Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Offshore Energy Edition
78
Issue #10 - Released 5-1350
5,28
6Issue #9 - Released 2-14
457,
743
DOWNLOADS TO DATE
WEBSITE TRAFFIC - UNIQUE VIS ITS55,213
10-13
48,54312-13
48,71511-13
TOTAL HITS IN 2014 :
11 ,059 ,916 48,784 2-14
51,845 1-14
56,965 3-14
55,996 4-14
50,119Issue #75 - Released 3-14
Issue #76 - Released 5-14
56,152
54,8715-14
56,7896-14
58,1687-14
55,6458-14
Issue #77 - Released 7-14
53,894
Issue #10 - Released 5-13
466,
961
Welcome to Issue 78, our Off-shore Energy edition.
I got my first taste of oil when I was a second year Grad stu-dent in Michigan in the early ‘80s.
On the afternoon shift I ran a long-bed lathe, removing and re-cutting male and fe-male connections for deep-hole well pipes and casings, which were then used by lo-cal wildcatters as far north as the Upper Peninsula. They would buy second or third hand piping that had been originally produced in Texas and which then slowly made its way north to lesser known fields. After a while it would find its way to small machine shops that would repurpose the threads for use a while longer.
I would work my 9 hours until 1 AM, then sleep a few
hours, then arise and teach an under-Grad political science class, then attend a few class-es, and then start the cycle anew. This worked for some months until one Christmas Eve when I was laid-off due to the low price of oil, compel-ling me to finish my thesis on the Mexican O&G industry in record time and graduate on-time five months later; thanks in no small part to the changed cir-cumstance and the support of a new w i f e . Hunger is an ex-ce l lent motiva-tor!
Twenty or so years lat-er and when
our industry was at its lowest in generations, BP first ap-proached me about their Gulf fiber aspirations, and there began a series of fascinating projects for a variety of clients in a number of interesting places, which thankfully still exists today. Fiber to offshore assets is well beyond the con-cept stage.
In some ways, it seems so dis-tant to the old Drillco pipe; in many others, it’s not so far at all.
Happy reading.
Wayne Nielsen is the Founder and Publisher of Submarine Telecoms Forum, and previously in 1991, founded and published “Soundings”, a print magazine developed for then BT Marine. In 1998, he founded and published for SAIC the magazine, “Real Time”, the industry’s first electronic magazine. He has written a number of industry papers and articles over the years, and is the author of two published novels, Semblance of Balance (2002, 2014) and Snake Dancer’s Song (2004).
+1.703.444.2527
4 ExordiumWayne Nielsen
8 Advertiser Index
10 News Now
18 Offshore Energy: An OverviewKieran Clark
30 Chesapeake Oil?Stephen Nielsen
40 Fibre Optic Cables: Why They Are Increasingly Used For Offshore Oil And Gas Rigs In The GCCRusty O’Connor
56 London Array Offshore Wind FarmErlend Andersen & Rannveig Bergerød Aase
66 How Do Offshore Communications Work?Rigzone
In This Issue...74 Kurdish ISPs Enable Growth Of Iraqi Internet
Doug Madory
80 Back ReflectionStewart Ash & Bill Burns
90 Advertiser’s CornerKristian Nielsen
96 CodaKevin G. Summers
Advertiser IndexOFS www.ofsoptics.com 26
Terabit Consulting www.terabitconsulting.com 16
WFN Strategies www.wfnstrategies.com 72
Alcatel-Lucent Drives Doubling Of SAT-3/WASC Undersea Cable Capacity
Alcatel-Lucent Named Industry Group Leader For Technology Hardware & Equipment Sector In The 2014 Dow Jones Sustainability Indices Review
Alcatel-Lucent Starts Construction Of US-Brazil Subsea Cable For Seaborn Networks
Anil Ambani pumping $212M to up holding in RCom
Asian Submarine Cable System Going Live In 2015 As Korea’s KT Hooks Up
Brazil’s CPqD Develops Optical Submarine Cable Amplifier
Construction Of SEA-ME-WE 5 To Commence
Didon Cable Linking Italy And Tunisia Enters Service
NewsNow
Digicel Calls For Public Private Partnerships To Build New Submarine Fibre Optic Cable To Connect All Pacific Islands
Digicel: Approval For Caribbean Fibre Network
Edward Snowden Reveals Tapping Of Major Australia-New Zealand Undersea Telecommunications Cable
FASTER Subsea Partners Tap NEC for New Cable
FASTER Subsea Partners Tap NEC for New Cable UPDATED
FCC Approves Antilles Crossing Cable Landing License
FCC Filing: Update to Hibernia Landing License
FCC Issues Final Rule On Regulatory Fees Assessment And Collection For Fiscal Year 2014
NewsNow
Fujitsu Laboratories Develops WAN Acceleration Technology That Can Adapt To Combined Communications Networks
Fujitsu, NTT, And NEC Move Forward On Commercialization Of World’s Top-Level, 400Gbps-class Optical Transmission Technology
Furukawa Electric Announces Commercial Production Of Micro ITLA For 400 Gb/s Optical Coherent Transmission
Government Lends WACS Submarine Cable To CAMTEL
GTA Joins $250M Cable Plan
Hawaiki Selects Hawaiian Telcom For Its Hawai’i Cable Landing Station
Hexatronic Signs Distribution Agreement With Tawasol In Jordan
How One Company Is Building An Internet Connection Through The Arctic Thanks To Climate Change
IDB Offers $44m For Second Undersea Cable
Kiwis To Keep Waiting On Second Sub-cable
LIME Makes Major Network Upgrade Investment In St. Kitts And Nevis
New Fiber Optic Links To Boost International Internet Speeds
NITEL, Mtel bid: FG shortlists Natcom, Nectar
Omantel To Invest $71m In Submarine Cable Project
PLDT, Hong Kong’s PCCW Laying Down New Underwater Cable To Make Internet Service Resilient
Repairs To Cable Break Disrupting Vietnam’s Internet To Take Nearly 20 Days
NewsNow
SEA-US: Global Consortium To Build Cable System Connecting Indonesia, The Philippines, And The United States
Seaborn Networks Adds Microsoft To The Seabras-1 Submarine Cable System Between US And Brazil
Seaborn Networks Increases Maximum Capacity Of US-Brazil Subsea Cable By 50%
Submarine Cable Almanac Issue 11
Submarine cable operator says storms could hit Pacific traffic
Submarine Cable Repair To Finish On Sept 12
Submarine Cables To Land In Coogee
SubOptic 2016 Dates Announced By E-marine As Event Gathers Momentum To Take Place In Dubai
Subsea Cable-Laying Plough Lost On Seabed
Superfast Broadband On Its Way To The Roseland As Cables Are Laid Under River Fal
Tampnet To Acquire CNSFTC From BPEOC
Telecom Namibia: WACS Repairs To Start This Weekend
TIME Continues Global Expansion With Asia-To-America Submarine Cable Investment
TOT Pressed For New Revival Plan
Vietnam Service Provider Blames Poor Design For Submarine Internet Cable Fractures
Vietnam’s Internet Disrupted Again By 2nd Cable Cut In 2 Months
The Undersea Cable Report 2014From Terabit Consulting
Intelligent intelligence -go beyond the numbers!
The most diligent quan-titative and qualitative analysis of the undersea cable market - 1,600 pages of data, intelli-gence, and forecasts that can be found no-where else.
Terabit Consulting an-alysts led by Director of International Research Michael Ruddy tell you what’s real and what’s not, where we’ve been and where we’re headed.
YOUR KEY TO UNDERSTANDING AND HARNESSINGTHE $20 BILLION UNDERSEA MARKET OPPORTUNITY
The Undersea Cable Report capitalizes on Terabit Consulting’s global on-site experience working with carriers, cable operators, financiers, and governments in over 70 countries on dozens of leading projects (e.g. AJC, BRICS, EASSy, Hibernia, SEAS, TBI) - a world of experience, at your fingertips in a single resource!
For more information visit www.terabitconsulting.comor email us at [email protected]
or call +1 617 444 8605
The Undersea Cable Report 2014 is your single source of information for top-level decision-making - with the most detailed profiles, data, market analysis, and forecasts available.
• valuable intelligence• innovative modeling• thoughtful insight• global perspective• respected expertise
• The upgrade market • Global, region-by-region, and route-by-route
analysis • Reliable, detailed forecasts• accurate, reliable data
• 680+ detailed undersea cable profiles • Capacity demand, capacity supply, and
capacity pricing• Ownership, system supply, financing, and
project costs
Offshore EnergyAn Overview
Kieran Clark
Welcome to SubTel Forum’s annual Offshore Energy
issue. This month, we’ll take a particular look at the growing worldwide market for submarine fiber in the offshore Oil & Gas market. These cable systems link conventional fixed platforms, vertically moored tension leg and mini-tension leg platforms, spars, semi-submersibles, floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) and floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facilities. The data used in this article is obtained from the public domain and is tracked by the ever evolving SubTel Forum database, where products like the Almanac and Cable Map find their roots.
Systems Per Year
For last year’s Offshore Energy issue, 3 systems were planned to be ready for service here in
2014. There were 4 additional systems planned for 2015, 3 systems planned for 2016, and 6 systems planned for 2017.
After a year’s time, these numbers are significantly different. This year, 2 systems have come into service, with no plans to implement additional systems for the
remainder of 2014. There has been a sharp decline for 2015, with only one system now planned to be ready for service, but 2016 and 2017 have seen a frenzy of renewed activity. As of this article, there are now 7 systems planned for 2016, with an additional 11 systems planned for 2017. Several companies are
already looking towards 2018 and beyond, with a further 6 systems planned between 2018 and 2020. As a note of historical interest, only 9 systems went into service from 1998 until 2012. Over the last 2 years, we’ve seen half the number of systems built compared to the previous 14 years. By 2016, projections
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SYSTEMS PER YEAR
are that the total number of systems will have more than doubled in the span of 4 years.
