49
1 INTRODUCTION
Currently, more than a third of the worldʹs oil and
gas production comes from offshore fields. The
exploration, development, construction, production,
logistics,maintenanceanddecommissioningofthese
fieldsarenecessarilymadebymaritimeunits,which
can be vessels or floating platforms. For such
operations to occur, the
provision of appropriate
maritime information, including the positioning of
subseaandsurfaceassets,becomesessential(Cainet
al.2008).
Offshore operations are planned and monitored
by ashore teams and are performed by onboard
professionals. The ashore teams have a wide
infrastructurethatincludesbroadbandnetworksand
directmultidisciplinarysupport.The
onboardteams
have limited telecommunications and due to space
limitations, they must rely on experts in key
disciplines only. This highlights technicians and
coordinators in lead offshore specialties as well as
deck officers dealing with vessels positioning and
navigation.
Figure1.Ashoreteam,OffshorespecialistandDeckofficer.
Over the past decades, offshore companies have
been developing or incorporating several
applications and spatial information systems for
ashoreandoffshoreactivities.Duetothecompetitive
Bridging IMO e-Navigation Policy and Offshore Oil and
Gas Operations through Geospatial Standards
F.Modesto
FluminenseFederalUniversity,RiodasOstras,Brazil&PETROBRAS,Macae,Brazil
C.Bazilio&L.Weitzel
FluminenseFederalUniversity,RiodasOstras,Brazil
J
.Carballini
CARIS,Fredericton,Canada
D.Peyton
IICTechnologies,NorthVancouver,Canada
ABSTRACT: In offshoreindustry activities, the suitable onboard provisionofassets locationandgeospatial
marine information during operations is essential. Currently, most companies use its own data structures,
resultinginincompatibility between processes. In order to promote the data exchange, oil and gas industry
associations have
pursued initiatives to standardize spatial information. In turn, the IMO‐International
Maritime Organization‐started the implementation of e‐Navigation policy, which is the standardization of
technologiesandprotocolsappliedtomaritimeinformationandnavigation.
Thispapershowsrelationshipandintegrationpointsbetweenmaritimeactivitiesofoilandgasindustryand
e‐
Navigationtechnologiesandprocesses,highlightinggeospatialinformation.This paperalsopreludes outan
initiativeforasuitableproductspecificationfortheoffshoreoilandgasindustry,compliantwithe‐Navigation
andIHOS‐100internationalstandards.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 10
Number 1
March 2016
DOI:10.12716/1001.10.01.05
50
nature of these services and the diversity of
operational specialties, each of these systems has
beendevelopedusingdifferentspatialdataconcepts
and schemas. Ashore planning and control systems
aregenerallybasedonGIS(GeographicInformation
System) architecture, allowing for complex spatial
analysis, but requiring professionals with
intermediate or advanced
knowledge of geomatics
(McLay 2000). Offshore specialty systems dealing
with spatial information are generally limited to
visualqueriesor measurements and in a few cases,
dataentry;butontheotherhand,theuserisrequired
to merely have a basic knowledge of geomatics
(Shukla&Karki2016).
Unlikeoffshore
specialties,theIMO(International
Maritime Organization), the United Nations agency
for maritime affairs, internationally standardizes
navigationsystems,whichessentiallyusethespatial
information. In 2006, the IMO initiated the e‐
Navigation policy, which includes resolutions,
technologies and harmonized protocols for the
provision of maritime information. However, the e‐
Navigation concept is
designed primarily for
merchant shipping and passenger transport and to
thisdaydoesnotaddressthepeculiaritiesofoffshore
activities(IMO2007).
As a result of this diversity, the information
exchange between planning, execution and offshore
navigation is limited, most often making use of
pictures, printed maps, vectorial files without
aggregated information and lists of coordinates. In
result,therestrictionsonsharingspatialinformation
inevitably bring about an operational inefficiency.
