Offshore Vessel Inspection

Database - OVID

How OCIMF Started

Torrey Canyon oil spill (1967)

History1967 Grounding of Torrey Canyon

1970 OCIMF formed with 18 members

1975 First OCIMF guideline published -Ship to Ship Transfer Guide

1977 Incorporated, granted consultative status at the

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

1993 SIRE launched

1998 50th publication released

2000 SIRE Accreditation commenced

2004 SIRE extended to include barges

2004 Tanker Management & Self Assessment (TMSA) launched

2009 Embark on Offshore Vessel Inspection Database and Consolidated Marine Terminal System

2010 OVID launched

Background

• Following a number of major incidents oil company project teamshave become more focused on marine assurance

• Existing regimes are fragmented/incomplete

Offshore Vessel Inspection Database (OVID)

OCIMF

• Members requested OCIMF to

investigate alternatives

• OCIMF with OGP (Oil & Gas Producers) engaged with IMCA

Aim

• To provide a robust web based inspection tool and database of

inspection reports, underpinned with professional, trained and

accredited inspectors; complimented by an Offshore Vessel

Management Self Assessment (OVMSA) protocol.

Offshore Vessel Inspection Database (OVID)

OVID is an inspection protocol that will allow project and marineassurance teams to assess the safety and environmental

performance of a vessel and its operators in a more effective

and uniform manner.

Inspections are completed by inspectors who are accredited

and subject to continuous review.

The Uniform Inspection Procedure

The concept of the OVID programme

mirrors that of the experience of the SIRE

programme in that a uniform inspection

procedure is used.

All members have the same question set

and the same software application for

completion of the report.

All reports look identical.

OVID – Current Status

Current OVID Statistics for April 2015

• Member Companies - 68

• Vessel Operators – 1395

• Vessels Registered with OVID - 8301

• Vessels with OVPQ - 4947

• OVID Inspections – 4853

• Inspections Purchased - 4500

• Operators with OVMSA – 676

• Published OVMSA - 452

OVID – System Components

• Offshore Vessel Inspection Database has been created to try

and help make effective marine assurance processes

overcome the weaknesses of traditional checklist inspection

schemes.

• OVID uses the methodology and experience of 22 years of

SIRE development, but focuses on non-tanker vessels and

operations.

• 3 Components of OVID:

– OVPQ – Offshore Vessel Particulars Questionnaire

– OVIQ – Offshore Vessel Inspection Questionnaire

– OVMSA – Offshore Vessel Management and Self

Assessment

OVIQ

Offshore Vessel Inspection Questionnaire

• OVIQ questions are primarily designed to highlight operational

practices and behaviour patterns; and the management

controls on board and from the operator’s office by sampling

the effectiveness of the safety management system at that

point in time.

• Observations/comments are designed to extract a response

from the operator as to how the issues raised will be

managed. The questions are not designed to be used like

CMID, to create a list of priority corrective actions as

determined by an inspector.

• Oil Major experience has shown that the Operator’s responses

can be more effective in assessing the quality of the vessel

and its management controls, than the observations

themselves.

General Responsibilities and Obligations

• OVIQ reports belong to the Oil Company that initiated the

inspection – not the Inspector, his company, or the shipoperator.

• Confidentiality is an inherent part of membership of OVID. The

forwarding of OVIQ reports without the formal permission of

the report owner is not permitted and can contravene most

anti-trust laws.

• Forwarding review/comment on a vessel and their operators

to any third party does contravene most anti-trust laws.

Discussions on issues or concerns with a vessel can only be

discussed between Oil Company and the vessel’s operator,

not other charterers, brokers, etc.

• If an inspection report is generated it must be uploaded into

the database, unless the Inspector has created a faulty report.

10

Does OVID Replace ALL Marine Inspections?

• NO!

• There is not one inspection format that can cover all of the

Marine Inspection requirements of the Oil Majors

• OVID is not a Suitability Survey

• OVID IS a General Marine inspection that also reviews theoperators SMS system via the OVIQ and OVMSA.

• Due to the dynamics of the offshore world, unfortunately there

will always be multiple checks on offshore vessels to ensure

safety, procedures, integrity and operational suitability.

