTTH via seabed seismic to repeatered submarine systems.

Erik Rynning Sales & Project Manager Offshore:“We produced the so far world’s deepest umbilical which was

installed at 2350 metre in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Telecom:Rolf BøePhone: +47 22 88 62 23E-mail: [email protected]

Oil & Gas:Jon SeipPhone: +47 22 88 62 22E-mail: [email protected]

Nexans was the first to manufacture and install a 384 fibre submarine cable. Nexans has qualified and installed their URC-1 cable family for fibre counts up to 384 fibres.

For further information please contact:Nexans Norway ASP.O. Box 6450 EtterstadN-0605 Oslo NorwayPhone: +47 22 88 61 00Fax: +47 22 88 61 01

scan

pa

rtner Trondheim

Foto: SPOT og G

etty Images

At submarine depths, Nexans goes deeper

22

Introduction

Offshore oil and gas production has moved farther than ever into deeper water. At the same time, oil companies require new, collaborative methods of operating these platforms to reduce personnel on board and bring control of offshore systems into onshore facilities thereby reducing operating costs and personnel risks. Today’s operating models require large bandwidth with high reliability, high survivability and low latency. Traditional microwave systems will not reach newer deep-water platforms and satellite systems are expensive and cannot meet either the bandwidth or latency requirements at any price. As oil and gas companies turn to submarine cable systems for their offshore telecommunications needs they are finding that conventional thinking does not take into account some of their unique operating conditions; nor will it meet their operational needs, or yield the financial security they have targeted that these new systems should provide.

Conventional Thinking

In the oil and gas industry, conventional thinking is that telecommunication systems are a necessary evil and, that as telecoms do not bring oil or gas out of the ground, these costs should be kept as low as possible. In the telecom industry, however, conventional thinking is that reliability is king and ring systems enhance reliability; that single catastrophic failures are rare, but real and multiple catastrophic failures are highly unlikely; that cost is an important issue and undersea repeaters are expensive.

In areas like the Gulf of Mexico, offshore platforms are numerous and close enough to each other that a ring of unrepeatered submarine cable systems can connect a number of platforms (possibly from several different operators) without any submerged repeaters. This configuration would seem to meet the reliability requirements using ring architecture and should have the lowest implementation cost. In the oil and gas industry where almost every major asset has multiple

Design ChallengesFor Undersea

Systems ServingOffshore Production

Platforms

By Guy W. Arnos

operators as investors with a single nominated asset operator, this model would seem to meet the gross business requirements as well.

Design Challenges

In areas like the Gulf of Mexico frequented with hurricanes, severe weather operating procedures present significant design and operational challenges. Platforms are abandoned during severe weather and production is closed in. One of the goals of submarine telecom systems to offshore platforms is to improve the ability of the operators to re-man the platforms following abandonment. With the new generation of deep-water platforms, a single platform may be producing as much as 200,000 barrels of oil per day. With the current price of oil, being able to bring one platform back into production a day earlier means a significant reduction in lost revenue to the operator and owners. Production may not resume until the platform is re-manned which may not take place until the platform is determined to be safe and habitable, and communications are established. Current operational procedures usually require an over flight of the platform and/or a day visit by inspection personnel to determine platform status. If adequate telemetry can be maintained through a survivable transmission link to a shore base, it would be possible to determine the status of the platform either as secure and habitable or as uninhabitable, but with information regarding the nature of the deficiencies and problems aboard. In either case, good and survivable telemetry would make it possible to re-man the platform or carry out repairs in a shorter time frame and reduce the time to resumption of production.

During abandonment, power generation aboard platforms is reduced to a few “storm generators” left running to power a few critical systems. Every operator and, in fact, every platform (even platforms under the same operator) have different storm power generation standards, procedures and fuel reserves in the day tanks of its generators.

23

In an unrepeatered ring system of 8, 10, 12 or more platforms, the failure of two nodes can cause loss of communications to multiple nodes in the ring. Many different scenarios may cause the failure of a node during a hurricane. The failure of storm power systems and the loss of entire platforms both occurred during hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. In the telecom world, highly reliable power supported by battery backup with long reserve times is taken for granted. In the world of the offshore platform, topside real estate is scarce, valuable and planned for years in advance. There simply is no room for a massive battery plant to provide 24 or 48 hours of reserve time.

Network security becomes another design challenge in an environment where the platforms of multiple operators are expected to coexist on a common shared ring system. In the case of the traditional unrepeatered ring, traffic from all operators will pass through each operator’s platform(s). Admittedly, all traffic may not drop to the electrical level and express traffic may pass through the node while local traffic is added and dropped, but this will be completely dependent on the type of terminal, add/drop multiplex, repeater or router equipment used in the network design. Only in the cases of the add/drop multiplex (which is much more common in traditional telecom architectures than in Ethernet architectures more suited to enterprise networks) or the repeater, will express traffic of one operator remain fully encapsulated as it transits another operator’s node.

Further design challenges are encountered when working in hurricane prone geographic areas. As an example, storms in the Gulf of Mexico may affect several hundred kilometers of coastline with high winds and storm surge as was clearly demonstrated by hurricane Katrina.

In deep-water production areas, new reservoirs are constantly being brought into production and it should be anticipated that several new production assets will be brought on line during the design life of the submarine cable system. While these assets will be in the same general geographic area, many of the new fields may

lay hundreds of kilometers from existing production platforms. Any system installed today should allow for expansion, both in the number of platform nodes and in the length of the overall system. This type of flexibility is exceedingly difficult to accommodate with a ring comprised of unrepeatered links.

Design Criteria

While reviewing the operational requirements and operating environment of the offshore oil and gas industry, a specific set of design criteria quickly surface as imperatives:

• Shore terminal stations must be separated by 400 to 500 km as a minimum

• Each platform node must be completely independent of every other node

• The system must survive the loss of several nodes and one terminal station

• The system must accommodate expansion in the number of nodes and in total system length

• In a multi-operator environment, with rare exceptions, traffic from each node should bypass all other nodes, or it must remain encapsulated and secure if it transits another node.

Meeting the Design Criteria – A Comparison of System Architectures

In a traditional unrepeatered ring configuration, a single pair of fibers may be employed. The ring itself provides protection from individual equipment, fiber, or link failures. All traffic must pass through each node to be amplified and/or regenerated either through terminals, add/drop multiplexers (ADM), amplifiers or regenerators. Power failure at one node will affect traffic for all nodes. Power failure at two non-adjacent nodes isolates all nodes between them from the shore. Failure of one node and one terminal station will isolate all nodes between the failed node and the terminal station. Addition of new

nodes will be dependent on the location of the new node relative to other nodes and be dependent on distance. This architecture fails to meet all of the stated design criteria except for the encapsulation and security of express traffic, which is dependent upon the type of transmission equipment used at the nodes.