Whenitcomestospatialdatainaregionwithseveral
maritimeunits,subseafacilities,underwatervehicles
and the production of oil or gas, any mistake may
result in an accident
of huge proportions
(Koppaetzky2013).
This paper shows the use of spatial information
on offshore oil and gas operations, existing spatial
data frameworks and the e‐Navigation policy. This
paperalsoshowsintegrationpointsbetweenoffshore
operations and e‐Navigation policy, including the
useofitsindicateddataframework,the
IHOS‐100.
2 OFFSHOREOPERATIONS,SPATIAL
INFORMATIONANDE‐NAVIGATION
2.1 OffshoreOperationsandSpatialNeeds
The offshore industry, especially at oil and gas
production, requires a range of operations to be
performed by platforms or vessels. Production
platformsarestationary and donotusually execute
processes that require spatial
information, while
vessels and drilling rigs inevitably require spatial
data.Toperformtheoffshoreactivities,mostofthese
vessels use DP (Dynamic Positioning), which is a
system that automatically controls the position and
heading of a vessel by means of active propulsion,
andotherdevicesthatdealwithspatialdata
(Siietal.
2006).
In addition, the accuracy positioning of offshore
activities is important with respect to national and
international maritime boundaries and oil and gas
lease allocation. Knowledge of the geospatial
boundariesoftheseinterestsareinstrumentalinthe
final positioning of production platforms (ACLS &
CHA2006).
The following
is a brief description of the main
offshoreoperationsgroupsandtheirsensitivespatial
informationforonboardteams:
2.1.1 SupplyandOffload
Supply are shipping operations of supplies
among platforms and shore ports. Offload are
shipping operations for gathering the oil produced
on platforms. The monitoring of distances between
vessels
and platforms is essential. The spatialized
awarenessofsafetyzonesaswellascranesreach,DP
(Dynamic Positioning) reference devices and hose
connectors increases the safety of these operations
(GOMO2013a).
2.1.2 Rig‐moveandanchoring
Operation of platform towage and placement by
vessels, including the handling, launching and
recoveryof
platformanchors.Thespatialknowledge
of local subsea infrastructure and anchor launch
points is essential. The monitoring of the exact
positionofallvesselsinvolved,theplatformandits
connections,significantlyincreasesthesafetyofthese
operations(GOMO2013b).
2.1.3 Survey
Operations for mapping or gathering samples
from the seabed,
sub‐seabed or water. The spatial
information is the product of these operations. The
monitoring of sensors for exact positioning is
essential.Priorknowledgeofsubseainfrastructureis
important. In geophysical mapping operations, it is
important for the safety of navigation to broadcast
themappingplanareatonearbyvessels(IOGP
2013).
2.1.4 SubseaEngineering Operations
Operations dealing with pipelines, subsea
equipment or other devices, using unmanned
vehicles or human diving support. The spatial
knowledge of subsea infrastructure and the exact
monitoring of underwater vehicles, as well as the
devices during their installation is essential (Bai &
Bai2010).Themain
subseaoperationsare:
Installationorremovalofpipelinesandcables;
Installationorremovalofsubseaequipment;
Subseainspection,maintenanceorrepair.
2.1.5 Subseawellsconstruction
Theseoperations,includingdrillingandintervention,
are performed by platforms known as drilling rigs
that as per international norms are considered
equivalent to
vessels (IMO 2009). The spatial
knowledge of seabed and subsea infrastructure
increases these operations safety. For DP rigs,
accurate monitoring and permanence of their
position relative to the well location is a necessity
(Chenetal.2008).
51
Figure2.Subseaoperations(source:IMCA)
2.1.6 Contingencycontrol(oil‐spills)
Operations in readiness, control, gathering or
dispersion of oil spills or other offshore emergency
response. This kind of operation does not usually
requireanonboardspecializedsoftware.Thespatial
awarenessoftargetsorperimetersreceivedfromthe
operationscenter,as well asnavigation,positioning
and orientation
in relation to these targets and the
perimetersisessential(Chaves2004).