Route Kilometers Per Year
With the rapid rise of new systems projected over the next several years, we can expect to view a rather large increase in the total kilometers of cable added. We saw an increase of 605km for 2013, 800km for 2014, only 160km for 2015, with 2016 and 2017 promising to bring 2693km and 3170km, respectively. This is a significant overall increase compared to last year’s numbers. As more and more platforms begin to require high capacity fiber connections, expect the amount of cable added to continue to increase at these high rates.
Systems Announced By Region
From a regional perspective, AustralAsia will be the busiest region over the next several years. Out of the 17 systems planned for 2015 through 2017, 9 will be located in this region. The Gulf of Mexico and West Africa regions will see 2 additional systems over the next 3 years, with the remainder of the regions represented here receiving 1 system each. This coincides with the direction the international submarine cable industry is going as well, spurred on by the rapid economic development of Southeast
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
ANNOUNCED KMS ADDED BY YEAR
Systems Announced 2015-2017 By Region
AustralAsia
Gulf of Mexico
Black Sea
Indian Ocean
Persian Gulf
South America
West Africa
Asia and Asia, which will be supported significantly by Australian hydrocarbon extraction. It’s also worth noting that for 2018 to 2020, there are 3 potential systems for each of the Gulf of Mexico and AustralAsia regions.
Investment By Region
With more projects comes more money invested. Over the next 3 years, the various new systems have an estimated cost of nearly $1,000,000,000. As expected from the amount of systems planned, the AustralAsia region represents a large chunk of this proposed
investment at $310,000,000. Most of the other regions that only have 1 or 2 systems planned naturally have a much lower amount of capital invested. The West African region, which will see only 2 new systems over the next 3 years, will end up accounting for the largest majority of total system investment at a value
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
AUSTRALASIA GULF OF MEXICO
BLACK SEA INDIAN OCEAN PERSIAN GULF
SOUTH AMERICA WEST AFRICA
NORTH ATLANTIC ARCTIC
(in Millions USD)
INVESTMENT BY REGION 2015-2017
As more and more platforms begin to require high capacity fiber connections, expect the amount of cable added to continue to increase at these high rates.
of $383,000,000. This is due to the fact that, while the number of proposed systems in the region is low, West Africa will see the most length of cable added compared to any other region.
Summary
Overall, we can see very healthy growth over the next 3 years. With 6 additional systems already planned for 2018 through 2020, expect to see sustained levels of growth as more offshore Oil & Gas
platforms start to require the high capacity and reliability that submarine fiber provides. As with seemingly everything else in today’s economy, interest seems to be centering on the Pacific. With the potential advent of new or emerging heretofore seen
offshore hydrocarbon basins, such as the Arctic and US East Coast, these trends may well be enhanced in the future.
Kieran Clark is an Analyst for Submarine Telecoms Forum. He joined the company in 2013 as a Broadcast Technician to provide support for live event video streaming. In 2014, Kieran was promoted
Forum publications. He has 4+ years of live production experience and has worked alongside some of the premier organizations in video web streaming.
to Analyst and is currently responsible for the research and maintenance that supports the SubTel Forum International Submarine Cable Database; his analysis is featured in almost the entire array of SubTel
Coherent Transport
High Signal Power
Outstanding Bend Performance
Simplified Network Design
Long-term Reliability
To learn more, ask your cabler about OFS or visit www.ofsoptics.com
A Furukawa Company
/ofsoptics /company/ofs/ofs_telecom /OFSoptics
TeraWave™ and Allwave® FLEX ZWP Ocean Fibers
From shore to shore to ocean riser . . .OFS’ fiber solution enables 100 Gb/s with high signal power & low loss performance
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
2015 Release Timel ine
SubmarineCable Map
6th Edition
Submarine TelecomsIndustry Calendar
14th Edition
80Global
Outlook
81Finance& Legal
82Subsea
Capacity
83RegionalSystems
84OffshoreEnergy
85System
Upgrades
Issue 14 Issue 16
Issue 13 Issue 13
2016
Issue 4
Issue 4Finance, Legal & Permitting
Supplement STF
Issue 3Installers
Supplement STF
Issue 2Surveyors
Supplement STF
Issue 1Suppliers
Supplement STF
Issue 5Maintenance
& Repair
Supplement STF
Issue 6Cable
Developers
Supplement STF
Chesapeake Oil?
Stephen Nielsen
So a funny thing happened just this year. The U.S. hit the lowest
average cost of oil in years.
The national average for a gallon of regular, unleaded gas has dropped by 10 cents since this time last year to $3.44. The Washington metro area is even lower, at $3.39.
“These prices are the lowest we’ve seen since 2010,” said Lon Anderson, managing director of public and government affairs for AAA Mid-Atlantic in a recent article from the Winchester Star in Winchester, VA. In 2010 the price of gas nationally averaged $2.59.
This year’s numbers are relatively low despite geopolitical tensions in Russia, Ukraine and Iraq. According to Anderson, this is largely because of additional oil pumping in the U.S., offsetting the international issues.
“The U.S., right now, has become one of the largest energy producers,” Anderson said.
The country is approaching
its highest annual level of oil production since 1972.
And it isn’t just oil.
According to Bentek Energy, an energy market analytics company out of Denver, CO, U.S. natural gas production rose 0.4 billion cubic feet per day from July during August. Production in the lower 48
states averaged 68.9 Bcf/day, which is the highest monthly average on record. On Aug. 29, product set a one-day record of 69.4 Bcf/day. The previous record was established on July 30 at 69.3 Bcf/day.
Now, this can be attributed to a number of things, but ultimately this is a product of changing regulations
allowing greater access to state and private land.
One example of this is a recent boom in oil production in North Dakota, where oil and natural gas production has grown so quickly that it has outpaced the infrastructure that supports it.
A recent article from
Bloomberg Businessweek examines a Norwegian oil company, Statoil, with plans to widen its natural gas capture program in North Dakota’s oil fields. As it stands, the company is forced to flare 30 percent of the natural gas produced, which is fairly standard in the state, but hopes to reduce it with further development. Indications show that in time terrestrial oil and natural gas production will only increase in the U.S.
This, however, doesn’t
compare to the possibilities that have recently opened us with the recent decision by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which may also have a great impact on potential business for the undersea cable industry.
As of July, BOEM has opened the outer continental shelf from Delaware to Florida to exploration by energy companies preparing to apply for drilling leases in 2018, when current congressional limits are set to expire.
“The bureau’s decision reflects a carefully analyzed and balanced approach that will allow us to increase our understanding of potential offshore resources while protecting the human, marine, and coastal environments,” acting BOEM Director Walter Cruickshank said in a statement to the Associated Press.
This change has created the potential not only for new business for the oil industry on the east coast, but for any companies providing services to newly built platforms.
According to the Energy Collective, a commentator on energy issues, “88.6 billion barrels of oil and 398.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are believed to be held in the Outer Continental Shelf, according to the Bureau of Ocean Exploration and Management.” Although these estimates are 30 years old and may change with the recent allowances given for new exploration.
That being said, there are no standing guarantees that new leases will be sold for offshore building, either for oil platforms or wind farms. Instead, BOEM is in the
process of writing a new five year plan, for 2017 to 2022. Currently, about 87 percent of the outer continental shelf is off limits, including all of the eastern seaboard. Depending on what new surveys could find in the area, BOEM may decide to begin issuing new leases in previously off limits areas.
“It’s been about 30 years since surveys were conducted in this region, and technology has vastly improved,” said Brian Straessle, media contact for the American Petroleum Institute. “You can get a clearer picture now about what resources are there and U.S. natural gas produc-
tion rose 0.4 billion cu-bic feet per day from July during August. Pro-duction in the lower 48 states averaged 68.9 Bcf/day, which is the highest monthly average on re-cord. On Aug. 29, prod-uct set a one-day record of 69.4 Bcf/day. The pre-vious record was estab-lished on July 30 at 69.3 Bcf/day. (Bentek Energy)
what geology is available for building wind farms.”
Currently, nine companies have applied for the right to survey and, according to Straessle, if things go smoothly they may be exploring the area as early as late this year or early next year. If they’re successful in finding resources, large, untapped areas may be opened.
“What we have encouraged them to do is allow exploration in new areas,” Straessle said. “What we would like to see in the next five year plan is for BOEM to maintain areas where exploration is allowed and expand areas that allow
leasing like in the East Coast, eastern Gulf of Mexico and areas like that.”
Despite the BOEM’s, there are questions that have been raised about the long-term damage that increased exploration could do to the area. The chief method of exploration that has been given the green light by BOEM uses sound waves to measure the amount of resources that can be found in a given area. The technology sends out sonic waves which reverberate beneath the sea floor and bounce back to the surface, where they are measured by hydrophones. Computers then translate
the data into high resolution, three-dimensional images.
While this method is already commonly used in the western Gulf of Mexico, off Alaska and other offshore oil operations around the world, it is agreed by the BOEM that it is disruptive to marine life.
For that reason, the BOEM has suggested a few measures to reduce the effects. These include detection of marine mammals ahead of time and avoiding areas during known mammal mating cycles.
Long term, this could be a major step for the U.S. in oil and natural gas production. While it isn’t definite that allowing these explorations
will lead to new platforms for the oil industry, it does suggest that the attitude in the country has begun to be caught up in the momentum that has led the U.S. to approach a new era in energy.
Stephen Nielsen is staff journalist for Submarine Telecoms Forum. He is a graduate of the Virginia Commonweath University School of Mass Communications and was recognized as a finalist for the Society of Professional Journalism’s Mark of Excellence Award.