To improve survivability, a modified unrepeatered ring configuration can be considered where each node is connected to both its adjacent nodes and the next nodes beyond. This configuration utilizes three fiber pairs in each link except the links from each shore terminal station to the first offshore node at each end of the system which use two fiber pairs. This configuration also employs twice the number of optical transmitter/receiver pairs, less two, compared with the traditional ring. This architecture can survive a single shore terminal failure, up to three simultaneous node failures (depending on location) or up to two node failures and a shore terminal failure (depending on node locations) without affecting traffic from the other nodes. This architecture also significantly improves survivability, but only in certain failure scenarios. This configuration also comes with a hefty cost increase for the limited improvement in survivability and may be difficult to implement by having to span longer distances between non-adjacent platforms. In the Gulf of Mexico, some of these distances approach 300 km. While these distances are achievable without submerged repeaters, they require special fiber types and specialized premium grade connectors to handle the high power levels. All of these factors add significant costs and system complexity for small benefits in survivability.

A further configuration option is the use of a repeatered ring system. Current technology can support connections to as many as 32 nodes from one fiber pair utilizing broadband optical add/drop multiplexing (OADM) which can allow the dropping/inserting of one or more multiplexed wavelengths at each node without accessing pass-through traffic from other nodes. This repeatered OADM architecture provides exceptional survivability in the face of multiple node failures, as each node’s traffic

24

is completely independent of every other node. The system can also sustain a single shore terminal station failure in addition to multiple node failures and maintain traffic to all other surviving nodes. By employing power switching branching units, repairs to, or expansion of, any part of the system may be accomplished without interruption of traffic to unaffected nodes.

The repeatered architecture adds power feeding and a more expensive cable structure as well as increased sparing costs to include repeaters and OADM branching units. While the cost of repeaters and power feeding equipment has been added, fewer fibers and transmitter/receiver pairs are used in the repeatered OADM ring compared with the modified unrepeatered ring. This reduction in fibers and transmission equipment largely offsets the added expense of repeaters, power feed and cable types, bringing the cost differential between the repeatered and modified unrepeatered rings to 10% or less with major improvements in system reliability survivability. The cost differential between a repeatered OADM ring and a simple unrepeatered ring is in the range of 20-25%.

While significant expansion may be sustained on a single fiber pair, if future expansion beyond 32 nodes is anticipated, additional fiber pairs may be added to the system with limited initial capital investment. Terminal equipment and branching units may be added as platform nodes are brought into service. Proper initial transmission design can provide extensions to the length of the overall ring totaling several hundred kilometers in any geographic area of the ring.

Conclusions

Several design criteria are critical to the operational requirements of submarine cable systems used for telecommunications for offshore oil and gas production platforms:

• Shore terminal stations must be separated by 400 to 500 km as a minimum

• Each platform node must be completely

independent of every other node• The system must survive the loss of several

nodes and one terminal station• The system must accommodate expansion

in the number of nodes and in total system length

• In a multi-operator environment, with rare exceptions, traffic from each node should bypass all other nodes, or it must remain encapsulated and secure if it transits another node.

A repeatered OADM ring system employing power switching branching units can meet al the critical design criteria with the additional benefit that repairs and system expansions may be accomplished without interruption to existing traffic. Cost differentials to deploy repeatered solutions compared with unrepeatered ring systems range from 10% to 25% with exceptional survivability. That survivability can pay back the increased cost of deployment by the reduction of lost production by one day on one platform during one hurricane event.

With over 20 years experience in submarine and terrestrial networks, Guy Arnos has been responsible for the planning, engineering and implementation of transoceanic, transcontinental and metropolitan networks. With WFN Strategies he has supported efforts in a number of submarine and terrestrial telecom projects, including the provision and installation of a multi-submarine cable system in the Gulf of Mexico, engineering, provision and installation of a fiber optic, RF, microwave and cellular telecom system in Alaska, and the engineering and provision of worldwide broadband services. He joined WFN Strategies in 2001 as Director of Projects.

IBC presents the inaugural conference on…Third

delegate half priceDigital OilfieldsUsing technology and organisational change to achieve integrated operations in oilfields

Tuesday 25th – Wednesday 26th September 2007 • Marriott Maida Vale, London

Bookings Hotline Tel +44 (0)20 7017 5518 Web www.ibcenergy.com/ek1030

Media Partners Official Publication

KEY SPEAKERS INCLUDE

• Luigi Salvador, Vice President, Development & Innovation in E&P, ENI

• Alan Smith, Head of E&P Information Systems, OMV & Director, Paras Ltd

• Svein Omdal, Project Manager Integrated Operations, Statoil

• Donnie Mapanao, Head of Information Technology, ADDAX Petroleum

• Randy Clark, President & CEO, Energistics

• Stewart Robinson, Energy Resources Consultant, Energy Development Unit,Department of Trade & Industry

• Mike Campbell, Managing Director, Holland & Davis

• Han de Min, Vice President, Exploration & Production, EMEA, AspenTech

• Katrine Hilmen, Specialist, Advanced Process Control, Oil & Gas,Process Automation, ABB

PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS

• A strategic look at digital oilfields: what are the drivers in the market and how does technology fit into wider corporate strategy?

• How can you turn increased volumes of data into real results?

• Where is the industry up to in data standardisation?

• How can companies achieve full data integration and allow effective data sharing?

• Analysing the need for organisational change

• How can people, process and technology blend together to create a seamless flow of information?

• New technologies: what will the digital oilfield of the future look like?

15% discount to subscribersEmail [email protected] and quote EK1030-STF to qualify

26

More and more, the ISM1 bands are being used for wide area, wireless networks in the oil patch. Because the ISM bands are unlicensed, anyone can use them so long as they comply with the FCC regulations. This can lead to potential RF interference between operators in the same geographical area, on the same frequency band, using different modulation techniques. Fortunately there are techniques and strategies to minimize the effects of the interference.

In the past, gathering a few data points from an oil or gas well once an hour was adequate to operate the field. “Good oil field practices” did not require large amounts of data to manage the reservoir. This has not been true for some time. As the oil and gas become more valuable, even small percentages in extraction efficiencies contribute significantly to hydrocarbon recovery from the reservoir and hence to the company’s bottom line. In order to improve extraction, more data, more often is required so that the operator can model the reservoir with higher resolution.

Personal safety and environmental protection have

1 Industrial, Scientific, and Medical bands are at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8GHz. Equipment is unlicensed but must be FCC compliant.

always been important. The negative impact of an accident can take years to rectify. By recognizing that an “event” has occurred at the well head in a matter of minutes, instead of hours, the operator can take corrective action in a timelier manner and, hopefully, minimize the impact.

The challenge becomes one of: how do you collect the data from thousands of wells spread over hundreds of square miles with no connectivity back to the central operations location? Plus the connectivity must be highly reliable. Typically, the wells are located in remote areas without any commercial infrastructure to support mission critical, high throughput data.

One solution is to use radios to provide the connectivity. In the past, low speed (9600 baud), FCC licensed radios were adequate to meet the operator’s needs. While this solution did not always guarantee interference-free transmission of data, it allow for remediation through the FCC. Low speed data is no longer adequate to operate the field. The operators need more data, and it has to be closer to realtime. This requires higher bandwidth and higher polling rates. At the present time, the

commercially available radios that economically fill this need are in the unlicensed ISM bands. While this unlicensed operation makes for one less step in the deployment process, it leaves operators in congested areas nervous about the ability to control potential interference from neighboring operators.