2.1.7 SimultaneousOperations(SIMOPS)
Conditionwheretwoormorepotentiallyclashing
operations occur simultaneously. In a SIMOPS,
beyond the sensitive spatial information for each
operation,monitoringthedistancesbetweenvessels
and platforms involved is essential as well as
the
spatial knowledge of waiting, restriction, approach,
actionandescapesectors(IMCA2010).
Figure 3. SIMOPS illustration (source: kongsberg.com)
2.2 OffshoreSpatialDataStandards
Inordertocarryoutanoffshorevesseloperation,the
spatial and non‐spatial information has to transit
throughashoreandonboardsystems.Intheabsence
ofa uniqueoffshoredatapattern,eachcompanyuses
its own systems and consequently their own
standardsfortheinformation
exchange.
Since the 90s, councils have created spatial data
standards for generic purposes. Actually, the two
majors councils are OGC (Open Geospatial
Consortium), that specify spatial data content and
sharing, and TC 211 (Technical Committee 211 of
International Standardization Organization), that
maintain the ISO 19100 series of standards of
Geographic
Information(Westdijk2015).
Inrecentyears,theoilandgasindustryhastried
to standardize data structures. Institutions such as
IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas
Producers), OGC, PODS Association and POSC
Caesar Association have been meeting in SLC
(Standards Leadership Council) looking at
harmonizing existing initiatives (Hollingsworth &
James
2015).
Itfollowssomeofthemainspatialdatastandards
relatedtooffshoreactivities:
2.2.1 UKOOAP‐formats
Offshore positioning data exchange standards of
former UKOOA (UK Offshore Operators
Association), absorbed by Geomatics Committee of
IOGP. The P1, P2 and P6 standards deal with
positioningingeophysicalmapping,P5with
pipeline
position and P7 deals with wells position. For data
schemas, the obsolete P5, published in 1994, had
already specified attributes and a list of possible
pipelinecomponents(UKOOA1994).
2.2.2 APDM–ArcGISPipelineDataModel
SpatialdatamodelforpipelinesthatusestheArcGIS
proprietarysystem ofESRIcompany.
TheAPDM is
maintained by a user group of the model, but it is
unrelatedtothe SLC.Thecurrentversion,6.0,does
not have offshore particularities, but could be
adapted by the user. Currently, ESRI recommends
UPDM (Utility and Pipeline Data Model) not
recognizedbytheSLCeither(APDM
2014).
2.2.3 PODS–PipelineOpenDataStandard
Data model for pipelines and their accessories,
maintained by the PODS Association. The PODS
model is not spatial, although it is usually
implemented in GIS architecture, but not following
neitherISO19100seriesnorOGCrecommendations.
The current version, 6.0, has several functional
modules, one for offshore particularities. Onboard
systems do not currently use PODS model (PODS
2013).
52
Figure4.PODS6.0modulesdiagram(source:pods.org)
2.2.4 PipelineML
Spatial data exchange standard for pipelines and
their accessories, maintained by OGC. The
PipelineMLbeganatamemorandumbetweenPODS
AssociationandOGC,isbasedonGML(Geography
Markup Language) open schema and is currently
under development. Unlike data management
models,suchasPODSandAPDM,PipelineMLaims
to
the information exchange between applications
(Tisdaleetal.2015).
2.2.5 ISO15926
Set of standards for data integration between
industrial components, including oil and gas
industry. The ISO 15926 series is composed of a
semantic web ontologies library and a generic data
model,butitisincompatiblewithISO19100
orOGC
standards. The ISO 15926 series is maintained by a
group of institutions, and the POSC Caesar
Association provides the ontologies library on its
website(Leal2005).
2.2.6 SSDM–SeabedSurveyDataModel
Data exchange standard for subsea mapping and
sampling, maintained by Geomatics Committee of
IOGP. It was
launched in 2011 on an ESRI
proprietary schema and in 2014 was published on
GMLopenschemaasSeabedML,followingsomeISO
19100standards.TheSSDMisdesignedtorepresent
naturalfeaturesorisolateddevicesthatarenotpart
ofasubseaengineeringinfrastructure(IOGP2014).