“88.6 billion barrels of oil and 398.4 trillion cu-bic feet of natural gas are believed to be held in the Outer Continental Shelf, according to the Bureau of Ocean Exploration and Management – though those estimates are 30 years old.” (The Energy Collective)
“It could be years before any oil is brought up due to the lack of infrastruc-ture, but Southern politi-cians and the oil industry have been pushing for de-velopment as the White House prepares the coun-try’s 2017-2022 ocean en-ergy exploration plan.” (Huffington Post)
“In the Atlantic alone, the benefits [of offshore drill-ing] could equal 280,000 new American jobs and $51 billion in revenue for the government,” said Erik Milito, Upstream Di-rector for the American Petroleum Institute. (The Christian Science Monitor)
MOREINFORMATION
submarine te lecoms
INDUSTRYCALENDAR
2015
Fibre Optic CablesWhy They Are Increasingly Used For Offshore Oil And Gas Rigs In The GCC
Rusty O’Connor
In the offshore oil and gas business success depends on productivity and safety.
If a rig is located on a large oil or gas reserve, that has proven capacity, then it is the speed that you can extract the oil or gas, refine it if it’s oil, and send it downstream that determines success and profits. This is productivity.
Safety is interrelated to productivity. When a rig is safe and incident free it is productive. When incidents occur, work stops and profits diminish. Depending on the incident it can have a major impact on a rigs overall productivity and success.
As such, safety is equally as important as productivity.
To achieve both productivity and to ensure safety you need effective and efficient communication. In fact communications is the backbone of any offshore activity or business. It is one of the most important aspects. In the military the first thing that troops on the ground set up is effective communication.
Wars are won based on who has the best communication.
While a rig is not a military operation, to be successful it needs to act like one!
Whether it is local communication on the rig that ensures issues are dealt with swiftly, or communication back to onshore activities
or head office, it is off vital importance.
If you are working in the offshore oil and gas industry, and want to improve your
productivity, profits and overall safety then the communication systems that you use, and the cable
types that you choose will have a major impact on your communication success.
Increasingly, offshore rig operators are utilizing fibre optic cables rather than microwave, satellite or the old school copper cables. Below you will see the benefits of fibre optic cables, as well as some disadvantages, and why they are increasingly becoming an essential part of offshore oil and gas rigs success.
Faster communication and over longer distances
Fast communication equals success on an offshore rig. Being able to communicate instantly with workers on the rig, offices back on shore, and emergency personnel if required, ensures productivity and safety.
The question is: “why are fibre optic cables faster than other options?” The answer to this, without boring you with the scientific details, is below!
Fibre optic cables rely on pulses of light to send data and information through
plastic or glass. Pulses are a lot more efficient than the electro magnetic signals that copper cables worked by, and are also a lot more reliable than satellite.
What’s more light travels very quickly. Combine this with more bandwidth and you have fast and effective communication. While satellite can carry large bandwidths the issue is reliability. If something happens, it is very easy for governments to stop communication by satellites.
Fibre optics are also better over longer distances. Offshore oil and gas rigs are called offshore for a reason. They are often located 60 to 100km from the mainland. The faster you can communicate the better.
In addition to speed, less repeaters also equals less maintenance. Cables to rigs are placed underwater. The less you need to do to these cables the better once they are installed.
Bandwidth is also important. When compared to standard
coaxial cables, which are generally the alternative to fibre optics for gas and oil rigs, the difference in bandwidth is dramatic:
• Coaxial: 2-4 MHz/km
• Fibre Optics: 400 MHz/km
When compared to satellite, it is the price of the bandwidth which makes fibre optics the more preferred option,
It is important to note however that fibre optics do have a maximum, and can be exceeded. However, as can bee seen from above, the maximum is much greater than standard cables.
In short fibre optics are fast. They are good for your communications and good for your business.
Fibre optics work well when security is an issue
Security and safety are of paramount importance when it comes to offshore oil and gas rigs. In the GCC, and the Middle East more generally, safety is even more important.
With fibre optics, your data and the information that you send is almost 100 percent secure.
With other types of cables, you require magnetic fields and currents. This generates noise in the signal carrying
When it comes to fibre optic cables there is no radiated magnetic field. Rather all of the electromagnetic components are kept within the fibre. This makes it impossible to listen in on a signal.
In fact, the only way is to cut into the fibre itself, which is then noticed, and warning alarms are sent. There have only been a handful of cases where military has been able to tap fibre optics successfully without been detected.
This ensures that your data is secure and that more importantly you are safe. Its also piece of mind to know that you can send messages out securely should you ever need too.
Fibre optic cables are easy to install
When you are working offshore, installation becomes an important issue. You need to reduce costs, protect your bottom line and provide the highest level of service for your businesses needs. Fibre optics can help do this.
conductors, and also allows for data on conductors to leak.
While it is possible to shied wires – and this is often done – this only masks the problem and leaking of signals still can occur. In most cases this leak is enough for the wire to be tapped.
Satellite and microwave communication systems can also be easily hacked and monitored. As soon as you rely on a wireless system, as both of these are, security becomes an increasingly important issue.
Specifically, fibre optic cables are easy to install because:
• Size: The size of fibre optic cable compared to a traditional copper ca-ble is significantly less – on average the cross sec-tion is 30 times smaller.
• Weight: The weight of a fibre optic cable is also much less because it is smaller and lighter than metal wires.
As the material are smaller and lighter, and take up less space, they are easier to carry, move and install. You can carry more cables, dig trenches, and lay cable relatively quickly. When you are dealing with a heavier cable you need heavy machinery to move and lay cables.
While on the surface satellite may seem like a cheaper option, there is still a necessity to have a dish on the rig, which may not be possible, and the cost of paying for bandwidth from a commercial satellite. As an added complication, bandwidth may not always be available. In short, fibre optics are a preferred solution.
Fibre optics is also easier to maintain
If you haven’t heard of a remote operating vehicle (ROV) then you are in for a treat. They can help maintain
your fibre optics cables on the cheap!
With more and more companies using fibre optics offshore there are now
specific business whose sole job is to help maintain your communication assets.
They use ROV vehicles which are cost effective, can dive to any depth, and perform
a range of maintenance functions on your cables.
This is much better than the good old days of divers having to do everything
and help machines dig trenches. Everything is done automatically.
Fibre optics are cheaper to maintain because all of the key components are inside
the cables, there are less repeaters, and because they are a lot smaller.
One of the other maintenance benefits is that fibre optics is
much less likely to corrode. Where other cables corrode in saltwater, fibre optics because of their glass or plastic materials are much less likely to. This adds to less maintenance costs and also less down time for your business.
This is especially important for offshore oil and gas rigs where cables are paced on the ocean floor, or in trenches underneath the ocean floor. Either way, they are exposed to salt water.
It is also important to note that seawater in the Middle East, especially the Arabian Gulf, is especially salty because of the high temperatures.
Companies need to do whatever they can to ensure their communication cables are protected.
Again, while satellites or microwave communication may seem to be cheaper to set up, the on-going running costs, and the risks of security and communication make them more expensive and more riskier options.
No spark risk – this is important for offshore activities
There is a range of scenarios where transmitting signals and information electrically can be dangerous. Because of its electric nature there is
always the potential for a small spark. In most instances this isn’t an issue, however when you are dealing with gas and oil, and are located in a confined space, it can become an issue.
If there is potential for any flammable vapors then fibre optic cables are a much more practical solution. The key difference is that fibre optics don’t carry current and as such do not produce electrical sparks.
Not only is it safer, it is also important for uptime and security of data and communication. Even a small explosion can have huge impacts on your data and productivity, not to mention health and safety.
Even if there is only a small risk, it is much better to play it safe. With all the other benefits of fibre optics, it is sound decision.
Above all – its good for workers
Back in the old days, working on a gas or oil rig really meant that you were isolated
and unable to communicate easily with the outside world. This had an impact on the productivity and happiness of workers.
While satellite and other cable types can be good, there is still a lot of downtime and restrictions on personal communication.
This has changed significantly with fibre optics. With the increase in bandwidth, workers can communicate easily with family and loved ones. While on the surface this may not seem like a huge issue it has opened up offshore work to more people, especially people with families. This helps to create a more diverse and often high performing workforce.
If you install fibre optic cables, you will have a health and happy workforce.
What are the disadvantages of fibre optic cables?
As can be seen from above, there is a range of benefits to using fibre optic cables. These benefits are for all businesses, but have specific advantages
for offshore gas and oil rigs.
Not withstanding these benefits there are also several actual and perceived disadvantages to using fibre optic cables. These are detailed below:
• Cost: On the surface the cost of fibre optics is significantly more ex-pensive other technol-ogies such as satellite, microwave and cop-per. However, when you add in the added bandwidth, and also the fact that fibre has a long operational life, the cost becomes much less of an issue. In fact, from a benefit cost ratio perspective fibre optics come out on top.
• Fibre optics can break: Because fibre optics is made of glass or plas-tic they are suscepti-ble to breaking. When this occurs they can be costly to fix. However, the protection comes down to the cover and
the protective layer around the fibre optics. Most manufactures produce covering that makes it almost im-possible for fibre optics to break. Choose one of these products and your chance of having a break will be slim.
• More protection: Fibre optic cables require sig-nificant more protec-tion than other cable types. However, this is more of a manufactur-ing issue and is includ-ed in the development price. You need to look at the costs over the whole life of the cables
to gain an understand-ing of how cost effec-tive they are.
• Repeating: Transmis-sion of fibre optics does require repeating. This can be an added cost.
While there are disadvantages, as can be seen most of these can be quite easily controlled and managed.
In summary…should you choose fibre optics?
With a longer cable life, easy maintenance and far superior bandwidth fibre optics is the natural choice for businesses. When compared to other cables, satellite and microwave it is also a lot more secure.