Depending upon the terrain, frequency, power availability, and RF interference, commercially available, point-to-multipoint radio systems can support from 512kbps to ≈12Mbps connectivity. Choosing the right frequency band, antenna height, and hardware can satisfy most of the system requirements for data throughput. RF interference can be much trickier.

RF interference is a fact of life. It cannot be completely eliminated nor avoided. Any unwanted signals or background noise may introduce errors into the transmission path. These errors will decrease the system’s throughput due to the need for retransmissions, or in the worst case, block all throughput because the receiving radio cannot discriminate the data. Fortunately there are techniques incorporated in the radio equipment to mitigate the effects of RF interference.

There are two transmission techniques used in the ISM band, and they use different approaches to handle interference:

1. Direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) is a spread spectrum wireless coding method that spreads the modulated information signal over a fixed frequency carrier signal. It uses suppression to mitigate interference. It’s C/I (carrier-to-interference) ratio is higher than that of a frequency hopping system. This means

Interference in the ISM Band: Mitigation Strategies

By Charles Foreman

27

that a DSSS system can tolerate a higher noise floor and still maintain throughput.

2. Frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) is a spread spectrum technique that directly modulates a carrier that randomly hops between discrete frequencies within the band. It uses avoidance to mitigate interference. If it lands on a frequency that is in use, it retries on the next random frequency. As the noise floor rises, FHSS will hop more frequently to maintain connectivity. Excessive hopping decreases the data throughput and adds latency to the system.

Both of these techniques use adaptive modulation schemes that increase the probability of a robust and highly available link. Forward Error Correction (FEC) also improves performance. These systems are capable of recognizing persistent interferers and avoiding those channels.

In spite of the inherent capabilities of the ISM radio systems, RF interference will still occur. There are some system design techniques that are used to minimize the interference. Also there are some operational practices that might be used to share the band.

Before implementing any radio system, a RF study should be done to identify the existing radio systems operating in the local geographic area. Based upon the study, the advantages of a DSSS system vs. a FHSS system can be evaluated. If all the existing systems are frequency-hoppers, a new direct-sequence system will cause interference. If you install a DSSS system, care must be taken to use frequencies in different zones than those

the FHSS systems are using. The drawback is that you cannot tell what other operators may be planning. Picking a robust system now does not guarantee that it will be “future proof.” Because the ISM band is unlicensed, any operator can add to the RF noise at any time in the future.

“Good” RF engineering will help mitigate interference. Designing a frequency plan without overlapping frequencies will minimize self-interference. Directional antennas (antennas with narrow beam widths) will help reject unwanted signals. The system can be configured to avoid interfering frequencies. For example, if a DSSS system is operating in a particular ISM zone, a FHSS system can be set up to skip that zone.

Before installing a new system, initiating a local users’ forum will go a long way towards being “a good neighbor” and sharing the ISM band. It is in everyone’s interest to share the band and not be knocked off the air by other operators. Even if you can’t identify every ISM operator, shortly after you up turn up a new system that interferes with their system, they will come looking for you. Moving both operations to other parts of the band will reduce mutual RF interference. This may result in increased retransmissions (decreased throughput), but you both will still have connectivity.

The ISM band offers a good solution for wide area, point-to-multipoint connectivity in the oil patch. However, because it is unlicensed, the system must be designed to alleviate the inevitable RF interference. Choosing the appropriate spread spectrum technology will help mitigate the interference. Contact and sincere interaction with other operators in the local area will help share the band between all interested parties.

References

[1] E. McCune, “DSSS vs. FHSS narrowband interference performance issues,” RF Design, September 2000, pp. 90 -104.

Charles Foreman has been involved in telecom systems for over 30 years, including serving abroad as Engineer responsible for the development of a strategic telecoms plan

for Saudi ARAMCO, Manager of Systems Engineering for Fujitsu, Systems Engineer for NEC America, and Project Engineer for Arabian American Oil Company. He has supported WFN Strategies in the engineering, provision and installation of a fiber optic, RF, microwave and cellular telecom system in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, as well as the development of microwave-based network in Wyoming. He possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, and Masters of Business Administration, and is a Member of IEEE. He joined WFN Strategies in 2003 as Project Manager.

Submarine Cable Industry Calendar 2008

Submarine Telecoms Forum is seeking

like-minded sponsors to contribute their

corporate images to the 2008 Submarine

Cable Industry Calendar.

The 2008 Submarine Cable Industry

calendar will be provided free of charge to

Submarine Telecoms Forum’s subscriber

list, encompassing some 3000+ readers

from 85 countries, including senior

government and international organization

officials, telecom company executives and

team, support and supply company

management, and technical, sales and

purchasing staff, field and shipboard

personnel, academicians, consultants,

financiers, and legal specialists.

The Submarine Telecoms Forum industry

calendar will be printed in full colour on

high quality 200gsm silk art paper, approx

600 x 300mm, giving sponsors an area of

approx 300 x 300mm to display their

corporate image.

Sponsorship Cost: $7,500 per monthly

membership.

For further information, reservations and

information contact:

Tel: +1 (703) 444 2527

Fax: +1 (703) 349 5562


30

For years we have debated, philosophised and in some cases fantasised about the demand curves and factors that will shape our industry. The purpose of this paper is to discuss one of the key trends that I think will drive demand for the development of new infrastructure – M2M.

Back in the old regulated days it was much easier to deal with supply and demand. Consortiums formed in a regular cycle to plan out the next trans-Pacific, Asian or Atlantic cables. These groups were typically dominated by incumbent telcos, or PTTs as we were quaintly known in a utilitarian kind of way. Deregulation was still a public policy concept. Its principles and finer details were being debated and litigated in many a court room. However even with the overwhelming market knowledge of the incumbents, albeit often driven through the rear vision mirror, we (because I worked for one of those PTTs) often got the demand projections and drivers wrong and not in a small way. But then again we were not the only ones.

I recall the launch of PacRim East which was hailed as future looking and essential infrastructure as indeed it was. We invited leading “futurists like Richard Saul Wurman and Nicholas Negroponte (of MIT MediaLab & “One planet One computer”) to discuss the exciting prospects we faced. We used the latest video-conferencing technology (yes it was a killer application in 1993 as well) to facilitate the event across multiple countries.

Yet in the entire video conference proceedings over a couple of hours, the word “internet” was not uttered once, not by a futurist or PTT spokesperson alike. So it proved to be that PacRim, long in the gestation, proved woefully under designed in terms of capacity. So much so that less than five years later we had our first Southern Cross Cable Data Gathering Meeting (sales meeting for those of the new generation). The revolution of private cables had come to Asia-Pacific, led by three forward looking telcos (though I am biased in my assessment), Telecom New Zealand, Optus and MFS (prior to its acquisition by WorldCom) at the

THERISE AND RISE

OF THE MACHINE

By BRETT O’RIlEy

THERISE AND RISE

OF THE MACHINE

By BRETT O’RIlEy

helm.