2.2.7 OilSpillResponse
COP
Setofrecommendationsforoilspillsresponse,OSR‐
COP (Oil Spill Response‐Common Operating
Picture) is maintained by IOGP and IPIECA
(International Petroleum Industry Environmental
ConservationAssociation).OSR‐COPwaspublished
in2015withsupportfromOGCandrecommendsa
commonscenarioandportrayaltoactinaOSR,but
withoutdeterminingaspatialdata schema (IPIECA
&IOGP2015).
2.3 e‐Navigation
For the early twenty‐first century, the IMO has
defined the implementation of e‐Navigation as a
priority, which is the policy that meets standards,
resolutions,technologies and internationalprotocols
forprovidingmaritimeinformation.
In 2008 the
IMO has established the following
definition: “e‐Navigation is the harmonized collection,
integration,exchange,presentationandanalysisofmarine
information on board and ashore by electronic means to
enhanceberthtoberthnavigationand relatedservices for
safety and security at sea and protection of the marine
environment.”
In coordination with
IMO, other international
organizations such as IHO (International
Hydrographic Organization) and IALA
(International Association of Marine Aids to
NavigationandLighthouseAuthorities)haveledthe
e‐Navigationpolicy.Unliketheinternationaloiland
gas associations, which suggest technical standards,
the IMO resolutions have legal force in member
countries (IMO 2008b).
Technologies that are based
one‐Navigationinclude:
2.3.1 AIS– AutomaticIdentificationSystem
System for exchanging safety messages between
vessels.AIS onboardequipmentprovidesautomatic
sendingandreceivingrealtimepositioninformation
betweenvessels,aswellasothershortmessagesfor
the safety of navigation. AIS uses VHF (Very High
Frequency)and itsinformationcanalsobereceived
andsentbyequipmentonlandandasoflatelycan
alsobereceivedbyloworbitsatellites(IALA2012).
2.3.2 ASM–ApplicationSpecificMessage
AISgenericmessageavailablefor use in specific
applications.IALA,throughthee‐Navigationpolicy,
standardizes
international ASM. Examples of
standardizedASMareHydrographicMeteorological
Dataforbroadcasting windandcurrentinformation
and Area Notice for transmitting geometries with
texttowarnofcircumstancesatsea(IMO2010).
2.3.3 ECDIS–ElectronicChartDisplayand
InformationSystem
Onboard equipment for navigation information
queries. The ECDIS brings and
represents spatial
information from electronic charts, vessel position,
AIS, radar information, among others. On several
offshore vessels, IMO requires a certified ECDIS,
while in the others the simplified equipment ECS
(ElectronicChartSystem)maybeused(IMO2008b).
2.3.4 ENC–ElectronicNavigationalChart
NauticalCharts for ECDIS use. The
IHOdefines
the ENC data structure through IHO S‐57 data
exchange standard and IHO S‐52 symbolization
standard.TheIHOS‐57architecture,designedinthe
90sformerchantshipping,doesnotallowexpansion
to specificities of other marine applications (IHO
2000).
53
2.3.5 IHOS‐100–UniversalHydrographicDataModel
Spatialdataframeworkforanyuserelatedtothe
seainsystemssuchasGISandECDIS. The IHO S‐
100 standard, released in 2010 by IHO, is based on
theISO19100seriesofstandards(IHO2015).Itwas
chosen
byIMOasthee‐Navigationdataframework
andwillbecompulsoryfornavigationsystemsafter
a transition period with IHO S‐57. Any maritime
activity could develop an S‐100 based product
specification for its purpose and if it is desired to
make it official, it should go through
the IHO
registration process (Astle & Schwarzberg 2013).
Below, some IHO S‐100 official product
specifications:
S‐101‐ENC,underdevelopmentschedule;
S‐102‐Bathymetricsurface,publishedin2012;
S‐411‐Seaiceinformation,publishedin2014.