What’s more, as technology changes it will become an even better technology – for example new glass and plastic developments.
If you work in the offshore gas or oil sector and are looking to upgrade your communications, then fibre optics should be a key consideration.
Rusty O’Connor is a freelance Australian technical writer. While proudly an Aussie he has worked as an expat in the Middle East and Asia for a variety of companies and news agencies. His focuses are mainly on the technology and new energy
industries, specifically focusing on what new technologies are available, and how they can support current industry. Outside of work he enjoys horse riding, eventing and travel.
MOREINFORMATION
Did you know we had
downloads of ourlast almanac?
submarine cable
ALMANAC
505,286
London Array Offshore Wind Farm
Erlend Andersen &
Rannveig Bergerød Aase
The London Array, sited in the outer Thames Estuary, was the world’s largest
operational offshore wind farm when it was inaugurated by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, in July 2013. The wind farm consists of 175 turbines and two offshore substations that are capable of generating up to 630MW, enough energy to power nearly half a million UK homes. The desire to build wind farms was driven by the UK government’s policy to cut carbon emission and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels. This article provides an overview of the project based on the experiences of Nexans Norway in supplying the high voltage subsea power export cables.
In 2009, Nexans Norway was awarded the contract for the high voltage subsea power export cables to connect the London Array wind farm to the UK grid. Delivery was scheduled for 2011-2012. The London Array wind farm was being constructed installed approximately 20km off the UK coast, and the entire wind farm field covers a 233 km2 site.
There were several project challenges. The first challenge being that when the contract was signed, the actual cable route was still under investigation. The area contained a considerable amount of wrecks and also unexploded bombs dropped during WW II. Moreover, fishing activities in the area allowed only for a short time frame for
installation of the cable from the shore end, so maintaining the cable delivery schedule became a critical factor.
Nexans Norway’s scope of work was the design, manufacture and supply of the power export cables. The submarine compos-ite cables contain one 3-phase power cable and one optical
element of 52 fibres. Four of these were manufactured, each approximately 55km long. The fibre elements provide commu-nication and temperature moni-toring services. The project was based on field proven products, but tailor made to the specif-ic demands of the application, such as the seabed conditions in which they were to be bur-
ied. The four 150 kV subma-rine power cables were manu-factured at Nexans’ factory in Halden, while the fibre optic elements were manufactured at the Rognan factory.
The 150 kV submarine power cable has three copper core con-ductors with a cross-section of 630 mm2 for the main length and increasing to 800mm² at each ca-ble end as these are exposed to higher temperatures. The shore end features a double cross laid armour protection that allowed the cable to be pulled across the mud flats and a further 800m up to the land joint pit. The two lay-ers have opposite lay directions of armouring for torsion balanc-ing. The remainder of the cables has single armouring.
The cable insulation system is made of cross-linked polyeth-ylene (XLPE), a material with very good mechanical, thermal and electrical properties. This material was introduced by Nex-ans Norway AS in submarine cables more than 20 years ago and the design is used on sever-al submarine cable projects. The insulation system is designed with three layers: an extruded
layer of semi-conducting com-pound, an extruded insulation layer of cross-linked polyeth-ylene, and extruded layer of semi-conducting compound. The factory carried out the ex-trusion of all three layers using a single triplex extrusion head, thus minimising the risk of sur-face contaminants. The thermal properties of the cable permit a continuous maximum conduc-tor temperature of 90°C and a maximum short circuit tempera-ture of 250°C. This 150kV XLPE submarine power cable was the largest PEX (power export) contract that Nexans had been awarded, and it was especial-ly challenging in managing the transition in the armouring- and conductor cross- section of the onshore end of the cable.
Each cable was delivered in a single continuous length from Halden, and the mere weight of the cable had its logistic chal-lenges as well as being close to the loading limit of the laying vessel. The XLPE submarine power cables were laid in paral-lel from the offshore substations to the shore. In order to protect the cables from external damage, they were buried in the seabed,
at water depths ranging from 0 to 25m. In addition, Nexans Norway provided cable accesso-ries such as repair joints and ter-minations as well as performed the termination work at the land and offshore ends of the cables.
The fibre optic element consists of 52 single mode fibres used for communication from shore to the offshore substations. The London Array Wind farm proj-ect was the first project where Nexans Norway used extruded filling elements designed so that the fibre element would fit pre-cisely into the voids in one of the filling elements. This is a method of protecting the fibres which are the most fragile piece of the sub-marine power cable. Of the 52 fibres, 4 fibres are designated for use in the direct distributed tem-perature sensing system (DTS),
while the rest are used for communication on operational monitoring of the wind farm array.
The DTS is used for mea-suring the temperature and thus monitoring the entire power cable length. In order to use the DTS, a set of refer-
ence values are required from the seabed where the cable is bur-ied. Both an increase and a de-crease in temperature will have an impact on the functioning of the power cables. If the DTS di-agram shows an increase in tem-perature, it means that the power transfer has become too high, and it can become critical if the power transfer is not reduced, as the in-sulation of the cables deteriorates over time if exposed to high tem-peratures. Moreover, if the tem-perature is lower than the set of reference values, it can be a sign that the submarine power cable is exposed. This could be due to a shift in seabed conditions caused by currents or other incidents. Precise measurements of where the drop in temperature has tak-en place can be provided by the DTS system. The main task of the monitoring systems is to safe-
guard the steady flow of power from the offshore wind farms via the substations to the shore.
The main challenge with the DTS system on these four 150kV XLPE submarine power cables, was the length. This was the first project for Nexans where we de-livered DTS on a cable over 50km in length. The fibres were looped at the offshore end in order to amplify the signals so that the temperature could be monitored over the whole cable length. It was also a challenge to incorpo-rate the delicate fibre optic ele-
ment into the power cable and to ensure that the optical fibres were not damaged during man-ufacturing of the power cables.
The London Array Wind farm project proved to be a success for Nexans Norway AS, and most importantly it challenged us to improve our cable technol-ogy and continue innovating. Wind farms are getting larger and further out to sea, making it ever more challenging to deliv-er the cable systems required to transport the power to the shore. The London Array Wind farm project is an important stepping stone to what lies ahead.
Erlend Andersen, Technical Manager, Submarine Fibre Solutions, is Lead Engineer for the optical fibre elements used for the London Array Project. He has Been with Nexans Norway AS for over 10 years.
Rannveig Bergerød Aase, Sales Manager for Submarine Fiber Solutions at Nexans Norway. She has been with Nexans for close to 5 years.
MOREINFORMATION
Submarine Cablesof the World
CapeTown
Durban
Saint-Paul
Baie du
Jacotet
Cochin
Penang
Funchal
Melkbosstrand
Luanda
Libreville
Douala
Accra Coto
nou
Abidjan
Lagos
Dakar
