teams completed the process as best they could. This process certainly achieved, in part, what was intended and highlighted important issues. However, it was difficult for teams to review and assess the reports and findings as it was not their areas of expertise. They also had their own areas of responsibility to cover so, although addressed, the process was not fully exploited to maximum potential. This subsequently left an element of risk that, for example, an important finding could easily be overlooked by the reviewer simply due to the technical nature of the information provided not being fully understood.


It was


recognised that the vessel vetting and inspection process was an excellent system, but to achieve the full potential it would need to be formalised and properly managed across the business unit. To ensure such management was effective and a quality process of review and corrective action response was achieved, the internal management would need to be overseen by experienced and qualified mariners working to a documented and recordable process.


As the IMCA inspection programme was already in use rather than a complete internal inspection process, the IMCA system was adopted and has been developed in house over several years. The IMCA inspection process had already proven successful over a number of years within the oil and gas industry with a demonstrable track record. The vessel inspectors within the IMCA system were highly experienced personnel and had mostly served time on the vessels they inspected, often at senior ranks or even command. However, it was noted by a wide number of groups in both the oil and gas industry and offshore wind that although the vessels were being approved, there was no formal process for the person giving the approval. Ship managers, oil companies and wind farm owners operators, quite rightly, had an expectation that inspectors would not only be experienced


Developing the internal IMCA vessel Inspection process


By 2013 additional internal advice was regularly sought from the marine personnel employed by the company to oversee the marine offshore operations and vessel inspection process. The advice was broad and dealt with many varied operations across the wind farm life cycle. Advice commonly covered the technical aspects and capabilities of various marine operations and the intricacies and operational capabilities of specific marine vessels, jack ups and barges. As a result of various incidents and other marine technical issues, such internal support was very noted as being very valuable. The demand increased very quickly over a fairly short period of time which included vessel IMCA inspections prior to charters being commenced. By early 2014 this informal consultancy and Marine Technical “due diligence” (TDD) process using the IMCA system was firmly established within the company and became a regular provision to all areas of our offshore wind business area.


By early 2015 vessel verification and auditing “vetting” prior to charter had become the standardised company approach. It was now common to use third party inspectors from respected companies in Europe to achieve a high standard of inspection and a distinct independence within this


36 | The Report • September 2017 • Issue 81


but approved and able to uphold a certain inspection standard. Marine warranty services and the insurance companies have also, to a large part, driven this forward as a requirement of cover being extended for the offshore venture. It was quite common for an inspector’s CV to be reviewed to ensure knowledge and experience. Despite working well, it was rather informal. Over recent years offshore vessels, jack ups and barges have been increasingly designed to work across both offshore energy sectors and the demand for approved inspectors consequently increased.


“Technical Due Diligence” Process. Between early 2015 and September 2015 over 100 inspections and verifications of marine vessels, jack ups, barges and assorted marine craft had been completed across our operations in Europe. Deficiencies were identified but with the good cooperation of the vessel contractors these were quickly corrected with mutual support.


It should be carefully


noted that these inspections are not in place to eliminate a vessel from our consideration. Findings serve to identify at an early stage what may occur and allow in cooperation these mutually agreeable corrections to be made. This approach has been widely accepted in the offshore industry and it has been stated to us that the independent process is very welcome, assisting the crews in their daily operations and continuous improvement. Only on two occasions has a vessel not been approved for company operations based on the findings of these IMCA inspections.


As a result of this due diligence process and readily apparent and recognisable benefits that it brought to the offshore operation, the demand for marine inspection activity continued to increase within the company. These inspections are now achieving the desired outcome by reducing company exposure to offshore incidents and delays by use of effective vetting quality standards in vessels selection and operation. The inspection process now includes operations and maintenance where there are a significant number of smaller but fast craft crew transfer vessels. These vessels engage in personnel transfer at the turbines, a specific area of risk identified by the Wind Energy Institutes 2014 report to which reference was made earlier.


Ensuring Quality: The move towards accredited Inspectors


The development of the IMCA inspection process continued to


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84