Figure5. AIS equipment, ECDIS and ENC portrait
(imo.org)
2.3.6 INS–IntegratedNavigationSystem
Onboard equipment that integrates all functions
relatedtonavigation,suchasECDISorAIS.TheINS
aimstosimplifythedeckofficerʹsduties.Itmayalso
include functions that are non‐navigational (IBS ‐
Integrated Bridge System). The latest IBS integrates
DP control system, which
may imply the need for
future e‐Navigation patterns usage in the Dynamic
Positioning control subsystems (Alexander et al.
2004).
3 OFFSHOREANDE‐NAVIGATIONJOINING
By IMO definition, the e‐Navigation policy
harmonizes maritime information and includes not
only onboard systems but also ashore ones. The oil
and gas
industry has already started to use
information in accordance with e‐Navigation
standards (IMO 2008a). Within this integration, we
highlight the AIS use for monitoring vessels, the e‐
NOffshore project led by Petrobras and the UFF
(Universidade Federal Fluminense) project for the
offshore operations product specification overture
based on IHO S
‐100 framework. Such examples are
explainedbelow:
3.1 AISmonitoringofoffshorevessels
Offshore operations are planned ashore and the
monitoring of its progress is very important to the
compliance certainty or to start a contour process.
AIShasanopendataprotocolandsince2002,itsuse
ismandatory
inalmostalloffshorevessels.Inlightof
these factors, companies performing offshore
activities usually prioritize this technology for
monitoring their maritime operations or the
archiving of trajectories. Thus, the use of AIS for
offshore monitoring is already established and
recommended by a number of industry guidelines
(IPIECA&IOGP2015).
TheAISdataavailabilityinplanningandcontrol
systems occurs through receivers on the coast,
platforms, ships, or low‐orbit satellites, which then
relaythesemessagestoadatanetwork.Foronboard
offshore specialties, some systems use AIS as a
monitoring auxiliary way. For deck officers, AIS is
routineand
itsinformationisconsultedatECDISor
ECS and in some cases on the AIS device itself or
othersystems(Ahmed&Al‐Marzooq2008).
3.2 e‐NOffshoreProject
In 2014, Petrobras began the e‐NOffshore Project in
order to evaluate offshore operations using only
onboarde‐Navigationsystems.Asthe
AIS andS‐57
current patterns do not represent a platform and
operational details dynamically, an ASM was
developed for this purpose. Another need was to
display subsea i nfrastructure components in ECDIS
or ECS, nonexistent in S‐57 standard. Since then, a
test was performed in an offshore operation. The
following is a brief description of ASM, the subsea
datadisplayedandtheperformedtest:
3.2.1 OUD–OffshoreUnitDimensions
ASM developed to describe the edges,
surrounding safety area, cranes range, as well as
controlpointsandotherfeaturesofaplatform.OUD
protocolassociatestheusualplatform’spositionAIS
message,thentheOUDrepresentationonthevessel
ECDIS moves as the platform moves. The OUD
messagecanbe received by any AIS vessel, but the
ECDISconnectedtothesereceiversshouldhave the
OUD protocol on library in order to display the
message content. The company CNS Systems has
implemented the OUD, decoding it in its ECS. The
OUDmessagewaspublishedunderthestatusʺdraftʺ
intheIALAe‐Navigationrepository(Modesto2014).
3.2.2 S‐57forSubseainfrastructure
As the project intends to only use navigation
systems and the current ENC´s do not provide
complete offshore subsea infrastructure,
the spatial
database was converted to the S‐57 standard.
Pipelinesandcablesarebasicallyrepresentedinthe
S‐57standard,butwellsandsubseaequipment,and
otherfeaturesarenotconsideredinthisstandard.To
representsuchfeatures,itwasnecessarytousetheS‐
57 generic objectʺobstructionʺ
, with a literal
descriptionassociatedwiththefeaturetype.Offshore
features and some of its attributes have been
converted to the S‐57 standard with the support of
CARIS company using the software S‐57 Composer
(Quicketal.2009).