Chipiona
Sesimbra
AltaVista
Seixal
Casablanca
PortHarcourt
PointeNoire
Penmarch
Lisbon
Asilah
Nouakchott
Banjul
Conakry
Freetown
Monrov
ia
Sucujaque
Lome
Bata
Santana
Kribi
Muanda
Swakopmund
Whitesand Bay
WalvisBay
Widemouth Bay
Vigo
LasToninas
Fortaleza
Namibe
Benguela
Cabinda
Soyo
Nzeto
Lucira
PortoAmboim
Mtunzini
Maputo
Toliary
Mor
oni
Dar esSalaam
Mombasa
Mogadishu
Djibouti
PortSudan
Tomasina
Terre Rouge
Mayotte
Fujairah
Jeddah
Ras Sidr
Alexandria
Marseille
Mumbai
Monaco
Gibralt
ar
Teutan
Tripoli
Musca
t
Mazara
Zafarana
Aden
Al Seeb
Al-Khobar
Manama
Sumaisma
Al FawKuwaitCity
Bushehr
Chania
Suez Aqaba
Al Hudaydah
Al Ghaydah
Dubai
BandarAbbas
Chabahar
Triva
ndrum
Colombo
Porthcurno
Estepo
na
Palermo
Songkhla
Deep Water Bay
Nanhui
Keoje
Ninomiya
Miura
Tripoli
Karachi
Anna
ba Bizerte
Tuas
Cox's
Bazaar
Melaka
Norden
Marmaris
Pyapon
Perth
Medan
Mersing
Touc
heng
Fang
shan
Shantou
Da Nang
Batangas
Taipa
Tungku
Okinawa
Doha
Kharg
Tutic
orin
ChennaiPetchaburi
Miyazaki
Pusan
PortHedland
Jakarta
PontianakDumai
Tanjung Pandan
Ketapang
Pangkalanbun
Bandjermasin
Benculuk
Mataram
Jember
TandjoengSangatta
Toweli
Surabaja
Makassar
Kuching
KotaKinabalu
KuantanMiri
Labuan
Kupang
SumbawaBesar
WaingapuRaba
Katong
Chongming
Kitaibaraki
Tans
hui
Sydney
PointMoresby
Vung Tau
Nasugbu
La Union
Qingdao
Shima
AjigauraTaean
Pali
Tseung Kwan O
Capepisa
Ballesteros
Toyohashi
Piti
Emi
HermosaBeach
Fuzhou
Fukuoka
Ishikari
Sendai
Akita
Niigata
Naoetsu
Hamada
Kochi
Ibaraki
Kumihama
Matsutou
OxfordFalls
TanguissonTumon
Nakhodka
Nevelsk
Keawaula
Makaha
Madang
Tong Fuk
SriRacha
Suva
Whenuapai
Takapuna
Alexandria
Brookvale
Samuel LSpencerBeach
Kahe Point
Noum'ea
Papeete
Pago PagoApia
Wallis&Futuna
Kitakyushu
VaitapeUturoa
Moorea
Huahine
PrudhoeBay
Santiagode Cuba
OchoRios
Benghazi
AbuDhabi
Halul
Beirut
Tartus
Nahariya
MouliIsland
Poindimie Lifou
Male
Darnah
Sochi
Poti
Puttg
arde
n
Pohnpei
Ebeye ReaganTest Site
Majuro
WrangellPetersburg
HawkInlet Angoon
Sitka
Freeport
Kenai
Homer
Kodiak
NarrowCape
Turku
Stanley
SandyPoint
Inverloch
BoatHarbour
Valparaiso
Arica
Lurin
Punta Carnero
PuertoSan Jose
Mazatlán
Tijuana
GroverBeach
San LuisObispo
Morro Bay
PointArena
Bandon
Florence
Warrenton
NedonnaBeach
PuertoMancora
Salinas
Panama City
HarborPointe
PortAlberni
Ketchikan
Juneau
Seward
Anchorage ValdezWhittier
Maldonado
Florianopolis
Santos
Salvador
Cayenne
Georgetown
Trinidad
Rio deJaneiro
St.David's
Tuckerton
Punta GordaCaracas
CuracaoPunto Fijo
RiohachaBarranquilla
CartagenaTolu
PuertoLimon
Bluefields
PuertoCabezas
PuertoLempira
TrojilloPuertoCortes
PuertoBarrios
Ladyville
Tulum
Cancun
Ingleside
Pascagoula
Kingston
Bridge town
VeroBeach
Camuri
Macqueripe
Le Lam ent in
Miramar
PuertoViejo
Port Salines
Kingstown
St. Lucia
Martin iqueCanefield
Basseterre
St Martin
Tortola
Battery Pratt Maria Chiquita
Ustupo
Punta Cana
Nassau
Morant Point
Half-MoonBay
Havana
Key West
Manasquan
Halifax
Lynn
Milton
Qaqortoq
Nuuk
Brookhaven
Sardinia
PontaDelgada
Saint-Valery-en-Caux
Pennant Point
Lannion
Highbridge
Beverwijk
Westerland
Bellport
Island Park
Plerin
Northport
Redcar
Herring Cove
DublinSouthport
Coleraine
Landeyjarsandur
Seydisfjordur
DunnetBay
Torshavn
Maywick
Ayre ofCara
Banff
Hotellneset
Harstad
Andoy
KilmoreQuay Whitesands
Bay
Holyhead
Tysvaer
Lowestoft
Guernsey
Dueodde
Kolobrzeg
Gedser
Copenhagen
Kingisepp
Ribnitz-Damgarten
ArdendalKristiansand
Thisted
Mielno
Helsingborg
MariehamnVaddo
Carrickfergus
Saltcoats
SesCovetes
El Djem
ila
San Juan
Barcelona
Savona
Liepaja
Sventoji
Sandviken
Stavsnas
HangoHelsingfors
Kotka
Corfu
Durres
Dubrovnik
Umea
Vaasa
Odesa
Novorossiysk
Varna
Thorpeness
Bruges
BarAjaccio
Aranci
PevenseyBay
Cayeux-sur-M er
MontegoBay
Tallinn
Helsinki
Kärdla
Meremoisa
Tel Aviv
Lechaina
St.Hilaire
Domburg
Baie-Mahault
Gustavia
St George'sBay
Bari
Otranto
Kelibia
Istanbul
Mangalia
Gothenburg
Algi
ers
Haifa
Koropi
Seaford
Veules-les-Roses
Broadstairs
Bunkeflostrand
Oxwich Bay
Kollsnes
Humanby
Bilbao
Scarborough
IJmuiden
Ventspils
Stockholm
SantaCruz
Tierradel Fuego
SantoDomingo
Logi
EastLondon
Port
Elizabeth
Boca RatonHollywood
Norfolk
Miami
Nome
PointHope
Wainwright
Barrow
CambridgeBay
GojaHaven
HallBeach
CapeDorset
Frobisher
Jacksonville
Manta
PuertoMontt
PuntaArenas
Cork
Vladivostok
Noro
Honiara
Auki
Bejing
Tokyo
Auckland
NorfolkIsland
ChristmasIsland
FEA
JIH
JIH
JIH
JIH
APC
N2
JIH
GB
ICS
SHEF
A-2
Southern Cross
FEA
ARCOS-1
AJC
FEA
TAT-14
Southe
rn C
ross
Hibernia-Atlantic
EASS
y
PC-1
FA-1AC-1
Columbus II
APCN2
EAC-C2C
Kodiak
Kennai
GCN
PAC
Japan-US
GOKI
SAM
-1
East-West
SEAC
OM
PAC
Hibernia-Atlantic
Japan-US
MedN
autilus
SMW
-4
PC-1
MAYA-1
Sout
hern
Cro
ss
AAG
SAM-1
AJC
SAM-1
C-B
US
GOKI
I-ME-WE
Flag/Reach
SAM-1
GBICS
FEA
GOKI
MedNautilus
Southern Cross
FEA
EAC-
C2C
Globenet
SA
C
AAG
AAG
Globen
et
EAC-C2C
Japan-US
FEA
AAG
UNITY
PPC-1Sout
hern
Cro
ss
SMW
-4
Sout
hern
Cro
ss
TPE
SEAC
OM
TPE
PC-1
AJC
UNITY
AC-2
Apollo
Apollo
TGN-Atlantic
EASS
y
Columbus II
Columbus III
Japan-US
Southern Cross
PC-1
SAC
SAC
SAM-1
SAM
-1
Globenet
SAC
Globenet
PACSACGlobenet
ARC
OS-
1
ARCOS-1
Globenet
TAT-14
TGN-AtlanticFA-1
Hibernia-AtlanticTAT-14
AC-1
SMW-4
APCN2
EAC-C2C
Flag
/Rea
ch
TPETPE
PC-1
AAG
AJC
PPC
-1
BICS
Honotua
Ogasawara
China-US
MATR
IX
FALCON
CanaLink
PANGEA
FALCON
KAFOS
SCAN
Kategat-1
SAS
EIG
Botnia
TGN-IA
BCS North
KJCN
ALASIA
Bass
Stra
it
ANTEL
SEAK
BALTICA
BIN
LION
Americas II
ALP
AL-
2
SFS-4
SiriusSouth
TampN
ett
Denmark-Russia
SM
W-3
FALCON
Fibralink
China-US
ATLA
NTIS-2
EE-S1
BSFO
CS
ADONES
MedCable
APCN
SMW-3
SU
B
MT
SMW-3
ITUR
EURAFRICA
Americas I
HSC
S
Main O
ne
WAR
F
TGN NE
NEPTUNE
SKKL-JS
GLO-1
Farice-1
CFX
-1
TGN
GUL
F
BARSAV
EIG
UK-Germany 6
Ogasaw
ara
CANTAT-3
SAFE
EMOS-1
SAFE
RJCN
TIS
CAN
TAT-3
JAKABARE
RJK
TWA-1
SM
W-3
Greenland Connect
BCSEast-WestInterlink
HANTRU-1
APCN
BSFOCS
Nor
Sea
Com
-1TG
N Western Europe
JaKa2LaDeMa
BP-GOM
SG-SCS
China-U
S
American Samoa-Fiji
APCN
CANUS-1
C-J FOSC
China-US
Khulna
-Che
nnai
CFX-1
APCN
Caucasus Cable System
TGN
Pacific/T
GN
-IA
TGN Eurasia/SEACOM
UNISUR
ATLA
S Offs
hore
EIG
FALCON
SAFE
Americas II
India-UAE
TGN Pacific
Gond
wana
-1
Americas I
Jonah
LION-2
MINERVA
Kwajalein-Guam
Ariane 2
MINERVA
TASMAN 2
TPC-5
JASURAUS
TRANS-TASMAN
G-P
ITUR
FLAG HAWK
i2i
Global
Nexus
TGN TIC
Alba-1
ALEXANDROS
A-PN
G2
Micronesia CS
APC
N
T-V-H
Alaska United West
Danice
NorthStar
Alaska United East
TPC-5
Ende
avou
r
AKORN
PAN
AM
Endeavour
TGN Pacific
ASH
SMW-3
TGN Pacific
TEAM
S
Svalbard
SAFE
MEN
A
TPC-5
TGN Pacific
TGN
-IA
China-US
CANTAT-3
GLO
-1
SAT-2
SAT-3
ATLAN
TIS-2
ACE
WAC
S
TPC-5
China-US
Gre
enla
nd C
onne
ct
Greenland Connect
SMW
-3
T-V-
H
Matrix
RJK
SAEx
BLAST
APX-West
Seahorse-1
SMW-5
Haw
aiki
SJC
Arcti
c Fibr
e
SMW
-5
Brazil
-US
Hawaiki
Solom
ons
Isla
nd to
the
Wor
ld
PCCS
APG
SMW
-5
SMW
-5
Vanatua
PC
CS
BRICS
APG
SMW
-5
Challenger
SM
W-5
Emerald E
xpress
ACSEA
PCCS
Hawaiki
America-Movil-1
SMW-5
APX-East
ASE
AMX-1
Hawaiki
APX-Eas
t
WASACE
Hawa
iki
APX-West
ASE
ACSEA
APX-East
APX-
East
Hawaiki
Amer
ica M
ovil-1
ArcticF
ibre
APG
WASACE
SACS
America-Movil-1
BRICS
Brazil-US
ArcticFibre
Arctic Fibre
Emerald ExpressWASACE
BB
G
SAEx
Seabras-1
Brazil-US
ArcticFibre
BRIC
S
Aust
ral
WAS
ACESe
abra
s-1
ACSEA
BRICS
ACSEA
BRICS
BRIC
S
APG
BRIC
S
APG
Afghanistan
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
BurkinaFaso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
CentralAfrican
Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Côted'Ivoire
Croatia
CzechRepublic
DemocraticRepublic ofthe Congo
Denmark
Ecuador
Egypt
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Greenland
Guinea
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
IranIraq
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Mad
agas
car
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
MarshallIslands
Mauritania
Mexico
MoldovaMongolia
Morocco
Mozam
bique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Norway
NewZealand
Niger
Nigeria
NorthKorea
Oman
Pakistan
Papua NewGuinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
RussianFederation
Rwanda
SaudiArabia
SierraLeone
Slovakia
Somalia
SouthAfrica
SouthKorea
Spain
SriLanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
UAE
UK
UnitedStates
UnitedStates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Sudan
SouthSudan
Submarine Cables of The World2014 Edition
Voiceof the
Industry
SHIPBORNE & LANDBASEDPOWER FEED SYSTEMS...