These historical ramblings are necessary to set the scene for the proverbial, “putting my neck on the chopping block”. Because I would like to share with you my views on one of the key factors that I think will drive future growth in our industry, the rise and rise of the machine, or M2M as it is now increasingly being called.

Demand for capacity, has traditionally been based in our industry on people, or users – subscribers for some who have long memories. Penetration rates have been our mantra, and countless demand studies, industry forecasts and models have been produced based on users to assist us calculate future demand.

Now new factors will change demand in a way we have not seen before across many if not all industries – M2M. Machines communicating with machines are not new in itself as a driver of bandwidth growth. The Defence and Banking & Finance industries have always been big consumers on a comparative basis of international and domestic bandwidth, normally through dedicated international private leased circuits (IPLCs). But this is small scale compared to what I believe is revolutionising our industry.

Several factors will drive the rise of M2M:• Moores Law has transformed the

economics of processing power, and size, enabling much more sophisticated and/or smaller devices to be deployed at the edge of networks.

• Access technologies have been enhanced with greater throughput now possible and on a much wider geographical coverage area, via wireless (EVDO, HSDPA, WiFI, WIMAX), wireline (ADSL, FTTH, Ethernet) and satellite.

• There has been an explosion in the software and applications development industries, based around common standards like Microsoft, Sun and

3�

Linux, with development coming from large and small firms from all over the globe, frequently collaborating in real-time.

• A generational wave of IT managers, and their managers and Boards, which are increasingly seeing their brief as being about changing operating paradigms.

Of course there is more to come from all of these dot points, but the impact is being felt now, it is real, and it will transform demand. We are already seeing the signs.

The recent successful Sub-Optic conference in Baltimore was particularly notable for the focus we saw on the growth of non telco submarine cable activity. Case studies on the oil and gas, power, science and defence industries; participants in these industries are now major system developers or customers in their own right. Some of us are building businesses to specifically facilitate their requirements. All of which is good news for submarine cable industry as builders and developers.

It is also good news for the wider telecoms industry, because the traffic from this capacity, often measured in G/bits these days is typically feeding into the global communications network.

This is the big end of town of M2M and will continue to grow rapidly, fuelled directly by rising demand for oil & gas, resources and green power. While these projects are huge bandwidth growth drivers the M2M trend is wider and deeper than this. M2M is growing rapidly everywhere, as individuals we are helping drive the traffic every day and the impact it is having on demand growth is significant.

Let me offer you some examples of M2M applications from personal experience recently managing a wireless broadband network in Asia Pacific.

Next time you buy something from a vending machine you have probably just facilitated an M2M communication. That vending machine in many countries is polling a remote server every 30 or 60 minutes, via a wireless or wired network, advising a marketing executive that their product has just sold XYZ units in that period. At another location the inventory management team will be putting together their next delivery order based on that information. That data transaction will repeat itself 24 x 7, 365 days.

When you take the refreshment or snack back to your desk take a glance at the build fire panel as you pass. The panel will also be communicating back to its base server, probably every 15 minutes, updating its operational status as part of an SLA from that supplier to the building owner and its insurers.

As businesses consolidate their global operations into fewer sites, this traffic is becoming regional and international. Other M2M growth examples are more mobile, with the explosion of vehicle tracking software and communications, plotting a vehicle’s location, fuel efficiency and increasingly its emissions. Operations centres look at where the vehicle is stopping, for how long, and whether that information correlates with the delivery addresses on the driver’s manifest for that day.

Collectively the amalgamation of these bits and bytes is huge. The demand is not limited by the ability of the human eye to absorb information; instead it is the ability of the IT server to process the information and the desired regularity of the information reporting that will determine this. As a result traffic profiling is fundamentally changing.

For some it may seem all a bit too Orwellian, but M2M is here and our industry is entering a dramatic new sustainable growth phase – bring it on I hear you say.

“Brett O’Riley is the Chief Executive

Officer at Ochre Networks, a company

based in Australia providing consulting

services and undertaking submarine

and terrestrial broadband infrastructure

development. He has over 17 years of

experience in the telecoms sector in the

Asia-Pacific region, including roles at

Telecom New Zealand, Pacific Gateway

Exchange, Southern Cross Cable

Network, Nava Networks and Gen-i.”

www.greateasterngroup.com

Shallow Water Turnkey Solutions For Fiber Optic Cable SystemsFrom Shallow Water Installations To Terminal

Station Design & Fabrication

33

Introduction

With the increased demand for oil and

escalating gas prices, there is growing pressure

on off-shore drilling and exploration to become

more efficient and effective.. As the sensor

technology for exploration becomes more

sophisticated, there is also a need for real time

processing of large amounts of data. Often the

processing of the data is many miles from the

drilling site, usually on land at a data center.

The use of unrepeatered submarine

cable technology can be used by the off shore oil

and gas industry to extend their exploration and

drilling distances, and develop undersea networks

to transmit high speed data to data centers. This

represents an opportunity for the submarine cable

industry to take a proactive approach to undersea

networks as in many off-shore oil exploration and

production there are several different companies

all requiring communications. For example, in the

Gulf of Mexico alone, there are over 4,000 oil rigs.

The industry will benefit from existing undersea

Unrepeatered Submarine Cable

Technology and Its Impact on the

Oil and Gas Industryby Paul Polishuk

networks technology and that being developing by

the research community undersea networks.

This article is based on a recently updated

IGI Consulting report. “Unrepeatered Submarine

Cable Fiber Optic Systems.” and an excellent

article on the subject by Marc Fullenbaum of

Alcatel Submarine Networks in the May 2004

issue of “Sea Technology Magazine.”

Costs of Unrepeatered Systems are Coming

Down

The cost of an unrepeatered system

is different from a typical repeatered system

because of its design and means of installation. In

a repeatered system, cost breakdown is typically

30% for cable, 15% for marine installation, 40%

for repeaters, 5% for terminal equipment, and

10% for network management facilities and

miscellaneous costs. In an unrepeatered system,

30% of the cost is for cable, 45% for marine

installation, 15% for terminal equipment, and

10% again for buildings and instillation. One of

the major costs of installation of an unrepeatered

system is due mainly to the need for complete

burial of the cable to prevent damage form fishing

trawlers and ship anchors. The cable itself,

therefore, is often a lightly armored cable, and

often with a higher density of fibers some cables

have been installed with up to 192 fibers).

Marine installation technology is advancing

at a pace equal to cable and terminal technology

in many instances. Highly maneuverable sea

bed tractors and remotely operated vehicles

are useful for burial of cable and can often be

deployed from shore or ship. As technology has

been developed and introduced into submarine

fiber-optic systems, unrepeatered transmission

distances have steadily increased and prices

have remained stable or have decreased.. As

in repeatered systems, the maximum distances

that can be traversed without repeaters is a

function of bit rate and wavelength; the higher the

bit rate, the shorter the distance. As illustrated

in the following sections, developments in fiber

optics technology increase both the length and

usefulness of unrepeatered systems.