54
3.2.3 e‐NOffshoreTestbed
Thefirsttestofe‐NOffshoreprojecttookplacein
2015, in a SIMOPS involving a barge installing a
pipeline and a vessel launching and recovering the
barge anchors. The ASM OUD, representing the
barge edges and characteristics, and ASM Area
Notice, representing where the barge
anchors were
spiked, were sent from the barge to the vessel. For
eachbargemovement,acorrespondingAreaNotice
circlewassent,signalingtheanchortobepickedup
and the point of new release. The ECS vessel also
displayed the pipeline laying project line together
with other pipelines in
the region, which helped
avoid throwing anchors on them. Onboard experts
and nautical officers said that the tested procedure
was more efficient and reliable than the usual
procedure. The e‐NOffshore Testbed is under a
recognitionprocessbyIALA(Modesto2015).
Figure6.e‐NOffshoreTestbed:OperationportraitonECS.
3.3 IHOS‐100forOilandGasInfrastructure
TheIHOS‐100standardisapotentialpointofcontact
fortheexchangeofoperationalspatialdataofoiland
gas infrastructures, in particular on board. The
followingfactorsillustratereasonsforusingtheIHO
S‐100framework:
The OSR
‐COP Work Package sets out eleven
spatial information concerns that should be
standardizedforacontingencyoperation,andOil
and Gas Infrastructure is one of them, but does
not identify or suggest a currently existing data
structureinthisconcern.
The OSR‐COP strongly recommends the IHO S‐
100
useasʺframeworkforthedevelopmentofthenext
generation of ENC products, as well as other related
digital products required by the hydrographic,
maritimeandGIScommunitiesʺ.
The pipeline data models, such as PODS and
APDM,arefocusedondatabasemanagementbut
not data exchange, having unnecessary
relationships
andclasses for onboard operations,
as well as they are incompatible with onboard
specializedornavigationsystems.
The Existing standards for pipeline data
exchange, as the former UKOOA P5 and the
underdevelopmentPipelineMLarenotcurrently
implementedneitheronboardspecializedsystems
nornavigationsystems.
The ISO 15926
series defines ontologies for
network use, which is limited onboard by
telecommunications constraints, requires long
development of an offshore semantic model and
isunsuitablewithonboardsystems.
Thesubseainfrastructuredataofthee‐NOffshore
project were limited by the IHO S‐57 standard
inabilitytorepresentoffshorebasicobjects,
which
wouldbesolvedthroughtheIHOS‐100.
The IMO e‐Navigation Strategy Implementation
Plan,beyondchoosingIHO S‐100frameworkfor
navigation systems, identifies six areas for the
delivery of Maritime Service Portfolios, and the
offshoreareaisoneofthem.
Currently, the IHO Geospatial Information
Registry, available online by IHO, does not
includeanyproductspecificationfortheoffshore
domain.
Considering these facts, a research project
currently underway at UFF with the support of
Petrobras, aims to develop an Oil and Gas
Infrastructure product specification, fully compliant
with the IHO S‐100 framework and focused on
maritime operations. The research also proposes
improvements on the offshore objects of IHO FCD
(FeatureConceptDictionary)inordertobeusableat
offshoreoperations(Modesto&Bazilio2016).
The intended proposal for a Oil and Gas
InfrastructureproductspecificationbasedontheIHO
S‐100 will include the subsea
engineering, the basic
characteristics of platforms and the operational
sectors. The subsea engineering includes pipelines,
wells, equipment and other subsea structures or
inspection features. The platforms characteristics
includeanchoringsystemsandreferencesforvessels
approaching or operation. Operational sectors
include restriction, wait, approach, act and escape
areas near platforms, as well
as disclosure of
geophysical mapping areas or oil spill response
areas.