WWW.SPELLMANHV.COM
POWERING UPSHIP TO SHORE
USA EUROPE JAPAN MEXICO
Spellman’s Power Feed Equipment (PFE) is used in Shipborne and
Landbased Submarine Fiber Optic Cable systems throughout the world.
We have provided PFE components and systems to the world leaders in
repeatered optical systems for over 20 years. This experience has been
applied to a new generation of low cost, small size Landbased PFE’s.
Landbased PFE’s capable of 6kV at 1.2A , full 1+1 redundancy, all in
a single 600mm x 600mm bay!
Our Shipborne PFE’s are the industry standard for the worlds cable laying
fleet. Spellman shipborne PFE’s can be found on over 55 ships though
out the world, from Korea to Baltimore...Hamilton to Hampton Docks!
And, as in the past, you can always count on Spellman’s field service
to be there when you need us...Spellman...Powering up...Ship to Shore!
USA - 475 Wireless Blvd. Hauppauge, New York 11788
Tel: +1 631 630 3000 Fax: +1 631 435 1620 email: [email protected]
UK & Europe - Broomers Park, Broomers Hill Lane, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 2RY
Tel: +44 (0) 1798 877000 Fax: +44 (0) 1798 872479 email: [email protected]
Japan - 3-15 Kanayama-cho, Kawaguchi-shi, Saitama-ken Japan 332-0014
Tel: +81 (0) 48 228 3222 Fax: +81 (0) 48 228 3224 email: [email protected]
Map Key
Blue Line =Upgraded System
Red Line =Planned/UnderConstruction
Black Line =In Service
S. B. Submarine Systemswww.sbss.com
email: [email protected]
Your Provider of SpecialistTelecoms & HV Cable Handling Systems
•LinearCable&CapstanDrumEngines•Carousels&Tensioners•FullySynchronisedControlSystems
Reaching FaRtheR, FasteR with 100G Coherent
www.columbus-networks.com
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
ad columbus network almanaque.pdf 1 12/7/11 12:16 PM
State ofSubsea
31MARCHWASHINGTON, D.C.
stateofsubsea.com
Presented by
Thirty years ago com-munications between offshore facilities and
onshore locations was limited to a two-way radio and dai-ly reports. Back then, oilfield workers stationed offshore were virtually cut off from the rest of the world. Addition-ally, the amount of staff re-quired on each rig and facility offshore was great because all the information to make de-cisions was gathered at these remote locations.
Offshore communications have come a long way since then. Now, real-time commu-nications networks not only allow for wi-fi connectivity and personal cell phone use, but also real-time transfer of offshore data to onshore of-fices. Allowing for remote unmanned and totally sub-sea developments, the way the offshore industry works has been transformed by im-proved communications sys-tems.
How Do OffshoreCommunications Work?
Article courtesy of
Rigzone
TelecommunicationsTechnologies
There are a number of com-munications technologies that can work together in a sys-tem or singly to solve offshore communications challenges. Communications solutions are chosen because of the distance data must travel, the remote-ness of the installation, and the amount of data that must be transmitted, as well as the availability of the technolo-gy. Different communications technologies include satellite,
microwave, fiber optics, and cellular services.
The most widely chosen solu-tion for offshore communica-tions, satellite communications requires a VSAT, or very small aperture terminal, at the off-shore site; a broadband satel-lite connection in space; and a teleport onshore. Available anywhere in the world, sat-ellite services are used many times for vessels that may be on the move, or extremely re-mote locations. The only draw-backs to satellite services are a
slight delay in data transmittal and finite bandwidth.
Using microwave telecommu-nications technology, data is transported via wavelengths that measure less than one me-ter in length. Microwave com-munications solutions offer more bandwidth for data, but at shorter distances. Many times, microwave telecommunica-tions are chosen for locations that are within close proximity to each other, such as a cluster of facilities on a field.
Although limited because ca-bles must be run from point to point, fiber is an optimal communications solution for clustered facilities or offshore locations that are in high-traf-fic areas, such as the North Sea or US Gulf of Mexico. Also, fiber cables are used to trans-mit data between subsea trees, manifolds, jumpers, sleds and controls via umbilicals.
Even cellular services can be accessible at some locations offshore. Specifically, the US Gulf of Mexico has cellular
towers installed offshore that allow cellular communications from rigs and platforms near the coast to onshore locations, allowing offshore workers to communicate through their own private cell phones.
Integrated Solutions
Sometimes, a telecommunica-tions solution for an offshore development might require satellite communications to a main facility and microwave or fiber between wells or facili-ties within the development. In other words, a unique combi-
nation of telecommunications technologies is integrated into each offshore situation, which allows everything from re-al-time transfer of data from subsea wells to office-like envi-ronments at offshore facilities.
Because real-time transmit-tal of data is available now in
offshore environments, not as many workers are required for rigs and developments located offshore. Advances in telecom-munications technologies have made immediate decisions to be made from shore. Now, offshore developments are trending toward unmanned and completely subsea instal-lations.
Furthermore, improvements in offshore communication tech-nologies have improved work-life balance environments for those workers who are re-quired to work at these remote locations. Now, offshore staff is able to use wi-fi, talk to family and friends on the phone and watch television during their off time.
Telecoms consulting of submarine cable systemsfor regional and trans-oceanic applications
.com
Kurdish ISPs Enable Growth Of Iraqi Internet
Doug Madory
The recent violence in Iraq and the government’s actions to block social media and other Internet services have put a spotlight on the Iraqi Internet. However, an overlooked but important dynamic in understanding the current Iraqi Internet is the central role Kurdish ISPs play in connecting the entire country to the global Internet.
In the past five years, the Internet of Iraq has gone from about 50 networks (routed prefixes) to over 600. And what is most noteworthy this that the growth has not occurred as a result of
increased connectivity from the submarine cable landing at Al Faw, as would be expected in a typical environment. Instead the dominant players in the Iraqi wholesale market are two Kurdish ISPs that connect to the global Internet through Turkey and Iran: Newroz and IQ Networks.
Help from the Kurds
The Iraqi Kurdistan region contains four main cities: Erbil, Duhok, Zakho and Sulaymaniyah. Newroz covers the first three, while IQ
Networks provides service in the last. However, it would be incorrect to simply classify these providers as city-level retail ISPs. They also carry significant amounts of traffic for the rest of the country.
From the relative peace and stability of Kurdistan, Newroz and IQ Networks sell transit to Iraqi ISPs in the biggest markets — those in the middle and south of Iraq. Central Iraq ISPs, such as Earthlink, ScopeSky, and FastIraq, attain transit from the Kurdish providers by connecting
in northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Five years Iraqi Internet growth
The graph below illustrates the overall growth of the Iraqi Internet over the last five and a half years. The total count of Iraqi networks (routed prefixes) is depicted in purple and the networks transited by either Newroz (blue), IQ Networks (green) or both (yellow) are overlaid as a stacked plot in the forefront. At last count, 73% of Iraq networks are routed
through these two providers. And if you count unique IP addresses, these two Kurdish providers transit 86% of all Iraqi IP address space.
The remaining networks are either routed through Jordan (e.g. Earthlink to Damamax), various satellite service providers, smaller direct connections to Turkey or submarine cable connectivity at the Al Faw cable landing (most notably ITC service to GTT). Below are recorded remarks by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the
opening ceremony of ITC fiber service during which he said, “fiber optic cables have paved the way in revolutionizing the world of communications and this will now be witnessed in Iraq.”
The following graph is similar to the previous one, but limited to just 2014 to more clearly illustrate recent changes. You can see a discontinuity in June as militants destroyed an interconnection point in Mosul, impacting Internet traffic transited by Newroz from central Iraq. Most
notably Earthlink lost its service from Newroz and Damamax in this incident.
In 2012, Jim Cowie classified Iraq as “low risk of disconnection” in his blog post Could it happen in your country?. The conclusion was that due to the diversity of external transit sources (submarine cable, satellite, and terrestrial via Turkey, Iran and Jordan), it would be difficult to completely disconnect the Iraq from the global Internet. It may be cold comfort for those Iraqis who were (and still are) impacted by the recent blackouts, but this back-of-the-envelope analysis was proven correct by recent events.
In fact, it is the latest attempted shutdowns (including the failed attempt last fall during a pricing dispute) that prove, perhaps surprising to some, how resilient the Internet of Iraq is. And that resiliency is primarily due to Kurdish transit.
Article courtesy of
Doug Madory is a Director of Internet Analysis at Dyn, where he works on global Internet infrastructure analysis projects. He has a special interest in mapping the logical Internet to the physical (submarine and terrestrial cables) and in 2013 identified the activation of several significant cables: the ALBA-1 submarine cable serving Cuba, the Europe-Persia Express Gateway (EPEG) terrestrial cable connecting Europe to the Middle East, and the International Terrestrial Cable (ITC) connecting India and Bangladesh. Doug holds computer engineering degrees from the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College.