Trends in Repeaterless Systems Technology

Repeaterless fiber-optic systems by their very

nature are highly dependent on technological

advances. Advances in technology continue to

push the limits of fiber-optic transmission, both in

terms of system length and bit rate. The major

34

advances most important to repeaterless systems

include:

♦ Improved light sources for transmitters and

pumps

♦ Improved detection

♦ Forward error correction

♦ Improved fibers

♦ Optical amplification (EDFA and Raman)

♦ ROADM

♦ DWDM

♦ CWDM

Of the above list, optical amplification is perhaps

the most important technology in submarine

fiber optics today. For repeaterless systems,

it is the one technology that has quickly and

cost-effectively pushed the theoretical limits of

fiber itself. Systems without optical amplification

typically have a power budget of about 43dB

at 622Mbps and 36dB at 2.5Gbps, for spans of

200km and 160km, respectively. Increases of

14 to 15dB are common today, and increases of

20dbB and greater have been demonstrated in

the laboratory.

The following exhibits, 1 and 2, show the

capabilities of existing and future systems. Further

developments in future systems will include non-

linearity reductions and improvements in fiber

design, both in dispersion compensation and

large effective core area. Present unrepeatered

submarine fiber systems can reach 450Km at

2.5G and 10G.

Other Unrepeatered Fiber-optic Cable

Opportunities

In addition to unrepeatered submarine fiber-

optical cables for telecommunications, there are a

number of other potential markets for submarine

fiber-optic cable. Developments in the technology

for these applications will also benefit the oil and

gas industry. These include:

♦ Off-shore platforms for oil exploration and

production

♦ Research networks

♦ Military and government test ranges

♦ Sewer systems and canals

♦ Off-shore wind farms

♦ Hybrid power cables

Networks for Off-shore Platforms for Oil

Exploration and Production

The oil and gas companies own and operate a

number of Off-shore drilling platforms in various

parts of the world. The present method of

communications is by satellites or microwaves.

These models of communications suffer from

reliability and security issues. In addition, the data

rates for data, control and analysis are increasing.

There has been a recent trend to use fiber optics

submarine cables either alone or in power cables.

IGIC sees this as a potential growing market

especially as the exploration and production

occurs further off-shore and in deeper waters.

Exhibit 3 shows a typical oil rig and undersea

cable system linking various parts of an oil field

installation in the North Sea,

Research Networks Head the Way for Future

Undersea Networks

Undersea exploration is becoming a large

potential market for submarine fiber-optic cable

suppliers. Research indicates that only one

percent of the total undersea area has been

explored. Undersea fiber-optic networks allow

large coverage of areas that can be covered by

35

sensors of all types tied together by fiber-optic

cables. Exhibit 4 shows an example of a research

network for the Neptune scientific submarine

system off the west coast of the United States.

This is only one of many research networks being

developed and installed around the world.

The Neptune scientific submarine cable system

plans to “wire” the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate

and turn it into an interactive ocean science

laboratory. Neptune will provide 30 seafloor nodes

distributed over a 500x1000 km area to which

many scientific instruments may be attached.

The modes will supply power at several kilowatt

levels and data communications at aGbps rate.

Neptune will utilize an unconventional parallel

power distribution system and industry-standard

Ethernet data communications hardware.

The study of the dynamic, interactive

process that comprises the earth-ocean system

require new approaches that complement the

traditional ship-based e expeditionary mode

which has dominated oceanography for the

past century. Long-term access to the ocean

is needed to characterize the divers range of

spatial and temporal scales over which the

natural phenomena occur. This can be facilitated

by using ocean observatories to provide power

and communications for distributed real time

sensor networks covering large areas. Real time

networks also enable an education and public

outreach capability that can dramatically impact

the public attitude toward the ocean sciences.

The Neptune project (http://www.neptune.

washington.edu) is a joint US-Canadian effort to

“wire” the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate located

off northwestern, North American with 330 km of

dedicated scientific fiber-optic cable, hosting 30

science nodes spaced a nominal 100 km apart.

Each seafloor node connects to the Internet.

Exhibit 5 shows the planned layout for Neptune.

Neptune differs from a conventional submarine

telecommunications system in two key respects.

First, Neptune requires data input and output

at many seafloor sites rather than a few land

terminuses. Second, Neptune has to distribute

power at variable and fluctuating rates to many

seafloor instruments in addition to energizing

its own internal systems. For these and other

reasons, the engineering solution for the Neptune

power and communications system does not

closely resemble those used in commercial

telecommunications systems. However, Neptune

will take advantage of the submarine fiber-optic

cable technology used in telecommunications

for its backbone, and will be installed using

conventional able laying assets and the

technology developed will be useful in off-shore

exploration and production.

Case Study of an Off-shore Communications

Needs

Just this week, the oil industry announced

that it was on the verge of opening a deep water

region in the Gulf of Mexico that could become

the U.S.’s biggest new domestic source of oil

since the discovery of the Alaska North Slope

more than a generation ago. Located 270 miles

from New Orleans, a 300 mile wide swath of the

gulf that lies below miles of outer and deep within

a bed of ancient rocks estimates are that there

could be reserves of oil and gas of 3-15 billion

barrels. This would boost the nation’s reserve of

29.3 billion barrels by 50%. At today’s price of

$70 per barrel, this represents a total potential

revenue stream of $210-1050B. This is “real

money” that could pay the freight for an extensive

fiber network connecting the various oil rigs. At

the present, there are five oil companies drilling

in eleven locations. The distances are all within

the capability of unrepeatered fiber optic systems.

It is up to the submarine fiber optics industry

to be proactive to promote the development of

submarine fiber optics networks for the oil and

gas industry.

Since 2001, Submarine Telecoms Forum has been the platform for discourse on submarine telecom

cable and network operations. Industry professionals provide editorial content from their own niche and focus.

Each bi-monthly edition includes commentary and information on system and service provision, and issues critical to the industry.

Website Banners

Post your web linked banner to the home page, as well as News-Now sections of the Submarine Telecoms Forum website, where some 5000+ readers can come as often as every week to view the latest news feed, or our bi-monthly magazine.

Rates US$ 3 Months 6 Months 12 MonthsHome Page 933 1,555 2,488

N e w s-N o w Pag e 1,400 2,333 3,732

Both 2,101 3,500 5,599

Feature Section Sponsorship Available at full-page advertisement rate, section sponsors are identified with a banner (link) at the beginning and end of the featured section.All advertising rates effective as of January 2007.

advertising enquiriesTel: (703) 444 2527Fax: (703) 349 [email protected]

advertising rates Magazinepages

Rates US$ 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x Page 2,787 2,703 2,620 2,536 2,452 2,3692/3 page 2,055 1,994 1,932 1,870 1,809 1,7471/3 page 1,326 1,286 1,247 1,207 1,167 1,127

2454 S. Beretania St., Suite 302 Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 USA Tel: +1.808.94 1.3789 Fax: +1.808.944.4874 Email: [email protected]

3 0 T H A N N I V E R S A R Y

Topics include:· Future of Converged Services· DVB and Next Generation Content · Mobile Services · Enterprise Networks · IPTV · Global Wholesale Services · Voice 2.0

For more information, please visit

www.ptc.org

PTC’08:TeleCom wiTh Vision13 –16 January 2008Hilton Hawaiian Village® Beach Resort and SpaHonolulu, Hawaii USA

38

In Stewart Ash’s excellent article in Issue 33 of Subtelforum “Did SubOptic 2007 Herald the Rise of Supplier Power”, Stewart identifies his view on the major drivers that manifested themselves during SubOptic 2007.