This Oil and Gas Infrastructure product
specificationtakestheSLCrelatedexistingstandards
as benchmarks and try to inherit most of their
characteristics and offshore domain knowledge. It
wouldholdawideindustryexpertiseandallowfor
an easy
interchange of informationamongst related
applications, whether ashore management systems,
onboard specialist systems or vessel navigation
systems.
TheUFFProjectusesasbenchmark:
Frameworkandconstraints:IHOS‐100
InitialApplicationSchema:PipelineML
FeatureCatalogue:PODS(offshoremodule)
AdditionalFeatureCatalogueItems:UKOOAP5
FCD(offshore
domain):ISO15926
DataProductformat:GML(PipelineML)
Portrayal:OSR‐COPandrelateddocuments
Figure7.UFFOil&GasS‐100draftapplicationschema
55
4 CONCLUSION
Currently, companies that provide services in
offshoreoperationsuseadiversityofdatastructures
for spatial information exchange, which brings
inefficiencyorriskofaccidents.Inrecentyears,some
standards have been developed for the offshore
industry, especially in institutions associated with
the Standards Leadership Council. But so
far no
standard meets the stages of planning, onboard
specialtiesexecutionand navigation. For navigation
in general, the IMO e‐Navigation policy directs the
standardization of spatial data for the IHO S‐100
framework.
The integration of offshore specialized systems
through e‐Navigation policy has a great potential.
Currently there
is already e‐Navigation technology
appliedtooffshoreoperations,whileotherinitiatives
areunderdevelopment.ResearchconductedatUFF,
which aims to propose an exchange data
specificationforoilandgasinfrastructure,usingthe
S‐100frameworkandreferenced byotherstandards
related to SLC is a potential means for this
integration.
REFERENCES
ACLS & CHA 2006. Canada’s Offshore: Jurisdiction,
Rights,andManagement,3rdEd.Association of Canada
LandsSurveyors.
Ahmed, I. & Al‐Marzooq, A. 2008. E&P GIS: Integrating
E&P Data and Applications. Petroleum Engineering
Applications Services Department. Dhahran: Saudi
Aramco.
Alexander, L., Ryan, J.F. & Casey, M.J. 2004.Integrated
Navigation System:
Not a Sum of its Parts. Canadian
HydrograhicConference.Ottawa:CHA.
APDM2014.APDM6.0PhysicalModel/DataDictionary.
ArcGIS Pipeline Data Model Standing Committee,
http://apdm.net/,accessed18/01/2016.
Astle, H., & Schwarzberg, P. 2013. Towards a Universal
HydrographicDataModel.MarineNavigationandSafety
of Sea TransportationAdvances
in Marine Navigation.67–
72
Bai, Y., & Bai Q., 2010. Installation and Vessels. Subsea
engineeringhandbook.Elsevier.
Cain, J. & Barnes, M. 2008. Geodesy and Cartography in
E&P – A Caution to Skilled Professionals. EAGE
ConferenceandExhibition.
Chaves, L.A.O. 2004. Fatores que afetam os planos de
emergência aplicados
às atividades petrolíferas
offshore:Estudodecaso.MScThesisNiteroi:UFF.
Chen, H., Moan, T. & Verhoeven, H. 2008. Safety of
Dynamic Positioning operations on Mobile Offshore
DrillingUnits.ReliabilityEngineering&SystemSafety93
(7):1072–1090.
G‐OMO 2013a. Collision Risk Management. In Guidelines
forOffshoreMarineOperations.
G
‐OMO 2013b. Anchor Handling & MOU Moving. In
GuidelinesforOffshoreMarineOperations.
Hollingsworth, J.L. & James L. 2015. Digital Oilfield
Standards Update. SPE Digital Energy Conference and
Exhibition.SocietyofPetroleumEngineers.
IALA2012.RecommendationA‐124–OnTheAISService,Ed.
2.1.Saint‐Germain‐en‐Laye:
IALA.
IHO 2000. IHO S‐57 – IHO Transfer Standard for Digital
Hydrographic Data, Ed. 3.1. Monaco: International
HydrographicBureau.