Other Vetting Considerations

Age

Will it fit?

Name of Operator

OVMSA

Can it load

nominated

cargo/perform

Task?

Current

Class?

Class Changes?

Flag Changes?

Change

of

Operator Structural Analysis

Inspection History

Operational History

Overall Fleet

Profile Voyage Risk

Assessment

Inspection Commissioning

• Only an OVID Member can commission and OVID Inspection.

• When an inspection is commissioned, it must reflect the

notations as listed on the vessels Classification Certificate.

Inspection Variants:

13

Accommodation, Flotel Anchor Handling Cable Lay

Crew Boats Diving Drilling Unit

ERRV / SBV Geotechnical Survey Heavy Lift

Icebreaker Oil Recovery Pipe Lay

ROV Operations Seismic Survey Supply

Towing / Pushing Trenching Barge Mooring

Cat 2 – Small Craft Dynamic Positioning Helicopter Operations

Ice Operations Well Servicing and Sub-sea Operations

Spread Mooring

Validation of Reports

Validation of the Inspection Report involves:

• Checking for obvious errors such as questions answered “not seen”

instead of “No”, or if an inspector has answered “not applicable”

for an inappropriate question. The ship operator will not be

directed to respond to “not applicable” answers, only the “No’s”

• Some inspectors may still try to answer questions by putting “not

applicable” for a question referring to unused equipment, an

operation the vessel may not be expected to undertake. or is not a

statutory requirement. A “No” answer may not affect the

immediate operation, but may still be indicative of poor on board

maintenance or management.

14

Validated Reports

• If the Commissioning Member has concerns with the content of

the Inspectors observations, then a re-submission from theInspector shall be requested. A Commissioning Member shall not

validate a report until they are satisfied that it meets the

expectations of OCIMF.

• Once a report is validated and uploaded into the database, the

vessel operator is automatically advised that the report is ready

for them to respond to the observations on-line.

• If there is an urgent need for the vessel to be considered, the

inspection nominator should review the report in depth and notethe “No” answers, or other negative comments. These can be

discussed with the vessel operator immediately over the phone.

• The Vessel Operator should respond to all observations by

uploading data into the OVID report online. Responses should be

proactive in nature and provide clarity to an OVID Member

reading the report.

15

Responses from Operators

Several opportunities are provided to Vessel Operators to upload

responses. The “Initial Response” is made immediately after the

Inspection is validated by the Commissioning Member (within 14

days of validation).

There are then four further opportunities in the twelve month period

from the date of the OVID Inspection where the Vessel Operator

can upload “Further Operator Comments”.

16

Responses from Operators - continued

When responding to Observations, try to provide as much

information as possible - the following three points should be

considered:

1) Why an issue existed, as a result of which the inspector madea written observation (some onboard safety management

process either failed, or did not exist)

2) What was done in response to ensure that the vessel could

continue operations in a safe manner (such as risk assessment

and risk management procedures created and monitored)

3) What changes to the company safety management

processes will be made to ensure the issue does not recur.

If a charterer knows that a strong safety management control

structure exists within a vessel operating company, such a

company is likely to be preferred charterer.

How NOT to Respond – Vessel Operators

• Do not “attack” the Inspector. If concerns exist around the

Inspectors behaviour then please contact the OCIMF OVID

Secretariat to discuss.

• Responding with answers like “not a requirement”, “now

fixed”, “Master sacked” and similar does not add value to the

report.

• No response at all is not encouraging to OVID Members

wishing to potentially charter the vessel.

• Vessel Operators must be aware that their vessels and crew

are not perfect which may be reflected in the report.

• Relying on references to statutory or Class requirements.

18

Operators responses -

How NOT to respond

• 9.5.7 Are the emergency stops, if fitted, for winches/windlasses routinely tested

and records maintained?

• Inspector Observations: No record available.

Initial Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)

• 8.6.15 Does the vessel have a tension gauge and/or tension limiter to monitor

bollard pull and is it regularly calibrated?

• Inspector Observations: Tension meter not fitted for the bollard pull. Initial

Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)

• 8.6.16 Are bollard pull figures available for when power is diverted to

transverse thrusters or other large power consumers?

• Inspector Observations: not available.