He also identifies correctly one of the challenges SubOptic faces for the future, in how will we define our developing audience and therefore

SubOptic – Influences on Conference Structure and

ContentBy John Horne

what will be the appropriate content and structure for the next conference to add real value.

I would however take issue with him that the Host and Sponsors from the supplier segment of the community allows suppliers to exercise undue influence over the content and structure of the conference.

The Constitution of SubOptic quite clearly states that our organisation should be run for the benefit of all the members of our community, who have an interest in undersea communication cables. The strategic governance of the organisation is undertaken by an Executive Committee, which currently comprises of 14-15 members of whom three are cable owners, seven are either traditional carriers or cable operators, four are system suppliers and one is a marine service provider.Our current President is from a cable owning company; our past President was from a carrier/cable owning company and the previous one to that was Jean Devos, who though his background was from the supplier base can be considered a “truly independent voice”.

Each of these EC Members contributes an identical amount of pre-funding credit to help plan and organise a SubOptic conference and therefore have an identical influence in determining its strategic structure and content.

The detailed programme for the conference is put together by our Program Committee, which is chosen to provide balance between the various elements of our community. For SubOptic 2007, whilst the chair came from Tyco Telecommunications, of the six other members,

39

four came from the cable owner/operator segment and two from the supplier base. I also supported this activity as an ex-officio member to ensure good EC/PC communication. The PC prides itself on acting in a company independent manner and ensures all segments of the community are represented in the final product.

It is true that the Host, who commits time and money in organising the event, on behalf of the EC, wants his “pound of flesh” from this investment, but with the checks and balances provided by the EC and the PC, he cannot exercise undue influence in determining the structure or the content of the conference itself. He can of course promote his Host role on our website and take the kudos for hosting a successful event.

When we come to income for SubOptic conferences, over 60% comes from the registration fees paid by attendees, whilst less than 20% is in the form of sponsorship income, with the balance coming from the sale of exhibition booths and hospitality rooms. Sponsors have no direct influence over the program itself, we do not sell, as some commercial events do, speaking slots in return for income. Indeed apart from the sponsorship

coming from EC Members, which is a way of spending pre-funding credit, most sponsorship income comes after the program has been determined. It is the attractiveness of the programme, and the draw it has for attendees, which encourages the sponsorship.

Whilst this is essentially an historic analysis based upon SubOptic 2007, membership of the EC and PC are likely to be as representative of our community for SubOptic 2010 and therefore the checks and balances this provides are unlikely to allow one segment of the community to dominate.

From my viewpoint the perception that suppliers dominate SubOptic, probably comes from the rather more obvious benefit they perceive they can gain from the activities we undertake. This means they do have a more visible presence in terms of papers submitted and as sponsors/exhibitors, and also as providers of company specific social events. To the more active participants comes the benefit.

One of our challenges and I think this was quite clearly defined in Fiona Beck’s article “SubOptic – The Olympics of Our Community” also printed in Issue 33, is to ensure that all our community see the benefit that SubOptic

provides and therefore contribute in a similar visible way.

We have plans for the next three years, which will hopefully encourage this.

John Horne joined BT in �969 and left them in �996. During that period he worked on the planning, implementation and development of both analogue and early optical fibre undersea systems. He also was responsible for project managing the implementation of BT’s major international digital transmission centres and worked on some of their major joint venture projects. He was a Vice Chairman of the Papers Committee for SubOptic 200�, held in Kyoto and has been Secretary to the SubOptic Executive Committee since then.

Subnet_11x8_5Submarinetelecom 7/5/07 11:24 AM Page 1

Composite

C M Y CM MY CY CMY K

Intelligent Infrastructure 3 - 5 September 2007, The Oriental Hotel, Singapore

World 2007

It’s all about global connectivity!• Asia’s most established global telecommunications infrastructure conference• High level and strategic conference featuring 28 carriers and cable owners, 2 regulatory bodies, 5

project updates, 3 round tables and 1 great event!• An exciting conference that provides up-to-date information on global infrastructure with a special

focus on business continuity, regulatory framework and the Middle East and Turkey

Organised by:

Cocktail sponsor:

Refreshment sponsors:

Luncheon sponsor:

Endorsers:

Platinum sponsor:

Cables & cabling system partner: Registration sponsor: Speed networking sponsor:

www.terrapinn.com/2007/snw

Sunmarine Network World 2007 FAX (+65) 6226 3264� I am interested in attending the conference.� I am interested in sponsorship/exhibiting at the event.� Please send me the conference brochure

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Designation: _______________________________________________________

Organisation: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tel: ________________________________ Fax: _________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________________________________________

Media Partner:

Featuring key speakersBill BarneyCEOAsia Netcom,Hong Kong

Ajay ChitkaraChief, International BusinessBharti Airtel Limited(Enterprise Services),India

William SoCOOChina Netcom (HK)Operations, Hong Kong

Gudmundur GunnarssonManaging DirectorFARICE, Iceland

Owen BestPresident, Asia PacificFLAG Telecom,Hong Kong

Takanori UchidaDirector Global NetworkingDepartment, GlobalBusiness DivisionNTT Communications,Japan

Yali LiuDirector, Asia PacificNetwork Planning &EngineeringVerizon Business

Byron ClatterbuckVice President BusinessDevelopment & CarrierStrategy,VSNL, Singapore

Don’t Miss!Post Conference

Executive Summit!The future of bandwidth

pricing – Will the balancingof supply and demand lead

to an increase in price?5 September 2007, Wednesday

10.00am - 4.00pm

* Over �000 tons

a global guide to the latest known locations of the world’s cableships*, as of september 2007. information Provided by llyods list.

VesselName

LRNOShip Status

DecodeGT

ChartererName

SpeedGroup Owner

FDecodeFleet Manager

FDecode

WARTENA 53864�� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 407 9.5Karlskrona Kommun

Stadsbyggnadskontoret

CERTAMEN 65�4974 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 4983 �4 Italmare SpA Italmare SpA

JASMINE PROTECTOR

66�9683 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �558 6.5Jasmine Submarine

Telecommunications Co Ltd

ECOTECH 6825426 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 59�3 0 Ecotech LLC Ecotech LLC

SIR ARTHUR- J 69�0879 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 669 �0.600Corporate Advice & Management

Services AG (CAMS)

Corporate Advice & Management Services

AG (CAMS)

ELEKTRON 6930520 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �628 0 Statnett SF Statnett Transport AS

NORDKABEL 6930544 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 407 �0 Seaworks AS Seaworks AS

UMM AL ANBER 7206330 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7750 �8Emirates Telecommunications Corp

(ETISALAT)

Emirates Telecommunications

Corp (ETISALAT)

LINDA L 72�6268 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 350 0Transport & Tankers

Corp

KERAVNOS 7222695 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 200 0 Michails Spanopoulos SAMichails Spanopoulos

SA

PLEIJEL 7229502 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �650 �� Baltic Offshore Kalmar