Back Reflection by Stewart Ash & Bill Burns
Technology Convergence Part 1
The Battle for Combined Telephony and Telegraphy Services Across the Atlantic
At the end of the Second World War, domestic telecom-munications in the UK were operated by the Government through the General Post Of-fice (GPO). Overseas tele-communications were in the hands of Cable & Wireless (C&W), at that time a private company. When Prime Min-ister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was defeated in the 1945 General Election the UK had a Labour government that quickly set about nationaliz-ing C&W. This was achieved on 1st January 1947, giving the
British Government complete control over both telegraphy and telephony whether by ca-ble or radio. The one excep-tion to this monopoly was that US international telegraph companies were allowed to operate their own collection points in the UK.
In the USA things were very different. Telecommunication services were in the hands of private companies with na-tional and international as well as the two technologies of telegraph and telephone being separated by Federal Communications Commis-sion (FCC) regulations. Do-mestic telephone was domi-nated by American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), do-mestic telegraph by Western
Union, international radio telephony by AT&T and in-ternational telegraphy by the Commercial Cable Company (CCC) and Western Union. In 1945, when Western Union commenced its merger with the Postal Telegraph Compa-ny, it was obliged to give up its international services, al-though neither were achieved until 1963 (See Issue 71).
This was the shape of the transatlantic telecommunica-tions market at the beginning of the 1950s, when the plan-ning of the first transatlantic telephone cable, TAT-1, be-gan. As part of its research program the GPO developed technology that would allow telegraph signals to be sent through voice channels and
they wanted to use this on TAT-1. It was this desire to send telegraphy services over a telephone cable that began the battle for “Technology Convergence”. In 1950, the FCC had, for the first time, allowed telegraphy and tele-phony services to be provid-ed over an international coax-ial cable, Havana to Key West, (See Issue 46). The services were provided by Internation-al Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) and AT&T respectively. Now, with this breakthrough British technology for trans-oceanic distances, AT&T ap-peared to be in a position to threaten ITT’s (the holding company of CCC) dominant position in the international telegraphy market. To count-er this perceived threat ITT
set about promoting a new, repeatered transatlantic tele-graph cable.
The first rumors that CCC planned to lay the world’s first transatlantic coaxial tele-graph cable were heard in Washington in 1953, at that time the project was code-named “Project Eskimo”. By the autumn of 1954, both the FCC and the British Foreign Office had been approached for landing rights for this ca-ble. The project had evolved significantly and was now known as “Deep Freeze”. The planned cable route was to be 3,500nm long connecting;
Massachusetts, USA – New-foundland, Nova Scotia – Greenland – Iceland and Scot-land, far to the north of the planned TAT-1 route. It was to use the new rigid housing repeater technology devel-oped by Standard Telephones & Cables (STC), a UK subsid-iary of ITT. It would be the longest coaxial submarine ca-ble in the world including 65 repeaters spaced every 55nm. The cable was to be manufac-tured at STC’s cable factory, then being built in Southamp-ton (it opened in 1956). Deep Freeze would be capable of carrying 120 telegraph circuits
and 5 voice channels and was planned to go into operation in 1957. The project was es-timated to cost some US$25M of which US$17M would be spent in the UK, mainly with STC. CCC intended to offer leased lines in the new cable for US$200K operating @ 60 words per minute (wpm); this compared to the existing mar-ket rate across the Atlantic of US$270K and 42wpm. ITT had already secured US Pen-tagon support for the project and had a contact with the US Air Force for the purchase of 11% of the capacity plus as-sistance in obtaining foreign landing licenses.
However, the project did not convince the GPO manage-ment, who had no desire for another American owned cable, especially one which would provide more tele-graph circuits than those currently in operation. Deep Freeze also raised at govern-ment level the emotive ques-tion of US telegraph compa-nies being allowed to oper-ate in the UK. At the time, although CCC and Western Union operated transatlantic telegraph cables from both ends, their landing licenses in
the UK had expired and could now be withdrawn. The GPO believed that American com-panies being able to operate telegraph cables in the UK was an anomaly that should be corrected, especially as re-ciprocal rights were not given to British companies in the USA. It was; therefore, GPO policy that these historical rights should be revoked. If CCC were to ask for and be granted a 20 year license for the new cable then it might request that this principle be applied to extensions of the recently lapsed licenses. This could potentially open the door for Danish and French cable owners to do the same, which would be unaccept-able. There was absolutely no question that the British would ever allow AT&T to operate the UK end of TAT-1 for either telegraphy or te-lephony services. A further concern for the GPO was that the surplus capacity on the ca-ble could put back its embryo plans for a Commonwealth cable (See Issue 76). The Brit-ish Government was also con-cerned that US Government backing for the project was, in effect, financial support to
TAT-1 Route
a private company venture that was in direct competition with UK and Canadian Gov-ernment owned telecommu-nications services.
The British Government countered the US State De-partment’s first request for it to look favorably on CCC’s request for a landing license by asking if the GPO could be allowed to operate telegraph circuits over TAT-1. The US State Department response was that the use of TAT-1 for telegraph circuits would re-quire prior agreement by US Government. AT&T’s reac-tion was that raising the ques-tion of telegraph circuits on
TAT-1 would delay the proj-ect and refused to support the GPO’s proposal.
In February 1955, a message was sent to the US Govern-ment stating that Her Majes-ty’s Government would al-low a landing license to Deep Freeze, only on condition that the cable was to be used for defense purposes alone. The Cold War was at its height and NATO use of any cable was a significant consider-ation. In May, at a meeting of foreign secretaries in Paris, CCC enlisted the help of the US Secretary of State John Fos-ter Dulles (1888-1959), who spoke to the British Foreign Secretary, Harold Macmillan (1894-1986), stressing that the defense requirements were of ‘urgent necessity’ and urged the British Government to have further talks with CCC. Macmillan agreed to give things a push! Subsequent-ly the US State Department’s official response stressed the need for improved transat-lantic communications but it did not identify Deep Freeze specifically. This enabled the British to counter that TAT-1 could achieve this but for the FCC restrictions on its use for
telegraph services. A US State official then made it clear that US Government policy would not allow the British to pro-vide commercial telegraph services in the USA. In light of this disclosure the GPO considered that further dis-cussion with CCC would be pointless.
Then, in October 1955, ru-mors began to circulate that AT&T was planning a second telephone cable to the Conti-nent of Europe (TAT-2) with even wider bandwidth than TAT-1. The rumors suggest-ed an unheard of capacity of 250 telephone channels. If this cable were to be built with such a capacity then, a telegraph circuit could reduce in price to around US$500 and there would be pressure on the US Government to al-low telegraph services over the new cable. These rumors prompted CCC to make an amended offer to the British Government, this time pre-senting a proposal based on Deep Freeze as a joint own-ership project. However, the GPO was still wary of CCC’s estimates of military usage and of future demand for leased circuits. It considered
that the provision of a desig-nated telegraph cable rather than telegraph circuits as a by-product of a telephone ca-ble was not making the best use of the available technolo-gy. CCC challenged the GPO view that government tele-graph circuits could be pro-vided within TAT-1. CCC’s position was that, neither the GPO nor its American part-ner (AT&T) could use TAT-1 for telegraph traffic within the United States. CCC also drew attention to the fact that opposition to the use of TAT-1 for telegraph was already being expressed by the Amer-ican telegraph carriers and must be expected to continue. From CCC’s perspective the GPO’s attitude was inconsis-tent. CCC had originally of-fered to go ahead on its own with the project and now it was allowing the GPO to ‘buy into’ it. It had also offered to insert repeaters into its exist-ing cables so that they could meet any demands should Deep Freeze fail. In CCC’s view the GPO could not lose.
The GPO wanted to achieve a half share in a modern trans-atlantic communications sys-tem and wanted to cheapen
Harold Macmillan
telegraphic communications to the full extent possible by technical progress. Whereas ITT’s two major interests were to acquire a commanding po-sition in transatlantic com-munications and to perpetu-ate the high cost of telegraph techniques for the benefit of its existing investments. The GPO believed that In pursuit of its first aim, CCC had of-fered to share part of the cable with it in order to guarantee even greater benefits (security of tenure and a larger share of the market). The GPO consid-ered that this left it with three options; i) turn CCC down, ii) go ahead with Deep Freeze and give Western Union no-tice to quit, iii) try to negotiate
with a consortium of Ameri-can companies. By this time three diplomatic notes had been exchanged between the British and US Governments concerning Deep Freeze. The GPO asked the British Embas-sy to make unofficial inquires to establish the US Govern-ment’s reaction to the project. The Embassy reported that the other three US telegraph cable companies were very concerned by any move that AT&T might make to expand its telegraph carriage. They had filed objections with the FCC against AT&T offer-ing telegraph facilities over its radio link to the Canadi-an border for TAT-1 and in its projected cable to Hawaii (HAW-1, 1957). Since all three telegraph companies were operating profitably there was little incentive for amal-gamation, which anti-trust laws might have prevented anyway.
In May 1956, informal discus-sions took place in Washing-ton DC to try and bring the parties closer together. Pri-or to the meeting, an agree-ment had been reached that it should be government to government only. So the Brit-
ish delegation was surprised at the presence of represen-tatives of the US companies. The Americans were obliged to consult among themselves before their spokesmen could give any considered state-ment. This led to there being a number of adjournments in which the comments the Brit-ish had made were consid-ered in detail by all the gov-ernment agencies and com-pany representatives. The FCC Commissioner, Edward M Webster, met informally with the British and gave a barely credible explanation for the presence of the tele-communications companies. He indicated that the FCC had been unprepared for the talks and so had to have rep-resentatives from all agen-cies, private companies and even the Senate Committee present. The Commissioner also explained that the FCC was embarrassed by the US Government support of Deep Freeze, since it would ad-versely affect the competitive situation that currently exist-ed between the US telegraph companies. He stated that a defense review had altered its relevance so that the im-
portance of the project from the defense point of view was now probably insufficient to outweigh its commercial dis-advantage that would arise from disrupting the compet-itive balance among the US overseas telegraph carriers.