Initial Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)

Operators responses -How NOT to respond

Operators Responses –

Compare and Contrast

Operators Responses –

note the change in tone

Operator Comments –

Note Initial & Further Comments

What Inspectors should NOT be doing

• Being inconsistent with answers:

The inspector and the OVID Report are devalued when either

the Commissioning Member reviewing the report or the Vessel

Operator get a “No” observation on one issue then a “Yes”

comment on an associated question, or, cases wherequestions were answered “yes” with additional comments that

were opposite in intent.

Example:

Selecting “N/A” to evidence of training Contractors in the

content of vessel SMS, and commenting that the vessels own

Personnel do all repairs and maintenance.

The next question about evidence of contractors beingfamiliarised with vessel emergency procedures has “Yes”

selected and “as part of the JSA” for comment.

24

What inspectors should NOT be doing

• Answering “Yes” and then adding comment that indicates

that “Yes” is not entirely correct, or the comment doesn’t even

address the question.

• Putting in “leading” comments such as “this is not a

requirement” or “this is not a normal practice”.

This tends to lead the vessel operator into making such a

response, rather than actively explaining or justifying their

operational practice.

• Putting in unnecessary comments such as “The vessel has

several kits around the vessel” to question 5.2.5 “Are first aidkits readily available and subjected to regular inspection to

confirm their contents”.

What inspectors should NOT be doing

• Putting “Not Seen” or “Not Applicable” when a “No” answer is

more appropriate.

• Examples include:

15.1.1 Regardless of DP Class Notation (IMO, DP1,2,3) does the

vessel have on board a copy of the DP FME(C)A (Yes / No)?

(N/A) DP1 Vessel FMEA never done.

1.1.14 Is an up to date OCIMF OVPQ available on board (Yes /

No / Not Seen)?

(NS) Inspector Observations: Not completed by operator

• Using information provided by Shoreside Management that

may present during the Inspection over Shipboard Personnel

responses.

What inspectors should NOT be doing

• Telling ship staff what they should be doing, or making

recommendations for changes on board.

Such actions are not part of the OVID process.

• Confrontations or arguments with ship staff over inspection

issues.

This still happens occasionally, sometimes an inspector is

annoyed by the crew’s poor attitude and loses patience;

Sometimes the crew or master is confrontational.

In the latter case, the inspector may contact the submitting

company for guidance on whether to continue o terminate

the inspection.

What inspectors SHOULD be doing

• Answering the question, as it is written, or as the guidance

notes suggest. Not interpreting or aligning answer with local

practice.

• Using knowledge and professionalism to identify good or poorcontrols, practices, procedures, and of course false data.

Indicating actual state of affairs with non-judgemental

observations and positive comments

• Observations must always accompany a “No” selection

• Comments can be written to provide explanatory information

for the Oil Company, such as explaining why a NA has been

selected

• If unable to get a suitable answer from ship staff after a few

minutes, the question should be answered “No” and

explanation put in the Observation. Vessel Operator can then

find out why and explain in Operator responses.

What inspectors SHOULD be doing

• At the end of the inspection, discussing with the Captain each

Observation and any other negative comments to ensure that

there is no misunderstanding over what was said.

• Observations should not normally be changed at this point

(unless a genuine error of understanding over the question has

occurred) but a positive comment may be added if

something has been corrected or made safe – even if fixed

whilst inspector is on board, the observation still remains.

• Comments, particularly positive ones can show a vessel

operator in a good light, but should only be made when they add value to the report.

Inspector Observations –

Suggestions Should Not Be Given

Inspector Observations –

Incorrect Use of ‘N’ Answer

Lines of Defence

• First line of defence for all OVID reporting is the Oil Company

MA group. If the report generated by an inspector does not meet the OVID standards, then the MA group should reject

the report and return to the inspector for correction.

• 2nd line of defence is the operator. As an operator, if you are

unhappy with a report or it does not reflect the actual

situation onboard a vessel, I is expected that you will contact

the commissioning oil company to discuss.

• Last line of defence is to contact Alex Van Dusen at the Secretariat to discuss.

• Remember, the reports remain on our system for 12 months

and then are archived for 12 months. After 24 months the

reports are deleted.

Thank you