NEWTON 7342940 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 40�8 �5Government of The United

Kingdom (Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service)(RMAS)

Government of The United Kingdom (Royal

Maritime Auxiliary Service)(RMAS)

CHAMAREL 73477�8 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 8575 �6.5 France Telecom Marine France Telecom Marine

IKAROS 74��820 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 325 ��Subwater Works

Maritime Co

SUN CARRIER 74�36�0 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 2670 �3 Helix Energy Solutions Group IncHelix Energy Solutions

Group Inc

VesselName

LRNOShip Status

DecodeGT

ChartererName

SpeedGroup Owner


FDecode

DP REEL 7424786 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 3�86 �� Diamar SpA Diamar SpA

AGILE 76�6767 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 9402 �3 Secunda Marine Services LtdSecunda Marine Services

Ltd

BOLD ENDURANCE 76�678� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 94�8 �4.300 Secunda Marine Services LtdSecunda Marine Services

Ltd

NEXANS SKAGERRAK

76�9458 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7�72 �0 Nexans Norway ASBourbon Offshore

Norway AS

HUMBLE CT-� 7629972 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �47 0 Andre Anseeuw

TELEPAATTI 763634� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 322 �0 Sonera Ltd Sonera Ltd

GLOBAL EXPLORER 77�7004 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 2704 �2 Ocean Services LLCGlobal Marine Logistics

LLC

ECLIPSE 78�4436 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7��4 �3 Helix Energy Solutions Group IncHelix Energy Solutions

Group Inc

SETOUCHI SURVEYOR

7824998 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �264 �2 Svitzer Far East Pte Ltd

TEKKAI MARU NO. 5 7854307 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 4�5 7 YK Partnership Kisen

PETER FABER 802778� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 2854 0 Alcatel Submarine Networks Marine A/SAlcatel Submarine

Networks Marine A/S

WAVE MERCURY 8027808 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �0�05 �6 North Sea Shipping ASGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

WAVE VENTURE 80278�0 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �0076 �6 North Sea Shipping ASGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

RAYMOND CROZE 8�04�99 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 4845 �5 France Telecom Marine France Telecom Marine

LEON THEVENIN 8�08676 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 5887 �5 France Telecom Marine France Telecom Marine

FRIEDRICH MATTHIAS

HARMSTORF8�36960 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2� 0

Vibro-Einspueltech Duker & Wasserbau

GmbH

ILE DE RE 8200278 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �409� �5 Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SASLouis Dreyfus Armateurs

SAS

HEIMDAL 8207393 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �047� �6 SEACOR Holdings IncSeabulk Offshore Dubai

LLC

PACIFIC GUARDIAN 822294� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6�33 �0 Global Marine Systems LtdGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

C/S VEGA 8223672 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �706 �3.5 NTT World Engineering Marine Co LtdTransnational Ship Management Inc

GIULIO VERNE 83020�4 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �0674 �0 V Ships Monaco SAM

SEAMEC PRINCESS 8302959 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION ��2� 0South East Asia Marine Engineering &

Construction Ltd (SEAMEC)

South East Asia Marine Engineering & Construction Ltd

(SEAMEC)

VesselName

LRNOShip Status

DecodeGT

ChartererName

SpeedGroup Owner


FDecode

LODBROG 830659� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �0243 �4.5 Alcatel Submarine Networks Marine A/SAlcatel Submarine

Networks Marine A/S

FJORDKABEL 84�6889 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 460 0 Seaworks AS Seaworks AS

TRINITY SUPPORTER 8506062 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7374 �5.830 Agensea Pte Ltd Trinity Offshore Pte Ltd

HENRY P. LADING 8646484 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �63� 0 Jydsk Dykkerfirma ApS Jydsk Dykkerfirma ApS

I. T. INTREPID 87�087� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6�4� �3.5 IT International Telecom IncIT International Telecom

Inc

ACERGY DISCOVERY 88�39�0 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 8248 �2 NV Friary Ocean Surveyor Acergy MS Ltd

NIWA 88�9029 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �320� �5Emirates Telecommunications Corp

(ETISALAT)

Emirates Telecommunications & Marine Services FZE(E-

Marine)

MERCURIUS 8844098 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 803 �3 Mercurius Shipping Ltd

ETISALAT 8900�9� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 222� �3Emirates Telecommunications Corp

(ETISALAT)

Emirates Telecommunications

Corp (ETISALAT)

GLOBAL SENTINEL 8900866 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �320� �5 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

C. S. SOVEREIGN 89�8629 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION ��242 �3.5 Global Marine Systems LtdGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

SARKU CLEMENTINE 8936645 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 3637 9 Sarku Resources Sdn Bhd Sarku Marine Sdn Bhd

ZHONG HUO HAI JIAN 53

8952223 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 949 0Government of The People’s Republic

of China

Government of The People’s Republic of

China(East Sea Branch of the State Oceanic

Administration)

BADARO 90093�0 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �25�8 �� Korea Submarine Telecom LtdKorea Submarine

Telecom Ltd

KDD OCEAN LINK 90�7070 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 95�0 �5 Kokusai Cable Ship Co LtdKokusai Cable Ship Co

Ltd

KDD PACIFIC LINK 90�7824 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7960 �3 Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (MOL)Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd

(MOL)

TENEO 90�9602 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 3��2 �4.5 Tyco Global Networks Ltd Tyco Marine SA

ASEAN RESTORER 9063275 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION ��56 �6 Singapore Telecommunications Pte LtdASEAN Cableship Pte

Ltd

CABLE RETRIEVER 9063287 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION ��026 �6 Singapore Telecommunications Pte LtdASEAN Cableship Pte

Ltd

WAVE SENTINEL 9�00748 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2330 �8.25 Global Marine Systems LtdGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

VesselName

LRNOShip Status

DecodeGT

ChartererName

SpeedGroup Owner


FDecode

CABLE INNOVATOR 9�0��32 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �4277 �� DYVI ASGlobal Marine Systems

Ltd

TELIRI 9�05889 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 8345 �4.5 Italmare SpA Italmare SpA

OCEAN PEARL 9�25�40 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7429 �3.5 Harald Ostervold AS Shipman AS

OCEANIC VIKING 9�26584 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 9075 �8 Eidesvik Invest AS

Government of The Commonwealth of

Australia(Australian Customs Service,

National Maritime Unit)

TOISA PISCES 9�39074 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 665� �4.5 Brokerage & Management Corp Sealion Shipping Ltd

SEGERO 9�65�88 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 8323 �5 Korea Submarine Telecom LtdKorea Submarine

Telecom Ltd

GEOWAVE COMMANDER

9�83867 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 563� �2 DOF ASA (District Offshore ASA) Geoshipping AS

SUBARU 9�88439 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 9557 �3.200 NTT World Engineering Marine Co LtdNTT World Engineering

Marine Co Ltd

GEO CHALLENGER 9�94��5 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 5235 �6.700 DOF ASA (District Offshore ASA) Geoshipping AS

TEAM OMAN 9�99854 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 4008 �0 Topaz Energy & Marine Ltd (TEAM) Nico Middle East Ltd