The principles on which the British delegation approached these meetings were that the UK should have a half share in cable ownership, operating the services at the UK end, and that services should be provided by the use of mod-ern cables of large capacity in which telephony and teleg-raphy should be integrated. Their main objectives from the discussion were to get agreement that any new cable should be available for both telephony and telegraphy, that TAT-1 should be open for Telex traffic and public telegraphy and that any new cable capacity should be laid as a joint venture by the GPO and a consortium of Amer-ican companies. The British also wanted clarification as to whether greater participation in transatlantic telegraphy by the UK would involve the purchase of a share of existing facilities (which they were to
John Foster Dulles
reject). They were to avoid any commitment on the pe-riod and terms of the landing licenses needed to regularize the position, in the UK, of Western Union and CCC and, finally, to reject the proposal for Deep Freeze. However, it soon became clear to the UK delegation that there was no hope of achieving their objec-tives, particularly since AT&T made it plain that it opposed using TAT-1 for both telepho-ny and telegraphy.
For its part, the FCC put for-ward a proposal of principles on which further discussions between the UK Government and the US companies should be based. They suggested that each party should bear a share of the total costs of installing new facilities proportionate to the interest acquired by each party in such new facilities, that the UK should be willing “to make adequate provision for just, equitable and non-discrimi-natory treatment of all American carriers handling traffic between the United States and the Unit-ed Kingdom with regard to both the share of the traffic to be al-located to such carriers and the division of the tolls for handling such traffic” and that both ra-
dio and cable should be given adequate opportunity to de-velop fully – in other words to retain the status quo. The FCC also wanted the carriers to be relieved of their existing legal obligations in the UK and, in return for greater UK participation in existing cable facilities, for the employees of the US cable companies in the UK to be adequately provided for; in addition that provision should be made for the spe-cial problems which would confront Western Union in connection with its obligation to divest itself of its interna-tional telegraph operations. Finally, the FCC would also require a review by both Gov-ernments before any agree-ment with a US carrier could be finalized.
With the two sides adopting such polarized positions it ap-peared that discussions had reached an impasse and that constructive progress would be impossible. For what hap-pened next you will have to wait until the next issue!
Stewart Ash’s career in the Submarine Cables industry spans more than 40 years, he has held senior management positions with STC Submarine Cables (now Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks), Cable & Wireless Marine and Global Marine Systems Limited. While with GMSL he was, for 5 years, Chairman of the UJ Consortium. Since 2005 he has been a consultant, working independently and an in association with leading industry consultants Pioneer Consulting, Red Penguin Associates, Walker Newman and WFN Strategies, providing commercial and technical support to clients in the Telecoms and Oil & Gas sectors.
Bill Burns is an English electronics engineer who worked for the BBC in London before moving to New York in 1971. There he spent a number of years in the high-end audio industry, writing equipment reviews and magazine articles on technical subjects. His research for these led to an interest in the history of communications, and in 1994 a chance find of a section of the 1857 Atlantic cable inspired him to set up the Atlantic Cable website. The site now has over a thousand pages on all aspects of undersea communications from 1850 until the present, and Bill’s research into cable history has taken him to all of the surviving telegraph cable stations around the world, and to archives and museums in North America and Europe.
Ad Spaces:Two-Page Spread -11” wide x 8.5” tallPrice: $5,000
Single Page -5.5” wide x 8.5” tallPrice: $3,500
Lower-Third -11”wide x 3” tallPrice: $2,500
Submarine Cable AlmanacIssue #12 – 4th Quarter EditionOverview: Quarterly publica-tion, detailed listing of interna-tional cable systemsAverage Downloads: 480,000+
In this Issue: This digital doc-ument serves as complement to our Submarine Cable Map and features each major internation-SubTel Forum Magazine
Issue #79 – System UpgradesOverview: Bi-monthly publica-tion, news and opinion based articles, roughly 100 pages an issue.Average Downloads: 78,000
In this Issue: This issue ad-dresses everything from niche domestic systems, to large multi-region systems and serves as specific update for the current state of affairs in the world of system upgrades. Articles will include an overview of region-al markets, regional outlooks, new technologies being utilized and an in depth analysis of the questionable momentum in the upgrade business.
Coming in October, November, and December...
The end of the year is coming and here comes the sprint to finish! Over the next three months, we will be releasing four of our most anticipated products, including the Submarine Cable Almanac, 2015 Submarine Cables of the World Map, 2015 Industry Calendar, and the ever popular SubTel Forum Magazine. The following products are in order of release:
al system on its own page, along with a system map, landing points, system capacity, length, RFS year and other valuable data.
Ad Spaces:Two-Page Spread -11” wide x 8.5” tallPrice: $5,000
Kristian Nielsen literally grew up in the business since his first ‘romp’ on a BTM cableship in Southampton at age 5. He has been with Submarine Telecoms Forum for a little over 6 years; he is the originator of many products, such as the Submarine Cable Map, STF Today Live Video Stream, and the STF Cable Database. In 2013, Kristian was appointed Vice President and is now responsible for the vision, sales, and over-all direction and sales of SubTel Forum.
+1 703.444.0845
Industry Calendar2015 EditionOverview: Annual publication, large format printed calendarAverage distribution: 3,000
In this Edition: Our annual Submarine Telecoms Industry Calendar ships every Decem-ber to our worldwide subscrib-er list. This beautiful, full-color calendar is customized with industry conferences notated for easy reference, and is one of our most popular products.
Adverts should be provided in Press Quality PDF format and should include crop marks.
Ad Spaces:Size: 11.5” W x 11.5” HPrice: $7,500
Cables of the World Wall Map2015 EditionOverview: Annual publica-tion, large format printed wall mapAverage distribution: 4,500
In this Edition: The Subma-rine Cables of the World map will feature all current, planned and upgraded international submarine fiber systems in the world. The map itself is ringed by sponsors hailing from all corners of the submarine tele-coms industry. The Map is a regular feature in PTC handout bag and is also mailed to a list of industry leaders.
Ad Spaces:Available in Vertical and Hor-izontalPrice:Single $3,000 Double $ 6,000
As you’re looking ahead to your marketing budgets and monthly targets, I hope that this publication will prove use-ful for you. If you have any questions, or would like to be featured in any of the SubTel Forum publications, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
ConferencesState of Subsea2 October 2014Bangkok, ThailandWebsite
Submarine Networks World13-15 October 2014SingaporeWebsite
PTC 201518-21 January 2015Honolulu, Hawaii USAWebsite
January:
Global Outlook
March:
Finance & Legal
May:
Subsea Capacity
July:
Regional Systems
September:
Offshore Energy
November:
System Upgrades
Submarine Telecoms Forum, Inc.21495 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 201Sterling, Virginia 20166, USAISSN No. 1948-3031
PUBLISHER: Wayne NielsenMANAGING EDITOR: Kevin G. Summers
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS:Rannveig Bergerød Aase, Erlend Andersen, Stewart Ash, Bill Burns, Kieran Clark, Doug Madory, Stephen Nielsen, Rusty O’Connor
Contributions are welcomed. Please forward to the Managing Editor at [email protected].
Submarine Telecoms Forum magazine is published bimonthly by Submarine Telecoms Forum, Inc., and is an independent commercial publication, serving as a freely accessible forum for professionals in industries connected with submarine optical fiber technologies and techniques. Submarine Telecoms Forum may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publishers.
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, and the editor reserves the right to edit any advertising or editorial material submitted for publication.
Copyright © 2014 Submarine Telecoms Forum, Inc.
Douglas Adams, author of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, famous said “I
love deadlines. I like the whoosh-ing sound they make as they fly by.” The novelist George R. R. Martin said “I’ve never been good with deadlines,” and his fans are seriously wondering if he is going to die before he ever finishes his Song of Ice and Fire series. On the other hand, Steve Jobs’ motto lead-ing up to the release of the original Macintosh was “Real artists ship.”
An entity like SubTel Forum lives and dies on deadlines. Seriously, if you took a look at my calendar, you would see that I schedule ev-ery minute of my day. Actually, I schedule in 15-minute blocks, but you get the idea. I even schedule time for problems, because prob-lems happen pretty much every day on a farm. That’s just the way it goes.
A few years back, I was working on a short story for a Star Trek an-thology. The story was approved by the editors at Pocket Books, and they told me to start writing. When I was done, Paramount, who owns the property, rejected my outline and I had to complete-ly redo the story. Unfortunately, we were up against the deadline and I was sick. But a deadline is a deadline, so I stayed up all night drinking hot tea and fin-ished the damn story. And you know what? The s e c o n d version of the story was sig-nificantly better than the first. It wouldn’t have done me any good to cry
about the situation in front of me, I just did the work. That’s how work gets done.
I want to say thank you to all of the contributors who have written for SubTel Forum over the years. I especially want to thank the ones that honored the deadlines that I gave them. I’ve been on your side of the desk, and I know that it’s
difficult to do the work sometimes. But you did it, and I thank you for that. Your efforts allowed the mag-azine to come out on time, and all of our readers to enjoy your work. And that’s what really matters.
Kevin G. Summers is the Editor of Submarine Telecoms Forum and has been supporting the submarine fibre optic cable industry in various roles since 2007. Outside of the office, he is an author of fiction whose works include ISOLATION WARD 4, LEGENDARIUM and THE MAN WHO SHOT JOHN WILKES BOOTH.
+1.703.468.0554
Voiceof the
Industry