IHO 2015. S‐100 – Universal Hydrographic Data Model, Ed.
2.0.0.Monaco:InternationalHydrographicBureau.
IMCA 2010. Guidance on Simultaneous Operations SIMOPS.
London:InternationalMarineContractorsAssociation.
IMO 2007. Development
of an E‐Navigation strategy. In
Report to the Maritime Safety Committee NAV52/18.
London:IMO.
IMO 2008a. Strategy for the Development and
Implementation of e‐Navigation. In Report of the
MaritimeSafetyCommittee85/26/Add.1.London:IMO.
IMO 2008b. Adoption of the revised performance
standardsforElectronicChartDisplayandInformation
Systems (ECDIS) Resolution MSC.232(82). Maritime
SafetyCommittee82.London:IMO.
IMO2009.CodefortheConstructionandEquipmentofMobile
OffshoreDrillingUnits(MODUCode).London:IMO.
IMO2010.GuidanceontheuseofAISApplication‐Specific
Message, Circular‐SN.1/Circ.289. Safety of Navigation
Sub‐committee1.London:IMO.
IOGP
2013.Guidelinesfortheconductofoffshoredrilling
hazard site surveys. Geomatics Committee.London:
IOGP.
IOGP2014.GuidelineforthedeliveryoftheSeabed Survey
Data Model. http://www.iogp.org/Geomatics, accessed
18/01/2016.
IPIECA&IOGP2015.RecommendedPracticeforCommon
Operating Picture Architecture for Oil Spill Response,
version 2.2. Oil Spill Response
Joint Industry Project.
http://oilspillresponseproject.org,accessed18/01/2016.
Koppaetzky,N.2013.Towardsamodel‐basedapproachfor
context‐aware assistance systems in offshore
operations. International Conference on Pervasive
Computing and Communications Workshops: 55‐60. San
Diego:IEEE
Leal,D.2005. ISO15926LifeCycleDataforProcessPlant:
AnOverview.Oil&
GasScienceandTechnology60(4):
629‐637.
McLay,K.2000.GISinexplorationandproduction.Hydro
International4(5):35‐37.
Modesto, F. 2014. Offshore Unit Dimensions. IALA
Application Specific Messages collection. http://www.e‐
navigation.nl/asm,accessed23/12/2015.
Modesto, F. 2015. e‐NOffshore testbed – e‐Navigation
making offshore Simultaneous Operations
safer.
International e‐Navigation Underway 2015. Copenhagen:
IALA&DMA.
Modesto,F.&Bazilio,C.2016.OilandGasInfrastructure
S‐100 Project,http://www2.ic.uff.br/~bazilio/projetos/
S100‐oil‐and‐gas.
PODS2013.PODS6.0ModuleDiagram.PipelineOpenData
Standard Association. http://www.pods.org/, accessed
18/01/2016.
Quick, L., Foster, G. & Hart, K.
2009. CARIS: Managing
bathymetric metadata from Ping to Chart. OCEANS
2009, MTS/IEEE Biloxi ‐Marine Technology for Our
Future:GlobalandLocalChallenges(1),1‐9,26‐29.
Shukla, A. & Karki, H. 2016. Application of robotics in
onshoreoilandgasindustry—Areview.Robotics and
AutonomousSystems75(PB)
508‐524.
Sii,H.,Wang,J.&Ruxton,T.2003.Astatisticalreviewof
the risk associated with offshore support
vessel/platformencountersinUKwaters.JournalofRisk
Research6.
Tisdale, J., Strahan, T. & Burden, R. 2015. PipelineML
Prototype 1 Definition. Houston: Open Geospatial
Consortium.
UKOOA 1994. UKOOA Data
Exchange Format P5/94‐
Pipeline PositionData. UKOOA Council (6.2). London:
UKOOA.
Westdijk, F.J. 2015. Towards risk based pipeline integrity
management through integrated use of heterogeneous
SDI data sources. GIMA. Delft: Delft University of
Technology.