AJANG HARAPAN 9200732 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 3757 0 Ajang Shipping Sdn Bhd Ajang Shipping Sdn Bhd

MAERSK RECORDER 9207053 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6292 �4 A P Moller Maersk Supply Service

CS FU HAI 9207065 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6292 �4Government of The People’s Republic

of ChinaSB Submarine Systems

Co Ltd

MAERSK RESPONDER

92�5206 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6292 �4 A P Moller Maersk Supply Service

MAERSK RELIANCE 92�52�8 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 6292 �4 A P Moller Maersk Supply Service

GEOMASTER 9227754 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 9�90 �3.5 DOF ASA (District Offshore ASA) Geoshipping AS

TYCOM RELIANCE 9236494 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

TYCO RESPONDER 9236509 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

ASEAN EXPLORER 9236676 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �4988 �4.5 Singapore Telecommunications Pte LtdASEAN Cableship Pte

Ltd

ATLANTIC GUARDIAN

9239355 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 7�72 �4.400 North Sea Shipping AS North Sea Shipping AS

CAESAR 924�7�2 CONVERTING/REBUILDING �4�49 0 Oceanografia SA de CV Oceanografia SA de CV

TYCO RESOLUTE 9242340 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks Ltd Tyco Marine SA

TYCO DEPENDABLE 9242352 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

VesselName

LRNOShip Status

DecodeGT

ChartererName

SpeedGroup Owner


FDecode

TYCO DECISIVE 9242364 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

TYCO DURABLE 9242376 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �2�84 �3.900 Tyco Global Networks LtdTransoceanic Cable Ship

Co Inc

ILE DE SEIN 9247039 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �3978 �5.400Louis Dreyfus Armateurs

SAS

ILE DE BATZ 924704� IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �3973 �5.400Louis Dreyfus Armateurs

SAS

ILE DE BREHAT 9247053 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �3978 �5.400 Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SASLouis Dreyfus Armateurs

SAS

RENE DESCARTES 9248�00 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION �3864 �5 France Telecom Marine France Telecom Marine

CABLE PROTECTOR 92487�0 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 2935 0 Singapore Telecommunications Pte LtdASEAN Cableship Pte

Ltd

VIKING FORCADOS 9252462 IN SERVICE/COMMISSION 3790 8 Eidesvik Invest AS Eidesvik AS

44

“Botany Bay”

I published recently a modest novel, whose titleis Botany Bay. It is the place in Australia where

Alcatel established asubmarine cable fac-tory in 1989 as part ofits contract for theTasman 2 link. In thissame bay, where twocenturies before theFrench expedition“La Pérouse” made oftwo ships, La Boussole

Warrior event was still in everyone’s memory. Itis for these reasons among others that STC (UK)rejected the Alcatel‘s suggestion to come with ajoint bid, to offer a “European” solution.

One of the winning factors has been thePort-Botany cable factory. Such a factory was astrong requirement from OTC (now Telstra) andthe Australian Government.

Alcatel was the most motivated. Such afactory could expand its influence in the Pacificwhere the three other players were historicallywell established in this region, which representsa large part of their market. They saw thisfactory as a risk for their existing facilities!SubOptic ‘87 in Versailles came at the right time.It is where the Australian teams discovered theFrench model, a close cooperation betweenAlcatel and FT, exactly what they wanted to es-tablish in their country.

My friend, things are changed since, butone thing stays true: When you offer something,the reader can see between the lines if you areor not genuinely motivated and sincere. Thenyour offer becomes really attractive and thisopens the route to “Botany Bay.”

See you soon.

Submarcom Consulting

My Dear Friend

Letter to a friendfrom Jean Devos

Jean Devos

and l’Astrolabe, landed in 1788 to discover thatCaptain Cook was already around bearing theBritish flag. So Botany Bay is now for me thesymbol of a dream which becomes a reality!

Tasman 2 has been yet another chapterin this long Anglo-French competition! Theaward to Alcatel came out as a big surprise tomany, including inside Alcatel. Everybody wasnaturally expecting the British to win that bat-tle, and such an expectation was at that timevery logical.

There were so many difficulties andmisunderstanding between Australia andFrance, the main one being the French presencein the Pacific area, the worse being the nuclearbomb experiment in Tahiti! The sad Rainbow

My dear friend from Southern Cross,

I was very happy to read your recent press release announcing a major upgrade of your network. From the initial 8O Gbps capacity, currently at 240 Gbps, you will reach 430 Gps in the fourth quarter of 2008. This is great and in a way, fascinating. It is clearly the sign of a continuing technology evolution.

But this rings a bell for me, thinking back to my 1980/1995 activity in the supplier’s side, and the great period of the optical technology development. One should not forget that such fundamental breakthroughs took place before the deregulation and privatization period, then before the boom period, before the major Cultural Revolution in our business. At that time, cost and time to market were not real issues. At that time everything - and more - was to be done to guarantee the 25 years life time.

The most theoretical risks had to be covered by safety measures, extra tests and extra margins. In other words, one of the reasons why the installed systems are showing today such an upgrade potential is the fact that yesterday the design was done under a very conservative philosophy.

Within the supplier’s organization, the R&D and the quality assurance people were all working in that same direction. But they were strongly helped and even pushed by the external technical teams, the one of the customers such as BT laboratories, CNET, Bell Labs or KDD. I do remember my old times in the cable factory, producing cable for the transatlantic links; the specification was not defining the “needed quality,“ but an “ideal quality”, an unachievable quality, a target of perfection toward which everyone was supposed to work for. Then an independent body was in charge

of “accepting” or “rejecting”. Thousands of kilometers of cables, thousands of components or repeaters subunits have been rejected, which would have perfectly worked on the sea bottom.

The question is then: If a major development, a new generation of submarine systems using brand new technologies, was to be developed today, who would guarantee the “conservatism” of the design? By principle this cannot be the role of the suppliers, how good, capable, professional and serious they are. The suppliers cannot ignore costs, time to market, competition. The carriers and the cable owners do not have any more in-house this capability anymore. It has to come from truly independent parties.

This is why I draw your attention, my friend, to the growing role of the so called “consultants,” especially the teams fully dedicated to the submarine systems activities. They are, or need to become the real “competencies centers.” They are the watch towers or the light houses of our activities. Everyone, including the suppliers, need to accept that they correspond to an absolute need. It is in everyone’s best interest to see them flourish.

Congratulations for Southern Cross achievement.

Jean Devos

Conference Date Venue www

Submarine Networks World 2007 3-5 September 2007 Singapore www.terrapinn.com/2007/snw/

Digital Oilfields 2007 25-26 September 2007 Londonhttp://isg-stage-nat.informa.com/content/marlincontent/IBCEC/pdf/EK1030.pdf

ITU Telecom Europe 2007 3-6 December 2007 Sofia, Bulgaria www.itu.org

PTC’08 - The 30th Annual Pacific Telecommunications Conference & Exhibition

13-16 January 2008 Honolulu, Hawaii USA www.ptc.org

issue 34 september 2007 - submarine cable news and analysis 34.pdfarnos discusses design challenges...

Documents